A COLLECTION OF CASES AND OTHER DISCOURSES Lately Written to Recover DISSENTERS TO THE COMMUNION OF THE Church of England. By some Divines of the City of London. In Two Volumes. To each Volume is prefixed a Catalogue of all the CASES and DISCOURSES contained in this Collection.  
LONDON, Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleetstreet, and B. took at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1685.   

A CATALOGUE OF ALL THE Cases and Discourses Contained in the first Volume of this COLLECTION.  

1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England.  
2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience, which respect Church-Communion.  
3. A Letter to Anonymus, in Answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
4. The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England considered.  
5. The Case of mixed Communion.  
6. The Case of indifferent things used in the Worship of God, proposed and stated.  
7. A Vindication of the Case of indifferent things, etc.  
8. A Discourse concerning Conscience. In two Parts.  
9 A Discourse about a Scrupulous Conscience, containing some plain Directions for the Cure of it.  
10. Considerations about the Case of Scandal, or giving Offence to weak Brethren.  
11. The Charge of Scandal, and giving Offence by Conformity, refelled, and reflected back upon Separation.    

A PERSUASIVE TO COMMUNION With the Church of England. The Second Edition Corrected.  Ephes. 4. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
LONDON, Printed by J. Redmayne, for Fincham Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street. 1683.   

A Persuasive to COMMUNION With the CHURCH of ENGLAND.  
THere is nothing that does more scandalise and unsettle the Weak, nor tempt the Proud and Licentious to a professed neglect of all Religion, than the many causeless Divisions which do sometimes happen in the Church. And he is no lively Member of that Mystical Body of Christ, that is not sensibly affected with the Fatal Consequences of these things; and does not endeavour, what he Lawfully may, to do something towards the healing of those Wounds which have been made by the extreme Scrupulosity of some; and are still kept Bleeding by the Subtlety and cunning Artifice of others. For it is manifest enough, and cannot now be denied, that the Papists have always attempted to pull down the Church of England by pretended Protestant hands; and have made use of the facility of our Dissenting Brethren to bring about their own Designs. I wish the eminent Danger we have been brought into, would prevail with them at last to forbear to Batter and Undermine us, as they have done; when they cannot but see that the Common Enemy is waiting all Opportunities, and stands ready to enter at those Breaches which they are making. They might condemn the rashness of their own Counsels, and lament it, it may be, when it would be too late, if they should see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church which they themselves had overthrown. We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has always been; and the only visible Security we have against the prevailing of it, lies in the firm Union of the whole Protestant Profession; and there is nothing wherein there is the least probability that we can ever be all United, unless it be the Church of England as it stands by Law established, agreeable to the Rules of the Holy Gospel, consonant to the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Christians; and not only Allowed, but highly Honoured by all the Reformed Churches in the World. Here is a Point fixed in which we all may Centre; whereas they that differ from us are not yet, and, it may be, never will be perfectly agreed upon their own New Models of Discipline and Government; neither can they find one Precept or Example in Scripture or Antiquity, for the Constituting any Church without an Episcopal Power presiding over it. And if any Party amongst them could have that Form of Church Government confirmed by Law, which they esteem the most Apostolical; it is manifest from reason and experience, that it would be presently Opposed by all the rest, with no less Violence than ours is; and instead of putting an end to our Divisions, would most certainly increase them. Therefore though they have all still imposed their several Forms, with the greatest Rigour, wherever they have had the Power, or but the Hopes of it in their hands; yet that all Sorts of Dissenters may be drawn into the Confederacy for the present, we hear now of nothing so much as the Mischief of Impositions, and the Natural Right, and great Advantages of Toleration. Which is the very thing which the Romish Emissaries have always aimed at; and seems to be one of the subtlest parts of the Popish Plot: As might be made out by divers undeniable Arguments; and appears sufficiently from many of the Letters, Trials, and Narratives that have been lately published: And it can be no wonder that they should give their Cordial Assistance to such a Design, which if it should ever pass into an Act, would reward their Diligence with a cheap and easy Victory. For they may plainly foresee, that it would be so far from Uniting us, that it would undoubtedly break us in pieces by a Law. Now if Union be always necessary, upon the common Obligations of Christianity, it will be much more so in the present Conjuncture; considering the strength and encouragements that may be given to the Popish Cause, by the continuance of our Dissensions: And if there be far greater hopes that we may at length, by the blessing of God, be sooner United in the way of the Church of England, than in any other; than it must needs be the greatest Service that can be done to the Protestant Interest, if we could all be persuaded to join hearty in the Communion of that Church, that has hitherto been, and still is so great a Defence against the Errors and Superstitions of Rome.  
It would be an unpardonable Vanity to imagine that these short Papers should be able to effect, what so many Learned and Solid Treatises have not yet done. But I address this little Essay only to those that have not time to peruse a larger Volume. I have been encouraged to this Undertaking by the Numbers of those here in London, that have seemed formerly to descent from us, who have lately joined with us, not only in Prayer, but in the Holy Communion of the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ. And I hope that many more may be invited, and disposed by their good Example, to receive the same Satisfaction that they have found. These that are already come in will not stand in need of any farther Persuasion, but only that they would continue Constant in that Communion they have now embraced. For if they should leave us again, and return to their Separate Assemblies, they would seem by this to condemn themselves. For if it were Lawful for them to Communicate with us once, it must be Lawful for them to do so still; and they will not refuse to submit to Authority in all things that may Lawfully be done. I cannot therefore see how they can avoid being self-condemned, if they should forsake our Communion; for if they judge it Unlawful, they sinned Wilfully when they entered into it; if they think it Lawful, they would then Sin in withdrawing from it; since it is enjoined by that Power which they confess they are bound to obey in Lawful things. If they should say that they once thought it Unlawful, after that they judged it to be Lawful, and now conceive it Unlawful again: This strange unsteadiness in Opinion would look a great deal more like Humour than Judgement. And it might occasion vehement Suspicions in some, not otherwise very Censorious, that this Uncertainty proceeds not from Conscience, but Design; and that all their Compliance was only to serve a present turn; to decline an Ecclesiastical Censure, to keep a beneficial Place, or to be qualified for an Office in some great Corporation. Thus men might be apt enough to suspect; but I am willing to believe any thing rather, than that they that have always made show of so great a Tenderness, should be guilty of so much Hypocrisy and Profaneness together, as to dare even to approach to the Lord's Table, (under great dissatisfaction of mind, it may be) merely to advance some Secular end. But I hope their Behaviour for the future, will sufficiently clear them from such an imputation.  
I shall therefore apply myself only to those that do still forbear our Communion; and offer something very briefly, which I conceive may be useful for the satisfying their most known and ordinary Doubts; that as we do all profess the same Faith, we may all agree in the same way of Discipline, and Worship; and all become peaceable and orderly Members of the same Church. And for the obtaining this most Excellent end, First, I shall desire them impartially to consider of some things that may incline them to be Peaceably minded, and tend to the removing of the general Prejudices they have unhappily conceived against the Church of England: Then I shall endeavour to give what satisfaction I can to the chief Objections against us, which they are wont to urge in Defence of the present Separation, And lastly, I shall exhort them to a brotherly Union, upon such Motives and Arguments as the Gospel suggests, and make for the Credit and Safety of the Protestant Religion.  
The things that I would commend to their serious Consideration, which may serve to dispose them to Peace, and to remove the Prejudices they have taken up, are such as these. In the first place, they should be very careful that it be not any sinister end, or corrupt Passion, that did either engage them in the Separation at the beginning, or provokes them now to continue in it. I do not mention this because I know any one of our Dissenting Brethren to be guilty of it; but because it must be confessed that men's minds are too often influenced by their carnal Interests and Affections. These will be always mixing themselves in all their Consultations; these do commonly blind and pervert their Judgements, and lead them into ten thousand Errors. These are the occasion that Fancy sometimes passes for Conscience; that Melancholy Fumes are admired for Divine Inspirations; and that the overflowing of our Gall is looked upon as pure Zeal. These and the like are very dangerous and usual Mistakes, that do frequently proceed from the prevalency of our Passions. If therefore we do divide from a Church, it will most highly concern us to be very Cautious, that we be not acted by any such Principle. For if we hope to Gain, and grow Rich by our Departure; if we are Ashamed, or Scorn to retract the Opinions we have once Professed; if we imagine we have more Light than the first Reformers, when indeed we are very Ignorant; if we cannot endure to be Opposed in any thing; if we Murmur and Repine at our Governors, when they require our Obedience where we are unwilling to pay it; these are signs that our Affections are turbulent and unruly; and while we are thus disposed, we can never be assured but that Covetousness, Pride, and Impatience, might be the greatest Motives that induced us to make a Separation, and the strongest Arguments that we have to maintain it. But I cannot charge our Dissenting Brethren with these things; I believe that many of them may be Upright and Sincere in their Intentions. But because they are all in the same estate of Degeneracy and Corruption which others are, I would entreat them to be very careful that they be never led away by these, or the like temptations; but that they would always labour to preserve those holy Dispositions of Integrity, Meekness, Humility and Condescension, which are the best Preparatives to the receiving of the Truth in the Love of it.  
After they have thus freed their minds from all irregular Passions and Designs, it would conduce exceedingly to the PEACE of the Church, if they would be sure to express their greatest Care and Concern in the more Weighty and Substantial things of Religion. This would prevent many of the Quarrels that do often arise in matters but of small Importance. If real Holiness and Piety be the thing that we aim at, then when we may be secured of this, we should not be so very forward to enter upon fierce and endless Disputes, about the external Modes and Circumstances of Worship. If I may serve God there in Spirit and in Truth, why should a Gown, or a Cloak, or a Surplice fright me from the Church, when either of these is enjoined by my Superiors? If I may be instructed in the way of Salvation and eternal Happiness, why should I forsake the Public Assemblies, because I am not allowed to join myself to what Congregation I please; and had not an immediate hand in the choice of my Pastor? When our hearts are bend upon the great things of Religion, we shall see but little Reason to be Contentious about matters of lesser Consequence; a few indifferent Rites will scarce be able to tempt us to break off Communion with that Church, with which we are at perfect Agreement in all Fundamental and Necessary points.  
The next thing that may tend to the promoting our Union is the Consideration of the heinous Nature and Gild of Schism; which is nothing else but the Separating ourselves from a True Church without any just Occasion given. The want of due apprehensions of the Sinfulness of this, seems to be the main Cause of our present Divisions. Men are not generally sufficiently sensible how much they do Oppose that Spirit of Peace, and brotherly Love, which should diffuse itself through the whole Body of Christian People, when they suppose every slender Pretence enough to justify their departing from us, and setting up a Church against a Church. They think it a matter almost Indifferent, and that they are left to their own Choice to join with what Society of Christians they please themselves. Which giddy Principle, if it should prevail, would certainly throw us into an absolute Confusion, and introduce all the Errors and Mischiefs that can be imagined. But our blessed Lord founded but One Universal Church; and when he was ready to be Crucified for us, and Prayed not for the Apostles alone, but for them also that 
John 17. 20, 21.  should believe in him through their word; one of the last Petitions which he then put up, amongst divers others to the same purpose, was, That they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us, that the World may believe that thou hast sent me. This it is plain was to be a visible Unity that might be taken notice of in the World, and so become an inducement to move men to the embracing of the Christian Faith. Therefore as we would avoid the hardening of men in Atheism and Infidelity, and making the Prayer of our dying Saviour, as much as in us lies, wholly ineffectual; we should be exceeding Cautious that we do not wilfully Divide his holy Catholic Church. We are often warned of this; and how many Arguments does St. Paul heap together to persuade us to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the bond 
Eph. 4. 3, 4, 5, 6.  of Peace? One Body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your Calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all. And how pathetically does the same Apostle exhort us again to the same thing, by all the mutual endearments that Christianity affords; If there be therefore any Consolation in Christ, 
Phil. 2. 1, 2.  if any Comfort of Love, if any Fellowship of the Spirit, if any Bowels and Mercies; fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. These vehement Exhortations to Peace and Concord, do strictly oblige us to hold Communion with that Church which requires nothing that is Unlawful of us. The Church of Rome will not admit us, unless we profess a belief of Transubstantiation, and Purgatory, and a certain kind of Infallibility, no body knows where; unless we will worship the Host, and Saints, and Images, and do many other things directly repugnant to the Word of God: We cannot therefore Communicate with her, unless we should partake of her gross and superstitious Errors. But the Church of England does not exact any thing from us that God has forbidden; therefore we may Communicate with her without Sin; and if we may, it must be a Sin in us if we do not do it. Certain it is that every causeless Separation is a very great one; so great, that some of the Ancients have thought it is not to be expiated by the Blood of Martyrdom; and I know no Cause sufficient to defend our leaving a Communion, but a necessity of being involved in Sin, if we should remain in it. Now since it must be confessed that Schism is a very grievous Sin; we had need be well assured that we have just occasion for it, before we withdraw from the Communion of a Church; and if we have rashly withdrawn, we are bound to return without delay.  
Then we may consider farther that all Christians are obliged to endeavour, as much as they can, to avoid all differences of Opinion that may occasion Quarrels and Contests among them. This will appear from that passionate Entreaty and Admonition which the holy Apostle gave the Corinthians, when they were in danger of being rend into several Factions, upon misunderstandings and emulations not much unlike unto ours. Now 
1 Cor. 1. 10.  I beseech you, Brethren, by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no Divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement. Such an Universal agreement and harmony in the Church is very desirable, and every one is bound to promote it. And the first step that can be made towards this happy Concord in Opinion and Affections, is to dispose our minds to a calm and teachable Temper; to be always ready to acknowledge the force of an Argument, though it contradict our former Persuasions never so much; to be grieved at the Animosities, and uncharitable Contentions, which a diversity of Judgement is wont to produce; to follow after the things which make for Peace; 
Rom. 14. 19  to be desirous to see an end of these Unchristian Divisions, and glad of every Opportunity that may bring us nearer to one another, and think we have gained a glorious Victory, when we have overcome any mistake that kept us at a distance from our Brethren. This is a generous and truly Christian disposition, and that which has an immediate tendency towards the reconciling all manner of Differences. On the other side, there can be little hopes that men should ever agree, when they seem resolved to maintain the point in Controversy, whatever it is; when they do not study to be Satisfied, but to cherish their Scruples; and hunt about for New ones, when their old Objections are fully answered. This is a most perverse and untractable Humour, which takes away all possibility of a good Accord. For while either of the Dissenting Parties is thus unwilling to be Convinced, and searches after Exceptions, there will never be wanting some Cavil or other that must be sure to serve them to perpetuate the Dispute. But 'tis a shrewd Sign we esteem our Cause little better than Desperate, when, after the Weapons we began the Fight with are wrested from us, we snatch up any thing that comes next to hand to throw at our Adversary. This Obstinacy does not well become us: In all our Debates our aim should be to find out the truth, and not to triumph over our Antagonist. All sober Christians, especially where the Peace of the Church is concerned, should always strive to bring the Controversy to a happy issue, and composure; and not seek for Pretences to widen the breach. And then we might all join in Praising and Glorifying of God; and be restored again to that blessed estate they were in, at the first Preaching of the Gospel, when the Multitude of 
Acts 4. 32. Ch. 2. 42.  them that believed were of one Heart, and of one Soul; and continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine, and Fellowship, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. These few Considerations I have now mentioned might be something useful to the procurement of such a Holy and Heavenly Peace in all Christian Societies throughout the World.  
And if we were but careful never to be biased by Passion or Interest; if our greatest Zeal and Concern were placed upon the more Weighty and Substantial matters of Religion; if we should seriously consider how grievous a Sin it is to Separate from a Church without any just cause; and if we were disposed to Peace, and willing to have our Doubts and Scruples satisfied; I think most of the Prejudices against the Church of England might be easily removed; and we might all join in the same Communion, to the Glory of God, and the Joy and Comfort of all good Protestants, and the Confusion of those that design to swallow us up, and have no other hopes of prevailing, but by the help of those Differences, which for that end, they have a long time most studiously fomented amongst us. Let not our unreasonable Fears and groundless Jealousies encourage their Attempts with too great a probability of Success. It would be a sad addition to our Miseries, if the Gild and Shame of them too might be laid to our Charge. With what remorse should we reflect upon it, (when the heat of our Passion was over) if the Protestant Profession should be farther endangered, and the Agents of Rome get greater Advantages daily, by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them, but openly carried on and maintained by ourselves! With what face should we look to see our Enemies, not only triumphing over us, but mocking and deriding us, for being so far imposed upon by their cunning, as to be made the immediate instruments of our own ruin! But God Almighty, in his wise and gracious Providence, so confound all their Devices that tend to the subversion of the Truth; and so Unite and Compose our Differences, that hereafter we may have no just occasion to fear either their Treachery, o their Force. This is a Petition, I am sure, in which no good Christian can refuse to join; and if we do hearty desire this, let us do what we can to promote it; if our Prayer be not unsincere and hypocritical, we shall make use of our best endeavours to obtain the thing we have prayed for. And now if our Union be thus desirable and necessary, what should hinder but that at last we might be all most happily united under the Discipline and Government of the Church of England? A Church that is already Framed and Constituted; that has the Countenance and Establishment of the Laws; that has been Protected by a Succession of Wise and Pious Princes; that was Defended unto Death by our late Martyred Sovereign; that was Restored by His Majesty that now is, and has been ever since so graciously Cherished by him, as if the Care of it were a Quality inherent and hereditary to the Crown. A Church that was Reform by full and sufficient Authority, upon mature and serious Deliberation; with a perfect submission to the Rule of holy Scripture, and a due regard to the example of the most Primitive times. A Church that has constantly rejected all the Errors and Corruptions of Rome; that admits of neither their Infallibility, nor Supremacy; that allows no Purgatory, nor Indulgences, no adoration of Relics, and Images, no Praying to Saints nor Angels; that does not think that God can be pleased with idle Pilgrimages, or a forced Celibacy, or any set number of Aves and Paternoster's, or other formal Devotions exactly computed upon a string of Beads, and muttered over in an unknown Tongue; that does not rob the Laity of half the Communion, nor teach them that strange and contradictious Doctrine that the Elements are transubstantiated into the real Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper; that does not only constantly deny these, and many more absurd and erroneous Opinions of the Papists, but has always sent forth as stout and able Champions to oppose them, as any the Christian World affords. A Church whose Doctrine is confessed to be Orthodox by the generality of our Dissenting Brethren, and whose Discipline and Order of external Worship has nothing in it repugnant to any Law of God. And what imaginable ground can there then be to justify a Separation from such a Church? Certainly the use of a few Indifferent things, appointed only for Order sake, will not be enough to do it. These are not Forbidden, and therefore cannot be Sinful in themselves; and where God has not Forbidden, our Superiors may Command; and in all such cases we are bound to Obey.  
Some indeed there are that will not be satisfied with this. They tell us, that it is not sufficient that a thing be not Forbidden, but that it must be Commanded, or else it cannot be used in the Worship of God without Sin. But if this Opinion be true, I must confess that then it is Unlawful to hold Communion not only with ours but with any Church that is, or ever was in the World; for I do not believe that One can be found amongst them All, that has not required the use of some Indifferent thing that was not Commanded. Our Dissenting Brethren themselves will allow that the Time and Place of Religious Assemblies may be prescribed by Authority. And if these necessary Circumstances may be thus Determined, though they be not Commanded by God; than it will be as Lawful to prescribe what particular Gestures and Habits shall be there used. For these are things of the same Nature; Circumstances as necessary as Time and Place; and if we have any respect to the Decent and Reverend performance of the Service of God, they may be as necessary to be determined too. However it must be acknowledged that some things that are not Commanded may be Lawfully Enjoined and Submitted to; and if some, than all that are of the same Indifferent nature; unless there can be some sufficient reason assigned why some should be excepted, and some not; which will be very difficult where the Nature of the things is the same. And in our present case, it will be hard in the general to conceive how the Command of a Lawful Power should make that Unlawful which was not Forbidden, and by consequence was Lawful before.  
But if it should be still insisted on, that nothing must be Commanded that God has not Commanded; they that are of this Persuasion, should be very certain that they have clear proof out of the Scriptures for it before they undertake to Forbidden that which God has not Forbidden; or else they stand condemned by their own Principle.  
Now the Arguments they bring for this out of the New Testament are very few: And those very obscure, and no way applicable to the matter in hand, without being mightily strained: Those out of the Old Testament are not many; that which has been chief urged, and seems indeed the most pertinent and material, is this: The whole Levitical Service was particularly prescribed by God himself, and Moses was strictly charged to make the Tabernacle and all the Utensils that belonged unto it, After the pattern that was showed him 
Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 3. 5, 6.  in the Mount. And Moses verily was faithful in all his House as a Servant; and so is Christ as a Son over his own House; that is, the Church: Therefore as Moses laid down all the particular Rules to be observed in the Worship of God, under the Legal Dispensation, so has Christ under the Evangelical; and it is as dangerous to add, as it is to detract from these written Rules; we may no more do what is not Commanded, than what is Forbidden. This I take to be the main Argument that is brought against us in the present Controversy; and if this can be Answered, all the rest will be but of little Force.  
Therefore to give what satisfaction I can to this, I say first, that throughout the whole Epistle to the Hebrews, where Moses and Christ, or the Law and the Gospel are compared, the scope of the Apostle is to show the exact Correspondence there was betwixt the Type and the Antitype; and not that our Saviour had as particularly prescribed the Order of external Worship, as Moses by God's appointment had done. For it is certain he did not; to give but one instance of very many: The manner 
Exod. 12.  of Celebrating the Passover, how it should be Killed, and how it should be Eaten, is it set down with every minute Circumstance: But the Institution of the Supper of our Lord is not so delivered unto us: We have only a short Narrative, with a general Command superadded; Do this in remembrance of me. And when 
Luk. 22. 19 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24, 25.  St. Paul repeats it again, he does it without any mention of the Posture of Receiving. The Gospel which teaches us a more Spiritual way of Serving God, is not so particular in the Circumstantials of Worship as the Law was; and we must not affirm that it is, because we would have it so. We cannot prove that Christ has actually done this, because we imagine that he should have done it. It would be better argued if we should say, The Gospel has not expressly determined these things, as the Law did; therefore they are left to the prudent determination of those that have the Rule over 
Heb. 13. 17.  us, to whom we are Commanded to be Obedient, and submit ourselves; that the Episcopal Power may be equivalent to the Sacerdotal; and the Service of God as regularly Administered in the Church, as it was in the Temple.  
Besides, it was not a Sin, even under the Law, to ordain and observe some things, relating to the Worship of God, that were not written. And these could not be esteemed additions to the Word, if they were not imposed as Divine Precepts, but as Prudent Constitutions, appointed only for the more Orderly management of the external Offices of Religion. But that any thing should be Unlawful merely because it is not Commanded, is a Doctrine, I think, that was never heard of among Jews or Christians, till very lately. God had Commanded the setting up of a Tabernacle, and most punctually described how it should be made: We have been told that there was not to be one Pin about it, for which there was not some special Direction. And God never spoke a word concerning building of an House; 
See 2 Sam. 17.  yet this notwithstanding, David, without any Command, 
1 Chron. 17.  had it in his thoughts to build one; and Nathan in his private judgement approved of the design; and God himself, though he suspended the execution of it for some time, commended him for it, and rewarded his pious Intentions, with a promise of building him 
2 Chron 6. 8.  another kind of House, by confirming the settlement of the Crown in his Family. Which is proof enough that every thing then that was not Commanded, was not therefore Sinful. The ancient Church of the Jews were so fully satisfied in this, that they made no Scruple of ordering divers things, for which they could not find a Command. The Feast of the Dedication is a known and pregnant instance; it was of modern and humane Institution, and yet our Saviour vouchsafed to be present at 
John 10. 22.  it. Some things they a little altered, and added others, at the Passeover; as their eating of it not Standing, but Sitting, or Lying at the Table; and their Singing a Paschal Hymn after it; which with some other like Usages, were observed by our blessed Lord, and his Disciples; and it can be no less than Blasphemy then to conceive, that there could be any thing that was Sinful in them. The whole matter may be concluded thus: If it were not Sinful under the Law, where the external Form of Divine Worship was particularly specified, to admit of certain Usages that were not Commanded, then much less is it Sinful to do so now under the Gospel, where the external Form is not so specified; where we have little more than such general Rules as these, to be respectively applied by Superiors and Inferiors: Let all things be done Decently, and in Order: 
1 Cor. 14. 40. Heb. 13. 17. Rom. 4. 15.  Obey them that have the Rule over you: Where no Law is, there is no transgression.  
I have been something the longer in considering this Argument, because the whole debate must issue here; which way soever this be decided, the Controversy is at an end. If our Church require any thing of us that is Unlawful, we are bound to Separate from her; if she do not, we are strictly engaged to Communicate with her. They therefore that Divide, should first show that she enjoins something Unlawful. But that never was, and I verily believe never can be made appear. For we are told, in the Person of St. Paul, that All things are Lawful; which must of necessity be understood 
1 Cor. 6. 12. 10. 23.  of things that are not Forbidden: And then since it cannot be charged upon our Church, that she Commands any thing that is Forbidden; it must be granted that she Commands nothing, but what the Apostle has declared to be Lawful. What Reason then can be pretended, why we should rend and tear her very Bowels? Why should we run so headily into opposite Parties and Factions? Why should we hazard the Protestant Cause upon a number of little disunited Independent Interests, that are as much at Difference one with another, as they all are with us? What should make us so timorous in this, when we are so daring in some other cases? Why should we be afraid to join in Communion with a Reformed Church, whose Doctrine is Orthodox, whose Rites are Innocent, whose Government is Apostolical? A man would wonder truly what could be pleaded in defence of a Separation, when none of these can be justly accused. And yet there are certain Objections brought against us, which those that withdraw would fain persuade us to think sufficient to justify their Departure. To some of the chief of these I shall now endeavour to give what satisfaction I can.  
Our Dissenting Brethren therefore are wont to plead; That there is a Liturgy, or Set Form of Public Worship prescribed; That there are certain Ceremonies enjoined; That the use of these Controverted things gives great Scandal to the weak; That they cannot Safely join in our mixed Communion; That they leave our Assemblies for the sake of greater Edification, which they can find elsewhere: And for these Reasons they think they are necessitated to departed from ours, and set up Churches to themselves, according to the best Models that every one is able to draw. This is certainly a very dangerous adventure; and can never be justified by such Arguments, as are produced; which might be all easily answered upon the general Principle I have already mentioned; That none of the things against which the exceptions are made are Unlawful; and therefore they cannot make our Communion Unlawful; and if that be not Unlawful, it must be Unlawful to divide from it. This might be Reply enough to the most, if not all the Objections that are, or can be brought. But because it may be thought more satisfactory by some, I shall give a particular, though very short Answer to those I have now proposed.  
The First and Great thing that is objected against our Church, is prescribing a Liturgy, or Set Form of Prayers to be constantly used in Public Worship. This is that which has raised a great many Clamours; People's minds have been extremely incensed and exasperated against it; it has been cried out upon as Idolatrous, Popish, Superstitious, and I know not how many hard Names it has been called. But I am glad to find the temper of our Dissenting Brethren altered so much for the better: We do not now so often hear those bitter exclamations of Rome and Babylon, Baal and Dagon: The Common Prayer is not esteemed such an abominable thing, as some ignorant and heady Zealots were wont to count it. Among those that have but too openly favoured the Separation the more considerable part, both for Number and Sobriety, do not only allow that a Form is Lawful, but will freely acknowledge that ours is so; and therefore they will admit of Occasional; and if so, I cannot see what can withhold them from a full and constant Communion with us. Certainly that which is Lawful once or twice, must be Lawful always. However we may take some delight to see the old Heats in any measure abated, and that the least advances are made towards Peace. God grant that this Concession may prove a step to a happy and perfect Reconcilement. And so I hope it may; for our Brethren cannot be any longer offended with those Forms in which they do sometimes join themselves. Nay those that have not yet proceeded so far, but are still afraid of being Defiled in our way of Worship, cannot have any colour to Condemn it for being a Form. The Jews had Forms in their Public Assemblies, which this notwithstanding were duly frequented by our blessed Saviour: He delivered a Form himself, in his Sermon on the 
Matth. 6. 9, etc.  Mount, and taught the same again to his Disciples afterwards, 
Luke 11. 2.  and Commanded them to use it: Some Forms were received very early among the Ancient Christians; who have been followed in this by all the Protestant Churches; but the Lawfulness of them was never called in question heretofore: For how could it, since they are no were Forbidden? Or if a Command be thought requisite to make them Lawful, the other way is no more Commanded than this; and therefore upon that Principle they must be both equally Lawful, or Unlawful: So that if any Prayer be Lawful, a Form must be confessed to be so. The Arguments in this case are so Convincing, that there are few now but that will readily agree that a Form may be Lawful in itself; but then they think it ought not to be Imposed, because of some Inconveniences which they conceive do attend it. And they are principally these Two; the One, that there may be some particular Emergencies which cannot be provided for by a Set Form. The other, that it is an hindrance to the Spirit of Prayer. The first of these has very little difficulty in it. The ordinary wants and necessities of Christians are always the same, and we may Petition to have them supplied in the same Words; and for other things, it may generally be foreseen that they may happen sometimes; and suitable Forms may be composed to be used upon such Occasions: Where these cannot be fitly applied, peculiar Offices may be set forth; as has been usual in such cases: Where the exigency is great, and will not admit of so much delay as is necessary for that, the Minister is at Liberty to use his own Conceptions. But this cannot be urged for the Exclusion of a Liturgy. It were very unreasonable to deprive the Church of known and approved Forms, and leave her to the mercy of extemporary Effusions only; for the sake of a few Contingencies, which may happen but very rarely, if at all, in a whole Age.  
The other thing that is alleged would be more considerable, if it were really true, That Forms did indeed hinder the Spirit of Prayer. But this they do not: For it is a gross and carnal Mistake to imagine that the Spirit of Prayer can consist in a readiness of Expression, and a natural or acquired volubility of Tongue; Arts and Accomplishments whereof many Wicked men have been great Masters; and wherein as many Good ones may be very deficient. The Spirit of Prayer must be acknowledged to be nothing else but an inward good and pious Disposition of the Soul, wrought in us by the Grace of God; an unfeigned Humility and Abhorrence of ourselves, when we confess our Sins, and beg for Pardon; an affectionate Sense of our Wants, when we ask for all things necessary, both for this and the other Life; an holy exultation of Mind, when we offer up our Praises and Thanks for the Blessings we have received; a full Resignation of our Concerns to God's disposal, and a Dependence upon his Promises for the granting our Requests, when we have made our Addresses unto him. These are the great Indications of the true Spirit of Prayer; and these are so far from being Hindered, that they may be very much Helped, and Advantaged by a Form. A man questionless may be more seriously Affected, in all these respects, and say Amen more hearty to a Form of sound Words which he hath known, and considered before, than he can to some uncertain Expressions which he never heard, nor thought on; and possibly may not so well understand, nor be satisfied in, when he hears them. The perplexity and doubtfulness of Thoughts, which must often arise, when we would join in Prayers we are unacquainted with, is directly Opposite to that Faith and Assurance with which we should Pray; and can scarce be prevented but by a well digested and studied Form; that may be Weighed, and soberly Assented to, by those that are required to join in it.  
But some think that it may be manifest from Experience, that Forms are a hindrance to the very inward Spirit of Devotion. They have found their Affections very cold and flat, at our usual stated Forms of Prayer; but when they hear a man Pray without a Form, they are mightily ravished, and almost transported; and this difference of Temper they observe in themselves has prevailed with many, of the more undiscerning sort especially, to forsake our Communion. But it is always very dangerous to judge of things not by our Understandings, but by the various impulses and motions of our Affections. When we have Scripture and Reason on our side, we cannot be Deceived; but when we Determine, as we are swayed by the present bias of our Passions; these may be Charmed, or Raised, or Flattened, by several sorts of Spirits; and quickly betray us into strong Delusions. Therefore if any one should be tempted, as some have been, to leave the Church on this Account, that he thinks he may be more affected in another Place; before he goes, I would desire him to consider what it is that does thus Affect him: If it be the Matter and Substance of the Prayer, I suppose that may be usually the same, at least as good in our ordinary Offices, as it is in their unpremeditated Petitions; and so it will not be necessary to make a Separation for this: If it be only the chiming and harmony of the Words he is taken with, this is no more but a kind of sensitive Delight; and to apply the Prophet's Expressions here, it is but like a very lovely Song of one 
Ezek. 33. 32.  that hath a pleasant Voice, and can play well on an Instrument: This will by no means excuse our departing from the Public Assemblies; this would be in effect to say, that we may make Divisions in the Church of God, to gratify our own private, and it may be mistaken Fancies. But if any one hath left us for a time upon this Pretence, and made some Trial of both ways, than I would desire him strictly to examine his own Conscience, whether he have not often been as Dull and Indifferent at a Conceived Prayer, as ever he was at the Service of the Church: And then on the other side, let him consider, whether he do not believe that very many may be as serious and devout at the Common Prayer, as ever he was at any in the other way he is pleased to prefer: And after he has thus inquired, if he see Reason to acknowledge both, as doubtless he will, than the Scales will be even at the least: Experience will show, that men may be Fervent and Affectionate with a Form, and Cold and Inattentive without one. And therefore when we are heavy, listless, and unaffected at a Prayer by a Form; this Defect cannot proceed from the Manner of the Devotion, but from the Indisposition of the Person that uses it. And when we Separate upon this occasion, we are guilty of a double Iniquity, in Dividing the Church without sufficient Cause; and charging our own Formality upon a good and wholesome Constitution.  
My intended brevity will not permit me to give a particular Answer to all the Exceptions that have been taken at our Liturgy; only in the general I say, I know nothing in it that can be pretended to be Sinful in itself. The most that is urged are some supposed Inconveniences; which if we should grant to be real, they cannot make our Communion Unlawful; and then, as I have often intimated, it must be a Sin to Separate from it; and we may not commit a Sin to decline an Inconvenience: This would be to do evil that good may come of it. They that are willing to improve every slight Exception into a Cause of Separation, should beware of this. The question is not, whether there be not any thing in the Order of our Divine Service which a man could wish to be altered? For that can never be expected under any Constitution. The main inquiry is this, whether any thing Unlawful be appointed to be used, which will make an Alteration not only desirable, but necessary? And whether we are bound to withdraw till such Alteration be made? Which has never been proved: Men generally forbear our Public Worship, without ever examining into it, upon no other ground but because they prefer their own Arbitrary way before it. Which I do not admire; but this is very strange and unreasonable, that they should take such a disgust at our Liturgy, and fly away from it, as if it were Popish and Antichristian, when they never have so much as read it; at least considered it, as they ought. And here I shall take the Confidence to affirm that the Liturgy some abhor so much, was made and reviewed with that Prudence and Moderation, that Care and Circumspection, that there is not any thing now extant in that kind, that has been composed with greater Wisdom, and Piety. If we should take the liberty to compare it with the performances in the other way; (not to mention the many undecent, incoherent, irreverent expressions, to say no worse, that might be collected) let any Prayer made occasionally and extempore by the ablest and most cautious of those that magnify that way, and despise ours, be taken exactly in writing, and published to the World; and I am very confident, that one man, without any great pains, may find more things really exceptionable, in that single Prayer, in a short time, than the several Parties of Dissenters, with all the diligence they have hitherto used, have been able to discover in the whole Service of our Church in more than a hundred years. And yet some of our Brethren, that seek industriously for Scruples in the Common Prayer, will readily join in other sudden conceived Prayers, without any Scruple; when they cannot tell but that there may be some dangerous Heresy in every Sentence, and some great Indecencies and Absurdities in every Word. This is such partiality, and unequal dealing, as cannot be easily excused.  
But if they should allow of the Forms of Prayer in our Liturgy, there are certain Ceremonies enjoined, which they think give them occasion enough to departed from our Communion. A man that were unacquainted with the true State of our case, that should stand by and only hear the bitter Cries and Invectives that have been made against Ceremonies, would be ready to imagine that sure our Church was nothing else almost but Ceremonies. But he would be mightily surprised, when upon inquiry he should find, that these Ceremonies which had occasioned all this noise, should be no more than Three; the Surplice, the Cross after Baptism, and Kneeling at the Sacrament. He would be amazed to think that these should be the things, about which so many massy Books had been written! So great discords and animosities raised! Such a flourishing Church once quite destroyed, and now most miserably divided, after it had been so happily restored! And his wonder must be increased, when he should perceive that of these Three, there was but One, and no more, in which the People were any way concerned. The Cross and the Surplice, are to be used only by the Minister; and if his Conscience be satisfied, no man's else need to be disturbed about them. To Kneel at the Lord's Supper all indeed are commanded; but supposing this to be Unlawful, it could hinder us only from partaking in that Ordinance, and not in the rest. But of that farther by and by.  
In the mean time, I do not understand but that some Ceremonies, and particular Determinations of Circumstances are absolutely necessary in the Worship of God; since it cannot be performed without them; they that will have no Ceremonies, can have no external Worship. This I think will not be denied. But the Ceremonies that are appointed in our Church are thought by some to be significant, superstitious, and breaches of our Christian Liberty; and therefore not to be endured. These are the great Objections against the few Ceremonies, that are in use among us; and these I shall briefly Consider.  
First we are told our Ceremonies are significant: And why may not a significant Ceremony be Lawful? Are not Kneeling, and lifting up the Eyes and Hands to Heaven significations of the Reverence we own to the Divine Majesty? Yes: But Ceremonies that signify something naturally, may be permitted; but not those that signify by institution. There should be some solid reason, or some plain Scripture Authority brought, to make this difference good: And here it is pleaded that every significant Ceremony is a Sacrament; and it is downright Popery to make more Sacraments, than God has made. This I confess were very material, if it could be proved. But we acknowledge nothing to be a Sacrament, but what is An outward and visible sign of 
Common Prayer in the Catech.  an inward and spiritual grace, given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. Now if this be a true Definition, as it is owned by us, and must be acknowledged by our Dissenting Brethren that talk so much of their approving the Doctrine of our Church; then our Ceremonies though they should be never so significant, cannot be Sacraments, because they want so many Necessary and Essential conditions that are required to make a Sacrament. They are not of Divine Ordination and Appointment, they are of no efficacy to confer any Grace, neither are they any Pledges, and Assurances of it. But suppose we should grant every significant Ceremony to be a Sacrament; for it is neither pleasant nor profitable to quarrel about Words: There is but one of the Three Ceremonies, and that is the Cross at Baptism, that can be pretended 
Ibid. in Public Baptism.  to be significant; and that indeed is made, In token that the party newly Baptised shall not hereafter be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified, etc. But this sign of the Cross was very anciently, if not always, used at Baptism, and upon several other occasions, by the Primitive Christians, in defiance of all sorts of Infidels, and as we do it, in Token that they were not ashamed of a Crucified Saviour. Our Church in this does but follow the example of the Purest and Holiest Professors of the Gospel that ever were; and that but at a distance too, in doing that but once, which they repeated often. And this can scarce be called a significant Ceremony. It is not appointed to Represent any thing unto us, but only to remind us of a Duty we are bound to do. Like the Altar that was built by the Children of Reuben, and Gad, and the half Tribe of Manasseh, Not for burnt-offering, nor for sacrifice; but 
Josh. 22. 26.  that it might be a Witness. And if any one should think the Surplice were ordered to be worn to denote the innocency of Life, that does more especially become those that are particularly devoted to the Service of God; it is more than our Church has declared; but yet no man were to be blamed, that should take occasion from hence, to let his thoughts expatiate into a pious and seasonable Meditation, and consider how incongruous it would be, to have his inward parts full of filthiness and corruption, when his outside was covered with a clean white Linen Garment. The Sum is, every significant Ceremony is not a Sacrament; and none of ours can be properly said to be significant, representing, symbolical; but only Commemorating, or if any man please to call them so, Professing signs.  
But though they cannot be proved to be Sacraments, yet they may be Superstitious, and that is Objection enough against them. And I confess that they may be Superstitious; but not in themselves, for so they are perfectly Indifferent; but according to the Opinion or Conceit of those that use them, or use them not. There may be Superstition in the Observing of these, and there may be as much in the forbearing. Superstition is nothing but a groundless Fancy attended sometimes with an anxious Fear, and sometimes with a fond Hope, that God is pleased or displeased with the bare performance or forbearance of what he hath neither Commanded nor Forbidden. He therefore that thinks he offends God in doing of that he has not Forbidden; and he that imagines he shall please him, by the observing of what he has not Commanded, are both in some degree, and it may be, equally Superstitious. And then the Superstition that is exercised about the Observation of these Ceremonies must lie on the part of our Dissenting Brethren, who think they should Sin in keeping them, though they generally confess they are not Forbidden; and not on ours, who declare them to be Indifferent, and no otherwise acceptable unto God, but as they are the effects of Obedience to our Superiors, and necessary to the preservation of Discipline and Order in the Church.  
But it is farther urged by some, that these Ceremonies are a Breach of our Christian Liberty. I need not enter upon a Discourse of this; but as far as it concerns the matter in hand, I say; That the being freed from the Ceremonial Law is a part, though not the greatest part of Christian Liberty; but than it is not so much our being freed from observing it, as from the Necessity of observing it. The Apostles and first Christians did voluntarily observe it for some time upon Prudential Considerations; and imposed some things, as the abstaining 
Acts 15. 29.  from blood, and from things strangled; and yet they were Free, because whatever they did of this Nature, they did it not with an Opinion of any Necessary obligation that lay upon them to do it, but upon other Motives; most commonly out of condescension to the weakness of the Jewish Converts. And if some Judaical Rites might not only be observed, but imposed then; there can be no reason why a few Indifferent Ceremonies may not be appointed now, without any entrenchment upon the Liberty which Christ has purchased for us. Such things cannot be an infringement of that, but only when they are supposed to be either Unlawful or Necessary by Divine Command.  
Kneeling at the Sacrament, which is the Ceremony that is wont to be the most scrupled, is as little liable to the Objections, that I have now answered, as either of the other. It would be ver● uncharitable, and unjust to say as some have done, that it is an Act of Worship to the outward Elements; when the Church has declared this to be Idolatry, to be abhorred of all Faithful 
Rubr. after the Communion.  Christians. If it should be said that we ought to receive in the same posture, that they received at the first Institution: We cannot certainly tell what that was: If it were that which is most probably Conjectured, it is never used: It is wholly laid aside by those that argue the most Zealously for it. But sure if the particular Gesture had been so absolutely necessary, as some do imagine, there would have been some plain, and express mention of it somewhere in the Scripture; which there is not, as I have noted before. And then it must be very unwarrantable in those, that Separate from our Church, because they will not receive in that reverend manner which She has prescribed. If there had been nothing enjoined in this matter, a man upon a serious apprehension of the infinite mercies of God, through the merits and mediation of his blessed Saviour, could scarce have forborn falling upon his Knees, when he came to partake of the Sacrament of his most precious Body and Blood. The commemoration of the Death and Passion of the Son of God, by which he was Redeemed would strike him almost naturally, into the humblest posture of Adoration. But if any reverence be granted to be due at such a time, I am sure sitting at the Table, is a very unfit posture to express it. Or if any man should like it better than that which is required with us; yet to make this an occasion of departing from our Communion, would argue but too little value for the peace of the Church.  
But some there are who though they be convinced of the Lawfulness of all these Rites and Usages, and for their own particular, could join with us well enough; yet they dare not do it, for fear of giving Scandal and Offence to those that are not satisfied in these things. This matter of Scandal has been so vehemently pleaded sometimes as if it were the only thing to be regarded in all Church Constitutions; and that they were to be immediately disused, whatever Authority enjoined them, assoon as any should be offended at them. This puts all external Order in Christian Assemblies into a very tottering condition, ready to be presently overturned, by every little Scruple, that may chance to arise. But for answer to this we must observe: That they are the Weak, and Ignorant that take Offence: That their doubts and scruples are not to be nourished and commended, 
See Rom. 14.  but only born with for a time; That they are bound to take all due Care, and convenient Opportunity 
1 Cor. 8.  of Instruction, that they may be fully satisfied; and that it is in things merely Indifferent, such as Meats and Drinks where we are obliged to any compliance, for the avoiding of Scandal. These things thus briefly premised, let it be considered; whether they who esteem themselves rather more Knowing than others, who seem unwilling to part with their Doubts, and who have entertained some Prejudices against those that would inform them better, are to be treated like weak Brethren? And whether we ought to yield to them, where Authority has determined the contrary; unless we could prove our Obedience as Indifferent as the things scrupled at are supposed to be? If it should be said that we ought; yet at least it cannot be safely done, till it be made appear, that all the weak are of one side. For in our present Case, if there should be as many, as doubtless there are, that would be offended to see the manner of our Public Worship altered, as there are to see it imposed; then though the command of our Superiors should signify nothing, we should yet be upon equal terms, on the account of Scandal only; and as much bound not to Separate, as they think they are to Separate, by their own Principle. But in a word, no Scandal taken at an Indifferent thing, can be so great as the Sin, and Scandal both, of Confusion and Disorder, and Contempt of Authority.  
There is another Exception near akin to this: Some have thought they must withdraw from us, because of our mixed Communions, and that some which they judge unworthy Receivers, are admitted to the Lord's Table. This Objection proves nothing but a Supercilious Arrogance, and a great want of Charity in those that make it. What care they may take in their new way of Discipline, I cannot tell; but our Church has given the Minister a Power of rejecting those that are guilty 
See Rubr. before the Communion.  of any known and scandalous Sin. And this is as much as can be done; the open Sinner may be excluded, but the close Hypocrite will escape the narrowest search, that humane Industry can make. But if any notorious evil Livers should be admitted through the ignorance, inadvertency, or negligence of the Minister; their Unworthiness cannot defile those that Communicate with them. It is generally thought that the Cursed Traitor Judas did partake of the Holy Supper, when it was first instituted by our Lord. God be praised, I have not heard, that amongst us, the abuses of this Ordinance, did ever arise to that Degree that they were at among the Corinthians; when at the very time of receiving, one was Hungry, and another Drunken: 
1 Cor. 11. 21.  and yet the Apostle does not Command them to forsake the Communion of that Church, where these Scandalous Enormities were committed. Every man is charged to Examine himself, and not another, before he presume 
Ver. 28.  to eat of that Bread and, drink of that Cup. And it would be very well, if all men would hearken to this holy and pious Admonition; for he that inquires seriously into his own Sins, will find great cause to be Humble and Penitent, and so may become a worthy Communicant: But he that is curious to pry into the miscarriages of other men, will be apt to be vain, proud, self-conceited, and censorious; which will make him as unfit for the Table of the Lord, as any of those Faults which he so scornfully condemns in his Neighbour, that he esteems himself, and the ordinances of God polluted by his Company.  
But if none of these Pleas, I have mentioned, should be sufficient; many think they may leave our Assemblies only for the sake of greater Edification, which they can find elsewhere. This I believe prevails with great numbers, of the more ignorant especially, to departed from us. And I would to God they might obtain what they say they departed for; and that they were indeed more Edified, and did grow in Grace, under what Ministry soever it be. But alas! This talk of greater Edification is many times mere wantonness, and instability of humour; and too often rather in Fancy than effect. Men conceit that they are better Edified, not when they are more fully instructed in any weighty point of Faith; or more perfectly informed in some necessary Duty; or more efficaciously moved to the practice of what they Know; but when they are 
2 Tim. 4. ●.  more gratified, and pleased, at the hearing of a Sermon, or the like. This is nothing but one sort of those itching Ears the Apostle speaks of. And they that are troubled with this disease, instead of being Edified, as they pretend, are commonly the most ignorant of all; and as blamable as any in their ordinary Conversation. I wish we had not too many examples of the truth of this. For besides that, it is great odds but that they make an unwise choice in the Teacher they set up to themselves at last; they likewise provoke God to leave them to the vanity of their own Minds, when they depend rather on the supposed abilities of a man, than the blessed influences of the holy Spirit; and look more at Paul that plants, and Apollo's that waters, then at God that gives the increase.  
If we have all things necessary to the building us up in our most holy Faith, in the Communion of the Church; it will be but a poor excuse for our Dividing from it, that we hoped to be better Edified; when we had no encouragement at all to hope it, as long as we continued in the state of Separation, upon this pretence For it is the blessing of God alone, and not any man's skill in dispensing them, that can make the Word and Ordinances any way beneficial unto us. With the help of his Grace, those means of instruction which we sometimes undervalue the most, may be profitable to our Salvation: Without it our Ears may be tickled, and our Fancies pleasantly entertained for the time▪ but we cannot be truly Edified by the most fluent and popular Tongue, nor the most melting and pathetical Expressions in the World.  
I have briefly examined the chief Objections that are brought against the established Order, and Constitution of our Church; and do not find that any, or all of them together, are of force enough to move an unprejudiced Person to forsake her Communion. It may not be done upon the account of Liturgy, Ceremonies, Scandal, mixed Communion, or out of hopes of greater Edification. I might have easily enlarged upon all these particulars; but the compass of my present Design would not allow it. And I have some hopes that these and other points in difference, may be handled by others to better advantage, and to the satisfaction of those that are not yet convinced, and to the happy settlement of a lasting Peace and Union, among all the Members of this divided Church. God grant that all our endeavours may tend this way; and that the Divine Goodness may make them Successful. If these Papers should chance to fall into the hands of any one of those that have Separated from us, I would entreat him not to be Offended at them; but to look upon the Author, as a wellmeaning Man, that was willing to throw a little Water upon the common flame, that is like to consume us. They were not written, I am sure with any bitterness of Mind, or Expression; but out of mere pity to see a poor, lamentable, distressed Church, languishing away, and ready to perish by desperate Wounds and Convulsions within her own Bowels. Such sad and Melancholy thoughts as these apprehensions must needs occasion, could scarce be vented in angry and provoking Language. But some are so tender of the Opinions they have taken up, that whether true or false, they cannot endure to have them touched: They are impatient of the calmest Opposition; and when you offer any thing to persuade them, though it should be to brotherly Love and Peace among Christians, they suspect you for an Enemy, and think that you come to set traps in their way to ensnare their Consciences. But I hope this short Discourse will not be encountered by any such Prejudice; but that it may be perused, with the same Impartiality that it was written.  
On this presumption, I shall be bold to exhort all those that now Dissent, to a Brotherly Union; upon such motives and arguments, as the Gospel suggests, and make for the Credit and Safety of the Protestant Religion. It will be readily acknowledged by every sober and intelligent man, that Peace and Amity, and a good Correspondence betwixt the several Members of which they consist, is the only Beauty, Strength, and Security of all Societies; and on the contrary, that the nourishing of Animosities, and running into opposite Parties and Factions, does mightily weaken, and by degrees almost unavoidably draw on the Ruin and Dissolution of any Community, whether Civil or Sacred. Concord and Union therefore will be as necessary for the Preservation of the Church, as of the State. It has been known by too sad an Experience, as well in ours as other Ages, what a pernicious Influence the intestine Broils and Quarrels among Christians have had. They have been the great stumbling Block to Jews, Turks, and Heathens; and the main hindrance of their Conversion; they have made some among ourselves to become Doubtful and Sceptical in their Religion; they have led others into many dangerous Errors, that shake the very Foundations of our Faith; and some they have tempted to cast off the Natural sense they had of the Deity, and emboldened to an open and professed Atheism.  
These are some of the most usual Fruits, which the unhappy Differences in the Church are wont to produce; over and above the particular Unkindnesses and Uncharitable Feuds, which they commonly beget among Christians of the same Persuasion, as to all substantial and weighty matters of Belief. And it were a thing very desirable in all respects, that these at least should be all firmly United in the same holy Communion. They that have the same Articles of Faith, and hope to meet in the same Heaven, through the Merits of the same Lord, should not be afraid to come into the same Assemblies, and join seriously in sending up the same Prayers, and participating of the same Sacraments. Besides the many strict Precepts and other strong Obligations which we have unto this; our Saviour Died 
Joh. 11. 52.  that he might gather together in One, the Children of God that were scattered abroad. And should we not then contradict this end of his Death, if we should set those at Strife and Variance which he intended to Unite? Nay, might we not be said, in some sort, to Crucify the Son of God afresh; if we should Mangle and Divide any sound and healthful part of that Body of which he owns himself to be the Head? If indeed our Church did require us to make profession of any false and erroneous Opinions; if in the external Order and Worship we were enjoined to do any thing contrary to any Divine Command; we are bound in such Instances to withdraw from her: But if her Doctrine be highly approved by most of our Dissenting Brethren; and her Discipline and Service such, as is not any way inconsistent with any Law of God; then we are indispensably engaged to join in Communion with her. For, as has been intimated several times, and it cannot be inculcated too often, Nothing but the Unlawfulness of Communicating can make a Separation Lawful.  
But if it be resolved that the Church of England must be forsaken, notwithstanding that neither her Doctrine nor Discipline can be justly condemned; it would yet convenient to bethink ourselves, what might be the most advisable to be done after we had left it. Whether we should set up another way of Administration in the room of it: Or whether every one should have the Liberty of following that which he fancied the best. If we are for the setting up another way; it must be either Presbytery, or Independency: For if there should be any other new Forms of Government, they are not yet of Reputation enough to be put in Competition with these two great Pretenders to Divine Right. And Presbytery, which had once the fairest hopes of establishing itself, is now grown weak and inconsiderable in comparison of what it was; and those few which would still be thought of that Persuasion, are manifestly departed from their own Principles, and are fain to support themselves by Gathered Assemblies, which they were not wont to allow. Independency therefore seems at this time to be the prevailing way; but their manner of Gathering Members, and Associating themselves into particular Congregations, their holy Band, special Agreement, or Covenant, which they make essential to the Constituting of a Church, are things which have not the least foundation in the holy Scriptures; neither were they ever Countenanced by the practice of any Orthodox Christians in former Ages. But put the case we should admit of either of these Forms of Discipline and Government, we should be as far, if not farther from being United than we are now. For they have both been known to have been very rigorous Imposers, wherever they have had the Power of Commanding; and as they have sometimes been, so they would soon again become more odious to the several Subdivisions of Dissenters than Episcopacy itself. And this being a thing so easily foreseen, we are not now urged with the necessity of setting up either of these. The great expedient that has been proposed of late, is to indulge a Liberty of choosing what Church, and what way of Worship any man pleases; that is, to grant a public Toleration of divers Religions. But this, though it might gratify the present humour of some part of the Nation, and serve some men's Occasions better than any Establishment, would be quickly disliked by most of those that now contend so Zealously for it. For there must needs be a constant Emulation and Struggling betwixt the several Tolerated Parties, which would give a continual Disturbance; and as soon as any of them began to grow Numerous and Powerful, and had any Hopes of succeeding, they would presently imagine it very necessary to impose their own Discipline upon all the rest; and this probably might soon put an end to the so much desired and magnified way of Toleration. Or if we could suppose them contented to allow the same Freedom to others which they enjoyed themselves, yet it could not possibly be avoided, but that this Indulgence must strangely multiply our Divisions; while some Members of their Separate Churches would take Offence, and withdraw, and make choice of a new Pastor, and incorporate themselves into another new Church, and that after a while, upon the like Pretences, might be split into another, and another, and so on without any stop. And then this would certainly set open the Gate to a Flood of Heresies, and such monstrous and extravagant Opinions, as must be confessed, by the most prejudiced Dissenter, to be of far more dangerous consequence to the cause of Religion than that sober and pious Liturgy, and those few indifferent Rites which are now enjoined. This the experience of the Late Times found to be true. The Church of England was no sooner overthrown, but some of those that had been the most forward and busy to pull her down, when they saw how suddenly the swarms of other Sectaries increased upon them, were forced to acknowledge that the Constitution which they had destroyed, was a great check and restraint to those Errors, which grew Bold and Licentious under the Liberty they had procured. The Bishops then, who just before had been the common Theme of Popular Obloquy, had some good Words unwillingly dropped upon them, and their Diligence and Success in suppressing Absurd, Heretical, and many times Blasphemous Doctrines, was allowed some just Commendation. That Government which they had traduced and rendered as odious as was possible, by all the arts of Defamation that could be used, was found upon Trial to be far more desirable, by some of its greatest Enemies, than that Anarchy and Confusion they had contended for with so much Violence.  
But if we cannot be made sufficiently Apprehensive of the dismal Effects, that will almost Naturally follow upon a Public Toleration; yet methinks we should now be a little Suspicious of it, since we know it is the main Engine the Papists have been working with these many years. If there be no Remedy but that our Church must fall, let us not throw it down ourselves, by methods of their Prescribing; let us not act as if we were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave; and proceed just as if we were governed by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair. We may be ashamed to look so like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits; when we suffer ourselves to be guided by those measures which they had taken, and talk and do as they would have us; as if we were immediately inspired from Rome. For we cannot be ignorant that Toleration has been a Device of theirs; and it would not be any part of our Wisdom to grow unreasonably fond of the Invention of our Enemies; and think to strengthen the Protestant Interest by those very means which their Subtlety and Malice had contrived to destroy it.  
But if this Consideration should be laid aside; What need can there be otherwise, that we should desire to be Indulged in our departure from a Church, where we may Communicate with a safe Conscience? As we may certainly do in ours; whose greatest Adversaries have not been able, after the most curious Search they could make, to find out one thing in the whole Constitution which they could positively affirm to be Forbidden; and till that can be made appear, we must still say that it cannot be Unlawful. If the Imposition of some Indifferent things be thought a sufficient ground for a Separation; (as it is now generally urged, since the proof of their Unlawfulness is despaired of) than we must have Separated from the Apostolical Churches, who had some such Usages, as the Holy Kiss, and others, whose Indifferency is acknowledged by their being wholly disused: We must have Separated from the first Churches that succeeded them, which had all some Indifferent things enjoined: We must Separate at this time from all the Reformed Churches in the World; for there is none of these which does not require the use of such things, as we should judge cause enough to departed from them: Nay, when we have once Separated from the Church of England upon this account, we must then Separate from one another, and every man must be a Church by himself; for it is impossible that any Society, whether merely Humane, or Christian, should subsist, without the orderly determination of some Indifferent things. And sure we can never hope to maintain our Separation upon such a Principle, as would not only part us from all the Churches that are, or ever were, and tear Christendom into ten thousand pieces; but scarce leaves us so much as the Notion of a Church, and makes Christian Communion absolutely impracticable. Let us not give those of Rome the pleasure of seeing that Church which has always opposed them with the greatest Vigour, and been the constant mark of their Envy, quite Ruined, or extremely Weakened, by a pernicious Mistake, that would Divide and Divide us again, and again, and never make any end of Dividing. Let us show at least that well are we inclined unto Peace, by coming as far as we can; and if there should be any thing that we may possibly suspect to be Unlawful, let not this hinder us from joining in those other holy Offices, in which we have not any pretence of a Doubt. Let not our groundless Scrupling at a Ceremony, or two, fright us from the whole Worship of God, against which we have not any Exceptions.  
And for those that esteem our Communion in all particulars utterly Unlawful, which I suppose are but very few, and I know they have but very slight Arguments for the severe Judgement they pass upon us; if they will meet, let them do it in the most private manner that they can, without any vain Ostentation of their Numbers, which cannot be any Satisfaction to their Consciences, but may make their Adherents over forward and bold, and tend to the creating of Jealousies in the Government. And while they are upon these terms, they cannot reasonably expect any Connivance. They might sooner hope for it from his Majesty's wont and often experienced Clemency; when they shall make it appear that their Dissent is modest and humble, and such as has no other but a Religious Design in it: Than when they assume a high degree of Confidence, and think to extort Indulgencies by Clamours and Discontents, and resolve to Assemble openly in Opposition to a Royal Command; as if it were a piece of Christian Fortitude to outbrave Authority. These are but ill Methods of courting the Favour of a Prince. But I hope for the future we shall all, upon all Occasions, behave ourselves as becomes good Subjects, and sober Christians, and make no Disturbances neither on a Civil nor Ecclesiastical account.  
Let it Pity us at last to see the Ghastly Wounds that are still renewed by the continuance of our Divisions. Let us have some Compassion on a Bleeding Church that is ready to Faint, and in eminent Danger of being made a prey to her Enemies, by the unnatural Heats and Animosities of those that should Support and Defend her. Why should we leave her thus Desolate and Forlorn, when her present Exigencies require our most Cordial Assistance? If the condition of her Communion were such as God's Laws did not allow, we might forsake her that had forsaken him. But since this cannot be Objected against her; since she exacts not Forbidden thing of us, Let us strengthen her Hands by our unanimous Agreement; and since we do not Condemn her Doctrine, let us not Despise her Worship; since the Substantials of Religion are the same, let not the Circumstances of external Order and Discipline be any longer an Occasion of Difference amongst us. And so shall we bring Glory to God, a happy Peace to a Divided Church, a considerable Security to the Protestant Religion, and probably Defeat the subtle Practices of Rome, which now stands gaping after All; and hopes by our Distractions to repair the losses she has suffered by the Reformation. May the Wisdom of Heaven make all Wicked Purposes unsuccessful; and the blessed Spirit of Love heal all our Breaches, and prosper the Charitable Endeavours of those that follow after PEACE. Amen.  
FINIS.   

A RESOLUTION Of some CASES OF CONSCIENCE Which respect Church-Communion. VIZ. 

I. Whether to Communicate with some Church, especially in such a divided State of the Church, be a necessary Duty, Incumbent on all Christians.  
II. Whether Constant Communion be a necessary Duty, where Occasional Communion is Lawful.  
III. Whether it be Lawful to Communicate with two Churches, which are in a State of Separation from each other.   The Second Edition.  
LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Jun. for Fincham Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street. 1683.   

A RESOLUTION Of some CASES of CONSCIENCE, Which respect Church-Communion.  
IN order to state such cases as particularly relate to Church-Communion with all possible clearness, it will be necessary to premise a brief explication of some words, which must be used in questions of this nature, but are not so commonly understood.  
As,  

1. What is meant by a Church, and a Christian Church.  
2. What Church Communion is.  
3. What is meant by Fixed Communion and by Occasional Communion.   
First, What is meant by a Church. Now the plainest description I can give of a Church is this, That the Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World, and United to God, and to themselves by a Divine Covenant. I shall briefly explain this description to fit it to the meanest understanding.  
1. Then a Church is a Body or Society of Men, for I speak only of the Church in this World, and therefore shall not enter into that dispute, in what sense Angels belong to the Church.  
And when I call the Church a Body or Society of Men, I oppose a Body to single Individuals, or particular Men, and to a confused Multitude, without any order or Union among themselves. For though the Church consists of particular Men, and when their Numbers are increased, of great Multitudes, yet the Church consists of such particular Men, not considered in a private and separate capacity, but as United into a regular Society, which is called a Body, in allusion to the natural Body, in which all the parts and members are United in an exact Order, Eph. 4. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 15, 16, etc. For God is not the Author of Confusion, but of Peace, as in all the Churches of the Saints. And if the meanest Societies cannot subsist without Order wherein their strength and beauty and usefulness consist, much less the Church of God, which is a Society Instituted for the most spiritual and Supernatural Ends.  
And therefore we find, that God ordained a most exact Order and Government in the Jewish Church, which for the greater strength and Unity he form into a religious Commonwealth: And our Blessed Saviour ordained the Apostles, and committed the Government of his Church to them, and their Successors, with a promise to be with them to the end of the World. And the Christian Church with respect to the firm and close Union and orderly Disposition of all its 
Eph. 2. 21, 22. 1 Tim. 3. 15.  Parts, is not only called a Body, but a Spiritual Building, and Holy Temple, and the House of God.  
But then the Church is a Body, or one Body, in opposition to many bodies, for Christ has but one Body, and one Church, and he is the Saviour of this Body. The Jewish Church was but one, and therefore the Christian Church is but one, which is not a new distinct Church, but is grafted into the Jewish stock or Root. Believing Jews, and Christians being United into one Church, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief 
Rom. 11. 17, 18.  corner stone: Who unites Jews and Gentiles into one Church, as the corner stone unites both sides of the House, and holds them together.  
Upon the same account the Church is called the Building, the House, the Temple of God, and we know the Temple was but one, and was to be but one, by the express command and Institution of God. And for the same reason Christ tells us, that there should be but one Fold under one Shepherd.  
And indeed it is extremely absurd and unreasonable 
John 10. 16.  to say, that the Christian Church, which is built upon the same foundation, which worships the same God and Saviour, which professes the same Faith, are Heirs to the same promises, and enjoy all privileges in common, should be divided into as distinct and separate bodies, though of the same kind and nature, as Peter, James and John, are distinct Persons, though they partake of the same common nature. That is, it is very absurd to say, that where every thing is common, there is not one Community. Peter, and James, and John, though they partake of the same common nature, yet each of them have a distinct essence and subsistence of their own (as it must be in natural Being's, otherwise there could be but one Man in the World) and this makes them distinct Persons: But where the very nature and essence of a Body or Society consists in having all things common, there can be but one Body; and therefore if one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, be common to the whole Christian Church, if there be no peculiar Privileges, which belong to some Christians and not to all, to one part of the Church, and not to another, then by the Institution of Christ, there is but one Church, one Body, one Communion, one Household and Family: For where there is nothing to Distinguish and Separate, no Enclosures or Partitions of Divine Appointment, there can be, by Divine Institution, but one Body.  
2. I add, that the Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World, or called out of the World, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from whence Ecclesia is derived, may signify, and is so expounded by many Divines, upon which account the Christians are so of ten called, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Called and Chosen or Elect People of God, which signifies, that the Church is distinguished from the rest of the World by a peculiar and appropriate Faith, by peculiar Laws, by peculiar rites of Worship, and peculiar Promises and Privileges, which are not common to the whole World, but only to those, who are received into the Communion of the Church. But there is no controversy about this matter, and therefore I need add no more about it.  
3. The Church is a Body of Men united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant: The Church is united to God, for it is a Religious Society, instituted for the Worship of God; and they are united among themselves, and to each other, because it is but one Body, which requires a union of all its parts; as I have already showed, and shall discourse more presently. But the chief thing to be observed here is this, that this union with God, and to each other, which constitutes a Church, is made by a Divine Covenant. Thus it was in the Jewish Church, God entered into Covenant with Abraham, and chose him and his Posterity for his Church and Peculiar People, and gave him Circumcision for a Sign and Seal of this Covenant. And under the Gospel God hath made a new Covenant with mankind, in and by his Son Jesus Christ, who is the Mediator of a Better Covenant, founded upon better Promises; and this Gospel Covenant is the foundation of the Christian Church. For the Christian Church is nothing else, but such a Society of Men, as is in Covenant with God through Christ.  
I suppose all men will grant, that God only can make or constitute a Church. For such persons, if there were any so absurd, are not worth disputing with, who dare affirm the Church to be a human Creature, or the invention of Men.  
And I think it is as plain, that the only visible way God has of forming a Church (for I do not now speak of the invisible operations of the Divine Spirit) is by granting a Church-Covenant, which is the Divine Charter, whereon the Church is founded, and investing some persons with Power and Authority, to receive others into this Covenant, according to the terms and conditions of the Covenant, and by such Covenant Rites and Forms of Admission, as he is pleased to institute, which under the Gospel is Baptism, as under the Law it was Circumcision.  
To be taken into Covenant with God, and to be received into the Church, is the very same thing. For the Church is a Society of Men, who are in Covenant with God. That can be no Church, which is not in Covenant with God, he is no member of the Church, who is not at least visibly admitted into God's Covenant, and whoever is in Covenant with God, is made a member of the Church, by being admitted into Covenant.  
Now before I proceed, I shall briefly observe some few things, which are so plain and evident, if these Principles be true, that I need only name them, and yet are of great use for the resolution of some following cases.  
As 1. That a Covenant-state and Church-state is the same thing.  
2. That every professed Christian, who is received into Covenant, as such, is a Church member.  
3. That nothing else is necessary to make us members of the Christian Church but only Baptism, which is the Sacrament of our admission into the Christian Covenant. For if Baptism, which gives us right to all the Privileges of the Covenant, does not make us Church members, than a Church-state is no part of the Covenant; then a man may be in Covenant with God through Christ, and yet be no member of Christ; or he may be a member of Christ and no member of his Body, which is the Church.  
4. That no Church-state can depend upon human Contracts and Covenants, for then a Church would be a human Creature, and a human Constitution; whereas a Church can be founded only upon a Divine Covenant. It is true, no man, who is at age, can be admitted to Baptism till he profess his Faith in Christ, and voluntarily undertake the Baptismal Vow; but the Independent Church-Covenant betwixt Pastor and People, is of a very different Nature from this, unless any man will say, that the voluntary contract and Covenant, which the Independents exact from their members, and wherein they place a Church-state, be part of the Baptismal Vow. If it be not, than they found the Church upon a human Covenant, for Christ hath made but one Covenant with Mankind, which is contained in the Vow of Baptism. If it be, than no Man is a Christian, but an Independent, and then they would do well to show, how the Baptismal Vow, which is but one and the same for all Mankind, determines one Man to be a fixed member of Dr. Owen's Church, another of Mr. Griffiths, or any other Independent Pastors; and if they could get over this difficulty, there is another still, why they exact this Church-Covenant of Baptised Christians, before they will admit them to their Communion, if Baptism makes them members of their Church.  
This I think makes it plain, that the Independent Church-Covenant is no part of the Baptismal Vow, and then it is no part of the Christian Covenant; and if there be no true Church-state, but what depends on such human Contracts, than the Church owes its being to the will of Men, not to the Covenant of God.  
5. I observe farther, how absurd it is to gather Churches out of Churches, which already consist of Baptised Christians. Christianity indeed separates us from the rest of the World, but surely it does not separate Christians from each other. The Apostles only undertook to Convert Jews and Heathens to the Christian Faith, and to make them members of the Christian Church, which is a state of separation from the World; but these Men Convert Christians from Common Christianity, and the Communion of the universal Church, to Independency. If the Church be founded on a divine Covenant, we know no Church but what all Christians are made members of by Baptism, which is the universal Church, the one Body and Spouse of Christ. And to argue from the Apostles gathering Churches from among Jews and Heathens, to prove the gathering Churches out of a Christian and National Church, must either conclude, that a Church, and Church-state is a very indifferent and Arbitrary thing, and that Men may be very good Christians, and in a safe condition without it; or that Baptised Christians, who are not members of a particular Independent Church, are no better than Jews and Heathens, that is, that Baptism itself though a Divine Sacrament and Seal of the Covenant, is of no value, till it be confirmed and ratified by a human Independent Covenant.  
6. I observe, that if the Christian Church be founded on a Divine Covenant, on that new Covenant, which God hath made with Mankind in Christ, then there is but one Church of which all Christians are members, as there is but one Covenant into which we are all admitted by Baptism. For the Church and the Covenant must be of an equal extent. There can be but one Church founded upon one Covenant, and all who have an interest in the same Covenant, are members of the same Church.  
And therefore, though the distance of place, and the necessities and conveniences of Worship and Discipline, may, and has divided the Church into several parts and members, and particular Churches, yet the Church cannot be divided into two or more distinct and separate Churches, for that destroys the unity of the Church: and unless they could divide the Covenant also, two Churches, which are not members of each other, cannot partake in the same Covenant, but the guilty Divider forfeits his interest in the Covenant without a new grant.  
A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several distinct Cities and Corporations, but than though the matter of the Charter be the same, their right to it depends upon distinct Grants. But if he grant a Charter for the Erecting of such a Corporation, and confine his Charter to the members of that Corporation, those who wilfully separate themselves from this Corporation to which this Charter was granted, forfeit their interest in the Charter, and must not think to Erect a new distinct Corporation by the same Charter.  
Thus it is here, God hath made a Covenant o● grace with Mankind in Christ, and declares that by this one Covenant, he unites all the Disciples of Christ into one Body and Christian Church, who shall all partake of the Blessings of this Covenant. By Baptism we are all received into this Covenant, and admitted members of this one Church; now while we continue in the Unity of this Body, it is evident, that we have a right to all the Blessings of the Covenant, which are promised to this Body, and to every member of it. But if we divide ourselves from this Body, and set up distinct and separate Societies, which we call Churches, but which are not members, nor live in Communion with the one Catholic Church, we cannot carry our Right and Title to the Covenant out of the Church with us.  
The Gospel-Covenant is the common Charter of the Christian-Church, and if we are not contented to enjoy these Blessings in common with other Christians we must be contented to go without them. For it is not a particular Covenant, which God makes with particular Separate Churches, but a general Covenant made with the whole Body of Christians, as United in one Communion, and therefore that, which no particular Church has any interest in, but as it is a member of the universal Church.  
God hath not made any Covenant in particular with the Church of Geneva, of France or England, but with the one Body and Church of Christ, all the World over; and therefore the only thing, that can give us in particular a right to the Blessings of the Covenant, is, that we observe the conditions of this Covenant, and live in Unity and Communion with all true Christian Churches in the World, which makes us members of the Catholic Church, to whom the Promises are made.  
Secondly, The next thing to be explained is, what is meant by Church-Communion. Now Church-Communion signifies no more than Church-Fellowship and Society, and to be in Communion with the Church is to be a member of the Church; and this is called Communion, because all Church members have a common right to Church Privileges, and a common Obligation to all those Duties and Offices, which a Church relation Exacts from them.  
I know this word Communion is commonly used to signify a Personal and presential Communion in Religious Offices: as when Men pray, and hear, and receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper together, they are said to be in Communion with one another and to live in Communion with that Church, with which they join in all Acts of Worship.  
Now we must acknowledge, that Public Acts of Worship performed in the Communion of the Church, are an Exercise of Christian Communion, but Church-Communion is something antecedent to all the Acts and Offices of Communion. For no Man has a right to any Act of Christian Communion, but he, who is in a State of Communion with the Christian Church.  
What natural Union is in natural Bodies, that Communion is in Bodies Politic, whether Civil or Religious Societies; a member must be vitally united to the Body, before it can perform any natural Action or Office of a member; before the Eye can see, or the Feet can walk, or the Ears can hear; and the union of the Eye, or Foot, to the Body, does not consist in seeing or walking, but seeing and walking are the effects of this Union.  
Thus in a Body Politic, when Men by any common Charter are United into one Society, they become one common Body, or one Communion; and this gives them right to all the privileges of that Body, and obliges them to all the Duties and Offices, which their Charter requires of them; but should any Man, who is not regularly admitted into this Society, pretend to the same Privileges, or do such things, as are required of those, who are members of this Body, this would be so far from being thought an Act of Communion with them, that it would be censured as an unjust Usurpation. Should a Man, who is no Citizen of London, open his Shop, and drive a trade as other Citizens do, or give his Vote at a Common-Hall, and in all other cases Act like a Citizen, this would not make him a Citizen, but an Intruder. He is a Foreigner still, and his presuming to Act like a Citizen, when he is none, is no Act of Communion with that Body, of which he is no member, but justly exposes him to censure and punishment.  
Thus it is in the Christian Church, which is one Body and Society united by a Divine Covenant. Our Communion with the Church consists in being members of the Church, which we are made by Baptism: The exercise of this Communion consists in all those Offices and Duties, which all the members of the Church are obliged to, and which none have any right to perform, but they; such as praying and receiving the Lords Supper together, etc.  
Now should any Man who is no member of the Church, nor owns himself to be so, intrude into the Church, and Communicate in all holy Offices, this can be no more called an Act of Communion, than it can be said to make him a member of the Church, of which he is no member, and resolved not to be: Prayers, and receiving the Sacraments, etc. are Acts of Communion, when performed by Church-members in the Communion of the Church; but they are no Acts of Communion, when performed by those, who are no Church-members, though to serve a turn, they thrust themselves into the Society of the Church.  
As for Instance, suppose a member of a Presbyterian, or Independent Conventicle, should, for reasons best known to himself, at some critical time, come to his Parish Church, and there hear the Common-Prayer, and Sermon, and receive the Lords Supper, according to the order of the Church of England, does this make this Man a member of the Church of England, with which he never Communicated before, and it is likely, will never do again? If it does not, all this is no Act of Communion, which can be only between the members of the same Body.  
So that to be in Church-Communion, does not signify, merely to perform some such Acts, which are Acts of Communion in the members of the Church, but since the decay of Church Discipline, may sometimes be performed by those, who are not members, which is such an abuse, as would not have been allowed in the Primitive Church, who denied their Communion to Schismatics, as well as to the Excommunicate upon other accounts: but to be in Church-Communion signifies to be a member of the Church, to be Embodied and Incorporated with it, and I suppose. what that means, every one knows, who understands what it is to be a member of any Society, of a City, or any Inferior Corporation; which consists of Privilege and Duty, and requires all those, who will enjoy the benefits of such a Society, to discharge their respective trusts and obligations.  
To be in Communion with, or to be a member of the Church, includes a Right and Title to all those Blessings, which God hath promised to his Church, and an obligation to all the Duties and Offices of Church Society; as Subjection to the Authority, Instructions, Censures of the Church; a Communion in Prayers, and Sacraments, and other Religious Offices, and he who despises the Authority, or destroys the Unity of the Church, renounces his membership and Communion with it. These things are extremely plain, and though Men may cavil for disputes sake, yet must needs convince them, that no Man is in Communion with a Church, which he is not a member of, though through the defect of Discipline, he should sometimes be admitted to some Act of Communion with it; and I shall observe some few things from hence of great use.  
1. That Church-Communion primarily and principally respects the universal Church, not any particular Church or Society of Christians. For to be in Church-Communion signifies to be a member of the Church, or Body of Christ, which is but one all the World over. Church Communion does not consist in particular Acts of Communion, which can be performed only among those, who are present, and Neighbours to each other, but in membership: now a member is a member of the whole Body, (not merely of any part of it,) how large soever the Body be. All the Subjects of England, those, who live at St. David's, and those at Tarmouth, who never saw, nor conversed with each other, are all members of the same Kingdom, and by the same reason, this membership may extend to the remotest part of the World, if the Body, whereof we are members, reach so far.  
And therefore we may observe, that Baptism, which is the Sacrament of our Admission into the Covenant of God, and the Communion of the Church, does not make us members of any particular Church, as such, but of the Universal Church; and I observed before, that a Church-state, which is the same thing, with Church-Communion, is founded only on a Divine Covenant; and therefore since there is no other Divine Covenant to make us members of particular Churches, as distinguished from the Universal Church, such particular Church-membership is at best but a human Invention, and indeed nothing else but a Schism from the Universal Church: which alone, if well considered, is a sufficient confutation of Independency, which is a particular Church-State, as distinguished from all other Churches and Societies of Christians.  
2. I observe further, that though the exercise of Church Communion, as to most of the particular Duties and Offices of it, must be confined to a particular Church and Congregation (for we cannot Actually join in the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments, etc. but with some particular Church) yet every Act of Christian Communion, though performed in some particular Church, is and must be an Act of Communion with the whole Catholic Church, Praying, and Hearing, and receiving the Lords Supper together, does not make us more in Communion with the Church of England, than with any other true and Orthodox part of the Church, though in the Remotest parts of the World. The exercise of true Christian Communion in a particular Church, is nothing else but the exercise of Catholic Communion in a particular Church, which the necessity of affairs requires, since all the Christians in the World cannot meet together for Acts of Worship; But there is nothing in all these Acts of Communion, which does more peculiarly Unite us to such a particular Church, than to the whole Christian Church.  
When we pray together to God, we Pray to him as the Common Father of all Christians, and do not challenge any peculiar interest in him, as members of such a particular Church, but as members of the whole Body of Christ: when we Pray in the Name of Christ, we consider him as the great High Priest, and Saviour of the Body, who powerfully intercedes for the whole Church and for us as members of the Universal Church. And we Offer up our Prayers and Thanksgiving, not only for ourselves and those, who are present, but for all Christians all the World over, as our Fellow-members, and Praying for one another is the truest notion of Communion of Prayers; for Praying with one another, is only in order to Praying for one another. And thus our Prayers are an exercise of Christian Communion, when we Pray to the same common Father, through the Merits and Mediation of the same common Saviour and Redeemer, for the same common Blessings, for ourselves, and the whole Christian Church.  
Thus when we meet together to Celebrate the Supper of our Lord, we do not meet as at a private Supper, but as at the common Feast, of Christians: and therefore it is not an Act of particular Church Fellowship, but of Catholic Communion. The Supper of our Lord does not signify any other kind of Union and confederation between those Neighbour Christians, who receive together in the same Church, than with the whole Body of Christ. The Sacramental Bread signifies and represents all those, for whom Christ died, that one Mystical Body, for which he Offered his Natural Body, which is the Universal Church; and our eating of this Bread signifies our Union to this Body of Christ, and therefore is considered, as an Act of true Catholic, not of a particular Church-Communion. And the Sacramental Cup is the Blood of the New Testament, and therefore represents our Communion in all the Blessings of the Covenant, and with all those, who are thus in Covenant with God. So that there is nothing particular in this Feast, to make it a private Feast, or an Act of Communion with a particular Church, considered as particular, but it is the common Feast of Christians, and an Act of Catholic Communion.  
Which by the way plainly shows, how groundless that scruple is against mixed Communions, that Men think themselves defiled by receiving the Lords Supper with Men, who are vicious. For though it is a great defect in Discipline, and a great reproach to the Christian Profession, when wicked Men are not censured, and removed from Christian Communion, yet they may as well pretend, that their Communion is defiled by bad Men, who Communicate in any other part of the Church, or any other Congregation, as in that, in which they live and Communicate: For this holy Feast signifies no other Communion between them, who receive at the same time, and in the same Company, than it does with all sincere parts of the Christian Church. It is not a Communion with any Persons considered as present, but it is a Communion with the Body of Christ and all true members of it, whether present or absent.  
Those who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt professors, though they could form a Society as pure and holy, as they seem to desire, yet are Schismatics in it, because they confine their Communion to their own select Company, and Exclude the whole Body of Christians all the World over, out of it; their Communion is no larger than their gathered Church, for if it be, than they must still Communicate with those Churches, which have corrupt members, as all visible Churches on Earth have, (unless we will except Independents, because they have the confidence to except themselves) and then their Separation does not Answer its end, which is to avoid such corrupt Communions; and yet if they do confine their Communion to their own gathered Churches, they are Schismatics in dividing themselves from the Body of Christians; and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not Acts of Christian Communion, but a Schismatical Combination.  
This does not prove indeed, that particular Churches are not bound to reform themselves, and to preserve their own Communion pure from corrupt members, unless all the Churches in the World, will do so too; because every particular Church, whether Diocesan, or National, has power to reform its own members, and is accountable to God for such neglects of Discipline: but it does prove, that no Church without the guilt of Schism, can renounce Communion with other Christian Churches, or set up a distinct and separate Communion of its own, for the sake of such corrupt members; which was the pretence of the Novatian and Donatist Schism of Old, and is so of the Independent Schism, at this day.  
3. I observe further, that our obligation to maintain Communion with a particular Church, wholly results from our obligation to Catholic Communion. The only reason why I am bound to live in Communion with any particular Church, is because I am a member of the whole Christian Church, which is the Body of Christ, and therefore must live in Communion with the Christian Church; and yet it is Impossible to live in Communion with the whole Christian Church, without Actual Communion with some part of it; when I am in such a place, where there is a visible Christian Church; as no member can be United to the Natural Body, without its being United to some part of the Body, for the Union and Communion of the whole Body consists in the Union of all its parts to each other.  
Every Act of Christian Communion, though performed in a particular Church, or Congregation, is not properly an Act of particular Church-Communion, but is the exercise of Communion with the whole Church and Body of Christ, as I have already proved; but it can be no Act of Communion at all, if it be not performed in the Communion of the Church, which it cannot be, unless it be performed in the Communion of some particular Church. And this is the only obligation, I know of, to Communion with any particular Church, that as I am a Christian, I am a member of the Body and Church of Christ, and in a State of Communion, and therefore am bound to maintain Actual Communion with the Christian Church, wherever I find it, and by Communicating with the Church, wherein I live, if it be a Sound and Orthodox Member of the Christian Church, I maintain Communion with the whole Catholic Church, which is but one Body.  
So that here is no choice, what Church we will Communicate with, for there is but one Church all the World over, with which we must Communicate; and therefore we have nothing else to do, but to judge, whether that part of the Church, wherein we live, be so Sound and Orthodox, that we may Communicate with it according to the Principles of Catholic Communion; and if it be, we are bound to Communicate with it, under Peril of Schism from the Catholic Church, if we do not.  
4. From hence we may plainly learn the true notion of a Separate Communion, and Separate Church. For some Men seem to be greatly sensible of the sin and mischief of Schism and Separation, but then they use great art, so to confound the notion of Separation, as that neither they themselves, nor any one else, shall ever be able to understand what it is, whereas if they will allow, that there is, or ever can be, any such thing as Separation from the Church, it is as easy to understand, what Separation is, as what it is for a member to be divided from the Body.  
For if there be but one Church, and one Communion, of which all true Christians, and Christian Churches, are, or aught to be members, than those Churches, which are not members of each other, are Separate Churches. It is not enough indeed to prove a Separation, that two Congregations meet in several places for Worship, for this is done by all the Parish-Churches of England, who are in the same Communion, but yet hold distinct and Separate Assemblies, as to Local Separation. Nor is it sufficient to prove, that there is no Separation, because these differing Churches agree in all the Articles of Faith, and essentials of worship; For thus the Novatians and Donatists did, who yet were Schismatics from the Catholic Church. But where there are two Churches, which are not members of each other, there is a Schism, though they agree in every thing else, but in one Communion; and where Churches own each others Communion, as members of the same Body, there is no Schism, though they are as distant from each other in place, as East and West.  
And it is as easy to understand, what it is for two Churches to be members of each other; but to make this as plain, as I can, and as far, as it is possible, to prevent all Evasions, and Subterfuges, I shall lay down some few rules according to the Principles of Catholic Communion, whereby we may certainly know, what Churches are in Communion with each other, and which are Separate and Schismatical Conventicles.  
1. There must be but one Church, in one place, according to that Ancient Rule of the Catholic Church, that there must be but one Bishop in a City; and this was observed in the Apostolical times, that in the greatest and most Populous Cities, and where there were the greatest number of Converts, yet there was but one Church, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, etc. this is acknowledged by the Independents themselves, who endeavour hence to prove, that there were no more Christians in any of those Cities, than could meet together in one place for Acts of Worship, which is a mighty groundless Surmise, and not much for the credit of the Christian Church, as has been often shown by learned Men, both Episcopal and Presbyterian Divines.  
And there is an evident reason, why this should be so, because there is no other Rule of Catholic Communion for private Christians, but to Communicate in all Religious Offices, and all Acts of Government and Discipline, with those Christians, with whom they live; for to renounce the ordinary Communion of any Christians, or true Christian Church, is to divide the Unity and Communion of the Church, and to withdraw ourselves from ordinary Communion with the Church, in which we live, into distinct and Separate Societies for Worship, is to renounce their Communion; and when there is not a necessary cause for it, is a Schismatical Separation.  
So that distinct and particular Churches, which are in Communion with each other, must have their distinct bounds and limits, as every member has its Natural and proper place and situation in the Body. But when there is one Church within the Bowels of another, a new Church gathered out of a Church already constituted; and form into a distinct and Separate Society, this divides Christian Communion, and is a notorious Schism. These Churches cannot be members of each other, because they ought to be but one Church, and therefore to form and gather a new Church, is to divide and Separate the members of the same Church from each other.  
This is the plain case of the Presbyterian and Independent Churches, and those other Conventicles of Sectaries, which are among us; they are Churches in a Church, Churches form out of the National Church, by which means Christians, who live together, refuse to Worship God in the same Assemblies, and have bitter Envyings and Contentions, for the Honour and Purity of their several Churches.  
If all Christians are members of the one Body of Christ, nothing can justify the distinction of Christians into several Churches, but only such a distance of place, as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops, for the great Edification of the Church, in the more easy and regular Administration of Discipline, and all holy Offices; and therefore nothing can justify the gathering of a Church out of a Christian Church, and dividing Neighbour Christians into distinct Communions.  
Churches at a distance may be distinct Churches under their distinct Bishops, but yet in the same Communion; but distinct Churches in the same place can never be of the same Communion, for than they would Naturally Unite and Cement into one. There must either be Antibishops, or Schismatical Presbyters, set up in opposition to their Bishops, under different and opposite Rules of Worship and Discipline, which makes them Rival and opposite Churches, not members of each other. From hence I think, it plainly appears, that all Separation from a Church, wherein we live, unless there be necessary reasons for it, is Schism; and we cannot justify such distinct Churches within one another, from the examples of other distinct Churches, whose bounds, and limits, and jurisdiction also, are distinct and separate.  
2. It is plain, those are Separate Churches, which divide from the Communion of any Church, from any dislike of its Doctrine, Government, or Worship, for in this case, it is plain, they leave the Church, and form themselves into a new Church, out of the Communion of the Church, from whence they went, because they did not think it safe to continue one Body with it.  
This has often made me wonder, what those Men mean, who take all occasions to quarrel at our Constitution, and assign a great many reasons, why they cannot Communicate with us, and yet at the same time will not own, that they have made any Separation from us. What middle state now shall we find for these Men, who will neither continue in the Church, nor allow themselves to be out of it?  
It is possible for two particular Churches to be in Communion with each other, and yet not Actually to Communicate together, because distance of place will not permit it; but for two Churches to renounce each others Communion, or at least to withdraw ordinary Communion from each other, from a professed dislike, and yet still to continue in a state of Communion with one another, is a down right contradiction. To be in Communion is to be members of the same Body and Society, and he that can prove, and he that can believe, two opposite Societies, founded upon contrary principles, and Acting by contrary Rules, and pursuing contrary ends, to the Ruin and Subversion of each other, to be the same Body, and the same Society, are very wonderful Men to me.  
3. Those are Separate Churches, who do not own each others members, as their own Actual Communion during our residence in any certain place, must be confined to that particular Church, in which we live, if it be a sound part of the Christian Church; but Church-membership is not confined to any particular Church. I am not otherwise a member of any particular Church, than I am of the Universal Church, which gives me a right of Membership and Communion in all the particular Churches of the World. Now I would ask whether every Baptised Christian, who by Baptism is made a member of the Catholic Church, and has not forfeited this right by a Scandalous life, be ipso facto a member of an Independent Church; if he be not (as it is plain, by the constitution of Independency, he is not, for Independent Church-membership is not founded on Baptism, but on a particular Church-Covenant;) then Independency is a Separate Communion from the Catholic Church; for the members of the Catholic Church are not by being so, made the members of an Independent Church, and therefore an Independent Church is a distinct and separate Body from the Catholick-Church.  
Nay I would know whether a member of one Independent Church by being so, becomes a member of another Independent Church; if he does not, as it is plain, he don't, (for every Independent Church is founded upon a particular Church-Covenant between such a particular Pastor and particular members) than every Independent Church is a distinct and Separate Body from all other Independent Churches, and so they are all Schismatics to each other, as not preserving the Unity of the Body.  
And though Independent Churches should be so civil to each other, as to admit each others members to some Acts of Communion, yet this is matter of courtesy, not of right, and therefore their constitution is Schismatical. It is like two Neighbour Families, which hold good correspondence with each other, and often visit one another, and Eat, and Drink together, but yet remain very distinct Families, and have all their concerns apart and separate. But the Christian Church is but one Household and Family, and whoever makes two Families of it, is a Schismatic.  
Thus let me ask, whether the Episcopal, and Presbyterian Churches in the same Christian Kingdom, be one Church, and members of each other, and own each others members, as such, to be members of their own Body and Church; If they do not, as it is evident they don't, from their holding distinct and separate Assemblies, under a distinct kind and species of Government, which both of them assert to be instituted by Christ, and to be essential to the constitution of the Church, from their forming themselves into distinct Bodies, under different Governors, which have no Communion, as such with each other, (which yet is essential to the Communion of particular Churches, that their Governors should be in Communion with each other) from their Condemning each others constitution, and particular modes of Worship, and their great endeavours to draw away members from each other; which necessarily supposes, that they do not look upon each others members, as their own. I say, if from these considerations it appears, that they are not, and do not think themselves to be, one Body, nor members of each other, than they are two separate Churches, and the Church, which makes the separation is the Schismatic.  
And indeed we may as well say, that a Monarchy, and Aristocracy, and Democracy in the same Nation, with their distinct Governors, and distinct Subjects, and distinct Laws, that are always at Enmity and War with each other, are but one Kingdom, as to assert, that the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches in England, are but one Church.  
3. The last thing to be explained, is, what is meant by fixed or constant, and by occasional Communion. Now this is a question, which would grievously have puzzled St. Cyprian and St. Austin and other Ancient Fathers, who never heard but of one sort of Communion. For indeed there is no place for this distinction of constant and occasional Communion, according to the Principles of Catholic Communion. To be in Communion with the Church, is to be a member of the Church, and I take it for granted, that a member signifies a fixed and constant, not an occasional member; not a member, which is one day a member, and the next day upon his own voluntary choice is no member, which is a member or no member, just as occasion serves. And if Church-membership be a fixed and constant relation in itself considered, than the Duties of this relation are fixed and constant also. And therefore for the understanding of these Terms, which were unknown to Antiquity, we must consult the meaning of our Modern Authors, who were the first Inventors of them.  
Now by fixed Communion they mean an Actual and constant Communicating with some one particular Church, as fixed members of it; occasional Communion is to Pray, and Hear, and receive the Sacrament, at some other Church, (of which they do not own themselves to be members) as occasion serves; that is, either to gratify their own Curiosity, or to serve some secular end, or to avoid the Imputation of Schism.  
Now this distinction is owing to such Principles, as I have evidently proved to be very great mistakes.  
For if to be in Communion with the Church signify to be a member of it, and that not of any particular Church, as distinguished from the whole Catholic Church, but to be a member of the one Body of Christ, and of every sound part of it; then our Communion with the Church is as fixed, as our relation and membership is, and I think no Man, who understands himself, will talk of an occasional member.  
If no Man can perform any Act of Communion with a Church, of which he is no member (since all Acts of Communion have a necessary relation to a state of Communion, and that, which is an Act of Communion in a member, is no Act of Communion, when performed by him, who is no member, as I have already proved) than it is as plain a contradiction to talk of an occasional Act of Communion, as of occasional membership; and there can be no place for occasional Communion with a Church, of which we are no members, unless we will say, that a Man, who is not in Communion, may exercise Acts of Communion with the Church.  
If all the Acts of Christian Communion, which respect Christian Worship, such as Prayer, receiving the Lord's Supper, etc. tho performed in a particular Church, be not Acts merely of a particular Church-Communion, but of Catholic Communion, with the whole Christian Church, and every sound part of it, than every true Catholic Christian, is not only in a fixed state of Communion with the Catholic Church, but lives in as constant an exercise of Christian Communion with all Sound and Orthodox Churches, as he does with that Church, in which he lives; for every Act of Worship, which is an Act of Communion with that particular Church, in which it is performed (if that Church be in Catholic Communion) is an Act of Communion with the whole Catholic Church, and therefore the very exercise of Christian Communion, is equally fixed and constant, or equally occasional with the whole Catholic Church.  
There is a sense indeed, wherein we may be said to be members of one particular Church considered as distinct from all other particular Churches, but that principally consists in Government and Discipline; every Christian is a member of the whole Christian Church, and in Communion with it, but he is under the immediate Instruction and Government of his own Bishop, and Presbyters, and is bound to Personal Communion with them; and this constitutes a particular Church, in which all Acts of Worship, and all Acts of Discipline and Government, are under the direction and conduct of a particular Bishop. And when Neighbour Bishops unite into one Body, and agree upon some common Rules of Government, and the Administration of Religious Offices, this makes them a Patriarchal or National Church, and thus by submitting to the Government and Discipline of such particular or united Bishops, we become members of a Diocesan or National Church, considered as distinct from other Diocesan or National Churches; But this does not confine our Church-membership and Communion to such a particular Church, though it strictly oblige us to conform to the Worship, and Discipline, and Government of that Church, wherein we live, while it imposes nothing on us inconsistent with the Principles of Catholic Communion.  
But though particular Christians are more peculiarly obliged to observe the Rites and Usages, and to submit to the Government and Discipline of the Church, wherein they live, and to maintain Personal Communion with it, (and upon this account may in a peculiar manner be called the members of that Church) yet every Act of Communion performed in this particular Church is an Act of Catholic Communion; and an exercise of Christian Communion with the whole Church, and every sound part of it. Baptism makes us members of the whole Church, and gives us a right to Communion with every sound part of it; every Act of Christian Communion in a particular Church is a virtual Communion with the whole Church, with all particular Churches, which live in Communion with each other; and notwithstanding my relation to a particular Church, by my constant Abode and Habitation in it, when ever I travel into any other Church, I Communicate with them as a member; so that wherever I Communicate, whether in that Church, in which I usually live, or in any other particular Church, where I am accidentally present, my Communion is of the same Nature, that is, I Communicate as a member of the Church, and it is Impossible, I should Communicate otherwise; for I have no right to Communion, but as a member, and nothing I can do, can be an Act of Communion, if I be not, and do not own myself to be a member.  
And yet this is the occasion of this mistake about Fixed and Occasional Communion; that according to the Laws of our Church, which are founded on great and wise reasons, and indeed according to the Laws of Catholic Communion, every Christian is bound to Communicate with that part of the Church, wherein he lives; now Men may have Houses in different Parishes, or distinct Dioceses, or may Travel into other parts of the Country, and Communicate with the Churches, which they find in those places, where they are, or they may sometimes go to Prayers, or hear a Sermon, or receive the Lords Supper at another Parish-Church; now our ordinary Communion with those Churches, where our constant Abode is, may be called constant Communion, and our Communion with those Churches, which we accidentally visit, and Communicate with, may be called occasional Communion; and all this without Schism, because we still Communicate, either with the same National Church, or (which is often the case of Travellers) with some other sound part of the Catholic Church, of which we are also members, and so still keep in the same Communion, and Communicate with no Churches, but those, of which we own ourselves members; as being all in the same Communion; as being either sincere members of the National or Catholic Church.  
From hence our Dissenters Conclude, that their Communion with an Independent, or Presbyterian, Church, of which they profess themselves fixed members, is as constant with their occasional Communion with the Church of England, when to serve some present turn, they hear the Prayers, and receive the Sacraments with us; as our fixed Communion with our Parish-Churches is, with our occasional Communion, with other Parish-Churches; which no Body accounts Schism, though when it is too frequent and causeless, it is a great disorder.  
But the difference between these two is vastly great, for in the First case, we only Communicate with such Churches, which are all in Communion with each other, and therefore he, who is a member of one, is a member of them all, and Communicates with them, wherever he is, as a member. But he, who is a fixed member of a Presbyterian, or Independent Church, cannot Communicate so much as occasionally, with the Church of England, as a member, because he is a member not only of another particular but of a separate Church; and it is impossible for any Man, who is one with himself, to be a member of two separate Churches, and whatever Acts of Worship we join in with other Churches, of which we are no members, they are not properly Acts of Communion.  
Having thus premised the explication of these terms, what is meant by Church, and what is meant by Church-Communion, and what is meant by Fixed or Constant, and occasional Communion, the right understanding of these things, will make it very easy to resolve those cases, which Immediately respect Church-Communion, and I shall Instance in these three.  
1. Whether Communion with some Church or other, especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties, be a necessary Duty, incumbent on all Christians.  
2. Whether constant Communion with that Church, with which occasional Communion is Lawful, be a necessary Duty.  
3. Whether it be Lawful for the same person, to Communicate with two separate Churches.  
Case 1. Whether Communion with some Church Case 1 or other, especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties, be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians.  
Now methinks the resolution of this is as plain, as whether it be necessary for every Man to be a Christian. For every Christian is Baptised into the Communion of the Church, and must continue a Member of the Church, till he renounce his Membership by Schism, or Infidelity, or be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastical censures.  
Baptism incorporates us into the Christian Church, that is, makes us Members of the Body of Christ, which is his Church and is frequently so called in Scripture. For there is but one Body and one Spirit, Eph. 
Eph. 5. 23. 4. 12.  4. 4. one Christian Church, which is animated and governed by the one Spirit of Christ. And we are all Baptised into this one Body. For as the Body is one, and 
Col. 1. 18.  hath many Members, and all the members of that one Body, being many, are one Body, so also is Christ, that is, the Christian Church, which is the Body of Christ, of which he is the Head; for by one Spirit we are all Baptised 
1 Cor. 12. 12, 13.  into one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or Free, and are all made to drink into one Spirit; for the body is not one member, but many.  
Now I have already proved, that Church Communion is nothing else, but Church-Membership, to be in Communion with the Church, and to be a member of the Church, signifying the same thing. And I think, I need not prove, that to be in a state of Communion contains both a right, and an Obligation to Actual Communion. He, who is a member of the Church, may Challenge all the Privileges of a member, among which Actual Communion is none of the least; to be admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Christian-Communion, to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments, and all other Christian Duties, which no Man who is not a member of the Church, has any right to. And he who is a member, is bound to perform all those Duties and Offices, which are Essential to Church Communion, and therefore is bound to Communicate with the Church in Religious Assemblies, to join in Prayers and Sacraments, to attend public Instructions, and to live like a member of the Church.  
But to put this past all doubt, that external and actual Communion is an essential Duty of a Church-member, I shall offer these plain proofs of it.  
1. That Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ, but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion, and therefore every visible Member, by virtue of his Membership, is bound to external and visible Communion, when it may be had.  
2. This is essential to the notion of a Church, as it is a Body and Society of Christians. For all Bodies and Societies of Men are Instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices to be performed by the Members of it. A Body of Men is a Community, and it is a strange kind of Community, in which every Member may act by itself, without any Communication with other Members of the same Body. And yet such a kind of Body as this, the Christian Church is, if it be not an essential Duty of every Member, to live in the exercise of visible Communion with the Church, when he can. For there is the same Law for all Members, and either all or none, are bound to actual Communion.  
But this is more absurd still, when we consider, that the Church is such a Body, as consists of variety of Members, of different Offices and Officers, which are of no use without actual and visible Communion of all its Members.  
To what purpose did Christ appoint such variety of Ministers in his Church, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, 
Eph. 4. 11, 12.  Pastors, and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ; to what purpose has he instituted a standing Ministry in his Church, to offer up the Prayers of the Faithful to God, to instruct, exhort, reprove, and adminster the Christian Sacraments, if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them, in all Religious Offices?  
3. Nay the Nature of Christian Worship obliges us to Church-Communion. I suppose, no Man will deny, but that every Christian is bound to Worship God according to our Saviour's Institution: and what that is, we cannot learn better, than from the Example of the Primitive Christians, of whom St. Luke gives us this account, that they continued Steadfast in the 
Acts 2. 41.  Apostles Doctrine, and Worship, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers.  
That which makes any thing in a Strict sense, an Act of Church-Communion is, that it is performed in the Fellowship of the Apostles, or in Communion with the Bishops and Ministers of the Church; They are appointed to Offer up the Prayers of Christians to God in his Name; and therefore though the private devotions of Christians are acceptable to God, as the Prayers of Church-Members, yet none but public Prayers, which are Offered up by Men who have their Authority from Christ, to Offer these Spiritual Sacrifices to God, are properly the Prayers of the Church, and Acts of Church-Communion. If then we must Offer up our Prayers to God according to Christ's Institution, that is, by the hands of persons Authorized and set apart for that purpose; we must of necessity join in the Actual and Visible Communion of the Church.  
The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is the principal part of Christian Worship, and we cannot Celebrate this Feast, but in Church-Communion; for this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common Supper, or Communion-Feast, which in all Ages of the Church, has been administered by Consecrated Persons, and in Church-Communion; for it loses its Nature and Signification, when it is turned into a private Mass, so that if every Christian is bound to the Actual performance of true Christian Worship, he is bound to an Actual Communion with the Christian Church.  
4. We may observe further; that Church Authority is exercised only about Church-Communion, which necessarily supposes, that all Christians, who are Church-Members and in a State of Communion, are bound to all the Acts of external and visible Communion with the Church. The exercise of Church Authority consists in Receiving in, or Shutting out of the Church. To receive into the Church, is to admit them to all external Acts of Communion, to Shut, or Cast out of the Church, is to deny them the external and visible Communion of the Church; not to allow them to Pray, or receive the Lords Supper, or perform any Religious Offices in the public Assemblies of the Church. Now all this Church Authority would signify nothing, were not External and Actual Communion, both the Privilege and Duty of every Christian; and yet this is all the Authority Christ hath given to His Church.  
5. And to confirm all this, nothing is more plain in Scripture, than that Separation from a Church, is to withdraw from the visible Communion of it, and there can be no Notion of Separation without this; now if Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion, then to live in Communion with the Church requires our Actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious Duties.  
And that this is the true Notion of Separation is easily proved from the most express testimonies; 2 Cor. 6. 17. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you: Where, come out from among them, and be ye separate, plainly signifies, to forsake the Assemblies of Idolaters, not to Communicate with them in their Idolatrous Worship; So that not to join with any Men or Church in their Idolatrous Worship, is to Separate from their Communion, which is a very Godly Separation, when the Worship is Idolatrous and Sinful, but a Schismatical Separation, when it is not. Thus St. John tells us of the Ancient Heretics, They went out from us because they were not of us, for if 
1 John. 2. 19  they had been of us, they would, no doubt, have continued with us, but they went out, that they might be made manifest, that they were not all of us. Where their going out from them, plainly signifies, their forsaking Christian Assemblies, upon which account the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews admonishes the Christians, not to forsake the Assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some is, in which he 
Heb. 10. 25.  refers to the Separation of those Ancient Heretics.  
And thus accordingly to have Fellowship or Communion with any, is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries. By this Argument St. Paul dissuades the Corinthians for Eating of the Idols Feast; because they were Sacrifices to Evil Spirits, and by partaking of those Sacrifices they had Communion with them. But I say, that the things, which the 
1 Cor. 10. 20, 21.  Gentiles Sacrifice, they Sacrifice to Devils, and not to God, and I would not that you should have Fellowship with Devils. Ye cannot Drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils, ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table, and of the Table of Devils. So that, though we must first be in a state of Communion with Christ, and his Church, must first be received into Covenant, and by Baptism be incorporated into the Christian Church, before we have any right to Communicate with this Church; yet no Man can preserve his Church-state without Actual Communion, no Man has Communion with Christ, or his Church, but he, who Actually Communicates in all Religious Offices, and Christian Institutions; a state of Communion confers a right to Communicate, but Actual Communion consists in the exercise of Communion, and a right to Communicate without Actual Communion is worth nothing, as no right or privilege is without the Exercise of it; for enjoyment consists in Acts, and all the Blessings of the Gospel, all the Blessings of Christian Communion, are conveyed to us by Actual Communion. So that if we would partake of the Blessings of Christ, if we would Reap the advantages of Church-Communion, we must live in Actual Communion, and not content ourselves with a dormant and useless right, which we never bring into Act.  
This is sufficient to prove, the necessity of Actual Communion with the Christian Church, when it may be had, for where it cannot be had, Non-Communion is no Sin, for we are not obliged to Impossibilities; he who lives in a Country, or travels through any Country, where there is no true Christian Church to Communicate with, cannot enjoy Actual Communion; the right and Duty of Communion continues, though necessity may suspend the Act. But the greater difficulty is, whether it be not Lawful, to suspend our Communion with any particular Churches, when we see the Church divided into a great many Parties and Factions, which refuse Communion with each other, which is the deplorable state of the Church at this day among us, Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Quakers, all Separate from the Church of England, and from each other, and from hence some conclude it Lawful to suspend Communion with all the divided Parties, which is just such a reason for a Total suspension of Church-Communion, as the different and contrary opinions in Religion are for Scepticism and infidelity. Because there are a great many kinds of Religions in the World, and a great many divided Sects of the Christian Religion, therefore some Men will be of no Religion; and because the Christian Church is divided into a great many opposite and Separate Communions, therefore others will be of no Church; and the reason is as strong in one case, as it is in the other, that is, indeed it holds in neither: For it is possible to discover, which is the true Religion, notwithstanding all these different and contrary persuasions about it, and it is equally possible to find out, which of these divided Communions is a true and Sound Member of the Catholic Church, and when we know that, we are bound to maintain Communion with it.  
Indeed if such Divisions and Separations, excuse us from Actual Communion with the Church, Actual Communion never was, and is never likely to be a Duty long together; for there never was any state of the Church so happy long together, as to be without divisions; even in the Apostles times, there were those, who Separated from the Communion of the Apostles, and set up private Conventicles of their own, and so it has been in all succeeding Ages of the Church, and so it is likely to continue, and if we are not bound to Communicate with the Church, while there are any Heretics, or Schismatics, who divide from the Church, farewell to all Church Communion in this World.  
Should any Man indeed Travel into a Strange Country, and there find a Schism in the Christian Church, it were very fitting for him to Suspend Communion with either Party, till he had opportunity to acquaint himself with the state of the Controversy, so as to judge, which party is the Schismatic; and then he is bound (if he understand their Language) to Communicate with the Sound and Orthodox part of the Catholic Church, which he finds in that place. But this does not reach the case of those, who are constant Inhabitants of the place, where the Schism is; for they must not live in a Sceptical suspension of Communion all their days.  
And there is one plain Rule to direct all Men in this Inquiry; That wherever there is a Church Established by public Authority, if there be nothing Sinful in its Constitution and Worship, we are bound to Communicate with that Church, and to reject the Communion of all other Parties and Sects of Christians. For the advantage always lies on the side of Authority, no public establishment can justify a Sinful Communion, but if there be nothing Sinful in the Communion of the National Church, which is Established by public Authority, to Separate from such a Church is both disobedience to the Supreme Authority in the State, and a Schism from the Church.  
But it will be convenient to consider, what these Men mean by suspending Communion. For is it Lawful for an English Man during these Church divisions among us, never to Worship God in any Public and Religious Assemblies? Never to Pray, nor Hear, nor receive the Lords Supper together? If this were so, it were the most Effectual way in the World to thrust out all Religion.  
But this they will not, they dare not say, and therefore by Suspending Communion they mean, that in case of such divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixed and settled Members of any Church, but Communicate occasionally with them all.  
But I have already observed how absurd this distinction of fixed and occasional Communion is. For no Act of Religion is an Act of Communion (not so much as of occasional Communion) which is not performed in the Communion of the Church; and no Man is in Communion with the Church, who is not a Member of it, and whoever is a Member of the Church is a fixed and not an occasional Member; and whatever Church he Communicates with, though it may be, it is but once in a Year, or once in his life, as he occasionally Travels that way, yet he Communicates as a fixed Member of the Catholic Church, and of every Sound part of the Catholic Church; for a fixed Member does not signify our fixed abode, or constant Acts of Communion in any particular Church, but our state of Communion, and fixed and permanent relation to the whole Christian Church, and every part of it, and therefore though a particular Act of Communion may be performed upon some particular occasion with such a particular Church, yet it is not an Act of occasional, but of fixed Communion, because though I Communicate but once and that occasionally, yet I Communicate as a Member of the Church, which is not an occasional but a fixed Relation.  
So that when Men Communicate occasionally, as they speak, with all the different Parties of Christians in a divided Church, they either Communicate with none, or Communicate with all of them. If they perform these Acts of Communion, without owning their relation to them, as Members, than they are in Communion with none of them, notwithstanding all these pretended Acts of occasional Communion, and so they live in Communion with no Church, which yet I hope, I have made it appear to be the Duty of every Christian to do; if they Communicate with all these divided Parties, as Members, than they are in Communion with many Separate Churches, are Members of Separate and Opposite Bodies, that is, they are contrary to themselves, and on one side or other, are certain to be Schismatics, but this will appear further from considering the two following Cases.  
Case 2. The Second Case is this; Whether constant Case 2 Communion be a Duty, where occasional Communion is Lawful. I have already made it appear, that the very notion of constant and occasional Communion is absurd, and a Contradiction to all the principles of Catholic Communion, and therefore there is no place for this distinction, nor for this question, every Christian, as a Christian, is a fixed Member of the whole Christian Church, and of every Sound part of it, and for Men to talk of being Members of any one particular Church, in distinction from all other particular Churches, of which they will not own themselves Members, is a Schismatical notion of Church-Membership, because it divides the Christian Church into distinct Memberships, and therefore into distinct Bodies, which makes the one Church and one Body of Christ, not one, but many Bodies: for if every particular Church has such a number of Members, which are Members only of that particular Church, wherein they are fixed, and are not Members of any other particular Church, than every particular Church is a distinct and entire Body by itself, which has particular Members of its own, which belong to no other Body; just as every particular Man has his own Body, which consists of such a number of Members, united to each other, and distinct from all other Bodies.  
The plain state of the Case in short is this: Every true Christian is in Communion with the whole Christian Church, that is, is a Member of the whole Church; but he must perform the Acts of Communion in some particular Church, and the only allowable difference between constant and occasional Communion is this; that we must perform the constant Acts of Communion in that part of the Catholic Church, in which we constantly live, and Communicate occasionally with that part of the Church, in which we are occasionally present; and therefore there never can be any Competition between constant and occasional Communion in the same place. I cannot Communicate constantly with that Church in which I Communicate occasionally, unless I remove my Habitation, and turn an occasional presence into a constant and settled abode; nor can I without sin Communicate only occcasionally with that Church, with which I may and aught to Communicate constantly, as being constantly present there, for this is only to do that sometimes, which I ought to do always. This is like a Man's living occcasionally in his own House, which signifies, that for the most part he is a stranger at home.  
There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place, one for occasional, and another for constant Communion, without Schism, For it is evident, these are two distinct Communions, and that our relation to them is as different, as it is to a House we live in, and to an Inn, where we lodge for a Night.  
So that there is no foundation for this Inquiry among Men, who understand the true Principles of Catholick-Communion; It never can be a Case of Conscience, whether I should Communicate constantly or occasionally with such a Church, unless it be a Case of Conscience, whether I should live constantly or occasionally within the bounds and jurisdiction of such a Church; for where my constant abode is, there my constant Communion must be, if there be a true and sincere part of the Catholick-Church in that place, and where I am only occasionally, there I can only Communicate occasionally also.  
But to meet with the distempers of this Age, and to remove those Apologies some Men make for their Schism, it is necessary to make this a question. For in this divided state of the Church, there are a great many among us, who think, they cannot maintain constant Communion with the Church of England, as constant and fixed Members, who yet upon some occasions think, they may Communicate with us in all parts of Worship, and Actually do so.  
Now when these Men, who are fixed Members, as they call it, of Separate Churches, think fit sometimes to Communicate in all parts of Worship with the Church of England, we charitably suppose, that Men, who pretend to so much tenderness of Conscience, and care of their Souls, will do nothing, not so much as once, which they believe, or suspect, to be sinful, at the time, when they do it; and therefore we conclude, that those, who Communicate occasionally with the Church of England, do thereby declare, that they believe, there is nothing sinful in our Communion; and we thank them for this good opinion they express of our Church, and earnestly desire to know, how they can justify their ordinary Separation from such a Church, as requires no sinful terms of Communion.  
If any thing less than sinful terms of Communion can justify a Separation, than there can be no end of Separations and Catholick-Communion is an Impossible and Impracticable notion, that is, the Church of Christ neither is one Body, nor ever can be. For if Men are not bound to Communicate with a Church, which observes our Saviour's Insttutions, without any such corrupt mixtures, as make its Communion sinful, then there is no bounds to be set to the Fancies of Men, but they may new model Churches, and divide and subdivide without any end.  
Is that a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholick-Church, which has nothing sinful in its Communion? If it be not, Pray what is it, that makes any Church Sound and Orthodox? If it be, upon what account is it Lawful, to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church? And may we not by the same reason Separate from the whole Catholic Church, as from any Sound part of it? Nay does not that Man Separate from the whole Catholic Church, who Separates from any Sound part of it? For the Communion of the Church is but one, and he, that divides and breaks this union, Separates himself from the whole Body.  
Excepting the Independency of Churches (which I have proved above to be Schism in the very notion of it) the great Pleas for Separation from a Church, which has nothing sinful in its Communion, are the pretence of greater Edification, and purer Ordinances. But these are such Pleas, as must expose the Church to Eternal Schisms, because there are no certain Rules to judge of these matters, but the various and uncertain fancies of Men. What they like best, that shall be most for their Edification, and these shall be purer Ordinances, and till Men can agree these matters among themselves, which they are never likely to do, till they can all agree in the same Diet; or in their judgement and opinion about beauty, decency, fitness convenience, they may and will divide without end; and if the Peace and Unity of the Church be so necessary a duty, it is certain, these Principles, which are so destructive to Peace and Unity, must be false, as to consider these things particularly, but very briefly.  
What purer Administrations and Ordinances would Men have, than those of our Saviour's own Institution, without any Corrupt and sinful mixtures, to spoil their virtue and efficacy? (as we suppose is acknowledged by those, who occasionally Communicate in all parts of our Worship, that there is nothing sinful in it) the purity of divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution, that there is neither any such defect or addition, as altars their Nature and destroys their Virtue. For the Efficacy of Gospel Ordinances depends upon their Institution, not upon particular modes of Administration, which are not expressly Commanded in the Gospel; and he, who desires greater purity of Ordinances than their conformity to their Institution, who thinks, that Baptism and the Lords Supper lose their Efficacy, unless they be administered in that way, which they themselves best like, are guilty of gross Superstition, and attribute the virtue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration, not to their Divine Institution.  
And what Men talk of greater Edification is generally as little understood as the other; for Edification is building up, and is applied to the Church, considered as God's House and Temple, and it is an odd way of building up the Temple of God, by dividing and Separating the parts of it from each other.  
This one thing well considered, viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edification or Building, according to the Scripture notion of it, does always primarily refer to, or at least include, Church-unity and Communion, is sufficient to convince any Man, what an ill way it is, to seek for greater Edification in breaking the Communion of the Church by Schism and Separation; and therefore I shall make it plainly appear, that this is the true Scripture notion of Edification; and to that end shall consider the most material places, where this word is used.  
Now the most proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which our Translators render by Edification, is a House or Building, and this is the proper Sense, wherein it belongs to the Christian Church, Ye are God's Husbandry, ye are God's Building, that is, the Church is 
1 Cor. 3. 9  God's House or Building, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus the same Apostle tells us, that in Christ, the whole Building 
Eph. 2. 21.  (i. e. the whole Christian Church) fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord. 
Matth. 21. 42.  Hence the Governors of the Church are called Builders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Apostles are called Labourers 
Acts 4. 11.  together with God, in erecting this Spiritual Building, and St. Paul calls himself a Master Builder. Hence 
1 Cor. 3. 9  the increase, growth and advances towards perfection 
10.  in the Church, is called the Building, or Edification of it. For this reason St. Paul commends Prophesy, or Expounding the Scriptures, before speaking in unknown Tongues without an Interpreter, because 
1 Cor. 14. 5.  by this the Church receives Building or Edification. All these Spiritual gifts, which were bestowed 
v. 12.  on the Christians, were for the Building and Edifying of the Church. The Apostolical power in Church censures was for Edification, not for Destruction, 
2 Cor. 10. 8. 12. 19 13. 10.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Build, and not to pull down, that is, to preserve the Unity of the Church entire, and its Communion pure.  
And we may observe that this Edification is primarily applied to the Church, That the Church may 
1 Cor. 14. 5. 12.  receive Edifying: That ye may excel to the Edifying 
Eph. 4. 12.  of the Church: For the Edifying of the Body of Christ. And it is very observable: wherein the Apostle places the Edification of the Body of Christ, viz. in Unity and Love. Till we all come in the Unity of the Faith, and of the 
13.  knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect Man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Till we are united by one Faith into one Body, and perfect Man. And speaking the truth in love, may grow up in him into 
15, 16.  all things, which is the head, Even Christ from whom the whole Body fitly joined together, and compacted by that, which every joint supplieth, according to the Effectual working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the Body, unto the Edifying itself in love. This is an admirable description of the Unity of the Church, in which all the parts are closely united and compacted together, as Stones and Timber are to make one House; and thus they grow into one Body, and increase in mutual Love, and Charity, which is the very Building and Edification of the Church, which is edified and Built up in love, as the Apostle adds, 
1 Cor. 8. 1.  that knowledge puffeth up, but charity Edifieth, this Builds up the Church of Christ; and that not such a common Charity as we have for all Mankind; but such a love and Sympathy, as is peculiar to the Members of the same Body; and which none but Members can have for each other, and now methinks I need not prove, that Schism and Separation, is not for the Edification of the Church; to Separate for Edification is to Pull down in stead of Building up.  
But these Men do not seem to have any great regard to the Edification of the Church, but only to their own particular Edification, and we must grant, that Edification is sometimes applied to particular Christians in Scripture, according to St. Paul's Exhortation, Comfort yourselves together, and Edify one another, 
1 Thes. 5. 11.  even as also ye do. And this Edifying one another without question signifies our promoting each others growth and progress in all Christian Graces and virtues: and so the Building and Edification of the Church, signifies the growth and improvement of the Church in all Spiritual Wisdom and knowledge, and Christian graces, the Edification of the Church consists in the Edification of particular Christians, but then this is called Edification or Building, because this growth and improvement is in the Unity and Communion of the Church, and makes them one Spiritual House and Temple. Thus the Church is called the Temple of God, and every particular Christian is God's Temple, wherein the Holy Spirit dwells, and yet God has but one Temple, and the Holy Spirit dwells only in the Church of Christ; but particular Christians are God's Temple, and the Holy Spirit dwells in them, as living Members of the Christian Church; and thus by the same reason, the Church is Edified and Built up, as it grows into a Spiritual House and Holy Temple by a firm and close Union and Communion of all its parts; and every Christian is Edified, as he grows up in all Christian Graces and Virtues in the Unity of the Church.  
And therefore whatever extraordinary means of Edification Men may fancy to themselves in a Separation, the Apostle knew no Edification, but in the Communion of the Church; and indeed if our growth and increase in all Grace and Virtue, be more owing to the internal assistances of the Divine Spirit, than to the external Administrations, as St. Paul tells us, I have planted, and Apollo's watered, but God gave the 
1 Cor. 3. 6, 7.  increase: So then, neither is he that planteth any thing, nor he that watereth; but God that gave the increase: And the Divine Spirit confines his influences and operations to the Unity of the Church (as the same Apostle tells us, that there is but one Body and 
Eph. 4. 4.  one Spirit, (which plainly signifies) that the operations of this one Spirit, are appropriated to this one Body, as the Soul is to the Body i● Animates) than it does not seem a very likely way for Edification to cut ourselves off from the Unity of Christ's Body.  
3. The Third and Last Case still remains, which Case 3 will be resolved in a few words, according to the Principles now laid down, which is this: Whether it be Lawful to Communicate with two distinct and Separate Churches. For this is thought of late days, not only a very Innocent and Lawful thing, but the true Catholick-Spirit, and Catholick-Communion, to Communicate with Churches of all Communions, unless perhaps they may except the Papists, and Quakers. It is thought a Schismatical Principle, to refuse to Communicate with those Churches, which withdraw Communion from us. And thus some, who Communicate ordinarily with the Church of England, make no Scruple to Communicate in Prayers and Sacraments with Presbyterian and Independent Churches, and Presbyterians can Communicate with the Church of England, and with Independents, whom formerly they charged with downright Schism; and some think it very indifferent, whom they Communicate with, and therefore take their turns in all. But this is as contrary to all the Principles of Church-Communion, as any thing can possibly be.  
To be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it, and to be a Member of two Separate and Opposite Churches, is to be as contrary to ourselves, as those Separate Churches are to each other.  
Christ hath but one Church, and one Body, and therefore where there are two Churches divided from each other by Separate Communions, there is a Schism and Rent in the Body, and whoever Communicates with both these Churches, on one side or other, Communicates in a Schism.  
That the Presbyterian and Independent Churches, have made an Actual Separation from the Church of England, I have evidently proved already; and therefore if the Communion of the Church of England be Lawful (as those, who can, and ordinarily do Communicate with the Church of England, must be presumed to acknowledge) than they are Schismatics, and to Communicate with them is to partake in their Schism.  
Now if Schism be an Innocent thing, and the true Catholic Spirit, I have no more to say, but that the whole Christian Church, ever since the Apostles times, has been in a very great mistake; but if Schism be a very great Sin, and that which will Damn us, as soon as Adultery and Murder, than it must needs be a dangerous thing to Communicate with Schismatics.  
The Sum of all in short is this. Besides these Men, who justify their Separation from the Church of England, by charging Her with requiring Sinful terms of Communion, (which is the only thing, that can justify their Separation, if it could be proved) there are others, who Separate lightly and wantonly, for want of a due sense of the Nature of Church-Communion, and our obligations to preserve the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace. They have no notion at all of a Church, or no notion of one Church, or know not, wherein the Unity and Communion of this Church consists; and these Men think, it is indifferent, whether they Communicate with any Church at all, or that they secure themselves from Schism by Communicating sometimes with one Church, and sometimes with another; that they may choose their Church according to their own fancies, and change again, when ever their humour altars. But I hope, who ever considers carefully, what I have now writ, and attends to those passionate Exhortations of the Gospel to Peace, and Unity, and Brotherly Love, which cannot be preserved but in one Communion, which is the Unity of the Body of Christ, and the Peace and Love of fellow Members, will not only hearty Pray to the God of Peace, to restore Peace and Unity to his Church, but will be careful, how he divides the Church himself, and will use his utmost endeavours to heal the present Schisms and Divisions of the Church of Christ.  
THE END.   

A LETTER TO ANONYMUS, In Answer to his Three Letters TO Dr. SHERLOCK ABOUT Church-Communion.  
LONDON: Printed for Fincham Gardiner, at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street. 1683.   

A LETTER TO ANONYMUS, In Answer to his Three LETTERS to Dr. SHERLOCK about Church-Communion.  
SIR,  
I Am very sorry, that my Silence and Patience has been mistaken by you for an affront and neglect; which is such a provocation, as I find some sort of great minds cannot bear.  
But yet that you may have a little mercy, I shall give you a brief account of the reason, why you had not an Answer before.  
I did not answer your first Letter in so public a manner as you desired, because I believed your Objections were such, as no body was concerned in but yourself, and I cannot think it decent to trouble so numerous an Auditory with every particular man's conceits. I did not answer your Second Letter, because by the Temper and Spirit of it, I easily foresaw, that it would end in a public Quarrel; and if I must be in Print, I henceforth resolve to Correct the Press myself, and not to suffer any man to Print my private Letters for me. But yet I called at Mr. R's Shop, whither you directed me, several times, to have Invited you to a private Conference, but could never see him, till I accidentally met him in the street, the same day I received the present of your Printed Letters. The reason why I Printed those Discourses, which you heard me Preach, was because they were designed for the Press, before they were designed for the Pulpit, and before I dreamt of your terrible Queries; and were Printed and Preached exactly by the same Copy, excepting the Introduction to fit them to a Text, which you know is very convenient for a Sermon. And the reason why I sent you one of those Tracts, when it was Printed, was because I did hope you might have had understanding enough, upon a careful perusal of it, when it lay before you, to have answered those Objections which you made against it, at the first hearing.  
And now Sir, I come to consider the Contents of your First Letter; you have made some Repetition of what I Discoursed, and a very good Repetition to be done by memory, which gives you the commendable Character of a diligent and attentive hearer: but when you had the Discourse before you in Print, you ought not then to have depended upon your memory, but to have given me my own again in my own words and order, and with that dependence and connexion, in which the whole strength of that Discourse consists; and to have applied your Queries distinctly to those parts of the Discourse, which they related to: Had you done this, you would either have been able to have resolved your own Queries, or would more effectually have convinced me of my mistake, or at least have given your Readers better satisfaction in the pertinency of what you say; but now you have only given us a heap of Queries, which it is no easy matter to know to what they relate.  
As for your Repetitions, the Reader who desires satisfaction may compare them with what I have writ, which is exactly the same with what I Preached: and as for your Queries, you know how easy a thing it is to ask Questions; however, I will endeavour to find out to what they belong, and give as plain and short an Answer to them as I can; for I assure you, I am not at leisure now to write a long Book upon this Argument, and therefore it is a great comfort to me, that there is no need of it.  
After your Repetition of what you could remember, or what you thought fit to take notice of in my Sermon, you give us a very mistaken Summary of it.  
To sum up (say you) what I take to be the force of all 
p. 4.  this.  
The Apostles and their Successors were by our Saviour invested with a power of receiving Members into his Church upon his Terms, and with such Rites as they should think fit; and they who are not so received into the Church, have no right to any of the blessings promised to the Members of Christ's Body.  
This Power is by an uninterrupted Succession, derived upon the Governors of our National Church, wherefore all others, that pretend to the exercise of this Power within this Nation, are Usurpers; and all the Laity Baptised by their Pastors, not being duly admitted into any particular Church, are so far from being Members of Christ's Body, that they are Usurpers and Traitors to that Power, which is derived from him in a right line. Durus hic Sermo.  
Had you not told the World in your Title-Page, that you are a Layman, to make your Triumph over a poor undone Dr. of Divinity the more glorious, I should have taken you to be the Founder of some new Sect of Conjectural Divines; and truly you are so happy in your guesses, that I believe few men will ever be able to outdo you in this Art. For there is not one word of all this matter in that Discourse, which you pretend to sum up, as it was delivered by me. That to which you seem to refer, is contained in one short Paragraph, which I shall Transcribe, and leave the most fanciful Reader to try his skill to sum it up as you have done. Having before asserted, that God only can Constitute a Church, I added, And I think it is as plain, that the only 
resolute. of Cases, p. 5.  visible way God has of Forming a Church (for I do not now speak of the Invisible Operations of the Divine Spirit) is by granting a Church-Covenant, which is the Divine Charter whereon the Church is Founded, and investing some persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Convenant, according to the terms and conditions of the Covenant, and by such Covenant-Rites, and Forms of Admission, as he is pleased to Institute; which under the Gospel is Baptism, as under the Law it was Circumcision.  
I was discoursing of God's visible way of Forming a Church, which I asserted to be by granting a Church-Covenant, which is that Divine Charter on which the Church is Founded; but than lest any one should question, how men are admitted into this Covenant, I added, that God had invested some Persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Covenant by Baptism; and by receiving them into Covenant, they make them Members of that Church, which is Founded on this Covenant.  
Now what of all this will any sober Dissenter deny? Here is no dispute, who is invested with this Power, what form of Church-Government Christ Instituted, whether Episcopal or Presbyterian; here is no Dispute about the validity of Orders, or Succession, or in what cases Baptism may be valid, which is not Administered by a valid Authority; This did not concern my present Argument, which proceeds upon a quite different Hypothesis, viz. the necessity of Communion with the one Church and Body of Christ, for all those who are, or would be owned to be Christians, or Members of Christ's Body. I make no inquiry, by whom they have been Baptised, or whether they were rightly Baptised or not; but taking all these things for granted, I inquire whether Baptism do not make us Church-Members; whether it makes us Members of a Particular or Universal Church; whether a Church-Member be not bound to Communion with the whole Catholic Church; whether he that separates from any sound part of the Catholic Church, be not a Schismatic from the whole Church; whether we be not bound to maintain constant Communion with that particular Church, in which we live, and with which we can, when we please, Communicate occasionally; whether it be consistent with Catholic Communion, to communicate with two Churches, which are in a state of Separation from each other: if you have any thing to say to these matters, you shall have a fair hearing; but all your Queries, which proceed upon a mistaken Hypothesis of your own, do not concern me; and yet to oblige you, if it be possible, I shall briefly consider them.  
1. Your first Query is, Whether a Pious Dissenter supposed to be received into the Church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient Power, is in as bad a condition as a Moral Heathen, or in a worse than a Papist.  
Ans. The Catholic Church has been so indulgent to Heretics and Schismatics, as to determine against the Necessity of Rebaptization, if they have been once, though irregularly baptised. This you may find a particular account of, in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still. p. 22. etc. But the question is, whether if they continue Schismatics, whatever their other pretences to Piety be, their Condition be not as dangerous, as the Condition of Moral Heathens and Papists.  
2. Whether the Submission to the Power and Censures of this Church, (which all must own to be a sound Church) be part of the Divine Covenant, which Unites the Members of the Catholic Church to God and to each other.  
Ans. This is a captious question, which must be distinctly answered. A general Submission and Obedience to the Authority and Censures of the Church, though it cannot properly be called a part of that Divine Covenant whereon the Church is founded, which primarily respects the promise of Salvation by Christ through Faith in his Blood; yet it is a necessary Church-Duty, and Essential to Church-Communion, and so may be called a part of the Covenant, if by the Covenant we understand all those Duties which are required of baptised Christians, and Members of the Church, by a Divine positive Law, as Obedience to Church-governors is.  
But then Obedience to the Church of England is not an universal Duty incumbent on all Christians, but only on those, which are, or aught to live, in Obedience to this particular Church: for the particular exercises of church-authority and Jurisdiction is confined within certain limits, as of necessity it must be; and though all Orthodox Churches must live in Communion with each other, yet no particular Church can pretend to any original Authority over another Church, or the Members of it, as is the constant Doctrine of Protestants, in opposition to the Usurpations of the Church of Rome. But I perceive Sir you know no difference between the Authority and Power, and the Communion of the Church.  
But you add, If it be, then as he who is not admitted into this Church, is no Member of the Catholic, and has no right to the benefits of being a Member of Christ's Body: so is it with every one, who is excluded by Church-Censures, though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect, nay, for a wrongful cause.  
Truly Sir, I know not how any man is admitted into the Church of England, any otherwise than as he is admitted into the whole Catholic Church, viz, by Baptism, which does not make us Members of any particular Church, but of the Universal Church, which Obliges us to Communicate with that part of the Catholic Church wherein we live; and whoever lives in England, and renounces Communion with the Church of England, is a Schismatic from the Cathelick Church.  
And whoever is Excommunicated from one sound part of the Catholic Church, is Excommunicated from the whole. But then, there is this difference between Excommunication and Schism; the first is a Judicial Sentence, the second is a Mans own Choice; the first is not valid unless it be inflicted for a just cause, the second is always valid, and does in its own nature cut Men off from all Communion with Christ's Body. I say in its own Nature, for I will not pretend to determine the final States of Men, for I know not what gracious allowances God will make for some Schismatics, no more than I do what favour he may allow to other Sinners.  
But you proceed. If it be no part of the Divine Covenant, than a Man that lives here may be a true Member of the Catholic Church, though he is not in Communion with this Sound Church.  
This is another Horn of your formidable Dilemma. If Obedience to the Authority and Censures of the particular National Church of England is no part of the Divine Covenant, than those Baptised Christians, who live in England, are not bound to the Communion of the Church of England, and may be Catholic Christians for all that. As if because the Subjects of Spain are not bound to obey the King of England, therefore English Men are not bound to obey him neither, but may be very good Subjects for all that.  
We are bound by the Divine Law, to live in Communion with all true Catholic Churches, and to obey the Governors of the Church wherein we live; and therefore though Obedience to the Church of England be not a Law to all the World, yet it is a Law to all English Christians inhabiting in this Church. But your way of arguing is, as if a Man should say, It is a Divine Law to obey Civil Magistrates, but there is no Divine Law that all the World should obey the King of England, France or Spain, therefore French or English Subjects are not bound to obey their own Prince. Oh what comfortable Doctrine is this to some Men!  
You proceed. But you will say (which I think is not much to the question) that he ought to Communicate, if Communion may be had.  
Yes, I do say this; and I believe by this time you see, or at least others will see, that it is much to the question.  
But then Query, whether the Dissenters may not reply, that they are ready to Communicate, if the Communion be not clogged with some things, which are no part of the Divine Covenant.  
Yes, they may reply so if they please, or Anonymus for them; but whoever does it, the reply is very weak and impertinent. It is weak, because Obedience to Authority, in all lawful things, is in a large notion part of the Divine Covenant: And it is very impertinent, because the Supposition of Communicating, where Communion may be had, supersedes that Query. For Communion cannot be had, where there are any sinful Terms of Communion: and though I assert, that the Church must be founded on a Divine Covenant, I never said, that nothing must be enjoined by the Church, but what is expressed in that Covenant. A Corporation, which is founded upon a Royal Charter, you know, may have Authority to make By-Laws, which shall oblige all the Members of it, and so are Terms of Communion with it; and yet it is the Charter, not these By-Laws, whereon the Corporation is founded. I was not concerned to Examine the Terms of Communion, (that is, and will be done by other hands) but, supposing nothing Sinful in our Communion, whether all Christians, that live in this Church, are not bound to live in Communion with it.  
Q. 3. Your next Query concerns the Derivation of Church-Power from Christ himself, without any immediate Derivation from other Church-governors; which does not at all concern my Doctrine of Church-Communion; for whether it be so or so, still we are bound to maintain Communion with all sound parts of the Catholic Church; so church-authority be Derived from Christ any way, it is well enough, but then we must be sure that it is so: and if Christ have appointed no ordinary way for this, but by the hands of Men, who received their Authority immediately from himself, I know not who can appoint any other way.  
But may not a Layman preach the Gospel and gather a Church in a Heathen Country, where there is none of the Clergy to do it? I suppose he may; and if you please to consult the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleets Unreasonableness of Separation, p. 331, etc. you will find this case largely debated.  
But it seems it doth not satisfy you, that this be allowed only in case of Necessity, for then up start two other Queries.  
1. Whether this will not put the being of our Church upon a very hazardous issue, and oblige yourself to prove, that it was a true Church before the Reformation?  
Ans. This is no hazard at all, for the Church of England was certainly a true, though a corrupt, Church before the Reformation, as the Church of Rome is at this day. A true Church is that which has every thing Essential to the being of a Church, though mixed with such other Corruptions, as make its Communion dangerous and sinful, as a Diseased Man is a true Man; and remove these Corruptions, and then it is not only a true, but a sound Church, as the Church of England is at this day. And if you will not allow this, I doubt, Sir, all private Christians will be at as great a loss for their Baptism, as the Church will be for Orders. But the case of a True 
Vindicat. p. 64. etc.  and Sound and Catholic Church, if you please, you may see Stated in the same Book to which I referred you before.  
And thus your second Query is answered, that though this Church was Antichristian before the Reformation, yet there was not the same Necessity for private Christians to usurp the Ministerial Office without a regular Authority, as there is for a Layman in a Heathen Nation, because an Antichristian, that is, the most corrupt Church, retains the Power of Orders, as well as of Sacraments.  
As for that Independent Principle, that Christ has instituted a Power in the Church to ordain her own Officers, you may see it Examined in the Defence of Dr. Still. Vnr. of Sep. p. 306, etc.  
But what now is all this to me? I don't charge our Dissenters with Schism from the Invalidity of their Orders, but for their causeless and sinful Separation. Let us suppose, that they have no need of any Orders, or that such Orders as they have are good, or that they had Episcopal Orders, and were Governed by Bishops of their own, as the Donatists were, yet they would be never the less Schismatics for that, while they separate from the Church of England, and from each other. If Orders be necessary, and they have no Orders, than they are no Churches at all; if they have true Orders, and are true Churches, but yet divide Christian Communion by Separating from any Sound part of the Christian Church, they are Schismatics.  
4. Q Whether from the Supposition, that there ought to be but one Church-Covenant throughout the Catholic Church, that there cannot be one true Church within another, and that the Nature of Catholick-Communion is such, that one ought to be ready to Communicate with any Sound Church, from which one is not hindered by reason of the Distance of Place? it does not follow.  
Ans. Fair and Softly! let us first consider the Suppositions, before we consider what follows from them; for you have so misrepresented, so curtailed these Propositions, and so mixed and blended things of a different Nature, that it is necessary to restore them to their true Sense and proper Place again, before we can tell what follows.  
I asserted, that the Christian Church is founded upon a Divine Covenant, and since God hath made but one Covenant with mankind in Christ Jesus, therefore there can be but one Christian Church throughout the World, 
Resol. of Cases, p. 8.  founded on this one Covenant.  
Having explained the general notion of Church Communion, which signifies no more than Church-Fellowship and 
p. 10.  Society, that to be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of the Church, I came to inquire, what made a Separate Church. For if there be but one Church and one Communion, of which all true Christians and Christian Churches 
p. 19  are or aught to be Members, than those Churches, which are not Members of each other, are Separate Churches. And for a fuller explication of this, I observed several 
p. 20.  things.  
1. That there must be but one Church in one Place. Because there is no other Rule of Catholick-Communion, but to Communicate in all Religious Offices, and all Acts of Government and Discipline, with those Christians with whom they live. For to Renounce the Ordinary Communion of Christians, or true Christian Church, is to divide the Unity and Communion of the Church; and to withdraw ourselves from Ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live, into 
p. 21.  distinct and separate Societies for Worship, is to Renounce their Communion, and when there is not a necessary cause for it, is a Schismatical Separation.  
And a little after I added, If all Christians are Members of the one Body of Christ, nothing can justify the distinction of Christians into several Churches, but only such a distance of place, as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops, for the greater Edification of the Church in the more easy and regular Administration of Discipline. And therefore nothing can justify the gathering a Church out of a Church, and dividing Neighbour Christians into distinct Communions. Now then let us consider what follows.  
1. You say, either that the French Protestants have no Church here, but are Schismatics in not Communicating with ours; Or that ours is guilty of Schism, in making the Terms of Communion so straight, that it is not the Duty of of every one (though a licenced Stranger) to Communicate with this Church.  
Ans. If any Foreign Church among us, which by Royal Favour is allowed the Observation of their own Discipline and Rules of Worship, Renounce Communion with the Church of England, or Communicate with our Separatists, she is Schismatical herself; as the Protestant Churches in France, Geneva, or Holland would be, should they do the like. But if there be any reason to allow those Foreigners, which are among us, to Form and Model their Congregations according to the Rules of their own Churches to which they originally belong, this is no more a Schism, than there is between the Protestant Churches of France and England, which own each others Communion.  
A bare Variety of Rites and Ceremonies makes no Schism between Churches; our Church pretends not to give Laws to other Churches, in such matters, but leaves them to their Liberty, as she takes her own: and why an Ecclesiastical Colony may not for great reasons be Transplanted into another Church, as well as a Civil Colony into another Kingdom, while they live in Communion with each other, I cannot tell. It is a different thing to gather a Church out of a Church, and to Transplant some Members of one Church into another (maintaining the same Communion, though with some peculiar and different usages) with the consent of the Church to which they come.  
The case of Strangers and Natives has always been accounted very different, both upon a Religious and Civil account: Every particular National Church has Authority over her own Members, to direct and Govern her own Communion, and prescribe the Rules of Worship; but as she does not Impose upon other Churches at a distance, so she may allow the same liberty to the Members of such Foreign Churches, when they live within her Jurisdiction, without breach of Communion: for though the Communion of the whole Christian Church is but one, and all true Catholic Churches are Members of each other, yet the Authority and Jurisdiction is different; every Church challenging a peculiar Authority, which it exerciseth in its own Communion; and therefore for the Church of England to suffer Foreign Churches to observe their own Customs and Usages, is not to allow of distinct and separate Communions in her own Bowels, (which were Schismatical,) but only to exempt such Congregations of Strangers from her particular Jurisdiction, and to leave them to the Government and Authority of the Church to which they belong.  
There was no such thing indeed allowed in the Primitive Church, as distinct Congregations of Foreigners under a different Rule and Government; and it were very desirable, that all Christians who have occasion to live in other Countries, would conform to all the innocent and laudable customs of the Church where they sojourn, which seems most agreeable too Catholic Communion; but yet distinct Congregations of Foreigners, who own the Communion of our Church, though they observe the customs of their own, are not Schismatical, as the Separate Conventicles of Dissenters are.  
2. But does it not follow from the obligation to communicate, or to be ready to communicate with any true Church where distance does not hinder, that a Member of the Church of England is not obliged to constant Communion with that Church, but may occasionally communicate with the French Church, nay with Dissenters too, if he believes that any of their Congregations is a true Member of the Catholic Church?  
Ans. This is a great Mastery of Wit, to turn my own Artillery upon me. I prove the Dissenters to be Schismatics, because they set up a Church within a Church, whereas there ought to be but one Church and one Communion in one place, every Christian being bound to Communicate with the sound part of the Catholic Church in the place wherein he lives; for according to the Laws of Catholic Communion, nothing but distance of place can suspend our obligation to actual Communion; Hence you conclude, that we must Communicate with Schismatics, if there be any among us, or so near to us, that distance does not hinder our Communion. But you should consider, that our obligation to Catholic Communion does equally oblige us to renounce the Communion of Schismatics whether at home or abroad; and though we should allow them to be true Churches, yet if Schismatical, they are not Catholic Churches, and therefore not the objects of Catholick-Communion.  
But however, we may lawfully Communicate with the French Church that is among us, as occasion serves. Yes, no doubt we may, because they are in Communion with us. But than follows the Murdering consequence, that a Member of the Church of England is not bound to a constant Communion with her. I pray, why so? every Member, as a Member, is in constant Communion; for to be in Communion with 
Resol. of Cases, p. 10.  a Church, is to be a Member of it, as I proved at large: but then Church-Communion does not primarily respect a Particular but the Universal 
p. 13.  Church, and therefore it is no interruption of our Communion with the Church of England to Communicate actually with any Church, which is in Communion with her: for as all Christians, who are neither Heretics nor Schismatics, are Members of the Catholic Church, so they are in Communion with the Catholic Church, and every sound part of it. The State of Communion is constant with the whole Catholic Church, the acts of Communion are performed sometimes in one part of it, sometimes in another, as our presence, abode, or occasions, require; and thus it is possible actually to Communicate with the French Church, either in England or out of England, without interrupting our Communion with the Church of England; for the Communion is one and the same in all Christian Churches, which are in Communion with each other, though they may observe different Rites and Modes of Worship.  
And this I suppose is a Sufficient answer to that other untoward consequence, that if the Members of the Church of England may occasionally Communicate with the French Church, then Constant Communion is not always a Duty, where occasional Communion is lawful; I suppose, because we are not bound to a constant actual or presential Communion with the French Church, though we may occasionally Communicate with it.  
But certainly, Sir, Had you ever considered, what I discoursed about constant and occasional Communion, you would not have made such an Objection as this: For this is a Modern distinction, which has no sense at the bottom, as I plainly showed. But however, by constant Communion, our Dissenters understand the performing the Acts of Communion, always or ordinarily in the same Church; and by occasional Communion, performing the Acts of Communion sometimes, or as occasion serves, in another Church; now with respect to this Notion of constant or occasional Communion, as it signifies the constant and ordinary, or the Occasional Acts of Communion, must that question be understood, whether Constant Communion he a Duty, where Occasional Communion is Lawful; the meaning of which question is this, whether when other reasons and circumstances determine my Personal Communion Ordinarily to one Church, it be not my Duty to Communicate ordinarily with that Church, if I can lawfully Communicate sometimes with it: and there being no other reason to justify non-Communion with any Church with which I am bound for other reasons Ordinarily to Communicate, but only Sinful Terms of Communion, and there being no Colour for such a Pretence, where occasional Communion is acknowledged Lawful, (for Sinful Terms of Communion make occasional as well as constant Acts of Communion Sinful) I hence conclude, that it is a necessary Duty to Communicate constantly or ordinarily with that Church in which I live, if it be Lawful to Communicate occasionally, or sometimes, with it.  
But if any Man will be so perverse as to understand this Question, as you now do, not of the Communion of a Church which for other reasons we are bound to Communicate Ordinarily with, but of any Church with which I may Lawfully Communicate as occasion serves, it makes it an absurd and senseless Proposition, to say, that constant Communion (by that meaning presential and personal Communion) is always a Duty, where occasional Communion is lawful. For at this rate, if occasional Communion with the Protestant Churches of France, Geneva, Holland, Germany, be Lawful, it becomes a necessary Duty for me to Communicate always personally and presentionally with all these Churches at the same time, which no man can do, who can be present but in one place at a time. But yet thus far the Proposition holds universally true, that whatever Church I can occasionally Communicate with without Sin, I am also bound to Communicate constantly with, whenever such reasons, as are necessary to determine my Communion to a particular Church, make it my Duty to do so. And no man in his Wits ever understood this Question in any other sense.  
But this you think cannot be my meaning; For accorcording to me, no Man is obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than another, provided the distance is not so great, but that he may Communicate with both.  
It is wonderful to me, Sir, how you should come to fasten so many absurd Propositions upon me; and I would desire of you for the future, if you have no regard to your own Reputation, yet upon Principles of Common Honesty, not to write so hastily, but to take some time to understand a Book, before you undertake to confute it.  
Where do I say, that no man is Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another? I assert indeed, that no Baptised Christian is a Member of any particular Church, considered merely as particular, but is a Member of the universal Church, and of all sound Orthodox Churches, as parts of the Universal Church. This puts him into a State of Communion with the whole Church, without which he cannot be properly said to perform any Act of Church-Communion, though he should join in all the Acts and Offices of Christian worship: But is there no difference between being a Member of the Universal Church, and of all particular Churches, which are Parts and Members of the Universal Church, and not to be Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another? The first supposes, that every Christian, whatever particular Church he actually Communicates in, is a Member of the whole Christian Church, and of all particular Sound Churches; the second supposes the quite contrary, that Christians are so Members of one Church, as they are not of another; that constant Communion in a particular Church confines their Church-Membership to that particular Church in which they Communicate.  
So that the question is not, what Church I must be a Member of; for every Christian is a Member of the whole Church, not merely of this or that particular Church; but what particular Church I must Communicate in: now our Obligation to Communicate in a certain particular Church, results from the place wherein we live; The Church in which we were Born and Baptised, and have our Ordinary abode and Residence, the Church which is incorporated into the State of which we are Natural Subjects, if it be a true and sound Christian Church, Challenges our Communion and Obedience.  
Now in the same place, there never can be any Competition between two Churches, because there must be but one Church in the same place, and therefore there can be no dispute in what Church we must constantly Communicate, which must be the Church in which we live.  
But is there not a French, and a Dutch, as well as an English Church in London, and since distance of place does not hinder, may we not choose, which of these we will ordinarily Communicate with?  
I answer no, we have only the Church of England in England. The French Church is in France, and the Dutch Church is in Holland, though there is a French and Dutch Congregation allowed in London. These Congregations belong to their own Original Churches, and are under their Government and Censures; but there is no Church-Power and Authority in England, but only of the Church of England, and therefore though we may occasionally Communicate with the French Congregation, our Obligation to constant Communion is with the Church of England, which alone has Authority and Jurisdiction in England to require our Communion and Obedience: one particular Church is distinguished from another not by a distinct and separate Communion, which is Schismatical, but by distinct Power and Jurisdiction; and that Church within whose Jurisdiction we live, can only Challenge our Communion; and I suppose no Man will say, that in this sense, we live in the French or Dutch Church, because there is a French and Dutch Church allowed among us.  
5. Your next Query is, Whether a true Christian, though not visibly admitted into Church-Communion, where he wants the Means, has not a virtual Baptism in the Answer of a good Conscience towards God, according to 1. Peter, 2. 21.  
Ans. What this concerns me, I cannot tell. I speak only of the Necessity of Visible Communion in Visible Members, you put a question, whether the want of Visible Admission by Baptism, when it can't be had, may not be supplied with the answer of a good Conscience towards God. I hope in some cases it may, though I do not hope this from what St. Peter says, who only speaks of that Answer of a good Conscience, which is made at Baptism, not of that, which is made without it. But what God will accept of in this case, is not my business to determie; unbaptised Persons are no Visible Members of the Church, and therefore not capable of Visible Communion, and therefore not concerned at all in this dispute.  
6. Query, Why a professed Atheist, who has been Baptised, and out of Secular Interest continues a Communicant with this Church, is more a Member of the Catholic Church than such as are above described.  
Ans. Neither Atheists nor Schismatics are Members of the Catholic Church. But this is a vile insinuation against the Governors and Government of our Church, as if professed Atheists were admitted to Communion. Though possibly there may be some Atheists, yet I never met yet with one, who would profess himself an Atheist. If I should, I assure you, I would not admit him to Communion, and I hope there is no Minister of the Church of England would; and I am sure, no Man, who had any kindness for the Church, with which he pretends to hold Communion, would ask such a question.  
7. Query. Whether as the Catholic Church is compared to a Body of Men incorporated by one Charter should upon supposition of a possibility of the forfeiture of the Charter to the whole Body, by the Miscarriages of any of the Officers, does it likewise follow that the Miscarriages of any of the Officers, or the Church Representative, as I remember Bishop Sanderson calls the Clergy, may forfeit the Privileges given by Christ to his Church, or at least may suspend them? As suppose a Protestant Clergy taking their Power to be as large as the Church of Rome claimed, should deny the Laity the Sacraments, as the Popish did in Venice, and here in King John's time, during the Interdicts, quid inde operatur?  
Ans. Just as much as this Query does the reason of which I cannot easily guests. I asserted indeed, that as there is but one Covenant on which the Church is founded, so there can be but one Church to which this Covenant belongs; and therefore those, who divide and separate themselves from this one Body of Christ, forfeit 
Resol. of Cases, p. 8. etc.  their right to this Covenant, which is made only with the one Body of Christ; which I illustrated by the instance of a Charter granted to a particular Corporation, which no Man had any interest in, who divided himself from that Corporation to which this Charter was granted: but what is this to forfeiting a Charter by the Miscarriages of Officers? I doubt Sir, your Head has been Warmed with Quo Warrantoes, which so affect your Fancy, that you can Dream of nothing else.  
I was almost afraid, when your hand was in, I should never have seen an end of these Questions; and I know no more reason, why you so soon left off ask Questions, than why you asked any at all; for I would undertake to ask five hundred more, as pertinent to the business as most of these. You have not indeed done yet, but have a reserve of particular Queries; but general Queries are the most formidable things, because it is harder to find what they relate to, than how to Answer them.  
You have three sets of Queries relating to three several Propositions, besides a parting blow of four Queries relating to my Text.  
The first Proposition you are pleased to question me about is this, That our Saviour made the Apostles and their Successors Governors of his Church, with promise to be with them to the end of the World. Which I alleged to prove, that when the Church is called the Body of Christ, it does not signify a confused multitude of Christians, but a regular Society under Order and Government.  
Now Sir, is this true or false? if it be false, than the Church is not a governed Society, is not a Body, but a confused heap and multitude of Independent Individuals, which is somewhat worse than Independent Churches. If it be true, why do you ask all these Questions, unless you have a mind to confute our Saviour, and burlesque his Institutions: but since I am condemned to answer questions, I will briefly consider them.  
1. Whether our Saviour's promise of Divine Assistance, did not extend to all the Members of the Church, considering every man in his respective station and capacity, as well as the Apostles, as Church-governors? For which you may compare St. John with St. Matthew.  
Ans. No doubt but there are promises, which relate to the whole Church, and promises which belong to particular Christians, as well as promises which relate peculiarly to the Apostles and Governors of the Church, in the exercise of their Ministerial Office and Authority: but what then? Christ is with his Church, with his Ministers, with particular Christians, to the end of the World, but in a different manner, and to different purposes; and yet that promise there is peculiarly made to the Apostles, including their Successors also; for the Apostles themselves were not to continue here to the end of the World, but an Apostolical Ministry was.  
2. Therefore Query, Whether it signifies any thing to say there is no promise to particular Churches, provided there be to particular Persons, such as are in charity with all Men, and are ready to communicate with any Church which requires no more of them, than what they conceive to be their duty; according to the Divine Covenant?  
Ans. It seems to me to be a harder Query, what this Query means; or how it concerns that Authority, which our Saviour has given to his Apostles for the Government of the Church; to which this Query relates. I asserted indeed, that Christ hath made no Covenant with any particular, but only with the Universal Church, which includes particulars as Members of it; nor has he made any promise to particular Persons, but as Members of the Church, and in Communion with it, when it may be had upon lawful terms. Whoever breaks the Communion of the Church without necessary reason, though he may in other things be a very good natured man, yet he has not true Christian Charity, which unites all the Members of the same Body in one Communion; and though the Church may prescribe Rules of Worship, which are not expressed in the Divine Covenant, this will not justify a Separation, if she commands nothing which is forbid; for the very Authority Christ has committed to his Ministers, requires our obedience to them in things lawful; and if Men will adhere to their own private Fancies in opposition to Church-Authority, they are guilty of Schism, and had best consider, whether such pride and opinionativeness will be allowed for excuse.  
3. Whether if the promise you mention be confined to the Apostles, as Church-governors, it will not exclude the Civil Power.  
Ans. There are peculiar promises made to Church-governors, and to Civil Magistrates; their Authority and Power is very distinct, but very consistent.  
4. What was the extent of the promise, whether it was to secure the whole Church, that its Governors should never impose unlawful Terms of Communion, or that there never be a defection of all the Members of the Catholic Church, but that there should always be some true Members?  
Ans. The promise is, that Christ will be with them in the discharge of their Ministry, and Exercise of their Power, and this is all I know of the matter; our Saviour gave them Authority to Govern the Church, and this was to last to the end of the World, as long as there is any Church on Earth, which is all I cited it for, and so much it certainly proves.  
The Second Proposition: you raise Queries on, is this. 'Tis absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of Baptised Christians.  
This I do indeed assert, that since the Church is founded on a Divine Covenant, and to be in Covenant with God, and to be Members of his Church, is the same thing; therefore Baptism whereby we are received into Covenant with God, makes us Members of the Church also; and this makes it very absurd, to gather a Church out of Churches of Baptised Christians, which supposes that they were not a Church before: instead of considering the reason, whereon this is founded, as every honest Writer should do, you only put a perverse Comment on it.  
By which (say you) I suppose you mean, That Men ought not to Separate from such, and live in a distinct Church-Communion from any Church of Baptised Christians; which I conceive needs explaining. But if this were true, it were plain enough, but the fault is, that it is not true; for we may Separate from any Church of Baptised Christians, if their Communion be Sinful; which justifies a Separation from the Church of Rome, and answers your two first Queries.  
But indeed the Proposition, as asserted by me, does not so much as concern a Separation from a Church, let the cause be what it will, just or unjust. For the Independents, who are the Men for gathering Churches, do not own, that they Separate from any Church, but that they form themselves into a Church-State, which they had not before, and which no Christians, according to their Principle, have, who are not Members of Independent Churches. Baptism, they acknowledge, makes Men Christians at large, but not Church-Members, which I shown must needs be very absurd, if the Church be a Body and Society of Men founded on a Divine Covenant; for then Baptism, which admits us into Covenant with God, makes us Members of the Church; and they may as well rebaptize Christians, as form them into new Church-Societies.  
This I suppose may satisfy you, how impertinent all your Queries are under this head.  
Your two first concern the Separation from the Church of Rome, which was not made upon Independent Principles, because they were no Church, but because they were a corrupt Church.  
3. Whether every Bishopric in England be not so many Churches within the National. Ans. Every Bishopric is a distinct Episcopal Church, and the Union of them in one National Communion, makes them not so many Churches, within a National, but one National Church; which you may see explained at large in the Defence of Dr. Still. Vnr. of Separation.  
4. And therefore Independent and Presbyterian Churches are indeed within the National (Churches within a Church, which is Schismatical) but not one National Church, as Bishoprics are.  
5. And therefore though we should allow them to have the External Form and all the Essentials of a Church (which is a very liberal grant) yet they are not in Catholic Communion, because they are Schismatics.  
6. And this is all I am to account for, that they are not in Visible Communion with that one Church and Body of Christ to which the promises are made. But what allowances Christ will make for the mistakes of honest wellmeaning Men, who divide the Communion of the Church, I cannot determine. I can hope as Charitably, as any Man, but I dare not be so Charitable, as to make Church-Communion an indifferent thing, which is the great Bond of Christian Charity.  
3dly. You take occasion for your next Queries, from what I say of the Independent Church-Covenant; you say, I suppose, that the Independents exclude themselves from Catholic Communion, by requiring of their Members a new contract, no part of the Baptismal vow.  
I prove indeed from their placing a Church-State in a particular explicit Covenant between Pastor and People, that they separate themselves from the whole Body of Christians; for no other Christians, which are not in Covenant with them, are Members of their Church, nor can they be Members of any other Church. And I proved that those are Separate Churches, 
Resol. of Cases. p. 10. 32.  which are not Members of each other, and do not own each others Members for their own. For the Notion of Church-Communion consists in Church-Membership, and therefore no Man is in Communion with that Church of which he is no Member; and if no Man can be a Member of a Church, but by such an explicit Independent Covenant, than he is a Member of no Church but that, with which he is in Covenant, and consequently is in Communion with no Church, but that particular Independent Congregation of which he is a Member by a particular Covenant. And if those be Schismatics and Schismatical Churches, which are not in Communion with each other, than all Independents must be Schismatics, for they are in Communion with none, but their own Independent Congregations. Let us now hear your Queries.  
Q. 1. Whether any Obstacle to Catholic Communion brought in by Men, may not be a means of depriving Men of it, as well as Covenant or Contract?  
Ans. Yes it may, but with this Material difference: Other things hinder Communion as Sinful Terms of Communion, this Independent Covenant in its own Nature Shuts up, Encloses, and breaks Christian Communion into as many Separate Churches and Communions, as there are Independent Congregations. Sinful Terms of Communion are a just cause of Separation; an Independent Church-Covenant is a State of Separation in its own Nature. The Communion of the Church may be restored by removing those Sinful Terms of Communion, but there can be no Catholic Unity or Communion in the Church under Independency.  
Q. 2. If it may, which I suppose you will not deny, will you not then upon this account, make the Church you live in more guilty than the Independents? Baptism you own is the only thing, which admits into the Catholic Church, but they require no new Covenant at Baptism, Ergo, they admit into the Church without any clog or hindrance of humane Inventions.  
Ans. Pray what comparison is there between the Church of England and Independency? Whatever fault the Church of England may be charged with, as to its Rites and Ceremonies (which I will not now dispute with you) yet all this is capable of a Remedy; she may give occasion to Schism, if she imposes any unlawful and Sinful Terms of Communion, but yet the Frame and Essential constitution of the Church is not Schismatical; but Independency is Schism in the very notion of it, and an Independent Conventicle is never capable of becoming a Member of the Catholic Church.  
But you say, I own that Baptism is the only thing which admits into the Catholic Church, i. e. which makes us Members of the Universal Church, and all sound parts of it, and that nothing else is necessary to make a Church-Member. Very right! I do own this; but what is my owning this, to the Independents? For they do not, and will not own it; they admit into their Churches, not by Baptism, but by a Human and Voluntary Covenant, and will own none for Church-Members but such. Baptism at most gives Men only a disposition to be Church-Members, but does not make them Members of any Church.  
But they require no new Covenant at Baptism, ergo, they admit into the Church without any clog or hindrance of human Invention, that is, they admit to Baptism without any new Covenant: because Baptism does not, as they believe, admit into the Church, ergo, they admit into the Church without any clog of human Invention. And yet Sir, I perceive you do not understand this matter neither: for though what their practice is now I cannot tell, yet according to their Principles, and former Practice, though they required no new Covenant of the Child to be Baptised, yet they would Baptise no Children, but of such Parents, as were in Church-Covenant with them, which is the same thing; and a much greater clog to Baptism, than the Sign of the Cross, which when I know your exceptions against, I will consider them.  
And now Sir, nothing remains of your First Letter, but some few Queries relating to the meaning of my Text. Your Three first Queries come only to this, whether every particular Church may not be called the Body of Christ. I answer, no doubt but it may, and yet Christ has but one Body, and all the sound Churches in the World are but one Body, and must be but one Communion. As you may see proved at large in the Defence of Dr. Still. and the Vindication of that Defence, and thither I refer you. But what you mean by Christ's Metaphorical Body, I confess, I cannot tell, and therefore cannot answer that Question.  
Your Fourth Query, concerns the nature of Schism, which you would not have consist in dividing Communion through difference of Opinions, but through want of Charity, because the Apostle says, that the Members have the same care one of another. Now methinks in the natural Body, should the Members divide from each other, though they should pretend to love one another dearly, they would not be thought to have such care of one another, as the Members of the same Body ought to have. The Application is easy, and you may find this matter plainly stated in the Defence to which I have so often referred you.  
Thus Sir I have honestly answered all your Queries, which you sent me in your First Letter, and which you challenge me, and conjure me as a Protestant Divine to answer Categorically in your Second; whether they were so very considerable as to deserve either to be Printed or Answered, I leave the Reader to consider.  
Your Second Letter, though it be somewhat Peevish, yet creates me but little trouble. It has brought forth but one Query, and half of that is already Answered.  
Whether, if the nature of Catholic Communion requires a readiness to Communicate with any sound Church, and yet a Church obliges us to Communicate with that alone, while distance does not hinder the occasional and frequent Communion with others, is not that Church guilty of Schism in such an Injunction contrary to the nature of Catholic Communion?  
Ans. No Church can be so supposed to forbid Communion with any Church, which is in Communion with her: and as for Schismatical Conventicles, which you are pleased to call sound Churches, it is the Duty of the Church to forbid all Communion with them, how near soever they be. For Catholic Communion obliges us only to Communicate in the Catholic Church, from whence Schismatics have withdrawn and separated themselves; and whoever Communicates with Schismatics, is in so doing a Schismatic.  
Or at least, (as you proceed) is it not impossible, that he who Communicates sometimes with one true Church, sometimes with another, can be a Schismatic, or any more than an Offender against a positive human Law?  
Ans. If such true Churches be Schismatical, he that Communicates with a Schismatical Church, is Guilty of a Schismatical Act; and how is it possible, it should be otherwise? Should a Man sometimes join with his Prince's Forces, and sometimes with his Enemies, and Fight sometimes on the one side, and sometimes on the other, were he a Rebel or not? To be sure he is a Rebel when he Fights against his Prince, though sometimes he Fight for him. We may, and aught as occasion serves to Communicate with any Church, which is in Catholic Communion; but where there are two opposite and separate Communions, to Communicate with both, is like taking part on both sides; and if one be in the right, and the other in the wrong, such a man cannot be in the right always.  
Well but however, he is no Schismatic, but only an Offender against a positive human Law. Yes, certainly he is a Schismatic, and an Offender, not merely against human positive Laws, but against the Unity of the Church, and the Evangelical Laws of Catholic Communion.  
But this mention of Law puts me in mind of a passage or two at the beginning of your Preface. You say, perhaps it's no absurdity to suppose, that Men may as well continue Members of the National Church, notwithstanding their breaking many positive Laws, made for the outward management and ordering of it, though not Fundamental and necessary to its being; as he who incurs the penalty of any Statute of the Realm about Civil affairs, may however be a sound Member of the State, if he keep from Treason and other Capital Crimes.  
Very right Sir! While Men continue in the Communion of the Church, they are Church-Members, though they may be irregular, and guilty of some Acts of Disobedience; but methinks it is a little absurd to say, that those continue Members of the Church, who separate from it: Schism and Separation from the Church, is just what Treason and Rebellion is in the State, and such persons by your own confession cease to be sound Members.  
You add, Nay possibly, that there should be several Religious Assemblies, living by different Customs and Rules, and yet continuing Members of the National Church, is not more inconsistent, than, that particular places should have their particular Customs and By-Laws, differing from the Common Law of the Land, without making a distinct Government.  
Ans. Whatever variety and difference in the Rules of Worship in several Congregations, is consistent with one Communion, may be granted, when the prudence of Governors sees it fit and expedient. But Mr. Humphry's project, which I perceive you are nibbling at, of making a National Church by an Act of Parliament, which should declare Presbyterians, Independants, etc. to be Parts of the National Church, is certainly the cunningest way of curing Schism, that ever was thought on: but you may find that expedient for Union at large considered in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still.  
And thus Sir I proceed to your Third Letter, and here you run nothing but Dregs and Lees; and I hope you will not think it any neglect of you, if I do not answer you Paragraph by Paragraph, as I have done your first Letter, there being little new in this, but only a Repetition of your old Queries: and though you know Repetitions are very convenient to lengthen a Sermon, there is no need of such Arts to lengthen this Answer, which is too long already.  
Your first Charge upon me is, that I only amuse People with Equivocal Words and Terms: that I play 
Letters 3. p. 16.  with the words, Church and Schism; which had been no fault, had I played the right way with them, that is, had I ridiculed them, as you do, who think them words only fit to be played with, who have found out a Church without any Government, which is, only an Intrigue 
p. 12.  between Clergymen on all sides, who will not allow causeless Separation from a Sound part of the Catholic 
p. 17.  Church to be Schism, but place Schism wholly in want of Charity, and make it nothing else but some Divisions and Contentions between the Members of the same Church, who still live in Communion with one another; a true Independent Notion to justify causeless Separations. Divisions in the Church are certainly very Sinful, and a degree of Schism, as unnatural, as if the Members of the same Body should fight with each other, while they are United to the same Body; but to divide from the same Body is the perfection of Schism, unless a quarrel be a Rent and Schism, but Separation be none.  
You desire me to define, what I mean by a Church, when considered as Catholic and Universal, and when taken in a more restrained sense. But this, I think I have done already, if you had eyes to see it; and you may find it done more largely in the Defence of Dr. Still. But would not any Man, who had ever seen this discourse, which you undertake to confute, wonder to hear you ask me, whether a Man has a right to be of a particular 
p. 18.  Church as he is a Christian; when the whole design of that Tract is to prove, that every Christian by being so, is a Member of the Catholic Church, and has a right to Communicate with all sound parts of the Catholic Church, and bound to Communicate with that part of it, in which he lives?  
In the next place you attempt to prove, that the Influences and Operations of the Holy Spirit, are not confined to the Visible, but Invisible Church: but not 
p. 19  to examine your proof of it, which is nothing to the purpose, you may consider, that the Visible and Invisible Church on Earth are not two, but one Church; not that every Member of the Visible Church is a Member also of the Invisible, that is, every professed Christian is not a true Believer; but whoever is not a Member of the Visible Church, and does not live in Communion with it, when it may be had, is not, that we know of, a Member of the Invisible Church.  
We have no way to prove, that any Man is a Member of the Invisible, who is not a Member of the Visible Church; and what we do not, and cannot know, does not concern us; secret things belong to God, and with him it becomes us to leave them. But this also you may find more largely discoursed in the Vindication of the Defence.  
You urge the case of Pope Victor, who, as you say, in a Council or full representative of that Church, excommunicated 
p. 21.  the poor Asians upon the Paschal Controversy. And that each Church was far enough from owning each others Members for their own— What should the poor Lay-Christians do in this divided State? could they not Communicate with both, or either, without danger of Schism themselves?  
Ans. It is an easy matter to put hard Cases, almost about any thing; and if a particular hard Case, which either may possibly happen, or has sometimes happened, is sufficient to overthrow a standing and general Rule, and to confute the most plain and convincing Evidence for it, there is nothing in Religion can be firm and stable. In the very same manner Men Dispute against the Being of a God, and a Providence, against the necessity of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, against the Apostolical Power and Ministry, and all Church-Government, against the necessity of Believing many fundamental Articles of our Faith, because many, otherwise very good Men, from the Power and Prejudice of Education, or through weakness of understanding, may be guilty of some damnable Heresies.  
But must there be no standing Laws or Rules, because there may happen some hard and difficult Cases? Does not humane Power make Provision against such Cases by Courts of Chancery, or the Prerogative of the Prince, and yet maintain the Authority and Sacredness of Laws? And will we not allow God himself a Power of Dispensing with Laws in hard Cases, without destroying the Authority of his Laws? Is not Church-Communion a necessary Duty, because it may so happen, that sometimes I cannot Communicate with any Church? Is not Schism a very grievous and damning sin, because it may happen, that Men may be unavoidably, innocently, and without a Schismatical mind, engaged in a Schism?  
I have evidently proved the necessity of Church-Unity and Communion, and the evil and danger of Schism; and if you can answer the Scripture-Evidence produced in this Cause, I will carefully consider it; but it is no confutation of a plain Law, to urge hard Cases against it, which will overthrow all Laws, that ever were made. If you imagine, or can produce any real Case, wherein it is almost impossible for the Persons concerned to know, that they are guilty of Schism, or to discover on which side the Schism lies, or to avoid it without renouncing all Communion with the Church, which course soever they take, I leave all such Cases to God, who knows, when it is fit to dispense with his own Laws; and will take care of my own Duty according to Scripture-Rules, and not hope to justify the ordinary breach of known Laws by some extraordinary Cases.  
And yet the Case, which you propose, is not so unanswerable a difficulty, as you imagine. Several Councils in Palestine, in Rome, in Pontus, and other places, 
Euseb. b. 5. cap. 23.  Determine the Celebration of Easter on the day of the Resurrection, not on the Fourteenth Day of the Month, which was the Jewish Passover, (which dispute you call a Mistake in Arithmetic, but for what reason I know not) the Bishops of Asia at the same time decree the observation of Easter on the Fourteenth Day, whatever Day of the week it fell on, according to the Ancient Observation of the Asian Churches. Pope Victor upon this, writeth to several Bishops very bitterly against them, and was very desirous to have them Excommunicated, and did as much as in him lay, denounce the Sentence against them. 
cap. 24.   
But this was ill resented by other Bishops in Communion with him; and particularly Ireneus wrote a Letter to him about it, and earnestly dissuades him from it, and did prevent it from taking effect, if we will believe Eusebius. So far is it from being true, as you assert, that Pope Victor in a Council Excommunicated the poor Asians; what he did was only his own Act, which was displeasing to other Bishops, and which he was forced to undo. So that here was a great deal of Heat and Warmth, and tendency towards a Schism, but no Schism followed upon it, among the Catholic Churches.  
But suppose Pope Victor had Excommunicated the Asian Churches, and this Excommunication had taken effect, this could not make the Asian Churches Schismatics: for there is a great deal of difference between being cast out of the Communion of a Church, and forsaking the Communion of a Church. The first is matter of censure, the second is our own choice; the First is an Ecclesiastical Punishment, the Second when it is causeless, is Schism.  
So that had the Church of Rome Excommunicated the Asian Churches, unless the Asian Churches upon this, had made a Separation from the Church of Rome, this Excommunication could not make them Schismatics, and therefore any one might safely Communicate with them without partaking in a Schism.  
Nor was it a just reason for the Asian Churches to have renounced the Communion of the Church of Rome, though they had been Excommunicated by Victor; for this had been to do as ill a thing as Victor had done, for no other reason, but because Pope Victor had set them an example. And therefore we find Saint Cyprian of another temper, when he and the African Bishops were threatened in the same manner by Pope Stephen, upon occasion of that warm Dispute about rebaptising Heretics. At that very time, in his Epistle to Jubaianus, he declares his resolution, not to break Communion with any Church or Bishops upon that account, and therefore not with Pope Stephen himself, notwithstanding his rash and furious Censures. And concludes, that Patience and Forbearance was the best Remedy in such Cases, and therefore upon this occasion, he says, he wrote his Book de bono Patientiae.  
Well, but if the Asiatic Churches were not Schismatics, yet Pope Victor had been a Schismatic, had he Excommunicated the Churches of Asia, or withdrawn Communion from them. And this had made the case of the Roman Christians very hard: for they must either have suspended Communion with both these divided Churches, and lived without the comfort and advantages of Christian Communion; or they must have rejected the Communion of their own Bishop, and Churches, or have rejected the Communion of the Churches of Asia, or have maintained Communion with them both, that is, with two Separate Churches, which according to my Principles, is to Communicate in a Schism. If they Communicate with their own Schismatical Bishop, this is to Communicate in a Schism, by Communicating with a Schismatic; if they Renounce his Communion, when he imposes no new unlawful Terms of Communion upon them, this is to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church, for the sake of a Schismatical Bishop. If they Communicate with the Churches of Asia, this is to break Communion with their own Bishop, who has Excommunicated them; if they separate from the Churches of Asia for no other reason, but because they are unjustly Excommunicated, this is to Separate for an unjust cause, which is a Schism; if they communicate with both, they Communicate with two Separate Churches, and therefore must be Schismatics on one side or other. If you can find any more difficulties in this matter, you may. And yet after all this, I do believe the Christians of Rome might have Communicated both with the Roman and Asian Churches without Schism; and this I believe upon these Principles, which I shall briefly explain, and confirm.  
1. That the Personal miscarriage of the Bishop in the exercise of Ecclesiastical Censures, cannot involve his whole Church in the guilt of Schism, though it may make him a Schismatic: and certainly since Bishops are but Men, and Subject to the like passions and infirmities, that other men are, it would be a very hard case, if his personal Schism should be imputed to the whole Church.  
Though the Bishop have the chief Authority in the Church, yet it is hard to say, that every abuse of his Authority is the Act of the whole Church; and therefore the Church may not be Schismatical, when the Bishop is; and it is possible to Communicate with a Church, whose Bishop is a Schismatic, without Communicating in the Schism. And therefore though Victor had Schismatically Excommunicated the Asian Churches, the Christians of Rome at that time might have Communicated with the Church of Rome without partaking in Victor's Schism.  
For, though a particular Church-Society consists in that Relation, which is between the Bishop and his Clergy and People, yet it is possible, that the Bishop in the exercise of his Authority may violate the Fundamental Laws of Communion, on which the Christians of such a Church unite into one Body and Society: and when he does so, it being an abuse of his Episcopal Authority, it is his personal fault, which cannot affect the whole Church.  
The case is very plain, where there is an Established constitution in a Church (as it is in the Church of England) which obliges the Bishops as well as People. For should any English Bishop require any thing of his Clergy or People, which is contrary to the Established Laws and Canons of the Church, or should exercise any Authority in Censures and Excommunications, which is not allowed him by those Canons, this can in no sense be called the Act of the Church, nor is any one bound to obey him in it; and though such a Bishop should do any Schismatical Act, the Church is not Schismatical, because he did not pursue the Laws of the Church, in what he did, but gratified his own Humour and Passion. If the Church indeed Unites upon Schismatical Principles, as the Novatians and Donatists did, whatever the Bishops do in pursuance of such Principles is the Act of the Church, and if the Bishops be Schismatics, the Church is so too; but when there is nothing Schismatical in the Constitution of the Church, the personal Schism of Bishops cannot make their Churches Schismatical.  
And though the Primitive Churches before the Empire turned Christian had not such a Firm and Legal Constitution, as the Church of England now has, yet a Constitution they had, which consisted either of Apostolical Rules handed down by Tradition, and confirmed by long custom and usage, or the Canons of particular Councils, which in ordinary cases made standing Laws of Discipline and Government, and in extraordinary cases provided for new Emergent difficulties; and antecedently to all these positive Constitutions, they were all under the obligation of that great Law of Catholic Communion. So that the Government of the Church since the Apostles days, was never so entirely in the Bishop's Breast, that what he did, should be thought the Act of the Church, any farther than as he complied with those Laws, by which the Church was to be Governed: and therefore there was reason in those days to distinguish between the Act of the Bishop and the Act of the Church.  
As to show you this particularly in the case before us. The Church of Rome from the time of the Apostles had observed Easter on the day of the Resurrection, which is the first day of the week, or the Lord's day, the Asian Churches on the 14th day of the Month; and therefore the Bishop of Rome, according to the Laws of that Church, might require all the Members of his Church, to observe Easter according to the usage of the Church of Rome, and might regularly inflict Church-Censures upon the obstinate and refractory; and this would be accounted the Act of the Church, because it was in pursuance of the Laws and Constitutions of it. But there was no Canon, nor Custom in the Church of Rome, to deny Communion to Foreign Churches, who observed their own Customs in this matter, and would not conform to the Custom of the Church of Rome. Nay, there was the Practice and Example of Former Times against it; for Anicetus' Bishop of Rome received Polycarp, an Asian Bishop, to Communion, though they could not agree about this matter. And therefore when Victor Schismatically Excommunicated the Asian Churches for this different observation of Easter, it was his Personal Act, not the Act of the Church of Rome, which had no such Law, and owned no such Custom: and therefore though this might make Pope Victor a Schismatic, it could not make the Church of Rome Schismatical; the guilt went no farther than Victor's Person, unless other Persons voluntarily made themselves guilty, by abetting and espousing the Quarrel.  
So that had Victor persisted in his Excommunication of the Asiatic Churches, none had been guilty of Schism but himself, and such as approved, and consented to it, but the Body of the Clergy and People, who had not consented unto it, had been Innocent, and therefore any Catholic peaceable Christian, who lived in Rome in those Days, might have Communicated with the Church of Rome without Schism.  
The like may be said of the Quarrels and Controversies of particular Bishops, which have sometimes ended in formal Schisms, and denouncing Excommunication against each other; which cannot make their Churches Schismatical, any further than they take part with their respective Bishops. For this is rather a Personal Schism and Separation, than a Church Schism; neither of them Separate from the Communion of the Church, under the Notion of such a Church, though they Separate from each others Communion upon some personal Quarrels.  
This was the Case of St. Chrysostom and Epiphanius, and some other Bishops in those days, which were Catholic Bishops, and maintained Communion with the Catholic Church, but yet Separated from each other, which is a very great fault, as all Contentions and Divisions in the Church are, but has not the Evil and Destructive Nature of a Church Schism.  
But you will say, can we Communicate with a Church without Communicating with its Bishop? or can we Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop, without Communicating in his Schism?  
I Answer, Yes, we may Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop, without Communicating in his Schism. When Schism is his personal fault, our Communion with him makes us no more guilty of it, than of any other Personal fault, our Bishop is guilty of. While we take care to Communicate with him in no Schismatical Act, no Man is bound to forsake the Communion of the Church for the Personal faults of his Bishop.  
So that the Roman Christians might Communicate with the Church of Rome without Schism, notwithstanding Pope Victors Schismatical Excommunication of the Asian Churches. And now the only difficulty that remains is, whether the Christians of Rome might have Communicated with the Asiatic Churches notwithstanding Victor had Excommunicated them, for if they could not, than they must inevitably partake in Victor's Schism, if his sentence obliged them to deny Communion to the Asian Churches. And in answer to this we may consider.  
2. That those, who Condemned the Excommunication of the Asian Churches, did in so doing own their Communion, which is one way, and the Principal way of maintaining Communion, between Churches at a Distance, who cannot actually Communicate with each other.  
3. That Victor being the Bishop of Rome, who had the supreme Authority of receiving in, or shutting out of the Communion of that Church, if any Persons of the Asian Communion had come to Rome, private Christians could not receive them into the Communion of the Church without the Bishop's Authority, and therefore could not actually Communicate with them in the public Offices of Religion, though they owned their Communion; but this is no more their fault, than the Excommunication of the Asian Churches was; they Communicate with their own Church, and would be very glad that the Asians, that are among them, might be received into Communion, but they have no Authority to do it, and therefore the fault is not theirs, for this is not to Renounce the Communion of the Asian Christians, but is only a forced Suspension of Communion.  
4. If the Christians of Rome should Travel into Asia. I doubt not, but that they might very lawfully Communicate with the Asian Churches, notwithstanding they were Excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome. For the Bishop of Rome had no just cause to Excommunicate the Bishops and Churches of Asia, and therefore the Sentence is void of itself; and the Roman Christians when they are in Asia, are not under the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, and therefore must not forbear nor suspend Communion with the Asian Churches, unless they will justify this Schismatical Excommunication. The Jurisdiction of a particular Bishop is confined within the Bounds of his own Church, and every Christian is Subject to the Authority of the Church where he is; and therefore though the Roman Christians at Rome cannot receive the Excommunicated Asians to their Communion without the Authority of their Bishop, yet when they are in Asia, where the Bishop of Rome has no Authority over them, they may and aught to join themselves to the Communion of the Asian Churches, during their abode among them, if the Asians would receive them without Commendatory Letters from their Bishop, which they could not have in such a case as this.  
Thus Sir, I have considered the Case you put about Pope Victors Excommunicating the Asian Churches, which is not a real, but a feigned Case, for there was no actual Schism upon it, as I perceive some body had told you, there was. And yet supposing it had been so, I have shown you, how the Roman and Asian Churches might have maintained Communion with each other, and that the case of private Christians was not so desperate, as you represent it.  
Your following exceptions concerning National Communion, and National Churches, and the possibility 
Letters 3. p. 22.  that there should be several Sound and Orthodox parts of the Church at the same place, have been sufficiently considered already: and you twit me so often with my repetitions, that though I find you want very frequent repetitions to make you understand the plainest sense, yet I will for my Readers sake and my own, correct that fault.  
Your attempt to prove Congregational Churches 
p. 24.  from 1 Cor. 14. 23. has been so often answered by the Presbyterian as well as Episcopal Divines, that to save myself the labour of transcribing, I shall refer you to them, and particularly to the Defence of Dr. Still. Vnr. of Separ. p. 392. etc. where you may find this matter largely debated, in answer to Dr. Owen's Original of Churches.  
You say, it is evident that one of these (Separate Churches) must needs be cut off from Christ's Body. I readily grant it; for Christ has but one Body, which 
p. 26.  is one Communion; and therefore two Churches, which are not in Communion with each other, cannot both belong to the same Body, or the one Catholic Church; but the Church which is the Schismatic, according to the Language of the Primitive times, is out of the Catholic Church, extra Ecclesiam foris, as is discoursed at large in the Vindication of the Defence.  
In the next place you endeavour to make me contradict myself, in talking of occasional Communion and occasional Membership, and different Relations, when else where I assert, That the Communion of the Church does not make us Members of any particular Church. But pray Sir, where do I assert this? I am sure I assert the quite contrary, that Church-Communion consists in Church-Membership. I say indeed, That Church-Communion Primarily and Principally refers to the Universal Church, not 
Resol. of Cases. p. 13, 14.  to any particular Church or Society of Christians. That a Member is a Member of the whole Body, not merely of any part of it. That Baptism, which is the Sacrament of our admission into the Covenant of God, and the Communion of the Church, does not make us Members of any particular Church, as such, but of the Universal Church. And I do as plainly assert, that every true Catholic Christian is a Member of the Universal Church, and as such is a Member of every particular Church, which is a sound part of the Universal Church. That no Man can properly be said to Communicate with any Church, whatever Acts of Communion he may perform in it, who does not Communicate with it as a Member, and that therefore to talk of Occasional Communion, in the sense of our Dissenters, is as absurd as to talk of an Occasional Membership; these are the very Principles on which I dispute against those absurd Distinctions of 
p. 30.  constant and occasional Communion, which I confess to be absurd, and a Contradiction to all the Principles of Catholic Communion, and therefore you are concerned to answer this absurdity, not I I have charged this absurdity upon our Occasional Communicants, and let any man take it off, that can.  
But are you not Sir, admirably qualified to Answer Books, without so much as understanding the general scope and design of the Book you Answer, without knowing what makes for you or against you?  
As for your next Question, How does it appear? that it is necessary to Communion with the Catholic Church, that we must perform the constant Acts of Communion in that part of the Catholic Church, where we constantly live. You ought instead of ask this Question, to have shown, that what proofs I have alleged for this are not conclusive, or do not sufficiently prove the thing; but your Question insinuates, that I have said nothing at all about it, or at least that you do not know, that I have, though it be the Principal Design of that discourse, and then I am a very careless writer, or you a very careless Reader. But the Answer to it in short is this, That every Christian is Bound to live in Communion with the Catholic Church, no Man lives in Communion with the Church, who does not perform the External visible Acts of Communion, when he may do it without sin; The whole Catholic Church being but one Communion, whoever Communicates with any sound part of it, Communicates with the whole; no Man can ordinarily Communicate in a Church, in which he does not ordinarily live, and therefore if he be bound at all to the External and visible Acts of Communion, he must perform them in the Church wherein he lives, and in so doing, if it be a true Catholic Church, he lives in Communion with the whole Catholic Church.  
But you attempt to prove, That you are not bound to Communicate so much as sometimes with a sound part of 
Ibid.  the Catholic Church, because you live where there is such an one.  
And this you prove from Mr. Chillingworth's Authority, who says, that if you (speaking to the Papists) require the belief of any Error among the conditions of your Communion, our Obligation to Communion with you ceaseth. Now is not this an admirable proof, that we are not bound to Communicate with a sound part of the Church, where we live, because we are not bound to Communicate with an erroneous Church, which imposes the belief of her Errors as Terms of Communion? Is not this a wonderful sound Church? And are not you a very subtle Arguer?  
You produce another passage of Mr. Chillingworth, by which I cannot tell what you intent to prove, unless it be, that there is no need, there should be any External or Visible Church-Society, so Men do but Profess the Faith of Christ; which seems to be the sense of your foregoing Paragraph. But the words are these; I believe our Saviour ever since his Ascension, hath had in some place or other a Visible true Church on Earth, I mean, a Company of Men, that professed at least so much as was necessary to Salvation; and I believe there will be some where or other such a Church to the World's end. This is his answer to that Popish Question about the perpetuity of the Visible Church; whereby it appears, that this Company of Men he speaks of, are not single and scattered Individuals, which are no Visible Church, but he means a Form and Visible Church-Society: and his Answer is true, though there were never a sound Church in the World. For a corrupt Church, which retains all the Essentials of Faith and Worship, is a true Visible Church, and this is the meaning of Mr. Chillingworth's Answer; but how this proves, that there is no need there should be any Visible Church at all, or that Christians are not bound to actual Communion with the sound and Orthodox Church wherein they live, is past my understanding.  
At the same rate you defend yourself against me in your Preface, by the Authority of those two excellent Persons, the Dean of Canterbury, and the Dean of Saint Paul's. Dr. Stillingfleet had asserted, That all things necessary to Salvation, are plain in Scripture, to all that sincerely endeavour to understand them; hence S. C. infers, That the Governors of our Church have no Authority to teach Truth, or to condemn Errors, and all the People are become Prophets, and all their Articles, 
Answer to several Treatises, p. 272. etc.  Constitutions, and Ordinances, have been composed and enjoined by an usurped Authority; and if he had added, as he might have done with the same reason, And all Church-Communion is needless, it had been exactly what you aim at in this Citation. The Dr. vindicates his Doctrine from such a wild Fanatical inference. 1. By showing the intention of those Principles, which was plainly to lay down the Foundations of a Christian Faith, living in the Communion of our Church. And if this was his design, as he says, it was, certainly he could neither before nor after say any thing, which should overthrow the necessity of Church-Communion; and then he can say nothing against me, nor for you. 2. He distinguishes between the necessaries to Salvation, and to the Government of the Church: that is, what is necessary for every Christian, considered in 
p. 275.  a private Capacity to know and believe, to make him capable of Salvation; and what care the Church must take to instruct the ignorant, to satisfy the doubting, to direct the unskilful, and to help the weak; and not barely to provide for necessity but safety, and not barely the safety of particular persons, but of itself; which cannot 
p. 276.  be done without prudent Orders, setting the bounds of men's Employments, etc. i. e. though it is possible for a private Christian, who lives alone, and has the use of the Bible in a Language which he understands, by diligent and honest inquiries to find out so much truth, as is absolutely necessary to Salvation, yet this does not overthrow the necessity of a settled Ministry, and a regular Authority in the Church; all this I firmly assent to, and yet do as firmly believe the necessity of Church-Communion, when it may be had upon Lawful Terms, and so does this Reverend Person also: and therefore I cannot look upon your alleging his Authority against me, to have any other design than to affront the Dean for his excellent Pains in vindicating the Communion of our Church, and showing people the Evil and Danger of Separation. He has sufficiently declared what his Judgement is about Separation, and therefore I need not concern myself any farther to prove that he is not my Adversary in this Cause.  
At the same rate you deal with that great Man (as you deservedly call him) Dr. Tillotson, who says, I had much rather persuade any one to be a good Man, than 
Preface.  to be of any Party and denomination of Christians whatsoever; for I doubt not but the belief of the Ancient Creed, provided we entertain nothing that is destructive of it, together with a good life, will certainly save a Man; and without this, no man can have reasonable hopes of Salvation, no not in an Infallible Church, if there were any such to be found in the World. How does this oppose me, who assert the necessity of Church-Communion? Is the Catholic Church then, and the Communion of Saints, no part of our Creed? and is not Schism destructive to these great Articles of our Faith? or is Schism, which is the breach of Christian Charity properly so called (which is the Love and Charity, which the Members of the same Body, aught to have for each other, and consists in Unity and Communion) consistent with a good Life, if by that we understand an Universal goodness, of which Charity is the most vital and essential part?  
But do you indeed think, Sir, that the Dean believes a Man may be saved without Communion with any Church, when it may be had without Sin? when in the very next Paragraph he so earnestly exhorts them to Communion with the Church of England? I can easily forgive your usage of me, since I find you cannot Read the best Books without perverting them, and that you never spare any Man's Reputation to serve your Designs: for your Reproaches and your Commendations are but different ways of abuse, though I confess, I should rather choose to be reproached by you.  
Your last Consideration is, whether it be a good way to convert Schismatics, to prove that Schism is as 
Letter 3. p. 29.  Damning a Sin, as Murder or Adultery. Truly Sir, St. Cyprian and St. Austin, and all the Ancient Fathers of the Church, thought this a very good way, for they insisted very much upon this Argument; and if Men will not forsake their Schism, though the Salvation of their Souls be endangered by it, I am apt to think, that no other Arguments will persuade them. And if this be true (as I verily believe it is, and shall believe so, till I see the Third Chapter of the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still. fairly answered) I think it the greatest Charity in the World, to warn Men of it; and if it should prove by their perverseness no Charity to them, it is Charity to my own Soul, and delivers me from the guilt of their Blood, whether such Doctrine Preach Men into, or out of, the Church.  
And now for your parting Blow. Certainly if our Church required Conformity to its Rites and Ceremonies as necessary to Salvation, It could not blame Men for dividing from it. Yes certainly upon such a Supposition, the Church could and would blame Men for their Separation, though it may be, they might not deserve to be blamed: for no doubt, the more necessary the Church judges her Constitutions, the more she will blame Dissenters.  
But he, who tells us, or he says nothing, that the divine Spirit confines his Influences and Operations to the Unity of the Church in such Conformity, not only makes such Conformity necessary to Salvation, but imputes to the Church the Damnation of many Thousands of Souls, who might expect to be saved upon other Terms. That the Divine Spirit confines his influences (ordinarily) to the Unity of the Church I do assert, but that this is in Conformity to the Church of England, I do not assert. For Conformity to the Church of England is not Essential to the Unity of the Catholic Church: for every Church has authority to prescribe its own Rites and Ceremonies of Worship, in Conformity to the general Rules of the Gospel. And therefore though the Unity of the Church is necessary to entitle Men to the ordinary influences of God's Grace, and consequently is necessary to Salvation, yet Conformity to the Church of England is not necessary to the Unity of the Church, because Christians who live under the Government and Jurisdiction of other Churches, may and do preserve the Unity of the Church without conformity to the Church of England. Obedience indeed, and Subjection to Church-Authority in all Lawful things, is necessary to the Unity of the Church, and necessary to Salvation, and consequently it is a necessary Duty to conform to all the Lawful and Innocent Customs of the Church wherein we live; but this does not make the particular Laws of Conformity, which are different in different Churches, to be necessary to Salvation, unless you will say the Church has no Authority but only in things absolutely necessary to Salvation; which destroys all the external Order and Discipline of the Church, and charges all the Churches in the World, with destroying men's Souls, if any persons be so Humorsom and Peevish as to break Communion with them for such Reasons. But such kind of Cavils as these, you may find answered at large in the Vindication of the Defence; and thither I refer you, if you desire to see any more of it.  
Thus Sir, I have with great patience answered your Questions, not that they needed or deserved any Answer, but that you might not think yourself too much despised, nor other weak People think your Questions unanswered. And now I have given you an Answer, I shall take the Confidence to give you a little Ghostly Counsel too, which you need a great deal more than an Answer.  
I have not troubled my Head to inquire Scrupulously, who you are, nor do I use to trust Common Fame in such matters: but though I know not you, yet I perceive you know me; and if as you say, you have often 
p. 1.  heard me with great Satisfaction, and as you hope not without edifying thereby, I think it would have become you to have treated me with a little more Civility than you have done, if it be in your Nature to be Civil to a Clergyman. And I wish more for your own sake, than for mine, you had done so; for I thank God I have learned not only by the precepts and example of my great Master, but by frequent Trials, to go through good Report and evil Report, and to bear the most invidious and Spiteful Reflections with an equal mind. But as contemptible as a Clergyman is now, these things will be accounted for another day.  
For it is very evident, that you have a great Spite at the whole Order, whatever personal kindness you may have for some Men; they are but a Herd of Clergymen, and you know no other use of a Bishop, but to oversee, admonish, and Censure those, who are apt to 
Preface.  go beyond their due Bounds. I confess this way of Raillery is grown very fashionable, and I perceive you are resolved to be in the Mode, and to be an accomplished Gentleman; but I never knew a man that was seriously religious, who durst affront the Servants for their Master's sake.  
But you Sir, are in the very height of the fashion, and think their Office as contemptible, as their Persons generally are thought to be: you hope to be saved without understanding the Notion of Church-Government as 'tis intreagued by Clergymen of all sides. And I hope you may be saved without understanding a great many other things besides Church-Government, or else I doubt your Salvation may be hazardous.  
But this is too plain a contempt of all Church-Authority; for though the Church of Rome has usurped an unlimited and Tyrannical Power under the Notion of Church-Government, yet what has the Sound Church of England (as you own it) done? What occasion did I give for this Censure? who have expressly confined the Exercise of Church-Authority to Church-Communion, to receiving in, and putting out of the Church. And if 
Resol. of Cases, p. 39  the Church be no Society, I would desire to know what it is; and if be a Society, how can any Society subsist without Authority in some Persons to receive in and to shut out of the Society? But the truth is, though you pretend to be in Communion with the Church of England, you make the Church itself a very needless and insignificant thing, for you know no necessity of Communicating with any Church, you will not allow it to be Schism to Separate from the Church, you think it a pretty indifferent thing, whether Men be Baptised or not, or by whom they are Baptised: what your Opinion is about the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I do not know, though if you are consistent with yourself, I doubt that is a very indifferent Ceremony too.  
Truly to deal plainly with you, I think you have more need to be taught your Catechism than to set up for a Writer of Books; and let me in time warn you, what the consequence of this way you are in, is likely to be, which is no less than a contempt of all revealed and institute Religion, and consequently of Christianity. Natural Religion may subsist without any positive Institutions, but revealed Religion never did, and never can; for when God Transacts with Mankind in the way of a Visible Covenant, there must be some Visible Ministers, and Visible Sacraments of this Covenant. And when the Evangelical Ministers and Sacraments fall into contempt, Men must think meanly of Christianity, and return to what they call natural Religion, which is a Religion without a Priest and without a Sacrifice; which cannot save a Sinner, but by uncovenanted Grace and Mercy; which no Man can be sure of, and which no Man shall find, who rejects a Priest and Sacrifice of Gods providing.  
And to convince you of this, you may observe, that the contempt of the Notion of a Church, of the Evangelical Priesthood and Sacraments, is originally owing to Deists and Socinians, to those who profess to believe in God, and to worship him according to the Laws of natural Religion, but believe nothing at all of Christ; or to those, who profess to believe in Christ, but believe him only to be a mere Man, and a great Reformer of Natural Religion, but make nothing at all of his Priesthood and Sacrifice. If Christ be our great High Priest, and we must hope for Salvation only in virtue of his Sacrifice, There must be some way appointed to apply his Merits and Salvation to us, and this will convince us of the necessity of Church-Communion, and a visible Confederation by Sacraments 
See Vindic. of the Def. cap. 3.  of divine appointment: But if Christ came only as a great Prophet to instruct us more perfectly in the Rules of Virtue, and to give us more certain Hopes of a future State, there can be no more necessity of a Church now, than there was in a State of Nature. Christian's may associate, if they please, for Acts of public worship, and they may break Company, when they please, without any danger; and the Evangelical Sacraments can be only significant Ceremonies, which may be used or let alone, as every one likes best.  
At this Rate you every where discourse; and I believe so well of our Dissenters, that though they would be glad to be excused from the guilt of Schism, yet they will not thank you, for excusing them upon such Principles, as tend to undermine Christianity; and I believe so well of you, that though you affect to talk in the modish way, yet you do not understand whither it tends: and I hope this timely Caution may prevent your embracing those Principles, whereon your Conclusions are Naturally Built.  
Another thing I would warn you of, is, that these lose Principles of Church-Communion do not tempt you to Schism, and State-Factions, which usually go together. You pretend indeed to be in constant Communion with the Church of England; but according to the Principles of your Letters no Church in the World can have any hold of you, every Man is a Communicant at his own pleasure who thinks he may part without Sin; And it is much to be suspected, that no Man, who is a hearty lover of the Church of England, can make such a Zealous Defence for Dissenters, who has not some private reasons for his Zeal: and when Men are not Endeared to each other by one Communion, it is to be feared they are linked together by some other Common Interest. Now should you prove a Schismatic, to say no worse, it will not excuse you, how many Fine Questions soever you can ask about it.  
And that which will greatly endanger you, is that great Opinion you have of yourself: for some men are so wanton as to espouse a Schism or Faction only to show their Wit in Defending it, and to make themselves considerable by espousing a Party. I will not so much wrong you, as to say that you have shown any great Wit or Judgement in this Cause; but it is evident to every impartial Man, who reads your Letters, that you have betrayed too great a conceit of both, and that is a great deal the more dangerous of the two; for true Wit and Judgement will secure Men from those mischiefs, which a vain conceit of it betrays them to.  
And now Sir, all that I shall add, concerns your way of Writing, which neither becomes a wise Man, nor a fair Disputant; you have not offered any Argument to disprove any one thing I have said, you have not where shown the weakness of my Arguments to prove what I undertook, but have at all Adventures asked a great many Questions, and generally nothing to the purpose. Now it had been easy to have asked you as many cross Questions, which had been as good an Answer to your Questions, as your Questions are to my Discourse; and thus People might have gazed on us, and have been never the wiser. For to raise a great many difficulties only tends to Scepticism, and will never end a Dispute. I am loath to mind you of the Proverb, because I do not think the application belongs to you; but yet it should make any Man of Wit ashamed of such Methods of Dispute, wherein he may be outdone by a Man of no Wit.  
I confess I have with some regret stole time from better Employment to answer your Letters, but do not think myself bound to do so, as often as you think fit to give a public Challenge. This Controversy, if you had pleased, might have been ended more privately; which had been less trouble to me, though it may be you thought it might have been less glorious to yourself, which I presume was your reason of first spreading your Letter in Writing, and then of Printing it. I shall not envy your Glory; I had rather continue mean and obscure in a humble Obedience to Church and State, than to raise the most Glorious Triumphs and Trophies to my memory, by giving the least disturbance to either. And that you and all sober Christians may be of the same mind, is the hearty Prayer of,  
SIR, Your very Humble Servant. W. S.  
FINIS.   

BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER.  
A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Job, etc.  
Considerations of present use, considering the Danger resulting from the change of our Church-Government.  

1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England.  
2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion.  
3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God, proposed and Stated, by considering these Questions, etc.  
4. A Discourse about Edification.  
5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience, Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England?  
6. A Letter to Anonymus, in answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship. In two Parts.  
8. The Case of mixed Communion: Whether it be Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixed Communions?  
9 An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers, and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England.  
10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved, etc. The first Part.  
11. Certain Cases of Conscience, etc. The second Part.  
12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons, and of going to hear where men think they can profit most.  
13. A serious Exhortation, with some important Advices, relating to the late Cases about Conformity, recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England.  
14. An Argument for Union; taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestant's.  
16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal, or giving Offence to Weak Brethren.  
17. The Case of Infant-Baptism, in Five Questions, etc.   

1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists ask of us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther?  
2. A Discourse about Tradition, showing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be received, and what Tradition is to be rejected.  
3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England.  
4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith, etc.    

THE CASE OF Lay-Communion WITH THE CHURCH of ENGLAND CONSIDERED; And the Lawfulness of it showed, from the Testimony of above an hundred eminent Non-conformists of several Persuasions. Published for the satisfaction of the Scrupulous, and to prevent the Sufferings which such needlessly expose themselves to. The Second Edition, corrected by the Author.  
LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard. M. DC. LXXXIV.   

TO THE DISSENTERS FROM THE Church of England.  
Dear Brethren,  
YOU being at this time called upon by Authority to join in Communion with the Church, and the Laws ordered to be put in Execution against such as refuse it; It's both your Duty and Interest to inquire into the grounds upon which you deny Obedience to the Laws, Communion with the Church of God, and thereby expose our Religion to danger, and yourselves to suffering. In which, unless the Cause be good, the Call clear, and 
Mr. Mede's Farewell Serm. on 1 Cor. 1. 3.  the End right, it cannot bring Peace to yourselves, or be acceptable to God. Not bring Peace to yourselves; For we cannot suffer joyfully the 
Mr. Read's Case, p. 4.  spoiling of our Goods, the confinement of our Persons, the ruin of our Families, unless Conscience be able truly to say, I would have done any thing but sin against God, that I might have avoided those Sufferings from Men. Not be acceptable to God, to whom all are accountable 
Continuat. of Morn. Exer. Ser. 4. p. 92.  for what Portion he hath entrusted them with of the things of this Life, and are not to throw away without sufficient reason; and who has made it our Duty to do what we can without Sin, in Obedience to that Authority which he hath set over us, (as you are told by some 
Read, Ibid.  in the same condition with yourselves.)  
To assist Persons in this Enquiry, I have observed, that of late several of the Church of England have undertaken the most material Points that you do question, and have handled them with that Candour and Calmness which becomes their Profession, and the gravity of the Arguments, and which may the better invite those that are willing to be satisfied, to peruse and consider them. But because Truth and Reason do too often suffer by the Prejudices we have against particular Persons; to remove, as much as may be, that Obstruction, I have in this Treatise showed, that these Authors are not alone, but have the concurrent Testimony of the most eminent Non-conformists for them, who do generally grant, that there is nothing required in the Parochial Communion of the Church of England, that can be a sufficient reason for Separation from it. The sense of many of these I have here collected; and for one hundred, I could easily have produced two, if the Cause were to go by the Poll: So that if Reason or Authority will prevail, I hope that yet your Satisfaction and Recovery to the Communion of the Church, is not to be despaired of: Which God of his infinite Mercy grant, for your own and the Church's sake. Amen.   


THE CONTENTS.  
THE difference betwixt Ministerial and Lay-Communion Pag. 1  
The Dissenters grant the Church of England to be a True Church, p. 4  
That they are not totally to separate from it, p. 12  
That they are to comply with it as far as lawfully they can, p. 16  
That Defects in Worship, if not Essential, are no just reason for Separation, p. 23  
That the expectation of better Edification, is no sufficient reason to withhold Communion, p. 39  
The badness of Ministers, will not justify Separation, p. 48  
The neglect or want of Discipline, no sufficient reason to separate, p. 59  
The Opinion which the Non-conformists have of the several Practices of the Church of England, which its Lay-Members are concerned in, p. 64  
That Forms of Prayer are lawful, and do not stint the Spirit, ibid.  
That public prescribed Forms may lawfully be joined with, p. 66  
That the Liturgy, or Common-Prayer, is for its Matter sound and good, and for its Form tolerable, if not useful, p. 69  
That Kneeling at the Sacrament is not idolatrous, nor unlawful, and no sufficient reason to separate from that Ordinance, p. 71, 72  
That standing up at the Creed and Gospel, is lawful, p. 73  
The Conclusion, ibid.    

THE NON-CONFORMISTS' PLEA FOR Lay-Communion With the CHURCH of ENGLAND.  
THE Christian World is divided into two Ranks, Ecclesiastical and Civil, usually known by the Names of Clergy and Laity, Ministers and People. The Clergy, besides the things essentially belonging to their Office, are, by the Laws of all well-ordered Churches in the World, strictly obliged, by Declarations or Subscriptions, or both, to own and maintain the Doctrine, Discipline and Constitution of the Church into which they are admitted. Thus in the Church of England, they do subscribe to the Truth of the Doctrine more especially contained in the thirty nine Articles, and declare that they will use the Forms and Rites contained in the Liturgy, and promise to submit to the Government in its Orders. The design of all which is to preserve the Peace of the Church, and the Unity of Christians, which doth much depend upon that of its Officers and Teachers.  
But the Laity are under no such Obligations, there being no Declarations or Subscriptions required of them, nor any thing more than to attend upon, and join with the Worship practised and allowed in the Church. Thus it is in the Church of England, as it is acknowledged by Mr. Baxter, to whom when it 
Defence of the Cure, part 2. pag. 29.  was objected, that many Errors in Doctrine and Life were imposed as Conditions of Communion; he replies, What is imposed on you as a Condition to your Communion in the Doctrine and Prayers of the Parish-Churches, but your actual Communion itself? In discoursing therefore about the Lawfulness of Communion with a Church, the Difference betwixt these two must be carefully observed, lest the things required only of one Order of Men should be thought to belong to all. It's observed by one, That the Original of all Our Mischiefs 
A Book licenced by Mr. Cranford.  sprung from men's confounding the terms of Ministerial Conformity, with those of Lay-Communion with the Parochial Assemblies; there being much more required of the Ministers than of the People: Private Persons having much less to say for themselves in absenting from the public Worship of God, though performed by the Liturgy, than the Pastor hath for not taking Oaths, etc. Certainly, if this Difference were but observed, and the Case of Lay-Communion truly stated and understood, the People would not be far more averse to Communion 
Baxter's Cure, p. 311.  with the Parish-Churches than the Nonconforming Ministers are, as one complains; and whatsoever they might think of the Conformity of Ministers, because of the previous Terms required of them, they would judge what is required of the People to be lawful, as some 
Continuat. Morning Exercise, Serm. 4. p. 89.  of them do. And as the Ministers by bringing their Case to the People's, may see Communion then to be lawful, and find themselves obliged to maintain it in a private Capacity; so the People, by perceiving their Case not to be that of the the Ministers, but widely different from it, would be induced to hold Communion with the Church, and to join with those of their Ministers that think it their Duty so to do; and are therein of the opinion of the old Non-Conformists that did not act 
* Rathband's Epistle to the Reader, prefixed to the grave and modest Confutation, etc.  as if there were no middle between Separation from the Church and true Worship thereof, and Subscription unto, or Practice or Approbation of all the Corruptions of the same. For 
† Nichol's plea for the Puritans.  though they would not subscribe to the Ceremonies, yet they were against Separation from God's public Worship, as one of them in the name of the rest doth declare. So that as great a Difference as there is betwixt Presence and Consent, betwixt bare Communion and Approbation, betwixt the Office of the Minister and the Attendance of a private Person; so much is there betwixt the Case of Ministerial and Lay-Communion: And therefore when we consider the Case of Lay-Communion, we are only to respect what is required of the People, what part they are to have and exercise in Communion with the Church. Now what they are concerned in, are either, the Forms that are imposed, the Gestures they are to use, and the Times they are to observe, for the Celebration of Divine Worship; or, the Ministration, which they may be remotely supposed also to be concerned in.  
The lawfulness of all which, and of all things required in Lay-Communion amongst us, I shall not undertake to prove and maintain by Arguments taken from those that already are in full Communion with the Church of England, and so are obliged to justify it; but from those that in some things do differ from it, who may therefore be supposed to be impartial, and whose Reasons may be the more heeded as coming from themselves, and from such that are forward in other respects to own the Miscarriages of the Church, as those that wholly separate from it.  
For the better understanding of the Case, and of their Judgement in it, I shall consider,  

1. What Opinion the most eminent and sober Non-Conformists have had of the Church of England.  
2. What Opinion they have had of Communion with that Church.  
3. What Opinion they have had of such Practices and Usages in that Church, as Laymen are concerned in.   
1. What Opinion the most eminent and sober Non-Conformists have had of the Church of England. And that will appear in these two things; First, That they own her to be a true Church; Secondly, To be a Church in the main very valuable.  
First; They own her to be a true Church. Thus Mr. Baily saith of the old Non-Conformists, They 
Dissuasive, ●. 2. p. 21.  did always plead against the Corruptions of the Church of England, but never against the Truth of her Being, or the Comfort of her Communion: And as much is affirmed of the present, by a grave and sober Person amongst them, The Presbyterians generally hold the Church of 
Corbet's Discourse of the Religion of England, p. 33.  England to be a true Church, though defective in its Order and Discipline. Thus it's acknowledged in the name of the rest, by one that undertakes their Defence, and would defend them in their Separation, We acknowledge the Church of England to be a true Church, 
Non-Conformists not Schismatics, p. 13.  and that we are Members of the same visible Church with them. This they do not only barely assert, but also undertake to prove: This is done by the old Non-Conformists, in their Confutation of the Brownists, who thus begin, That the Church of England is a true 
A grave and sober Confut. p. 1. etc. p. 57  Church of Christ, and such an one, as from which whosoever wittingly and willingly separateth himself, cutteth himself off from Christ, we doubt not but the indifferent Reader may be persuaded by these Reasons following.  
1. We enjoy and join together in the use of those outward means, which God hath ordained in his Word for the gathering of a visible Church, and have been effectual to the unfeigned Conversion of many, as may appear both by the other Fruits of Faith, and by the Martyrdom which sundry have endured that were Members of our Church, etc.  
2. Our whole Church maketh Profession of the true Faith. The Confession of our Church, together with the Apology thereof, and those Articles of Religion which were agreed upon in the Convocation-House, Anno 1562. (whereunto every Minister of the Land is bound to subscribe) so far forth as they contain the Confession of Faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments, do prove this evidently, etc.  
So Mr. Ball: Wheresoever we see the Word of God 
Friendly Trial of the Grounds of Separate. c. 13●. p 306.  truly taught and professed in Points fundamental, and the Sacraments for substance rightly administered, there is the true Church of Christ, though the Health and Soundness of it may be crazed by many Errors in Doctrine, Corruptions in the Worship of God, and Evils in the Life and Manners of Men. As much as this is also affirmed in the Letters passed betwixt the Ministers of Old-England 
A. Letter of many Ministers in Old-England to others in New▪ England, p. 24.  and New-England, It is simply necessary to the being of a Church, that it be laid upon Christ the Foundation; which being done, the remaining of what is forbidden, or the want of what is commanded, cannot put the Society from the Title or Right of a true Church.  
And if we inquire into the Judgement of the present Non-Conformists, we shall find them likewise arguing for it: Thus the Author to Jerubbaal, The 
Jerubbaal; or, the Pleader impleaded, p. 18, & 27.  Essentials constitutive of a true Church, are, 1. The Head: 2. The Body: 3. The Union that is between them. Which three concurring in the Church of England, Christ being the professed Head, she being Christ's professed Body, and the Catholic Faith being the Union-band whereby they are coupled together, she cannot in justice be denied a true (though God knows far from a pure) Church.  
If we should proceed in this Argument, and consider the Particulars, I might fill a Volume with Testimonies of this kind.  
1. The Doctrine of the Church is universally held to be true and sound; even the Brownists owned it of old in their calm mood, who declare, We testify to all 
Brownists Apol. p. 7. An. 1604.  Men by these Presents, That we have not forsaken any one Point of the true, ancient, Apostolic Faith professed in our Land, but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them. See more in Baily's Dissuasive, cap. 2. p. 20, 33. and Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 1. § 9 p. 31. The Presbyterians (if I may so call them for distinction sake) do own it. So Mr. Corbet, The Doctrine of Faith, and Sacraments by 
Discourse § 21 p. 43.  Law established, is hearty received by the Non-conformists. So Mr. Baxter, As for the Doctrine of the Church of England, 
Preface to 5 Disp. p. 6.  the Bishops and their Followers from the first Reformation begun by Edw. 6. were sound in Doctrine, adhering to the Augustan Method expressed now in the Articles and Homilies, they differed not in any considerable Point from those whom they called Puritan. The like is affirmed by the Independents, The Confession of the Church of 
Peace-Offer.ing, p. 12. See Mr. Baxter's Defence of his Cure, Part 1. p. 64. and Part 2. p. 3. and Wadsworth in his Separation, yet no Schism, p. 60, 62. Mr. Throughton's Apology for the Non-Conformists, cap. 3. p. 106.  England, declared in the Articles of Religion, and herein what is purely doctrinal, we fully embrace.  
2. As to the Worship, they own it for the Matter and Substance to be good, and for Edification. So the old Non-Conformists, as Mr. Hildersham, There is 
Lecture 26. on John, p. 121.  nothing in our Assemblies, but we may receive profit by it, etc. And again, There is nothing done in God's Public Worship among us, but what is done by the Institution, Ordinance, and Commandment of the Lord. So among the present, it is owned by both Presbyterians and Independents; by the former in the Morning Exercise, 
Continuat. Morning Exercise, Serm 4. p. 91.  Why may it not be supposeable, that Christians may be moved by reasonable Considerations to attend the public Forms, the substantial Parts of them being thought agreeable to a Divine Institution, though in some Circumstantials too disagreeable? So it is acknowledged, That in 
Throughton's Apol. p. 104.  private Meetings the same Doctrine and Worship is used as in the Parish Churches, only some Circumstances and Ceremonies omitted. By the latter, We know full well that we 
Peace-Offering. p. 17.  differ in nothing from the whole form of Religion established in England, but only in some few things in outward Worship. But I shall have further occasion to treat of this under the third General.  
3. As for the Ministry of the Church: 1. It is acknowledged to be true, and for substance the same which Christ hath established. So Mr. Bradshaw, I 
Unreasonableness of the Separation, p. 16.  affirm, That the Ministry of our Church-Assemblies (howsoever it may in some particular parts of the Execution haply be defective in some Places) is, for the Substance thereof, that very same Ministry which Christ hath set in his Church. This he speaks, as he saith, of those that do subscribe and conform according to the Laws of the State. 2. That they have all things necessarily belonging to their Office; so the grave and modest Confutation maintains, The preaching of the whole Truth of God's Word, 
Grave and modest Confutat. p. 28.  and nothing but it; the Administration of the Sacraments and of Public Prayer, as they are of all parts of the Ministers Office prescribed in the Word, so they are all appointed to our Ministers by the Law. 3. They own, That all the Defects in it, whether in their Call or Administration, do not nullify the Office. Thus much Mr. Bradshaw doth contend for, So many of our Ministers 
Unreasonableness of Separation, p. 27, 37.  (who in the Book of Ordination are called Priests and Deacons) as in all Points concerning the substance of their Ministry, are qualified according to the intent of the Laws, have their Offices, Callings, Adminstration and Maintenance, for the Substance thereof, ordained by Christ. And yet I deny not, but there may be some accidental Defects, or Superfluities in or about them all; yet such as do not, or cannot be proved to destroy the Nature and Substance of any of them. This is maintained at large in the Letter of the Ministers in Old England, etc. p. 86, 87.  
And the like is also affirmed even by those of the 
Apologet. Narration. p. 6.  Congregational Way; so the Brethren in their Apology, The unwarrantable Power in Church-governors did never work in any of us any other Thought, much less Opinion, but that the Ministry thereof [of the English Churches] was a true Ministry. So Mr. Cotton. The 
Cotton's Infant Baptism, p. 181.  Power whereby the Ministers in England do administer the Word and Sacraments, is either spiritual and proper, essential to their Calling, or advantitious and accidental. The former they have received from Christ, etc. The latter from the Patron who presents, or the Bishop who ordains, etc. Whoever has a mind to see their Ordination defended, may consult Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, part 2, p. 12, 16, 17, 25, etc. Jus Divinum Regim. Eccles. p. 264, etc. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism, pag. 116. and his Defence of it, pag. 35, 37.  
Thus far therefore we see how far it is agreed, that the Church of England is a true Church in its Doctrine, Worship and Ministry. But when we come to consider what the Church is they own thus to be true, there we shall find that they do differ. The Presbyterians generally own a National Church, and have writ much in the behalf of it, as may be seen in the Books quoted in the 
* Jus Divinum Minist. Evang. p: 12, etc. Brinsly's Church-remedy, p 41, 42. Cawdry Independ. a great Schism, p. 60, 89, 172.  Margin. Others look upon it as a prudential thing, and what may lawfully be complied with; So Mr. Tombs, 
| Theodulia, or just Defence, § 15, 16. Preface, etc. 9 § 3.  It is no more against the Gospel to term the Believers of England, the Church of England, than it is to term Believers throughout the World, the Catholic Church; nor is it more unfit for us to term ourselves Members of the Catholic Church; nor is there need to show any Institution of our Lord, more for the one than the other.  
But those that will not own it to be a true Church in respect of such a Constitution, or that speak doubtfully of it, do yet assert as much of the Parish Churches. It's acknowledged by all, that the Distribution into Parishes is not of Divine but Humane Institution; but withal, its thought by some 
* Crofton's Reformation not Separation, p. 10. and Bethshemesh clouded, p. 101, etc. Cawdrey's Independ. a great Schism, p. 132, etc. Church-Reformation, p. 42.  agreeable to the reason of the thing, and somewhat favoured by Scripture, and by Experience has been found to be of such Convenience, Advantage, and Security to Religion, that Mr. Baxter hath more than once said: 
† Mr. Baxter's Plea for Peace, Epist. Serm. on Gal. 6. 10. p. 24. Defence, p. 21. par. 1. p. 36.  I doubt not, but he that will preserve Religion here in its due Advantages, must endeavour to preserve the Soundness, Concord and Honour of the Parish-Churches. And Mr. Corbet saith, 
| Mr. Corbet's Account of the Principles, etc. of several Non-Conformists, p. 26.  That the nullifying and treading down the Parish-Churches is a Popish Design. But whatever Opinion others may have of that Form, yet, all of one sort and another, agree that the Churches so called, are, or may be true Churches. This was the general Opinion of the old Non-Conformists. Thus saith a late 
* Troughton's Apol. p. 103.  Writer, who, though he is unwilling to grant that they did own the National Church to be a true Church, yet doth admit (as he needs must at least) that they did own the several Parishes, or Congregations in England to be true Churches, both in respect of their Constitution, and also in respect of their Doctrine and Worship; and that there were in them no such intolerable Corruptions, as that all Christians should fly from them. And even those that were in other respects opposite enough to the Church, did so declare. It was, saith Mr. Baxter, the Parish Churches that had the Liturgy, 
Defence of his Cure, part 2. p. 178. V Letter of Ministers of Old England to New, p. 49.  which Mr. H. Jacob, the Father of the Congregational Party, wrote for Communion with, against Fr. Johnson, and in respect to which, he called them Separatists, against whom he wrote. The same I may say of Mr. Bradshaw, Dr. Ames, and other Non-conformists, whom the Congregational Brethren think were favourable to their way.  
And if you will hearken to the abovesaid Apologist, he saith again, and again, That the general Sense 
Apol. c. 4. p. ●17.  of the present Non-conformists, both Ministers and People, is, that the Parishes of England generally are true Churches, both as to the Matter of them, the People being Christians; and as to the form, their Ministers being true Ministers, such as for their Doctrine and Manners deserve not to be degraded. But lest he should be thought to incline to one side, I shall produce the Testimony of such as are of the Congregational Way. As for those of New-England, Mr. Baxter doth say, That 
Defence of his Cure, part 2 p. 177.  their own Expressions signify, that they take the English Parishes, that have godly Ministers, for true Churches, though faulty. Mr. Cotton professeth, that Robinson's denial of 
Way cleared, p. 8.  the Parishional Churches to be true Churches, was never received into any Hearts amongst them; and otherwhere saith, We dare not deny to bless the Womb that bore us, 
His Letter, p. 3. printed 1641.  and the Papes that gave us suck.  
The five Dissenting Brethren do declare, 
* Apologet. Narr. V Hooker's Survey, Pref. and part 1. p. 47.  We have this sincere Profession to make before God and the World, that all the Conscience of the Defilements in the Church of England, etc. did never work in us any other Thought, much less Opinion, but that Multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congregations thereof, were the true Churches and Body of Christ. To come nearer, Dr. T. Goodwin 
On the Ephes. p. 477, 488, 489.  doth condemn it as an Error in those who hold particular Churches (those you call Parish-Churches) to be no true Churches of Christ, and their Ministers to be no true Ministers, and upon that Ground forbear all Church-Communion with them in hearing, or in any other Ordinance, etc. and saith, I acquitted myself [before] from this, and my Brethren in the Ministry.  
But the Church of England is not only thus acknowledged a true Church, but hath been also looked upon as the most valuable in the World; whether we consider the Church itself, or those that minister in it. The Church itself, of which the Authors of the grave and modest Confutation thus write: All the known 
Pag. 6.  Churches in the World acknowledge our Church for their Sister, and give unto us the Right-hand of Fellowship, etc. Dr. Goodwin saith, If we should not acknowledge these 
Ibid.  Churches so stated [i. e. Parish-Churches] to be the true Churches of Christ, and their Ministers true Ministers, and their Order such, and hold Communion with them too in the Sense spoken of, we must acknowledge no Church in all the Reformed Churches, etc. for they are all as full of Mixtures as ours. And Mr. J. Goodwin saith, 
Zion College visited.  that there was more of the Truth and Power of Religion in England, under the late Prelatical Government, than in all the Reformed Churches in the World besides. If we would have a Character of the Ministry of the Church of England, as it was then, Mr. Bradshaw 
Unreasonableness of the Separate. p. 97.  gives it, Our Churches are not inferior for number of able Men, yea, and painful Ministers, to any of the Reformed Churches of Christ in foreign Parts, etc. And certainly the Number of such is much advanced since his time. But I cannot say more of this Subject, than I find in a Page or two of an Author I must frequently 
Mr. Baxter's Cure of Church Divisions, Dir. 56. p. 263.  use, to which I refer the Reader.  
Before I proceed, I shall only make this Inference from what hath been said; That if the Church of England be a true Church, the Churches true Churches, the Ministry a true Ministry, the Doctrine sound and Orthodox, the Worship in the main good and allowable, and the Defects such as render not the Ordinances unacceptable to God, and ineffectual to us; I think there is much said towards the proving Communion with that Church lawful, and to justify those that do join in it. Which brings to the second General, which is to consider:  
II. What Opinion the sober and eminent Non-conformists 
Sect. II.  have of Communion with the Church of England. And they generally hold,  
1. That they are not totally to separate from it; this follows from the former, and must be owned by all them that hold she is a true Church: for to own it to be such, and yet to separate totally from it, would be to own and disown it at the same time: So say the Members of the Assembly of Divines, Thus to 
Papers for Accommodation, p. 47.  departed from true Churches, is not to hold Communion with them as such, but rather by departing to declare them not to be such. And saith Mr. Baxter, Nothing will 
Reasons for the Christian Relig. p. 464.  warrant us to separate from a Church as no Church [which yet is the case in total Separation] but the want of something essential to a Church: But if the Church have all things essential to it, it is a true Church, and not to be separated from. When the 
V Annotations on the Apologet. Nar. p. 17.  Church of Rome is called a true Church, it's understood in a Metaphysical or Natural Sense; as a Thief is a true Man; and the Devil himself, though the Father of Lies, is a true Spirit: But withal she is a false Church (as Mr. Brinsly saith from Bishop Hall) an Heretical, 
Arraignment of Schism, p. 26.  Apostatical, Antichristian Synagogue: And so to separate from her is a Duty. But when the Church of England is said to be a true Church, or the Parochial Churches true Churches, it's in a moral Sense, as they are sound Churches, which may safely be communicated with. Thus doth Dr. Bryan make the 
Dwelling with God, Serm. 6. p. 289, 291.  Opposition: The Church of Rome is a part of the universal visible Church of Christians, so far as they profess Christianity, and acknowledge Christ their Head; but it is the visible Society of Traitorous Usurpers, so far as they profess the Pope to be their Head, etc. From this Church therefore, which is Spiritual Babylon, God's People are bound to separate, etc. but not from Churches which have made Separation from Rome, as the reformed Protestant Churches in France, and these of Great Britain have done, in whose Congregations is found Truth of Doctrine, a lawful Ministry, and a People professing the true Religion, submitting to, and joining together in the true Worship of God. Such a Separation would (as has been said) unchurch it. This would be to deny Christ holds Communion with it, or to deny Communion with a Church, with which Christ holds Communion, contrary to a Principle that is, I think, universally maintained. The Error of these Men, saith Mr. Brightman 
* On Rev. c. 3. V Jenkin on Judas, v. 19 Allen Vindiciae Pietatis, second part, p. 123. Vindication of Presbyterian Government, p. 130. Cotton on John, p. 156. , i● full of Evil, who do in such a manner, make a Departure from this Church [by total Separation] as if Christ were quite banished from hence, and that there could be no hope of Salvation to those that abide there. Let these Men consider, that Christ is here feasting with his Members; will they be ashamed to sit at Meat there, where Christ is not ashamed to sit? Further, this would be a notorious Schism; so the old Non-conformists conclude, 
* Grave Consut. p. 57 Cawdrey's Independency further proved, p. 136.  Because we have a true Church, consisting of a lawful Ministry, and a faithful People, therefore they cannot separate themselves from us, but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of manifest Schism; for what is that, saith another, 
† Brinsly's Arraigment, p. 15, 24, 44.  but a total Separation from a true Church? This, lastly, would not diminish, but much increase the Fault of the Separation. As another saith; 
| Baily's Dissuasive, c. 6. p. 104.  For it is a greater Sin to departed from a Church, which I profess to be true, and whose Ministry I acknowledge to be saving, than from a Church which I conceive to be false, and whose Ministers I take to have no Calling from God, nor any Blessing from his Hand. This therefore is their avowed Principle, That total Separation from the Church is unlawful: And this the old Non-conformists did generally hold and maintain against the Brownists; 
* Ames's Puritanismus Angl. V Parker on the Cross, part 2. c. 91. § 21. Bax. Defence, p. 55.  and the Dissenting Brethren did declare on their part, 
† Apologet. Nar. p. 6.  We have always professed, and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most, either actually overspread with Defilements, or in the greatest Danger thereof, etc. that we both did, and would hold Communion with them as the Churches of Christ. And amongst the present Non-conformists, several have writ for Communion with the Church against those that separate from it, and have in Print declared it to be their Duty and Practice. So Mr. Baxter, 
| Sacril. desert. p. 75.  I constantly join i● my Parish-Church in Liturgy and Sacrament. It's said of Mr. Joseph Allen, 
* The Life of Mr. J. Allen, p. 111.  That he as frequently attended on the Public Worship, as his Opportunities and Strength permitted: 
† The Doctrine of Schism, p. 64.  Of Mr. Brinsley, that he ordinarily attended on the Public Worship. Dr. Collins saith as much of himself. 
| Reasonable Account, etc.  Mr. Lie in his Farewell Sermon doth advise his People to attend the Public Worship of God, to hear the best they could, and not to separate, but to do as the old Puritans did thirty Years before. Mr. Cradacot in his Farewell Sermon professeth, That if that Pulpit was his dying Bed, he would earnestly persuade them to have a care of total Separation from the Public Worship of God. Mr. Hickman freely declares, I profess 
Bonasus vapulans, p. 113.  wherever I come, I make it my Business to reconcile People to the Public Assemblies, my Conscience would fly in my Face if I should do otherwise. And Mr. Corbet, as he did hold Communion with the Church of England, so saith, 
* Account of the Principles of the Non-conformists, p. 26.  That the Presbyterians generally frequent the Worship of God in the Public 
† Discourse of the Religion, etc. p. 33. V Mr. Read's Case, p. 15.  Assemblies. It's evident then that it is their Principle, and we may charitably believe it is their Practice in Conformity to it. 
* Non-conformists Plea for Lay-Communion, p. 1.  Thus Mr. Corbet declares for himself. I own Parish-Churches, having a competent Minister, and a number of credible Professors of Christianity, for true Churches, and the Worship therein performed, as well in Common-Prayer as in the Preaching of the Word, to be in the main sound, and good for the Substance or Matter thereof: And I may not disown the same in my Practice by a total neglect thereof, for my Judgement and Practice ought to be concordant. And if these two, Judgement and Practice, be not concordant, it would be impossible to convince Men that they are in earnest, or that they do believe themselves, while they declare against Separation, and yet do not keep it up. Those good Men therefore were ware of this, who met a little after the Plague and Fire, to consider (saith Mr. Baxter) 
Non-conformists Plea fo● Peace, § 17●. p 240.  whether our actual Forbearance to join with the Parish-Churches in the Sacrament [and much more if it was total] might not tend to deceive Men, and make them believe that we were for Separation from them, and took their Communion to be unlawful: And upon the Reasons given in, they agreed such Communion to be lawful and meet, when it would not do more Harm than Good; that is, they agreed that it was lawful in itself.  
2. They hold that they are not to separate further from such a true Church, than the things that they separate for, are unlawful, or are conceived so to be; that is, that they ought to go as far as they can, and do what lawfully they may towards Communion with it. For they declare, 
* Burrough's Irenic. p. 182.  That to join in nothing, because they cannot join in all things, is a dividing Practice, and not to do what they can do in that case, is Schism; for then the Separation is rash and unjust. 
† Vindication of Presbyter. Governm. Brinsly's Arraignm. p. 16, 32.  Therefore if the Ministerial Communion be thought unlawful, and the Lay-Communion lawful, the Unlawfulness of the former doth not bar a Person from joining in the latter. The denying of Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in the Book of Common-Prayer, doth not gainsay the Lawfulness of partaking in that Worship, it being sound for the substance in the main, etc. 
* Corbet's Plea for Lay-Communion, etc. p. 2.  as a judicious Person hath observed. This was the Case generally of the old Non-conformists, who notwithstanding their Exclusion from their Public Ministry, held full Communion with the Church of England. We are told by a good Hand, That as 
Irenicum, by Discipulus de tempore, Junior, alias M. Newcomen, Epist. to the Reader. Friendly Trial, c. 7. p. 121.  heretofore Mr. Parker, Mr. Knewstubs, Mr. Vdal, etc. and the many Scores suspended in Queen Elizabeth, and King James' Reign: So also of later times, Mr. Dod, Mr. Cleaver, etc. were utterly against even Semi-Separation; i. e. against absenting themselves from the Prayers and the Lord's Supper. So it's affirmed of them by Mr. Ball, They have evermore condemned voluntary Separation from the Congregations and Assemblies, or negligent frequenting of those Public Prayers. And 
* Hildersham Lect on John. R. Rogers's 7 Treatises, Tr. 7. c. 4. p. 224.  some of them earnestly press the People to prefer the public Service before the private, and to come to the beginning of the Prayers, as an help to stir up God's Graces, etc. And others did both receive the Sacrament, and exhort others so to do, as I shall afterwards show. 2. Again, if in Lay-Communion any thing is thought to be unlawful, that is no reason against the things that are lawful: This was the Case of many of the godly and learned Non-conformists in the last Age, as we are told, that 
Vindicat. of the Presbyt. Govern. p. 135.  were persuaded in their Consciences, that they could not hold Communion with the Church of England, in receiving the Sacrament kneeling, without Sin; yet did they not separate from her. Indeed in that particular Act they withdrew, but yet so, as they held Communion with her in the rest. And thus much is owned by those of the present Age, as one declares. The Church of England 
Jerubbaal, p. 28, 30.  being a true Church (so that a total Separation from her is unwarrantable) therefore Communion with her in all parts of real solemn Worship, wherein I may join with her, without either Let or Sin, is a Duty. So another saith of them; 
Throughton's Apol. p. 107.  They are ready and desirous to return to a full Union with the Parishes, when ever the Obstacles shall be removed. And again, They hold Communion with the Parishes, not only in Faith and Doctrine, but also in Acts of Worship, where they think they can lawfully do it. This those of the Congregational-Way do also accord to, that they ought in all lawful things to communicate with the Churches of England; not only in Obedience to the Magistrate (in which case they also acknowledge it to be their Duty as well as others) but 
Mr. nigh's Case of great and present use, p. 4, and 5. Mr. Read's Case, p. 14.  also as they are true Churches; and therefore plead for the Lawfulness of hearing the established Ministry, and undertake to answer the Objections brought against it, whether taken from the Minister's Ordination, 
* Burrough's Irenic. p. 183. Lawfulness of hearing the public Ministers of the Church of England. nigh's Case, p. 24, 25.  or Lives, or the Church in which they are Ministers, etc. as you may find them in Mr. Robinson's Plea for it of old, and Mr. nigh's of late, as they are printed together. Upon the Consideration of which, the latter of these thus concludes. In most of the Misperswasions of these latter Times, by which men's Minds have been corrupted; I find, in whatsoever they differ one from another, yet in this they agree, That it's unlawful to hear in public; which I am persuaded is one constant Design of Satan in the variety of ways of Religion he hath set on Foot by Jesuits amongst us. Let us therefore be the more ware of whatsoever tends that way. Of this Opinion also is Mr. Tombs (though he continued 
Theodulia; Or, a just Defence of Hearing, etc. c. 10. § 15. p. 369. c. 9 § 8. p. 319.  an Anabaptist) who has writ a whole Book to defend the hearing of the present Ministers of England, and towards the close of the Work hath given forty additional Reasons for it, and in opposition to those he writes against doth affirm; Sure if the Church be called Mount Zion from the preaching of the Gospel, the Assemblies of England may be called Zion, Christ's Candlesticks, and Garden, as well as any Christians in the World. I shall conclude this with what Mr. Robinson saith in this Case, viz. For myself thus 
Treatise of the Lawfulness of Hearing, etc. p. ult.  I believe, with my Heart before God, and profess with my Tongue, and have before the World, that I have one and the same Faith, Spirit, Baptism and Lord, which I had in the Church of England, and none other; that I esteem so many in that Church, of what State or Order soever, as are truly Partakers of that Faith (as I account thousands to be) for my Christian Brethren, and myself a Fellow-Member with them, of that one Mystical Body of Christ, scattered far and wide throughout the World: that I have always in Spirit and Affection, all Christian Fellowship and Communion with them, and am most ready in all outward Actions and Exercises of Religion, lawful and lawfully done, to express the same: And withal, that I am persuaded, the hearing of the Word of God there preached, in the manner and upon the grounds formerly mentioned, both lawful, and upon occasion necessary for me and all true Christians, withdrawing from that Hierarchical Order of Church-Government and Ministry, and the uniting in the Order and Ordinances instituted by Christ. Thus far he.  
From what hath been said upon this Head we may observe, That though these Reverend Persons do go upon different Reasons, according to the Principles they espouse, they agree not in the Constitution of Churches, etc. yet they all agree that the Parochial Churches are or may be (as I have observed before) true Churches of Christ, that Communion with such Churches is lawful, and that we are to go as far as we can toward Communion with them. Though they differ about the Notion of Hearing, as whether it be an Act of Communion, and about the Call of those they hear, yet they all agree in the Lawfulness of it. And therefore to separate wholly in this Ordinance, and from the Parochial Churches as no Churches, are equally condemned by all.  
3. They hold, that they are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things, if the things accounted unlawful, are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church, and affect the Vitals of Religion, or are not imposed as necessary Terms of Communion.  
1. If the Corruptions are such as do not unchurch a Church, or affect the vital Parts of Religion. So saith Mr. Tombs, Not every, nor many Corruptions 
Theodulia. Answer to Preface, § 23. p. 47, 48.  of some kind do unchurch, there being many in Faith, Worship and Conversation in the Churches of Corinth, and some of the seven Churches of Asia, 
Aid. Blake's Vindiciae Foed. c. 31. p. 229, &c  who yet were Golden Candlesticks, amidst whom Christ did walk. But such general, avowed, unrepented of Errors in Faith, as overthrow the Foundation of Christian Faith; to wit, Christ the only Mediator betwixt God and Man, and Salvation by him, Corruptions of Worship by Idolatry, in Life by evil Manners, as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity, till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched. For till then the Corruptions are tolerable, and so afford no just reason to dissolve the Church, or to departed from it. So Mr. Brinsly: 
Arraignment of Schism, p. 50.  Suppose some just Grievances may be found among us, yet are they tolerable? If so, then is Separation on this ground intolerable, unwarrantable: in as much as it ought not to be, but upon a very great and weighty Cause, and that when there is no Remedy. So Mr. Noyes: Private Brethren may not 
Temple measured, p. 78.  separate from Churches, or Church-Ordinances; which are not fundamentally defective, neither in Doctrine or Manners, Heresy or Profaneness. To all which add the Testimony of Dr. Owen, and Mr. Cotton. The former asserts, That many Errors in 
Evangelical Love, p. 76.  Doctrine, disorders in sacred Administrations, irregular walking in Conversation, with neglect and abuse of Discipline in Rulers, may fall out in some Churches, and yet not evacuate their Church-state, or give sufficient warrant to leave their Communion, and separate from them. The latter saith; 
Exposit. on 1 Epist. John, p. 156.  Unless you find in the Church, Blasphemy, or Idolatry, or Persecution [i. e. such as forces them to leave the Communion] there is no just Ground of Separation. This is universally owned. But if any one should yet continue unconvinced, let him but peruse the Catalogue of the Faults of nine Churches in Scripture, collected by Mr. Baxter, and I persuade myself he will think the Conclusion inferred from it to be just and reasonable. Observe, saith he, that no 
Cure of Church Divisions, Dir. 5. p. 40, etc.  one Member is in all these Scriptures, or any other, commanded to come out and separate from any of all these Churches, as if their Communion in Worship were unlawful. And therefore before you separate from any, as judging Communion with them unlawful, be sure that you bring greater Reasons for it than any of these recited were.  
2. They are not to separate, if the Corruptions are not so made the Conditions of Communion, that they must necessarily and unavoidably communicate in them. Mr. Vines speaks plainly to both of these. 
On the Sacrament, p. 239.  The Church may be corrupted many ways, in Doctrine, Ordinances, Worship, etc. And there are degrees of this Corruption; the Doctrine in some remote Points, the Worship in some Rituals of Man's Invention or Custom. How many Churches do we find thus corrupted, and yet no Separation of Christ from the Jewish Church, nor any Commandment to the Godly of Corinth, etc. to separate. I must in such a Case avoid the Corruption, hold the Communion—. But if Corruptions invade the Fundamentals, the Foundation of Doctrine is destroyed, the Worship is become idolatrous; and what is above all, if the Church impose such Laws of her Communion as there is a necessity of doing or approving things unlawful, in that Case, Come out of Babylon. The Churches of Protestants so separated from Rome.  
But if the things be not of so heinous a Nature, nor thus strictly required, than Communion with a Church under Defects is lawful, and may be a Duty. So saith Mr. Corbet, in the name of the present Nonconformists, We hold not ourselves obliged to forsake a 
Account of the Principles of N. C. p. 8. and Discourse of Relig. § 16. p. 33.  true Church, as no Church, for the Corruptions and Disorders found therein, or to separate from its Worship for the tolerable Faults thereof, while our personal Profession of some Error, or Practice of some Evil is not required as the Terms of our Communion. And Mr. Burroughs himself doth grant as much and more; for he saith, 
Irenicum, c. 23. p. 162, 163.  Where these Causes are not, [viz. the being constrained to profess, believe or practise contrary to the Rule of Faith, or being deprived of Means altogether necessary, or most expedient to Salvation] but Men may communicate without Sin, professing the Truth, and enjoy all Ordinances, as the Freemen of Christ: Men must not separate from a Church, though there be Corruption in it, to gather into a new Church, which may be more pure, and in some respects more comfortable. And as though such Corruptions should be imposed as Terms of Communion, yet if not actually imposed upon us, our communicating in the true part of God's Worship is never the worse for the said Imposition, as long as we do not communicate in those Corruptions, as Mr. Bradshaw doth argue: So 
Unreasonableness of the Separation, p. 103.  though they should be imposed, and be unavoidable to all that are in Communion, that is not a sufficient Reason for a total Separation, as it is also owned; for saith one, When the Corruptions of a Church are such as 
Jerubbaal, p. 12.  that one cannot communicate with her without Sin unavoidably, that seems to me to be a just Ground, though not of a Positive, yet of a Negative; though not of a total, yet of a partial Separation; i. e. it may be a just Ground for the lesser, but is not so for the greater.  
Supposing then the Corruptions in a Church not to be of an heinous Nature, not respecting the Fundamentals of Religion; supposing again they are not necessarily imposed and unavoidable, than Separation for the sake of such is unwarrantable. But to make this the more uncontrollably evident, I shall consider the Corruptions, as they respect Worship, or Discipline. In Worship, I shall consider the Defects of it in itself, in the Ministration, the Ministers, and those that join with it, and show that these do not disoblige from Communion in it, and Attendance upon it.  
1. The Defects of Worship, if not essential, are consistent with Communion, and no just Reason for withdrawing from it. This the Brownists did acknowledge 
Apol. p. 7.  with some Qualification. Neither count we it lawful for any Member to forsake the Fellowship of the Church, for Blemishes and Imperfections, which every one, according to his Calling, 
Exposit. on 1 Epist. John; p. 157.  should studiously seek to cure, etc. So Mr. Cotton, Suppose there were, and are sundry Abuses in the Church, yet it was no safe Ground of Separation. When the Sons of Eli corrupted the Sacrifices of God, their Sin was great, yet it was the sin of the People 
England's Remembrance Serm. 2. p. 38.  to separate and abhor. Thus a Reverend Person, in his Farewell Sermon doth rightly instruct his Auditors: A means to hold fast what you have received, is diligent Attendance on the public Ordinances and Worship of God, if and when you can enjoy them in any measure according to God's Will, though not altogether in the manner you desire, and they should be administered in, etc. Though I dare not advise you to join in any thing that is in itself, or in your Judgement evil, till you be satisfied about it; yet I must advise you to take heed of Separation from the Church, or from what is good, and God's own Ordinance, etc. For the fuller Proof of which, it may not be amiss to produce the several Arguments used by them in Confirmation of this Truth. As,  
First, To break off Communion, or to refuse it for Arg. 1 such Defects, would be to look after a greater Perfection than this present State will admit of. So the Brownists do declare, None is to separate from a Church 
Confession of Faith, Art. 36.  rightly gathered and established, for Faults and Corruptions, which may, and, so long as the Church consisteth of mortal Men, will fall out and arise among them. And Mr. Jenkins argues upon this Principle. Must not 
Comment on Ju●e, v. 19  he, who will forbear Communion with a Church till it be altogether freed from Mixtures, tarry till the day of Judgement, till when we have no promise that Christ will gather out of his Church whatsoever doth offend? This was it that amongst other Reasons conquered the Prejudices of that good Man Mr. J. Allen, and kept him from Separation, of which 
His Life, p. iii.  we have this Account. He knew of how great Moment it was that the public Worship of God should be maintained, and that its Assemblies should not be relinquished, though some of its Administrations did not clearly approve themselves unto him; because upon the account of some Imperfections and Pollutions in them, supposed, or real, to withdraw Communion, is evidently to suppose ourselves joined before our time to the heavenly Assembly, or to have found such an one upon Earth exempt from all Mixtures and Imperfections of Worshippers and Worship. The want of this prudent Consideration makes many to expect more than can be reasonably expected, and to look upon every Defect or Corruption as intolerable; to prevent which, therefore Mr. Baxter doth give this Advice to his Brethren. Teach them to know that all Men are imperfect and faulty, and so is all Men's Worship of God; and that he that will not communicate with faulty Worship, must renounce Communion with all the World, and all with him.  
Secondly, They argue, our Saviour and the Apostles Arg. 2 did not separate from defective Churches and Worship, but communicated in it notwithstanding the Corruptions, and therefore it's not unlawful for others so to do. No doubt it was written for our Instruction, (saith one in a Farewel-Sermon) our Lord Jesus Christ 
England's Remembrancer, Serm. 4. p. 94, 95.  (who was as zealous for Purity in God's Worship, as much against corrupt Mixtures of men's Inventions therein, as any can pretend to be) used to attend on the Public Worship in his time, notwithstanding the many Corruptions brought into it. That he went into their Assemblies not to join in any Worship, but only to bear witness against their Corruptions, is not where written; but rather the contrary is held forth in Scripture, when he acknowledgeth himself a Member of the Church of the Jews, approves of, and justifies their Worship, as right for substance, that Salvation might be attained therein, which he denies to be attainable in any other Worship, John 4. 22. We know (including himself amongst those that worshipped God aright) what we worship, for Salvation is of the Jews. This is sufficiently proved by 
* Ball's Trial, p. 132.  many, that Christ did communicate with the Jewish Church, and is granted as well by those of the Congregational, as 
† The Platform of Discipline in New-England, c. 14. § 8.  Presbyterial Way: And yet Doctrine and Discipline, and Worship were much corrupted, of which Mr. Hildersham doth give a 
| Lect. 35 on John, p. 165, 166.  Specimen, but especially Dr. 
* Dwelling with God, p. 294.  Brian; There were many great Corruptions in the Church of the Jews in Christ's time, the Priests and Teachers were ignorant and wicked, and had a corrupt and unlawful entrance into their Calling; and the People were like to the Priests, generally notoriously and obstinately ungodly; and the Worship used in that Church was woefully corrupt; many superstitious Ceremonies, the Observation whereof were more strictly urged, than the Commandments and Ordinances of God; the Temple made a Den of Thiefs, the Discipline and Censures shamefully abused, the Doctrine was corrupt in many Points; yet the Word tells you, Christ (whose Example it binds you to follow, and you profess yourselves Followers of him in all imitable things) made no Separation from this Church, professed himself a Memeber of it, was by Circumcision incorporated a Member, received Baptism in a Congregation of that People, was a Hearer of their common Service and their Teachers, allowing and commanding his Disciples to hear them, communicated in the Passover with the People and the Priests: No more did his Apostles make Separation from this Church after his Ascension, till their day had its Period, etc. By their Example it appears, that till God hath forsaken a Church, no Man may forsake it, etc. So that we 
Ibid.  conclude from hence with Mr. Hildersham: Those Assemblies that enjoy the Word and Doctrine of Salvation, though they have many Corruptions remaining in them, are to be acknowledged as true Churches of God, and such as none of the Faithful may make Separation from. We shall need no further proof of this Doctrine than the Example of our Saviour himself, etc. For, why should our Saviour use it if it was unlawful? Or why should it be a Sin to us, 
The un●easonableness of Separate. p. 104.  who have not such Eyes to pierce into the Impiety of Man's Traditions as he had, as Mr. Bradshaw argues.  
The same Measures were observed also by the Apostles after the Establishment of the Christian Church: This is not to be gainsaid, and is therefore granted by one, in other things rigid more than enough; I 
Non-conformists not Schismatics, p. 15.  do not say that every Corruption in a true Church, is sufficient Ground of Separation from it: The Unsoundness of many in the Church of Corinth touching the Doctrine of the Resurrection, and in Galatia touching the Doctrine of Circumcision, and the necessity of keeping the Ceremonial Law, were not sufficient Ground of Separation from them; for the Apostles held Communion with them notwithstanding these Corruptions. Now by Parity of Reason it will follow, that if Separation was not to be allowed from those corrupted Churches, then surely not from such as are not so corrupted as they; So Mr. Cawdrey 
Independ. a great Schism, p. 195.  pleads, Corinth had (we suppose) greater Disorders in it than are to be found (blessed be God) in many of our Congregations; why then do they fly and separate from us? And if our Saviour and his Apostles did not separate from such Churches, much less should we, who may without doubt safely follow the Advice given by an Author above quoted; When you are at 
England's Remembrancer, Serm. 4. p. 111.  a stand, think how Christ would have carried, what he would have done in the like case with yours, and we may thereby be concluded.  
Thirdly; They further argue, That Christ doth Arg. 3 still hold Communion with defective Churches, and not reject the Worship for tolerable Corruptions in it, and so neither aught we. It is supposed by Dr. Owen, That there is no such Society of Christians 
Discourse of Evangelical Love, c. 3. p. 81.  in the World, whose Assemblies, as to instituted Worship, are so rejected by Christ, as to have a Bill of Divorce given unto them, until they are utterly, as it were, extirpate by the Providence of God, etc. For we do judge, that where ever the Name of Jesus Christ is called upon, there is Salvation to be obtained; however the ways of it may be obstructed unto the most by their own Sins and Errors. And if this may be said of Churches, though fundamentally erroneous in Worship, then, Who shall dare, as another saith, to judge when Christ hath forsaken a People, 
Troughton's Apol. p. 110.  who still profess his Name, and keep up his Worship for substance according to his Word, though they do, or are supposed to fail in circumstances, or lesser parts of Duty? Now, this granted, the other will follow, that then we are not to separate from such Churches. Thus Mr. Hildersham concluded of old from the Practice 
Lect. 35 on John, p. 165, 166. and Lect. 82. p. 384.  of Christ, and observes: 1. So long as God continueth his Word and the Doctrine of Salvation to a People, so long it is evident that God dwells among them, and hath not forsaken them, etc. And till God hath forsaken a Church, no Man may forsake 
V Dr. Bryan's dwelling with God, p. 293.  it. 2. No Separation may be made from those Assemblies, where Men may be assured to find and attain Salvation: But Men may be sure to find and attain Salvation in such Assemblies, where the Ministry of his Word, and the Doctrine of Salvation is contained. So Mr. 
* On the Sacramen. p. 242. Crofton's hard way to Heaven, p. 36. Noye's Temple measured, p. 79. Jenkin on Judas, v. 19 Davenport's Apol. reply, p. 281. Ball Trial, p. 159, etc.  Vines, The Argument, saith he, of Mr. Brightman, is considerable, If God afford his Communion with a Church by his own Ordinances, Grace and Spirit, it would be unnatural and peevish in a Child to forsake his Mother, while his Father owns her for his Wife. I might heap up Authorities of this kind, but shall content myself with a considerable one from 
† Comment. on 1 Epist. John, p. 156.  Mr. Cotton, who reasons after this manner: The Practice of the Brownists is blame-worthy, because they separate where Christ keeps Fellowship, Rev. 1. 18. And that he walks with us we argue, because he is still pleased to dispense to us the Word of Life, and edifies many Souls thereby, and therefore surely Christ hath Fellowship with us; and shall Man be more pure than his Maker? where Christ vouchsafes Fellowship, shall Man renounce it?  
Upon this are grounded the wholesome Exhortations of many eminent Non-conformists, as that of Mr. Calamy: You must hold Communion with all 
Godly Man's Ark, Epist. Ded.  those Churches with which Christ holds Communion; you must separate from the Sins of Christians, but not from the Ordinances of Christ. Of Mr. R. Allein: 
Godly Man's Portion, p. 122.  Excommunicate not them from you, excommunicate not yourselves from them with whom Christ holds Communion. Judge not that Christ withdraws from all those who are not in every thing of your mind and way. Methinks, saith another, in his 
V Bains on the Ephes. c. 2. 15. p. 297. England's Remembrancer, Serm. 16. p. 455.  Farewell Sermon, where a Church, as to the main, keeps the Form of sound Words, and the Substantials of that Worship which is Christ's, some adjudged Defects in Order cannot justify Separation. I dare not dismember myself from that Church that holds the Head. I think, whilst Doctrine is for the main sound, Christ stays with a Church, and it is good staying where he stays: I would follow him, and not lead him, or go before the Lamb. To such we find a severe Rebuke given very lately by one of themselves: Proud conceited Christians are not contented to come out 
Continuat. of Morn. Exerc. Serm. 16. p. 459.  and separate from the unbelieving idolatrous World, but they will separate also from the true Church of Christ, and cast off all Communion with them who hold Communion with him.  
Fourthly; They argue, That to separate for such Arg. 4 Defects and Corruptions, would destroy all Communion. If this should be, saith Mr. Bradshaw, than no 
Unreas. of the Separate. p. 103.  Man can present himself with a good Conscience, at any public Worship of God wheresoever; because (except it should be stinted and prescribed) he can have no Assurance, but that some Errors in Matter and Form will be committed. So Mr. Ball: One Man is of Opinion, 
Trial of the Grounds of Separate. c. 8. p. 137, 138.  that a prescribed Form is better than another; another, that a prescribed Form is unlawful, etc. In these Cases, if the least Error do slain the Prayers to others, that they may not lawfully join together, with whom shall the Faithful join at all? Is not this to fill the Conscience with Scruples, and the Church with Rents? Such as these must, if they will be true 
Sacri●eg defer. p. 95.  to their own Principles, renounce Communion with all the World, and be like those that Mr. Baxter tells us he 
Defence of his Cure, part 1. p. 47.  knows, That never communicate with any Church, nor ever publicly hear, or pray, or worship God at all, because they think all your ways [which he directs to Mr. Bagshaw, and other Non-conformists] of Worship to be bad.  
With this there can be no continuance in any Communion: so much Mr. Burroughs doth maintain: There would be no continuance in Church-Fellowship 
Irenic. c. 23. p. 163.  if this [a Separation from a Church for Corruptions in it] were admitted; for what Church is so pure, and hath all things so comfortable, but within a while another Church will be more pure, and some things will be more comfortable there? Upon the mischievous Consequences of this did Mr. R. Allein ground his last Advice to his Parishioners: Destroy 
Godly Man's Portion. p. 127.  not, saith he, all Communion by seeking after a purer Church, than in this imperfect State we shall ever attain. According to this Principle [no Communion at all, if not in all] where shall we rest? In all Society something will offend.  
With this, lastly, there can be no Order, Union, or Peace in the Church: So Mr. Baines, a Person of 
Comment. on ●phes. c. 2. 15. p. 297.  great Experience: This [seeking the Peace of Zion] reproveth such as make a Secession or Departure from the Church of God, our visible Assemblies, either upon dislike of some Disorders in Administration Ecclesiastical, or disallowed Forms, and manner of procuring things which the Communion of Saints for full Compliment and Perfection requireth. This is not, in my conceit, so much to reform as to deform, to massacre the Body, and divide the Head, etc. and will end in the Dissolution 
Morton's Memorial, p. 78, etc. Mr. Baxter's Def. of Cure, part 2. p. 171.  of all Church-Communion (if it be followed) as is notoriously evident in the case of Mr. R. Williams of New-England, that for the sake of greater Purity separated so long, that he owned no Church nor Ordinances of God in the World; and at his motion, the People that were in Communion with him dissolved themselves, as we have the account from thence. This therefore is one of the Doctrines we are to avoid, according to the prudent Advice in a Book above-cited: Doctrines crying up Purity to the 
England's Remembrancer, Serm. 14. p. 371.  Ruin of Unity, reject; for the Gospel calls for Unity as well as Purity.  
Fifthly; They argue, That to separate upon such Arg. 5 an account, is not at all warranted in Scripture. Thus Mr. Cawdrey: It is no Duty of Christ's imposing, no 
Independ. a. Schism, p. 192.  Privilege of his purchasing, either to deprive a Man's self of his Ordinances for other men's Sins, or to set up a new Church in opposition to a true Church, as no Church rightly constituted, for want of some Reformation in lighter Matters. Saith Mr. Blake, 
Vindiciae Foed. c. 31. p. 228.  We read not of Separation in his way [for the sake of Abuses and Corruptions] approved, nor any Precedents to go before us in it; we read a heavy Brand laid upon it, Judas 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, not having the Spirit. So the Congregations in New-England declare: The Faithful in the Church of 
Platform of Discipline in New-England, c. 14. § 8.  Corinth, wherein were many unworthy Persons and Practices, are never commanded to absent themselves from the Sacrament because of the same; therefore the Godly in like Cases are not presently to separate. It should rather have been inferred, are not to separate, for so much must be concluded from the Premises, if any thing at all. This is accordingly inferred by Mr. Noyes: For Brethren to separate from 
Temple measured, p. 78.  Churches and Church-Ordinances, which are not fundamentally defective, neither in Doctrine or Manners, in Heresy or Profaneness, is contrary to the Doctrine and Practice both of Christ and his Apostles. Unto whom I shall add the Testimony of Mr. Tombs: Separation 
Theodulia Answ. to Pref. § 25. p. 48.  from a Church somewhat erroneous or corrupt in Worship or Conversation, etc. is utterly dissonant from any of the Rules or Examples, which either of old the Prophets, or holy Men, or Christ and his Apostles have prescribed, is for the most part the Fault of Pride or bitter Zeal, and tends to Strife and Confusion, and every evil Work.  
Sixthly; They argue, That there is no necessity Arg. 6 for Separation for the sake of such Corruptions, because a Person may communicate in the Worship without partaking in those Corruptions. It was the Opinion of the Presbyterian Brethren at the Savoy-Conference, 
Confer. Savoy, p. 12, 13. Mr. Baxter's Defence of the Cure, p. 34, 35.  that not only the hearing, but the reading a defective Liturgy was lawful to him, that by Violence is necessitated to offer up that or none. And if there was a Possibility of thus separating the substance from the circumstantial Defects in the Ministerial Use of such Worship, much more may this be supposed to to be done by those that only attend upon it, and are not obliged by any Act of their own to give an explicit Consent to all and every thing used in it. 1. This Separation of the good from the bad in Divine Worship they grant possible. So Mr. Ball; If 
Trial of the Grounds, etc. p. 308.  some things human be mixed with divine, a sound Christian must separate the one from the other, and not cast away what is of God, as a nullity, fruitless, unprofitable, defiled, because somewhat of Men is annexed unto them. In the Body we can distinguish betwixt the Substance, and the Sickness which cleaveth unto it; betwixt the Substance of a Part or Member, and some Bunch or Swelling, which is a Deformity, but destroyeth not the Nature of that Part or Member, etc. So Mr. Calamy: its
Door of Truth opened, p. 7.  one thing to keep ourselves pure from Pollution; another, to gather Churches out of Churches. 2. They grant, that what is faulty and a Sin in Worship, is no Sin to us, when we do not consent to it. So Mr. Corbet: My 
Non-conformists Plea, &c▪ p. 6.  partaking in any Divine Worship, which is holy and good for the Matter, and allowable or passable in the mode for the main, doth not involve me in the blame of some sinful Defects therein, to which I consent not, and which I cannot redress. So another, in his Farewell Sermon: While all necessary fundamental Truth is 
England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 94.  publicly professed and maintained in a Church, is taught and held forth in public Assemblies, and the Corruptions there (though great, yet) are not such as make the Worship cease to be God's Worship, nor of necessity to be swallowed down, if one would communicate in that Worship, while any Christian (that is watchful over his own Heart and Carriage, as all aught ever to be) may partake in the one, without being active in, or approving the other; there God is yet present, there he may be spiritually worshipped, served acceptably, and really enjoyed. 3. They grant, that the being present at Divine Worship is no consent to the Corruptions in it. Thus Mr. Robinson: He that partakes 
Lawfulness of Hea●ing, etc. p. 19, 23.  with the Church in the upholding any Evil, hath his part in the Evil also. But I deny, as a most vain Imagination, that every one that partakes with a Church in things lawful, joins with it in upholding the things unlawful to be found in it. Christ our Lord joined with the Jewish Church in things lawful, and yet upheld nothing unlawful in it. So Mr. Nye: 
Case of great and present Use, p. 16, 18. Cure, dir. 35. p 196, etc. Defence, p. 96.  Approbation is an act of the Mind, it is not showed until it be expressed outwardly by my Words and Gestures. This Mr. Baxter undertakes to prove by several Arguments, as that no Man can in Reason and Justice take that for my Profession, which I never made by Word or Deed. That the Profession made by Church-Communion is totally distinct from this. That this Opinion would make it unlawful to join with any Pastor, or Church on Earth, since every one mixeth Sin with their Prayers. 4. They say, that Corruptions, though foreknown, do not yet make those that are present guilty of them. Thus the old Non-conformists declare: It is all one to the People, 
Letter of Ministers in Old-England, to the Brethren in New-England, p. 12, 13, 16.  whether the Fault be personal (as some distinguish) or otherwise, known beforehand, or not known. For if simple Presence defile, whether it was known beforehand or not, all Presence is faulty. And if simple Presence defile not, our Presence is not condemned, by reason of the Corruptions known, whereof we stand not guilty. If the Error be such as may be tolerated, and I am called to be present, by such Fault I am not defiled, though known before. Mr. Baxter replies to those of a 
Cur●, p. 200.  contrary Opinion after this manner: Take heed that thus [by affirming that foreknowing Faults in Worship makes them ours] you make not God the greatest Sinner, and the worst Being in all the World. For God foreknoweth all men's Sins, and is present when they commit them; and he hath Communion with all the Prayers of the Faithful in the World: what Faults soever be in the Words or Forms, he doth not reject them for any such Failings. Will you say therefore that God approveth or consenteth to all these Sins? I know beforehand, that every Man will sin that prayeth (by defect of Desire, etc.) But how doth all this make it mine? etc. And he otherwhere adds: It is another Man's 
Christian Di●ect. p. 748  Fault or Error that you foreknow, and not your own. 5. It's granted, that the Fault of another in the Ministration of Divine Worship is none of ours, nor a sufficient Reason to absent from it, or to deprive ourselves of it. Thus Mr. Baxter: The 
Cure, p. 197. V Jerubbaal justified, p 16, etc. 22, 34.  wording of the public Prayers is the Pastor's Work, and none of mine, etc. And why should any hold me guilty of another Man's Fault, which I neither can help, nor belongeth to any Office of mine to help, any farther than to admonish him. And that the Faults of him that ministers, are no sufficient Reasons to debar ourselves of Communion in the Worship, Mr. Nye affirms, and proves by this Argument: 
Case of great and present use, p. 10.  If I may not omit a Duty in respect to the Evil mixed with it, which is my own; much less may I thus leave an Ordinance for the Evil that is another Man's, no way mine, or to be charged upon me; this were to make another Man's Sins or Infirmities more mine than my own. Thus is the Case resolved 
Of Scandal a Discourse. p. 65.  with respect to the Cross in Baptism: I may not only, saith one, do that which I judge to be inconvenient, but suffer another to do that which I judge to be unlawful, rather than be deprived of a necessary Ordinance: e. g. If either I must have my Child baptised with the sign of the Cross, or not baptised at all; I must suffer it to be done in that way, though I judge it an unlawful Addition, because the manner concerns him that doth it, not me (at least not so much) so long as there is all the Essence. He must be responsible for every Irregularity, not I Thus Jacob took Laban's Oath, though by his Idols, etc. 
V Crofton's Reformat. no Separate. p. 24.  After the same manner doth Mr. Baxter resol●● the Case in his Christian Directory, pag. 49.  
Seventhly; They grant, That it is a Duty to join Arg. 7 with a defective and faulty Worship, where we can have no better. Thus the Presbyterian Brethren at the Savoy: 
* Confer. at the Savoy, p. 3, 12, 13.  An inconvenient mode of Worship is a Sin in the Imposer, and in the Chooser and voluntary User, that may offer God better and will not: And yet it may not only be lawful, but a Duty to him, that by Violence is necessitated to offer up that or none. This is acknowledged by an Author that is far from being favourable to Communion with the Church: If the Word of God could be no 
Separate. yet no Schism, p. 64.  where heard, or Communion in Sacraments no where enjoyed, but only in such Churches that were so corrupt, as yours is conceived to be; it might be lawful, yea, and a Duty to join with you, so far as possibly Christians could without Sin. Accordingly Mr. Baxter declares, That 
Def. of Cure part. 1. p. 78.  it is a Duty to hold Communion constantly with any of the Parish Churches amongst us, that have honest competent Pastors, when we can have no better; and professeth for his own part: Were I, saith he, in Armenia, 
Part 2. p. 176. and Cure, p. 265. q. 6.  Abassia, or among the Greeks, I would join in a much more defective Form than our Liturgy, rather than none. And he adds, That this is the Judgement of many New-England Ministers (to join with the English Liturgy, rather than have no Church-Worship) I have reason to conjecture from the Defence of the Synod, etc. 
Defence of Synod. Pref. p. 4, 5. Def. of Cure, part 1. p. 78. n. 6. p. 96. n. 5.  Now in what Cases this is to be presumed, that we can have no better; he shows, 1. When it is so by a necessity arising from Divine Providence. 2. A necessity proceeding from humane Laws which forbidden it. 3. A necessity from the Injury done to the Public. And 4. When it is to our own greater hindrance than help, as when we must use none, or do worse. In these and the like Cases it becomes a Duty, and what is otherwise lawful, is thereby made necessary. And he that cannot join with a purer Worship, than what is publicly established, without the breach of Humane Laws, or the disturbance of the Public Peace, or dividing the Church of God, or the bringing Danger upon himself, is as much, where any of these or the like Reasons are, restrained from so doing, as if it did proceed from natural or providential Necessity; that is, the one he cannot do physically and naturally, the other he cannot do morally, honestly, and prudently. Having thus far stated the Case, and showed that it's universally owned by those that dissent from the Church of England, that Communion in a Worship not essentially defective and corrupted is lawful; and that it's a received Opinion, that where better is not to be had, it's a Duty; and that better is not to had, where it is not to be had lawfully. I might freely pass on, but because there is a common Objection against what has been said, taken from Malac. 1. 14. Cursed be the Deceiver, etc. that voweth and sacrificeth to the Lord a corrupt thing: I shall briefly return their Answer to it, and proceed. To this the old Non-conformists reply: 1. No Argument can be 
Letter of the the Minist. of Old-England to those in New-Engl. p. 14.  brought from this place to the purpose, but by Analogy, which is a kind of arguing of all other most ready at hand, but liable to most Exceptions, and apt to draw aside, if Care be not had (which in this Case we find not) to take the Proportion in every material Point just and true. 2. The corrupt 
Ball's Trial of the Grounds, p. 74.  Sacrifice is that which the Deceiver bringeth voluntarily, and out of neglect, having a Male in his Flock; but the Faithful bringeth himself, and his goodly Desires, according to the Will of God; and as for Corruptions whether respecting Matter or Form, they are none of his, they cleave not to his Sacrifice, to slain or pollute it, etc. 3. He offers not a corrupt thing, who offers the best he hath 4. It is to be considered, saith Mr. Ball, that what is 
Trial of the Grounds, etc. c. 4. p. 78.  simply best, is not best in Relation to this or that Circumstance or End; what is best in a time free, is not best in a time not free. It is granted, saith Mr. Baxter, that 
Def. of Cure, p. 85.  we must offer God the best that we can do, but not the best which we cannot do. And many things must concur (and especially a respect to the Public Good) to know which is the best. So that before this Text can be 
V Burrough's Iren. c. 12. p. 86.  opposed to what has been said, it must be proved; 1. That the things in question are Corruptions, as much prohibited as the blind and lame under the Law. 2. That they are such as a Person doth choose, and it is in his Power to help, and offers it when he hath a Male in his Flock. 3. That such a Corruption as affects not the substance of Worship, doth yet alter the Nature of it, and makes the whole to be a corrupt thing, and abominable to God. If these things are not, the Objection reacheth not the Case, and there is no ground from that place for this Objection.  
I shall conclude this Head with a remarkable Saying 
Platform of Discipline, c. 13. § 5.  of the Ministers of New-England: To separate from a Church for some Evil only conceived, or indeed in the Church, which might and should be tolerated and healed with a Spirit of Meekness, and of which the Church is not yet convinced, though perhaps himself be; for this or the like Reasons, to withdraw from Public Communion in Word, Seals, or Censures, is unlawful and sinful.  
But supposing it may be unlawful to separate from a Church for a defective and faulty Worship; yet it may be supposed, that it may be lawful when it is for better Edification, and that we may choose what is for our Edification before what is not, and what is more for our Edification before what is less. For the Decision of which Case I shall show from them,  
P. 2. That as Defects and Faults in Worship, so neither is the pretence of better Edification a sufficient Reason against Communion with a Church. Sometimes they say it is no better than a mere Pretence and Imaginary, a seeming Contentment of Mind, as one 
Methermenent. p. 71. On John 4. Lect. 58.  calls it. This Mr. Hildersham takes notice of: Some prefer others before their own Pastor, only because they show more Zeal in their Voice and Gesture, and Phrase of Speech, and Manner of Delivery, though haply the Doctrine itself be nothing so wholesome or powerful, or fit to edify their Consciences, as the Doctrine of their own Pastor is; of such he saith, we may wish them more Knowledge and Judgement. Mr. Baxter observes the 
Cure of Di●is. p. 359.  same; One thinks that this is the best way, and another, that the other is best— And commonly appearance, and a taking Tone and Voice, do more with them than solid Evidence of Truth. Therefore it's fit to have a right Notion of Edification, which, saith a Reverend Person of late, lies more in 
Con●inuat. of Morn. Exerc. Serm. 4 p. 95.  the informing of our Judgements, and confirming our Resolutions, than in the Gusts and Relishes of Affection. These, as he saith, are indeed of great use to the other, but without them are far from making a Person better, and leaving him truly edified. Again, it may be, and 'tis no better than a mere Pretence, when the Fault is in themselves that complain they do not edify. Mr. Hildersham charges it upon such: Thou 
Lect. 28. p 129. and Lect. 58.  mightest receive Profit (if the Fault be not in thyself) by the meanest of us that preach. And he thus freely again declares himself: I am persuaded, there is never a Minister that is of the most excellent Gifts (if he have a godly Heart) but he can truly say, he never heard any faithful Minister in his Life, that was so mean, but he could discern some Gift in him that was wanting in himself, and could receive some Profit by him. And therefore they advise to cure the Fault before they make use of this Plea. So the pious Person abovesaid argues: How shouldest thou profit by his Ministry, if thou come with Prejudice, without any Reverence or Delight unto it, nor dost scarce acknowledge God's Ordinance in it? So Mr. Jenkin directs: Labour for 
Comment on Judas, v. 19  experimental Benefit by the Ordinances. Men separate to those Churches which they account better, because they never found those where they were before (to them) good—. Find the setting up Christ in your Hearts by the Ministry, and then you dare to account it Antichristian. Thus one (in a Farewell Sermon, speaking of supposed Defects in a 
●nglan●'s Remembrancer, Serm. 16. p. 456.  Church) doth advise his Auditors: Enlarge your Care and Pains in your Preparations; a right Stomach makes good Nourishment of an indifferent Meal; you may be warm (though in a colder Air and Room than you have formerly been) if you will put on more  before you come: Watch your Hearts more narrowly, and speak things to your Hearts more than you have done. Ecclesiast. 10. 10. If the Iron be blunt, then must he put to more Strength.  
But supposing it be really for Edification, yet this they declare is no sufficient reason for Separation. So Mr. Burroughs: If you be joined to a Pastor, 
Iren. c. 12. p. 85.  so as you believe he is set over you by Christ, to be a Pastor to you, though this Man hath meaner Gifts than others, and it would be more comfortable for you to have another Pastor; yet this is not enough to cause you to desert him whom Christ hath set over you. And so the Ministers in New-England 
Platform, c. 13. § 5.  deliver their Minds: To separate from a Church for greater Enlargements, with just Grief to the Church, is unlawful and sinful. So when this Question was put, Are they not at all times obliged to use the Means which are most edifying? It's answered by the aforesaid Author, They may say at all times, when they have nothing to outweigh 
Continuat. of Morn. Exerc. Serm. 4. p. 91.  their own Edification. So that Edification may be outweighed, and then it can be no standing and sufficient Reason. So Mr. Burroughs declares in this 
Irenic. c. 12. p. 85, 86.  case: Men must consider not only what the thing is in its own Nature, but what it is to them, how it stands in reference to their Relations—. It is not enough to say, the thing is in itself better; but is it better in all the References I have, and it hath? Is it better in regard of others, in regard of the Public, for the helping me in all my Relations? may it not help one way, and hinder many ways? Of the same Opinion is Mr. Baxter: Many things, saith he, 
Defence, part 1. p. 85.  must concur (and especially a respect to the public Good) to know which is the best. So that Edification is not to be adjudged of alone, our own Improvement is not to determine us in our Actions, and especially not with respect to Church-Communion, for then other Reasons do give Law to it, and overrule it. Thus we see, those that descent from the Church in other things, agree with her in this: And they give several Reasons and Arguments for it.  
First; If we were sure we could not profit, yet we must Arg. 1 come to do Homage to God, and show Reverence to his 
Lect. 28. p. 129, 309.  Ordinance. This is Mr. Hildersham's Opinion.  
Secondly; The leaving a Church for better Edification, Arg. 2 is built upon a false and dangerous Principle, which is, that we must always choose the best. So Mr. Burroughs: To hold what is in itself best, must be chosen 
Irenic. c. 12. p. 84, 87.  and done, not weighing Circumstances or References, is a dividing Principle. And afterwards, he saith, A Christian without comparing one thing with another, will hack and hue, and disturb himself, and others in the ways of Religion. I believe some of you have known those who, whatsoever they have conceived to be better than other, they have presently followed with all Eagerness, 
Of this V Ball's Trial, c. 4. p. 75, 76, 78  never considering Circumstances, References or Consequences, but the thing is good, it must be done; yet being wearied with this, they have after grown lose, in as great an excess the other way.  
Thirdly; This Principle of better Edification, if followed, Arg. 3 would bring in Confusion. So Mr. Hildersham: 
Lect. 66.  This factious Disposition of the Hearers of God's Word, hath in all Ages been the cause of much Confusion in the Church of God, and greatly hindered the Fruit of the Gospel of Christ. This, saith Mr. Brinsly, the moderate Author of the late Irenicum [Mr. Burroughs] 
Arraignment of Schism, p. 48.  will by no means allow, but condemns as the direct way to bring in all kind of Disorder and Confusion into the Church; and I think none who are judicious, but will therein subscribe to him. It will not be amiss to transcribe his own Words: It is in itself a better thing to enjoy a Ministry 
Burrough's Iren. c. 12. p. 85.  of the most eminent Gifts and Graces, than one of lower; but if this should be made a Rule, that a Man who is under a Pastor who is faithful, and in some good measure gifted, upon another Man's coming into the Country that is more eminent, he should forsake his Pastor, and join to the other; and if after this, still a more eminent Man comes, he should leave the former, and join to him; and by the same Law a Pastor who hath a good People, yet if others be more likely to receive more good, he may leave his own People and go to them, what Confusion and Disorder would there be continually in the Church? This is condemned also by the New-England Ministers. This Mr. Cawdrey doth expose: If a Man may lawfully 
Platform Pref. p. 7. etc. 13. §▪ 1. Independ. a Schism, p. 50.  separate from a true Church, etc. only with a good mind to serve God in Church-Institutions, true, or conceited by his own Light, all the Sectaries and Separatists, Donatists, Brownists in the World may be justified. This, saith another (speaking of hearing 
Methermeneut. p. 72, 74.  for this Reason) is a Church-destroying Principle; sure if one Member be not fixed, than not another, nor another, etc. and then not the Pastor, nor Teacher, and so farewell Churches.  
Fourthly; This will be endless. So Mr. Burroughs: Arg. 4 Men must not separate from a Church, though there 
Irenic. c. 23. p. 163.  be Corruptions in it, to gather into a new Church which may be more pure, and in some respects more comfortable. First, Because we never find the Saints in Scripture separating or raising Churches in such a Case. And Secondly, There would be no continuance in Church-Fellowship, if this were admitted; for what Church is so pure, and hath all things so comfortable, but within a while another Church will be more pure, and some things will be more comfortable there? And he concludes with this prudent Maxim: The general Peace of the Church should be more regarded, than some comfortable Accommodations to ourselves. So Mr. Baxter: 
Defence, part 1. p. 85.  What if twenty Ministers be one abler than another in their several degrees, doth it follow that only the ablest of all these may be joined with, because that all the rest do worse? And yet this must be, if Edification be always to be consulted, and is to determine us in our choice of Ministers, Churches, and Ordinances.  
Fifthly; They say, Edification doth not depend Arg. 5 so much upon the external Administration of Worship, as God's Blessing; and that we are not to break the Order, Peace, and Union of the Church for the sake of it. The former is asserted by Mr. Hildersham: 
Lect. 54 p. 254, & Lect. 58.  It's our Sin and Shame, and is just cause of humbling to us, if we cannot profit by the meanest Minister God hath sent. The Power of the Ministry dependeth not on the Excellency of the Teacher's Gift, but God's Blessing. The latter is maintained by Mr. Vines: It's said, Order in an Army kills no 
On the Sacrament, p. 246.  Body, yet without it the Army is but a Rout, neither able to offend or defend: So haply Order in the Church, converts no Body, yet without it I see not how the Church can attain her End, or preserve themselves in begetting or breeding up Souls to God. Therefore is the Advice of Mr. Baxter; Do not 
In his Farewell Sermon.  think to prosper by breaking over the Hedge, under the pretence of any right of Holiness [so of Edification] whatsoever, following any Party that would draw you to Separation. The Mischief of which is represented by Dr. Tuckney: Experience, saith 
Sermon at Paul's on Acts 9 31.  he, hath taught us, that the Church of God hath been poorly edified by those who have daubed up their Babel with untempered Mortar, etc. when the Church is rend by Schisms and Factions, and one Congregation is turned into many Conventicles, falsely now called Churches, this doth diminish, weaken, and ruin.  
last; When they do grant that Edification may serve to guide us, and that we may hear where we can most profit, it's with such Limitations and Cautions as these: it must be seldom, in a great Case, without Offence and Contempt. Thus Mr. Hildersham: I 
Lect. 54. p. 253.  dare not condemn such Christians, as, having Pastors in the places where they live of meaner Gifts, do desire (so they do it without open breach or contempt of the Church's Order) to enjoy the Ministry of such as have better Gifts, etc. so they do it without contempt of their own Pastors, and without Scandal and Offence to them and their People. So again: You ought not to leave your own Pastor at any 
Lect. 58.  time with contempt of his Ministry, as when you say or think, alas! he is no body; a good honest Man, but he hath no Gifts, I cannot profit by him. And as if he could not be too cautious in the case, he lays down this as the Character of one that doth this innocently: He only makes right use of the benefit of hearing such as have more excellent Gifts, than his own Pastor's, and learns thereby to like his own Pastor the better, and to profit more by him. That this is to be but seldom, we have the concurrent Testimony of the Provincial Assembly of London, who upon this Question, Would 
Jus Divinum Minist. Evangel. p. 11, 12.  you have a Man keep constantly to the Minister under whom he lives? do answer, We are not so rigid as to tie up People from hearing other Ministers occasionally, even upon the Lord's-Day. But yet we believe 'tis most agreeable to Gospel-Order, upon the Grounds forementioned. Thus it is resolved also by one of a more rigid way, 
Methermeneut p. 72.  who puts this Question: Whether Members of particular Churches may hear indifferently elsewhere? and returns this Answer: God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice, as distance of Habitation, handing such a point. But most certainly Members of Churches ought mostly to be with their own Churches—. The imagined Content in hearing others, is rather a Temptation than Motion of the Spirit.  
From all which we may conclude, that the pretence of better Edification is no sufficient Reason for Separation from a Church, Worship, or Ministry, without there be other Reasons that do accompany it: and then it is not for this Reason, so much as those it is in conjunction with.  
But admitting this, yet it will hardly be granted to be a reason for Separation from the Church of England, if the Testimony of many worthy Persons be of any Consideration. Thus Mr. Hildersham declares, 
Lect. 29. p. 131.  when he is reproving such as make no Conscience to come to the beginning of God's Public Worship, and to stay to the end of it; he thus proceeds: Because I see many of them that have most Knowledge, and are forwardest Professors, offend in this way, I will manifest the Sin of these Men. 1. They sin against themselves in the Profit they might receive by the Worship of God—. There is no part of God's Service, (not the Confession, not the Prayers, not the Psalms, not the Blessing) but it concerns every one, and every one may receive Edification by it. This he otherwhere repeats, and saith; By the Confession, 
Lect. 28 p. 129.  and all other Prayers used in the Congregation, a Man may receive more Profit than by many other. Of this Opinion, as to the most of the Prayers in our Liturgy, were the old Non-conformists: We are persuaded, that not only some few 
Letter of the Minist. in Old-England to the Brethren in New-England, p. 13.  select Prayers, but many Prayers and other Exhortations may lawfully be used, with Fruit and Edification to God's People.  
As for the Word preached amongst us, Nr. Nye 
Case of great use, p. 3.  saith, That there is a Sum of doctrinal Truths, which in the Enlargement and Application, are sufficient both for Conversion and Edification, to which the Preachers are to assent. And, That the Word of God interpreted and applied by preaching in this way, is a choice Mercy and Gift, wherewith God hath blessed this Nation for many Years, to the Conversion and Edification of many thousands. And he afterwards ascribes the want of Edification to the prejudices of People; Such reasonings, saith he, against 
Pag. 25.  hearing, though they convince not the unlawfulness of it, yet they leave such Prejudices in the Minds of them which are tender, as perplex, and render hearing less profitable and edifying, even to those that are persuaded of its Lawfulness. This Mr. Tombs declares himself freely 
Theodulia, c. 9 § 8. p. 317.  in; If we look to experience of former Times, there is now ground to expect a Blessing from conforming Preachers, as well, or rather more, than from Preachers of the separated Churches. Sure the conversion, consolation, strengthening, establishing of Souls in the Truth, has been more in England from Preachers, who were Enemies to Separation, whether Non-conformists to Ceremonies, or Conformists, Presbyterial or Episcopal, even from Bishops themselves, than from the best of the Separatists. I think all that are acquainted with the History of things in the last Age, will acknowledge that more good hath been done to the Souls of Men, by the Preaching of Usher, Potter, Abbot, Jewel, and some other Bishops; by Preston, Sibbs, Taylor, Whately, Hildersham, Ball, Perkins, Dod, Stock, and many thousands, Adversaries to the separated Churches, than ever was done by Ainsworth, Johnson, Robinson, rigid Separatists, or Cotton, Thomas Hooker, and others (though Men of precious Memory) Promoters of the way of the Churches Congregational. And therefore if the Bishops and Conforming Preachers now apply themselves (as we hope, when the heat of Contention is more allayed, they will) to the profitable way of preaching against Popery and Profaneness, exciting their Auditors to the Life of Faith in Christ, etc. there may be as good Ground, if not better (considering how much the Spirits of Separatists are for their Party, and the speaking of the Truth in Love, and edifying in Love, is necessary to the growth of the Body; Ephes. 4. 16.) to expect by them a Blessing in promoting the Power of Godliness, than from the Separatists. So that whether we consider the Worship or Doctrine, or the preaching of it, the Church of England in their Apprehension doth not want a sufficiency of Means for the Conversion and Edification of Souls: And consequently the Argument taken from Edification, in justification of forsaking the Communion of it, is inclusive and of no force. But this branch of it will be further confirmed under the third General.  
But however, this will not be so easily quitted, for supposing the Doctrine good, and those that teach it capable (as far as Learning and Parts are requisite) to improve it to the Conversion and Edification of others; yet if they themselves are lose and scandalous, it may give just Offence, and be thought a sufficient cause to separate from the Worship in which such do officiate.  
P. 3. Therefore I shall show, that the badness of the Ministers is of itself no sufficient Reason to forsake the Communion of a Church, or to separate from the Worship administered in it. What holy Mr. Rogers saith, is a great Truth: It is not to be denied, 
Seven Treatises, Tract. 3. c. 4 p. 223.  but that the Example of ignorant and unreformed, especially notorious Persons in the Ministry, hath done and doth much harm; and if either they cannot be convicted, or if their Crimes be such as cannot remove them out of their places, there is just cause of Grief, that such should have any thing to do in God's Matters, which are so weighty, and to be dealt withal in high Reverence.  
But yet before the Objection is admitted, it is to be premised, 1. That if there be such in the Church, it doth not proceed from their Conformity to it. For good and pious Men of this sort always were, and still are in the Church. What there were formerly, 
Defence, part 1. p. 57  may be read in Mr. Baxter, who thus delivers himself: When I think what learned, holy, incomparable Men, abundance of the old Conformists were, my Heart riseth against the thoughts of separating from them; such as Mr. Bolton, Mr. Whately, Mr. Fenner, etc. and abundance other such; yea, such as Bishop Jewel, Bishop Grindal, Bishop Hall, etc. yea, and the Martyrs too, as Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper himself, etc. What there are now in the Church, he also tells us; I believe there are many hundred godly Ministers 
Ibid. p. 12.  in the Parish-Churches of England. And of his own knowledge, saith, I profess to know those of 
Ibid. p. 11.  them, whom I take to be much better than myself; I will say a greater word, that I know those of them whom I think as godly and humble Ministers, as most of the Non-Conformists whom I know. So saith Dr. Bryan, In some Countries, I am sure there are 
Dwelling with God, Serm. 6. p. 313.  many Sober, Godly, Orthodox, able Preachers yet in possession of the public Places.  
2. It is to be premised, that this Argument, if of any, yet is of no farther force than against the Congregations where such are, and so is of none against the Church itself, where are good as well as bad, nor against Parochial Communion where such are not. So Mr. Baxter argues; I doubt not but there are many 
Defence. part 1. p. 11.  hundred Parish Ministers, who preach holily, and live holily, though I could wish that they were more. And what reason have you to charge any other men's Sins on them, etc. or to think it unlawful to join with the Good for the sake of the Bad? this is to condemn the Sound for the sake of the Infected.  
Having premised this, we shall reassume the Case, and consider how it is stated and resolved by them.  
1. It's granted, that it is not unlawful to join with bad Ministers in some Cases where they may have better. So Mr. Rogers; As it is far from me to be a 
Tract. 3. p. 223.  Patron of such, or to justify them; so yet, while we may enjoy the Ministry of better, I would not refuse to be partaker of the Prayers which are offered by them.  
2. It's granted, that it's lawful, and a duty to hear and join with such where a better cannot be had. That it is lawful, so Mr. Rogers; Who can blame him, 
Ibid.  who desireth to pray with better than they be? And yet better to join with them sometimes, than to leave the public Assemblies altogether. So Mr. Baxter; No 
Cure, dir. 17. p. 114.  People should choose and prefer an ungodly Minister before a better; but they should rather submit to such than have none, when a better by them cannot be had. That it's a Duty, so the old Non-Conformists; The Scripture teacheth evidently, that 
Letter of Ministers in Old-England, to the Brethren in New-England p. 11.  the People must and aught to join with them [unworthy Ministers] in the Worship of God, and in separating from the Ordinance they shall sin against God. For the Worship is of God, and the Ministry is of God; the Person unworthily executing his place, is neither set up by some few private Christians, nor can by them be removed: And warrant to withdraw themselves from the Worship of God, because such as ought not, are suffered to intermeddle with Holy Things, they have none from God. So Mr. Ball; To communicate with Ministers no better 
Trial of the grounds, c. 13. p. 311. V Tombs Theodulia, p. 17.  than Pharisees in the true Worship of God, is to worship God aright, to reverence his Ordinances, to rely upon his Grace, to hearken unto his Voice, and submit unto his good pleasure. This they maintain by several Arguments. As,  
First, Such were always in the Church, and Communion Arg. 1 must never have been held with the Church, if no Communion was to be where such were. So the old Non-Conformists argue; If the Minister make 
Letter of the Minist. in Old-Engl. etc. p. 10.  it unlawful, than all Communion in any part of God's Worship with such Ministers, is unlawful, and so the Church in all Ages of the World, the Prophets, our Saviour Christ, the Apostles, and the 
V Ball's Trial, p. 310.  Faithful in the Primitive Churches, sinned, in holding Communion with such, when the Priests were dumb Dogs that could not bark, and greedy Dogs that could never have enough; when the Prophets prophesied Lies, when the Priests bought and sold Doves in the Temple, etc. when they were such, and did such things, they were ungodly Ministers; but we never find that the Prophets, our Saviour, and the Apostles, did either forbear themselves, or warn the Faithful not to communicate with such in the Ordinance of Worship. So much Mr. Nye doth grant; More cannot be objected against our Ministers 
Case of great and present use, p. 14.  that Conform, than might against the Scribes and Pharisees in Christ's Time; either in respect of their Doctrine, which was loaden with Traditions; their Standing, which was not according to Law; their Lives, which were vicious; yet Christ not only permits, but requires us to attend the Truths they deliver.  
Secondly, They plead that our Saviour himself did Arg. 2 Communicate where such did Officiate. So Dr. Bryan; In some Countries, I am sure there are many Sober, 
Dwelling with God, p. 313.  Godly, Orthodox, able Preachers, etc. And if you know any Country where it is worse. This is attested by another in his Farewell Sermon. Our Saviour 
England's Remembrancer, Serm. 4. p. 94.  Christ used to attend on the public Worship in his Time, notwithstanding such Formalists and superstitious Ones, as the Scribes and Pharisees did Officiate in it.  
Thirdly, They say, that the Sin of the Minister is Arg. 3 not theirs, nor doth bring any detriment to them, though they Communicate with him. So Mr. Baxter; A Minister's personal Faults may damn himself, 
C●ristian Directory, p. 747. & Cure, p. 113, 114.  and must be matter of Lamentation to the Church, who ought to do their best to reform them, or get better by any lawful means; but in case they cannot, his Sin is none of theirs, nor doth it make his Administration null or ineffectual; nor will it allow you to separate from the Worship which he Administereth. So the Ministers sent to Oxford do assert; Some evil Men may, and always have, de 
Account given to the Parliament, p. 27.  facto, been Officers and Ministers in the Church, etc. and the wickedness of such Men did not null or evacuate their Ministerial Acts; for our Saviour would have the Scribes and Pharisees heard while they sat in Moses' Chair, etc. And that the Ministrations in such a case are not invalid, and that the People suffer not by it, they further prove: 1. Because they officiate not in their own Name. So the Old Non-Conformists; It hath evermore been held for a Truth, 
Letter of the Ministers, p. 11.  in the Church of God, That although sometimes the Evil hath chief Authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own Name, but in Christ's, and minister by his Commission and Authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word, and receiving the Sacraments; neither is the effect of Christ's Ordinance taken away by their wickedness. 2. The virtue of the Ordinance doth not depend upon their Goodness, but God's Promise. So Mr. Rogers saith of Prayer; If this burden [of bad Ministers] 
Tract. 3. p. 223.  must be born, I ask, If among many sweet Liberties we enjoy, we may not join in Prayer with them, if we can pray in Faith, seeing their unworthiness cannot withhold the Fruit of God's Promise from us, which is to one kind of Prayer as well as another? So saith Mr. Cradacot of the Word; Take heed, saith he, of being leavened with prejudice 
Farewell Sermons, Vol. 3. p. 22, 23.  against the Ministry of the Word, because of the misdemeanours or miscarriage of the Minister. It is the Word of the Lord which converts, not the Person of the Dispenser or Speaker. Hence it was that the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees was not to be rejected, but to be esteemed, so long as they failed not of the Substance thereof, etc. I conceive it's a rare thing for unconverted Ministers to convert; and yet we must remember not to tie the efficacy of the Word and Sacraments, to the goodness or badness of a Minister's Person. So when it's 
Case of great and present Use, p. 14.  objected; How can we expect a Blessing upon the Labours of such, though they preach truth? Mr. Nye replies, Answ. 1. The mixtures in Sermons are nearest, the irregularities of their Calling next, the sins of their Conversations furthest from their Doctrine, and therefore have less efficacy at such a distance to prejudice it. Answ. 2. It's God's Word, and not their own they preach, etc. 3. That if Persons themselves do believe and are sincere, they are, notwithstanding such a Ministry, accepted. The Sacrifice of a faithful Elkanah, saith one, 
England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 94.  was pleasing to God, even when Hophni and Phineas were Priests. From all which we find some declaring, that notwithstanding this they would Communicate. So a Learned Person; The People's Prejudices 
Bonasus Vapulans, p. 133.  against the Liturgy, are grounded, for the most part, upon the wicked Lives of those that are the most constant readers and frequenters of it, [doubtless the Author, if he had considered this, would rather have said that they are grounded upon the wicked Lives of some of those that read and frequent it.] I shall never upon that account cease to join in Prayers, and to hear Sermons. Others, we find, exhorting their Auditors to attend even upon such. So Mr. Fairclough in his Farewel-Sermons; Get all 
Pastor's Legacy, p. 125.  good from, show all Duty to him that follows.— If he should be weak or evil, yet while he preacheth Truths, while he sits in Moses' Chair, hear him seriously, and carry yourselves towards him as becomes a People to their Minister.  
I have thus far considered the Case of scandalous Ministers, because many make it an Objection, as well those that are not concerned, as those that are. Otherwise it must be acknowledged, that England was never better provided with a Learned and Pious Ministry, than at present; who have as good Understanding, 
Non-Conformists Plea for Conformists, p. 12, & 23.  preach as good Doctrine, do as much good by their Preaching as any others, as a late Writer doth confess. But though many Congregations are well supplied with a Pious, Able, and Industrious Ministry, yet there are few or none but what have some, more or less, amongst the Laity, that are (as it may be supposed) not fit to be received into Communion with a Church, or to be communicated with. This brings me to the next thing in Worship, which is,  
P. 4. The Case of Mixed Communion. This is a 
On the Sacrament, p. 235.  Plea, saith Mr. Vines, that is plausible to easy Capacities, because it pretends to set up Holiness of Ordinances and People; but what the eminent Dissenters do utterly disclaim; Mr. Vines saith it is Donatistical, and others, as Mr. Brinsley and Mr. Jenkin, that it's the common 
Brinsley's Arraignment, p. 37, 38. Jenk. on Judas, v. 19 Baily's Dissuasive, p. 22. Sacril desert. p. 97.  Plea or Pretence which for the most part hath been taken up by all Schismatics, in defence of their separation from the Church; and therefore that it is necessary the People should be untaught it, as Mr. Baxter doth advise. And as they do disclaim it, so they declare that those that separate upon this account, do it very unjustly 
(a) Caw●rey's Reformation promoted, p. 131. ; that the Scandals of Professors are ground of mourning, but not of separation 
(b) Manton on Judas, p. 496. ; that there may be a sufficient cause to cast out obstinate Sinners, and yet not sufficient cause for one to leave the Church, though such be not cast out 
(c) Vines on Sacrament, p. 242, Platform, c. 14. § 8. V Cotton's Holiness of Church-Members, p. 2. . That the suffering of profane and scanlous Livers to continue in the Church, and partake in the Sacrament, is doubtless a great Sin; yet the Godly are not presently to separate from it. There is, saith Mr. Burroughs 
(d) Gospel-Worship, Serm, 11. p. 242. , an error on both sides; either those that think it concerns them not at all with whom they come to the Sacrament, or those that if they do what they can to keep the Scandalous away, and yet they should be suffered to come, that they themselves may not come to partake of it.  
This both the Presbyterians and Independents so far agree in; and for this their Opinion they urge several Arguments.  
First, It's no no where commanded, but is a vain Arg. 1 pretending to Holiness above Rule and Example, saith 
On Sacrament p. 246. p. 31.  Mr. Vines. It's no Duty, as he elsewhere saith, because there is no Command; it's no Duty, and therefore we read not this word, come forth, in any of the Epistles written to the seven Churches, against which Christ saith he hath such and such things. They that lived in the Impurer, are not called forth into the Purer, but there are Promises made to them that keep themselves pure, and Duties enjoined them toward the impurer part. For we may not make every Disease the Plague. Shall the Sons of God, the Angels, forsake the Lord's Presence, because Satan came also amongst them? etc. The Provincial Assembly of London doth affirm; In the 
Vindicat. of Presbyt. Govern. p. 134. Brinsly's Arraign. p. 47.  Church of Corinth was such a profane mixture at the Sacrament, as we believe few, if any of our Congregations can be charged withal: And yet the Apostle doth not persuade the Godly Party to Separate, much less to gather 
V Firmin's Separate. examined, p. 40. Cawdrey's Church-Reformat. p. 71.  a Church out of a Church. From which Consideration, Mr. Tombs concludes 
* Theodulia, p. 74. ; Sure it can be no sin in any Person to join in the True Worship and Service of God with any, if he have no command to withdraw himself from that Service because of their Presence, nor Power to exclude them, and yet is bound to the Duties there performed.  
Nay, they do not only plead that it's not commanded, but that it's forbidden and unlawful. So Mr. Hooker; To separate from a Church, because of the 
Survey of Discipline, Pres. A. 3. Platform, c. 14. §. 9  Sin of some Worshippers, is unlawful. So the New-England Ministers do declare; As separation from a Church, wherein profane and scandalous Livers are tolerated, is not presently necessary: So for the Members thereof, otherwise worthy, hereupon to abstain from Communion with such a Church, in the participation of the Sacraments, is unlawful.  
Secondly, They plead, that the communicating in Arg. 2 God's Service with open Sinners, whom the Godly in some of our Assemblies are enforced to communicate with, is not sufficient to make such profane, 
Grave Confut. part 3. p. 53.  or to pollute to them the Holy Things of God: So the old Non-Conformists. So Mr. Vines; The presence 
On the Sacrament, p. 242. & p. 31, 32.  of wicked Men at God's Ordinances, pollutes not them that are neither accessary to their Sin, nor yet to their presence there. This Mr. Burroughs disclaims; 
Gospel-Worship, Serm. 11. p. 236, 237.  You are not defiled by the mere presence of wicked Men in the Sacrament, (for that is a mere deceit and gull, that some would put upon them that differ from them) but thus are you defiled, if you do not your Duty, and the uttermost you are able, to purge them out. But if this be done, according to the Power and Capacity Persons are in, it's universally granted that the Innocent shall not suffer for the Nocent. So Mr. Ball; The Precept of debarring scandalous Offenders 
Trial, c. 10. p. 191, 205.  bindeth them to whom God hath given this Power, and them only so far as God hath put it in 
V Jean's Discourse on the Lord's Supper. Rutherford's right of Presbyt.  their Power. But God regularly doth not leave that Power in the hand of one single Steward, or some few private Christians.— And if the Steward, or one or few private Christians, cannot debar the unworthy from the Lord's Table, it is manifest the Ordinance of God is not defiled to them by the presence of the Wicked, whom they desire to reform or expel, but cannot, because Power is not in their hand to do it lawfully.  
This they confirm. 1. From the Examples of the Prophets and good Men, who of old joined with 
Grave confut. Part 3. p. 53, & 55. Ball's Trial, p. 211. Platform, c 14. § 8. Blake Vindic. p. 235.  many that were notoriously stained with gross Sins; from the practice of our Saviour that communicated with such in the public Service of God; from the practice of Christians in Apostolical Times, all which the old Non-Conformists do insist upon. This is also pleaded by those of New-England and others.  
This would make all the Sins of the Congregation 
Christian Directory, p. 747. V. Non-Conformists not Schismatics, p. 16.  to be ours. So Mr. Baxter; If you be wanting in your Duty to reform it, it is your Sin; but if bare presence made their Sin to be ours, it would also make all the Sins of the Assembly ours.  
From all which it appears, that their sense is, that scandalous Members are no sufficient Reason for Separation; for that must be, either because it's commanded in Scripture, or that those that do communicate with such, are in so doing corrupted also; but if neither of these be, than we may safely Communicate with such, or in a Church where such are, without Sin.  
Thirdly, To separate upon this Ground, is to maintain Arg. 3 
Vines on the Sacrament, p. 244.  a Principle destructive to the Communion of the Church visible, which consists of good and bad. This Mr. Cotton is peremptory in; It is utterly untrue 
Infant. Baptism, p. 102. V Bains on the Ephes. c. 1. v. 1. p. 5.  to say, that Christ admits not of any dead Plants to be set in his Vineyard, or that he takes not to himself a compounded Body of living and dead Members, or that the Church of God is not a mixed Company, etc. From the ill Effects of which, Mr. Cartwright used to call this Separation, upon 
In Proverb. Edward's Apol.  pretence of greater purity, the white Devil.  
And because there are some Scriptures that seem to look this way, and are made use of by those that make mixed Communion an Argument for Separation; therefore they have taken off the force of them.  
If a Brother be a Fornicator, etc. the Apostle exhorteth Object. 1 not to eat with him. 
1 Cor. 5. 11.   
To this they Answer;  
That if it be meant of excluding such an one from Church-Communion, it must be done by the Church, Answ. 1 
Defence, Part 2. p. 27. Cawdrey's Church-Reformat. p. 126.  and not a private Person. But you are not commanded to separate from the Church, if they exclude him not; So Mr. Baxter, etc.  
That it concerns not Religious, but Civil-Communion, Answ. 2 and that not all Civil Society or Commerce, but Familiar also. For which they produce several Reasons; 1. They argue from the Notion of eating Bread, which is a Token of Love and Friendship in phrase of 
Ball's Trial, p. 200. Brinsley's Arraignment, p. 45. Jenk on Judas, v. 19 Tombs Theodulia, p. 210.  Scripture; not to partake of, or to be shut from the Table, is a sign of Familiarity broken off. So Mr. Ball, etc. 2. The eating which is here forbidden, is allowed to be with an Heathen: but it's the civil eating which is only allowed to be with an Heathen; therefore it's the civil eating which is forbidden to be with a Brother. So Mr. Jenkin, etc. 3. The eating here forbidden, is for the punishment of the Nocent, not of the Innocent. To these there are added others by the Old Non-Conformists. 
Grave Confut. Part 4. p. 57 Tombs Theodulia, p. 167. Cawdrey's Reformat. p. 75. Cure Dir. 9 p. 81.   
As for other Objections, they are also undertaken by the same Hands, and to which Mr. Baxter's Answer is sufficient; If you mark all the Texts in the Gospel, you shall find that all the Separation which is commanded in such cases (besides our separation from the Infidels and Idolatrous World, or Antichristian and Heretical Confederacies, and No-Churches) is but one of these two sorts; 1. Either that the Church cast out the impenitent by the Power of the Keys. Or, 2. That private Men avoid all private Familiarity with them; but that the private Members should separate from the Church, because such Persons are not cast out of it; show me one Text to prove it if you can? This, saith Mr. Vines, hath not 
On the Sacrament, p. 246. Tombs Theod. p. 128.  a syllable of Scripture to allow or countenance it.  
But supposing it be allowed, that we ought not to separate from a Church, where corrupt Members are tolerated or connived at under some present circumstances, (as for want of due proof, or through particular favour) yet it seems to be allowable where there is no Discipline exercised, or taken care of. For than we are without an Ordinance. To avoid this Objection, I shall consider,  
2. The Case with respect to Discipline; and shall 
Sect. 2.  show from them, 1. That the want of that, or defects in it, are no sufficient reason for Separation. 2. What Discipline is exercised or taken care of in the Church of England.  
The former of these they do own and prove.  
First, As Discipline is not necessary to the being Arg. 1 of a Church. This was of old maintained by Mr. 
T. C's Letter to Harrison, against Separation in the Defence of the Admonit. p. 98, 99  Cartwright, who thus argues; That Church-Assemblies are builded by Faith only, on Christ the Foundation; the which Faith so being, whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded, or remaining of that which is forbidden, is not able to put that Assembly from the Right and Title of so being the Church of Christ.— For though there be many things necessary for every Assembly, yet they be necessary to the comely and stable Being, and not simply to the Being of the Church. And afterward he gives an Instance in the Dutch Assemblies, (or Lutheran Churches) which, he saith, are maintained in 
P. 106.  Discipline. So Dr. T. Goodwin; Whereas now in 
Com. on the Ephes. p 487, 488.  some of the Parishes of this Kingdom, there are many Godly Men that do constantly give themselves up to the Worship of God in Public, etc. These, notwithstanding their mixture and want of Discipline, I never thought, for my part, but that they were True Churches of Christ, and Sister Churches, and so ought to be acknowledged. So that if Discipline be not essential to a True Church, and a True Church is not to be separated from, (as has been proved above) then the want of Discipline is no sufficient reason for Separation.  
Secondly, This they further prove, by an Induction Arg. 2 of Particulars. This way Mr. Blake proceeds in; 
Vindiciae c. 31. p. 236, 238.  Discipline was neglected in the Church of Israel, yet none of the Prophets, or Men of God, ever made attempt of getting up purer select Churches, 
V Grave Confut. Part 1. p. 18.  or made Separation from that which was in this sort faulty. All was not right in the exercise of Discipline in the Churches planted by the Apostles, some are censured as foully faulty, etc. yet nothing heard by way of Advice for any to make Separation, nor any one Instance of a Separatist given.  
To come lower, we are told by Mr. Vines, 
On Sacram. c. 19 p. 226.  That the Helvetian or Switzerland Churches, claim to be Churches, and have the Notes, Word, and Sacraments, though the Order of Discipline be not settled among 
V Gillespie's Nihil respondes, p. 33.  them, and I am not he that shall blot out their Name. To come nearer Home; it was so in the late Times when this was wanting, as was acknowledged 
(a) Knutton's seven Queries. Brinsley's Arraign. p. 48. , and of which Mr. Vines saith 
(b) On Sacram. p. 219. Troughton's Apol. p. 65. , we know rather the Name than the Thing. And if we shall look into the several Church-Assemblies amongst the Dissenters, we shall find, that as there are many Preachers without full Pastoral Charge, as it is acknowledged, that have little Authority over their Flocks in this kind, that have not so much as the Name of Discipline amongst them. And so they have little reason to justify themselves in a Separation by such an Argument, that will as well wound themselves, as those they bend it against; and they that do so, are guilty of Sin. So Mr. Baxter; Many that observe the Pollution of the Church, by the great neglect of Holy Discipline, avoid this 
Cure Dir. 47. p. 231.  Error, by turning to a sinful Separation. I shall conclude this, with that grave Advice of Dr. Owen; When 
Evangel Lo●e, c 3. p. 77.  any Church, whereof a Man is, by his own consent, antecedently a Member, doth fall in part or in whole, from any of those Truths which it hath professed, or when it is overtaken with a neglect of Discipline, or Irregulatities in its Administration; such a one is to consider, that he is placed in his present State by Divine Providence, that he may orderly therein endeavour to put a stop unto such Defections, and to exercise his Charity, Love, and Forbearance towards the Persons of them whose Miscarriages at present he cannot Remedy. In such Cases there is a large and spacious Field for Wisdom, Patience, Love and prudent Zeal to exercise themselves. And it is a most perverse imagination, that Separation is the only Cure for Church-Disorders. If this Advice be good in one Case, it is so in another; and if it were well understood, and faithfully followed, this Argument would be of little or no force.  
2. I shall show how little this Plea of the Defective Discipline reaches the Case. It's granted, that there is such a Power and Authority of Ecclesiastical Discipline resident in the Church of England, that if open and scandalous Persons are not cast out, the Fault is in the Governors, for the Law takes order they shall be, as Dr. Bryan saith 
(a) Dwelling with God, Serm. 6. p 301. V Grave Confut. part 1. p. 17. ●ermin Separation examined, p. 28. . And the Power of Suspension put thereby into the Minister's Hands, is so evident, that after Dr. Collins had proved it from the Rubrics, Canons, etc. he concludes 
(b) Provocator provocatus, p. 151, & 154. V Vines on Sacrament, c. 19 p. 233. Brinsley's Arraign, p. 40. Cawdrey's Church Reformat. p 122. , It's plain, that the Judgement and Practice of the Church of England in all Times, ever since it was a Church, hath been to suspend some from the Table of the Lord. So that if there be Defects, through some past and present Obstructions in the Exercise of Discipline, yet cannot the Church properly stand charged with them, as is acknowledged 
(c) Brinsley's Arraign. p. 48. Jenk. on Judas v. 19 Blake's Vindiciae, c. 31. p. 236. ; or whatever may be charged upon the Church, there can be no sufficient Cause from a Defect, Remissness or Corruption therein, for a Separation from it. This was the constant Judgement of the old Non-conformists, which I shall transcribe from a grave Author; Those, saith he, that for many Years together, during the Reign of the three last Princes, denied to come up to a full Conformity to this Church, had a low Opinion of the Discipline then exercised (of which they have left behind them large Evidences) yet how tender were they of the Church's Honour to keep Christians in Communion? How zealous were they against Separation? as may appear in the Labours of Mr. Parker, Mr. Paget, Mr. Ball. Mr. Brightman laid us low enough, when he did not only parallel us with lukewarm Laodicea, but made that Church the Type, and we the Antitype, by reason of our Discipline; yet how zealous is he against Separation from these Assemblers, and breaks out in these words; Therefore their Error is wicked and blasphemous, who so forsake the Church, as if Christ were altogether banished thence.  
Having thus far considered what opinion the graver sort of the Non-conformists have of Communion with a Church, and what Rules they do lay down about it; and showed that according to those Rules, Separation from the Church is unlawful. I shall close all with the last Advice given by a Reverend Person to his Parishioners, in a Farewell Sermon in 
England's Remembranc. Serm. 16. p. 454.  these words; Take heed of Extremes. It is the ordinary Temptation, in a time of Differences, to think we cannot run too far from them we differ from; and so whilst we decline one Rock, we split upon another. Remember the old Non-conformists were equal Enemies to Superstition and Separation. Maintain (I beseech you) sober Principles, such as these are, that every defective Ministry, is not a false Ministry; that sinful Super-additions, do not nullify Divine Institutions; that sinful Defects in Ordinances, do not hinder the saving Effects of them. That there is a difference betwixt directing a Worship, prescribing things simply Evil, and manifestly Idolatrous, and directing about Worship, things doubtfully good being enjoined, but the unquestionable Substance of Worship being maintained. This latter ter doth not justify Separation.  
And that the supposed Corruptions in the Church of England are of that nature, as do not affect the substance of it, nor are such but what may be safely communicated in, I shall now proceed to show from them.  
3. I shall consider what Opinion the eminent Non-conformists 
3. General.  have had of the several Practices in the Church of England, that are enjoined upon those that hold Lay-Communion with it, which respect Forms, Gestures, etc. In general, they acknowledge that they are Things tolerable, and what no Church is without, more or less 
(a) Letter of the Mi●ist. of Old-Engl. p. 12, 13. Bryan's Dwelling with God, p. 311. Troughton's Apol. c. 7 p. 68 . 2. That they are not sufficient to hinder Communion. 3. That they are but few 
(b) Owen's Peace-Offer. p. 17. Mischief of Impositions, Epist. Dedic. .  
First, Forms; and so it's required of the Members of the Church, that they join in the use of Liturgy or Common-Prayer. For the better understanding their Judgement in this Matter, I shall show what their Opinion is of Forms of Prayer, of public Forms, of Forms prescribed, and of that particular Form of Divine Service used in this Church.  
1. The use of Forms is declared by them to be a thing lawful in itself, and what God hath left us at liberty to use, or not to use, as we see occasion. So Mr. Ball; The Word of God doth not prescribe 
Trial, c. 2. p. 36, etc. 8. p. 131.  any particular Form, stinted or not stinted, as necessary, but doth warrant both as allowable; for where nothing is in particular commanded touching the external Form of Words and Order, in which our Petitions should be presented to the Lord, there we are left at liberty. And to put Religion, in reading or uttering Words, in a stinted or conceived Form, What is it less than Superstition? Of the same mind is Mr. Baxter, and others 
* Sacril. desert. p. 98, 99 Cure of Ch. Divis▪ p 175. Tombs Theod. p. 137. : And even Dr. Owen, though he doth disallow the composing Forms of Prayer for our own private use, yet at the same time declares 
† Discourse of the Work of the Spirit in Prayer, p. 2●0, 235. V Dissenting Brethren, in 32 Quest. p. 55. , that he doth not argue against Forms of Prayer, as unlawful to be used. And he adds a little after; If they appear not contrary unto, or inconsistent with, or are not used in a way exclusive of that Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, which we have described from Scripture, etc. I shall not contend with any about them.  
But they do not only assert, but they also undertake to prove the lawfulness of Forms 
(a) Ball's Trial c. 2. Roger's Tr. 223 Bryan's dwelling with God, p. 307. , from the Nature, Use, and Ends of Prayer, and charge the contrary Opinion with Enthusiasm 
(b) Grave Confut. Epist. to Reader. Continuat. of Morn. Exer. p, 1006. , and Novelty 
(c) Prest. Serm. on Jo. 1. 16. .  
Secondly, As to Forms in Public, they declare;  
1. That it is lawful to use them, and that this was the Tenent of all our best and most judicious Divines 
(d) Clark's Liv. of 10 Divines, p. 255. Ball's Trial, p. 11. . This Dr. Owen is cautious of denying, who saith 
(e) Discourse of Prayer, p. 231. , Supposing that those who make use of, and plead for Forms of Prayer, especially in Public, do in a due manner prepare themselves for it by Holy Meditation, etc. I do not judge that there is any such Evil in them, as that God will not communicate his Spirit to any in the use of them.  
2. They do not only grant it lawful to use them, but that it's expedient. So Mr. Egerton declares 
(f) Pract. of Christianity, c. 11▪ p. 691. Edit 5. ; As for the Public Congregation, special care must be had, that nothing be done in Praying, Preaching, or Administering the Sacraments, but what is decent and orderly, because there many Eyes do see us, and many Ears hear us; and upon this account, it is expedient for the most part to keep a constant Form, both of Matter and Words. Mr. Bradshaw 
Life of Mr. W. Bradshaw, in Mr. Clark's Collect. in Fol. p. 67. Continuat. of Morn. Exerc. Serm. 31. p. 1006.  pleads for it, (as Mr. Gataker informs us in his Life) for the avoiding Hesitation, which in Prayer is more offensive than in other Discourse. And when, in a late Collection of Sermons, we find it complained of, that in our days some have such Schismatical Phrases, Notions, and Doctrine in Preaching, Praying, and Praising, that a sober Christian cannot say, Amen; it renders a Form so much the more considerable. 
Collection of the Lives of 10 Divines, p. 255. Life of M Capel.   
3. They declare that Public Forms were universally used. So Mr. Clark saith, That Set Forms of Prayer are according to the practice of all Churches, even the best Reform; yea, and Mr. Smith himself saith, upon the Lord's Prayer, (though as then he was warping, and afterwards wandered far in the ways of Separation) that it was the practice of the Ancient Church, and of all the Reformed Churches in Christendom, of the Churches immediately after the Apostles; nay, (saith he) of the Church in the Time of the Apostles, as may be probably gathered out of 1 Cor. 14. 26. This hath also been the practice of the best Lights that ever were set up in the Churches of Christ. 4. Accordingly this was the practice of the Old Non-conformists. So Mr. Clark; It is very well known 
Ibid:  that the Flower of our own Divines went on in this way, when they might have done otherwise, if they had pleased, in their Prayers before Sermons. This we are told of Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Cartwright 
(a) Bradshaw's Life publish▪ d by Mr. Clark, in Fol. p. 67. . And we find Mr. Hildersham's Prayer before Sermon Printed 
(b) His Doctr. of Fasting and Prayer, Anno 1633. , and others. This was so universally and constantly practised, that Mr. Clark tells us 
(c) Collect. of 10 Lives, 40. p. 38. , that the first Man who brought conceived Prayer into use in those parts where he lived, was Mr. Sam. Crook, who died but in the Year 1649.  
Thirdly, As to prescribed Forms and Liturgies; of this Mr. Ball saith; I have showed the use of a stinted 
Trial, Epist. to Reade●▪  Liturgy lawful and allowable by the Word of God, of ancient use in the Churches of Christ, approved by all Reformed Churches, which is a very convenient method for the consideration of their Judgement in the case. 1. They grant that they are lawful, It's contrary to no Precept or Commandment, directly, or by 
Trial, c. 1. p. 5. c. 3. p. 23.  lawful Consequence, saith Mr. Ball. So Mr. Norton of New-England doth determine; Such things being 
Answ. to Apollonius, c. 13.  observed as are to be observed, it may be lawful to use Forms of Prayers, etc. prescribed in the Church; neither are the Churches which use them guilty of Superstition, Will-Worship, and violating the second Commandment. And Dr. Owen himself 
Discourse of Prayer, p. 222, & 235.  complies with it, who yields, That Men or Churches may agree upon a prescribed Form by common consent, as judging and avowing it best for their own Edification; and only argues against prescribing such Forms of Prayer universally, in opposition, and unto the exclusion of free Prayer. 2. They grant that they are not only lawful, but that there are footsteps of this way of Worship both in the Old and New Testament, as Mr. Tombs and others have showed 
(a) Tombs Theodulia, p. 221. Baxt. Cure, p. 176. Balls Trial, p. 128, 129. Grave Confut. p. 12, 13. ; and Mr. Ainsworth himself (that did otherwise argue against them) doth confess 
(b) Annot. on Ex. 12. 8. . 3. They grant that they are very ancient in the Christian Church: The Christian Churches of ancient Times, for the space of this 1400 Years at least, if not from the Apostles Time, have had their stinted Liturgies, saith Mr. Ball 
(c) Trial, p. 96, 106, 111, 138. & p. 80. : And they answer Objections to the contrary 
(d) Tombs Theodulia, p. 222. . 4. They grant that in the best Reformed, nay, in all Reformed Churches, they are not only used and tolerated, but also useful and expedient 
(e) Balls Trial, p. 108, etc. Roger's Treatises, p. 224. Tombs Theod. p. 234. . 5. That those amongst us, to whom the use of the Common-Prayer hath been thought most burdensome, have, from time to time, professed their liking and approbation of a stinted Liturgy, as Mr. Ball assures us 
(f) Trial, p 96, 106, 120. . 6. That they thought it altogether unlawful to separate from a Church for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies. This is not only frequently affirmed by Mr. Ball 
(g) Trial, p. 121 129, 140, 156. , but little less even by Mr. Norton 
(h) Resp. ad Apol. c. 13. , who saith, It is lawful to embrace Communion with Churches, where such Forms in Public Worship are in use; neither doth it lie as a Duty on a Believer, that he disjoin and separate himself from such a Church: And they give this reason for it, that then they must separate from all Churches. So Mr. Baxter, etc. Is it not a high degree 
Sacril. desert. p. 102. Defence, Part 2. p. 65. Balls Trial, p. 138. Roger's 7 Tr. p. 224.  of Pride, to conclude, that almost all Christ's Churches in the World, for these thirteen hundred Years at least to this day, have offered such Worship unto God, as that you are obliged to avoid it? and that almost all the Catholic Church on Earth this day, is below your Communion for using Forms? and that even Calvin, and the Presbyterians, Cartwright, Hildersham, and the old Non-conformists, were unworthy your Communion? I know there are several Objections against Forms of Prayer, but I know also that these are answered by them. But since the most common is, that of quenching and stinting the Spirit; I shall briefly give their sense of it. They say,  
1. To say that Persons should use no set Form, but 
Roger's 7 Tr. Tr. 3. c. 4. p. 223. Balls Trial, c. 5. p. 83.  pray as moved by the Spirit, is a fond Error.  
2. They say, that the Spirit instructeth us what to ask, not in what phrase of speech. It stirreth up in us holy Desires, but giveth not ability suddenly and without help, to express and lay open our Hearts in a fit method and significant words.— Ability of Speech is a common Gift of the Spirit, which the Lord bestoweth upon good and bad, etc.  
3. That the measure of the Spirit standeth not in 
Ibid. p. 91.  Words and Forms, but in fervent Sighs and Groans.  
4. That there is nothing letteth, but that in such 
Rogers, Ibid.  Forms, the Hearers Hearts may profitably go with the same, both to humble, to quicken, and to comfort. And Dr. Owen cannot deny but that they may 
Disc. of Prayer, p, 222, 231, 232.  be for edification, and that Persons in the use of them may have Communion with God.  
5. They say, that the Scriptures insisted upon in this Case, are grounded upon Mistakes, and are misapplied, as Mr. Tombs in particular hath clearly manifested. 
Theodulia, p. 164, 238.   
Fourthly, I shall consider what their Opinion is as to the English Liturgy, or Common-Prayer, both as to the Liturgy itself, and Communion in it. As to the Liturgy itself, it's acknowledged,  
1. That the Matter for the most part is good, sound, 
Bryan's dwelling with God, Serm. 6 p. 312. Baxt. Def. pa. t 1. p. 29, 59 Crofton Refor. no Separ. p. 25. T. D. Jerubbaal, p 35.  and divine, and that there is not any Doctrinal Passage in any of the Prayers, that may not bear a good construction, and so Amen may be said to it, as Dr. Bryan with others do maintain.  
2. That as no Church for this 1400 Years has been without its Public Forms, so ours is the best. So the old Non-conformists; Compare the Doctrines, 
Le●ter of the Minist. in Old-Engl. p. 12.  Prayers, Rites at those Time's [throughout] in use in the Churches with ours, and in all these (blessed be the Name of the Lord) we are more pure than they. And it's not much short that we find in Mr. Baxter, in the name of 
Second Plea for Peace, p. 101.  the present Non-conformists.  
3. That which is accounted faulty, is tolerable, and hinders not but that it's acceptable to God, and edifying to pious and well-disposed Persons.  
Tolerable. So Mr. Corbet; The Worship contained 
Plea for Lay-Communion, p. 2. V Ball's Trial, c. 9 p. 58.  in the Liturgy, may lawfully be partaked in, it being sound for substance in the main, and the mode thereof being laudable in divers Forms and Orders, and passable in the most, though in some offensive, inconvenient, or less perfect.  
Acceptable to God. So the old Non-conformists; 
Letter of the Minist. in Old-England, p. 13.  In them that join with the Prayers, according to Christ's Command, (and liberty of absence from Christ, hath not been showed) notwithstanding the Corruptions, we hold the Prayers to be an holy acceptable Sacrifice to God, etc.  
Edifying to well-disposed Persons. To this purpose Mr. Hildersham, Mr. Rogers, etc. 
Treat. 3. c. 4. p. 224l   
And accordingly Mr. Corbet professeth his own experience; 
(a) Corbet. Plea. p. 3.  Though I judge their Form of Worship to be in many respects less perfect than is desired, yet I have found my Heart spiritually affected and raised towards God therein, and more especially in receiving the Lord's Supper. I judge this Form may be used formally by the Formal, and spiritually by those that are Spiritual. It is my part to make the best of it, being the established Form. As to Communion in the Liturgy, it is granted, 1. That there is no cause to renounce it, or the Communion of the Church for it, and that so to do is a Sin 
(b) Gifford's plain Decla●ation. Ball's Trial, c. 7. p. 121. Sacril. desert. p. 105. . 2. That all the Reformed Churches in Christendom, do commonly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgy, if they come among us where it is used 
(c) Mr Baxter's Def. of Cure, p. 68 . 3. It's declared on the part of the old Non-conformists, That they ordinarily and constantly used the Communion-Book in their Public Ministrations 
(d) Ball's Trial, p. 121. c. 8. p. 155. ; and that the People generally were in their days satisfied in it 
(e) Let. of Ministers of Old-Engl. p. 14. . And for the present it's declared, We can lawfully not only hear Common-Prayer, but read it ourselves 
(f) Mr. Mead's Case, p. 7. M. Humphry's Healing Paper p. 5. Mr. Baxter's Disp. 4. of Church-Gov. p. 364. Mr. S. Fairclough's Life, p. 157. .  
I shall not trouble the Reader with the several Objections against the Liturgy, and the Answers returned to them by the old and present Non-conformists, but shall content myself with that, which it seems was much 
Trial. c. 8. p. 152.  insisted upon in the days of Mr. Ball, and their Reply to it.  
The Liturgy, in the whole Matter and Form thereof, is Object. too like unto the Mass-Book.  
If the Liturgy be Antichristian, it is so either in Answ. respect of the Matter, or of the Form. Not of the Matter; for that which properly belonged to Antichrist, the foul and gross Errors, is purged out. Not of the Form; for Order and Phrase of Speech is not properly Antichristian.  
2. That the English Liturgy is gathered according 
P. 155. V Letter of the Minist. in Old Engl. p. 14. Dr. Bryan's dwelling with God, p. 309, 310. Mr. Baxter's Cure, p. 281.  to the Ancients, the purest of them, and is not a Collection out of the Mass-Book, but a refining of that Liturgy which heretofore had been stained with the Mass, etc. and is not a Translation of the Mass, but a Restitution of the Ancient Liturgy.  
Thus saith that Learned Person, and much more, to whom many others do likewise consent. And in this Mr. Tombs is so zealous, that he concludes; I cannot 
Theodulia, p. 102.  but judge, that either much Ignorance, or much Malice it is, that makes any traduce the English Common-Prayer Book, as if it were the Popish Mass-Book, or as bad as it; and to deter Men from joining with those Prayers and Services therein, which are good, as if it were joining with Antichrist the Pope, (when they can hardly be ignorant that the Martyrs in Queen Mary 's days were burnt for it) is impudent falsehood.  
Having thus far considered the Forms, I shall now 
Sect. 2.  proceed to show what their Opinion is of the Gestures required in Lay-Communion, such as Kneeling at the Sacrament, and standing up at the Creed and Gospels.  
As to Kneeling.  
1. It's granted, that the Posture in the Sacrament is not determined. So Mr. Baxter; I never yet heard 
Christian Direct. p. 616.  any thing to prove Kneeling unlawful, there is no Word of God for or against any Gesture.  
2. It is granted, whatever the Gesture of our Saviour 
V Faldo's Dialogue betwixt a Minister and a Quaker. Noye's Temple measured, p. 81. Theod. p. 168.  in it was, yet that doth not oblige. This Mr. Tombs hath undertaken to show; 1. Because this Gesture seems not to have been of choice used by Christ. 2. Because St. Paul omits the Gesture, which he would not have done, if it had been binding. 3. He mentions the Night, and calls it the Lord's Supper, and if the Time be not necessary, much less the Gesture. 4. If the Gesture doth oblige, than Christians must use the selfsame that Christ used.  
3. It is granted, that the nature of the Ordinance doth not forbid Kneeling. So Mr. Bains; Kneeling 
Christian Letters, Let 24. p. 201. Direct. p. 616.  is not unbeseeming a Feaster, when our joy must be mingled with reverend trembling. So Mr. Baxter; The nature of the Ordinance is mixed. And if it be lawful to take a Pardon from the King upon our Knees, I know not what can make it unlawful to take a sealed Pardom from Christ, by his Ambassador, upon our Knee. Hence Mr. Bailey reckons it as an Error of 
Dissuasive, c 2 p. 30. etc. 6. p. 121, 122. V Johnson's Christian Plea, Treat. 3. c. 10. p. 285.  some Independents, that they accounted sitting necessary, as a Rite significant of fellowship with Christ, and a part of our imitation of him, and for both these reasons, declared it necessary to keep on their Hats at the time of participation.  
4. It is granted not to be Idolatrous. So Mr. Bains; 
Letters, Ibid.  Kneeling is neither an occasion, nor by participation Idolatry: Kneeling never bred Bread-worship. And 
V Baxt.— Christ. Direct. p. 616.  our Doctrine of the Sacrament, known to all the World, doth free us from suspicion of adoration in it.  
To these Mr. Tombs adds; 1. That the Papists. adore 
Theodulia, p. 256, etc.  not the Bread at putting it into their Mouths, but at the Elevation. It being inconsistent with their Principles, to worship that which is not above them. 2. That the Worship of God not directed to a 
V T. D. Jerubbaal, p. 41. & Mr. Crofton's Answ. p. 28. V Ames Fresh Suit, c. 4. § 4. p. 382. Perkins Cases.  Creature, but before it, as an occasional Object of adoration to God, is not Idolatry. 3. That yet in the Church of England the Elements are not occasionally so, but the Benefits of Christ in the Lord's Supper. And 4. Kneeling is not to the Bread, but as the signification of an humble and grateful mind; as he shows from the Rubric.  
Fifthly, Those that do account it inconvenient, yet account it not to be unlawful. Thus Mr. Cartwright; 
Evang. Harm. on Luk. 22. v. 14, etc. Second Reply, p. 262.  Kneeling in receiving the Sacrament, being incommodious in its own nature, and made far more incommodious by Popish Superstition, is not therefore so to be rejected, that we should abstain from the Sacrament (if we cannot otherwise be partakers of it) because the thing is not in its own nature unlawful. So it's said of the old Non-conformists; 
Troughton's Apol. p. 90.  Kneeling at the Sacrament was disliked by all, but yet thought tolerable, and that it might be submitted to by some of the most Learned.  
From all which we may conclude with Mr. Vines, 
On the Sacrament, p. 102.  that the Posture being a circumstance of Action, as well as the Time and Place, is not of the  of the Ordinance; and with Mr. Baxter, that those that think 
Sacril. desert. p. 19  they must not receive kneeling, think erroneously.  
As for standing up at the Creed, etc. Mr. Baxter 
Christ. Direct. p. 858. Sacril. desert. p. 96.  saith, his judgement is for it, where it is required, and where not doing it would be divisive and scandalous. Nay elsewhere he saith, that 'tis a convenient praising Gesture, etc.  
Thus I have considered the most material Points, in which the Lay-Members of the Church of England are concerned, and showed that the lawfulness of the things enjoined upon such, is declared and justified by the Suffrage and Judgement of as eminent Non-conformists as have lived in the several Ages since that unhappy Controversy was first set on foot amongst us. And now what remains, but that every one concerned, set himself seriously and impartially to consider it; and it becomes such so to do, when they go against the stream of the most experienced Writers of their own Party, who might pretend to understand the Case as well, if not better, than any that were conversant in it. It becomes such, when they bury that under the condemnation of false Worship, which the Lord, the Author of all Truth, doth allow in his Service. 
Ball's Trial, Epistle to Reader.  When they forsake the Prayers of the Congregation, and departed from the Table of the Lord, and break off Society and Communion with the Churches of Christ, etc. when they expose Religion to Contempt, and the Truth of God to Reproach, by the Rents and Divisions in the Church; as Mr. Ball doth represent it.  
It becomes them, when our Division gratifieth the Papists, 
Defence, p. 17. 52.  and greatly hazardeth the Protestant Religion, and by it we may lose all which the several Parties contend about, as Mr. Baxter hath proved.  
It becomes them, when the Church of England is the Bulwark of the Protestant Religion amongst us at Home, and that according to the noted saying of Mr. Egerton, The withdrawing totally from it, would more effectually introduce Popery, than all the Works of Bellarmine.  
It becomes them, when this is the Bulwark of it abroad, and all the Reformed Churches in the World 
Brinsley's Healing of Israel's Breaches, p. 62.  have a Venture in this Bottom, which if compared to a Fleet, the Church of England must be acknowledged to be the Admiral. And if it go ill with this Church, so as that miscarry, there is none of the Churches of Christ this day under Heaven, but are like to feel it; as Mr. Brinsley discourses.  
Lastly, It becomes them, when Divisions and Separations draw down the Displeasure of God, and lay us open to his Judgements. Therefore Dr. Bryan, after 
Dwelling with God, Serm. 6. p. 313. 314.  he hath largely insisted upon the Argument, and the present Case amongst us, doth thus apply himself; O that I could prevail with you, to lay sadly to heart the greatness of the Sin of Divisions, and grievousness of the Punishment threatened against it, and hath been executed for it; and that the Leaders and Encouragers of private Christians to make this sinful Separation, would read oft, and meditate upon St. Jude's Epistle to vers. 20. and that the Multitudes that are willing to be led by them, would follow the prescription of the means here to preserve or recover themselves from this Seduction, vers. 20, 21. And that both would leave off their reviling the Government Ecclesiastical, and the Ministers that conform, and submissively behave themselves by the Example of Michael, etc.  
I shall conclude the whole with the peaceable and 
On the Ephes. c. 2. p. 297, 298.  pious Advice of Mr. Baines; Let every Man walk within the compass of his Calling. Whatsoever lieth not in us to reform, it shall be our Zeal and Piety to tolerate, and with Patience to forbear, especially in things of this nature, which concern not so much the outward Communion with God or Man, essentially required in a visible state, as the due ordering of Business in the said Communion, wherein there be many Superfluities and Defects, saluâ tamen Ecclesiâ; yea, and such a Church notwithstanding, as wherein the best and truest Members (Circumstances considered) may have more cause to rejoice than to grieve.  
FINIS.   

THE CASE OF Mixed Communion, Whether it be lawful to Separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and mixed Communions?  They are not all Israel, that are of Israel, Rom. 9 6. Many are called, but few chosen, Matth. 20. 16. 
The Second Edition.  
LONDON, Printed for T. Basset, at the George in Fleetstreet; B. took, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard; and F. Gardiner, at the White Horse in Ludgate-street. 1684.   

THE CASE OF Mixed Communion,  
Whether it be lawful to Separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and mixed Communions?  
THE Foundation of this Pretence seems to be the great mistake of some Men concerning the matter whereof the Church of Christ is to be composed, which they will have to be, only real Saints and persons endowed with inherent and substantial holiness; Accordingly finding in the Communion of our Church many corrupt Members, who lived not answerable to their Holy Vocation, they, for that reason, amongst some others alleged by them, cry her down as no true Church, or, which is all one, deal by her as if she was so totally separating from her Communion and setting up Churches of their own, consisting wholly of Persons, in their Judgement, far more pure, that is, really holy and Sanctified. Into this most false and dangerous conceit concerning the matter of the Christian Church, I cannot tell what it is that should misled them, unless it be,  
The not rightly understanding the notion of that holiness, that so often in Scripture is applied to the visible Church of God. There is a twofold holiness in Scripture, Inherent and Relative.  
Inherent holiness, and that can be in none properly but God, Angels and Men; In God essentially and originally, as he is the most perfect Being, in whom all excellencies do possess infinite perfection; As it's applied to God, it does not only signify a perfect freedom in him from all those sinful impureties, wherewith the sons of men are tainted, but all the excellencies of the Divine nature, as wisdom, goodness, and power, and a supereminent and incommunicable greatness in them all; hence he is called the holy One of Israel, the 
Psalm 89. 18.  excellency of Jacob, said to swear by his holiness, that is, 
Amos 8. 7.  by himself, and there is none holy as the Lord, said 
Psalm 89. 35.  Hannah, for there is none besides thee, none holy besides 
1 Sam. 2. 2.  thee, as the Septuagint renders it, none comparable to thee in the height and greatness of all thy excellencies. In Angels and Men, by way of participation, and as far as their natures are capable, hence there are holy Angels, and holy Men.  
Relative holiness, which when it's applied to persons, may be more properly called faederal, and this is founded in the relation, persons and things have to God, and the nature of it consists in a separation of them from common uses, and in appropriating of them to the peculiar use and service of God: hence the Sabbath is called an holy day, Judea an holy Land, Jerusalem an holy City, and the Church and People of God an holy Church, that is, a Body or Society of men called and separated from the rest of the World to God, to worship him in a way distinguished from the rest of the World, having Laws and Promises and Rites of Worship peculiar and appropriate to themselves; This account God himself gives of it, I have separated you, 
Levit. 20. 24.  says he to the Israelites, from other people, that you should be mine, and ye shall be an holy people unto me. For the same reason do we find that whole church of the Jews, even then when its members had generally 
Deut. 9 12. Deut. 9 7. Deut. 32. 5.  very much corrupted themselves, were a rebellious people, a crooked generation, yet upon the account of their being separated to God, and in covenant with him, styled by Moses and other inspired men, his saints, his 
Deut. 7. 6. Psalms, 135. 4.  holy people, his peculiar treasure. For the same reason also did the Apostles dignify those Churches to whom they wrote, with those great and glorious titles, of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saints, the sanctified, the called and chosen in Christ Jesus; because they, as of old the Jews, had entertained the profession of a Religion, distinct from others of the World, whereby they might be excited to the attainment of those excellencies, which in the object of their Worship they did admire and adore; and those Names being of as large a meaning as that of Christian, show rather what they ought to have been, than assure us what they really were; for amongst those Saints were found strange immortalities altogether contradictory to the sacredness of their Vocation.  
But does not the Apostle say, Christ loved the Church 
Eph. 5. 25.  and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water by the Word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish?  
I answer; Holiness in this place must be confessed to be meant a real and inward holiness; but then by Church, is not to be understood the whole complex Body of the Universal Church in this World, but either that part of it that in this World is really, tho' imperfectly, holy, and is every day pressing forwards to higher degrees of it, or else that Church which shall be in the future state, when all the corrupt and unsound Members shall be by death and the final decision of God, for ever excommunicated out of it, and all the Members that remain in it, only such as were in some acceptable degrees holy here, and shall then be perfected in holiness. Neither is this to make two Churches of Christ, as the Donatists objected, one, in which good and bad are mingled together, and another, in which there are good alone; but only to assign two different states of the same Church, the one in this World, composed of good and bad, externally holy in respect of all by vocation, and internally holy in respect of some in it by sanctification; the other in the next World, where there shall be a separation made betwixt the Sheep and the Goats, and all remaining in the Church, such, as shall at once be perfectly holy and completely happy: This is that Church which Christ shall present to himself, glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish.  
This being spuposed, all that will be needful to say, in answer to this Question, may be comprehended under these three Propositions.  
1. That an external Profession of the Christian Faith is enough to qualify a person to be admitted a Member of Christ's Church.  
2. That every such Member has a right to all the external Privileges of the Church, till by his continuance in some notorious and scandalous sins he has forfeited that right, and by the just censures of the Church he be for such behaviour actually excluded from those Privileges.  
3. That some corrupt and scandalous Members remaining in the Communion, through the want of the du● exercise of discipline in it, or the negligence and connivance of the Governors and Pastors of it, gives no such cause to any to Separate from her.  
I begin with the first; That an external Profession of the Christian Faith, etc.  
This Profession in grown and adult persons is to be made by themselves; Thus it was at the first erection of the Christian Church, when Persons by the Preaching and Miracles of the Apostles were converted from the Pagan Superstition and Jewish Religion to the Christian Faith; they were to believe, and with the Eunuch 
Acts 8. 27.  to declare their belief, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,  
In Infants and Children not grown up to years of discretion, by their Parents, and those who at the request of their Parents, do together with them undertake for them. So great an interest and propriety have Parents in their Children, so entire an affection and concern for their good and happiness, so unquestionable an authority over them, so binding and obligatory are all their reasonable commands upon them, that we have good grounds to believe, that they that are born of Christian Parents will be brought up in the Christian Religion, and at years of understanding take upon themselves what their Parents and Sureties promised for them; and upon this account that profession of Faith made by others at their Baptism, in their behalf, may in a favourable sense be reckoned, as made by themselves; so God accounted it in the Jewish Church, upon the account of their Parents being in covenant with God, were the Children of the Jews esteemed an holy Seed, and at eight days old admitted by Circumcision into the same Church and Covenant with them; And the same reason holds for admitting Children born of Christian Parents into the Christian Church by the Rite of Baptism, which is the Sign and Seal of the Covenant under the Gospel, as Circumcision was of that under the Law. Now that this external profession, without any farther signs of saving Grace, is ground sufficient for those with whom God hath entrusted the Keys and Government of his Church to admit persons into it, will appear from these particulars:  
1. This is the qualification prescribed by our Lord: he is the Head and Founder of his Church, to him therefore does it appertain to appoint the terms and conditions of admission into it, and what these are, we may learn from that commission he gave his Apostles when he sent them out to gather a Church under him, viz. the becoming his Disciples; Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teach all Nations, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Disciple all Nations; Now a Disciple is properly one, not that has already attained to the full 
Mat. 28. 19  knowledge and saving effects of the Gospel, but only understands so much of it, as to be willing to be admitted into the Christian Church, in order to his being farther taught the one, and to have the other more throughly wrought in him. Whether men are sincere in their profession of the Christian Faith, and in their desires to be admitted Members of Christ's Church, and whether this great Privilege and Blessing of Church-membership will be effectual, to produce in them that regeneration and new creature, for which it was designed, the Pastors and Governors of the Church cannot know; This their bare profession and desire is enough to give them a title to it and qualification for it. By this rule the Apostles of Christ walked as to this particular, even when they lived with him here on Earth, and were under his immediate direction: The Pharisees heard that Jesus made and Baptised more Disciples than John, tho' Jesus himself did not Baptise, 
John 4. 2.  but his Disciples. Now if, as it was famed abroad, and is not in the Text contradicted, Jesus' Disciples Baptised more than John, it follows that they baptised more than were sincere, when we read that so few, not above an Hundred and Twenty continued with Christ to the last. 
Acts 1. 15.   
2. It appears from the Apostles practice afterwards in admitting persons into the Church. Nothing but a professed willingness to receive the Gospel, though they received it not from the heart, was required by them, in order to it: The Text tells us, that they that gladly received St. Peter 's words were baptised, and the same 
Acts 2. 41.  day were added to the Church about 3000 souls; It's true, St. Peter exhorted them all to repent in order to it, but whether they did so or no, he stayed not for proof, from their bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance, but presently upon their professed willing reception of the Word they were baptised and added to the Church. One might have been apt to suspect, that amongst so great a number, all would not prove sincere Converts, and so it fell out; Ananias and Saphira 
Acts 4. 34. Acts 5. 1, 2, 3.  were two of the number, in whom ye know, that glad reception of the Gospel was found to be but gross hypocrisy. By the same rule St. Philip proceeded in planting the Church at Samaria; when the People seeing the miracles he did, gave heed to the doctrine he 
Acts 8. 12.  taught, concerning the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Name of Jesus, and declared their belief of it, without any farther examination they were Baptised both Men and Women: And amongst them was Simon Magus, wose former notorious Crimes of Sorcery, Witchcraft and Blasphemy, might have given just grounds of fear to the holy Deacon, that his Faith was but hypocritical, and his Heart not right in the sight of God, as appeared afterwards, yet upon his believing, 
Acts 8. 20.  he was Baptised; such other Members of Christ's Church were Demas, Hymeneus, and Alexander, they 
ver. 13.  had nothing, it seems, but a bare outward profession of the Faith, to entitle them to that Privilege, since afterwards, as we read, the one embraced this present World, and the other two made shipwreck of Faith and a good Conscience.  
3. This appears from the representation Christ hath 
2 Tim. 4. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 19  made of his Church in the Gospel, fore-instructing his Disciples by many Parables, that it should consist of a mixture of good and bad. It is a Field wherein Wheat and Tares grow up together; A Net wherein are Fishes of all sorts; A Flour in which is laid up solid Corn and 
Mat. 13. 24, 25. vers. 47.  light Chaff; A Vine on which are fruitful and barren Branches; A great House wherein are Vessels of Gold 
Mat. 3. 12.  and Silver, and Vessels of lesser value, Wood and Earth; 
John 15. 1.  A Marriage feast, where are wise and foolish Virgins, 
2 Tim. 2. 20.  some with wedding garments, and some without, some 
Mat. 25.  had Oil, and some but empty Lamps; St. Hierome compares it to Noah's Ark, wherein were preserved Beasts clean and unclean; when the Apostle said, They are 
St. Hier. dial. con. Lucifer. Arca Noae Ecclesiae typus.  not all Israel that are of Israel, his meaning was, that in the Jewish Church many more were Circumcised in the Flesh, than what were Circumcised in Heart; and when our Saviour said, many are called, 
Rom. 9 6.  but few chosen, he declared the same thing, that in his Church many more were called and admitted into it by Baptism, than what were sanctified by his Spirit, or should be admitted into his Heaven.  
4. The many corrupt and vicious Members in the Churches, which the Apostle themselves had planted, is another proof of this; The number whereof, in all likelihood, could not have been so great, had they been so cautious and scrupulous, as to admit none into them, but whom in their judgements they thought to be really holy. In the Church of Corinth there were 
1 Cor. 15. 34. ver. 12. 2 Cor. 12. 20, 21. 1 Cor. 7.  many, that had not the knowledge of God, that denied the Resurrection of the Dead, that came Drunk to the Lords Table, that were Fornicators, Unclean and Contentious Persons. In the Church of Galatia there were many that Nauseated the Bread of Life, and made it their Choice, to pick and eat the rubbish of the partition wall, which Christ had demolished; The Rites of the Law which expired at the death of Christ, they attempted to pull out of their Graves, and to give a Resurrection to them; They were so much gone off from the Doctrine of Christianity, to weak and beggarly Rudiments, observing Days and Months, and 
Gal. 3. 7; 10, 11.  Times and Years; that by reason of this their Superstition, St. Paul signified his fears of quite losing them, and that his labour was bestowed upon them in vain.  
Amongst all the Seven Churches in Asia, there was not one but what had received such Members into it, that were either very Cold & Lukewarm in their Religion, or by their Vicious Lives proved a Reproach and Scandal to it; The Church of Sardis so swarmed with these, that St. John tells us, that there were but a few 
Rev. 3. 1, 4.  names in Sardis that had not defiled their garments. Now if the Apostles of our Lord, who had the extraordinary assistances of the Holy Ghost, for the discerning of Spirits at that time, and were thereby enabled far beyond what any of their Successors can pretend to, to distinguish betwixt the good and the bad, did notwithstanding admit many mere formal Professors into the Church of Christ, we may conclude that they apprehended that 'twas the will of Christ it should be so.  
5. No other rule in admitting persons into the Church is practicable. Whether Persons are really holy and truly regenerate or no, the Officers of Christ who know not the hearts of Men, cannot make a certain judgement of, they may through want of judgement be deceived, through the subtlety of hypocrites be imposed upon, through humane frailty, passion or prejudice, be misguided, and by this means, many times, the door may be opened to the bad, and shut against the good; Now that cannot be supposed to be a rule of Christ's appointment, which is either impossible to be observed, or in observing which, the Governors of his Church cannot be secured from acting wrongfully and injuriously to Men.  
In sum, Christ hath entrusted the power of the Keys into the hands of an Order of Men whom he hath set over his Church, and who, under him, are to manage the Affairs of it, but these being but Earthen vessels, of short and fallible understandings, he has 
2. Cor. 4 7.  not left the execution of their Office to be managed solely by their own prudence and discretion, but hath given them a certain public Rule to go by, both in admitting persons into his Church, and in excluding them out of it; for the one, the Rule is, open and solemn profession of the Christian Faith; for the other, open and scandalous Offences, proved by witnesses.  
2. The second Proposition is, That every such Member has a right to all the external Privileges of the Church, till by his continuance in some notorious and scandalous sins he forfeits that right, and by the just censures of the Church for such behaviour he be actually excluded from those Privileges.  
For the explanation and proof of this Proposition, these three particulars are to be done: (1.) What's meant by external Privileges? (2) What kind of Offenders those are that forfeit their right to them, and aught by the Censures of the Church to be excluded from them? (3.) Upon what the right of those Members that have not so offended, is grounded?  
1. What's meant by external Privileges? As there are two sorts of Members in Christ's visible Church, so there are two sorts of Privileges that belong to them; each sort having those that are proper and peculiar to it, according to the nature of that relation they bear to the Head and their fellow Members.  
1. There are Members only by foederal or covenant-holiness, such as are only born of water, when by Baptism they were united to Christ and the Church, and took upon them the Profession and Practice of the Christian Religion; Now the Privileges that belong to these are of the same make with their Church-membership, external, and consisting only in an outward and public Communion with the Church in the Word and Ordinances.  
2. There are Members by real and inherent holiness, such as are not only born of Water, but of the Spirit also, when by the inward operations of the Holy Ghost their Souls are renewed after the Image of God, and made partakers of a Divine Nature; And the Privileges that belong to these, are not only the forementioned ones, but together with them, others that are suitable to their more spiritual relation, inward, and such as consist in the especial and particular care and protection of God, the pardon and remission of their sins by the Blood of Christ, and the gracious influences and comforts of the Holy Ghost; All comprehended in that Prayer of the Apostle for his Corinthians, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be 
2 Cor. 13. 14.  with you all. Amen.  
Now 'tis of the first sort of Members, and that sort of Privileges that belong to them, that the Proposition is to be understood.  
2. What kind of Offenders those are that have forfeited their right to, and aught by the Censures of the Church to be excluded from those Privileges? This the Apostle hath plainly told us, and our own Church in its Exhortation to the Sacrament fairly intimates: I have wrote unto you, says St. Paul, not no keep company, 
1 Cor. 5. 11.  if any Man that is called a Brother be a Fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, no, not to eat? Not only, as much as can be, to have no familiar conversation with 
ver. 10.  him in civil matters (tho' some must be had whilst we are in this World) but also, and more especially, to avoid communion with him in religious exercises; and how that is to be done, the Apostle tells us, viz. not by forsaking the Church ourselves, but by doing our utmost endeavours to have him cast out of it: So it follows, Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked 
ver. 13.  person. And, In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one 
ver. 4, 5.  unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Agreeable hereunto are the words of the Exhortation, If any of you be a blasphemer of God, a hinderer and slanderer of his Word, an Adulterer, or be in malice or envy, or in any other grievous Crime, repent you of your sins, or come not to that holy Table. Such sinners as these have in a manner undone and made void what was done in their behalf in Baptism; They, by not performing what was then promised for them, but living directly contrary to it, do virtually renounce that Covenant they then entered into with God in Christ, and fall back again into the state of Pagans and Infidels; Their Sureties engaged for them, that they should believe the Christian Faith, keep God's Commandments, and renounce the World, the Flesh and the Devil; But such habitual notorious Offenders as these, say, by their Practice, what had they to do to undertake such things for us, we will stand to no such engagements, but we will be at large, to believe what we please, and to practise what we fancy, and to worship whom we think fit; And thus, as it were, breaking off from being in Covenant with God, and virtually renouncing their Church-membership, they at the same time lose all right and title to those Blessings and Privileges that were due to them upon the account thereof; and in this sad state and condition did the Primitive Christians reckon all, that had highly and notoriously sinned, amongst whom especially were the lapsed that had offered Sacrifice, they stayed not for a formal Sentence to be pronounced against them by the Church, but looked upon them as ipso facto excommunicate; and tho' till that was past, they could not actually be shut out, yet they began before to avoid their Company, and to forbear all religious commerce towards them. But so long as Men keep in Covenant with God, and abide in his Church, which may be done by holding that profession of Faith that they made at their first entrance into it, their right to the external franchises of it remains inviolable, and their title without question. As may appear from these particulars,  
1. From the Tenor of that Covenant they in their Baptism entered into with God; which consists of Promises on God's part, as well as Conditions on Mans. The Promises on God's part, are expressed in these general 
2 Cor. 6. 61.  words, I will be their God; The Conditions on Man's, in those, and they shall be my People: Now so far as Men perform the Conditions, so far will God make good his Promises; In what sense they are a People to God, in the same he'll be a God unto them. If a bare faederal holiness can give Men a relation to God, and God upon that account owns them to be a People unto him, the same gives them some kind of interest in God; and a claim to the blessings that belong to that relation; Not, that such Members as these are to expect those special and particular favours, that are the portion of those that are more nearly, and by a kind of spiritual consanguinity allied to God in Christ, but yet being of God's household, are to be allowed the liberty to partake of those external blessings which he in common bestows upon the whole Family.  
2. From the nature of Church-membership. Church-membership necessarily implies Church-Communion, or else it signifies nothing; for to be admitted a Member of the Church, and not to have a right in common with the rest to Church-Priviledges, is to be taken in with one hand, and to be thrown out with the other, 'tis to be put back into the state of those that are no Members, and virtually to be cut off from the Body, by being denied all communications with it; Should a Man be admitted a Member of any City or Corporation, and yet at the same time be denied the privilege of his Freedom, and not be permitted to set up a Trade, to give a Vote, or to Act in any other case, as other Members do, what would be the difference betwixt him and a Foreigner? unless it be, that his condition is the worse, by being mocked, and abused and cheated with the Name, whilst he has nothing of the Privileges of a Freeman.  
3. We have the Practice of the Church of God in the Old Testament for this; The whole Nation of the Jews were not only permitted, but commanded by God, except in cases of legal uncleanness, and those notorious Crimes for which they were to be cast out of the Congregation, to observe his Ordinances, and to join in the celebration of his public Worship, and we know they were not all Israel, that were of Israel; Three times a year were all their Males to appear before the 
Exod. 23. 14, 17.  Lord, to keep Three solemn appointed Feasts unto him; many of which, it is to be feared, had no other qualification, than what they were beholden to their birth, and the loss of their foreskin for; Again, All the Congregation of Israel were too keep the Passover, none 
Exod. 12. 44.  were denied it but foreigners and hired servants, and they too, no longer, but till they were Circumcised, and thereby admitted into covenant with God, which shows, that mere Circumcision was enough to put a Man into a capacity of Communicating with the Jewish Church in its most solemn and sacred Mysteries.  
4. This was also the Practice of the Christian Church in the Apostolic Age; as is plainly intimated unto us from many Scriptures; St. Paul tells us, By one Spirit we are all Baptised into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, and have been all made 
1 Cor. 12. 13.  to drink into one Spirit. To drink into one Spirit, particularly relates to the Cup in the Lord's Supper, and by a figure of the part for the whole, it's put to signify the whole Communion; but the thing here especially to be taken notice of, is, that the Apostle makes the number of those that received the Lord's Supper to be as comprehensive and universal, as that of those that were received into the Church by Baptism; As by one Spirit all were baptised into one body, so all were made to drink into one spirit. The Apostles speaks the same thing again in another place, alluding to the other part of the Sacrament, We being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of one bread; all the 
1 Cor. 10. 17.  members that conspired to make up the one body, did partake of the one bread; But if any thing yet can be clearer, 'tis that account St. Luke gives us of the practice of the first Christian Church at Jerusalem, where it's said of the three thousand that gladly received St. Peter's words, and were by Baptism added to the Church, they, all the three thousand, Ananias and Saphira being of the number, continued in the Apostles doctrine, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.  
5. From the end of Church-membership; which is not only for the more solemn Worship of God, and the public profession of Religion, but also for the more effectual edification and salvation of men's souls; By Baptism we were admitted into the Church, incorporated into that Divine Society, and entitled to all the Privileges of the Gospel, to the end, that in the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God, 
Eph. 4. 13.  we might come to a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; But how this is to be attained without being admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Communion with the Church, to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and the Word, and all other Privileges and Duties, is not easily to be understood; hence, we may observe, that edification in Scripture is usually applied to the Church, and tho, the edification of the Church consists in the edification of the particular Members of it, yet because that is not to be had but in the Unity and Communion of the Church, 'tis usually styled, the edifying of the 
Eph. 4. 12.  Church, and the edifying the body of Christ; hence Faith is said to come by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God; Hence we are said to be born again, not of corruptable 
Rom. 10. 17. 1 Pet. 1. 23.  seed, but of incorruptable, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever; The same is expressed in those words of our Saviour's Prayer for his Disciples, Sanctify them through thy truth, thy Word is 
John 17. 17.  truth. God's Church is his Family, which he especially takes care of and provides for, he that is of it is under the Schechina, the wing of the Divine Majesty and his special grace and providence; It cannot but be of mighty advantage towards our growth and improvement in all Christian graces and virtues, to have therein dispensed to us the lively Oracles of God, and provision made for a constant succession of dispensers of the Bread of Life, to fit it to allneeds and all capacities; Not to be left to the deceits and whispers of a private spirit, to personal conjectures or secret insinuations, but to have the public Doctrine of the Church, to be our Guide and Leader; to have our Devotions mingled with the concurrent Prayers of all God's people, and so by their joint forces, after an 
Coimus incaetum & ad Deum quasimanu facta precationibus ambiamus orantes, Tertul.  humble, but powerful manner, to besiege and belaguer Heaven; to have before our eyes all the great Examples in God's Church, to have our Faith strengthened, our Repentance heightened, our Love inflamed, our Hopes and our Comforts raised by the Holy Communion; Will not the flame of others kindle our zeal and assections? and will it not put us into a transport of devotion, to see therein Christ Crucified before our Eyes, pouring out his Blood for us, bowing his Head as it were to kiss, and stretching out his Arms as it were to embrace, all that are penitent and return to him? These are some of the great Blessings and advantages that cannot be had but in Church-Communion; To which, if we shall add, that our improvement in Holiness and Virtue is more to be ascribed to the internal operations of God's spirit, than any virtue or efficacy there can be in those external administrations, and that God is pleased to promise his spirit to believers, only as they are Members of his Church, and no otherwise, than by the use and ministry of his Word and Sacraments, we shall farther see the necessity of men's holding actual Communion with the Church, in order to their Sanctification and Salvation.  
We are not now discoursing what God can or will do in some extraordinary cases, when Communion with a true visible Church cannot be had, as in a general Apostasy of the Church, or Persecution for Religion, or unjust Excommunication; but what is God's ordinary method and means of bringing Men to salvation, and that he himself tells us, is by adding them to the Church; and the Lord added to the Church daily 
Acts 2. 47.  such as should be saved; To this purpose we may observe not only in general, that whatever Christ did and suffered for Mankind, 'twas for them as incorporated into a Church; Christ loved his Church and gave himself 
Eph. 5. 25.  for it; Christ redeemed his Church with his own 
Acts 26. 28.  blood; Christ is the saviour of the body, that is, the 
Eph. 5. 23.  Church; But also in particular, that the Apostle confines the influences and operations of the spirit to the unity of the Church, there is one body and one spirit; Upon this account, viz. the efficacy of the means afforded 
Eph. 4. 4.  in Christ's Church, and the necessity of keeping in Communion with it in order to salvation, was it that the Primitive Christians looked upon it as so dreadful a thing to be shut or cast out of it; as laughing a matter as some now adays make it, as much as they slight the privilege and benefit to be of Christ's Church, and count it their glory and saintship voluntarily to cut off themselves from it, I am sure, the Primitive Christians had a far different opinion of it; with them to be cast 
Nam judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos etc. Tert. Apol.  out of the Church, and to be delivered up to Satan, signified the same thing, and the one accounted full as dreadful a doom as the other; hence was it that this sentence was rarely passed against an offender, but with 
1 Cor. 5: 2.  grief and sorrow in him that was forced to do it; and that those against whom it was past, used the most ardent importunities, and were willing to undergo the severest penances in order to be restored into the bosom of it; you might have beheld them kissing the chains of imprisoned Martyrs, washing the feet of Lazars, 
Nazion. 12. Or.  wallowing at the Temple-doors, on their knees begging the Prayers of Saints; you might have seen them stripped and naked, their hair neglected, their bodies withered, their eyes dejected, and sometimes crying out in the words of David, as the great Theodosius 
Theod. H. Eccl. 5. c. 15.  in the state of penance, My soul cleaveth to the dust, quicken thou me, O Lord, according to thy Word.  
Thus much seems to be enough to be said on the Second Proposition; but that our passage to the Third may be the clearer, I shall add a little by way of Answer to an Objection or two that lies in our way. And the first is,  

Obj.  
Do not all the Members of Christ's Church that come to the blessed Sacrament, having not the power of Godliness, as well as the Form, come unworthily and to their own great sin and danger, no less than being guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, and eating and 
1 Cor. 11. 27, 29.  drinking their own damnation? And can they have a right to that they are so unworthy of? In doing which they sin so heinously? and for doing which they shall be punished so severely?  
Answ. I Answer these two things:  
1. All, even the best men, in a strict, legal sense, are unworthy, and that even of common mercies from God, much more of this prime Duty and Privilege of Christianity. Every man in his best estate is altogether vanity: We are all an unclean thing, and our righteousness 
Psal. 39 5.  is as filthy rags: The meaning is, all men are 
Isa. 39 5.  sinners, and their best services imperfect and impure; But then, the right they have to this Privilege does not depend on their own merit and worth, but, as was said before, on the promise of God, when they entered at first into covenant with him, whereby he was pleased to oblige himself to be their God so far, and so long, as they continued to be his people.  
2. Those Members that we have asserted to have a right to the external Privileges of Christ's Church are not guilty of that unworthiness St. Paul speaks of, the sin and danger whereof is so great; and this will appear by the description he gives of those unworthy Communicants:  
1. They discerned not the Lord's body; he that eats this 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, S. Chrysost. 1 Cor. 11. 27. Dr. Lightf. in loc.  bread, and drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ; how? not discerning the Lord's body. It may be, they did eat it still, as a part of the Jewish Passover, they understood not the nature of it what it did represent, or for what end it was instituted, being ignorant of the infinite value and merit of Christ's blood, not at all affected with the greatness of his love, nor wrought upon by the infiniteness of his mercy, and altogether as void of any sincere affection and gratitude to Christ for that mighty redemption he wrought for mankind, as the Jew and Pagan, that neither know nor believe in him.  
2. They were open and scandalous sinners; The Apostles charges them with Schisms and Divisions, 
18, 21, 22, ver.  pride and contempt of their brethren, sensuality and drunkenness; In those early days of Christianity, the Lord's Supper was usually ushered in with a Love-feast that was eaten just before it, but so unchristian were these Corinthians, that every one took before other his own Supper, they run into parties, and tho' they had not yet left the place, they refused to communicate at the same time with their brethren, The rich despised and excluded the poor, that came not so well provided as they, from their feast, and that which was yet an higher aggravation of their sin, the poor were hungry, whilst the rich fed and pampered their bodies to excess and luxury: When ye come together, says he, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper, this is no fit preparation for it, for in eating every one takes before other his own supper, and one is hungry, and another is drunken: such Swine as these ought not indeed to come to the Holy Table of our Lord, and such as these, as I said, in the beginning of my Discourse on this Proposition, have forfeited their right to it, and aught by the Censures of the Church, to be excluded; This indeed is to be unworthy with a witness, to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or as St. Paul sometimes words it in the case of Apostasy and other heinous sins, to crucify 
Heb. 6. 6. Heb. 10. 16.  afresh the Lord of Life, to tread under foot the Son of God, and to count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing; that is, in an high degree to despise and vilify the person and sufferings of the most holy Jesus, his person, as one not worthy to be obeyed and followed, his blood, as a thing of no value and merit; And what could such Persons expect, but that God would vindicate the honour of his own Son and the infinitely wise contrivance of the redemption of the World by his great undertaking in some remarkable way upon them, either in this World, by Temporal Judgements, for this cause many are weak and sickly amongst you, and many sleep; or in the next, without repentance, by 
1 Cor. 11. 30.  their Eternal Damnation?   

Obj.  
But the Members of Christ's Body that come to this blessed Sacrament, and are destitute of saving grace, tho' they make a fair profession and are free from scandalous sins, are yet in an unconverted condition; and this Sacrament is not a converting, but a confirming Ordinance.  
Answ. Conversion may be taken in a twofold sense.  
1. For turning Men from a state of open infidelity, to the poofession of the Christian Faith, and indeed till Men are in this sense converted, they are not to be admitted to the Sacrament; neither Jews nor Turks, nor any others in a state of Gentilism, till by Baptism they are received into Christ's Church, and make profession of his Name, can come to it.  
2. Taking conversion, for the turning of those who are already baptised, and do profess Christ's Religion, from the Evil of their ways, to a serious and hearty practice of Holiness and Virtue, and so this Sacrament is a converting Ordinance. And indeed, I do not know any more forceable Arguments to an Holy Life, than what are therein represented to us: What can more work upon ingenuous spirits, than the discovery of such undeserved love and kindness? Is it not enough to melt the most frozen heart into Floods of Tears and Joy, to behold therein the Blessed Jesus shedding his Blood to reconcile sinners unto God; What can more powerfully captivate the most rebellious spirits into obedience, than the assurance of a pardon of their past transgressions by that full propitiatory Sacrifice of the Son of God? What can more effectually fright Men from sin and folly, than the infinite displeasure of God declared therein against all Iniquity? How accursed a thing is sin, will the considering Communicant say, that the blessed Jesus, who did but take sin upon him, was made a Curse for it! What a mighty evil must sin needs be, when nothing could be sufficient to expiate it, but the Blood of God What an unspeakable malignity must sin have in it, when it laid on the shoulders of Omnipotency such a load of wrath, as made him complain and sweat, and groan and die! Again, Here we repeat our Baptismal Vow to God, solemnly engage ourselves afresh to be his faithful servants, and bind ourselves by a new Oath, to be true to the Covenant we have made with him, and certainly that Man must have a mighty love for Sin and Death, that can break through all these Bonds and Obligations to come at it.  
3. The Third Proposition; That some corrupt and scandalous Members remaining in the Communion of the Church, through the want of the due exercise of Discipline in it, or the negligence and connivance of the Pastors and Governors of it, gives no just Cause for any to separate from her.  
Gives no just Cause; That which is chief pretended, is, That the viciousness of those Members do derive a stain and defilement on the whole Assembly, and pollute the Worship of God to others, as well as to themselves. Here therefore I shall show what is to be done by us, that we be no way accessary to others sins, and then, upon that condition, that we cannot be polluted by their sinful company. Now many things are to be done by good men who are to join in mixed Assemblies that the Communion receive no perjudice by the corruption of some of its Members,  
They are frequently to exhort and advise them; for this end are we placed in the communion of Saints, and tho' to instruct the Flock God hath appointed a whole Order of Men on purpose, yet is it also the Duty of every private Christian in his place and calling, to exhort one another daily, whilst it is called to day? to consider one another, to provoke unto love und to good 
Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24.  works.  
They are prudently and with much affection to admonish and reprove them; we must not be so rudely civil as to suffer sin to lie upon them without disturbance: so runs the Precept, Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart, but thou shalt rebuke thy Brother, 
Leu. 19 17.  and not suffer sin to be upon him: and if any man be overtaken in a fault, says the Apostle, ye that are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, 
Gal. 6. 1.  considering that thou also may'st be tempted.  
They are to bewail their sins, and to pray for their reformation; this is the true spirit and temper of a good man, he cannot see God dishhonoured, his Laws trampled upon, his Brother wilfully undoing himself, but he must be deeply touched and affected with it; Rivers of water run down my eyes, says the Psalmist, because Men keep not thy law; And when in Ezekiel's time the Jewish Church, both Priests and People, were very much corrupted, the Holy Ghost gives it as the particular mark of the faithful and upright, not that they separated, but sighed and cried for all the abominations that were done in her. Of the same holy frame and 
Ezek. 9 4.  disposition of mind was St. Paul, he could not mention those in the Church at Philippi, who, whilst they professed Christianity, showed themselves by their sensuality and earthly-mindedness to be Enemies to the Cross of Christ, without Sorrow and Tears; Of whom, says he, I have told you often, and now tell you weeping, 
Phil. 3. 18.  that they are Enemies to the Cross of Christ, whose God is their Belly, etc.  
They are to avoid, as much as they can their company, especially all familiarity with them; and tho' in order to their conviction and reformation, and in such cases where necessary business requires it, and the public Worship of God can't be performed but in conjunction with such persons, I may be in their company without blame; yet in all other cases, I am to show my dislike and abhorrence of their sins by shunning their society. If any Man obey not our Word by this 
2 Thess. 3. 14.  Epistle, note that Man and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Again says the same Apostle, I wrote to you in an Epistle, not to keep company, if any man be a Fornicator, or an Idolater— or, etc. with such an one, no, not to eat.  
If private and often repeated Admonitions by himself, or before one or two more, will not do, they are then to tell the Church of them, that by its more public Reproofs the scandalous Member may be reclaimed, or by its just Censures be cut off from the Communion. If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church. 
Matth. 18. 17. Rubr. before the Commun.  Our Church hath given every Minister of a Parish power to refuse all scandalous and notorious sinners from the Lord's Supper, and as slack and as much disused as Discipline is amongst us, were such persons more generally informed against and complained of, they would not find it so easy a matter to continue in their Offences and the Church together.  
You see by what means the Church may either be cleared in some measure of public Offenders, or the Members of it, together with the Ordinances of God secured from infection by their fellowship. By this did the Primitive Christians show their Zeal for their Religion, as well as by suffering for it; They were infinitely careful to keep the honour of their Religion ●nspotted, and the Communion of the Church as much out of danger, as they could, from the malignant influence of bad examples; for this reason they watched over one another, told them privately of their faults, and when that would not do, brought them before the cognizance of the Church; and tho' lapsing into Idolatry, in times of presecution, was the common sin, that for some Ages chief exercised the Discipline of the Church, yet all Offences against the Christian Law, all Vices and Immoralities, that were either public in themselves, or made known and proved to the Church, came also under the Ecclesiastical Rod, and were put to open Shame and Pennance; this was that Discipline that preserved their Manners so Uncorrupt, and made their Religion so Renowned and Triumphant in the World; and how happy would it be for us in this lose and degenerate Age, (as our own Church expresses 
Preface to the Comminat.  her wishes and desires) were it again in its due Force and Vigour restored and resettled amongst us.  
But, if after all imaginable care and endeavour by private Christians, some scandalous Members, through the defects of Power in the Discipline, or of Care and Watchfulness in Governors, should remain in the Church, whatever pollution those whose Office it is to rebuke with all Authority, may draw on themselves 
Tit. 3. last.  by suffering it, private Members, that are no way, neither by consent, nor council, nor excuse, accessary to their Sin, can receive none; for sin no otherwise pollutes, than as it is in the will, not as it is in the understanding, as it's chose and embraced, & not as it's known; I may know Adultery and yet be , see Strife and Debate in the City and yet be Peaceable, hear Oaths and Curses and yet tremble at God's Name; Noah was a good Man in an evil World, Let a righteous person amongst the conversation of the wicked; neither is there any more fear of pollution from wicked Men in Sacred than in Civil Society; Our Saviour and his Apostles were not the least defiled by that Society they had with Scribes and Pharisees, nor by that Familiarity they had with the accursed Judas, tho' he eat the Passover with them, and they kept him company after they knew him to be a Traitor; What pollution did Abel receive from Cain when they Sacrificed together? Or Elkanah and Hannah from Eli's Debauched Sons, when at Shilo they Worshipped together? The good and bad indeed Communicate together, but in what? not in sin, but in their common duty; and tho' to Communicate with sin is sin, yet to Communicate with a sinner in that which is not sin can be none; Communion is a common union, many partaking of one thing wherein they do agree, now the common union of the good and bad in the Church is not in evil, but in hearing of the Word, in receiving of the Sacrament, and in other holy Ordinances and Exercises; when therefore some do evil, the Communion in spiritual things is not polluted, because evil is no part of the union in common one with another, but the error of Man by himself, out of the Communion, which he himself, and they only that have been partakers with him in it, shall answer for.  
Obj. But does not the Apostle say, A little leaven 
1 Cor. 5. 6.  leaveneth the whole lump?  
Ans. This is a proverbial speech, and shows only that sin, like leaven, is of a very spreading and diffusive nature, not that it actually defiles where it is not admmitted: A People in one Assembly are as a lump, and a wicked person amongst them is as leaven, but now altho' the leaven is apt to convey itself through the whole lump, yet only are those parts actually leavened with it that take the leaven; so it is with the Church, the sinner by his bad example is apt to spread the infection through the whole body, but only such as allow or any way communicate with him in his sin, are actually infected; such as Chloe, that reprove the offender 
1 Cor. 1. 11.  and present him, doing their utmost endeavour in their place ro reform him, remain in spite of its malignity, unpolluted: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, says our Saviour, he adviseth not his Disciples to leave their Assemblies, but to beware that they take no leaven of them; showing thereby, that a good Man that stands upon his guard may be where leaven is and yet not be leavened; The incestuous person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth, and yet the Apostle says, at least of some of them, ye are unleavened: 
ver. 7.  And why may not the joint Prayers of the Church and the Examples of Pious and Devout Men in the Communion, be as sovereign an antidote against the infection, as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it? Why should not the holy Ordinances of God and the presence of holy Men at them be of as much virtue and efficacy to purge and sanctify the whole body, as the impurities of the bad are to slain and pollute it; especially considering that the sins of the 
2 Cor. 30. 18.  wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous, but the Prayers of the righteous have obtained pardon for the wicked.  
Obj. But were not the pollutions of sin typified by 
Numb. 19, 13, 20.  the legal uncleannesses? And was not every thing that the unclean person touched, made unclean?  
Ans. Those legal and ceremonial pollutions concern not us under the Gospel; we may touch a grave, a dead person, a leper, and not at all be the less clean; it's not any outward uncleanness, but the corruption and depravity of the inner man that incapacitates men for the Worship of God and Communion with him.  
2. Those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion, but only those particular persons whom the unclean person touched, for (1.) There was no sacrifice appointed for any such pollution as came upon all for the sin of some few. (2.) Tho' the Prophets many times reproved the Priests for not separating the clean from the unclean, the precious from the vile, the 
Jer. 15. 16. Ezek. 22. 26.  holy from the profane, yet did they never teach, that because the unclean came into the Congregation through the neglect of their duty, the whole Communion was polluted by it; but as many as touched the unclean person were unclean, so as many as have fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted by it; to partake with men in their sins in a moral sense answers to the legal touching an unclean thing.  
3. When it's said that the unclean person, that did not purify himself, defiled the Tabernacle and polluted the Sanctuary, the meaning is, that he did so to himself, but not to others; so does a wicked man, the Ordinances of God, in respect of himself, but not of others: The Prayers of the wicked, tho' joined with those of the Church, are an abomination unto God, whilst at the same time the Prayers of good men go up as a sweet smelling savour and are accepted by him; The person that comes unworthily to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, eats and drinks Judgement to himself, but that hinders not, but that those who at the same time come better prepared, may do it to their own Eternal Comfort and Salvation; To the pure all things are pure, but to them that are defiled and unbelieving 
Tit. 1. 15.  is nothing pure, but even their Mind and Conscience is defiled.  
The weakness of this suggestion, that the whole Communion and the Ordinances of God are polluted by the wicked Man's company at and among them, being laid open; The truth of the Proposition may be farther evinced from these particulars:  
1. From the example of God's People in the Church of the Jews; We do not find that the sins either of the Priests or the People became at any time an occasion of separation to them; What sins could be greater than those of Eli's Sons? What higher aggravations could there be of sin? Whether we consider the quality of the persons that sinned, being the High-Priests Sons, or the public scandal aed impudence of the sin, Lying with the women before the door of the Tabernacle; yet did not the People of God, not Elkanab and Hannah by name, refrain to come up to Shilo and to join with them in the public Worship: Nay, they are said to transgress who refused to come, tho' they refused out of abhorance and detestation to the wickedness of 
1 Sam. 2. 17. 24.  those Men; They abhorred the sacrifices of the Lord; ye make the Lord's people to transgress: In Ahab's time, when almost all Israel were Idolaters and halted betwixt God and Baal, yet then did the Prophet Elijah summon all Israel to appear on Mount Carmel, and held a Religious Communion with them in Preaching and Praying, and offering a Miraculous Sacrifice; neither did the Seven Thousand that had kept themselves upright and not bowed their knee to Baal, absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest, but they all came and joined in that public Worship performed by the Prophet: All the People fell on their faces, saying, the Lord he is God, the Lord he is God. 
1 King. 18. 39  All along the Old Testament, when both Prince, and Priests, and People, were very much depraved and debauched in their manners, we do not find that the prophet's at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate, or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings, but continued in Communion with the Church, Preaching to them, and Exhorting them to Repentance.  
2. From the Example of God's People in the New Testament; In the Apostolic Churches of Corinth, Galatia, and the seven Churches in Asia, many of the Members were grown very bad and scandalous, yet do we not read of the example of any good Man separating from the Church, or any such Precept from the Apostles so to do; They do not tell them that the whole Body was polluted by those filthy Members, and that, if they would be safe themselves, they must withdraw from their Communion, but exhort them to use all means to reclaim them, and if neither private nor public Admonitions and Reproofs would do, then to suspend them from the Communion of the Church, till by Repentance and Amendment they rendered themselves capable of being restored to Peace and Pardon; The Spirit of God in the Second of the Revelation, sends his Instructions to the Angels, that is, to the Bishops of those seven Churches in Asia, (whose Office it was) to Preach Repentance to them, and by their Authority, to reform abuses, but gives them no Command to cease the public Administration, or to advise the unpolluted part to separate from the rest; nay, altho' those Candlesticks were very foul, yet was our Lord pleased still to bear with them, and to walk in the midst of them; 
Rev. 2. 1.  and certainly so sung as Christ affords his presence in a Church, none of its Members ought to withdraw theirs.  
3. From our Saviour's own example, who, notwithstanding the Church of the Jews in his time was a most corrupt Church, and the Members of it very lewd and vicious, yet kept in Communion with it, and commanded his Disciples so to do: We read that the Scribes and Pharisees, who ruled the Ecclesiastical Chair at that time, had perverted the law, corrupted 
Mat. 15. 6, 7, 8.  the worship of God, were blind guides, devoured widows houses, were hypocrites and such as only had a form of godliness, yet did not our Saviour separate from their Communion; but was made under the Law, freely subjected himself to all the Rites and Ceremonies of it, he was circumcised on the eighth day, redeemed by a certain price, being a Son and a Firstborn, 
Luke 2. 22.  observed their Passover and other Feasts enjoined by their Law, yea, and that of the dedication too, tho' 
Matth. 26.  but of humane institution, was baptised amongst them, preached in their Temples and Synagogues, reasoned 
John 17. 37.  with them about Religion, exhorted his Disciples to hear their Doctrine, tho' not to follow their Practice; 
John 10. 6, 7. Mat. 6. 7.  What greater cause on the account of cortuption in manners could be given to separate from a Church, than was here? yet how careful was our Saviour both by his Example and Precept, to forbid and discountenance it; They fit in Moses 's chair, hear them.  
4. From the Apostle's express command to hold communion with the Church of Corinth, notwithstanding the many and great immoralities that were amongst the Members of it; There were Schisms 
1 Cor. 1. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 3. 3. 1 Cor. 5. 1.  and contentions amongst them, strifes and envyings, fornication and incest, eating at the Idols table, and coming not so soberly as became them to the table of our Lord; yet does the Apostle not only not command them to separate, but approves their meeting together, and exhorts them to continue it, But let 
1 Cor. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 11. 18  a Man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup; In which words the Apostle plainly solves the Case I am discoursing on, and shows w●at private Christians, in whose power it is not judicially to correct Vice, are to do, when they see so many vicious Members intruding to the blessed Sacrament; viz, not to abstain from it, but by preparation and examination of themselves to take care that they be not of their number; If to separate, had been the way, the Apostle would then have managed his Discourse after this manner, There are many Schisms and Strifes in the Church, there is an incestuous person not cast out, many proud contemners of their Brothers, Men of strange opinions, of untamed appetites, and unbridled passions, and therefore I advise you not to come amongst them, nor to partake of the Holy Sacrament with them, lest you be infected with their Sores, and partake of their Judgements; But advising Men to examine themselves, and then to come, he plainly intimates, that 'twas their duty to continue in the Communion of the Church notwithstanding these; as if he had said, I do not mention the foul Enormities of some that come to this holy Table, to discourage you from coming, lest ye should be polluted by their sins, but to excite you to a due care and examination of yourselves, that you be not polluted by any sinful acts and compliances of your own, and then there's no danger of being defiled by theirs.  
But as clear and satisfactory as this Proposition seems to be, it yet suffers very much from the Exceptions of some weak Understandings, who meeting often in Scripture with such Commands and Exhortations as these, to separate, to come out, not to touch, to have no fellowship with, and the like, presently, without staying to examine the sense of the Texts, conclude, that it is the duty and character of good Men to be always separating; and tho, wherever those places of Scripture are found, they are for the most part to be understood with relation to Idolaters and Idolatrous Practices, either amongst Jews or Gentiles, yet will they have them extended to every thing and person that either really is, or they think fit to call, a Corruption, or a corrupt Member in the Church of God.  
Many Texts of Scripture are misunderstood and misapplied by them to this purpose; I shall instance only in two as the chief, and hope in rescuing them from the false glosses they labour under, to give a deliverance to all the rest. The first is,  
Obj. 1. Those words of the Apostle, Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, 
2 Cor. 6. 17.  and touch not the unclean thing.  
Ans. This being the main place to which they fly upon all occasions as their strongest hold, I shall give it a more particular consideration, and that by showing these three things; (1.) The occasion of this Apostolical admonition. (2.) What were the persons the converted Corinthians were to separate from. (3.) What was the unclean thing they were not to touch.  
1. What was the occasion of this Apostolical Exhortation. To this purpose you must know that the converted Corinthians lived in civil Society amongst the unbelieving Gentiles, by whom many of them being their kinsfolk and friends after the flesh, were often invited to their Idol-feasts, to which some of them 
1 Cor. 10. 27.  did not scruple to go and eat of the things sacrificed to Idols, even in the Idol's Temple, thinking it not unlawful 
1 Cor. 8. 10.  to do so, so long as they knew that an Idol was nothing, and did not intentionally go and eat in any honour to the Idol. Now from this Practice the 
1 Cor. 8. 4.  Apostle dissuades them by these two Arguments; (1.) Upon the account of scandal to their weak brethren, telling them that tho' they that were strong, knew that an Idol was nothing in the World, and that there was but one God, and so could not be supposed to worship the Idol when they eat of the Idol's sacrifice; yet some other weak Christians and new Converts might not know so much, and consequently by their practice might be drawn into sin, not only to go to those Feasts, but to do it in honour to the Idol. (2.) As harmless an action as they esteemed it, that 'twas 
1 Cor. 8. 7.  plain Idolatry; Be not ye Idolaters, as were some of 
1 Cor. 10. 14.  them, as it is written, they sat down to eat and to drink, and risen up to play; that is, they eat of those Sacrifices that had been offered up to the golden Calf; 
Exod. 32. 6,  and that this Action was Idolatrous, he proves by an Analogy it bears to a Rite of the same nature, both amongst Jews and Christians, for as the Jews, when they feasted on the Sacrifices, did it in honour to God, to whom the Sacrifices were offered, and 
1 Cor. 10. 18.  as the Christians, when they partake of the Lord's Supper, do it in honour to Christ, whose Death and 
ver. 16.  Passion is therein commemorated, so when they did eat of the Idols Sacrifices, they must have been thought to do it in honour to the Idol, because to the Idol was the Sacrifice offered. But, blessed be 
ver. 20.  God, we have not the like occasion for such an Exhortation, we live not in a civil society with Idolaters, but under a Christian Prince, and with a People professing the Christian Religion; Here are no public Idols set up, nor any Feasts kept in honour of them; had the Case been thus with us, we had been as much concerned in the Text as the Corinthians were, but being far otherwise, not the least aid can be fetched from hence, to defend Separation from our Public Assemblies.  
2. Who were the persons the Christian Corinthians were required to separate from: They were no better than unbelievers, than Infidels, than Idolaters; What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with 
2 Cor. 6. 14. ver. 15. ver. 16.  darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel? And what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? And then it follows, wherefore come out from amongst them, etc. But now because Christians, 
ver. 17.  by the Apostles command were to separate from the Assemblies of Heathen Idolaters, does it therefore follow that they must separate from the Assemblies of Christians, because some, who while they profess Christ, do not live like Christians, afford their presence at them? Is there no difference betwixt a Pagan and an Infidel, that denies Christ and worship's Devils, and an immoral Christian, who yet outwardly owns Christ and worships the true God; Betwixt a Church wholly made up of Heathens and Idolaters, and a Church made up of a mixture of good and bad Christians together.  
3. What is the unclean thing they are not to touch; viz. the unclean and abominable Practices that were used by the Heathens in the Worship of their Gods. It's called by the Apostle in another place, the unfruitful 
Eph. 4. 11:  works of darkness, and again, thus described by him, it's a shame to speak of those things that are done of them in secret; These they were not to touch, to have no fellowship with them in, but rather to reprove them, that is in judgement to condemn them, by words to reprove them, in conversation to avoid them. But now because Christians are not to communicate with Heathens in their filthy mysteries, nor to partake with any sort of wicked Men in any Action that's Immoral, does it therefore follow, that they must not do their duty, because sometimes it cannot be done but in their company? Must they abstain from the Public Worship of God and their Lord's Table, to which they are commanded, because Evil Men, who, till they repent, have nothing to do there, rudely intrude themselves? May they not join with bad Men in some cases, where it cannot be well avoided, in doing a good Action? because they must in no case and on no account join with them in doing a sinful one? Because they have omitted their Duty, must I neglect mine? Because they sin in coming unpreparedly, must I sin in not coming at all? Will their sin be any plea or excuse for mine? If I Communicate with them, will their unworthiness be laid at my door? If I separate because of that, shall they answer for my contempt, as well as for their own profanation of it? No surely, every Man shall bear his own burden. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The 
Ezek. 18. 20.  second is, that Text,  
Obj. 2. In the Revelation, Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive 
18. c. 4.  not of her plagues.  
Answ. This place is most certainly to be understood of Idolaters, and according to most Interpreters, of the Roman Idolatrous Polity, and is a command to all Christians to forsake the Communion of that Church, lest they endanger their own salvation by Communicating with her in Masses and other Idolatrous Worship. And if this be the true sense of the words, it abundantly justifies our Separation from the Roman Church, But affords not the least plea for Dissenters to separate from ours, unless any of them are so hardy as to say, that there is none, or but little difference betwixt the Church of Rome and the Church of England. But blessed be God, we have a Church reformed from all her Superstitions, that retains nothing of hers, but what she retains of the Gospel and the Primitive Church.  
Here's no drowning Religion in shadow and formality, nor burying her under a load of ritual and ceremonial Rubbish, nor dressing up Religion in a flaunting pomp to set her off, or a gaudy garb to recommend her, much less in such fantastical Rites, such antic Vestments and Gesticulations that may justly render her ridiculous and contemptible; but her Ceremonies are few and decent, countenanced by Primitive Antiquity, and very much becoming the gravity and sobriety of Religion.  
Here are no Half-Communions; no more Sacraments thrust upon us than our Lord himself instituted, and yet those left whole and entire, for our use and comfort, that he did; no Prayers in an unknown Tongue, which the votary neither minds nor understands; no praying to Saints or Angels; no adoring Images, Pictures, and Relics; no worshipping the Creature besides or more than the Creator, which 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  they do, who in all their public Offices of Devotion, for one Prayer to God, have ordered ten to be made to the blessed Virgin.  
Here's no Doctrine obtruded on our Faith that's contrary to reason, nay, to sense, to all our senses, no Practices allowed that are forbidden by God, no Pardons to be bought, no Indulgences to be purchased no expunging any one Commandment out of the Decalogue, or contriving arts and devices to make void the rest; but as her Devotions are pure and spiritual, having God, and him only, for their object, so her Doctrine is found and orthodox, having Christ for its Cornerstone, and the Prophets and Apostles for its Foundation.  
A Church that needs no counterfeit Legends, no incredible Miracles, no ridiculous Fables to promote her veneration, whose security lies not in the People's ignorance, but in their enlightened understandings, that can defend itself without the help of spurious Authors, or corrupting the words and sense of Authentic ones, a Church that dares to be understood, and is sure, the more she's looked into, the more to be embraced and admired.  
And I would to God, 'twas as easy a matter to clear every one of her Members from Vice, as it is her Constitution from Corruption; But let those that stand, take heed lest they fall, and be sure to sweep their own door clean, who are so apt to throw dirt in the faces of their Fellow-Christians; St. Paul's advice is, that every Man should examine himself, and I am much mistaken, if spiritual pride, a rash and censorious judging of our Brothers; be not as great a crime, as some of those that are looked upon to be of so polluting and infectious a nature in other Men; I need not say, how directly oposite this Pharisaical humour is to that humility, meekness and self-denial that the Gospel of our Saviour enjoins? how unsuitable to the temper of all good Men, who are more apt to suspect and accuse themselves, than others, who, the more holy they are, the more sensible of their own imperfections? How contrary to the example of our blessed Lord; who balked not at any time the society of Publicans and sinners, who when he knew what was in Man, and who it was that should betray him, yet admitted Judas into the number of his Disciples, and familiarly conversed with him? And yet, how fully it answers to the Spirit and Genius of those ancient Schismatics, the Novatians and the Donatists? Might I stay to run the parallel, both those Schisms, and this amongst us, would be found to begin on the same Principles, slackness of Discipline in the Church, and corruption in Manners; To be carried on by the same pretences, zeal for purity, and fear of pollution; to spring from the same bitter fountain, pride and arrogance; But I speak not this to excuse ourselves, or to recriminate them; My hearty Prayer to God is, that all Isarel may be saved; that they, who descent from us, would now, at last, lay aside all passion and prejudice, all groundless scruples and pretences, and come in and join their forces with our Church against the common Adversary; And that we, who profess ourselves Members of the Church of England, would be extremely careful, for the honour of our Religion, for the preservation of our Church, for the recovery of our straying Brothers, (for whose sakes, in some cases, we are bound to lay down our lives) to lay down our sins, and, instead of blocking up the way againgst any, by scandalous living, invite and allure them all in, by exemplary Holiness and Purity, and this I am sure, how short soever my Discourse comes of, would be a full Answer to, and a perfect Confutation of this Objection.   
FINIS.   

THE CASE OF Indifferent Things Used in the WORSHIP of GOD, Proposed and Stated, by considering these QUESTIONS, 

Qu. I. Whether things Indifferent, though not Prescribed, may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship? [or, Whether there be any things Indifferent in the Worship of God?]  
Qu. II. Whether a Restraint of our Liberty in the use of such Indifferent things be a Violation of it?    
LONDON, Printed by T. Moor, & J. Ashburne, for Fincham Gardiner, at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street. 1683.   

Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER.  
A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, in Answer to Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Job, etc.  
Considerations of present use, considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government.  

1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England.  
2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience, which Respect Church-Communion.  
3. The Case of Indifferent things, used in the Worship of God, Proposed and Stated, by considering these Questions, etc.  
4. A Discourse about Edification.  
5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience, Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England;  
6. A Letter to Anonymus, in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr: Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship. In two Parts.  
8. The Case of mixed Communion. Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations, and Mixed Communion?  
9 An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers, and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England.  
10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament, Stated and Resolved etc. The first Part.  
11. Certain Cases of Conscience, &c, The Second Part.  
12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons, and going to hear where Men think they can profit most.  
13. A Serious Exhortation, with some Important Advices, Relating to the late Cases about Conformity, Recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England.  
14. An Argument for Union, etc.  
15. The Case Kneeling at the Sacrament. The Second Part,  
16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandals, or giving Offence to Weak-bretherens.  
17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in five Questions, etc.   

1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists ask of us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther?  
2. A Discourse about Tradition, showing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be Received, and what Tradition is to be Rejected.  
3. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England.  
4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith, etc.    

Question.  
Q. Whether things not prescribed in the Word of God, may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship?  
BEfore I proceed to the Case itself, it will be fit to consider what the things are which the Question more immediately respects. For the better understanding of which, we may observe.  
1. That there are Essential parts of Divine Worship, and which are, either by Nature or Revelation, so determined, that they are in all Ages necessary: In Natural Religion, such are the Objects of it, which must be Divine; such are the acknowledgement of Honour, and Reverence, due and peculiar to those Objects, as Prayer, etc. And in the Christian Religion, such are the Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lords Supper. These are always to be the same in the Church.  
2. There are other things relating to Divine Worship, which are arbitrary and variable, and determined according to Circumstances, as Gesture, Place, etc.  
As to the former it's granted by the contending Parties, that they are all already prescribed, and that nothing in that kind can be added to what is already prescribed, nor can any thing so prescribed be altered, or abolished. Nothing now can be made necessary and binding to all Persons, Places, and Ages, that was not so from the beginning of Christianity; and nothing that was once made so by Divine Authority can be rendered void or unnecessary by any other.  
Therefore the Question is to be applied to the latter, and then it's no other than, Whether things in their own nature Indifferent, though not prescribed in the Word of God, may be lawfully used in Divine Worship? Or, Whether there be any thing Indifferent in the Worship of God?  
Toward the Resolution of which, I shall  

1. Inquire into the Nature, and state the Notion of things Indifferent.  
2. Show that things Indifferent may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship.  
3. Consider how we may know what things are Indifferent in the Worship of God.  
4. How we are to Determine ourselves in the use of Indifferent things so applied.  
5. Show that there is nothing required in the Worship of God in our Church, but what is either Necessary in itself, and so binding to all Christians; or what is Indifferent, and so may be Lawfully used by them.   
1. I shall inquire into the Nature, and state the Notion of things Indifferent. In doing of which we are to observe, that all things with reference to Practice are reducible to these three Heads.  

First, Duty.  
Secondly, Sin.  
Thirdly, Neither Duty nor Sin.   
Duty is either so Morally, and in its own Nature, or made so by Divine and Positive Command. Sin is so in its own Nature, or made and declared to be such by Divine and Positive Prohibition. Neither Duty nor Sin, is that which no Law, either of Nature or Revelation, hath determined; and is usually known by the Name of Indifferent, that is, it's of a middle Nature, partaking in itself of neither extremes, and may be indifferently used or forborn, as in Reason and Prudence shall be thought meet. Things of this kind the Apostle calls Lawfal, 1 Cor. 10. 23, etc. because they are the subject of no Law, and what are therefore Lawful to us, and which without Sin we may either choose or refuse. Thus the Apostle doth determine, Rom. 4. 15. Where no Law is, there is no Transgression, that is, it can be no transgression to omit that which the Law doth not enjoin, nor to do that which it doth not forbid; for else that would be a Duty which the Law doth not enjoin, and that would be a Sin which it doth not forbid; which is in effect to say there is a Law where there is none, or that Duty and Sin are so without respect to any Law. But now if Duty be Duty because its enjoined, and Sin be Sin because it's fordidden, then Indifferent is Indifferent because its neither enjoyed nor forbidden. For as to make it a Duty there needs a Command, and to make it a Sin there needs a Prohibition, so where there is neither Command nor Prohibition, it's neither Duty nor Sin, and must be therefore Indifferent, Lawful, and Free. So that we may as well know by the Silence of the Law, what is Indifferent, as we may know by its Authority, what is a Duty or a Sin. And I have no more Reason to think that a Duty or a Sin which it takes no notice of (since all Obligation ariseth from a Law) than that not to be a Duty or a Sin which it doth: The Nature of Lawful things being as much determined so to be, by the want of such Authority, as that of Necessary is determined by it: And he that shall say that's a Duty or a Sin which is not so made and declared by any Law, may as well say that's no Duty or Sin which there is a Law about. To conclude, there must be a Law to make it a Transgression, and the want of a Law doth necessarily suppose it to be none, and what there is no Law for or against, remains Indifferent in itself, and Lawful to us. As for instance, suppose there should be a Dispute concerning Days set apart for the Service and Worship of God, how must this be determined but by the Law of Nature or Revelation? and how shall we be resolved in the case, but by considering what the Law enjoins or forbids in it? If we find it not enjoined, it can be of itself no Duty; if we find it not forbidden, it can be of itself no Sin; and consequently it's Lawful and Indifferent, and in what we neither Sin by omitting nor observing. So the Apostle concludes, Rom. 14. 6. He that regardeth a day, regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day, unto the Lord he doth not regard it; that is, there was no Law requiring it, and so making the observation of it Necessary; and no Law forbidding it, and so making the observation of it Sinful; and therefore Christians were at Liberty to observe, or not to observe it as they pleased; and in both they did well, if so be they had a regard to the Lord in it.  
2. I shall show that there are things Indifferent in the Worship of God, and that such things, though not prescribed, may be lawfully used in it. 'tis allowed by all, that there is no Command to be expected about the Natural Circumstances of Action, and which the Service cannot be celebrated without, such as Time and Place, and that these are left to humane Prudence to fix and determine. But what those Natural Circumstances are is not so universally agreed to. And if they be such as aforesaid, that is, such as the action cannot be performed without, than it will very much serve to justify most of the things in dispute, and defend our Church in the use and practice of them. For what is there almost in that kind amongst us, which is not Naturally or Morally necessary to the Action, and if Time and Place fall under humane determination, because they are naturally necessary, then why not also Gesture and Habit, which Worship can no more Naturally be celebrated without, than the former; and consequently a Surplice, or Kneeling and Standing may be alike lawfully determined, and used, as Time for assembling together, and a Church to assemble and Officiate in. And what Natural Circumstances are to a Natural Action, that are Moral Circumstances to a Moral Action; and there are Moral as necessary to a Moral Action, as there are Natural necessary to a Natural Action. As for example, what Time and Place are to Natural, that are Method and Order to Moral and Religious Acts, and can no more be separated from these than the other can be separated from the former, and therefore the Method and Order of Administration in Divine Worship (where not otherwise determined and appointed by God) may as well be determined by Men, as Time and Place, with respect to the nature, end, and use of the Service. So that the exception made against humane Appointments in Divine Worship, viz. (that all but natural circumstances must have a Divine Command to legitimate their use; and that whatever is not prescribed, is therefore prohibited) is of no service to them that plead it; and it remains good so far notwithstanding, that there are things Indifferent in the Worship of God, and that the outward Order and Administration of it is left to Christian Prudence; And this I shall more particularly prove.  
1. From the consideration of the Rules laid down in the Gospel, relating to the Administration of Divine Worship which (except what refer to the Elements, etc. in the Sacraments) are taken from the Nature of the thing; and so always were obliging to all Ages under the several variations and forms of Divine Worship, and will be always so to all Christians in the World, viz. such as respect Order, Decency and Edification, insisted upon, 1 Cor. 14. 26, 40. So that we are no otherwise bound, than as bound by these measures, and where not bound by them we are free. For as in former Ages from the beginning of the World, where Revelation did not interpose (as it did under the Mosaical Dispensation) all persons were left at liberty, and if so be they had a respect to those natural rules, might choose what ways they pleased for the regulation of Divine Worship: So when under the Gospel we have no other than those Natural rules (except as above excepted) the particular Circumstrnces are as much now the matter of our free choice, as they were then, and this or that may be used and observed, as the Case requireth and Occasion serves. So that if ever there were things Indifferent in God's Worship, and the Administration of it was left to the Consideration and Prudence of Mankind, it is so still, since the Gospel keeps to those eternal Rules, which even the Nature of the Thing hath invariably established, and which, if it ever was sufficient for the guiding of the Church of God in those particulars, is certainly so when the Nature of Man is improved by new helps, and so he is more capable of judging what may be suitable to that Essential Worship which God hath prescribed under the Gospel, and to Him whom that Worship is directed to. But then that which confirms this, is, that those Rules are also general; and such as will in their use and end respect all People in the World. The Apostles in all their Discourses upon this subject rarely do descend to particulars, and in what they do, show how far Custom and Charity, and the Reason of the thing ought to govern us; as in the case of men's being Uncovered in the Worship of God, for which the Apostle doth argue not from Institution, but the Nature and Decency of it, being in token of their pre-eminence, and the headship they have over the Woman, etc. 1 Cor. 11. 47. But otherwise they without doubt thought it unpracticable to tie all Nations up to the same Modes and Circumstances, or if practicable, that it was not worth the while, when the Worship might as well be Administered, and God as much Honoured by one as the other. Now if they did think it sufficient to prescribe only in this General way, it must needs be that the particulars of those Generals must be Indifferent, and that the choosing of one particular before the other was left to Christian Prudence. And if it should be said (as it is) that when the things are determined in general, the particulars are therein also virtually determined, and so are not Indifferent; I shall content myself to reply, that by this way of arguing there would be nothing Indifferent in the World: There being nothing, how Lawful and Indifferent soever in itself, but what we are limited by General Rules in the use of. As for example, all Meats are now Lawful to Christians, but yet there are General Rules by which we are determined in the use of them, such as our own Constitution, and our Quality, or Scandal given to others: But the being thus bounded by such Rules, doth not change the Nature of those Meats, and make them to be other than Indifferent. So it is in the Worship of God, for the better Administration of which there are general Rules laid down; and according to which we are to be determined in our choice of particulars, but yet the particulars notwithstanding are Indifferent and matter of Christian Liberty, and what humane prudence is to regulate us in.  
All which will yet be further confirmed by considering the Nature of the things which are the Subject of those general Rules, viz. Order, Decency, and Edification, which do mostly, if not altogether, depend upon variable Circumstances, and may be different according to those Circumstances; sometimes this, and at other times that being subservient thereunto. As for instance, Decency doth generally depend upon Custom, and the Custom of Ages and Countries being different, Decency in one Age or Country may be and often is quite different from what it is in another. It was once comely amougst some Nations to be covered in Divine Worship, and practised both amongst the Jews in their Synagogues, as the Apostle doth insinuate, 2 Cor. 3. 14. and their own Authors do acknowledge 
(a) Lightf. ●or. Hebr. in 1 Cor. 11. 4. ; and also amongst the 
(b) Plut. Probl. Rom.  Romans. But it was Comely amongst others to be Uncovered, as amongst the Grecians, (c) who in those Times giving Laws of Civility, and in many things of Religion too to other Nations, it became a prevailing Custom, and was, as a thing decent, introduced into 
(b) Macrob. Saturn. l. 3. c. 6.  the Christian Church. Thus it is also as to Edification, which doth in like manner often depend upon Circumstances, and according to those Circumstances the Edification of the Church in its Peace, Union, and Comfort may be promoted or hindered, and that may be for Edification in one Age or Church, which is not so in another.  
Thus the being covered in Divine Worship was for Edification in the Jewish Church, being used in token of Eear and Reverence, Distance and Subjection; in allusion to which the Seraphims are represented appearing before God, after that manner, Isai. 6. 2. and in imitation of whom the Apostle pleads that Woman should be vailed in Religious Assemblies, in token of Subjection and Shamefacedness, 1 Cor. 11. 10. But on the contrary he doth judge and Determine that, for the Reasons above given, it was better and more for Edification, that Men should be therein Uncovered. So the Lovefeasts, and Holy-kiss of Charity were at the first thought good for Edification, and were accordingly used in Apostolical times, (being an Excellent and Useful, 
Chrysost. and Theophyl. in 1 Cor. 11. 17. Tertul. Apol. c. 39 de orat. l. 6.  Admirable and Friendly, Custom) as thereby was signified the Universal Love and Charity that Christians ought to maintain, and which they should at all times but especially in Divine Worship be forward to express and renew: But when Disorder and Licentiousness arose from them, they were generally laid aside, and 
Concil. Laod. c. 28. etc.  Abolished by Authority.  
So it was thought to be for Edification in the Primitive Church, to Administer Baptism by immersion or dipping, and the Apostle doth make use of it as an excellent argument to newness of life, Rom. 6. 3, 4. and yet notwithstanding the signification of it, and the practice of the Church for a long time, a Charitable reason hath overruled it, and brought in Sprinkling instead of it. Thus sitting at the Lords Supper is accounted decent by some, and Edification, as it's a table posture and is a sign of our being feasted by God; and yet in a general Synod of the Reformed Churches in Poland, etc. it was declared, that forasmuch as sitting was introduced first by the 
Synod. Petricav. conclus. 4. An. 1578.  Arrians (beside the Custom used in all the Evangelical Churches throughout Europe,) we reject it as peculiar to them (that as they do irreverently treat Christ, so also his Sacred appointments) and as a Ceremony less Comely and Devout, and to many very offensive. So that Order, Decency, and Edification, being generally mutable things, and varying as circumstances vary, there could in the nature of the thing be only general Rules prescribed, and so the particulars must be left to discretion, and to be determined by those that are best able and have Authority to judge of the circumstances, and to pick out of them those which are indifferent, what may best serve the ends of Religion, and the honour of its institutions.  
2. I shall prove that things indifferent in themselves, though not prescribed, may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship, from the practice of our Saviour and his Apostles. Under the Law the Constitution was very exact, the Rites and Orders of it very particular, and the Observation of them punctually required. But as it was not so precise, but that many things respecting the outward Order were added, so some things were altered upon prudential considerations; and by the addition or alteration of which the Authority of that Law was not conceived to be infringed, nor violated; as it's evident from the respect which our Saviour shown to them, and his compliance with them. An instance of this is the Synagogual Worship; It's a controversy whether there was any provision made under the Law for the places themselves, the intimations of that are (if any) very obscure, but there are not so much as any intimations of the manner and order or parts of the Worship therein to be observed; and yet we find such there was, Acts 15. 21. Moses being read and preached there every Sabbath Day; and that our Saviour frequently resorted to it and bore a part in it, John 18. 20, etc. The like temper we find him of, when he used the Cup of Charity after the manner of the Jews, in the Passover, though there was no institution for it; and that it was as many other things, taken up and used amongst them by way of signification, and as a Testimony of entire Friendship, and Charity, Luke, 22. 16. But I conceive alteration of Circumstances in the Institution is much more exceptionable than the addition of such to it, and yet this was both done by them and observed by our Saviour, when there was nothing else to oblige him, but only a condescension to them in such usages and rites as were inoffensive in themselves, and what were then generally used in the Church. That the posture first required and used in the Pasiover was standing, the Circumstances, being to be eat with Staves in their Hands and Shoes on their Feet, etc. do prove, and is affirmed by 
Philo de Sacrif. Able, etc. Lightf. Hor. Matth. c. 26. 20.  the Jews; and it is as manifest that the Jews in the time of our Saviour, and for a long time before, did recede from it, and did eat it in the posture of discumbency; whether it was as they looked upon themselves as settled in the possession of Canaan, which they were at the first institution Travelling toward; or, as it's said by the latter Jews, because it was a sign of Liberty, and after the manner of Kings and Great Men, is not so material, as it is that our Saviour did follow this Custom, and complied with this practice of theirs without hesitation. And thus did the Apostles when they observed the hours of Prayer, Acts, 3. 1. which were of humane institution as well as the Prayers themselves, (for without doubt they were public Prayers, which were used in the Temple,) but though the place was, yet that service was of no more Authority than what was used in the Synagogues. Now if the Jews did thus institute and alter things relating to external Order and Administration, according as the case might require, and it was lawful for them so to do (as it's plain from the compliance of our Saviour and the Apostles with them in it) then much more may it be supposed lawful for the Christian Church to exercise that liberty when they have no other than such general rules for their direction as they had then, without such particulars as they had.  
And that this is no other than a certain Truth, will appear from the same liberty taken in Apostolical times in Religious Assemblies, when the Christian Church not only complied with the Jews in such Rites as they were under no Obligation, but that of Charity, to use, & which they did use because they were not forbidden, and so lawful; (as when St. Paul took upon him a Vow, Acts. 21. 26.) but also had some Observances of its own, that were of a ritual nature, and as they were taken up, so might be laid down upon prudential consideration. Such I account was the Washing the Disciples Feet, which was done by our Saviour in token of the Humility he was to be precedent of, and would have them follow him in; and which it seems was observed amongst them, 1 Tim. 5. 10. and for a long time after continued in a sort in some Churches 
(a) Ambros. Tom. 4. l. 3. de Sacrament. c. 1. . Such also were the Lovefeasts at the Administration of the Lords Supper; and the Holy-kiss used then amongst Christians, if not as a constant attendant upon all public Worship, yet to be sure at Prayer 
(b) Tertul. de orat. c. 14. . Which and the like usages, however taken up, yet were in the Opinion of the Church no other than Indifferent, and accordingly were upon the abuse of them (as I observed before) discarded. From all which it appears, that there was no such thing as Prescription expected before any Rite should be introduced into the Church, or before it would be lawful for Christians to use it, but that where it was not forbidden, the Practice of the Church was to determine them; and if Prescription had been thought necessary for every thing used in Divine Worship, which was not Natural, then certainly our Saviour and his Apostles would never have used or encouraged others to use any thing that wanted such Authority, and that was not of Divine Institution.  
Now if it should be objected that these usages of the 
Aims Fresh Suit, l. 2. Sect. ●3, etc. p. 334.  Christian Church were Cilvil observances, and used as well out of God's Worship as in it; and therefore what there needed no Institution for, and might be lawfully used without. I answer 1. That this doth justify most of the usages contended for, and there would be nothing unlawful in using a White Garment, etc. in Divine Service, since that as a sign of Royalty and Dignity was 
Casaub. Exercit. 16. c. 73.  used in Civil as well as Religious cases, and according to this Argument may therefore lawfully be used in Religious, because it was in Civil.  
Secondly, They must say that either a Civil observance, when used in Religious Worship, remains Civil, notwithstanding it's being so applied, or that it's Religious whilst so applied; if the former, then Kneeling or Standing in the Worship of God would be no acts of Adoration and not be Religious, because those postures are used in Civil matters; if the latter, than it must be granted that there may be Rites used in the Worship of God and to a Religious end, which there is no Divine Prescription for.  
Nay Thirdly, It's evident that these and the like were not used by the Christians as mere Civil Rites; this I think is made evident, as to Washing the Feet, by a Learned Person 
(a) Buxtorf. Exercit. Hist. Sacr. Coenae ; and not only was the kiss of Charity called the Holy-kiss in Scripture, but by the Fatherrs, (notwithstanding what is 
(b) Ames. ibid. p. 342. n. XXX.  objected) the Seal of Prayer, and the Seal of Reconciliation, and both consistent, the one as it was an attendant upon the office, the other as it was a Testimony of their Charity and Reconciliation to each other in it.  
Fourthly, If the being Civil usages did make them which were originally so, to be lawful in or at Divine Worship, than there is nothing that is used out of Worship in Civil cases and affairs, but may be introduced into the Church; since if it be for that reason that any usages of that kind are defended, the reason will as well defend all as one. And then the Histrionical Practices of the Church of Rome might warantably be introduced, as the rocking of a Babe in a Cradle at night, at the Nativity time; the Harrowing of Hell at Easter, etc. Then a Maypole may be brought into the Church for Children to Dance-about and Climb upon, in sign of their desire to seek the things above; and a stiff Straw put into the Child's Hand, for a sign of Fight against Spiritual Enemies, as with a Spear; And all the absurdities of that Nature charged injuriously upon our Proceed 
(a) Ames. Ib l. 1. c. 3. P●id 1  would rerurn with success upon themselves: Since all these are fetched from Customs and Practices in Secular matters.  
Fifthly, If this be a reason to Defend the Use of Rites in the Christian Church, because they are used out of it, and in Civil cases; then what will become of that Position, before spoken of, and generally asserted by those who oppose us, that nothing is to be used in the Worship of God without Prescription, except the Natural Circumstances of Action; for though Civil and Natural are sometimes coincident, yet they may be and often are Separated; for Feasting and Salutation are Civil usages, but are no Natural Circumstances in Divine Worship, and which that cannot be performed without, And if these and the like were used in the Church, and applied and annexed to Divine Worship; then the reason upon which they were introduced and used doth, wherever that reason is, justify the like Practice, and we are left still to choose and act according to the Permission and Allowance that is given us; that is, all such things that are not forbidden are just matter of our Christian Liberty, and there is no Sin in a Prudent exercise of it.  
3. I shall further prove and strengthen the Proposition, that things Indifferent, though not prescribed, may be lawfully used in Divine Worship, from the ill consequences attending the contrary; one of which is, that if we hold all things not commanded to be prohibited, we shall find no Church or Religious Society in the World but are Guilty; and if the doing so makes Communion with a Church unlawful, there is no Church we can hold Communion with. There are some Churches that do maintain and use such things as the Scripture expressly condemns, and do lay aside such as the Scripture requires; as the Church of Rome, in its Worshipping Saints and Angels, and denying the Cup to the Laity, etc. And these things make it necessary for those to quit its Communion that are of it, and for those to avoid it that are not in it. But other Churches there are that are Guilty of no such Fundamental Errors and fatal miscarriages, and may so far lawfully be Communicated with. But even none of these are there, but what, either wittingly or unwittingly, do take the liberty of using what the Scripture hath no where required. It was notoriously so in the Ancient Church when some Customs did universally obtain amongst them; as the Anniversary Solemnities of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, and Descent of the Holy-Ghost, the receiving of the Lords Supper Fasting; 
(a) Aug. Epis. 118. Januar.  the Praying toward the East 
(b) Basil. de Spir. S. c. 27. ; the Standing in their Devotions on the Lords Days, 
(c) Aug. Epis. 119. Januar.  especially from Easter to Whitsuntide; the Dipping the Baptised thrice in Water 
(d) Ambros. lib. 2. de Sacrament. c. 7. , etc. Now whatever some of the Fathers might plead for any of these from Scriptures misunderstood, yet it's plain that none of these are required in Scripture, and if so, a Person that holds it unlawful to use any thing uncommanded, and to hold Communion with a Church so using, must have separated from the Catholic Church, since (if there be Credit to be given to the Fathers so reporting) they all agreed in the use and Practice of the things above recited. And he that held all fixed holidays of Ecclesiastical Institution unlawful, and all Ceremonies not instituted by God to be prohibited, must not have Worshipped with them, who did not only thus do, but thought it unlawful, when universally Practised to do otherwise.  
But again, as there were some Rites universally held in estimation, so there were others that were peculiar to some Churches, and that were not thought to be obliging out of that particular Communion, as when in the Church of Rome it was the Custom to Fast on the Saturday; and of most orhers to make no such distinction betwixt that and other days. 
(a) Aug. Epist. 118.  In the Church of Milan they Washed the Feet of those that were to be Baptised, but in the Church of Rome, they used it not 
(b) Ambros. l. 3. de Sacrament. c. 1. . Now if Persons did believe such things unlawful, they could have no Communion with any particular Church, because no Church was without such Uncommanded Rites; or if they could be so fond as to think the Rites of their own Church to be of Divine Institution, yet how could they have Communion with a Church, where the contrary Custom did prevail, as in the cases abovesaid. And as it was then, so it is now with all stated and settled Churchers in the World, who do Practice against this Principle, and either expect not or are not able to find a Command for every thing established amongst them; and that Practise with as much contrariety to each other as the Church of Rome and Milan once did, so in some Churches they receive the Lord's Supper Kneeling, in some Standing, in others Sitting. In some they Sprinkle the Child in Baptism but once, and in others thrice. Now there would be no reconciling of these one to another, and no possibility of holding Communion with them under these Circumstances, or of being a Member of any Church, if we must have an institution for every thing done in the Worship of God, and that we must join in nothing, which has it not. As for Instance, what Church is there in the World, which has not some form or forms of Prayer, and whose Service for the most part (generally speaking) is not made up of them; especially that doth not use them in the Administration of the Sacraments. But now if a Person holds that whatever is not prescribed is unlawful, and that forms of Prayer are not where prescribed, than he cannot join with the Church so using, but while in the body of the Church by residence, he must be no Member of that Body in Communion.  
Nay further, if this be true, than none must hold Communion with them who are of this Opinion; since those that pretend most to it, and urge it as a reason against Communion with us, live in contradiction to it, and to Practice and Use things which they have no more Authority, nor can give more reason for, than we do for the things they condemn, and that is, that they are lawful, expedient, and convenient. As for Example, let us consider the Sacraments, in which, if any thing, we might expect particular Prescription, because they are mere Institutions; where do they find that the Baptised Person is necessarily to be Sprinkled? What Command or Example have they for it, or what reason more than the reason of the thing taken from expedience and the general Practice of the Church of God in colder Climates? And yet this is as much used amongst them that pretend to keep exactly to the Rule of Scripture, as it is amongst us that take a liberty in things Uncommanded; but with this difference, that they do it upon the supposition of a Command, and so make it necessary, and our Church leaves it, as it is, Indifferent. Again, where do they find a Command for Sitting at the Lord's Supper, or so much as an Example? (For the Posture of our Saviour is left very uncertain.) Where again do they find a Command for the necessary use of conceived Prayer, and that that, and no other, should be used in the public Worship of God? And that they must prove that maintain public Forms unlawful. Where again do they find it required that an Oath is to be taken by laying the Hand on the Gospel and Kissing the Book? which is both a Natural and Instituted part of Worship, being a Solemn Invocation of God and an appeal to him, with an acknowledgement of his Omniscience, and Omnipresence; his Providence and Government of the World; his Truth and Justice to Right the Innocent and Punish the Guilty; all which is owned and testified by Kissing that Book that God has declared this more especially in. And if we more particularly descend to those that differ from us in this point: Where do those of the Congregational way find that even Christians were otherwise divided from Christians than by place, or that they did combine into particular Churches, so as not to be all the while reputed Members of another, and might be admitted, upon removal of Place, upon the same terms that they were of that they removed from; or indeed that they were so Members of a particular as not to be Members of any or the whole Church of Christ, upon their being Batipzed? Where do they find that Christians were gathered out of Christians, and did combine into a Society Excluding those from it that would not make a Profession of their Faith and Conversion distinct from that at Baptism? Where do we ever read that he that was a Minister of one Church was not a Minister all the World over, as well as he that was Baptised in one was reputed a Christian and Church-Member wherever he came? Again, where do we read that its necessary that Ministers should be alike in Authority, Power, and Jurisdiction, and that there is to be no difference in point of Order and Superiority amongst them: Or that there are to be Elders for Governing the Church, who are not Ordained to it, and are in no other State after than they were before that Service, both of which are held by the presbyterians, strictly so called? And if it be said these respect Government but not Worship; I answer the case is the same, for if we are to do nothing but what is prescribed in the Worship of God, because, (as they say) it derogates from the Priestly Office of Christ, and doth detract from the Sufficiency of Scripture; then I say upon the like reason, there must be nothing used in Church Government but what is prescribed, since the Kingly Office is as much concerned in this as the Priestly in the other, and the Sufficiency of Scripture in both. Lastly, Where do any of them find that position in Scripture, that there is nothing lawful in Divine Worship but what prescribed, and that what is not Commanded is Forbidden? And if there be no such position in Scripture, then that can no more be true than the want of such a position can render things not Commanded to be unlawful.  
And now I am come to that which must put an Issue one way or other to the Dispute; for if there be no such position in Scripture, either expressed in it, or to be gathered by good consequence from it, we have gained the point; but if there be, than we must give it up. And this is indeed contended for. For it's Objected,  
That it's accounted in Scripture an heinous Crime Object. I to do things not commanded; as when Nadab and Abihu offered strange Fire before the Lord, which he Commanded 
Levit. 10. 1, etc.  them not, etc. From which form of expression it may be collected, that what is not Commanded is Forbidden; and that in every thing used in Divine Worship there must be a Command to make it lawful and allowable.  
To this I answer, that the Proposition inferred, that all Answ. I things not Commanded are Forbidden, is not true, and so it cannot be the Sense and Meaning of the Phrase; for  
1. Then all things must be either Commanded or Forbidden; and there would be nothing but what must be Commanded or Forbidden; but I have before shown, and it must be granted, that there are things neither Commanded nor Forbidden, which are called Indifferent.  
2. If things not Commanded are Forbidden, than a thing not Commanded is alike Heinous as a thing Forbidden. And then David's Temple which he designed to Build would have been Criminal as well as Jeroboam's Dan and Bethel; and the Feast of 
(a) Esth. 9 27.  Purim, like Jeroboam's Eighth Month 
(b) 1 King. 12. 32, 33. ; and the Synagogal Worship like the Sacrificing in Gardens 
(c) Isai. 65. 3. ; and the hours of Prayer 
(d) Act. 3. 1.  like Nadab's Strange Fire, The former of which were things Uncommanded, and the latter Forbidden; and yet They were approved and These condemned.  
2. The things, to which this Phrase not Commanded is applied, to give no encouragement to such an Inference from it; for its constantly applied to such as are absolutely Forbidden. This was the case of Nadab and Abihu, who offered Fire not merely Uncommanded, but what was prohibited, which will appear; if we consider that the Word Strange when applied to matters of Worship doth signify as much as Forbidden. Thus we read of Strange Incense, that is, other than what was compounded 
Exod. 30. 9,  according to the directions given for it; which as it was to be put to no common uses, so no common 
Ver. 34. Ch. 37: 29.  persmue was to be put to the like uses with it. So we also read of Strange Vanities, which is but another 
Jer. 8. 19  Word for Graven Images; and of Strange Gods. And after the same sort is it to be understood in the case before us, viz. for what is Forbidden. For that such was the Fire made use of by those Young Men will be further confirmed, if we consider that there is scarcely any thing belonging to the Altar (Setting aside the Structure of it) of which more is said than of the Fire burning upon it. For 1. It was lighted from Heaven 
(a) Leu. 9 24. . 2. It was always to be burning upon the Altar. 
(b) Ch. 6. 12.  3. If it was not made use of in all Sacred matters (where Eire was to be used) yet it was most Holy, and when Atonement was to be made by Incense, the Coals were to be taken from thence 
(c) Leu. 16. 12, 46. , and therefore surely was as peculiar to those Offices as the Incense, and to be as constantly used in them, as never to be used in any other. And it will yet make it more evident if it be considered 4. That just before there is an account given of the Extraordinary way by which this Fire was lighted, for the Text saith, there came out a Fire from before the Lord, and consumed upon the Altar the Burnt-Offering, etc. and immediately 
Leu. 9 24.  follows the Relation of Nadab's miscarriage. Now for what reason are these things so closely connected, but to show wherein they Offended. For before it was the Office of Aaron's Sons to put Fire upon the Altar, and now through Inadvertency or Presumption Attempting 
Leu. 1. 7.  to do as formerly, when there had been this Declaration from Heaven to the contrary, they Suffered for it. 5. It appears further from the conformity betwixt the Punishment and the Sin; as there came Fire from before the Lord and consumed the Burnt-Offering; to teach them what Fire for the future to make use of; So upon their Transgression there came out Fire from the Lord and devoured them; to teach others how Dangerous it was to do otherwise than he had Commanded. So that it seems to me to be like the case of Vzzah, when 
1 Chron. 13. 7. 10. Ch: 15. 2.  they carried the Ark in a Cart, which the Levites were to have born upon their Shoulders; and it was not an Offering without a Command, but otherwise than Commanded, that was their Fault; and without doubt they might with no more Offence have taken what Fire they would for their Incense, than what Wood they pleased for their Fire, if there had been no more direction about the one than the other. But to proceed in the other places of Scripture where this Phrase of not Commanded is to be met with, it's also so applied to things Forbidden; as to what is called Abomination, which is the Worshipping of Strange Gods, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and 
Deut. 17: 34. Jer. 7. 31. Ch. 19 5. Ch. 32. 35.  the Host of Heaven: To the building the High Places of Topheth, and the burning their Sons and Daughters in the Fire to Baal, and causing them to pass through the Fire unto Molech. Of such and the like its said, which I Commanded them not, neither came it into my mind. And lastly it's applied to the false Prophets, who spoke Lies 
Jer. 29. 22, 23.  in the Name of the Lord; in which case the mere being not Commanded nor sent by him, is in the nature of the thing no less than a Prohibition, it being a Belying God; though there had been no such place, as, Deut. 18. 20. to forbid it. Now if so much stress was to be laid upon the Phrase, as the Objection doth suppose, and that we must take a Non-Commanding for a Prohibition, we might reasonablly expect to find the Phrase otherwhere applied to things that were not otherwise Unlawful than because not Commanded; but when it's always spoken of things plainly Prohibited, it's a sign that it's rather God's Forbidding that made them Unlawful, than his not Commanding. But it may still be said, why should then the Phrase be used at all in such matters, and why should the case be thus Represented, if not Commanded is not the same with Prohibited?  
To this I answer, 1. That all things Prohibited are by consequence not Commanded; but it follows not that all things not Commanded are Prohibited. If it was Forbidden to Offer Strange Fire, than it was a thing not Commanded (for otherwise the same thing would be Forbidden and Commanded) but if it had been a thing not Commanded only, it would not by being so have been any more Prohibited than the Wood that was to be burnt upon the Altar. Now it's with respect to the former that things Prohibited are called things not Commanded; and not with respect to the latter. 2. Indeed the Phrase not Commanded is only a Meiosis or Softer way of speaking, when more is understood than expressed. A Figure usual in all Authors and Languages, that I know of, and what is frequently to be met with in Scripture. Thus it's given as a Character of an Hypocritical People, they choose that in which I Delight not, 
Isai. 66: 3. 4: Ch. 65. 3, 12.  which is but another Word for what was said in the verse before, their Soul Delighted in their Abominations, or Idolatries. And when the Apostle would Describe the evil state of the Gentile World, by the most Heinous and Flagitious Crimes, such as Fornication, Covetousness, 
Rom. 1. 28. 29.  Laciviousness, Envy, Murder, and what not, he saith of these, that they were things not Convenient. And it is as evident that the Phrase not Commanded is of the like kind, when the things its applied to are alike Notorous and Abominable.  
But it's further Objected, that it's said in Scripture, Object. TWO ye shall not add unto the Word which I Command you, neither 
Deut. 4. 2.  shall ye diminish aught from it: And that our Saviour condemning the Practices of the Scribes in this kind, concludes, In Vain do they Worship me, Teaching for 
Matth. 15. 9  Doctrines the Commandments of Men. From whence it may be collected 1. That all things not Commanded by God in his Word▪ are additions to it. 2. That such additions are altogether unlawful.  
To this I reply, Answer.  
1. If they mean by adding to the Word, the doing what that Forbids, and by diminishing, the neglecting of what that requires (as the next Words do intimate, and is plainly the sense otherwise 
(a) Deut, 12. 32. , when it's no 
Deut. 4. 4, 6.  sooner said, What thing soever I Command you, Observe to do it; but it immediately follows, thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it) it's what we willingly condemn, according to that of our Saviour, Whosoever shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach 
Matth. 5. 19  Men so, he shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven.  
2. If they mean by adding the appointing somewhat else instead of what God hath appointed, as Jeroboam did the Feast of the Eighth Month; and by diminishing the taking away what God hath Commanded, as Ahaz did the Altar, and Laver, etc. This is what we condemn 
2 King. 16. 14, 17.  also, and do blame in the Church of Rome, whilst they feed the People with Legends instead of Scripture, and take away both that and the Cup from the Laity.  
3. If they mean by adding, the adding insolent expositions to the Command, by which the end of it is frustrated. This our Saviour condemned in the Pharisees, Why do ye Transgress the Command of God by your tradition? For God Commanded saying, Honour thy Father, 
Matth. 15. 3.  etc. but ye say, whosoever shall say to his Father, it is a gift, etc. Thus ye have made the Commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. And this we condemn in the Church of Rome, who do defeat the Commands of God by their Doctrines of Attrition and Purgatory, etc.  
4. If they mean by adding, the making of that which is not the Word of God, to be of equal Authority with it; This our Saviour condemned in the Pharisees, when they Taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, and esteemed them as necessary to be obeyed, and to be of equal force with what was Authorized by him; nay it seems, they had more regard to the Tradition of the Elders, than the Commandment of God, as our Saviour Insinuates, vers. 2, 3. and has been observed from their own Authors. This we also condemn in the Church of Rome, which decrees, that the Apocrypha and Traditions should be received with the like Pious 
Con. Tried: Sess. 4. Decr. 1.  regard, as the Sacred Writ.  
5. If by adding, they mean the giving the same Efficacy to humane Institutions, as God doth to his, by making them to confer Grace upon the rightly disposed; and by diminishing, that the Service is not complete without it. This our Saviour condemned in the Pharisees, when they maintained, that to eat with unwashen Hands defiled a Man, verse 20. And this we condemn in the Church of Rome, in their use of Holy-Water, and Relics and Ceremonies.  
Thus far we agree; but if they proceed, and will conclude, that the doing any thing not Commanded, in the Worship of God, is a Sin, though it have none of the ingredients in it before spoken of, we therein differ from them, and upon very good reason. For therein they differ from our Saviour and his Apostles, and all Churches, as I have showed. Therein also they depart from the notion and reason of the thing: For adding is adding to the substance, and making the thing added of the Nature of the thing it's added to; and diminishing is diminishing from the substance, and taking away from the Nature of it; but when the substance remains entire, as much after this humane appointment as it was before it, without Loss and Prejudice, without Debasement or Corruption, it cannot be called an addition to it, in the sense that the Scripture takes that Word in.  
Nay so far are we from admitting this charge, that we return it upon them, and do bring them in Criminals upon it. For those that do Forbidden what the Gospel Forbids not, do as much add to it, as those that Command what the Gospel doth not Command: And if it be a Crime to Command what that Commands not, it must be so to Forbidden what it Forbids not. And this is what they are Guilty of that do hold that nothing is to be used in the Worship of God but what is prescribed, for if that be not a Scripture Proposition and Truth (as certain it is not) than what an addition is this? A greater surely than what they charge upon us; for all that is Commanded amongst us, is looked upon not as necessary but expedient; but what is Forbid by them is Forbid as absolutely unlawful; the latter of which altars the Nature, whereas the other only affects the Circumstances of things.  
The second Commandment, Thou shalt not make unto Object. III thee any Graven Image, etc. is frequently made use of to prove that we must apply nothing to a Religious Use but what is Commanded; and we are told that the sense of it is, that We must Worship God in no other way, and by no other means or Religious Rites, than what he hath prescribed.  
The best way to answer this is. 1. To consider Answer. what is Forbidden in this Commandment, and 2. To show that we are not concerned in the Prohibition. As to the former.  
1. In this Command it is provided, that there be no act of Adoration given to any besides God. By this the Heathens are condemned in their Plurality of Gods, and the Church of Rome in the Veneration they give to Saints and Angels.  
2. That the Honour we give to God be suitable to his Nature, and agreeable to his Will. Suitable to his Nature; and so we are not to Worship him by Creatures, as the Sun, etc. for that is to consider him as Finite; nor by Images and Eternal Representations, for that is to consider him as Corporeal: Agreeable to his Will; and so we are Forbidden all other Worship of him than what he hath appointed. It's in the last of these we are concerned, for I believe there will be no attempt to prove that there is any thing in our Worship that doth derogate from the perfections of God, and is unsuitable to his Nature, further than the defects that must arise from all Worship given by Creatures to a Creator. And if we come to consider it as to what he hath revealed, there can be nothing deduced thence to prove Rites instituted by Men for the Solemnity of God's service to be Forbidden; and which for ought I see is not attempted to be proved from this Commandment, or from Scripture else where, but by crowding such Rites into and representing them as a part of Divine Worship. This way goes one of the most industrious in this cause. Ceremonies, saith he, are External Rites of Religious Worship as used to further Devotion, and therefore being 
Aims Fresh Suit, part. 2. sect. 2. command, p. 228.  invented by Man are of the same Nature with Images, by which and at which God is Worshipped. In which are no less than three mistakes. As 1. He makes whatever is used to further Devotion to be Religious Worship. 2. He makes it a fault in External Rites in Religious Worship that they are used to further Devotion 3. He makes External Rites taken up by Men, and used for that end to be of the same Nature with Images. If I show that these are really mistakes, I think that in doing so the whole argument taken from 2d. Commandment falls with it. 1, He mistakes, in that he makes whatever is used to further Devotion, to be Religious Worship: The error of which will appear from this consideration; that all things relating to Divine Worship, are either Parts or Adjuncts of it; Parts, as Prayer, and the Lord's Supper; Adjuncts, as Form and Posture. Now Adjuncts are not Parts, because the Worship is entire and invariable in all the Parts of it, and remains the same though the Adjuncts vary. Prayer is Worship, whether with a Form or without; and the Lord's Supper is Worship, whether Persons Kneel, Sat or Stand, in the receiving of it. And yet though the Adjuncts are no part of Worship, they further Devotion in it. This those that are for conceived Prayer, plead for Their Practice, and this also is pleaded by those that are for a Form. This do they urge, that are for Sitting at the Lord's Supper, and this they say, that are for Kneeling; so that these and the like Adjuncts do further Devotion, and are for Edification, is an argument used by both. Now if Adjuncts are not part of Worship, and may be yet used to further Devotion, than the furthering Devotion by any Rite, doth not in itself make that Rite so used, to be Worship. I acknowledge there is False Worship as well as True; True Worship is of Divine Institution, and False Worship is of Humane Appointment; and becomes Worship, when either Divine Institution is pretended for it or it's used for the same special ends that God's Worship is instituted for, that is, as necessary to acceptance, or as a means of Grace. And so I confess Adjuncts may be made parts of False Worship, as many Ceremonies are in the Church of Rome; but this is not the case with any things used in the Administration of Worship in our Church; we plead nothing of Divine Authority to enforce them, use them not as necessary, nor as means of Grace; after the manner we do the Word of God, and the Sacraments. 2. It's another mistake, that its charged as a fault upon Rites in Worship, that They are used to further Devotion. Without this end surely they are not to be used, or at least not to be encouraged; for Divine Worship being the acknowledgement of God, and a giving Honour to Him, should have all things about it Grave and Solemn, that may best suit it, and promote the ends for which it's used, But if Rites are used in it, that have no respect to such ends, they become Vain and Trifling, neither worthy of that nor our Defence. And therefore we justly blame the Church of Rome for the Multitude of Ceremonies used in their Worship, and for such, that either have no signification, or whose signification is so obscure, as is not easy to be observed or traced, and that rather hinder than further Devotion. Surely it would not so well answer the end, if the Hand in Swearing was laid upon another Book, as when on the Gospel; nor if the Lovefeasts at the Lords Supper had been only as a Common Meal, without respect to Charity signified by it. 3. It's another mistake that External Rites taken up by Men, and used for the furthering Devotion, are made to be of the same Nature with Images. This there is no foundation for, for the Religious use of Images is expressly contrary to the Command of God, and Forbidden, because it tends to debase God in the thoughts of those that Worship him by such mediums. But there is nothing in the use of such External Ries (as are before spoken of) that fall under the censure of either of these; but that we may lawfully use them, and the use of which is not therefore at all Forbidden in the Second Commandment.  
If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God, the Gospel would be less perfect than Object. IV the Law; and Christ would not be so Faithful as Moses, in the care of his Church, Heb. 3. 2. which is not to be supposed.  
The sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ Answer. are not to be judged of by what we fancy they should have determined, but by what they have. It's a plausiable Plea made by the Church of Rome for an Infallible Judge in matters of Faith, that by an Appeal to him all controversies would be decided, and the Peace of the Church secured. But notwithstanding all the advantages which they so hugely amplify, there is not one Word in Scripture (which in a matter of that importance is absolutely necessary) that doth show that it is necessary; or (were it so) who the Person or Persons are that should have this Power or Commission. And in this case we must be content to leave things as the Wisdom of God hath thought fit to leave them, and to go on in the old way of sober and amicable debate and fair reasoning to bring debates to a conclusion. Thus it is in the matter before us, the pretence is very Popular and Plausible, that, Who can better determine things Relating to the Worship of God, than God whose Worship it is? And where may we expect to find them better determined than in his Word, which is sufficient to all the ends it was writ for? But when we come to inquire into the case, we find no such thing done, no such care taken, no such particular directions as they had under the Law; and therefore its certain that neither the sufficiency of Scripture, nor Faithfulness of Christ stand upon that foundation. And if we do not find the like particular prescriptions in Baptism as Circumcision; nor in the Lord's Supper as in the Passover; nor in Prayers as in Sacrifices; its plain that the sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ do respect somewhat else, and that they are not the less for the want of them. Christ was Faithful, as Moses, To him that appointed him, in performing what belonged to him as a Mediator (in which respect Moses was a Type of him) and discovering to Mankind in Scripture the method and means by which they might be Saved; and the sufficiency of Scripture is in being a sufficient means to that end, and putting Men into such State as will render them capable of attaining to it. And as for modes and circumstances of things, they are left to the prudence of those who by the Grace and the Word of God hath been converted to the Truth, and have received it in the Love of it. I have been the larger in the consideration of this principle, viz. that Nothing but what is prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship, that I might relieve the consciences of those that are ensnared by it, and that cannot be so, without subjecting themselves to great inconveniences. For if nothing but what is of that Nature may be used or joined with, and that the second Commandment doth with as much Authority Forbidden the use of any thing not Commanded, as the Worshipping of Images: If Nadab's and Abihu's Strange Fire, and Vzzah's touching of the Ark be examples Recorded for caution to us, and that every thing Uncommanded, is of the like Nature, attended with the like Aggravations, and alike do expose to God's Displeasure: If the use of any thing not prescribed be such an addition to the Word of God, as leaves us under the Penalty of that Text; If any Man shall add unto these things, 
Rev. 22. 18.  God shall add unto him the Plagues that are Written in this Book; we cannot be too cautious in the Examination of what is, or what is not prescribed. But withal, if this be our case, it would be more intolerable than that of the Jews. For amongst them every thing for the most part was plainly laid down, and though the particular Rites and Circumstances prescribed in their Service were many, yet they were sufficiently described in their Law, and it was but consulting that, or Those whose Office and Employment it was to be well versed in it, and they might be presently informed, and as soon see it as the Book was laid open. This they all agreed in. But it is not so under the Gospel, and there is no greater proof of it than the several schemes drawn up for Discipline, and Order, by those that have been of that Opinion and made some attempts to describe them. And then when things are thus dark and obscure, so hard to trace and discover, that it has thus perplexed and baffled those that have made it their business to bring these things within Scripture Rules, how perplexed must they be that are not skilled in it, And (as I have above shown) must all their Days live in the Communion, it's likely, of no Church; since though a Church should have nothing in it but what is prescribed, yet it would take up a great deal of time to examine, and more to be satisfied, that all in it is prescribed.  
3. I shall consider, How we may know what things are Indifferent in the Worship of God? I may answer to this, that we may know what is Indifferent in the Worship of God, by the same Rule that we may know what is Indifferent out of Worship, that is, if the thing to be enquired after, be neither required nor Forbidden: For the Nature of Indifferency is always the same, and what it is in one kind or instance, it is in all; and if the want of a Law, to Require or Forbidden, doth make a thing Indifferent in Nature or Civil matters; it doth also the same in Religious: And in things Forbidden by Humane Authority, the not being required in Scripture; and in things required by Humane Authority, the not being Forbidden in Scripture, is a Rule we may safely determine the case, and judge of the Lawfulness and Indifferency of things in Divine Worship by. But I confess the Question requires a more parcicular Answer, because things in their Nature Lawful and Indifferent, may yet, in their use and application, become unlawful. As it is in Civil cases and Secular matters, to be Covered or Uncovered is a thing in itself Indifferent; but to be Covered in the presence of such of our Betters, as Custom and Law have made it our Duty to stand bare before, would be unlawful, and it would be no excuse for such an Omission and Contempt, that the thing is in itself Indifferent. And then much more will this hold where the case is of an higher Nature; as it is in the Worship of God, where things in themselves Indifferent may become Ridiculous, Absurd and Profane, and argue rather contempt of God than reverence for him in the Persons using them. Again, the things may, though Grave and Pertinent, yet be so numerous that they may obscure and oppress the Service, and confound and distract the Mind that should attend to the Observation of them; and so for one reason or another are not to be allowed in the Solemnities of Religion. Therefore in Answer to the Question, I shall add,  
1. That things Indifferent are so called from their general Nature, and not as if in practice and use, and all manner of cases, they always were so, and never unlawful; for that they may be by Accident and Circumstance, being lawful or unlawful, expedient or inexpedient, as they are used and applied.  
2. I observe that there are several Laws which things Indifferent do respect; and that may be Required or Forbidden by one Law, which is not Forbidden or Required by another; and that may be Indifferent in one State which is Unlawful in another, and by passing out of one into the other may cease to be Indifferent, and therefore when we say things are Indifferent, we must understand of what Rank they are, and what Law they do respect; As for example, Humane Conversation, and Religious Worship are different Ranks to which things are referred; and therefore what may be Indifferent in Conversation, may be unlawful in Worship. Thus to Interchange Discourse about Common Affairs, is a thing lawful in itself, and useful in its place; but when practised in the Church, and in the midst of Religious Solemnities, is Criminal. This distinction of Ranks and States of things is useful and necessary to be observed, and which if observed would have prevented the objection made by some, that if a Church or Authority may Command Indifferent things, than they may require us to Pray Standing upon the head, etc. for that though Indifferent in another case, is not in that, as being unsuitable to it.  
3. Therefore we must come to some Rules in Divine Worship, by which we may know what things in their Nature Indifferent, are therein also Indifferent, and may be lawfully used: It being not enough to plead they are Indifferent in themselves (as some unwarily do) and therefore presently they may be used; For by the same reason, a Person may Spit in another's Face, may keep on his Hat before the King, etc. the Spitting and being Covered, being in their Nature Indifferent, But now as there are certain Rules which we are to respect in Common and Civil Conversation, and which even in that case do tie us up in the use of things, otherwise Indifferent: So it is as reasonable, and must be much more allowed, that there are some Rules of the like Nature which we must have a regard to in the Administration of Divine Worship. And as in Common matters, the Nature of the thing; in Actions the end; in Conversation the circumstances are to be heeded, viz. Time, Place, Persons; as when, where, before whom we are Covered or Uncovered, etc. So in Sacred matters; the Nature of the thing, in the Decency and Solemnity of the Worship; the end for which it was appointed, in the Edification of the Church; and the Peace, Glory, Security of that, in its Order are to be respected. And according to these Rules and the circumstances of things, are we to judge of the Indifferency, Lawfulness, or expediency of things used in the Service of God; and as they do make for, or against, and do approach to, or recede from these Characters, so they are to be rejected or observed, and the more or less esteemed. But yet we are not come to a conclusion, for 1. These are general Rules, and so the particulars are nor so easily pointed to. 2. Decency, and Edification, and Order are (as was observed before) Variable and Uncertain, and depend upon Circumstances, and so in their Nature not easily determined. And, 3. Persons have very different Opinions about what is Decent, Edifying, and Orderly; as in the Apostles time in the Church of Rome, some were for, and others against, the Observation of Days; and in the Church of Corinth, some doubtless were for being Covered, others for being Uncovered, in Divine Worship. And therefore there is somewhat further requisite to give Satisfaction in the point; and by which we may be able to Judge what is Decent, Edifying, and Orderly; as well as we are by what is Decent, etc. to Determine what is fit to be used in Religious Worship. And this we may be helped in by considering,  
1. That some things make so Eminently for, or are so Notoriously opposite to these Rules, that Common Reason will be able forthwith to Judge of them, and to declare for or against them. So when the Lovefeasts, and the Lords Supper were appointed for the testifying and increase of mutual Charity; if one took his Supper before another, it was to make it rather a private 
1 Cor. 11 20, 21.  Meal, than a Religious Feast, and so was a Notorious Breach of Order and Christian Fellowship. So a Tumultuous speaking of many together is less for Edification, and hath more of Confusion than the Orderly speaking of one by one. And Service in an Unknown Tongue doth less conduce to Edification than when it it is in a Language Vulgarly known and Understood; 
1 Cor. 14. 16. 17, 26, 27.  this is a case that Reason as well as the Apostle doth Determine to our Hands, and which Mankind would with one consent soon agree to, were it not for a certain Church in the Wotld that carries those of its Communion, against sense, Reason, and Nature, for its own advantage.  
2. But there are other things which are not so Clear and Evident, and so the case needs further consideration. For the clearing of which we may observe,  
1. That we are not so much to Judge of Decency, Order, and Edification asunder, as together; these having a mutual Relation to and dependence upon each other. So it's well observed by St. Chrysostom, That 
Chrys. in 1 Cor. Ch. 14. 40. 1 Cor. 14. 26.  nothing doth so much Edify, as Order, Peace and Love: And the Apostle when he had reproved the Disorders of their Service in the Church of Corinth concludes it, Let all things be done to Edifying. The not observing of this is the occasion of very great Mistakes in this matter; For Persons when they would Judge of Edification consider presently what they conceive doth most improve them in Knowledge or any particular Grace; and having no further consideration, for the sake of this throw down the Bounds of Public Order and bring all into Confusion; and for Edifying (as they apprehend) themselves do Disturb if not Destroy the Church of God, and render the means used in it ineffectual to themselves and others. Thus again they Judge of what is Decent, and Indecent; and conclude that there is no Indecency in Sitting, suppose at the Sacrament, or the Prayers; but they mistake in such a conception, whilst what is against public Order and Practice, is for that reason Indecent, were there no other reason to make it so. So that if we would Judge aright of either of these we must Judge of them together; and as Order alone is not enough to make a thing Decent which is in itself Indecent; so Decency or particular Edification is not enough to recommend that which is not to be Introduced or Obtained without the Disturbance and Overthrow of public Order and Peace.  
2. When the case is not apparent, we should rather Judge by what is contrary than by what is agreeable to those Rules. We know better what things are not than what they are: And if Christians should never agree to any thing in the External Administration of Divine Worship till they agree in the notion of Decency, Order, and Edification; or till they can prove that the things used, or required to be used in a Church, do exactly agree to the Notion and Definition of it; Worship must never be Administered, or the greater part of Christians must Exclude themselves from it. And yet this must be done before it can be positively said (unless in things very manifest) that this is Decent, or that is Orderly, etc. These things as I have said are variable, and depend upon Circumstances; and so Persons must needs be Wonderfully Confounded if they come to Niceties and insist upon them. And therefore as we better know what is Indecent than Decent, Disorderly than Orderly, against than for Edification, so it's better to take the course abovesaid in Judging about it. As for instance, if we would inquire into the Decency of the Posture to be used in the Lord's Supper, or the Edification that may arise from it; some will say its best to receive it in the Posture frequently used in the Devotions of the ancient Church of Standing or Incurvation; others would choose Sitting, as the dissenting Parties amongst us, and some Foreign Churches; others be for the Posture of Kneeling, used in ours and many more, and all with some show of Reason. In these different cases it may not perhaps be so easy for a Person (Educated in a different way from what is practised and Prescribed) to Judge of the Decency or Edification; but if he find it not Indecent, or Destructive of Piety, and of the ends for which the Ordinance was Instituted, he is therewith to satisfy himself. St. Austin puts alike case, and gives the like answer. Some Churches Fast on the Saturday, 
Epist. 118.  because Christ's Body was then in the Grave, and he in a State of Humiliation. Others do Eat on the Saturday, both, because that Day God Rested from his Work, and Christ Rested in the Grave. And how in such a case to Determine ourselves, both in Opinion and Practice, that Father thus directs, If saith he, what is joined be not against Faith, or good Manners, it is to be accounted Indifferent. And I may add, if it be not Indecent, Disorderly and Destructive of Piety, its lawful.  
3. If the case be not apparent, and we cannot easily find out how the things used, and enjoined in a Church, are Decent, etc. we are to consider that we are in, or Obliged to be of a Church, and that these things do respect such a Society; and therefore are to be Cautious how we Condemn this or that for Indecent, Confused, and Inexpedient, when we see Christians agreeing in the Practice of them, and such whom for other things we cannot Condemn. When we find, if we argue against it, they argue for it, and produce Experience against Experience, and Reason against Reason, and that we have a whole Church against our particular conceptions of things of this Nature; we should be apt to think the Fault may be in ourselves, and that it's for want of Understanding and Insight, for want of Use and Trial, and by Reason of some Prejudices or Professions, that we thus differ in our Judgement from them. We see what little things do Determine Men ordinarily in these matters; how addicted some are to their own Ways and Customs, and forward to Like or Condemn, according to their Education, which doth form their conceptions and fix their inclinations; how Prone again others are to Novelty and Innovation. So St. Austin 
Epist. 1. 3.  observes, some warmly contend for an usage, because its the Custom of their own Church; as if they come, suppose into another Place where Lent is observed without any Relaxation, they however refuse to Fast, because it's not so done in their Country. There are others again do like, and are bend upon a particular Rite or Usage, Because, saith he, they observed this in their Travels abroad, and so a Person is for it, as perhaps he would be thought so much the more Learned and Considerable, as he is distant, or doth disagree, from what is observed at home. Now when Persons are Prone thus to Judge upon such little Reasons, and may mistake in their Judgement, and do Judge against a Church (which they have no other Reason against) it would become them to think again; and to think that the case perhaps requires only time, or use, to wear off their Prejudices, and that by these ways they may as effectually be reconciled to the things Practised in a Church, as they are to the Civil Usages and the Habits of a Nation, which at the first they looked upon in their kind as Indecent and Inexpedient, as they can do of the Usages of a Church in theirs. As suppose the Dispute should be about Forms of Prayer, or the use of responsals in it, we see that Decency, Order, and Edification are pleaded by the Parties contending for and against, but when a Person considers that whatever Opinion he therein hath, yet if he be against them, he is at the same time against all form Churches in the World, he may conclude safely that there is a Decency, Order, and Expediency in the Public use of them; and as St. Austin saith of a Christian living in 
Epist. 86. Casulano.  Rome where they fasted upon the Saturday that such a one should not so praise a Christian City for it, as to Condemn the Christian World that was against it, so we should not be so Zealous against a Practice, as to Condemn those that are for it, and be so addicted to our own Opinion as to set that against a Community and a Church, nay against all Churches whatsoever. This will give us reason to suspect its a Zeal without Knowledge when we presume to set our Judgement, Reason, and Experience, against the Judgement, Reason and Experience of the Christian World. Which brings to the Fourth General.  
4. How are we to determine ourselves in the use of Indifferent things with respect to the Worship of God? For resolution of which, we are to consider ourselves in a threefold Capacity, 1. As particular Persons, solitary and alone. 2. As we are in Ordinary and Civil Conversation. 3. As we are Members of a Public Society or Church.  
In the first capacity, every Christian may choose and act as he pleaseth; and all Lawful things remain to him, as they are in their own Nature, Free. He may eat this or that; choose this day or another, and set it apart for the Service of God and his own Soul. In this state, where there is no Law of Man to require, he may forbear to use what is Indifferent; where there is no Law to Forbidden, he may freely use it.  
In the second capacity, as in Conversation with others, he is to have a regard to them, and to use his Liberty so as shall be less to the prejudice, and more to the benefit of those he converses with. So saith the Apostle, all things are lawful for me, but all things are 
1. Cor. 10. 23.  not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things Edify not. In this Capacity Men are still in their own Power; and whilst it's no Sin they may safely act, and where it's no Sin they may forbear in compliance with those that are not yet advanced to the same Maturity of Judgement with themselves; as the Apostle did, Though, saith he, I be free from all Men, yet have I 
1 Cor. 9 19, etc.  made myself Servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became a Jew, etc. In such a case the strong should not despise, affront, or discourage the weak; nor the weak censure and condemn the strong.  
In the third Capacity, as we are Members of a Church and Religious Society, so the use of Indifferent things comes under further consideration, since then the Practice of a Church and the Commands of Authority are to be respected. And as what we may lawfully do when alone, we are not to do in Conversation, because of Offence: So what we may allowably do when alone or in Conversation, we must not do in Society, if Forbidden by the Laws and Customs of it. For the same reason (if there was no more) that Restrains or Determines us in Conversation, is as much more forcible in Society, as the Peace and Welfare of the whole is to be preferred before that of a part; And if the not grieving a Brother, or endangering his Soul makes it reasonable, just, and necessary to forego our Liberty, and to Restrain ourselves in the exercise of it, then much more is the Peace of a Church (upon which the present Welfare of the whole, and the Future Welfare of many depend) a sufficient reason for so doing, and to Oblige us to act or not to act accordingly. The Apostle saith, Let every one of us please his Neighbour for his good to 
Rom. 15. 2.  Edification, that is, to his Improvement in Knowledge or Grace, or Christian Piety, and the promoting of Christian Concord and Charity: Now Edification is eminently so with respect to the whole, as the Church is the House of God, and every Christian one of the living Stones of which that Spiritual building is compacted; 
1 Pet. 2. 5.  and so he is to consider himself, as well as he is to be considered, as a part of it, and to study what may be for the Edification of the whole, as well as the good of any particular Member of it. And how is that but by promoting Love, Peace, and Order, and taking Care to Preserve it? So we find Edification Opposed 
2 Cor. 10. 8. 1. Cor. 14. 26. 1 Tim. 1. 4. Rom. 14. 19 1 Thes. 5. 11. Eph. 4. 12, 16.  to Destruction, to Confusion, to Disputacity and Licentiousness: And on the contrary, we find Peace and Edifying, Comfort and Edification, Union and Edification joined together, as the one doth promote the other. And therefore as the Good and Edification of the whole is to be always in our Eye, so it's the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful; and to that end should comply with its Customs, observe its Directions, and Obey its Orders, without Reluctancy and Opposition. Thus the Apostle resolves the case, Writing about public Order and the Custom newly taken up of Worshipping Uncovered, if any Man seem, or have a mind to be, contentions, we have no such Custom, neither the 
1 Cor. 11. 16.  Churches of God; looking upon that as sufficient to put an end to all Contentions and Debates; that whatever might be Plausibly urged against it, from the Jewish Practice, and the Representation even of Angels adoring after that manner; and from the reason of the thing as a signification of Shame and Reverence; or from the Practice of Idolators that d●d many of them Worship Uncovered; yet he peremptorily concludes, We have no such Custom, etc. The Peace of the Church is to a Peaceable Mind sufficient to put an end to all Disputes about it; and the Peace of the Church depending upon the Observation of its Coustoms, that is infinitely to be preferred before Scrupulosity and Niceness, or a mere inclination to a contrary Practice. For in public cases a Man is not to go his own way, or to have his own mind, for that would bring in Confusion (one Man having as much a right as another.) There must be somewhat Established, some Common Order and Bond of Union; and if Confusion is before such Establishment, then to break that Establishment, would bring in Confusion; and where that is likely to ensue, it is not worth the while for the Trial of a new Experiment to decry and throw down what is already Established or Used in a Church, because we think better of another; for saith a Grave Author, and well Skilled in these matters, The very change of a Custom though it may 
Aug. Epist. 118.  happen to profit, yet doth disturb by its Novelty. Public Peace is worth all new Offers (if the Church is Disquieted and its Peace Endangered by them) though in themselves better; and it is better to labour under the infirmity of public Order than the mischief of being without it, or, what is next to that, the Trial of some Form, seemingly of a better Cast and Mould that hath not yet been experimented. I say it again, Infirmity in a Church is better than Confusion, or Destruction, which is the Consequent of it: And I had rather choose that as I would a House, to have one with some Faults, rather than to have none at all; And if I cannot have them mended (when tolerable) I think myself bound not only to bear with them, but to do all I can for its preservation though with them, and to observe all things that are lawful for its support and encouragement. In doing thus I serve God, and his Church, my own Soul and the Souls of others; promote Religion and Charity in the World; For God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace in all the 
1 Cor. 14. 33.  Churches of the Saints. In things which neither we nor the Worship are the worse for, but the Church the better for observing Peace and Order is far to be preferred before Niceties: And certainly neither we nor the Service of God can be the worse for what God hath concluded nothing in. What the Gospel looks as is the Main and Essential parts of Religion in Doctrine, Worship and Practice. And if these be Secured, we are under no Obligation to contend for or against the modes and circumstances of things further than the Church's Order and Peace is concerned in them. So the Apostle, Let not your Good be Evil spoken of: For the Kingdom of 
Rom. 14. 16.  God is not Meat and Drink, but Righteousness, Peace, and Joy in the Holy-Ghost; the promoting Love and Charity, and substantial Righteousness. He that in these things Serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of Men, The Beauty of the King's Daughter is within, 
Aug. Epist. 86.  saith St. Austin, and all its observations are but its vesture, which though various in different Churches, are no prejudice to the Common Faith, nor to him that useth them. And therefore what he and his mother received from St. Ambrose, and looked upon as a Divine Oracle, is worthy to be recommended to all, That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners, 
Epist. 118. & 86.  it becometh a Good and Prudent Christian to Practice according to the Custom of the Church where he comes, if he will not be a Scandal to them, nor have them to be a Scandal to him.  
And if the Custom and Practice of a Church should be thus taken into consideration by a Good Man, then certainly much more ought it so to be, when that is Established, and is made a Law, and is backed by Authority: For then to stand in Opposition is not only an Offence but an Affront; and to insist upon the Gratifying our own Inclination against public Order, is to contend whether we or our Superiors shall Govern, whether our Will or the public Good and Order must take place. And what can be the Issue of such a Temper but the distraction if not Dissolution of Government; which as it cannot be without Governed as well as Governors, so cannot be preserved without the submission of the Governed in all lawful things to the Gevernours; and the permitting them to choose and determine in things of that kind as they shall see meet. It's pleaded That there should be a Liberty left to Christians in things undetermined in Scripture, and such things indeed there are that Christians may have a Liberty in and yet hold Communion, as in Posture, etc. (though Decency Would plead for Uniformity in those things also) but there are other things which they must agree in, or else there can be no public Worship or Christian Communion, which yet they differ in as much as the other. As now whether Worship is to be celebrated with or without a Form; whether the Lord's Supper is to be received in the Morning or Evening; whether Prayers should be long or short, etc. Now unless one of these disagreeing Parties doth Yield to the other; or there be a Power in Superiors and Guides to determine for them, and they are to submit to them in it, there will be nothing but confusion. And why Superiors may not then Command; and why Inferiors are not to obey in all things of the like kind; In Posture or Habit, as well as the time (above specified) and Forms, I understand not.  
To conclude this, if we find any thing required or generally practised in a Church, that is not Forbidden in Scripture; or any thing Omitted or Forbidden in a Church, that is not required in Scripture; we may and aught to Act or to forbear as they that are of its Communion do generally Act or forbear, or the Laws of that Communion require; and in such things are to be determined by the public Voice of the Communion, that is, Authority, Custom, or the Majority.  
But to this it will be said, If we are thus to be determined Object. in our Practice, then where is our Christian Liberty, which being only in Indifferent things, if we are restrained in the use of them, we are also restrained in our Liberty, which yet the Apostle exhorts Christians to stand fast in. 
Gal. 5. 1.   
1. This is no argument to those that say there is nothing Answer. Indifferent in the Worship of God; for then there is nothing in it matter of Christian Liberty;  
2. A restraint of our Liberty, or receding from it is of itself, no violation of it. All Persons grant this in the latter, and the most scrupulous are apt to plead that the Strong aught to bear with the Weak, and to give no Offence to them by indulging themselves in that Liberty which others are afraid to take. But now if a Person may recede from his Liberty, and yet is bound so to do in the case of Scandal, and yet his Liberty be not thereby infringed, why may it not be also little infringed, when restrained by others? How can it be supposed, that there should be so vast a difference betwixt restraint and restraint, and that he that is restrained by Authority should have his Liberty prejudiced, and yet he that is restrained By another's Conscience 
1 Cor. 10. 29.  (as the Apostle saith) should keep entire? And if it should be said this is Occasional, but the other is perpetuated by the Order, perhaps, of a Church. I answer, that all Orders about Indifferent things are but temporary, and are only intended to bond so long as they are for the good of the Community. And if they are for continuance, that altars not the case; For though the Apostle knew his own Liberty and where there was Just Reason could insist upon it, yet he did not suppose that could be damnified, though for his whole life it was restrained. For thus he resolves, If meat make my Brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the World standeth, which certainly he would not have condescended to, if such a Practice was not reconcileable to his Exhortation of standing fast in that Liberty, etc.  
3. Therefore to find out the tendency of his Exhortation, its fit to understand what Christian Liberty is, and that is truly no other than the Liberty which Mankind naturally had, before it was restrained by particular institution; and which is called Christian Liberty in opposition to the Jews which had it not under their Law, but were restrained from the Practice and use of things, otherwise and in themselves Lawful, by severe Prohibitions. Now as all the World was then divided into Jews and Gentiles, so the Liberty which the Jews were before denied, was called Christian, because by the coming of Christ, all these former restraints were taken off, and all the World, both Jews and Gentiles did enjoy it. And therefore when the Apostle doth exhort them to stand fast in it, it was, as the Scope of the Epistle doth show, to warn them against returning to that Jewish State, and against those who held it necessary for both Jew and Gentile still to observe all the Rites and Orders of it. Now if the Usages of a Church were of the same kind, or had the same tendency, or were alike necessarily imposed as those of the Mosaical Law, than Christians would be concerned in the Apostles Exhortation; but where these reasons are not, our Liberty is not at all prejudiced by compliance with them. As long I say, as they are neither peccant in their Nature, nor End, nor Number, they are not unlawful to us, nor is our Liberty injured in the use of them. And so I am brought to the last General, which is,  
V That there is nothing required in our Church which is not either a duty in itself; and so necessary to all Christians, or else what is indifferent, and so may be lawfully used by them. By things required, I mean, such as are used in the Communion and Service of our Church, and imposed upon the Lay-members of it (for these are the things my Subject doth more especially respect.) This is a Subject too Copious for me to follow through all the particulars of it; and indeed it will be needless for me to enlarge upon it, if the foundation I have laid be good, and the Rules before given are fit measures for us to Judge of the lawfulness, or unlawfulness of things by; for by these we shall soon bring the Cause to an Issue. I think there is nothing to be charged upon our Church for being defective in any Essential part of Divine Worship (as the Church of Rome is in its Half-Communion) nor of any practice that is apparently inconsistent with, or that doth defeat the ends of any Institution (as the same Church doth offend by having its Service in an unknown Tongue, and in the multitudes of its Ceremonies). I think it will be acknowledged, that the Word of God is sincerely and freely Preached, the Sacraments entirely and truly Administered, the Prayers for matter inoffensive and good. And therefore the matter in dispute is about the Ministration of our Worship, and the manner of its performance; and I think the things of that kind Objected against, refer either to Time, or Forms, or Gesture. To Times, such are Festivals, or Days set apart for Divine Service; to Forms such are our Prayers, and the Administration of our Sacraments; to Gestures, as Standing up at the Creed or Gospels, and Kneeling at the Lord's Supper. But now all these are either Natural or Moral Circumstances of Action, and which, as I have showed, are inseparable from it. Of the former kind are Days and Gestures; of the latter are Forms of Administration, and so upon the reasons before given may be lawfully determined and used. Again, these are not forbidden by any Law, either expressly, or consequentially, and have nothing that is indecent, disorderly or unedifying in them; and which if any should engage his own opinion and experience in, he would be answered in the like kind, and have the opinions and experience of Thousands that live in the practice of these, to contradict him. And if there be nothing of this kind apparent, or what can be plainly proved, (as I am apt to believe there cannot) then the Proposition I have laid down needs no further proof. But if at last it must issue in things inexpedient to Christians, or an unlawfulness in the imposure; are either of these fit to be insisted upon, when the peace of one of the best Churches in the World is broken by it, a lamentable Schism kept up, and our Religion brought into imminent hazard by both? Alas how near have we been to ruin, and I wish I had no reason to say, how near are we to it, considering the indefatigable industry, the united endeavours, the matchless policy of those that contrive and desire it! Can we think that we are safe, as long as there is such an abiding reason to make us suspect it, and that our divisions are both fomented, and made use of by them to destroy us? And if this be our danger, and Union as necessary as desirable, shall we yet make the breach wider, or irreparable by an obstinate contention? God forbidden! O pray for the Peace of Jerusalem, they shall prosper that love thee: Let Peace be within thy Walls, and Prosperity within thy Palaces. Amen.  
THE END.   

A VINDICATION OF THE CASE OF Indifferent Things. USED In the Worship of God: IN ANSWER TO A BOOK, ENTITLED, The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God, Examined, Stated on the behalf of the Dissenters, and calmly argued.  
LONDON, Printed by H. Hills, for Fincham Gardner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-Street, 1684.   

A VINDICATION OF THE CASE OF Indifferent Things. USED In the Worship of God.  
AMONGST some Tracts published within the year for the resolution of such doubts, as the Dissenters from our Church plead for refusing Communion with it, there was one that respected the use of Indifferent things in the Worship of God. This some one of our Brethren chose to examine and to begin his debate 
Case examined, p. 2.  with; in the management of which whether he hath dealt closely and ingenuously to use his own words) 
p. 16.  I shall take the liberty to inquire, and must leave others to judge.  
I confess I was not alittle surprised, that before he had set one foot forward, he should thus assault me, If that R. person had been pleased to have determined 
pag 2.  who is to be Judge of things Indifferent, as to a man's practice, whether his own conscience or his Superior etc. he would (in our opinion) have made the matter in dispute much fit for an argument, whereas the most Dissenters judge, that as he hath stated it, he hath but begged the Question. If the dispute had been betwixt Protestant and Papist there might have been some colour to have ●●ent 4 pages in 40 upon this Argument; though even betwixt such there may be 20 cases controverted in which this Demand would be impertinent: But to put it upon this issue when both sides are in the main agreed (as it is betwixt Protestant and Protestant) is a running the Question out of its wits, and an hearty begging it, before he puts it. It's to possess the unwary Reader with prejudice, to puzzle the cause, and is the way to make every little Tract a Volume. In matters of Controversy there are always some principles supposed, and to put an Adversary upon the proof of them, shows a design rather to cavil then to end the dispute, and is a shrewd sign that the person so doing is either diffident of his cause, or his own ability to defend it; but to return his own compliment, we will not presume any thing so absurd or disingenuous of so worthy a person. 
p. 10.   
But how remote soever this Question is to the business in hand, yet because our Author asks it with some kind of seriousness, I shall direct him where he may have satisfaction, and that in a Judicious Tract lately published 
(a) The difference of the Case between the separation of Protestants from Rome, etc. p. 42, etc. ; or if he hath the patience to compare the things, as I have done, he may find it resolved by himself, in his Case examined. 
(b) p. 36, 37. n. 4. 38.  But in my mind there is a much nearer way to end controversies, which is not by disputing who shall be Judge? But by enabling men to judge for themselves in a clear stating of the case, and setting forth the nature of the things disputed: As in the case before us, the ready way, one should think, is to show what is the nature of Things Indifferent, and that things thus Indifferent may be lawfully used in Divine Worship, and because they may be abused, to inquire how we are to apply them.  
This was the way I took, and if I did manage it as it should, I am pretty confident that the Question was not begged, though I never thought of coming near his Question, who shall be, the Judge?  
But that is the thing to be disputed, Whether the case was rightly stated and proved, and this brings me to the consideration of what he hath offered against it. Before I enter upon which, I shall only remind the 
Case of Indifferent things.  Reader, that in the little Tract concerned in the present dispute, the Question undertaken was;  
Q. Whether things in their own nature Indifferent, though not prescribed in the Word of God, may be lawfully used in Divine Worship?  
In answer to which;  

1. I enquired into the Nature, and stated the Notion of Indifferent Things.  
2. Showed that Things Indifferent may be lawfully used in Divine Worship.  
3. Considered how we might know what things are Indifferent in the Worship of God.  
4. How we are to determine ourselves in the use of them.   
To most of these our Author hath somewhat to say, to some more to some less; but to the First, he saith, There is none of the Dissenters, but agreeth with this Author in his Notion of Things Indifferent, that they are such 
p. 3.  things as by the Divine Law are neither enjoined nor forbidden.  
Now before I proceed I shall observe that this concession of his will bereave them of some of the common and most considerable arguments that they use in this controversy; As,  
If Things Indifferent are such as are neither enjoined Conclus. 1 nor forbidden, it must follow that things are not unlawful in Divine Worship because they are not commanded.  
The consequence is plain and undeniable: For if the Nature of Things Indifferent be, as abovesaid, what are neither commanded nor forbidden, there is nothing can make this or that to be unlawful but the being forbidden: But now if the being not Commanded is the same with the being Forbidden, than the notion of Indifferent Things cannot consist in this that they are neither Commanded nor Forbidden. So that either they must quit the Argument, and grant that the being not Commanded, doth not make a thing unlawful in Divine Worship; or they must alter the notion of Indifferent things, and indeed utterly exterminate them, and leave no such middle things in nature, and say that there is nothing else but Duty or Sin.  
Now after our Reverend Author hath so frankly granted this, I cannot understand how he can say that the doing of a thing in God's Worship, not Commanded, is guilt enough: nor why he should take such pains to 
p. 25.  oppose what I have offered in confutation of that principle. For what can he plead for the unlawfulness of things not Commanded, who hath granted that the being not Commanded is a branch of such things as are Indifferent: And if he will maintain it, he must do it upon no less absurdity, than the saying a thing Indifferent is forbidden; or (which is the same) that Indifferent things, are such as are either forbidden, or not forbidden.  
But let us abstract the Case of things not Commanded from this consequence, and take it as it is in the Tract 
Case of Indifferent Things p. 20.  aforesaid, an Objection and Answer, and yet then we shall see what an imperfect account our Author gives of it.  
He saith, What our Author saith is no more than hath 
Case Examined, p. 25.  been many times said, viz. [that by things not Commanded are meant things forbidden] and hath nothing to prove it by, but only that the things mentioned in Scripture to which that phrase is applied were things forbidden, as Idolatry, etc.  
Though what he produceth out of the Case be sufficient, 
Case of Indifferent Things, p. 20.  yet he extremely forgets himself when he saith, nothing, but only; since in the page he quotes, there are two arguments, that are sooner fliped than answered. But however what hath he to reply to that which hath been many times said? He grants, It is true.  
And is this nothing toward the proof of it? What fit way have we to find out the meaning of a phrase, than to consider the several places where it is used? Or to ascertain the sense of it, than to show that it's always alike applied to such a case, or thing?  
But in answer to this, he asks, Why are such things expressed to us in this phrase, as, Not Commanded only?  
1st. I answer, they are not thus expressed, as, Not commanded Only. For the things said to be not commanded, are either in their own nature, or in Scripture absolutely Forbidden (as I have showed, and he grants) and therefore to limit the phrase, as if there was no more intended in it than that the things are not commanded (as the Word Only implies) and not also forbidden is to thwart Scripture, as well as my reasoning from it.  
2ly. If we take the Phrase as it is, yet there his Question, Why are they thus expressed, and not commanded? is of no Importance; for supposing we could give no Reason for such an use of it, that would not be sufficient to question the Thing, as long as we find it constantly so used and applied. But,  
3ly. Was there no Reason offered, no account given of it? Let him peruse the Tract he opposeth, (as sure he did) and he will find it expressly undertaken, and two Reasons given for it; as, 1. Things forbidden are 
Case of Indiff. Things. pag. 23.  called not commanded, because all things prohibited are by consequence not commanded, and not è contra. 2. It's by way of Meiosis, etc. But these, though to the purpose in hand, were not, I am afraid, to his.  
Well! Let us consider,  
4ly. What Account our Author himself gives at last of this.  
1. Saith he, Things forbidden in Scripture are said to be not commanded, To let us know the doing of a thing not commanded in God's Worship, is Gild enough. Surely not so great, as to do a thing notoriously 
Case Indiff. Things. pag. 20.  forbidden, (as I there showed.) Surely it can be no Gild at all to do a thing not commanded, if not also forbidden, because (as he owns) there are Indifferent Things in the Worship of God; and what are indifferent Things, but Things not commanded, as well as not forbidden?  
2. He saith, it was so expressed, because the Gild of the Sin of Idolatry and Superstition lay in this, that it was a thing not commanded: had God commanded those things, they had been a true Worship, and acceptable.  
In which assertion of his, he grossly mistakes. First, as to the nature of Idolatry and Superstition, when he saith, the guilt of them lay in this, that they were things not commanded: Whereas it is evident that they were Sins, because forbidden. For what is Superstition but the dreading of that which is not to be dreaded? (as the Greek word shows;) Such as the Signs of Heaven, Divinations, and Daemons, and even the unreasonable and inordinate fear of God himself. When we fear 
Jer. 10. 2.  offending him, in what is not offensive to him. And what is Idolatry but the giving Divine honour to that which is not God, or prohibited honour to the true and only God? These are things manifestly forbidden.  
Secondly, It's yet a grosser Error, which is contained in the reason he gives for it, viz. That had God Commanded those things, they had been a true Worship and acceptable. An assertion, First, that confounds the Nature of things, that makes Vice and Virtue alike, and no otherwise discriminated but by Gods written Law, as if Idolatry and Superstition were not Evil antecedent to all Revelation, and which are so where Revelation is not, as well as where it is.  
Secondly, From hence it follows that those things may be acceptable to God, which in their own nature do tend to drive Religion out of the World; and that may be true Worship, which will unavoidably debase the Deity in the thoughts of Mankind. For so do Idolatry and Superstition.  
As for the Instances he there takes notice of, I shall reserve them to a more convenient place.  
Conclus. 2. If things Indifferent be such as are neither Conclus. Commanded nor Forbidden, and that things are not unlawful because not Commanded, than things thus Indifferent and not commanded are not additions to the Word 
Case of Indiff. things. p. 24.  of God: and the places usually insisted upon must be understood, according to the sense I gave of them; and which may serve as a sufficient reply to what he hath 
Case examined. p. 26.  said upon that Head. But yet because he hath offered somewhat in another place that looks like an Argument, I shall here consider it. He argues thus;  
If obedience be wanting the Salt is wanting to the Sacrifices 
Pag. 4.  of our God, which (as we humbly conceive) leaves no more room for perfective than corruptive Additions to Divine Worship etc. What can be an act of Obedience to God but what he hath commanded, whether he hath forbidden it or no? If we bid our Servant go a mile, and he goeth two (possibly hoping to do us Service in it) we hope his going the Second mile is no act of obedience, though we did not forbid him. In matters of this Nature no act of Supererogation is allowable, because it can be no obedience. In answer to which, it will be necessary to resolve this Question:  
Q. Whether the doing of any thing in the Worship of God without a command be a sinful addition to the Word of God?  
I answer that if the Question is understood of the proper and essential parts of Worship (if I may so speak) than we grant it, and say, that he that shall institute any thing in that kind without Divine Institution, doth challenge God's prerogative to himself; and because the rule is sufficient, all such perfective are corruptive additions (as he speaks) to both Rule and Worship. It is as if a Servant when bidden to go a mile, he goeth two (possibly hoping to do Service in it) for in matters of this nature no Supererogation is allowable. Thus far his comparison holds, as to matters of the same Nature, and designed to the same end: and esteemed to be of the same use. As the going of two Miles for one, with an intent to do as good Service, and be as well if not better approved for so doing. But if the question be understood of such things as are Adjuncts to Divine Worship, that are not used upon the score of any of the reasons aforesaid, than we are not to expect a command, nor do we Sin if we act without it. As for example, a Servant is required to go a Mile upon some service, and he useth a Coat or a Cloak, takes an Horse or goes on Foot, puts a string about his Finger to remember him of what he is to do; Or if to carry a Message, considers what to say, and Writes it down, that he may be the better fitted to deliver it; In such cases his Master would think him impertinent to ask Directions, and it's no Disobedience nor Supererogation to act, as he sees fit, without them. And this is the case with us, as I shall afterward show. This said, there is way made for the next inference.  
Conclus. 3. If things Indifferent are neither commanded Conclus. 3 nor forbidden, and things are not unlawful because not commanded, it follows that it's no Derogation from the Sufficiency of Scripture to maintain the lawfulness of using such things in Divine Worship, as are not therein commanded. It's somewhat a Specious way of arguing which this Author useth, the Scriptures have determined whatsoever may make us wise to Salvation, perfect, 
p. 2●.  throughly furnished to all good Works. Now if the Worship of God be a good work, and the right doing of it hath any tendency to make us perfect, they must have a sufficiency to direct us in that. And he concludes, If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God (except as before excepted, etc.) then the Scriptures are not able to make us wise, etc.  
By this way of arguing and a challenge he immediately subjoins, viz. If our Author can show us any Act of Worship, etc. It may be thought he is a Champion for the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture, and we the derogators from it. And that without any more ado he would have brought unanswerable arguments for that kind of Scripture-sufficiency which we deny. If saith he, our R. Author can show us any Act of Worship for the 
Pag. 29.  performance of which in such a manner as God will accept, we cannot show him direction of Scripture. Well! where is it? Scripture, with the addition of such circumstances as are naturally necessary to all Humane Actions, or evidently convenient for an action of a grave and weighty Nature, for the obtaining the ends of it, or appearing to any Common Judgement to be so decent, that without them the performance would be sordid. Scripture with the practice of the first Guides of the Church; Scripture with the light of Nature shining out in every reasonable Soul, etc. Scripture with the exceptions before excepted, in his Book. 
pag. 21   
Suppose then we put it to the question, Is Scripture alone a sufficient Rule for matters to be used in the Worship of God? He readily answers, Yes. If you take in the Nature of the thing, the light shining in every reasonable Soul; if you take in Common Judgement, convenience, and decency; Lastly if you take in the practice of the first Guides of the Church; that is, it is, and it is not. Now how he hath all this while pleaded for that Sufficiency of Scripture which we deny. And why he should so loudly exclaim against all Supplements and Additions, to that, and against 
pag. 38.  Reason and Authority, as a Supply: or what difference he hath conceived betwixt Authority & the Guides of the Church; or betwixt Reason and the light of Nature Shining out in every reasonable Soul, so as to deny to 
pag. 29.  the one what he grants to the other, I am not able to understand? Yet for all this there must be a difference betwixt him and us, and somewhat shall be said to make it out. For the Sufficiency of Scripture, is a very great argument. And so indeed it is; and it has been an old 
pag. 28.  argument against the practices of our Church, and is not to be easily parted with: But yet what to give, and what to take, and wherein the difference is betwixt what we hold and he is forced to grant, he knows not, or has not been so kind as to discover.  
But however when all this is pastover, he concludes as to one part, we cannot possibly agree with our R. Brother in this thing, viz. (That we have no such particular directions for Worship under the Gospel as they had under the Law.) This indeed I touched upon, to show that the 
Case of indifferent. things. pag. 30.  faithfulness of Christ and sufficiency of Scripture consist not in giving as particular directions for Worship as they had under the Law; and in proof of this I set Baptism against Circumcision, the Lord's Supper against the Passover, and Prayers against Sacrifices.  
Now let us consider, what are the reasons why he cannot possibly agree? Certainly if ever controversy was like to be ended, we may now expect it, because it's about plain matter of Fact. But in this case he strangely fails of performance: For whereas the deciding the case depends upon the comparison betwixt the Law and the Gospel, he doth not so much as offer any thing about the latter. But let us consider what he saith of the former, and as much as we can, make up his defect in the latter. First, he saith, As to Circumcision, what particular 
pag. 31.  direction had the Jews? Their Rule extended no further than to the Act and the time. Here I must confess there is nothing but the time that is determined; But since there is nothing of that kind in Baptism prescribed, the Law is herein more particular than the Gospel. 2ly, As to the Passover, he acknowledges they had a Rule, but then he adds What Rule, had they to determine them to a Kid or a Lamb? But was not that a Rule to determine them, when it must be a Kid or a Lamb, and no other Creature; and is not Two to all the Beasts in the world a determination as well as one to two? But was there nothing else determined? (as his cautious way of expressing it would imply) Let him consult the Text, and he will find that the Creature was not only thus to be one 
Exod. 12. etc.  out of two, but it was to be a Male, kept the 14th day, and to be killed at even, without a bone broken, to be roasted, to be eaten in the house, and with unleavened Bread, with bitter Herbs, and none left to the morning. And they were to eat it standing (as our Author acknowledges p. 32.) with their loins girt, etc. And with several other rites too long to enumerate.  
But in the Lord's Supper, there is nothing specified or required but the Elements, and the breaking and pouring out; nothing said of the kind of the Bread or Wine, nothing required of the time or posture, or number, etc.  
As for their Sacrifices, he saith, the Rule was sufficient 
pag 32.  and perfect, we hope, though one Jew brought a Bullock, another a Goat, etc. I may confidently say it was not sufficient if so they did, for God was pleased to require more (who is the most competent Judge of the perfection of his own Law) For there was a particular prescription not only as to the kinds of the Beasts, but as to the disposing and ordering of them in Sacrifice, what was to be eaten, and what not; whether the blood should be poured out or sprinkled, whether upon the Altar or at the bottom of it, &c, one would think that a person that talks so loosely of these things, had never read the Book of Leviticus.  
But now as to Prayers in the Christian Church, we have only a general Form given us and direction to Pray in the Name of Christ, but nothing as to Words, Time, Posture, Company, etc.  
So that what can be more manifest than that there is no such particular direction given in Worship, as they had under the law? And therefore however it comes to pass that this Author hath here so bewildered himself, yet it's what he hath granted before, when he was fain to make exceptions, as to things naturally necessary, &c and of which he saith in the beginning of this argument, that for such it is impossible there should be a Rule; though there, I 
Page. 8.  conceive, he hath as much erred on one side as he did before on the other, when he saith its impossible; for than it had not been possible to assign time, posture, place, &c, under the Law. Had he said in some not possible, in others not fit, he had been much more in the right: However (to let that pass) in either way he grants that there is no expectation of Scripture-Authority for such things, nor doth the sufficiency of that or the faithfulness of Christ suffer by such an opinion.  
I suppose I may now close this Argument: For, as for his Or's and, Alias' (which this Author so much depends upon) I shall consider them in another place.  
Conclus. 4. If things indifferent are neither commanded Conclus. 4 nor forbidden; and things are not unlawful because not commanded, than the doing of such things as are not commanded is not contrary to the second Commandment; The contrary to this is maintained by our Author, 
Case examined pag. 27  who saith, that the doing of such things in Acts of external Worship as are not commanded, is indeed a violation of the second Commandment. For which he offers this reason, because as in the 6th Commandment it is agreed, that all injuries to our neighbour's person is forbidden under the highest species of such Acts: and in the 7th all species of uncleanness are; so in the 2 d commandment all errors in the matter of external Worship are forbidden under the species of Idolatry.  
The answer to this depends upon the understanding of his phrase, Matter of Worship, (which he hath given us no light in) which either signifies parts of Worship, and then we yield it, that all such instituted by men are forbidden in this commandment, for it's false worship: but then we deny that we are concerned in it, or that any thing not commanded and used by us is a part of Worship. And if he thinks otherwise he is (as upon other reasons also) concerned to take up the cause of Dr. Ames that he saith, he is not concerned in.  
If by matter of Worship he means the administration 
Pag. 27.  and ordering of it, than I deny the parallel, that all errors in Matter of Worship areas much forbidden in the second commandment, as injuries by the 6th, etc. For injuries are of the same Species with Murder, and Acts of uncleanness are of the same kind with Adultery; but errors in the administration of Worship are nothing akin to Idolatry.  
2. I deny that the doing of things not commanded in the Matter of Worship are so much as errors in his sense, since forbidden by no Law, as I have showed.  
The Second point undertaken in the Case of Indifferent 
Sect. 2. Case of Indiff. Things, p. 4. etc.  Things was to show, that there are things Indifferent in the Worship of God, and that such things, though not prescribed, may be lawfully used in it.  
Of this, saith our reverend Author, none (that we 
Case examined p. 19, 20.  know of) ever doubted; and again, as it's stated in that Tract, none in his wits did ever deny it.  
I do not think myself obliged to answer for some men's understandings; but if that be true, what must we think of those whom Mr. Baxter writes of, that will have a Rule for every thing; and adds, take heed of 
Defence of the principles of love, part 2. p. 97.  them? What of such, that when they grant Things Indifferent to be neither commanded nor forbidden, will yet say, that things not commanded are forbidden? What of such, that when they have granted (and so it's then granted on both sides) that there are Things Indifferent in the Worship of God, will yet say, that the 
Case examined p. 15.  Indifferency of actions to be done while they are employed in the Worship of God is all the Question? Lastly, What of those that when they have yielded that things Indifferent, though not prescribed, may be lawfully used in Divine Worship, will have it put to the Question, Whether things not necessary to all human actions may be used in it? Who they are, or how far they are concerned in the foregoing Character, I leave to this Reverend persons Consideration.  
But although none in his Wits did ever deny the Question as stated by me, yet because it may be of use toward the clearing of the matters hereafter to be discoursed of, I will briefly consider the case as it was then stated and that will appear from the things considered in the state of it, and the ways taken to prove it.  
1. It was granted that things naturally necessary to the Action were excluded; since general's act but in their particulars; and if some of the kind must accompany the Act, than this or that particular of the kind is lawful to be used, as it is in time place, habit. This he grants, but only adds, that Habit surely is not 
Pag. 7.  necessary, we read of none before the Fig-leaves were sown together, Gen. 3.  
But (1.) We indeed read of no habit before the Fall, but is there nothing natural to man since the Fall? What doth our Author think of the Apostle's Natural 
1. Corinth. 15. 44.  Body, &c as opposed to Heavenly, or of the description he gives of the state of mankind, when he saith, we are by Nature Children of Wrath: We read of no 
Eph 2. 3.  such Body or state before the time of the Fig-leaves. And yet the Apostle makes bold to call them Natural, as belonging to man in his present fallen State.  
(2.) Therefore we have a further notion of Natural given us, and that is when any thing is suited to the Nature or State of the thing or person. Thus Ames and others tell us of Natural Ceremonies, as lifting up 
Fresh Suit p. 1. c. 4. &. 5.  the eyes to Heaven in Sign of Devotion, (which by the way is not so Natural; but that casting them down 
Luke. 18. 13.  in Worship is a sign of it too, as in the publicans.) And so habit is Natural to man, as belonging and suited to his present condition. But, saith he, it is not Natural, for a person may Pray naked; and so he may pray blindfold, and yet will any one say, sight is not natural to man. But how may he pray naked in Regious assemblies (for we are speaking of public Worship) can he say it's suitable to the Solemnity? And so going naked is as little suitable to the nature of man.  
(3.) Again that's natural, which is the effect of Nature, though not born with us. And I am apt to think that did our Author live within the Circle of the Frigid Zone, he would without any Tutor, without the knowledge of what is the custom of Civilised Nations, without any moral reason, have thought upon the benefit of Frieze, or somewhat of the like use with that. But suppose I am mistaken, how hath he mended the matter? He tells us, that by the custom of Civilised Nations some habit is necessary. But than what becomes 
Gen. 3. 21.  of the Fig-leaves, what of the coats of Skins God clothed Adam with. Now to say it came from custom before custom was, (for it was in the beginning) I think, is much more absurd than to say that Habit was natural.  
But it's time to pass on to a more profitable argument.  
2. It was proved that all things, which in general and for kind are morally necessary are also lawful in their particulars. This was made evident from a parity of reason 'twixt what is naturally, and what is morally necessary, and therefore he that grants the particulars of what is naturally necessary, to be indifferent, must also grant the particulars of what is morally necessary to be indifferent. And as it follows this Time or that, this Place or that, this Habit or that is lawful and indifferent, because Time, Place and Habit are necessary: So it also follows this Method or that, this Form or that, this Order or that is lawful, and may be used, because Method, Form, and Order are necessary. And therefore we need look no more for an institution for a Form, than, as he saith for a 
Case examined pag. 18.  Bell to call to Worship, or for a Gown or Cloak to preach in, etc. For what Naturally necessary is to the particulars of its kind, that is Morally necessary to its particulars: And one is no more unlawful for want of an institution or command, than the other. This our Author also yields to, We, saith he, having agreed 
Pag. 14.  that there are some circumstances of Humane actions, in God's Worship, not only Natural, common to all actions, but of a Moral nature too, relating to them as such actions, which God having neither commanded nor forbidden, may be used, are not much concerned, in what our Author saith upon his second Head.  
3. It was further showed in the aforesaid Treatise, that such things in Divine Worship as were agreeable to the Rules of the Apostle, and served for Order, Decency, and Edification, were also lawful, though they were neither Naturally nor Morally necessary; nor did necessarily arise from the nature of the Thing, as Method and Form, etc. do; that is, that there are a certain sort of things that are ambulatory and contingent, that 
Case of indifferent things p. 8, 12, 13.  vary with circumstances, ages, places, and conditions, etc. As, the being covered or uncovered in Worship; such and such fixed hours of Prayer; The Lovefeasts, and Holy-kiss, and besides, several Civil usages transferred from secular affairs into the Service of Religion; which were used therein not as mere Civil Rites; as I there showed.  
This argument taken from Civil usages our Author endeavours to avoid several ways.  
1. He saith, If we do not mistake, the reason why 
Case examined. pag. 18.  Dr. Ames and others do think that Civil usages may be used in Acts of Worship, is because they are either necessary to the action, as Humane, or convenient, comely or grave, etc. And because I had said 
* Case of indifferent things. pag. 14.  that if the being Civil usages did make them lawful in. Divine Worship, than there is nothing in Civil cases but may be introduced into the Church, though never so absurd, he saith, he cannot apprehend the consequence, because 
Case examined, pag. 19  what is granted about Civil usages is to be applied to grave actions and none other. But to this I answer, Grant they are thus to be understood of such Civil usages as are grave, yet than it is not so much because they are Civil, as because they are grave, that they may be used, and provided that they were grave, they might be used if, they were not Civil, as well as if they were, and are not the sooner to be used, because they are Civil. And than what becomes of their argument for such and such practices and customs that they were Civil? And what have they got when to avoid the force of what we say from the Lovefeasts, etc. plead, as he doth, that they are Civil usages. So that when he and his brethren grant, that such usages which may ordinarily 
Pag. 18.  be used in other Humane actions of a grave nature, may be used in Acts of Worship (which is more than we dare say; for then standing crosses may be introduced into Worship, which are used to very grave purposes in Civil matters, as to distinguish Christian from Heathenish or Turkish Dominions, etc.) I know not what they can deny.  
2. He gives a very partial account of Civil usages, when he tells us of Orator's Pulpits, and Seats, and Bells, Gowns and Cloaks: But in the mean while forgets that there are Civil usages, that are of a Ceremonial Nature, and that are used by way of signification, distinction, etc. As now a garment is (I may still say) Naturally or (as he will have it) Morally necessary, but when in a particular case it's required that it be White or Purple, it's a Civil usage, and is by way of signification; and so the signification is transferred with it from a civil to a sacred use, which how consistent it is with their principles I leave it to his consideration.  
3. He takes no notice of the Argument used by me, that if civil usages without institution may be lawfully used in Divine Worship, this (with his concessions before about Natural and Moral circumstances) will justify most, I had almost said, all the practices of our Church, as I instanced in the Surplice, since White was used as a badge of Royalty and Dignity, of joy and innocency, in Civil cases, and so may be used by 
V Brightman in Ames Fresh Suit, part 2. p. 505, 510.  way of signification in Religious; and so of the rest. All that he hath to say about the Surplice is, that it's tied to Worship, which is remote from the case in hand, and shall afterward be considered.  
To this I may also add the Cross, which he saith, they 
Pag. 15.  do not stumble of making upon a pack of Cloth or Stuff, or upon a Sheep for note of distinction, and may be, and is used for graver purposes in the like way of signification in Civil matters as I have observed) and so may be, by this Argument transferred into the Service of Religion.  
4. It was further maintained in the stating of the Case, 
Case of Indiff. Things, p. 5, 6.  that the ordering and administration of the things relating to Divine Worship, was left to Christian prudence. To this our Author saith, It is very true, these must be determined 
Case examined, p. 7.  by human prudence, but that they must necessarily be determined by the prudence of the Superior, and may not be determined by the prudence of the agents, is another Question. Who ever affirmed it? That they are left to human prudence to fix and determine, is all that I maintained; but how far Superiors may determine, and how far Inferiors must submit to things so determined, is another Question, and belongs to another place.  
From what hath been said, it may appear whether no man ever doubted of the truth of the Case as I have stated it, when he himself speaks so dubiously and uncertainly about it. But because I have not stated it to his mind, and that it's not the Dissenters position, 
pag. 19  but only a position, which their adversaries have imposed upon them without any ground, as he saith; let us see how he states the Question, which is thus:  
Q. Whether things, the doing, or not doing of which 
Ibid.  God hath not prescribed, being neither necessary to the action as an human action, nor convenient for it (with reference to those that perform it) for the ends of it, nor naturally, nor in common judgement such, without which it cannot be done decently, may be lawfully used in the Worship of God by all persons, or by any persons, who judge that God hath forbidden the part to which they are by men determined, either in the letter, or by the just reason, and consequence of Holy Writ, as forbidding all useless and superfluous things, in so sacred actions, or things not necessary, and used ordinarily in Idolatrous and Superstitious services, or judging that in Worship every man is sui juris, and ought not to be deprived of the liberty God hath left him, may be universally and lawfully used?  
This he hath elsewhere form into a position, and 
pag. 23, 24.  from thence doth declare, that it lies upon his Adversary to prove, that those things which he would have all Dissenters conform to are,  

1. Things naturally necessary to all human Acts. Or,  
2. Things convenient for them as human acts. Or, with reference to the true end of such acts: Or,  
3. Such as Nature shows to be comely for all human acts, or such grave acts at least, or which common judgement so judgeth. Or,  
4. That men may do what they reasonably judge sinful. Or,  
5. That there is no reason to judge useless, and superfluous actions in the Worship of God sinful. Or,  
6. No reason so to judge of the things not necessary to be used in God's Worship, and which have been, and are ordinarily used in Idolatrous Worship. Or,  
7. That there is no reason to judge, that Christians in matters of Worship ought to be left at liberty in things when God hath so left them.   
Whether this be indeed the Dissenters position he best 
pag. 19  understands (as I should think) but whether it be their position explained, (as he saith) or confounded, I leave 
pag. 24.  to the judgement of others. This only I am sure of, that for as much as I can understand of it, I may turn his own words upon him, and whereas he saith of the Case as I have stated it, None in his wits did ever deny it, I can say as it's stated by him, None in his wits did ever affirm it. For who in his wits will ever affirm that it's lawful to use such things in the Worship of God, that are sordid and indecent, disorderly and confused, idle, useless, and superfluous, hurtful and pernicious?  
And yet (according to him) this must he do, that will undertake to prove, that things that are not comely, convenient, or edifying, may be admitted thereinto. For this Author tells us, that by Decency we can understand 
pag. 11.  nothing but what is opposed to sordidly, etc. And if it be not decent by his rule, it must be sordid: And so of the rest.  
Again, Who in his wits will affirm that men may do what they reasonably judge sinful? And yet these things must they affirm that will attack this position of our Authors: By which stating of the Question and mingling things of a different nature together, he hath provided well for his own security, and may without fear of being conquered, or so much as opposed, fling down the Gauntlet, with, If our R. Author hath taken the 
pag. 25.  position, as here stated, and argued it, we shall consider what he hath said; if not, we shall lightly pass over what he hath said, etc. and expect till he hath justified all or any of the last Seven mentioned particulars.  
But I shall not so lightly pass over what he hath said without clearing what may be cleared, and reducing the Case into its proper principles, though it be what he hath taken no care to explain or prove.  
If we review his seven particulars, we shall find that the 
(a) V case of a scrupulous Conscience, Dr. Calamy's Sermon on that subject.  4th. and 6th. 
(b) the case of Symbolising, and the defence.  belong not to this case, and are otherwhere resolved: And of the Five remaining Four of them are reducible to one argument, which come now to be considered; and the last of Christian Liberty, I shall treat upon in the close of this Discourse.  
In treating upon the Four that belong to one argument and have for their subject Human Acts; I think it may be done by putting and resolving the following Question.  
Q. What is it that doth make things in themselves lawful and indifferent, to be unlawful in Divine Worship?  
This is the main seat of the controversy; it being agreed that there are indifferent things in the Worship of God; But since we afterward divide upon it, and say that notwithstanding this there are some things of that nature, that are by circumstance unlawful, it is fit to understand, how this Question is resolved by one and the other.  
If We state the case, we say the Rules we are to guide ourselves by, are those of the Apostle, of Decency, Order, and Edification. And we trouble not ourselves nicely to consider whether the Decency arise from the nature of the thing, or from common usage, or prescription, or institution, since we think that decency may arise from any, and it matters not from what cause the thing proceeds, nor how it came to be Decent, when it's now thought and found to be so. And as little curious arewe about the first reasons of Order and Edification, for we are so little speculative in matters of practice, that we think the peace of the Church, and Unity amongst Christians, are much more fit to determine us in these cases than all the accuracy in Metaphysics.  
So that if a thing be found to be decent, orderly and for Edification, though we were assured it did Spring from Humane Institution, we think it to be lawful, and that Humane Institution cannot make that unlawful; which is found by use and experience to be for Decency and Order.  
Again we think that those things which in kind are necessary to Humane Acts in all cases, and comely and grave in Worship as well as out of it, may be appropriated to Worship: and that the appropriation of Places, Time and Habit to Worship, doth not therefore make such Places, Times, and Habits, unlawful to be used.  
And if things indifferent in themselves are unlawful in Worship, we conclude it must be when Divine Institution is pretended for what is Humane, and when the things suit not the Nature, or defeat the ends 
Case of indifferent things. p. 24, etc.  of Divine Worship; or for the like reasons which I in the controverted Tract did insist upon.  
But now on the contrary, by what may be Collected from him, it appears to be the Sense of his position,  
1. That nothing of Humane Institution is to be admitted or may lawfully be used in Divine Worship. For thus he saith, they must be things necessary to all Humane Acts, or convenient for them as Humane Acts, or comely for all Humane Acts, etc.  
2. That nothing, though necessary, or convenient, or comely, aught to be used in, and much less be appropriated to the Worship of God; for they are to be considered in Worship only as they have a reference to such Humane Acts.  
In the consideration of these I shall  
1. Consider how he attempts to prove it.  
2. Endeavour to discover the mistake; and vindicate the arguments and instances, produced in the case of Indifferent things to the contrary, from his Exceptions.  
These are the chief things that all his discourse is founded upon, and that are scattered through it: But though they are rather supposed than proved by him; and therefore (to use his own Words) I may lightly pass them over, and expect till he hath justified them: yet because I would make somewhat of it, I shall collect from the Hints he gives, what it is that he doth think may be said for them.  
As for the first of these, that nothing is to be used i● 
Prop. 1.  Divine Worship that is merely of Humane Institution▪ his arguments are fetched from the Nature of th● things pleaded for them, viz. Decency, order, edification. As, saith he,  
1. We cannot apprehend it in the power of Man t● 
Pag 11.  Create a Decency. The greatest Emperors wearing a● Antic Habit, would not make it Decent, till it coul● prescribe, or had obtained a common consent. This ● the rather mention, because it is an argument much i● vogue amongst those that would artificially handl● this matter. But here let me ask them what it is creates a Decency? He saith, the Law of Nature and prescription, common consent and the guise of Countries. But how began that Prescription, whence arose that consent, whether from chance or institution? Or what is it whence i● ariseth, if it be found to be decent? Certainly if it began in one of these institution is the more noble of th● two, and the less disputable: And then it would be har● to conceive how that which came by chance should be sawful, and that which came by Institution should be unlawful.  
But (2.) If Prescription, and Common Consent, and the Guise of countries' be the measure of Decency, may not these things also be the measure of it in the Church, and in things relating to Divine Worship? And is not the custom of the Churches of God a reason as sufficient to conclude us in this matter as the grave and Civil customs of a Nation? Or (3.) Is there any Church on this side Rome that by a Sic volo doth stamp a decency upon its Institutions, without respect to prescription and the custom of Churches? Or that can do it? By his way of expressing himself, he would make the Argument great, as if to Create a Decency was an invasion of God's Prerogative; We cannot apprehend it in the Power of man to Create a Decency. The greatest Emperor, etc.  
But if a Decency arise from the Guise of Countries, and Prescription, and Common Consent, it might be questioned, whether according to him, God himself can then Create a Decency, and by his authority make that to be at once which requires time and Custom (as he saith) to produce and form it? So high doth the power of a little School-subtilty and Imagination sometimes transport men, that their Arguments vanish out of fight, and are lost to all those that converse with what is gross and tangible.  
But supposing it is not in the power of man to Create a Decency, yet Order may be Order without those dilatory reasons of Custom and Prescription; and therefore what holds against establishing Decency by institution, will not hinder but that order may be thereby established. Therefore,  
2. He further argues from the Nature of Decency and Order, that things of mere Humane Institution are not capable of that plea. We can understand, saith he, nothing, 
Ibid.  by orderly, and according to order, but without confusion. By Decency we can understand nothing but what is opposed to sordidly; nor can we think of any action that is not Decent, if the contrary to it be not indecent. So than nothing ought to be done in the Worship of God, but what may be done without Confusion, etc. of which Nature can nothing be that is idle and superfluous, etc.  
I was at a great loss at first to find out the drift of all this, but upon consideration I think it contains these things: (1.) That it is unlawful to ordain or use any thing superfluous in the Worship of God. (2.) That whatsoever is not for Order, Decency and Edification is superfluous. (3.) That nothing is Decent, if the contrary to it be not indecent. It's the last of these we are now concerned in; which by the help of the great managers of this Argument, may be better understood. 
Ames 's Fresh Suit, & answer to Bp. Morton. Jean's Uniformity in answer to Dr. Hammond.  And it amounts to this, that Decency and Indecency are contraries (rather privatives saith jean's) And if one of them be not Indecent, the other cannot be Decent: And if the Action may be performed decently without what is called Decent, then that which we call so is not Decent. As suppose it's pleaded that a Surplice is Decent, but if the contrary be not Indecent, and the Service may be performed decently without it, than that Vestment is not Decent.  
In answer to which I shall not concern myself in a tedious and nice dispute about the nature of Contrarieties and Privatives, but readily grant the opposition which they insist upon betwixt Decent and Indecent; And yet notwithstanding shall make bold to deny the whole they infer from it: And that for this reason, because our Dispute is not about the Nature of Decency and Indecency, but about things Decent and Indecent: And although Decency and Indecency be opposed as above said, yet it is not so in the things controverted, but that things different may be both of them, Decent.  
As for Example, he grants that it's comely and grave to preach in a Gown, and that they look therefore for 
Pag. 18.  no Institution; but now by this way of arguing it could not be so: For if a person may preach decently without a Gown, than it cannot be Decent to preach with it, because Decency and Indecency are contraries, and if the contrary be not Indecent, (as it is not to preach without it, must he say,) then to preach with it is not Decent.  
So again, what Decency is to Indecency, that is Reverence to Irreverence: But, he saith, that kneeling at the Sacrament is Decent, (for saith he, no 
Pag. 36. Pag. 13.  Dissenter refuseth to receive the Sacrament kneeling because it is not Decent) and Reverend. But it can be neither of these by his argument, for they also affirm that it may be Decently and Reverently received, though they do not kneel; and therefore the contrary to kneeling being not Indecent, kneeling cannot be Decent. And thus I might run on in infinitum; and the like may be argued from the account he gives of Order.  
The ground of his and the others mistake is, that they argue from the kind to the individuals of the kind, as if one individual was as much opposite to the other as kind to kind, whereas the individuals are mutable things, which the guise of Countries, and custom, etc. altar; and two things different in use or figure, or the like, may be both of them Decent, as to wear a Cloak or a Coat in Secular business; a Cloak, Gown, or Surplice in Religious Solemnities, (according as the custom is.)  
Therefore the Brethren at the Savoy let this curious 
Proceed at the Savoy, p. 62.  speculation fall, and grant, there are some things Decent and orderly, when the opposite species is not undecent or disorderly. And a greater than they said it was comely, with respect to the then state of the Church, not to marry, and yet without doubt it was 
1 Cor. 7. 35.  not thought uncomely to marry too; which yet the Apostle could not have said, if our Author's way of arguing had been of any force.  
After all this pert discourse against things instituted we are little concerned, not only because there is nothing like things merely instituted by men in our Church except the Cross, (which Lay-Communion is not concerned in) but also because even that and all things that can be forced to look this way are not now instituting, but are received as having been so long before, and are not the subject matter of Institution, but of Civil and Ecclesiastical Command betwixt which there is a vast difference, as, Mr. jean's 
Against Dr. Hammond. pag. 80.  rightly observes; There is difference 'twixt Institution, and Commandment or Appointment; for though every Institution be a Commandment or Appointment, yet every Commandment or Appointment is not an Institution. And hence a Church in a place may command and appoint the uniform observance of Ceremonies, instituted unto its hand by the Church in former ages.  
As for such particular things as were owing to mere Institution (which I produced in the above said tract) in respect of their use and signification, I shall keep them in my eye, though I lay them aside for the present to come to his next head.  
Nothing, though necessary, or convenient, or 
Prop. 2.  comely, aught to be used in, and much less appropriated to the Worship of God; being all such things are to be considered therein only as they have a reference to humane acts. This he asserts not only in the Propositions which he draws from his general position, but also elsewhere; so he saith, that they comply with mere necessary, or conventent circumstances 
Pag. 23.  either of Actions, or such or such Actions, considered abstractly from any Religion. And therefore he concludes,  
1. They must not be used in Religious Worship. So he saith, Those who stumble at the Surplice (as not 
Pag. 15.  many do) or the Cross, or kneeling at the Eucharist, scruple to do it in an Act of Worship. So again, The Minister must wear his Surplice in his Acts of Worship, and sign with the Cross within the complex Act of Worship, (for he after it with prayers concludes the Action.) The People must kneel in the act of Receiving. What then? Why then they are unlawful Now how the things that are necessary in general (as Posture, Habit, etc.) can be used without particulars, or how those particulars can be used in Worship lawfully, and yet be unlawful, because used in Worship, I understand not. For then sitting would be unlawful, if alike required, and a Gown be unlawful, and the Ring in Marriage unlawful, and the laying the hand on the Book unlawful, (at the former of which is a prayer annexed, and at the latter it is implied,) and all Civil Usages in Worship would be unlawful: And then what will become of what he hath elsewhere said? Dr. Ames and others do think that such usages which may ordinarily 
Pag. 12.  be used in other humane actions of a grave nature, may be used in Acts of Worship; and being so used are no more than appendants to the Action, etc.  
But being sensible that this will not do, and that unless he can make the being used in Worship to be the same with Worship, to be an act or a part of it, he cannot make it unlawful, and that if he should attempt it, it would be but to disparage the cause, he makes a second adventure.  
2. That which is appropriated to Worship is unlawful. Some of them cannot but look for an Institution 
Pag. 12.  for a Garment [meaning the Surplice] which they must be tied to use in the Worship of God, and restrained from the wearing of at other times. Now because this would open a gap too wide for him to stand in, and would condemn Places, as well as Habits, and make it as unlawful to use a Church as a Surplice, he therefore cautiously gins it with Some of them: But yet however he gives us a reason for it, viz. Because the appropriation of it to the Religious act, speaks something of Religion and Homage to God in it. Elsewhere he expresseth himself after the like manner, We think they (civil usages) must not have any thing of the nature of Worship in them, but may as well be used in merely Civil actions, as in Religious Duties. If there be any thing of Homage to God in them they are Worship which must have an Institution. But, First, What doth he mean by appropriation, doth he thereby understand that what is for the present appropriated to a Religious use and Service cannot be omitted, nor altered, nor upon any reason whatsoever be applied to any other use? This our Church doth not hold. 
(a) Homilies Sermon of good works pt. 2 Sermon of Prayer. pt. 2. Article. 34.   
Is it that out of a Reverence to Divine Ordinances, it is not fit that the things used in or at Divine Worship be prostituted to vulgar use, that what are Churches for an hour or two on the Lord's day be not Stables all the week after; nor the Tables and Plate used in the Lord's Supper, be employed, in the service of the Taverns? This we agree to, and think ourselves well able to defend against any arguments we have yet seen to the contrary. 2ly. Doth appropriation necessarily employ homage to God; may not things be thus separated, for Order and Uniformity, for Gravity and Decency, for Reverence and Respect to the Solemnities of Religion? And may not this Reverence and Respect we show to the solemnities of Religion, and the Devotion we show in external Worship redound to God himself?  
Indeed what are all the outward acts of Reverence but expressing of Homage, Veneration and Adoration to God? I do not think the Holy Psalmist forgot himself when he said, Come let us Worship, and fall down, and 
Ps. 95. 6.  kneel before the Lord our Maker:▪ Or that our Author himself said amiss, when he maintains, that Nature 
Pag. 29.  teacheth us to Worship God in the most decent manner we can. For though Adoration be to be given to God alone, 
Pag. 13. & Jean's answer to Hammond. Pag. 21.  yet Reverence (as our Author distinguisheth) is due to all things relating to him, and to that Worship we pay to him: And as there are several Acts of Worship due to God; So there are some things due to his Worship, by which his honour is advanced and devotion furthered. But for this I refer him to what 
Case of Indifferent things. Pag. 29.  was said otherwhere, which he was pleased to take no notice of.  
But to bring all to an issue I shall now consider the several arguments, and instances I produced to prove that things indifferent, though not prescribed, may be lawfully used in Divine Worship.  
This I proved from the old Testament and New, from the practice of the Primitive and Modern Churches, and from their own Concessions.  
1. The instances I chose to give from the Old Testament were David's Temple, the Feast of Purim, and the Synagogal Worship: To these he answers at once, that they are answered long since by Dr. Ames in his 
Case examined. Pag. 25.  Fresh Suit. And perhaps may be answered by him after the manner he def●●●●● the objection taken from the second Commandment, which our Author himself 
Pag. 27.  gives up: But 〈…〉 arguments are of force, I suppose, we shall find it in our Author. And he first gins with David's Temple, of which he saith, David indeed designed 
Pag. 26.  a Temple for God without a command, But God checked him for it for this very reason, 2. Sam. 7. 7. and though he approved his generally good intention, yet he restrained him as to his Act, as may be seen in that Chap.  
This being matter of Fact the Text must determine it, and from thence I observe.  
1. That God had at no time given a command concerning building a Temple. So in the Text quoted, in all the places with all the children of Israel spoke I a 
2 Sam. 7. 7.  word with any of the tribes, etc. saying, why build ye not me an house of Cedars?  
2. David in designing it went upon rational grounds (1.) as God had given him rest, and so it became him to do it in point of gratitude, and because he had an opportunity for it. (2.) From comparing his own house Verse. 1 with God's, See now I dwell in an house of Cedar, but the Ark of God dwelleth within curtains.  
3. It was no rash act, for it seems he had at that time Verse. 2 made ready for the building, having it a long time before in his thoughts. Of this see Dr. Lightfoot, Temple c. 40. 
1 Chron. 28. 2. 3.   
1. From all which I infer, that neither David in designing, nor Nathan in approving what he designed thought it absolutely unlawful to do what was not commanded in the Worship of God, or that what was not commanded was forbidden. This must be granted by our Author, that saith, God approved his generally good intention, now what was his intention generally but to do somewhat in honour to God, and for the solemnity of his Worship? Thus much Mr. Pool doth yield, The design being pious, and the thing not forbidden by God, Nathan hastily approves it. Now if he approved it because not forbidden by God, than they did not think that what was not commanded, was forbidden; nor doth that of our Author appear to be reasonable, that God checked him for it, because it was without a command.  
2ly. Supposing that particular Act condemned, yet it is not reasonable to suppose it to be for the general reason, given by our Author, that nothing must be done without a command, but because in a matter of that consequence, the Prophet did not advise about it, and that he did too hastily approve it, as Mr. Pool saith. But,  
3ly. It's evident that the particular Act was not condemned. 1. Because God commended him for it, thou didst well 
(a) 1 Kings, 8. 17, 18. . So Mr. Hildersham, Though the Lord would not let David build him an House, yet he commends his affection for it, etc. 
(b) Lect. on Joh. Lect. 28.  2. God rewarded him for it, for upon it it was promised, 
(c) 2 Sam. 7. 11. 1 Chron. 17. 10.  He will make thee an House. So Mr. Pool, For thy good intentions to make him an House, he will build thee an House. 3. He presently gave order upon it for the building such an House; and as a mark of approbation, and a further reward of David's good intention▪ did both reveal what he would have built, and how 
(d) 1 Chron. 28. 19 ; And appoint his immediate Successor for the building of it 
(e) 2 Sam. 7. 13. . 4. Though God did deny this Privilege to David, yet it was not without giving him good reason for it, and that was (1.) because things were not settled. So it was before with the tribes, therefore God saith he walked with them 
(f) 2 Sam. 7. 6, 7. vers. 1. : And so it was with David, for though he had at that time rest, (which was about the 10th, or at most the 20th, of his Reign;) Yet it was far from a settled Peace, and therefore Mr. Pool reads it as the Margin, v. 11. I will cause thee to rest. (2.) It was not fit for David, Because he had been a man of War, and shed much blood. 
(g) 1 Chron. 22. 7, 8, 9 28, 3.  Now in opposition to this (1.) God saith, I will ordain a place for Israel, and plant them, etc. 
(h) 1 Chron. 17. 9  (2.) Of Solomon, he saith, He shall be a man of rest, and I will give him Peace 
(i) 1 Chron. 22. 9 .  
So that it appears that it was not unlawful for David to design a Temple nor unacceptable to God that he did design it, but it was deferred for the reasons before given, and because it was unseasonable.  
Now because the Author has referred me to Ames, I will send him back thither, and let him see whether he has answered all this or no. 
Aims Fresh Suit. part 2. §. 6, and 7. Case examined p. 26. .  
As for the Feast of Purim, This Reverend person saith, It lieth upon our Author to prove, the Feast of purim was kept as a Religious Feast. There is no order for any Religious Acts to be performed in it. If it were, it was generally commanded under the precepts of giving thanks for public mercies.  
I shall therefore undertake to prove it a Religious Feast. But before I proceed I shall 1. observe, That the lawfulness of Religious Feasts and Fasts admit of the same general proof, and if I prove one I prove the other. 2. I observe that the Jews did think it lawful to institute Religious Feasts and Fasts, both occasional and anniversary. Of the latter sort (which is the matter in dispute) were the Fasts of the 4th 5th, and 10th Months, instituted in the time of the Captivity 
(a) Zech. 8. 19 .  
Such was the Feast of Dedication instituted by the Jews in the time of the Maccabees 
(b) 1 Mac. 4. 59 , And kept to the time of our Saviour 
(c) John 10, 22. , nay to this very day amongst them 
(d) Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. . And so Mordecai and Esther did establish this Feast of Purim, and the Jews took upon themselves to keep it 
(e) Est. 9, 20, 27, 29. . Now that it was a Religious Feast will appear,  
1. As it was a day of thanksgiving to God for that great deliverance. Thus it's called a day of gladness, a good day 
(f) ●. 8. 17. 9 18, 19, 22. , which Mr. Pool thus paraphraseth, a time of feasting, rejoicing and thanksgiving 
(g) On c. 8. 17. Ch. 9 27. . This further appears from the reason given for the celebration of it. It was, saith the Text, That the memorial of their deliverance should not perish: or as Mr. Pool, Because they had seen and felt this wonderful work of God on their behalf. 
(h) C. 9 25, 31.  It appeared further from the circumstances of it, it's said They sent portions one to another, and gifts to the poor. 
(i) C. 9, 22.  Which, saith Pool, they used to give upon days of thanksgiving, of which see Neh. 8. 10.  
And I may add, that it is impossible to conceive that persons of such signal piety as Mordecai and Esther, should institute, and under the present sense of such a deliverance, as the Jews were, should observe this Feast, only as a day of Civil Joy, without respect to God that wonderfully brought it about.  
2. It was as much a Religious Feast, as their Fast was a Religious Fast; So the Text makes them parallel, They confirmed these days of Purim, etc. As they had decreed for themselves & for their seed the matters of the fastings & their cry. 
(k) C. 10, 31.  But what their Fasting was, the nature of the thing, as well as the Cry here spoken of doth declare. So to go ye and fast, Pool adds, and pray, which was the main business, to which fasting was only an help. 
(l) On. c. 4. 16, and 9, 31.  But our Author saith; There is no order for any Religious Acts to be performed in it. As if they did not know what became them to do upon such a gracious and wonderful deliverance. But we read of no order for such Acts on their days of Fasting, were they not therefore Religious? Nay we read not of the name of God in the whole Book, or of any duty to him plainly expressed, and shall we therefore esteem it not to be Religious and Canonical?  
But saith our Author, If it were a Religious Feast, it was generally commanded under the precepts of giving thanks. And I desire no more: For in one Breath he hath yielded all. So that now we have gained, that fixed and anniversary festival days set apart for Commemoration of God's Mercies to us, are not only lawful, but what we have a command for. And thence it follows, that a Church hath Power to determine them, as they did. And further that things not commanded may be used in Divine Worship.  
The next thing is the Synagogal Worship.  
To this he replies, The Worshipping of God in Synagogues wanted no special Command; Being but a Circumstance convenient, if not necessary to public Worship considered as an Humane Act. A Multitude of people could not meet to Worship God together without a fit place. But First why did not Synagogues want a Special Command as well as the Temple▪ which he contends for?) For, which is worse, to build a more convenient place for one already instituted, a Temple for a Tabernacle; or to build places for which they had (as he yields) no special command, as the Synagogues? But suppose they needed not a Command for Synagogues, because a Multitude could not meet together without a Fit Place; yet how will that be a reason that the Worshipping in Synagogues wanted it not? That place is a circumstance convenient, and that Synagogues were fit places for a Multitude of people to Worship in, we grant; and we will grant that this may be a reason to justify the building and using such places without a special Command; yet what is that to the Worship so and so ordered in those places? What is that to Days and Hours, which the Scripture speaks of, and he contends against? What is this to the Forms used in their Service, which the Jews do write of?, If these are not to be justified though they wanted a Special Command, how was it that our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles did not only frequent the places, but the Service, as our Saviour's Customary Preaching in them doth show? What is this to the Ritual Observations our Saviour complied with, such as the Passover Cup, and their posture at it, which he shown his approbation of in his taking the materials of his last Supper from the Rites used in the Passover, as learned men have observed; of which Casaubon saith, Hoc primum observare juvat, quomodo Filius Dei umbras Legis ad veritatem traduxerit.  
This he will by no means hear of, and therefore useth several evasions (for they are no better). Thus when it's recorded that our Saviour told the disciples, with desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: and in prosecution of it, that he took the Cup, and gave thanks, and said, Divide it among yourselves, for I will not Drink of the Fruit of the Vine. etc. he irreverently represents it as if it was no more than if he drunk only to satisfy Nature. For so he saith; Before Christ 
Case examined. Pag. 14.  did eat the paschal Supper, he drank a Cup of Wine, and doubtless at it he drank also, though it be not recorded. People need no Institution to drink while they are eating.  
As if the Evangelist had no more to do than to tell us Christ drank a Cup of Wine with his Meat. Surely there is a better account to be given of this matter; The Text itself shows it. And the Jewish Authors and others that writ of their customs, do sufficiently inform us. In which he must be very ignorant or incredulous, that will say (as he doth) that no more is signified by it than that 
Case examined. Pag. 32.  every one might drink as his appetite required; and no less irreverent that can think that what is recorded of our Saviour's taking the Cup, and blessing, and drinking in the Passover, was only to serve that end.  
The next thing I insisted upon was our Saviour's compliance with them in the posture used by them at the Passover, 
Pag. 3.  contrary (as he owns) to what was used at the first Institution. Of this, he saith, Our Saviour used the Jewish posture in eating the passover, being a posture no where, that 
Pag. 84  we know of, used by Idolaters, nor being any posture of Adoration, but their ordinary posture of eating Meat. 2. He saith, that every one might use the posture which was most convenient for the Nature of the Action: and that he doth not see any reason to conclude they would have shut out any that because of the institution desired to eat it with his loins girt, etc. 3. That, if they did use any uniform posture, yet it was because they agreed it among themselves. In all which there is hardly any thing said but is full of mistake. As,  
1. He saith, the posture used by our Saviour was not where, that he knows of, used by Idolaters, nor was a posture of Adoration. I cannot tell how far our Author's Learning may extend in this matter, but that the posture of discumbing was used at festival Solemnities from ancient times, by the Grecians, Medes, Persians, Indians, Romans, and Jews, etc. and from thence translated to their Sacrifical Feasts, which the Heathens did very anciently observe 
(a) Herodotus, l. 1. c. 31. , is sufficiently known 
(b) Casab exercit. 16. c. 22  insomuch that the whole Solemnity was called amongst the Romans Lectisternium 
(c) Rosini antiq. l. 4. c. 15. . This is Confirmed by Scripture. So Amos. 2. 8. They lay themselves down upon Clothes laid to pledge by every Altar, etc. That is, the Beds which they used in the Temples of their Gods, saith Casaubon, 
(d) Ibid.  from the Jews: So Ezek. 23. 41. For satisfaction in which I refer this Reverend Author to others 
(e) Buxtorf. Exercit. xxxv. & xxxviii. .  
And whereas he saith this was no posture of Adoration, he must needs be mistaken, if he grants what they did in those Solemnities in Honour to their Gods to be Adoration. And this they did, for it was an entertainment made for them, the heathens conceiving that the Gods did then feast with them; hence the Poet's phrase of 
(f) Horat. l. ●. i. ode. 37.  ornare pulvinar Deorum dapibus. So the Apostle calls their Table, the Table of Devils? 
(g) 1 Cor. 10. v. 21.  and their lying down there, an having fellowship with Devils. 
(h) v. 20.  Having said thus much, I shall not need to proceed, and show how sitting, as well as discumbing, hath been also used in Idolatrous Service, both amongst Heathens of old and Romanists now, especially since I have it sufficiently 
Falkner's Libert. Eccles. part. 2. c. 3. §. 4. n. 10.  proved to my hands in a book I suppose our Author well acquainted with.  
As for what he further saith, If the Jews did use one uniform posture, etc. there needs not many words to show how precarious or false it is. For what more precarious than to speak doubtfully (If they did) of that which yet is clearly evident they did observe? Or affirm, that if they did, it was because they agreed it among themselves, which is to suppose the reason of the thing to be certain, when the thing itself according to him is uncertain? Or what more false since whether it was by agreement among themselves, or by the Authority of the Church, that there was this Uniformity of posture is not so certain, as it is that there was this Uniformity, and that they were universally obliged to use and observe it? For it was required that discumbiture should be used in all Religious Feasts, but especially at the Passover by all without exception▪ in the first part of the Solemnity. For which I refer our Author 
Lightfoot.  to one well-versed in these matters.  
So little Truth, or certainty is there in what our Author asserts, that every one might use the posture which was most convenient; and that there was no reason to conclude they would have shut out any from their paschal Societies that desired to eat it with his loins girt, etc. or standing.  
The next instance produced in the abovesaid Case of Indifferent things, and objected against by our Author, is the Hours of Prayer, which were observed amongst the Jews, at Morning, Noon, and Evening. Act. 2 15. c. 10. 9 c. 3. 1.  
Of these our Author gives this account: Thus the Apostles 
Case Examined, p. 19  used the hours of Prayer, which also they might have changed, if they had pleased. That the Jews sent any to Goals, or excommunicated any for not keeping to those hours we do not find. There is nothing of Religion in the time, more than in any other part of time. Thus St. Paul used Circumcision and Purification.  
Thus: How is that? Did the Apostles use the hours of Prayer only as necessary circumstances of Humane actions, or such without which the light of Nature, or Common usage shows the thing cannot be done, or conveniently or 
Pag. 1. Pag. 14.  comelily done, as he saith? Or rather did they not use them as they found them instituted and observed in the Jewish Church? And not for his Thus, and the reasons given by him? Will those reasons justify those very hours of the day, or the just number of three hours? Or however, how will they Justify the Prayers used at those hours; But whatever exceptions he had against the time, he it seems found nothing to say to the Service, which yet was pleaded as well as that. 
Case of Indifferent things. P. 11.   
But he saith, There is nothing of Religion in the time. If so (as is granted) then it's in the power of a Church to institute and determine it, where there is no other Religion in the Time, than as it's thus separated to the Service of God.  
Lastly he saith, The Apostles might have changed the Hours of Prayer, if they had pleased. How might they have changed them? Might they do it as Apostolical Persons, or as Private Members of the Jewish Church? As to the former I find not they did exercise any such Power within the Jurisdiction of the Jewish Church, nor that they had any Commission so to do. As for the latter, I deny it. For if it lay in the power of Private Members of a Church to alter the Hours in which the Church is to assemble, it is in their power to Dissolve the Assembly, and there could nothing but Confusion issue from it. I must confess he seems to be at a perfect loss what to say as to this matter. And it appears so when he dares not so much as touch upon the Prayers used in those hours, and applies his Thus to St. Paul's using Circumcision and Purification, as if they also were necessary circumstances of Humane action; or such without which the light of Nature or Common Usage shows the thing cannot be done, etc. which were things of pure Institution at the first, and what though peculiar to the Jewish Church, the Apostle complied with them in for a time.  
The next instances produced in proof of the Proposition were, Washing the Disciples feet, Lovefeasts, and Holy-Kiss which he joins together, and of which he saith,  

1. It's impossible to prove, that they were any more 
Pag. 12, 15, 16, 19  than Civil usages, etc.  
2. They were not used in Worship.   
Whether it is impossible to prove the first or no, doth not rest upon our Author's authority, and yet that is the 
Case of Indifferenc things. P. 13.  only thing which he hath thought fit to confront what I produced in proof of it. That they were Civilrites is granted, but that they were used by Christ and the Apostles as no more than Civil, is (I may safely venture to say) impossible to prove. First, Because there is the reason of the thing against it, as they were instituted and used for Spiritual ends, and in token of Christian Humility and Charity (as I then showed). Secondly, 
Case of Indiff. p. 9 12.  Because of the great Difference there was betwixt them when used as merely Civil, and as used by our Saviour and the Apostles. What this was as to washing the feet, I then shown where he might be Satisfied and to 
Hor. in Joh. c. 13. 5.  Buxtorf I may add the Learned Dr. Lightfoot.  
It appears further they were not merely Civil from the Character given to the kiss of Charity, being called the Holy Kiss. But This was (saith he) because the Apostle commanded Christians to use it in a Sober, Temperate, , Or holy manner. But if this was the reason, than all Kisses, and all Feasts would be holy: But now Holiness stamps somewhat peculiar upon the thing it's applied to, and signifies that by Some act, end, or use, it's Separated from the rest of the same kind. And for this reason was it more likely the kiss was called Holy, from its end, use and signification (as it was a Testimony of that Holy and entire love, which was or ought to have been amongst Christians) rather than in respect of the manner; for what reason was there for that, when it was betwixt persons of the same, and not a different, Sex. Besides, if it was a mere Civil rite, and designed for no Religious end, could we think the Apostle would require it, and close his Epistles so frequently with it? Lastly, it appears they were not used as mere Civil Rites, because they were used in Religious Assemblies, and some of them annexed thereunto. Of this (he saith) he can never 
Pag. 16.  prove, that while Our Saviour was Worshipping his Father he stepped aside to wash his Disciples Feet: Or that the Primitive Christians were either Kissing or Feasting one another in the Time or Act of Worship, as Praying, etc. It would have become our Author rather to have removed the proofs given of this, than to call for more: which if he had considered he would have expressed himself with more caution and reverence. That washing the Disciples feet had a Spiritual signification, I have showed, and so was not unfit for a Religious Solemnity; and that it was used in such, the Apostle shows, Joh. 13. 4. for a further account of which I leave him to the Learned 
Exercit. 16. n. 22. & 24.  Casaubon; How and when the Holy Kiss was used, and how it was called the Seal of Prayer and reconciliation, I then showed, and is so fully proved by Dr. Falkner, that 
Libertas, l. 2. c. 1. §. 3.  there needs no more to be added, till that, at least, be refuted. That the Lovefeasts were joined to, and used at the same time as the Lord's Supper, not only the Apostle's discourse upon it showeth; but also the change of Names, and the giving of one to the other doth confirm it. For Theophylact supposeth that the Apostle 
1 Cor. 11. 20.  calls the Love-Feast by the name of the Lord's Supper: And on the contrary Tertullian declares that from hence 
Apel. c. 39  the Lord's Supper came to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It were easy to heap up Authorities in this kind, but that is done to my hand by such as write upon this Custom. 
V Vines on the Sacram. c. 2. p. 25, etc.   
After I had proved that things Indifferent, though not prescribed, might be used in Divine Worship from the practice of the Jewish Church and that of Christ and the Apostles: I further confirmed it from the incapacity we should be in of holding Communion with any Church (if it were otherwise) whether Ancient or Modern.  
But our Author doth endeavour at once to overthrow it. For saith he, that every particular Christian must 
Case examined. Pag. 21.  practise every thing which the Churches practise which he hath Communion with, or be concluded to have no Communion with it, is to us a New Assertion. And so it is to me, who only did maintain these two things, That there 
Case of Indifferent things. Pag. 15.  was no Church or Society but would be found guilty if things uncommanded were unlawful; and if the having such uncommanded things would make Communion with a Church unlawful, than no Church could be Communicated with. So that all that I affirmed was, there could be no Communion Lawful to such as held it unlawful to communicate with a Church for the Sake of things uncommanded. And who are concerned in this, our Author very well knows; such I mean, as plead this as an argument for their present Separation. But though the Assertion, as he words it, is neither mine, nor true; yet I dare affirm there are some things uncommanded which every particular Christian must practise, or else he can be said to have no Communion with the Churches where such things are practised; Such are Forms of Prayer, and receiving the Sacrament in the Forenoon, and without sitting, where there is no provision made for them that would use that posture, as well as where it is not allowed.  
And this was the case in the ancient Churches. To which he replies, Their practices are great uncertainties, and their writings depraved, or, it cannot be made appear, that none could have any Communion with those Churches, unless he did eat the Lord's Supper fasting, or prayed toward the East. That their writings are depraved is very true, But that they are so depraved as that there is nothing certainly theirs, is what no one will assert. And that they are not depraved in the passages or things I quoted from thence, is very evident from the concurrence of the Fathers therein, and the general consent of learned men of all sides. As to what he saith that it doth not appear that none could have Communion with them, unless, etc. It were easy to refute it, and to show it in the Instances I gave; and to make it out in one for all, viz. That of receiving the Lord's Supper Fasting; of which St. Austin saith thus, Liquidò apparet, etc. It plainly appears that our Saviour and 
Epist. 118. ad Januar.  his Disciples did not receive it Fasting, but shall the Universal Church be therefore reproached, because it receiveth Fasting? And this pleased the Holy-Ghost, that in Honour of so great a Sacrament, the Body of Christ should First enter into the mouth of a Christian. For therefore is this custom observed through the universal Church. And more to the same purpose may our Author read in that Epistle.  
Now when this was the practice (as they say) of the Universal Church, and that they so practised upon the score of an Apostolical Precept, as St. Austin there saith, (how truly is not my business to inquire) can we think that it was not required? Or that there could be any Communion with those Churches, if any did otherwise? I added to the ancient Church, the State of the Reformed Churches abroad, and shown how they do use things uncommanded in the Worship of God, and how impossible it is upon the principles of those that descent from our Church to hold Communion with theirs. To this he replies, we have not heard of any thing used among them in Worship, etc. but what is prescribed, excepting only some Forms of Prayer relating to the Sacrament. 2. None of these receive the Sacrament kneeling. 3. They compel not any to receive Standing or Sitting. I would be loath to charge our Author with want of diligence or integrity, but how reconcilable this is to it that he saith, I must leave to the impartial Reader. Supposing however the first to be true, yet if they have some Forms they have somewhat not prescribed. But have they only some Forms relating to the Sacrament? What then shall we say to Capellus, that saith divers 
Thes. Salmur. part 3. p. 307.  of them have set Forms of Liturgies? What to their Formularies, as those of Holland and Switzerland? What to the Bohemian Churches that have also Forms in Singing 
Comen. de bono unit. Annot. cap. 3.  of Humane Composure? Have they nothing but Forms of Prayer, what then thinks he of Anniversary Festivals observed in the Helvetick and Bohemick Churches? And 
Confess. Helvet. Comen. ibid. c. 7. c. 3. §. 2.  of Godfathers' in Baptism? As much mistaken is he when he saith, None of these receive the Sacrament kneeling, as appears from the Petricov●an Synod, that I quoted 
Case of Indiff. Things, p. 9 Case examined, Pag. 13.  in the foresaid Tract. But to this he answers, it is not at all to be wondered that the Lutherans in that Synod, should determine as they did, etc. Doth he hereby mean that there were none but Lutherans in that Synod, or that the Lutherans, in that Synod, only determined it? Which way soever he would be understood it's a wretched mistake. For the Synod was composed of those of the Helvetick, Augustan, and Bohemick Confession, and subscribed by all of them, and was indeed but one of several Synods they held in Common together. If he had but looked into this Synod, all this discourse might have been saved, and he might have answered his own Question, We desire to know what more receive Sitting except the Lutheran Churches? What he produceth the 3d. for, I cannot well understand, for it's all one if those Churches forbidden any one particular posture as if they required another. And yet some do forbid Sitting, as the Synod above 
V Case of Kneeling. p. 14. 15.  quoted, and one Church Kneeling.  
I proceeded further to show that they themselves could not then be Communicated with, since they do things without prescription; as in administering the Sacraments, conceived Prayer, Swearing, and Church-Governments and order. He saith, we do not make Sitting necessary; but that is not the point in dispute, for he by his principles should show where it is commanded. For conceived Prayer he argues, How this is prescribed, he and others have been told elsewhere, and those that have told it, have had a sufficient answer.  
Laying the hands on the Book, he saith, is a civil, no sacred usage; as if the invoking God, and a solemn testimony of our so invoking him by some external Rite, were merely civil. Such than was lifting up the hand, which was anciently used in swearing, and so appropriated to it, that it was put for swearing itself, Gen. 14. 22. Ex. 6. 8. They that can affirm such things as these, may affirm any thing.  
As for the things relating to Church-order, he saith, Ten times more is allowed to matters of Government than Worship. But he undertakes not my argument taken from the parity of reason betwixt the Kingly and Priestly offices of our Saviour: And which the Presbyterian 
Vindicat. of Presbyt. Gou. p. 4.  Brethren so approve of as to use the same Arguments for Government as Worship.  
The Third general was to inquire, how we might 
§. 3.  know what things are indifferent in the Worship of God. The main things he herein objects against, respect Edification; In handling of which, he thus sums up my sense of it; Our Author would not have us judge of Edification from what most improveth Christians in 
Case examined. Pag. 33.  knowledge and grace, but from what tendeth most to public Order; as if I spoke of Order, in opposition to, and as exclusive of a Christians improvement, whereas I plainly say, and he acknowledgeth it, that we are not so much to judge of them asunder, as together. The meaning and design of what I said, was to show that Christians are to consider themselves as members of a Church, and so to have a tender regard to Communion with it, and not to think their own Edification a sufficient reason, to break the Peace and Order of it.  
To this he saith several things. In Answer to which it will be convenient to give a clear representation and state of the Case, which I shall do in these Propositions.  
1. We must consider that Edification is not the laying a Foundation, but a building upon it, and so there is not the same reason for the breaking Order for the sake of Edification, as there is for the sake of things absolutely necessary to Salvation, and that which will warrant and doth oblige to the one, will not warrant nor oblige to the other. This will serve to show the little force there is in what this Reverend Author confidently asserts, We know and are assured, that no man, to keep up any such human 
Pag. 34.  bounds (of Order,) ought to omit means by which he may improve his own Soul in the knowledge of Christ, or the exercise of his habits of Grace; by which assertion of his he makes Edification and improvement in knowledge, etc. as necessary as the knowledge of the Fundamentals of Religion.  
2. We must consider (as I then observed) that Order is a means of Edification, and therefore if there happens 
Case of Indifferent things. P. 36.  a dispute betwixt observing Order, and improvement in knowledge or grace, it's 'twixt means and means, 'twixt what is for Edification in one way, and what is for it in another, and not betwixt what is for, and what 
Case examined. Pag. 35.  is against Edification, as he would have it understood.  
3. We must observe that when there is a dispute betwixt means and means, the less is to give place to the greater, and what is most for Edification, is to yield to that which is least.  
4. That for that reason the Edification of the Church, and the welfare of the whole is to be preferred before the spiritual advantage of any particular member; for what the less is to the greater, that is a member to the Church; and if a person cannot serve and improve himself without damage to the Public, he is rather to sit down without that improvement, than to do mischief to the Community for the obtaining it; And as long as he is not without means sufficient for Salvation, he is in that Case to recede from some further attainments; in doing which, for so good an end, he is acceptable to God, and approved of men. So that however our Author may 
Rom. 14. 18.  seem to shelter himself under the phrase of Human Order, yet as long as no Church can subsist without it, and he 
Case Examined p. 34. 35.  that takes away Order takes away the Church, and he that saith a person ought to throw it down to improve his Soul, takes away Order; he must pardon me if I think that he talks without consideration, for he that talks of Edification of particular Souls, in a distinct notion from the building them up as members of a Church, or of members of a Church without being united as a Church, or of a Church without any means to unite it, doth (to return him his own words) but discourse of building Castles in the Air, and what he would be loath his own Congregation (if he hath one) should at every turn put into practice; Of all which, if this will not 
Case of Indifferent things, p. 41, 42. Case of Lay-Commun. p 39 etc.  convince him, I shall desire him impartially to view the places of Scripture quoted by himself from the Apostle; as also what was said before in the controverted Tract, and he hath not yet answered, or has been since discoursed of in another Case.  
The 4th. enquiry in the Tract aforesaid was, How 
§. 4.  we are to determine ourselves in the use of Indifferent Things in the Worship of God? Under which head I shown what respect is to be given to Authority, whether Ecclestiastical or Civil.  
In Answer to which our Author takes up the Case of 
Case Examined, p. 39  Imposition, and propounds Two Questions, which in effect are these.  
Q. 1. Whether there be any Authority in Church or State, to determine the things which God hath left Indifferent to his people?  
Q. 2. Whether in Case they make any such Law, the people may, without sin, obey them?  
As for the First, he saith there and elsewhere, We 
Pag. 5. 9 17. 32. 40.  cannot conceive how it is possible that in things of Divine Worship, things of an Indifferent nature should be the matter of any human determination; and again, that in matters of Worship, no Superiors may restrain, what God hath left at liberty. We are not immediately concerned in this First Question, for our business was to consider not so much the extent of our Superiors power, in what Cases they may lawfully command, as in what we may lawfully obey. But yet because he hath herein offered somewhat like an Argument, and because the clearing of this will make way for the Second, I shall take it into consideration. To render his Argument the more complete, I shall repair to a foregoing part of his Book, and make use of that in conjunction with what he saith here, and he thus represents it.  
We cannot be fully of our Brother's mind, that in the 
Pag. 9  Worship of God Superiors may determine circumstances which God hath left at liberty. God left it at liberty to the Jews, to take a Lamb or a Kid, Turtle-Doves or Young-Pigeons, etc. We offer it to the judgement of the whole reasonable World, whether Moses after this might have made a Law commanding the Jews to use none but Kids, and only Turtle-Doves, etc. [for it had been a controlment of the Divine Wisdom.] If not, let not our B. think it strange if we judge the same of words in Prayer, which God hath left at liberty, etc. This is an Argument I find offered long since by Dr. Ames, 
(a) Fresh suit. part 2. p. 300.  and which is so considerable in our Author's opinion, that he often repeats it elsewhere 
(b) Pag. 17. 30. 32. 39 41. .  
In Answer to this,  
1st. I shall consider the Case under the Law, and how far what he hath said will hold good.  
2ly. I shall show that there is not that parity betwixt the Case Then, and the Case Now, as to render that unlawful Now, which would have been unlawful Then.  
1st. I shall consider the Case Then, and I doubt not to affirm, it would have been no controlment of the Divine Wisdom, for Moses and Aaron to have enjoined the Jews in some circumstances, to have taken a Kid or a Turtle only; As when it was for a public convenience and necessity: There was somewhat of this kind of Equity in the first establishment of it; So the poor was to bring such of these as he could get: And Mr. 
Leu. 14. 30.  Pool saith, These Birds were appointed for the relief of 
On Leu. 1. 14.  the poor, who could bring no better. And certainly he that grants it was to be left to the discretion and convenience 
Pag. 30.  of the offerer which to determine, (as our Author doth) should not deny the like power to Superiors for a public convenience and benefit; nor can this be to blot out (as his phrase is) what God has written, as 
Pag. 17.  long as they do it not in opposition to his Authority.  
2ly. Supposing, that where God had wrote Or's (as he saith) and that to command the use of one of them alone, had in that Case been a controlment of his wisdom, yet the Case Then is not parallel to ours. For, (1.) The Case was then determined, it was indeed a Lamb or a Kid, but so as no other Beast, a Turtle or a Pigeon, but so as no other bird was to be used instead of them.  
But now though there is the Or under the Gospel, yet it is without such restraint, for ours is free through the whole kind, and nothing determines us, but a consonancy to the general rules. It's so an Or and an Alias, that nothing of the kind is excepted. So saith our Author himself; In Prayer God hath left standing, sitting or 
Pag. 30.  kneeling, to our choice and conveniency, etc. He hath left us at liberty what words to use, what method or order to observe, etc. (2.) As the disjunction was then determined, so the very disjunction itself was of Divine institution, and the liberty they had to choose one of the two, as well as the restraint of not choosing any but one of the two, was from the special Law of God. And then for Authority to have determined what God had left free, had some show of controlment of the Divine Wisdom; especially if it had been required (as our Author somewhere supposeth) that they should never have 
Pag. 9  offered any other but one sort of them. But under the Gospel it is otherwise, for the disjunction, the Or and the Alias, doth not proceed from Divine Institution, but from the nature of things, and sometimes from human Art and Contrivance. As when Washing is commanded, (for I shall not contend about it) all the particulars are comprehended, and the person might be dipped or sprinkled, or have water poured on him, as he observes; so in receiving the Sacrament, the posture 
Pag. 22.  of the Primitive Church (not of mere standing, as he mistakes me, but) of standing (as I said) by way 
Pag. 35.  of incurvation; or sitting, or kneeling, are all comprehended under the general species of posture. Again sometimes this Or and Alias proceeds from human Art and Contrivance, hence the diversity of habits, as a Gown, Cloak, Surplice. Now when this disjunction doth proceed not from Divine Institution, but from the reasons aforesaid, and that there is no special Command of God to interpose, determine, restrain, or disjoin, it can be no controlment of the Wisdom or Authority of God for a Church to interpose, restrain, or determine these matters in his Worship. This is plain in the Case of Meats and Drinks, in which under the Law there was a restraint, an Or and Alias, This and not That, and there is still an Or arising from the nature of these things, and yet a determination or restraint herein is no controlment of the divine Wisdom, as it might have been under the Law, because there is no Institution that doth interpose: And the Case must be the same in Divine Worship, in which since there is no Institution about these matters, it's no sin to Act in the same way; that is, it's no sin for Authority to limit and determine, and for others to be limited, and determined; which brings me to the next Question.  
Q. 2. Whether in Case such things are determined, people may, without sin, obey? Upon this our Author speaks very variously, sometimes determining for Authority against the Principle, 
(a) P. 7. 38.  sometimes for the Principle against Authority 
(b) P. 9 30. . And at last leaves it problematical, and saith they are divided upon it amongst themselves 
(c) P. 39, 40. . I think not myself at present concerned to show the absurdity of this Principle, as, how (if this be true) the same things must be lawful and unlawful according as they are required or forbidden by our Superiors, etc. But shall only consider what he offers on its behalf.  

1. He saith they may not in this Case obey, without sin, because nature teacheth us not to part with all our natural liberty.  
2. Because we have a command to stand fast in the liberty, etc.   
As to the former, I only say (and that's enough) that Nature teacheth us and doth oblige us to part with some of our liberty in Communities: And they are far from being required to part with all in ours, and so if his argument have any thing in it, it hath nothing in it as to our Case.  
For the Second, I leave him to what was said by way 
Case of Indiff. Things, p. 46.  of prevention, in the Tract he opposeth, and which he should have Answered before he had made use of this as an Argument.  
All that he hath excepted against upon that subject is the notion I laid down of Christian Liberty, which I said was no other than the Liberty which mankind had, before it was restrained by particular Institution, and he gives this reason against it, For in that [viz. Natural 
Case Exam. p. 40.  Liberty] we must not stand fast, because Divine Institution hath restrained us in it, etc. neither hath Christ restored us to any such Liberty. In Answer to this I shall consider what Natural Liberty is, and then what Liberty it is that the Apostle did treat of? As to the Former, it's no other but the free use or disuse of things Indifferent, whether out of, or in the Worship of God. As to the Latter, it was no other than a freedom from the Jewish yoke of bondage, and that Law that gendered to it, as the whole current of the Apostles discourse doth show. And therefore it could be with respect to no other condition than that which mankind would have been, had there been no such particular Institution, and was in before that Institution. 'Twas the nature of the Law, and the injoining of it by divine Institution, so as it became necessary to them, that made it a Yoke, and a 
Act. 15. 18.  Yoke intolerable, and it was a freedom from that Law that constitutes the Liberty which the Apostle treats of in that Epistle: And if it be also to be taken as our Author would have it for a freedom, in matters of Worship, from any thing but what is of Divine Institution, that is a secondary sense, and which may be taken from some parity of reason betwixt Case and Case, but is not the Apostles, nor the primary sense of it. But take it how we will in this or the other, I there shown that the Apostles exhortation was of no use to them that 
Case of Indifferent things. Pag. 47.  plead it against submission to Authority in Indifferent Things, when imposed in or about Divine Worship.  
I am now come to the last general head of the aforesaid 
§. 5.  Tract, which contained a short account of the things required in our Church, as they were either Duty or Indifferent. And for an enforcement of that, and conclusion of the whole, I shall briefly show how far this Reverend Author consents to, or by his concessions must be bound to acknowledge it. Indeed he sometimes doth tell us, that Nine parts of Ten of all Dissenters say they cannot comply with things required in the English 
Case Examine. pag. 3. 36. 38.  Liturgy, because they believe the things sinful and unlawful; And elsewhere, Two hardly of an Hundred think them Indifferent: But whether our Author be of that number, or at least has reason so to be, I shall leave to his own conscience, as to himself, and to his concessions as to others. In which I shall observe the method taken in the aforesaid Tract, where I said all things objected against, might be referred to Posture, Forms, and Times, and showed these to be Natural or Moral circumstances of Action, and inseparable from it. Now in general he grants what are such may be lawfully used; And if we 
pag. 14.  come to particulars, he doth at last yield it.  
As for postures what more scrupled and opposed than Kneeling at the Sacrament? Yet of this he saith, There 
pag. 22.  is no command in it, and it is Indifferent; that in all probability our Saviour administered it Kneeling, and sitting 
pag. 12.  backward upon his Legs; that no Dissenter refuseth it, 
pag. 36.  because it is not decent, but because it is a posture of Adoration; that our Church doth not intent it as an homage to the Body of Christ there really present, but declares that to do it as to the bread, were an Idolatry to 
pag. 12, 13.  be abhorred; And in conclusion tells us, that those that hesitate in that point, fear a posture of Adoration used by Idolatrous Papists; which is a consideration of no moment as has been already showed.  
As to Forms of Prayer, (he saith) God has jest us 
pag. 30.  at liberty what words to use; and further, that for conceived Prayer, we know no body saith no other must be used 
pag. 22.  in God's Worship; and if so, than Forms may be lawfully used in it: But suppose any scruple the use of them, 
Case of Indiff. p. 18.  he saith however, We know no reason but people may hear them, if any scruples the use of them, he may yet 
Case Exam. p. 22.  have Communion with the Church, we hope, though he doth not act in it as a Minister.  
As to time, he saith, the Law of Nature directs; and for Festivals, such as Purim amongst the Jews, he 
pag. 29.  saith, It was generally commanded under the precepts of 
pag. 26.  giving thanks for public mercies.  
Lastly, Are the things required unlawful because imposed? He answers, Some of us including surely himself are not of that mind; nay he affirms that the most 
pag. 39  sober Dissenters will agree in these things, [that is, Natural 
pag. 7.  circumstances] to obey the command of Superiors, provided it be not such as by circumstances is made sinful: But if imposition would make them sinful, such a command must not have been obeyed. So that in the conclusion, I see no reason why our Reverend Brother, and the Dissenters he defends, and that in all things (as he saith) agree to the Doctrine professed in the Articles 
pag. 1.  of the Church of England, should descent from the Liturgy and Ceremonies of it, as far as Lay-Communion is concerned in them. Nor why he should tell us so much of Goals, and Sessions, and Judicatures, and of the Sufferings they endure, when (if these things be true) 
pag. 41, 44.  it's for not doing what they lawfully can. It is no wonder when such withhold communion from the Church, and set up other Churches against it, that some call them (as he complains) perverse and contumacious persons, 
abide.  and others call them damnable Schismatics and 
pag. 1.  are so bold as to say that such a separation from that Church, is a separation from Christ; And it's likely he will meet with such that will speak very severe things of his following appeal to God, Judge O thou righteous Judge between these people, and those who thus pursue 
pag. 41, 44.  them. I am far from one (God is my witness) that is a smiter of his fellow-servants (as he calls them) nor 
pag. 41.  would have any one do what he verily believeth is unlawful; but I do think it is the duty of all to do what they lawfully can, to hear readily, and consider impartially what may be offered for their satisfaction, and to suffer patiently where they cannot receive it. This I think every truly conscientious person will do, and I should question his conscience that doth it not. Certainly (to return him his own words) if our Brethren have any value for the Glory of God, for the good and 
ibid.  peace of others Souls, for the preserving the Protestant Religion, for the union of Protestants against Popish adversaries, for any thing indeed that is good and lovely, they will rather break than any longer draw this saw of contention, and will do as much as in them lies for the repairing of those breaches which must be confessed are no less dangerous than scandalous to our Religion.  
The Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 3. l. 13. r. I should. p. 30. l. antepenult, r. imply. p. 31. l. 6. r. expressions. p. 39 Marg. add to Lightfoot. Hor. in Matth. and Mark. p. 46. l. 17. 1. Government.   

Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER.  

1. A. A Persuasive 〈…〉 with the Church of England.  
2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience, which Respect Church-Communion.  
3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God, Proposed and Stated, by considering these Questions, etc.  
4. A Discourse about Edification.  
5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience, Whether the Church of England 's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England?  
6. A Letter to Anonymus, in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship. In two Parts.  
8. The Case of Mixed Communion. Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations, and Mixed Communion?  
9 An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayer, and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England.  
10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament, Stated and Resolved, etc. in Two Parts.  
11. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons, and of going to hear where Men think they can profit most.  
12. A serious Exhortation, with some Important Advices, Relating to the late Cases about Conformity; Recommenced to the Present Dissenters from the Church of England.  
13. An Argument to Union; taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestant's.  
14. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal, or giving Offence to the Weak Brethren.  
15. The Case of Infant-Baptism, in Five Questions, etc.  
16. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled, etc.  
17. The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England Considered, etc.   

1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists ask of us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther?  
2. A Discourse about Tradition, showing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be Received, and what Tradition is to be Rejected.  
3. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England.  
4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith, etc.  
5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in Matters of Faith with respect especially to the Romish pretence of the Necessity of such an one as is Infallible.    

A DISCOURSE CONCERNING Conscience; WHEREIN An Account is given of the Nature, and Rule, and Obligation, of it. AND The Case of those who Separate from the Communion of the Church of England as by Law Established, upon this Pretence, that it is Against their Conscience to join in it, is stated and discussed.  
LONDON, Printed for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-Street. 1684.   

A DISCOURSE OF CONSCIENCE: With Respect to those that Separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon the Pretence of it, etc.  
THere is nothing more in our Mouths than Conscience; and yet there are few things we have generally taken less Pains to understand. We sit down too often with this, that it is something within us, we do not know what, which we are to Obey in all that it Suggests to us, and we trouble ourselves no further about it.  
By which means, it frequently comes to pass; that though we have espoused very dangerous Errors, or happen to be engaged in very Sinful Practices; yet believing, and Acting, as we say, according to our Conscience; we do not only think ourselves perfectly Right and Safe, while we continue in this State; but are Effectually Armed against all sorts of Arguments, and Endeavours that can be used for the bringing us to a better Mind.  
This is too Visible in many Cases; but in none more than in the Case of those that at this Day Separate from the Communion of the Church as it is Established among us. Though the Laws of the Land both Ecclesiastical, and Civil, do oblige them to join in our Communion; though many Arguments are offered to convince them, not only that they Lawfully may, but that they are bound to do it: though they themselves are sensible, that manifold, and grievous mischiefs, and dangers, do ensue from this breach of Communion, and these unnatural Divisions, both to the Christian Religion in General, and to our Reformed Religion in particular, yet if to all these things, a Man can reply, that he is Satisfied in his Conscience that he doth well in refusing his Obedience to the Laws; or that he is not satisfied in his Conscience that he ought to join with us upon such Terms as are required; this single pretence shall be often thought a sufficient Answer, both to Laws, and Arguments.  
A strange thing this is; that Conscience, which among other ends, was given to Mankind for a Preservative, and Security of the Public Peace; for the more Effectually Obliging Men to Unity, and Obedience to Laws; yet should often be a means of setting them at distance, and prove a Shelter for Disobedience, and Disorder: That God should Command us to Obey our Governors in all Lawful things for Conscience sake, and yet that we should Disobey them in Lawful things for Conscience sake too.  
It is the Design of this Discourse to examine what there is in this Plea, that is so often made by our Dissenters for their not complying with the Laws, viz. That it is against their Conscience so to do; and to show in what Cases this Plea is justly made, and in what Cases not; and where it is Justly made, how far it will Justify any Man's Separation, and how far it will not. And all this in order to the possessing those who are concerned, with a Sense of the great Necessity that lies upon them, of using their most serious endeavours to inform their Conscience aright in these matters, before they prefume to think they can Separate from us with a good Conscience, which is all we desire of them; for it is not our business to persuade any Man to conform against his Conscience; but to convince every Man how Dangerous it may be to follow a misinformed Conscience.  
But before I enter upon this disquisition, it will be necessary in the first Place, to prepare my way by laying down the Grounds, and Principles, I mean to proceed upon. And here that I may take in all things, that are needful to be known beforehand, about this matter, I shall treat distinctly of these Five Heads.  

1 Of the Nature of Conscience.  
2 Of the Rule of Conscience. And under that,  
3 Of the Power of Humane Laws to Oblige the Conscience.  
4 And particularly in the instance of Church Communion.  
5 Of the Authority of Conscience; or how far a Man is Obliged to be guided by his Conscience in his Actions.   
I. And first, as for the Nature of Conscience, the truest way to find out that will be, not so much to inquire into the Signification of the word Conscience or the several Scholastical Definitions of it; as to consider what every Man doth really mean by that word when he has occasion to make use of it; for if it do appear that all Men do agree in their Notions, and Sense, about this matter; That without doubt, which they all thus agree in, is the true Notion, and Sense of Conscience.  
Now as to this, we may oberve in the first Place, that a Man never speaks of his Conscience, but with respect to his own Actions, or to something that hath the Nature of an Action which is done or omitted by him, or is to be done or omitted, Matters of mere Knowledge, and Speculation, we do not concern our Conscience with; as neither with those things in which we are purely Passive; as neither with Actions, if they be not our own. We do not for instance, make it a Point of Conscience one way or other, whether a thing be true or false; or whether this or the other Accident that befalls us, be prosperous or unfortunate; or whether another Man hath done good or bad Actions, in which we are no way concerned. These kind of things may indeed prove matters of great Satisfaction or Disquiet; of Joy or Grief to us: But we do not take our Conscience to be affected with them. That word never comes in, but with respect to something willingly done or left undone by us; or which we may do or may forbear.  
Secondly, we may observe that in Common Speech, we do not neither use this word Conscience about our Actions, but only, so far as those Actions fall under a Moral consideration; that is, as they have the Nature of Duties or Sins, or as they are Lawful or Unlawful. Always when we speak of Conscience in our Actions, we have respect to some Law or Rule, by which those Actions are to be directed, and governed, and by their agreeableness or disagreeableness with which they become morally Good or Evil.  
Thirdly, this being so; the only thing remaining to be enquired into for the finding out what Conscience is, is, what can be reasonably thought to be our Sense, and meaning, when we use the word Conscience, with such Application to our Actions as we have now said. Now for that I desire it may be considered; that when we talk of our Actions as we concern our Conscience in them, they can but fall under these two Heads of Distinction, that is to say, in the first place, we either consider our Actions as already done or omitted: or we consider them as yet not done, but as we are deliberating about them. And then Secondly, whether we consider them as done or not done; as past, or future; yet we Rank them under one of these three Notions.  
We either look upon them as Commanded by God, and so to be Duties; or as forbidden by God, and so to be Sins; or as neither Commanded nor forbidden, and so to be indifferent Actions. (With these last Actions indeed Conscience is not properly or directly concerned, but only by accident, to wit, as those indifferent Actions do approach to the Nature of Duties or Sins:) Our Actions, I say, do not touch our Conscience, but as they fall under some of these Heads.  
Now in all these Respects we have indeed different ways of bringing in Conscience but yet as it will appear, we mean the same thing by it in them all. First of all when we are considering an Action as yet not done; if we look upon it as Commanded by God, we say we are bound in Conscience to do it; if we look upon it as a Sinful Action, we say it is against our Conscience to do it; if we look upon it as an indifferent thing, we say we may do it or not do it with a Safe Conscience. Now I pray, what do we mean by these expressions? I desire that every one would consult his own Mind, and deny if he can, that this is the Sense of his words. If he saith he is bound in Conscience to do this or the other thing, whether he doth not mean this? that he verily thinks it is his Duty to do that Action. If he saith that it is against his Conscience to do such an Action; whether he means any more than this? that he is persuaded in his Judgement that to do such an Action is an Offence against God. If he saith that he can do it with a Safe Conscience whether he hath any other meaning than this? that to the best of his Knowledge, and Judgement, the Action may be done without Transgressing any Law of God. This is now undeniably, the Sense that every Man in the World hath, when he makes mention of Conscience as to Actions that are not yet done, but only proposed to his Consideration. So that taking Conscience as it respects our Actions to be done or omitted, and as it is to Govern, and Conduct them (in which Sense we call Conscience a Guide or a Monitor, and sometimes, though very improperly, a Rule of our Actions) it can be nothing else in the Sense of all Men that use that word, but a Man's Judgement concerning the goodness or badness; the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Actions in order to the Conduct of his own Life.  
But Secondly if we speak of our Actions that are done and passed, and consider Conscience with Reference to them; here indeed we do a little vary the Expression about Conscience, but the Notion of it is the same we have now given. As for instance, when we talk of Peace of Conscience, or Trouble of Conscience, with Reference to some Action we have done or omitted; when we say My Conscience bears me Witness, that I have Acted rightly, and honestly in this Affair; or my Conscience acquits me from blame, as to this or the other Action; or I am troubled in Conscience for doing what I have done: If we turn these Phrases into other words, we shall find that there is nothing more at the bottom of them than this; that reflecting upon our own Actions, we find that in this or the other instance, we have either Acted or omitted, as we are convinced in our Judgement we ought to do; and the remembrance of this is some Pleasure, and Satisfaction to us: or we have done or forborn something contrary to what we take to be our Duty; and the remembrance of this affects us with grief and trouble. But still, in both these instances of Expression, that which we mean by Conscience is the same thing, as in the former Cases, viz. It is our Judgement and Persuasion concerning what we ought to do, or ought not to do, or Lawfully may do; only here we add to it this Consideration, that the Action which we are persuaded to be good, or bad, or indifferent, is now done or omitted by us, and we do remember it. In the Former Case, Conscience was considered as the Guide of our Actions. In the latter Case it is considered as the Witness of our Actions. But in both Cases, Conscience is the Judge, and consequently in both Cases the Notion of it is the same, only with this difference, that in the former it was a Man's mind, making a Judgement what he ought to do or not to do; in the latter it is a Man's mind reflecting upon what he hath done or not done, and Judging whether he be Innocent or Culpable in the matter he reflects upon.  
I do not know how to give a clearer account of the Nature of Conscience in general than this I have now given. This I believe is the Natural Notion that all Men have of it, and there is no Expression in Scripture about it but what doth confirm this Notion. If indeed we put Epithets to Conscience, and talk of a Good Conscience or an Evil Conscience; A Tender Conscience or a Seared Conscience or the like. Then it includes more, both in Scripture, and in Common Language, than I have now mentioned. But to give an account of those things I am not now concerned, as being without the Limits of our present enquiry.  
II. And now we are sufficiently prepared for our Second general Point which is touching the Rule of Conscience; if indeed after what we have already said it be not superfluous to insist upon that.  
It appears plainly by what I have represented, that Conscience must always have a Rule which it is to follow, and by which it is to be Governed. For since Conscience is nothing else but a Man's Judgement concerning Actions, as good, or bad, or Indifferent; it is certain that a Man must have some measures to proceed by in order to the framing such a Judgement about Actions; that is to say, there must be something distinct from the Man himself that makes Actions to be good, or bad, or indifferent; and from which, by applying particular Actions to it, or comparing them with it, a Man may be able to Judge whether they be of the one sort or the other. Now this, whatever it be, is that which we call the Rule of Conscience; and so much it is its Rule, that Conscience can be no farther a safe guide than as it follows that Rule.  
If now it be asked what this Rule of Conscience is, or what that is which makes a difference between Actions, as to the Moral goodness or badness of them; the Answer to it is Obvious to every Body: That it can be nothing else but the Law of God. For nothing can be a Duty but what Gods Law hath made so; and nothing can be a Sin but what Gods Law hath forbidden (the very Notion of Sin being, that it is a Transgression of the Law;) and last we call a thing Lawful or Indifferent upon this very account, that there is no Law of God either Commanding or Forbidding it; and where there is no Law, there is no Transgression. So that undeniably the great, nay I say, the only Rule by which Conscience is to be Governed is the Law of God, considered either as it Commands▪ Actions, or Forbids them, or as it neither Commands them nor Forbids them.  
But in order to the giving a more distinct account, of this Rule of Conscience, there is this needful to be enquired into, viz. In what Sense we take, or what we mean by the Law of God; when we say it is the Rule of Conscience.  
Now to this our Answer is, That by the Law of God, we here understand God's Will, for the Government of men's Actions, in what way soever that Will is declared to them.  
Now the will of God is declared to Men two ways; either by Nature, or by Revelation; so that the just, and, adequate Rule of Conscience is made up of two parts the Law of Nature, and Gods Revealed Law.  
By the Law of Nature, we mean those Principles of Good and Evil, Just and Unjust, which God hath Stamped upon the Minds of all Men, in the very Constitution of their Natures. There are some things Eternally good in themselves; Such as to Worship God, to Honour our Parents, to stand to our Covenants, to Live Peaceably in the Government, from which we receive Protection; and the contrary to these will be Eternally Evil; the Heads of all which things thus good in themselves, are writ so plainly, and Legibly, in the Minds of Mankind, that there is no Man who is come to the use of his Reason, but must of necessity be convinced, that to Practise these things will always be his Duty, and not to Practise them, will always be Evil, and a Sin. Now all these Heads, and Principles put together, is that we call the Law of Nature, and this is all the Rule of Conscience, that Mankind had, before God was pleased to discover his Will by more particular Revelation. And this is that Law, which the Apostle speaks of when he saith that the Gentiles, who had not the Law of Moses yet had a Law written in their Hearts; by their Acting according to which, or contrary to which their Conscience did bear Witness to them, and did either Accuse them, or Excuse them.  
But than Secondly, to us Christians, God to this Law of Nature hath superadded a Revealed Law, which is contained in the Books of Holy Scriptures. Which Revealed Law yet, is not wholly of a different kind from the former, nor doth it at all void the Obligation of it. But only thus; God hath in his Revealed Law, declared the Precepts of the Law of Nature, more certainly, and accurately than before; He hath given greater Force, and Strength to them, than they had before, by the Sanctions of greater Rewards, and Punishments: He hath likewise herein perfected the Law of Nature, and hath Obliged us, in point of Duty, to more and higher Instances of Virtue, than Nature did strictly Oblige us to: And Lastly, He hath added some Positive Laws for us to observe which were not at all contained in the Law of Nature, as for instance, to believe in Jesus Christ, in order to Salvation, to make all our Applications to God, in the Name of that Mediator Christ Jesus; to enter into a Christian Society, by Baptism, and to Exercise Communion with that Society, by partaking of the Lords Supper.  
And this is that Law, which we Christians are Obliged to, as well as to the Law of our Natures, and which as it is a Summary of all the Laws of Nature, so indeed is it a Summary of all our Duty. So that if any Man will call it the great, or only Rule of Christian Conscience, I shall not much oppose him, provided that this be always Remembered, that,  
In the Third Place, when we say that the Natural and Revealed Law of God, is the just Rule, by which we are to Govern our Conscience, or when we say that the Law of God, as Revealed, and contained in the Bible, is to us Christians, the just Rule. We are so to understand this Proposition as to take into it, not only all that is directly, and expressly Commanded, or Forbidden by either of those Laws: But also all that by plain Collection of Right Reason in Applying Generals to Particulars, or comparing one thing with another doth appear to be Commanded or Forbidden by them.  
So that by the Law of Nature, as it is a Rule of Conscience, we are not only to understand the prime Heads, and most general Dictates of it, (which are but a few) but also all the necessary Deductions from those Heads. And by the Law of Scripture, as it is the Rule of Conscience, we are not only to understand the express Commands, and Prohibitions, we meet with there, in the letter of the Text; but all the things likewise, that by unavoidable Consequence do follow from those Commands, or Prohibitions. In a word, when we are deliberating with ourselves, concerning the goodness, or badness; the Lawfulness, or Unlawfulness of this, or the other particular Action: We are not only to look upon the letter of the Law, but to attend further to what that Law may be supposed by a Rational Man to contain in it. And if we be convinced, that the Action we are deliberating about, is Commanded, or Forbidden, by direct Inference, or by Parity of Reason; we ought to look upon it as a Duty, or a Sin, though it be not expressly Commanded, or Forbidden, by the Law, in the letter of it. And if neither by the letter of the Law; nor by Consequence from it; nor by Parity of Reason; the Action before us, appear either to be Commanded, or Forbidden: In that Case, we are to look upon it, as an indifferent Action; which we may do, or let alone, with a safe Conscience; or, to express the thing more properly, we are to look upon it as an Action in which our Conscience is not so much concerned as our Prudence.  
III. Having thus given an account of the Rule of Conscience, that which Naturally follows next to be considered, with Reference to our present design, is, what share Humane Laws have in this Rule of Conscience? whether they be a part of this Rule, and do really bind a Man's Conscience to the Observance of them or no? which is our Third general Head.  
Now as to this, our Answer is, that though the Laws of God be the great, and indeed the only Rule of Conscience, yet the Laws of Men, generally speaking, do also bind the Conscience, and are a part of its Rule in a Secondary Sense, that is, by Virtue of, and in Subordination to the Laws of God.  
I shall briefly explain the meaning of this, in the Four following Propositions.  
First, there is nothing more certain than that the Law of God, as it is declared both by Nature, and Scripture doth Command us, to Obey the Laws of Men.  
There is no one Dictate of Nature, more Obvious to us, than this, that we are to Obey the Government we Live under, in all honest, and Just things. For this is indeed the Principal Law, and Foundation of all Society. And it would be impossible, either for Kingdoms, or States; for Cities, or Families to subsist; or at least to maintain themselves in any Tolerable degree of Peace, and Happiness, if this be not acknowledged a Duty.  
And then, as for the Laws of God in Scripture, there is nothing more plainly declared there, than, that it is Gods Will, and our Duty to Obey them that have the Rule over us; and to Submit ourselves to every Ordinance of Man, for the Lords sake, and to be Subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake. So that no Man can doubt that he is really bound in Duty to Obey the Laws of Men that are made by Just, and Sufficient Authority. And Consequently no Man can doubt that Humane Laws do really bind the Conscience, and are one part of the Rule by which it is to be directed, and Governed.  
But then having said this, we add this farther in the Second Place, that Humane Laws do not bind the Conscience, by any Virtue in themselves; but merely by Virtue of God's Law, who has Commanded that we should in all things be Subject to our Lawful Governors, not only for Wrath, but for Conscience sake. Conscience is not properly concerned with any Being in the World, save God alone, it hath no Superior but him: For the very Notion of it, as I have often said, is no other than our Judgement, of what things we are bound to do by God's Law; & what things we are Forbidden to do by Gods Law.  
So that all the Men in the World, cannot bind any Man's Conscience, by Virtue of any Power, or Authority, that is in them: But now God having made it an everlasting Law, both by Nature, and Scripture, that we should Obey those who are set over us, whether they be our Parents, or our Masters; and much more our Princes, and the Sovereign Legislative Power, under whom we Live; by Virtue of this Command of God, and this only; we are for ever bound in Conscience, to Govern our Actions, by the Commands, that they impose upon us; and those Commands of theirs are a Rule, (though a Consequential, or a Secondary Rule,) by which we are to Govern our Conscience, because they are the Instances of our Obedience to the Laws of God.  
But then in the Third Place, this is also to be remembered; that Humane Laws do no farther bind the Conscience, and are a Rule of it, than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God. If any Law, or Command of Man, do Clash with any Law of God; that is, if it be either Evil in itself, or Contradictory to the Duty of Christians, as laid down in the Scriptures; in that Case, that Law or Command, by what Humane Authority soever it was made or given, doth not bind our Conscience, nor is any Rule of our Actions. On the contrary we are not at any Rate to yield Obedience to it; but we are here reduced to the Apostles Case, and must Act as they did; that is, we must Obey God, rather than Men, and we Sin, if we do not. For since God only hath proper, and direct Authority over our Conscience, and Humane Power, only, by Delegation from him: And since God hath not given any Commission to the most Sovereign Princes upon Earth, to alter his Laws, or to impose any thing upon his Subjects, that is inconsistent with them. It follows by necessary Consequence, that no Man can be Obliged to Obey any Laws of Men, farther than they are agreeable to, and consistent with the Laws of God.  
There is yet a Fourth thing, necessary to be taken in for the clearing the Point we are upon, and that is this, That though Humane Laws, generally speaking, may be said to bind the Conscience, and to be a part of its Rule: Yet we do not Assert that every Humane Law, (though it doth not interfere with any of God's Laws) doth at all times, and in all Cases, Oblige Every Man's Conscience to Active Obedience to it; so as that he Sins against God, if he Transgress it. No, it would be a very hard thing to affirm this; and I do not know what Manamong us, upon these Terms, would be Innocent.  
Thus much I believe we may safely lay down as a Truth; That where either the Matter of the Law is of such a Nature; that the Public, or some private Person shall Suffer Damage, or Inconvenience, by our not Observing it. Or Secondly, Though the Law, as to the matter of it be never so Trifling, nay, though perhaps all things considered, it be an inconvenient Law; yet if the Manner of our not Obeying it, be such, as giveth Offence to our Superiors, or to any others; that is, either Argues a Contempt of Authority, or sets an ill Example before our fellow Subjects: I say in either of these Cases, the Transgression of a Humane Law, renders a Man guilty of a Fault, as well as Obnoxious to the Penalty of that Law. But out of these two Cases, I must confess, I do not see, how a purely Humane Law doth Oblige the Conscience; or how the Transgression of it, doth make a Man guilty of Sin, before God. For it is certain if we secure these two Points; that is to say, the good of the Public, and of private Persons; and w●th all the sacredness, and respect; which is due to Authority, (which is likewise in Order to the Public good:) We Answer all the Ends, for which the Power of making Laws, or laying Commands upon Inferiors, was Committed by God to Mankind.  
So that though it be true, that Humane Laws do Oblige the Conscience, yet it is also true that a great many Cases may, and do happen, in which a Man may Act contrary to a purely Humane Law, and yet not be a Sinner before God. Always supposing (as I said;) there be no Contempt, or Refractoryness expressed towards the Governors: Nor, no Scandal, or ill Example given to others, by the Action. For if there be either of these in the Case; I dare not acquit the Man, from being a Transgressor of God's Law, in the instance, wherein he Transgresseth the Laws of Men.  
For this is that which we insist upon; that the Authority of our Governors ought to be held, and esteemed very sacred, both because the Laws of God, and the Public good require it should be so. And herefore, wherever they do peremptorily lay their Commands upon us, we are bound in Conscience so far to comply, as not to contest the matter with them; nor to seem to do it. And though their Commands, as to the matter of them, be never so slight; nay, though they should prove really inconvenient, either to ourselves, or the Public. Yet if they stand upon them, if they persist in requiring our Obedience to them; we must yield, we must Obey; always supposing they be not against God's Laws. For we are at no hand either to affront their Authority ourselves; or to encourage others, by our Example, to do it. For to do either of these things is a greater Evil to the Publtck, than our Obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be.  
IU. And now it is time for us to apply what hath been said in General, concerning the Rule of Conscience, and the Obligation of Humane Laws; to the particular Matter here before us; that is, the business of Church Communion; The Obligation of Conscience to which, in such manner as the Laws have appointed, is the Fourth general Head we are to consider.  
This point of the Obligation to Communion with the Church, as by Law Established, hath been largely handled by several Learned Men of our Church, and particularly it is the Argument of one of those Discourses which have lately been writ for the sake of our Dissenters. Thither therefore I refer the Reader for full Satisfaction about this Matter being only just to touch upon it here, as one of the Principles we take for granted, and shall proceed upon in the following Discourse.  
And here the Proposition we lay down is this, That it is every Man's Duty, and consequently every Man is bound in Conscience to join in Communion with that Church, which is Established by Law in the place where he lives; so long as that Church is a true, sound part of the Catholic Church, and there is nothing imposed or required as a Condition of Communicating with it, that is Repugnant to the Laws of God, or the Appointments of Jesus Christ.  
This Proposition is Evident, not only because it Necessarily follows from the foregoing Principle; which was, that every Man is bound in Conscience to Obey the Laws of Men that are not contrary to the Laws of God; and therefore consequently a Man is bound to Obey in Ecclesiastical matters, as well as Civil; (unless it can be showed that Christ hath forbid all Humane Authority, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, to make any Laws or Orders about Religion; which I believe never was or can be showed:)  
But it is Evident upon another Account, which I desire may be considered. We are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ, and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in uslyes the Unity of the Church: Which Unity doth consist not only in professing the same Faith, but joining together with our Brethren under Common Governors in the same Religious Communion of Worship, and Sacraments. And therefore whoever breaks this Unity of the Church, by withdrawing his Obedience from those Church Governors, which God hath set over him in the place where he Lives; and Separating from the Established Religious Assemblies of Christians under those Governors; doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ, and is Guilty of that Sin of Schism, which is so very much cautioned against, and so highly Condemned in the Scriptures of the New Testament: Unless in the mean time it doth appear to the Man, who thus withdraws, and Separates, that there is something required of him in those Assemblies, and by those Governors, and that as a Term, and Condition of holding Communion with them, which he cannot Submit to without Sin.  
And this Point I do hearty wish was well considered by our dissenting Brethren. They do seem often to look upon this business of coming to Church, and joining with us in Prayers and Sacraments, no otherwise to bind their Conscience than other purely Humane Laws. They think they own no Obedience to the Laws in these matters, different from that which they yield to any common Act of Parliament. And therefore no wonder they often make so slight a business of them.  
But this is a great mistake, there is much more in these things than this comes to. The withdrawing our Communion from the Church carries a far greater guilt in it▪ than the Violating any Law, that is purely Humane. For though we do readily grant that all the Circumstances of Public Worship enjoined in the Church, as for Instance, the Times, the Gestures, the Forms of Prayer, the Methods of Reading the Scripture, and Administering the Sacraments; as also the Habits of the Ministers that are to Officiate; be all of Humane Institution, and may be altered, and varied at the discretion of our Governors: Yet the Public Worship itself under Public Lawful Governors is of Divine Appointment, and no Man can Renounce it without Sinning against Jesus Christ, as well as Offending against the Ecclesiastical Laws.  
A Humane Law grounded upon a Divine, or to speak more properly, a Divine Law modified or Clothed with several Circumstances of Man's Appointment, doth Create another kind of Obligation upon every Subject, than a Law that is purely Humane; that is to say a Law, the matter of which is neither Good nor Evil in itself, but perfectly indifferent. In the former Case, we must yield Obedience to the Law, as to the Law of God; however it comes Clothed with Circumstances of Man's Appointment. In the other Case we only yield Obedience, as to the Command of Man; and for no other reason, than that God in general hath Obliged us to Obey our Superiors.  
To make this a little plainer, let us for Instance take the business of Paying Tribute, and Custom in this Nation, in which Case there is a Complication of a Divine Law, with a Humane, as it is in the Case we are now upon. That every Subject should Pay Tribute to whom Tribute is due; Custom to whom Custom is due; is a Law of God; as being a branch both of Natural and Christian Justice: But out of what goods we should Pay Tribute or Custom, or what Proportion of those Goods should be Paid, this is not defined either by the Law of Nature or the Law of the Gospel, but is left to the Determination of the Municipal Laws of every Kingdom. But now, because Humane Authority doth interpose in this Affair, and settles what every Man is to Pay to the King, and out of what Commodities; doth it therefore follow, that if a Man can by Fraud or Concealment detain the Kings Right from him, that he incurs no other guilt for this, but only the Transgressing of an Act of Parliament, and the being Obnoxious to the Penalties, in Case he be detected? No certainly; for all that the Customs in that manner, and form be settled upon the King by Humane Law only; yet the matter of that Law being a point of Natural Justice between Man and Man; the Man that is thus Guilty, aught to look upon himself as an Offender against the Divine Law; as an unjust Person before God. And his willingness to Submit to the Forfeiture of his Goods, will not render him less unjust, or more .  
The Case is much the same as to the matter we have now before us. It is not a mere Humane Law, or Act of Parliament that Obligeth us to keep the Unity of the Church; to bring our Children to be made Christians by Baptism; to meet together at Solemn times for the Profession of our Faith, for the Worshipping God, for the Commemorating the Death of our Saviour in the Sacrament of his Supper. All this is tied upon us by the Laws of Christ. These things are as much required of us by God, as Christians; as it is required that we should Pay the King, and every Man, what is due to them, if we would not be dishonest & unjust. It is true that the particular Forms, and Modes, and Circumstances of doing these things, are not Commanded, nor Prescribed, by the Laws of Christ, in this Instance of Church Communion, no more than they are prescribed by the Laws of God in the other Instance I gave: But they are left entirely to the Prudence, and Discretion of the Governors that God hath set over us in Ecclesiastical matters; just as they are in the other. But in the mean time these things thus Clothed by Humane Authority, as to their Circumstances: Yet being for the Matter of them bound upon us by Christ himself, we can no more deny our Obedience to the Public Laws about them, than we can in the other Instance I have named. And that Man may as well for Instance, purge himself from the Imputation of Knavery before God, that will contrive a way of his own, for the Paying his just Debts contrary to what the Law of the Land hath declared to be Just and Honest: As any Man can acquit himself from the Sin of Schism before God, that will choose a way of his own for the Public Worship, different from, and in Opposition to what the Laws of the Church have prescribed; always supposing, that the Worship Established be Commanded by just Authority, and there be nothing required in it as a Condition of Communion that is against the Laws of Jesus Christ.  
The Sum of all this is, that it is every Man's Duty by the Laws of Christ, as well as the Laws of Man, to Worship God in the way of the Church; so long as there is nothing required in that Worship, that can justly offend the Conscience of a Wise and Good Christian. And therefore there is more in departing from the Communion of the Church, when we can Lawfully hold it, than merely the Violation of a Statute, or a Humane Law, for we cannot do it without breaking the Law of God. Nay so much is it against the Law of God to do this, that I think no Authority upon Earth can warrant it. So that even if there was a Law made, which should Ordain that wilful, causeless Separation from the Established Church should be allowed and tolerated, and no Man should be called to an Account for it: Yet nevertheless such a Separation would still be a Schism, would still be a Sin against God; for no Humane Law can make that Lawful which God's Law hath forbid.  
There now only remains our last general Head about Conscience to be spoken to, and then we have done with our Preliminary Points: And that is concerning the Authority of Conscience, or how far a Man is Obliged to follow or be guided by his Conscience in his Actions.  
When we speak of the Obligation of Conscience, or of being bound in Conscience to do or not to do an Action, it sufficiently appears from what hath been said, that we can mean no more by these Phrases than this, that we are convinced in our Judgement that it is our Duty to do this or the other Action, because we believe that God hath Commanded it. Or we are persuaded in our Judgement that we ought to forbear this or the other Action, because we believe that God hath forbidden it.  
This now being that which we mean by the Obligation of Conscience, here we come to inquire how far this Persuasion or Judgement of ours, concerning what is our Duty, and what is Sinful, hath Authority over us, how far it doth Oblige us to Act or not Act, according to it.  
Now in Order to the resolving of this we must take Notice, that our Judgement concerning what God hath Commanded, or Forbidden, or left Indifferent, is either true or false. We either make a right Judgement of our Duty, or we make a wrong one. In the former Case we call our Judgement a Right Conscience; in the latter we call it an Erroneous Conscience. As for those Cases where we doubt and hesitate, and know not well how to make any Judgement at all (which is that we call a Doubting Conscience, but indeed is properly no Conscience, unless by Accident,) we have nothing here to do with them, but shall reserve them to another place. Here we suppose, that we do make a Judgement of the thing; that is, we are persuaded in our Minds, concerning the goodness, or badness of this, or the other Action: And that which we are to inquire into, is, how far that Judgement binds us to Act according to it.  
Now if our Conscience be a Right Conscience; that is, if we have truly informed our Judgement according to the Rule of God's Law: It is beyond all Question, and acknowledged by all the World, that we are in that Case perpetually bound to Act according to our Judgement. It is for ever our Duty so to do; and there can no blame, no guilt fall upon us, for so doing, let the Consequence of our Acting, or not Acting, be what it will. So that as to a Right Conscience, or a well informed Judgement, there is no dispute among any sort of Men.  
But the great thing to be inquired into, is, what Obligation a Man is under to Act according to his Judgement, supposing it be false, supposing he hath not rightly informed his Conscience, but hath taken up false measures of what God hath Commanded, or Forbidden.  
Now for the Resolution of this, I lay down these Three Propositions, which I think will take in all that is needful, for the giving Satisfaction to every one, concerning this point.  
First, Where a Man is mistaken in his Judgement, even in that Case it is always a Sin to Act against it. Be our Conscience never so ill instructed, as to what is Good, or Evil, though we should take that for a Duty, which is really a Sin; and on the contrary, that for a Sin which is really a Duty: Yet so long as we are thus persuaded, it will be highly Criminal in us, to Act in contradiction to this persuasion; and the reason of this is evident, because, by so doing, we wilfully Act against the best light, which at present we have, for the direction of our Actions; and consequently our Will is as faulty, and as wicked, in consenting to such Actions, as if we had had truer Notions of things.  
We are to remember, that the Rule of our Duty, whatever it be in itself, cannot touch or affect our Actions, but by the Mediation of our Conscience; that is, no farther than as it is apprehended by us, or as we do understand and remember it. So that when all is done, the immediate Guide of our Actions, can be nothing but our Conscience; our Judgement and Persuasion, concerning the Goodness, or Badness, or Indifferency, of things.  
It is true in all those Instances where we are mistaken, our Conscience proves but a very bad and unsafe Guide; because it hath itself lost its way, in not following its Rule as it should have done: But however our Guide still it is, and we have no other guide of our Actions but that. And if we may lawfully refuse to be guided by it in one Instance, we may with as much reason reject its Guidance in all.  
What is the Notion that any of us hath of a Wilful Sin, or a Sin against Knowledge, but this? That we have done otherwise than we were convinced to be our Duty, at the same time that we did so. And what other measures have we of any Man's Sincerity or Hypocrisy? But only this; that he Acts according to the best of his Judgement, or that he doth not Act according to what he pretends to Believe.  
We do not indeed say, that every one is a good Man, that Acts according to his Judgement; or that he is to be commended for all Actions that are done in pursuance of his Persuasion: No, we measure Virtue and Vice by the Rule, according to which, a Man ought to Act; as well as by the Man's intention in Acting. But however we all agree that that Man is a Knave, that in any instance Acts contrary to that which he took to be his duty. And in passing this Sentence we have no regard to this; whether the Man was Right or mistaken in his Judgement, for be his Judgement Right or Wrong, True or False; it is all one as to his Honesty, in Acting or not Acting according to it.  
He that hath a false persuasion of things; so long as that persuasion continues, is often as well satisfied that he is in the Right, as if his Persuasion was true. That is, he is oftentimes as Confident when he is in an Error, as when he is in the Right. And therefore we cannot but conclude, that he, who being under a mistake, will be tempted to Act contrary to his Judgement; would certainly upon the same Temptation Act contrary to it, was his Judgement never so well informed And therefore his Will being as bad in the one Case, as in the other, he is equally a Sinner as to the Wilfulness of the Crime, though indeed in other respects there will be a great difference in the Cases.  
This I believe is the Sense of all Men in this matter. If a Man for instance, should of a Jew become a Christian; while yet in his Heart he believeth that the Messiah is not yet come, and that our Lord Jesus was an Impostor. Or if a Papist should too serve some private ends, Renounce the Communion of the Roman Church, and join with ours; while yet he is persuaded that the Roman Church is the only Catholic Church; and that our Reformed Churches are Heretical or Schismatical: Though now there is none of us will deny that the Men in both these Cases have made a good change; as having changed a false Religion for a true one: yet for all that, I dare say, we should all agree, they were both of them great Villains and Hypocrites, for making that change; because they made it not upon Honest Principles, and in pursuance of their Judgement, but in direct Contradiction to both. Nay I dare say we should all of us think better of an ignorant well meaning Protestant, that being seduced by the persuasions and Artifices of a cunning Popish Factor, did really out of Conscience, abandon our Communion, and go over to the Romanists; as thinking theirs to be the safest: I say we should all of us entertain a more favourable Opinion of such a Man in such a Case; Though really here the change is made from a true Keligion to a false one; than we should of either of the other Men I have before named. All this put together is abundantly sufficient to show that no Man can in any Case Act against his Judgement or Persuasion, but he is Guilty of Sin in so doing,  
But then, our Second Proposition is this, The mistake of a Man's Judgement may be of such a Nature, that as it will be a Sin to Act against his Judgement, so it will likewise be a Sin to Act according to it.  
For what Authority soever a Man's Conscience has over him, it can never bear him out, if he do an Evil thing in compliance with it. My Judgement is (as we have said) the guide of my Actions; but it may through my negligence be so far misguided itself; as that if I follow it, it will lead me into the most horrid Crimes in the World. And will it be a sufficient Excuse or Justification of my Action in such a Case to say; that indeed herein I did but Act according to my Persuasion? No verily; I may as certainly be damned without Repentance, for Acting according to my Judgement, in some Cases, where it is mistaken, as I shall be, for Acting contrary to it in other Cases where it is rightly informed.  
And the Reason of this is very plain. It is not my Judgement or Persuasion that makes Good or Evil, Right or Wrong, Justice or Injustice, Virtue or Vice. But it is the Nature of things themselves; and the Law of God, (and of Men under that) Commanding or Forbidding things, that makes them so. If the Moral Goodness, or badness of Actions was to be measured by men's Opinions, and Persuasions; then Good and Evil, Duty and Sin, would be the most various, uncertain things in the World. They would change their Natures as often as Men change their Opinions; and that which to Day is a Virtue, to Morrow would be a Crime; and that which in one Man, would be a Heroically good Action, would in another Man be a Prodigious Piece of Villainy; though yet there was no difference in the Action itself, or in the Circumstances of the Man that did it, save only the difference of Opinion.  
But such consequences as these are intolerable, nor indeed do Men either talk or think after this manner. Every Man when he speaks of Good or Evil, Lawful or Unlawful, means some certain fixed thing which it is not in his Power to alter the Nature and Property of. That Action is good, and a Duty, which is either so in itself, or made so by some positive Law of God. And that Action is Evil, and a Sin, that is Forbid by God in either of these Ways. So that unless it was in our Power to change the Nature of things; or to alter the Laws of God: It will unavoidably follow; that we shall be for ever Obliged to do some Actions, and to forbear others, whatever our Judgement concerning them, is: And consequently we may be Guilty of Sin, if in these instances we Act contrary to this Obligation; though at the same time it should happen that we are firmly persuaded that we ought so to do.  
And thus is our Proposition fully proved; but then for the further clearing of it, I desire it may be taken notice of: that we do not thus lay it down, that every mistake of Judgement about Good or Evil, doth involve a Man in Sin, if he Act according to that mistake: But only thus, the mistake of a Man's Judgement may be of such a Nature, that as it will be a a Sin in him to Act against it, so it will likewise be Sin to Act according to it. It is not every Error in Morals that brings a Man under the necessity of Sinning, if he pursues it in his Actions. A Man's Conscience may mistake its Rule in a Hundred instances, and yet he may safely enough Act according to it. And the Reason is because a Man may entertain a great many mistakes, and false Notions of his Duty, and Act according to them too; and yet in such Actions he shall not Transgress any Law of God.  
Now this that I say, holds chief in these two inslances. For example in the first place, if a Man believe a thing to be Commanded by God which yet indeed is not; but neither is it Forbidden: As if a Man should think himself Obliged to retire himself from his business, Seven times or Three times a Day, for the purpose of Devotion; or to give half of his Yearly Income to Pious, and Charitable uses, if he can do it without Prejudice to his family. Now in this Case he is certainly mistaken in his Duty; for the Law of God hath not bound him up to such measures in either of these instances: But yet because God hath not on the other hand laid any Commands upon him to the contrary; it is certain he may in both these instances Act according to this mistake, without any Gild in the World; Nay, so long as that mistake continues, he is bound to Act accordingly.  
Again in the second place, if a Man believe a thing to be Forbidden by God's Law, which yet is not; but neither is it Commanded: As for instance, if a Man think that he ought by Virtue of a Divine Command to abstain from all Meats that are strangled or have Blood in them; or if he believe it unlawful to Play at Cards or Dice; or that it is Forbidden by God's word to let out Money at Interest: Why in all these Cases he may follow his Opinion, though it be a false one, without Sin; Nay, he is bound to follow it, because it is the dictate of his Conscience, however his Conscience be mistaken. And the reason is plain, because though he be mistaken in his Judgement about these matters, yet since God hath not by any Law, Forbidden these things; there is no Transgression follows upon Acting according to such a mistake.  
But then in other Cases where a Man's mistake happens to be of such a Nature, as that he cannot Act according to his Conscience, but he Transgresseth some Law of God; by which Conscience ought to be Governed: As for instance, when a Man looks upon that as a Lawful Action, or as a Duty, which God hath Forbidden; or looks upon that as a Sin, or at least an indifferent Action, which God hath Commanded; here it is that the mistake becomes dangerous. And in such Cases the Man is brought into that sad Dilemma we have been representing, viz. That if he Act according to his persuasion he Transgresseth God's Law, and so is a Sinner upon that Account: If he Acts against his persuasion, than he is self condemned, and very guilty before God upon that Account.  
Well, but is there no avoiding of this? Must it be laid down as a constant Universal Truth; that in all Cases where a Man's Judgement happens to be contrary to the Rule of his Duty, Commanding, or Forbidding an Action; he must of necessity Sin; whether he Act, or not Act, according to that Judgement? If indeed he Act against his Conscience, it is readily granted he Sins; But it seems very hard, that he should be under a necessity of Sinning when he Acts according to it; especially when he is perfectly ignorant of, or mistaken in the Law against which he Offends.  
This is indeed the great difficulty that occurs in this matter; and for the untying it, I lay down this third general Proposition, viz. That the great thing to be attended to in this Case of a Man's following a mistaken Judgement, is the Culpableness or Inculpableness; the Faultiness or Innocence of the mistake, upon which he Acts; for according as this is; so will his Gild in Acting according to it be either greater, or less, or none at all.  
We do not say that a Man is always Guilty of a Sin before God, when upon a misinformation of Judgement he Omits that which Gods Law hath Commanded; or doth that which Gods Law hath Forbidden. No though these Omissions or Actions may be said to be Sins in themselves; that is, as to the Matter of them; as being Transgressions of God's Law: Yet before we affirm that they will be imputed to a Man as such; that is prove formally Sins to him; we first consider the Nature of the Action, and the Circumstances of the Man. If we find upon Examination that the instance wherein God's Law is Transgressed, is such an instance as even an Honest minded Man may well be supposed to mistake in: And if we find likewise that the Man had not sufficient means for the informing himself aright as to this matter; and that he hath done all that he could do in his Circumstances to understand his Duty: If in such a Case as this he be mistaken in his Duty; and Act upon that mistake; yet we do not say that the Man is properly Guilty of any Sin in that Action, however that Action is indeed contrary to the Law of God. On the contrary we believe him to be Innocent as to this matter; nor will God ever call him to an Account for what he hath done or omitted in these Circumstances.  
And the Reasons and Grounds upon which we affirm this are plain, and Evident at the first hearing. No Man can be Obliged to do more than what is in his Power to do. And what ever a Man is not Obliged to do, it is no Sin in him if he do it not. So that if a Man do all that one in his Circumstances can, or should do; for the right understanding of his Duty: If he happens to be mistaken, that mistake cannot be imputed to him as a Sin; because he was not Obliged to understand better. And if his mistake be no Sin, it is certain to Act according to that mistake can be no Sin neither.  
So that the whole point of Sinning, or not Sinning, in following an Erroneous Conscience, lies here. Whether the Man that is thus mispersuaded, is to be blamed, or not blamed, for his Mispersuasion. If the Error he hath taken up do not proceed from his own Fault and Negligence; but was the pure unavoidable Effects of the Circumstances, in which he is placed; (which Circumstances we suppose he contributed nothing to, but he was put into them by the disposition of Divine Providence:) Then of what Nature soever the Error be; he doth not contract any guilt by any Action which he doth in pursuance of that Error. But if it was in his power to Rectify that Error; if he had Means and Opportunities to inform his Conscience better; and the nature of the Action was such, that it was his Duty so to do: So that he must be accounted guilty of a Gross and Criminal Neglect in not doing it: In this Case the Man is a Transgressor, and accountable unto God, as such, for all the Actions that he doth, or omits, contrary to God's Law; while he Acts under that mistake, or in pursuance of it. And accordingly as this Neglect or Carelessness is greater or less; so is the Sinfulness of the Action which he doth in pursuance of it, greater or less likewise.  
And this is a plain account of this matter. So that we see there is no Fatal unavoidable necessity laid upon any Man to commit a Sin by Acting according to his Conscience. But if at any time he be brought under those sad Circumstances, he brings that necessity upon himself. God never put any Man into such a Condition, but that he might do that Duty which was required of him; and be able to give a good account of his Actions. But here is the thing; Men by their Vice and Wickedness; by neglecting the Means of Instruction, that are afforded them; and not using their Reason and Understanding as they should do; may suffer themselves to be brought under the Bondage of such False and Evil Principles; that they shall so long as they hold those Principles, fall into Sin, whether they Act according to their Conscience, or Act against it.  
I have done with the general Points concerning Conscience, which I thought needful to be premised, as the Grounds and Principles of our following Discourse. I now come to that which I at first proposed; and for the sake of which all this is intended; that is, to speak to the Case of those that Separate from the Communion of the Church of England, upon this pretence; That it is against their Conscience to join with us in it.  
Now all that I conceive needful to be done, in order to a full discussion of this Case, and giving satisfaction about it, are these Two things,  
First, To Separate the pretences of Conscience that are truly and justly made, in this matter, from the false ones: Or to show who those are that can rightly plead Conscience for their Nonconformity; and who those are that cannot.  
Secondly, To inquire how far this Plea of Conscience, when it is truly made, will Justify any Dissenter that continues in Separation from the Church, as Established among us; and what is to be done by such a Person, in order to his Acting with a safe and good Conscience in this affair.  
Our first inquiry is what is required in order to any Man's truly pleading Conscience for his refusing to join in Communion with the Established Church. Or who those Persons are that can with justice make that Plea for themselves.  
I think it very convenient to begin my Disquisition here, because by removing all the false Pretences to Conscience; the Controversy will be brought into a much less compass; and the difficulties that arise will be more easily untied. The truth is, if the thing be examined, I believe it will be found, that the pretence to Conscience in the matter we are talking of, is, as in many other Cases, extended much farther than it ought to be. My meaning is, that of all those who think fit to withdraw from our Communion, and to live in Disobedience to the known Laws of the Church, and pretend Conscience for so doing; in a great many of them it is not Conscience, but some other thing mistaken for Conscience, which is the Principle they Act upon. So that if the true Plea of Conscience be separated from those counterfeit ones, which usually usurp that Name; we shall not find either the Persons to be so many that refuse Communion with us, upon the Account of Conscience truly so called; nor the Cases to be so many in which they do refuse it upon that Account.  
Now in Order to the making such a Separation or Distinction between Conscience truly so called, and the several Pretences to it, in this business of not conforming to the Established Worship, I lay down this general Proposition; That, if the Principles I have laid down about Conscience be admitted; then it is certainly true, that no Man among us can justly plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church of England; or can say that it is against his Conscience to join in Communion with it; but only such a one, as is persuaded in his own mind, that he cannot Communicate with us without Sinning against God in so doing.  
For since, as we have said, Conscience is nothing else but a Man's Judgement concerning Actions, whether they be Duties, or Sins, or Indifferent: And since the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding Actions; or neither Commanding them, nor Forbidding them; is the only Rule by which a Man can Judge what Actions are Duties, and what are Sins, and what are Indifferent: It plainly follows; that as a Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do any Action which it doth not appear to him that God's Law hath some way or other Commanded, and made a Duty: So neither can it go against a Man's Conscience, to do any Action which he is not convinced that God's Law hath some way or other Forbidden, and so made a Sin. And therefore in our present Case. That Man only can justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity that can truly say he is persuaded in his Judgement that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God: Or which is the same thing; No Man can say, it is against his Conscience to join in our Communion, but only such a one as really believes he shall Sin against some Law of God, if he do join with us,  
If against this it be excepted; that it is very possible for a Man to be well satisfied that there is nothing directly Sinful in our Worship; but yet for all that it may be against his Conscience to join with us in it: As for instance, in the Case where a Man takes it really to be his Duty to hold constant Communion with some other Congregation, where he believes he can be more Edified, or to which he is related by some Church Covenant: To this I answer, that in this Case, I grant, Conscience is rightly pleaded for Separation (though how justifiably I do not now Examine:) But than I say this Plea proceeds upon the same grounds I just now laid down. For if the Man (as is supposed in the Case) be convinced that it is his Duty by God's Law, (as there is no other measure of Duty) to hold Communion with others, and not with us; then he must at the same time be convinced that he cannot without Transgression of God's Law, (that is, without Sin,) join with us; And that is the same Account which we give, of its being against any Man's Conscience to hold Communion with us.  
Further, If it be urged against our Proposition, that not only in the Case where a Man is persuaded of the Unlawfulness of our Communion, but also in the Case where he only doubts of the Lawfulness of it, a Man may justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity, so long as those doubts remain: And therefore it is not truly said of us, that in Order to the Pleading Conscience for Nonconformity, one must be persuaded in his own mind, that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God. I Answer, that if the Man who thus doubts of the Lawfulness of Conformity, hath really entertained this Principle, that it is a Sin to do any thing with a doubting Conscience; I grant that it must go against his Conscience to conform so long as he doubts. But then, this is but the same thing we are contending for; for therefore it goes against his Conscience to Communicate with us, doubting as he doth; because he believes he shall Sin against God if he should. But if the Man we are speaking of, do not think it a breach of God's Law, to Act with a doubting Conscience; then I do not see how it can in the least go against his Conscience to Communicate with us upon that pretence. So that notwithstanding these two Exceptions; which are all I can think of; it will still remain true, that no Man can justly Plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church, but he that is persuaded that he cannot join with it without Sinning against God.  
Now if this Proposition be true, as certainly it is; then how many men's pretences to Conscience for their Separating from us, are hereby cut off: And indeed how few (in Comparison of the multitude of Dissenters among us) will be left, that can be able with Truth to say that it is against their Conscience to Communicate with us in our Prayers, and in our Sacraments.  
In the first Place, it is Evident that all those who Separate from us upon Account of any private grudge or pique; because they have been disobliged, or have received some disappointment in the way of our Church, or by the Men that are favourers of it; and therefore out of a Pet will join themselves to another Communion. All those that think they can serve their own turns more effectually, by being of another way; as for instance, they can thereby better please a Relation from whom they have expectances; they can better advance their Trade, or increase their Fortunes; they can better procure a Reputation, or regain one that is Sunk. In a word, all those that to serve any ends of Pride, or Interest, or Passion, or out of any other worldly Consideration, do refuse us their Company in the Worship of God. I say, all such are certainly excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation.  
In the second Place, all those Lay People who refuse our Communion upon Account that the Pastors, and Teachers, whom they most Love, and Reverence, are not permitted to Exercise their Function among us; whose Pretence it is, that if these good Men were allowed to Teach in our Churches, they would come to our Congregations; but so long as that is refused, they will hear them where they can: I say, all these are likewise excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation. For, however it may really and truly be against the Conscience of their Ministers to conform, (there being other things required of them, than of ordinary People,) yet it is not against their Conscience so to do; for they know no ill in Conformity, but only that so many good Men are silenced.  
In the third Place, all those that refuse our Communion upon a mere dislike of several things in our Church Offices: They do not for instance, like a Form of Prayer in general, and they have several things to Object against our Form in particular; they do not like our Ceremonies, they do not like the Surplice, or the Cross in Baptism; and sundry other things they find fault with: Not that they have any thing to say against the Lawfulness of these things; but only they have an Aversion to them: All these Men likewise are cut off from. Pleading Conscience for their Separation. For they do not pretend that it is unlawful, or a Sin against God to join with us in our Service (which is the only thing wherein their Conscience can be concerned;) but only they are not pleased with many things in our Service; as fancying them not to be so decent, or convenient, or not to be so prudently Ordered as they would have them. But what of all this? Admit the things to be so as they fancy them; yet still so long as they do not think there is any Sin in them, it cannot go against their Conscience to join with any Assembly in which they are Practised. Because Conscience as we have often said is not touched, is not affected where no Law of God is Transgressed.  
In the fourth Place, all those that are kept from our Communion, purely upon the Account of Education, or acquaintance with Persons that are of another persuasion. Those that have nothing to say against our Worship; but only that they were bred in another way; or those that would join with us in it, but that they know a great many Religious Godly Persons that do Condemn it, and therefore they dare not come at us. These now may be very well meaning Men, but yet they cannot reasonably Plead Conscience upon this Account for their Separation. For it is not a Man's Education, or the Example, or Opinion of other Men, that makes any Action to be a Duty, or a Sin, but the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding that Action. And therefore before I can say that this, or the other Action, is against my Conscience, I must believe that God's Law hath either in general, or in particular; either directly, or by Consequence, made that Action unlawful. I grant the Opinions of other Men, especially those that are Learned, and Pious are always to be listened to in doubtful Cases. But then, no Man's Opinion can be the Rule of my Conscience; nor am I at all concerned in Conscience to follow it, any farther than I am convinced that it declares God's Law to me. And therefore sure in this Case of Church Communion, I can be but very little concerned to follow any Man's Opinion; when, both there are so many Persons, and those as Learned and as Pious as any others, that are of another Opinion; and when also the Public Law, which has much more Authority than any private Opinion; hath determined what I am to do in the Case. So that it is great weakness, & sillyness; & not Conscience, that prevails with these Men I am speaking of, to live in disobedience to the Laws. If indeed they be really persuaded in their own Minds, that our way of Worshipping God, is in any part or instance of it Unlawful or Forbidden, (let that Persuasion be upon what grounds it will,) than they may truly say it is against their Conscience to join with us. But if they be not convinced of this; I do not see how the Example, or the advice of their Friends and Acquaintance, can in the least give them a Title to Plead Conscience for their refusing our Communion.  
Fifthly, those that withdraw from the Church upon this Account, that our Governors in their Laws and Prescriptions about God's Worship, have not rightly used the Power which they are entrusted with, but have exceeded their bounds; have made perhaps too great Encroachments upon Christian Liberty; or laid more stress than was meet upon Indifferent things: These likewise are excluded by the former Rule from Pleading Conscience for their Separation. For admit the Lawgivers have been to blame in the Exercise of their Power in these matters, (which yet is sooner said then proved,) and have really done more than they can answer to God for; yet what is this to them? The Conscience of the Governors is indeed deeply concerned about these things; and they must give an Account to God for the abuse of their Authority if there be any, But how this doth concern the Conscience of the Subject, is not easily understood: So long as what is Commanded or Enjoined, doth not appear to interfere with any Law of God. But having said this; I fear there is too much reason to add; that those who so much stand up for Christian Liberty, and would be thought the great Patrons of it; do by their endless scruples about Indifferent things, and refusing to Obey Authority in such matters, in all appearance, take the most Effectual Course to destroy all Christian Liberty, in the true Notion of it; and to bring in a Religion that shall consist of Touch not, Taste not, Handle not; and such other Uncommanded things.  
Sixthly, and lastly, (to name no more instances) All those that can Communicate Occasionally with us, in our Prayers and Sacraments: As for instance, those that when they have a turn to be served, when there is an Office or some such thing in the Case; can come to Church, and receive the Communion, but at other times they do not afford us their Presence: These are also excluded from pretending to Conscience, for their not constantly joining in Communion with us. For if indeed they did believe, it was a Sin in them to join with us in our Prayers and Sacraments; with what Conscience dare they do it at all? They ought not for any worldly good, to venture upon such an Action as they do believe to be forbidden by God's Laws; But if they do not believe that to join in our Communion is a Sinful thing, (as I dare say none of these Persons do) than I will be bold to make the Inference; that it cannot be more against their Conscience to do it Thrice, than to do it Once; and do it constantly than to do it Thrice.  
But let us leave the false Pretenders to Conscience, and come to the Case of those who can justly Plead Conscience for their Separation; or that can truly say it is against their Conscience to join in our Communion.  
Of this sort are all such, and none but such, as do teally believe that our Communion is unlawful, or that they cannot Communicate with us without Sin, as I have before proved.  
As for those that only doubt of the Lawfulness of our Communion, but are not persuaded that it is unlawful; I do not here consider them; because they cannot say that it is against their Conscience to Communicate with us; any more than they can say, that they are bound in Conscience to Communicate with us: For they are uncertain as to both these things, and are not determined either way. But however because these men may justly Plead Conscience upon this Account; that they think it is a Sin to join with us so long as they doubt of the Lawfulness of our Communion: I shall consider their Case afterwards in a particular Discourse upon that Argument.  
Those that I am now concerned with, are such, as do believe, or are persuaded, that there is some thing in our Worship which they cannot comply with without Sinning against God.  
And my business is to Examine whether such a Belief or Persuasion of the unlawfulness of our Communion will justify any Man's Separation from us? Or how far it will do it? And what is to be done by such Persons, in order, either to their Communicating, or not Communicating with us, with a safe Conscience? This is our second Point, and I apply myself to it.  
There are a great many among us, that would with all their Hearts (as they say) Obey the Laws of the Church, and join in our Worship and Sacraments; but they are really persuaded that they cannot do it without Sin: For there are some things required of them as Conditions of Communicating with us, which are Forbidden by the Laws of God.  
As for Instance, it is against the Commands of Christ to appoint, or to use any thing in the Worship of God, which God himself hath not appointed. For this is to add to the word of God, and to Teach for Doctrines the Commandments and Traditions of Men.  
It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to Stint the Spirit in Prayer; which all those that use a Form of Prayer, must necessarily do.  
It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to use any Significant Ceremony in Religion: As for Instance, the Cross in Baptism, for that is to make new Sacraments.  
It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to kneel at the Lords Supper, for that is directly to contradict our Saviour's Example in his Institution of that Sacrament, and Savours besides of Popish Idolatry.  
Since therefore there are these Sinful things in our Worship; and those too imposed as Terms of Communion; how can we blame them, if they withdraw themselves from us? Would we have them join with us in these Practices which they verily believe to be Sins? Where then was their Conscience? They might perhaps by this means show how much they were the Servants of Men: But what would become of their Fidelity to Jesus Christ.  
What now shall we say to this? They themselves are so well satisfied with their own do in these matters, that they do not think they are in the least to be blamed for refusing us their Communion, so long as things stand thus with them. They are sure they herein follow their own Conscience; and therefore they cannot doubt but they are in a safe Condition; and may justify their Proceed to God, and to all the World; let us say what we please.  
This is the Case. Now in Answer to it, we must grant them these two things.  
First of all, that if indeed they be right in their Judgement; and those things which they except against in our Communion be really Unlawful, and Forbidden by Jesus Christ; then they are not at all to be blamed for their not Communicating with us. For in that Case, Separation is not a Sin but a Duty: We being for ever bound to Obey God rather than Men.  
And Secondly, supposing they be mistaken in their Judgement, and think that to be unlawful, and Forbidden by God which is not really so: Yet so long as this persuasion continues (though it be a false one) we think they cannot without Sin join in our Communion. For even an Erroneous Conscience (as we have showed) binds thus far, that a Man cannot without Sin Act in Contradiction to it. These two things I say we grant them, and let them make the best advantage of them.  
But then this is the point we stand upon, and which if it be true, will render this whole Plea for Nonconformity upon account of Conscience, as I have now opened it, wholly insufficient, viz. If it should prove that our Dissenters are mistaken in their Judgement; and that our Governors do indeed require nothing of them in the matter of Church Communion, but what they may comply with, without breach of God's Law: Then I say it will not acquit them from being Guilty of Sin before God in withdrawing from our Communion; to say, that they really believed our Communion to be unlawful; and upon that Account they durst not join with us.  
It is not my Province here to Answer all their Objections against our Forms of Prayer, our Ceremonies, our Orders and Rules, in Administering Sacraments, and other things that concern our Communion: This hath been done several times; and of late by several Persons which have treated of all these particular matters; and who have showed with great clearness and strength, that there is nothing required in our Church Appointments, which is in the least inconsistent with, or Forbidden by any Law of Jesus Christ: But on the contrary, the Establishments of our Church, are for Gravity, Decency, Purity, and agreeableness with the Primitive Christianity; the most approvable, and the least Exceptionable of any Church Constitutions at this day in the World.  
These things therefore I meddle not with, but this is the point I am concerned in: Whether, supposing it be every Man's Duty to join in Communion with the Established Church; and there be nothing required in that Communion, but what may be Lawfully Practised? I say, supposing these two things; whether it will be sufficient to acquit any Man from Sin, that withdraws from that Communion, upon this Account, that through his mistake, he believes he cannot join with us without Sin? Or thus, whether will any man's persuasion that there are Sinful Terms required in our Communion (when yet there are not any) justify his Separation from us.  
This is the general Question truly put; And this I give as the Answer to it: That in general speaking a Man's Erroneous Persuasion doth not dissolve the Obligation of God's Law, or justify any Man's Transgression of his Duty. So that if God's Law doth Command me to hold Communion with the Church where I have no just cause to break it: And I have no just cause to break it in this particular Case, but only I think I have: My misperswasion in this matter doth not discharge me from my Obligation to keep the Communion of the Church; or acquit me from Sin before God if I break it.  
The Truth and Reason of this I have fully showed before, in what I have said about the Authority of Conscience. I shall now only by way of further Confirmation ask this Question: Was St. Paul guilty of Sin or no, when he Persecuted the Christians; being verily persuaded in his own mind that he ought so to do, and that he Sinned if he did not? If any will say that St. Paul did not Sin in this, because he did but Act according to his Conscience; they contradict his own express words. For he acknowledgeth himself to be the greatest of Sinners, and that for this very reason because he persecuted the Church of Christ. If they say that he did Sin in doing this: Then they must at the same time acknowledge, that a Man's persuasion that a thing is a Duty, will not excuse him from guilt in practising it; if really and indeed it be against God's Law: And on the other side, by the same reason, that a Man's persuasion that a thing is unlawful, will not excuse him from guilt in not Practising it; if indeed God's Law hath made it a Duty.  
So that it infinitely concerns all our Dissenting Brethren to consider very well what they do, when they withdraw from our Communion. Schism undoubtedly is a great and crying Sin. A Sin, against which, there are as many hard things said in the Discourses of our Lord and his Apostles; and in the Writings of the Ancient Christians; as against any other Sin whatsoever. And therefore let those that forsake our Communion; and set up, or join with other Assemblies in Opposition to ours: I say, let them look to it that they be not involved in the Gild of this dreadful Sin. They must be sure that their Separation proceeds upon good grounds, if they would free themselves from the imputation of it. It is not always enough to excuse them; that they do believe there are Sinful Conditions imposed in our Communion, and consequently it is their Duty to withdraw. For unless the thing be so indeed; their believing so will not cancel their Obligation to our Church Communion; or make it cease to be Schism to withdraw themselves from it.  
This may perhaps at the first hearing seem very strange Doctrine to many, but yet it is true for all that; and will appear a little more Evident, if we put the Case in another instance, wherein we are not so nearly concerned.  
Here is one of the Roman-Catholick persuasion, (as they call it,) that hath been trained up in Popery; and hearty believes it to be true Religion, and the Only one, wherein Salvation is to be had; and therefore in Obedience to the Laws and Customs of that Church, doth pay Religious Worship to Images; doth pray to Saints and Angels; doth give Divine Adoration to the Consecrated Bread in the Sacrament; as really believing it to be turned into the Body of Christ, to which his Soul, and Deity is personally United.  
Is now such a Person as this Guilty of Idolatry in these Practices or is he not? He doth verily believe that he is not. He would abhor these Practices, if he did in the least believe, that God had Forbid them as Idolatrous. Nay he is so far from believing that they are Forbidden, that on the contrary he hath been taught to believe that they are necessary Duties; and he cannot be a good Catholic, unless he thus Worship Images, and Saints, and the Bread of the Host. Well, now the point is, Whether such a Man, believing as he doth, be upon that Account acquitted from the Sin of Idolatry? We all grant, that if he had such clear Information about these things as we Protestants have; he would certainly be an Idolater if he should contitinue in these Practices: But whether his belief, and Opinion, and persuasion concerning these things, do not excuse him; and make that cease to be Idolatry, that would otherwise be so; This I say is the question. But yet none of us make any great question of it. For we do charge the Papists indiscriminately, with Idolatry in their Worship; notwithstanding their disclaiming it; notwithstanding their Profession to Worship God, no otherwise than according to his own Will; notwithstanding they do really take themselves Obliged in Conscience to give Divine Worship to the Consecrated Elements, and those other Objects. And we charge them rightly in this. For if it be really Idolatry by God's word, to do these things; than it will be Idolatry in any Man to do them, let his Opinion about them be what it Will. A Man's Ignorance, or mistake, or false Opinion doth not alter the nature of things; it can neither make that cease to be a Duty, which God hath Commanded, nor that cease to be a Sin which God hath Forbidden. All that it will do, is, that according to the Nature and Circumstances of it, it may more or less Extenuate the Transgression that is committed upon the Account thereof.  
And the Case is just the same in the matter before us. For any Man to withdraw his Communion from that Church, with which he ought, and with which he may Lawfully Communicate; That is as properly the Sin of Schism, as it is the Sin of Idolatry to give Divine Worship to that which is not God. For any Man, therefore, to break the Unity of the Church; though it be upon this very Account, that he doth believe it is his Duty so to do; or that he cannot Communicate with that Church without Sin: Yet if this persuasion of his be false, and Erroneous; he is no less a Schismatic for all this; than the other Man is an Idolater that thinks it his Duty to adore Images, and those other undue Objects of Divine Worship among the Romanists. It is true, the Man's Ignorance or Misperswasion will according to the greater or less Culpability of it; more or less excuse the Man's Person before God, as it doth in the other Case. But it cannot in the least make that which God hath made to be Schism to be no Schism; no more than in the other Case, it makes that to be no Idolatry which Gods word hath declared to be Idolatry.  
Well now admitting all this; here comes the pinch of the thing. It will be said, What, would you have a Man do in this Case? He cannot conform with a safe Conscience; and yet he is a Transgressor if he do not. If he comply against his Conscience, you grant he is guilty of Sin in so doing: If he doth not Comply; than you say he is a Schismatic; and so is a Sinner upon that Account. Why to this I say, that both these things are often true; and here is that Dilemma, which Men by Suffering their minds to be abused with Evil Principles, and Persuasions, do frequently run themselves into. They are reduced to that Extremity that they can neither Act, nor forbear Acting: They can neither Obey, nor Disobey without Sin.  
But what is to be done in this Case? I know nothing but this: That all Imaginable Care is to be taken that the Error and false Principles which misled the Man be deposed; and that his Judgement be better informed; and then he may both do his Duty which Gods Law requireth of him, and avoid Sinning against his Conscience.  
But how is this to be done? Why no other way, but by using Conscientiously all those means which common Prudence will Recommend to a Man, for the gaining Instruction and Information to himself about any point that he desires throughly to understand. That is to say, Freeing his Mind from all Pride, and Passion, and Interest, and all other carnal Prepossessions; and applying himself seriously and impartially to the getting right Notions and Sentiments about his Duty in these matters: Considering without prejudice what can be said on both sides: Calling in the best assistance of the ablest and wisest Men that he can come by: And above all things seriously endeavouring to understand the Nature and Spirit of the Christian Religion; and to practise all that he is undoubtedly convinced to be his Duty: And for the matters in question, most earnestly imploring the Assistance of God's Spirit to guide and direct him.  
Well, but supposing a Man has endeavoured to inform his Judgement as well as he can, and hath used all those Prudent means that were in his Power, to satisfy himself of the Lawfulness of our Communion; But yet after all, he is of the same persuasion that he was, viz. That he cannot join in our Worship without Sin: what will we say to such a Man as this? Will we still say that this Man must either Conform, though against his Conscience; or he is a Schismatic before God? This is the great difficulty, and I have two things to say to it.  
In the first place, we do hearty wish that this was the Case of all, or of the most of our Dissenters, (viz. that they had done what they can, to satisfy themselves about our Communion.) For if it was, I do verily persuade myself that there would presently be an end of all those much to be lamented Schisms, and Divisions, which do now give so much Scandal to all good Men, and threaten the Ruin of our Reformed Religion; And this poor Church of England, which hath so long Laboured and Groaned, under the furious Attacques that have been made upon her, by Enemies without, and Enemies within her own Bowels, would in a little time, be perfectly set free from all apprehension of Danger, at the least from the one sort of her Adversaries.  
If all our Brethren of the Separation would most seriously follow after the things that make for Peace, and walk by the same Rule as far as they were able, and in things where they were otherwise minded, would Religiously apply themselves to God for direction; and to the use of Prudent means for Satisfaction: I doubt not but the Face of things would presently be changed among us; and we should near no more of any Division or Schism in our Nation, that was either dangerous to the Church, or to the Salvation of the Men that were concerned in it.  
But alas, we fear we have too great reason to say, that the generality of our Dissenting Brethren, even those of them that Plead Conscience for their Separation, have not done their Duty in this matter; have not hearty endeavoured to satisfy their Minds about the Lawfulness of Conformity in those Points which they stick at.  
If they had; one would think that after all their endeavours they should, before they pronounced Conformity to be unlawful, be able to produce some one plain Text of Scripture for the proving it so, either in the whole or in any part of it; but this they are not able to do. They do indeed produce some Texts of Scripture which they think do make for them: But really they are such, that if they had not supinely taken up their meaning upon trust; but would have been at the pains of carefully examining them; and using such helps as they have every where at hand for the understanding them: It would have been somewhat difficult for them to have expounded those Texts in such a sense as would infer the unlawfulness of our Communion.  
But further I say, it is not probable that the generality of our Dissenters, who condemn our Communion as unlawful, have ever anxiously applied themselves to the considering the Point, or gaining Satisfaction about it; because they do not seem to have much consulted their own Teachers in this affair, and much less those of our way. If they had, they would have been disposed to think better of our Communion; than they do: For not to mention what the Churchmen do teach & press in this matter; the most Eminent of their own Ministers, are ready thus far to give their Testimony to our Communion. That there is nothing required in it, but what a Lay-Person may Honestly and Lawfully comply with; though there may be some things incovenient, and which they wish were amended. Nay they themselves are ready upon occasion to afford us their Company, in all the instances of Lay-Communion.  
But I desire not to enlarge upon this Argument, because it is an Invidious one. All that I say is, that we wish it was not too apparent by many Evidences, that most of those who separate from us, are so far from having done all they can to bring themselves to a compliance with our Church Constitutions; that they have done little or nothing at all towards it: But have taken up their Opinions, hand over head, without much thinking or enquiring, and having once taken up an Opinion, they adhere to it, without scarce so much as once thinking, that it is possible for them to be in the wrong.  
If you speak of a Man that may with reason be said to have done his endeavour to satisfy himself about the Points of his Duty in this matter: Give us such a one; as hath no end, no interest to serve by his Religion, but only to Please God, and to go to Heaven; and who in the choice of the way that leads thither, hath the Indifference of a Traveller; to whom it is all one, whether his way light on the right Hand, or on the left; being only concerned that it be the way which leads to his Journeys end.  
Give us a Man, that concerns himself as little as you please, in the Speculative Disputes, and Controversies of Religion: But yet is wonderfully Solicitous about the Practice of his Duty; and therefore will refuse no pains or trouble that may give him a right understanding of that.  
Give us a Man, that in the midst of the great Heats, and Divisions, and different Communions of the Church; is yet modest, and humble, and docible: That believes he may be mistaken, and that his private Friends may be mistaken too, and hath such an Esteem and Reverence for the Wisdom of his Governors in Church or State; as to admit that it is probable they may see farther into matters of State and Religion, than he doth: And that therefore every Tenent, and Opinion that was inbibed in his Education; that was infused by private Men of his acquaintance; or that was espoused upon a very few thoughts, and little Consideration; ought not to be so stiffly maintained; as to control, or to be set in Opposition to the Public Establishments of Authority.  
Lastly, give us a Man, that where the Public Laws do run counter to his private Sentiments; and he is at a loss to reconcile his Duty to Men, with his Duty to God: Yet doth not presently upon this, set up a Flag of Defiance to Authority; but rather applies himself with all the Indifference, and Honesty he can, to get a true Information of these matters: And to that end he Prays to God continually for his assistance, he calls in the best helps, and consults the best guides he can; his Ears are open to what both sides can say for themselves; and he is as willing to read a Book which is writ against his Opinion, as one that defends it: In a word if he be prejudiced, or biased any way; it is on the side of Authority; being rather de●●rous to find himself mistaken, and his Governors in the Right; than himself in the Right, and his Governors mistaken. I say show us such a Man as this; and we readily grant, you have produced a Person, that doth sincerely use his endeavours to satisfy himself about the Lawfulness of our Communion. But then we must say this also; that as the Case stands between the Church of England, and the Dissenters; we can hardly believe, that such a Man will long continue in Separation from the Church; but will in a little time gain the Satisfaction of seeing, not only that he may Lawfully join with us, but also that it is his Duty so to do.  
But let us admit, that a Man may have endeavoured to Inform his Judgement as well as he can; and yet be so far from being convinced that it is his Duty to join with us in our Worship; that he is still of Opinion that it is his Duty to Separate from us: What will we say of such a Man? Will we still brand him for a Schismatic, notwithstanding he hath done all he can, to bring himself over to us; but cannot?  
To this I answer in the second Place, according to the Principles I have before laid down, that if such a Case do ever happen; though the Man cannot be excused from Schism, as to the matter of it (because wherever there is an Actual Separation from a Church, with which we ought, and with which we may, Lawfully Communicate; there is an Actual Schism Commenced; let the pretence for the Separation be what it will:) yet I trust he shall not be charged before God, with the Formal guilt of the Schism; any farther than the Error that led him into it, was contracted by his own fault.  
Though Schism in itself (as we have said) be a great Sin: yet we do not say that all those who are engaged in the same Schism, are equally Guilty before God.  
In the first place, those that separate from the Church, to serve any private secular turn; these are most horribly guilty of Schism, and there is nothing to be said in their excuse.  
In the second Place, those who separate from the Church, through misperswasions, and mistakes of Judgement, which they groundlessly, and foolishly took up; and might have avoided; and would yet still certainly correct in themselves, if they were but so Careful, and Conscientious about their Duty as they ought to be: These Men, have indeed far more to say for themselves, than the former; but yet they are very , and are bound as they Love their Souls, to take more Care of Informing their Conscience aright; that so they may leave that Sin they are engaged in.  
But Thirdly, those that separate from the Church of God, because they know no better, nor never had means to know better: Or those that have sincerely endeavoured to understand their Duty as much as could be expected from one in their Circumstances; yet through weakness of understanding, or want of Opportunity, light into wrong Paths: In a word, those that are unhappily engaged in a Schism, but God Almighty who searcheth the Hearts, knoweth, that it is not through the Fault of their Wills, but the misfortune of their Circumstances: I say, if there be any Man among us that is in this Condition; though he be a Schismatic Materially; yet he is Innocently, at least, Pittiably so. And if he be as free from blame in the other parts of his Life; be may be a good Christian for all that. And God Almighty we hope who Judgeth of Men by their inward Sincerity, and not by their outward Circumstances; will impute that Schism (which in others perhaps is a wilful Crime) to this Man, no otherwise then as a pure Sin of Ignorance, which shall not (upon a general Repentance for all Sins known and unknown,) be accounted for at the last day. Especially if this Innocently mistaken Man we speak of, do to the other Regularities of his Life, add a diligent Care in these four following Points.  
First, that he be not Obstinate, and Pertinacious in his way, but that he keep his mind readily prepared and disposed to receive any Conviction, which God by any Means or Instruments shall offer to him.  
Secondly, That he Separate no farther from the Church, of which he ought to be a Member, than he needs must; but do cheerfully comply with the Public Laws, and Establishments in all those Instances, where he is Satisfied he may do it with a safe Conscience.  
Thirdly, that where he cannot give Active Obedience to the Laws; he do in those Instances Patiently, and Christianly, submit to the Penalties, which those Laws inflict: Neither exclaiming against his Governors, or the Magistrates, as Persecutors; for enacting, or Executing those Laws: Nor using any undue, Illegal means to get himself more ease and Liberty: But in all things behaving himself as a quiet and peaceable Subject to the Government he lives under.  
And Fourthly, and lastly, that he show himself a good Neighbour as well as a good Subject; in avoiding all peevish and bitter Censures of those that differ in Opinion, and persuasion from him; and Exercising Humanity, and Friendliness, and Charity to all his Fellow Christians.  
Whosoever I say, of our Brethren, of the Separation make good these Points: That is to say, are in the first place, very sincere in their endeavours, to inform their Conscience aright in the matter of our Communion: And in the next place, when they cannot Satisfy their Conscience about our way; do yet in their Dissent from us, Observe the four Particulars I have now named: I should be loath for my part to Censure them either as ill Men, or ill Subjects, or ill Christians.  
But then all that I have said in this matter, doth no more justify the Sin of Schism, or Extenuate the heinousness of it in its own Nature; Than it would serve to justify or Extenuate the Sin of Idolatry; if all that I have now said, was applied to the Case of an Ignorant, well meaning, devout Papist. For I do verily believe that what I have now represented by way of Apology for an innocent mistaken Separatist; will hold true, mutatis mutandis, in the Case of a deluded Romanist, who is invincibly, and without any fault of his, entangled in the Practice of their Idolatries. But I believe for all that, the Sin of Idolatry is in itself a most grievous Sin, and so I believe is the Sin of Schism and therefore notwithstanding all that may be said; concerning the Innocence, or Excuseableness of some men's mistakes about these matters; yet nevertheless, it infinitely concerns every Person, to have a care how he be engaged, either in the one, or the other.  
To come to a conclusion, that which I would most seriously press from what hath been said is this. It appears from the foregoing Discourse, how absolutely necessary it is; that every Man should endeavour to inform his Judgement aright in the matters that offend his Conscience; before he withdraw his Obedience from his Lawful Governors, and his Communion from those that Worship God in Public under them. It appears likewise that it is not enough to justify a Man's Separation; that this or the other thing in our Worship, is really against his Conscience; for he may be a great Sinner notwithstanding that, for leaving our Assemblies, if it should prove at last that he is mistaken in his Notions.  
What therefore should every Dissenter among us do, that hath any regard to his Duty, and would preserve a good Conscience? I say, what is there that more concerns him to do? than presently to set about the true informing of his Judgement in the points where he is now dissatisfied; for ●ear he be found to live in a grievous Sin all the time he Separates from us.  
And therefore, let no Man that Lives out of our Communion, satisfy himself with such frivolous pretences as these: That as for all the Substantials of Religion, the matters of Faith and Good Life, they do agree with us; and that as for the other matters which concern Ceremonies and Discipline; these are Nice, Controverted Points; Points disputed pro and contra amongst the Divines: And therefore why should they trouble their Heads about them; nay perhaps if they should, they have neither Abilities nor Opportunities to understand them.  
It must be confessed that something of this is true; But yet it is nothing to their purpose. It is very well, that we all agree in the Rule of Faith, and Manners; and it would be happy if all the Christian World did so too: But still Schism is a dreadful Sin: And a Man may as certainly, without Repentance, be damned for that, as for being an Heretic in his Opinion, or a Drunkard, for instance, in his Manners. Sure I am, the Ancient Christian Fathers thought so.  
It is true likewise, that the business of Church Government and Discipline, and other Points of Ecclesiastical Conformity, is a matter of Dispute, and Controversy among us: But who is it that made it so? The Church of England without doubt, would have been very well pleased, if there had been no dust raised, no dispute or contentions moved in these matters; but that every Member would have done his Duty peaceably, and quietly in his Station: Or that if any Controversy had arose; it should have been debated among Learned Men; and never have proceeded to Separation from the Communion.  
We do not pretend to lay any stress upon Skill, and Knowledge about these matters, in Order to a Man's Salvation. We believe, and teach that a Man may be a very good Christian, and go to Heaven; that never understood how to justify the Cross in Baptism, or to defend the Common Prayer Book against all the Exceptions that are made against it. All that we say is, that if any Man will scruple, and except against the use of these things; it lies upon him, nay he is bound as he would keep a good Conscience, to use the best means he possibly can, to get Satisfaction about them: Or if he do not; at his own Peril be it, nay even at the Peril of his Salvation, if he breaks the Church's Peace, and Communion upon that Account.  
And as for those that pretend, that these are Subtle Points, and above their Reach, and Capacity; and they have not understanding, and Wit enough to dive into them: Why, in God's Name, who desires them? We say that they might Innocently enough, and with a good Conscience, comply with their Governors in these Points, as they do in a hundred others, without ever diving into them; But since, it seems, they have Wit, and Understanding enough, to cavil and find fault with these things, and upon that Account, to deny their Obedience to those Lawful Powers, which God hath set over them: One would think they should at the same time have so much Honesty, as seriously to endeavour to give themselves Satisfaction as to those things they find fault with: And this is all we desire of them: And it is for their own sakes too; as well as ours, that we desire it. For otherwise they will never be able to answer either to God or Man, for the horrible Inconveniences, and mischiefs, that arise to the Church of Christ, by the Division, and Separation which they are engaged in.  
To conclude, if in any Instance, that Famous Precept of the Apostle, of proving all things, and holding fast that which is good, do Oblige Christians; it doth especially in this. If ever it be a Man's Duty to satisfy himself, about the goodness, and Lawfulness of a thing, that he is apt to doubt of; it is certainly in the Case, where his Superiors have laid their Commands upon him: For there he cannot disobey without Sin; unless he can assure himself that he hath done all that he can, to reconcile their Commands with his Duty to God; but upon the best means he hath used, he finds them irreconcilable. For a Man to disobey till he has done this, is an unwarrantable thing, and in the Case that I now speak of, it is no less than the Sin of Formal Criminal Schism.  
FINIS.   

A DISCOURSE OF CONSCIENCE. THE SECOND PART. Concerning a Doubting Conscience.  
LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishops-Head in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1685.   

THE CASE OF A Doubting Conscience.  
I Have in a former Discourse spoken to the Case of those Dissenters who separate from the Established Church for this Reason, That they are Persuaded that they cannot Lawfully join in our Communion. I now come to speak to the Case of those who separate from us for a less Reason, viz. Because they Doubt whether they may lawfully Communicate with us or no; and so long as they thus Doubt, they dare not come near us, because they fear they should sin against God, if they should do any Action with a doubting Conscience.  
To this indeed a short Answer might be given from the former Discourse, and that is this, That let the Obligation of a doubting Conscience be as great as we can reasonably suppose it, yet if Communion with our Church as it is Established be really a Duty, than a Man's Doubts concerning the Lawfulness of it, will not make it cease to be so, or justify his Separation from it. For if a Manssetled Persuasion, that an Action is unlawful, will not ordinarily acquit him from Sin if he omit that Action, supposing God's Law hath commanded it (as I there showed); much less will a man's bare Doubt concerning the Lawfulness of an Action, justify his Omission of it in such a Case.  
But because this Answer seems rather to cut the Knot, than to untie it; it is my meaning in the following Discourse, particularly to examine and discuss this Plea of a Doubting Conscience, and to show what little force there is in it to keep any man from Conformity, that would otherwise Conform. Hoping that some Reader whose Case this is, may, by what he here finds offered toward his satisfaction, either be prevailed with to lay aside his Doubts in the matter of our Communion, or at least be convinced, that it is more reasonable and safe to communicate with us doubting as he doth, than to continue in separation from us.  
In handling this Case of a Doubting Conscience, I shall observe the same Method I did in the former Discourse, because indeed I cannot think of a better. That is, I shall endeavour to give an account of these four things:  

I. Of the Nature of a Doubting Conscience, and how it is distinguished from the other Kind's of Conscience.  
II. Of the Rule of a Doubting Conscience, or what Measures a man is to proceed by for the determining himself in a doubtful Case.  
III. Of the Power that Humane Laws, Ecclesiastical or Civil, have to Overrule a man's Doubts in any matter.  
iv Of the Authority of a Doubting Conscience, i. e. Whether at all, or how far a man is Obliged by it?   
These four Heads do, I think, take in all the Difficulties that are in the Case of a Doubting Conscience.  
I. I begin with the first Head, The Nature of a Doubting Conscience. In speaking to which, I shall Treat of these three things. 1. Of Doubting in general. 2. Of such Doubts as do affect or concern a Man's Conscience. 3. Of the Difference between the Doubting Conscience, and the Scrupulous.  
1. As to the first of these, which is concerning the Nature of Doubting in general, we may take Notice, That a man is properly said to doubt, when he cannot give his Assent to either part of a Contradiction, that is, cannot make a Judgement whether the thing he is considering, be so, or be not so; but through the equal, or at least fair probability that is on both sides of the Question, continues irresolute and undetermined; now, perhaps, he thinks this Side the more probable, and by and by the other, but he is uncertain as to both, and cannot fix upon either.  
So that a Doubting Mind is not more usually than properly, resembled to a Balance, which by Reason of the equal Weight which is put into both Scales, is not cast on either side, but hangs in the same Posture, or waves up and down, without either Scale coming to the bottom.  
Nevertheless, in a doubtful Case, a man may lean more to one side of the Question than the other, and yet continue doubtful still. Just as there may be so much more Weight put into one Scale than the other, as will be sufficient to incline the Balance more to that side; while yet that Weight is not so considerable as to be able perfectly to turn it, so as to carry down the Scale to the usual mark of Down-Weight, and there to settle it.  
There is indeed this difference between these two things, that a Balance through the exact equality of the Weights put into each Scale, may be so poised, as to hang perfectly in oequilibrio, without inclination either way, and continue so to do: but it will be difficult, if not impossible, to put a Case or a Question, where a man's Mind, after all things considered, is so perfectly indifferent to both sides of it, as not to be more inclined to choose one, than the other.  
When once there appears so much more Evidence on one side of the doubtful Case, that the Mind is enabled to determine itself, and to give a settled assent on that side, than the man ceaseth to doubt any longer; for that which was a Doubt before, is now turned into a Persuasion. And if it be a Case wherein Conscience is concerned, that which was before a Doubting Conscience, is now changed into a Resolved Conscience. Here, to resume our former Comparison, the Balance no longer hangs in oequilibrio, or moves unsetledly this way or that way, but is plainly turned and fixed on one side.  
It is true, in this Case a man doth not always determine himself with the same degree of Persuasion, or Satisfaction to his own Mind. Sometimes the Evidence is so strong, as to command an entire Assent of his Understanding; an Assent so full, that it hath not the least mixture of doubtfulness in it; and this we call an Assurance, or a full Persuasion. At other times, the Evidence may be of force enough to gain an Assent, but yet not so strong an Assent as to exclude all Doubt of the contrary; and this kind of Assent we call an Opinion, or a probable Persuasion. And something like this we may observe in the Balance: The Scale that preponderateth, is not always carried down with the same Force and Briskness; but according as the Weight that turns the Balance is greater or less, so in proportion it may plainly be discerned that the Scale descends either more strongly and nimbly, or more weakly and slowly. But still, in both these Cases, the man hath form a Judgement of the Point; the Balance is turned, and where ever this happens, there is an end of the Doubt or Aequilibrium, and consequently, if it be in a Case that concerns a man's Conscience, it ceases to be any longer a Doubting Conscience, and becomes resolved and determined, though perhaps not fully satisfied and free from all kind of doubt and scruple about that thing.  
2. And thus much of Doubting in general. I now come to consider it with Respect to Conscience, i. e. to inquire How far, or in what Cases a man's Conscience is affected with his Doubts? Which is our second Point under this Head.  
There are a thousand Cases in which a man may be doubtful, as to which his Conscience shall be no way concerned. A man's Doubts may indeed be as various as are the Objects he hath to consider, and to make a judgement of; and therefore unless we will say, that every thing that a man thinks of, or saith, or doth, affects his Conscience, we must not say that every Doubt doth.  
As a man's Conscience is not touched, nor affected with any thing but his own Actions; so neither do a man's Doubts affect or touch his Conscience any further than they concern his Actions. So that Doubts about matters of mere Speculation, (as whether such a Proposition be true or false,) and likewise Doubts about matter of Fact, (as, whether such a thing was done or not done,) which do not relate to the Government of a man's own Actions, these doubts do not concern his Conscience.  
As a man's Conscience is not affected with his own Actions under any other Notion, or Consideration, than only as God's Law is to regulate them, viz. as they are either commanded by that Law, or forbidden by it: so neither do a man's Doubts concerning his Actions affect his Conscience any farther, or upon any other account, than only as God's Law may be transgressed by doing or not doing the Action he doubts of; that is, as he may sin against God, either by omitting the Action when God's Law hath commanded it, or by doing it when God's Law hath forbidden it.  
So that in all doubtful Cases, where a man apprehends no danger of transgressing God's Law, whether he doth the Action he doubts about, or doth it not, there his Conscience is not properly concerned.  
And this is so true, that though we should suppose one side of the Action in question to be really, all things considered, more expedient and more eligible than the other, yet so long as we are satisfied that we may without breach of God's Law choose either side, we are not concerned in Conscience to choose that side which is the most expedient, or the most eligible. For the truth of this, besides the reason of the thing, we have the authority of St. Paul, who when this Case was proposed to him, Whether it was better for the Christians in those times to marry, or not to marry? he thus resolves it, That though indeed, as things than stood, it was better not to marry, yet they might do what they would; for if they did marry, they sinned not: and though (as he saith) he that gave not his Virgin in marriage did better than he that gave her in marriage; yet he allows, that he that gave her in marriage did well, and consequently did act with a good Conscience. Vid. 1 Cor. 7.  
3. From what hath been said, we may be able to give a clear account of the Nature of a Doubting Conscience, and to distinguish it from the other sorts of Conscience; particularly, that which they call the Scrupulous; which is our Third Point under this Head.  
Conscience is usually, though how properly I will not now dispute, distributed into these three Kind's, the Resolved, the Scrupulous, and the Doubting.  
When we speak of a Resolved Conscience, every body knows that we mean no more by that Phrase than this, that a man is satisfied and resolved in his own Mind, concerning the action he hath been deliberating upon, viz. that he is bound to do it, as being a Duty; or that he is bound to forbear it, as being a Sin; or, that he may either do it, or forbear it, as being an Indifferent action, neither commanded, nor forbidden by God. Now this Persuasion, if it be according to the Rule of the Divine Law, we call it a Right Conscience. If it be contrary to that Rule, we call it an Erroneous Conscience: But of this we need speak no more here, since it was the whole argument of the former Discouse.  
As for the Scrupulous Conscience, as that is made a distinct sort of Conscience from the Resolved and the Doubting, we may thus define it: It is a Conscience in some measure resolved, but yet accompanied with a Fear of acting according to that Resolution. It is the unhappiness of a great many, that when they are pretty well satisfied in their Judgement concerning this or the other Point, which they made a Matter of Conscience, and have nothing considerable to Object against the Evidence that is given them, but on the contrary are convinced that they ought, or that they may lawfully Act thus or thus▪ Yet for all that, when they come to act, they are very uneasy, and make a World of Difficulties. Not that there is any new Reason appears that can pretend to unsettle, much less overthrow the Grounds of their first Determination: But only their unaccountable Fears must pass for Reasons. This now is to have a Scrupulous Conscience in the proper Sense.  
But a Doubting Conscience, (which is that we are now concerned in,) though in Common Speech it be often confounded with the Scrupulous, is quite different from both these sorts of Conscience. For in both those a man is supposed to have passed a Judgement in his own Mind whether the Action before him be according to God's Law, or against it. But in the Case of a Doubting Conscience, it appears from what I have said, that a man hath not, nor cannot, so long as he doubts, make any Judgement at all, but is uncertain as to both sides; having, as he thinks, as many Arguments to incline him one way, as the other; and when once he comes to have so much Evidence as to create a Persuasion or Opinion on one side, than he ceaseth to have a Doubting Conscience.  
So that the True Definition of a Doubting Conscience, as it is commonly called, is this. The Suspense of a man's Judgement in a Question about the Duty or the Sin of an Action, occasioned by the Equal (or near Equal) Probalities on both sides.  
And likewise the true Difference between a Doubting, a Resolved, and a Scrupulous Conscience, is this; That the Resolved Conscience is satisfied about its Point, and acts confidently, at least cheerfully: The Scrupulous Conscience is likewise satisfied in the general, but either dares not act, or acts fearfully. The Doubting Conscience is not satisfied at all, for the Point before it is still a Question; of which it can make no Judgement, no Resolution, because of the equal appearances of Reason on both sides.  
This is a plain account of the Doubting Conscience. But after all, it must be acknowledged, that this which we call a Doubting Conscience, and which we have been all this while discoursing of, is, truly and strictly speaking, so far from being any particular sort or kind of Conscience, as we have hitherto supposed it, that it is no Conscience at all.  
Conscience, as we have often said, is a Man's Mind making a Judgement about the Morality of his Actions; But that which we are now talking of, is a man's Mind making no Judgement as to that Point, but continuing wavering and undetermined. Now how a man's Judgement and his no Judgement, which are the Contradictories to one another, should agree in the same Common Nature of Conscience, is not easy to be understood. The Truth is, by the same Logic or propriety of Speech, that we say a Doubting Conscience, we may also if we please say an unresolved Resolution, or a Persuasion without an Assent. But however, because Use hath given the Name of Conscience to the Doubting Mind; and because Conscience is sometimes really concerned about Acting in Doubtful Cases, I choose to follow the common way of speaking.  
II. I now proceed to our Second general Head, which is concerning the Rule of a Doubting Conscience.  
In speaking to this, I shall do these two things. viz. I shall show,  
First, What kind of Rule we here speak of, that is, which Conscience needs in a Doubtful Case.  
Secondly, What that Rule is, or wherein it doth consist.  
1. As to the first of these. When we speak of the Rule of a Doubting Conscience, we do not mean such a Rule by which a man shall be enabled to resolve all his Doubts concerning every Point, so as that he shall cease to doubt any longer concerning that Point: But we mean only such a Rule by which a man may be directed how to determine himself in every Doubtful Case, so as to act with a safe Conscience, whether he can get rid of his Doubts or not.  
There is just as much difference between these two things, as there is between Doubting, for Instance, whether a thing in general be lawful, or not lawful; and Doubting what I am to do in a particular Case, where I doubt of the Lawfulness of the thing. The first of which Doubts, the Casuists call a Speculative Doubt, the other a Practical.  
It is plain, that a man may often very easily come to a Resolution of this latter kind of Doubt; that is, be very well satisfied what it becomes him to do as to this present Action, without being able to resolve his Doubt of the former kind.  
Thus, for instance, a man may not be able to resolve this Question, Whether it be lawful or not lawful to play at Cards or Dice? which is the speculative doubt, as the Schools call it: But he may be very able to resolve this Question, What is most reasonable for him to do in the Case of such a Doubt? Again, a man may not be able to resolve this Doubt, Whether the present War in which his Prince is engaged, be a just War or no? But yet he may be very well able to satisfy himself as to the practical Doubt; that is, What is his Duty to do in case his Prince command him to serve in that War, concerning which he doth thus doubt?  
Now it is the Doubts of this latter kind, these Practical Doubts, as they are called, that Conscience is directly and immediately concerned with, and consequently, for the resolving of which, it chief needs a Rule to direct it. For if a man can but get satisfied what is most agreeable to his Duty to do, as to the present Action he doubts about, it is no great matter as to his Conscience, whether he can get his General or Speculative Doubts about that Action resolved or no. These kind of Doubts, if they cannot be Resolved, must be overruled.  
The truth is, it is a very idle thing for men to talk, that a man must do no Action, till all his Doubts about it be resolved. Thus far we grant it concerns him, that his Doubts should be resolved, viz. That he should be satisfied in his own mind, that that side of the Action he determines himself to, is, all things considered, the more fit and reasonable to be chosen: And to direct a Man in making such a Choice, is our principal business under this Head. But if it be meant, that a Man must so resolve all his Doubts about an Action, as to see clearly through all the Speculative Points which occasion his Doubts, so as to be able to untie all the Difficulties which before entangled his Understanding, and from Intrinsic Arguments, drawn from the nature of the thing, to pronounce concerning the merits of the Question: I say, if this be their meaning, there is nothing more absurd than to say, That a man is not to do an Action till he has resolved or deposed all his Doubts about it.  
For in many Cases this is utterly impossible to be done; the person concerned perhaps having no sufficient Means for the obtaining such a Resolution of his Doubts as we spoke of; or if he had, the Case may be such as will not allow him sufficient time of Consideration for the doing it; for he must either act or not act presently; and he is in equal Perplexity, both as to the one, and as to the other. What now in such a Case can a Man possibly do more than this? viz. by his own Reason, and the advice of his Friends, to get satisfied what is most reasonable, and most agreeable to his Duty, for him to do in the present Circumstances, and to proceed accordingly; for as for other kind of Resolution of his Doubts, as things stand with him, he hath not the least Prospect of it.  
And indeed, when all is said, we see de facto that this is the usual way of proceeding among Men, even those that are very Honest and Conscientious. I dare say, if we take all the Doubtful Cases that happen; where there is one Case in which a Man proceeds to Action upon such a Resolution of his Doubts as we before spoke of, there are ten Cases where the Doubt is overruled, and the Man proceeds to Action without such a Resolution; sitting down satisfied with this, that though he cannot answer the Difficulties on both sides, yet, all things considered, it is most reasonable for him, in the present Circumstances, to act thus, rather than otherwise; for this he takes to be most agreeable to his General Duty; or this is that which Wise and Good Men, whom he hath consulted, do advise him to.  
And now having sufficiently explained what kind of Resolution of Doubts that is, which a Man's Conscience stands in need of in order to his acting safely in a doubtful Case,  
II. I come now to the second Question upon this Head, which is, What that Rule is by which we are to proceed in thus Resolving our Doubts, or determining ourselves to one side or other, in any Doubtful Case that happens to us.  
In answer to this Enquiry, I shall do these two things. First, I shall give some account of the General Rule by which a Doubting Conscience is to be guided. Secondly, I shall apply this General Rule to the several Heads, of Doubtful Cases wherein a man's Conscience may be concerned: That so every one may be furnished with some Principles, for the determining himself in any Matter concerning which he happens to have a Doubt.  
1. As to the first of these, Whoever hath Considered what we have before said, will easily be persuaded, that nothing ought to turn the Balance in a Doubtful Case, but the greater Weight of Reason on one side than the other. For since the very Notion of Doubting, is the suspense of a man's Judgement in a Question, upon account of the equal appearances of Reason on both sides of it: It is plain, that that which is to settle the Judgement, and to determine the Doubt can be nothing else but this, viz. That, after all things considered, there doth appear greater Reason to lie on this side of the Question, than there doth on that. So that the General Rule of a Doubting Conscience, and from which the measures of resolving all particular Cases are to be taken, cannot be laid down otherwise than thus. viz. That in all Doubtful Cases, that side which, all things duly considered, doth appear more reasonable, that is to be chosen.  
I am not ignorant that the Casuists have usually proposed this Rule in other Terms. viz. That in all Doubtful Cases the safer side is to be followed. But I do purposely avoid the expressing it so, because of the uncertain meaning of the safer side? For according as that Word is expounded, (as it may be expounded different ways), so is the Rule so worded true or false.  
If we take safety in the strict and proper Sense, and as it is indeed usually understood, viz. as it is opposed to any Hazard or Danger: it is so far from being an Adequate Rule of a Doubting Conscience, in all Cases to follow the safer side, that in many Cases it will be very unadvisable so to do.  
Sure I am, that in Doubtful Cases which concern the Civil Life, no Wise man doth always make this a Rule to himself. We see a hundred Instances every day, where men venture upon the less safe and the more hazardous side, upon the account of other Reasons and considerations, which they think aught more to prevail with them.  
It is certainly, in general speaking, more safe (that is, more free from hazard or danger) to Travel on Foot, than on Horseback; to stay at home, than to go into Foreign Countries; to Traffic by Land, than to venture one's Stock on the uncertain Seas. But yet for all this, the consideration of the Ease and Expedition that is to be had in the first Case, and the Improvement and Benefit that is to be hoped for in the second, and the Gain and Profit in the last, do we see every day overbalance the consideration of Safety in these Cases, and determine a man not to that side which is freest from Danger, but to that which is more Convenient, or more Useful, or more Advantageous.  
And thus it is likewise as to those Doubtful Cases wherein a man's Conscience is concerned. I suppose that when we speak of the safer side of any Action with reference to Conscience, we generally mean that side on which there appears the least Hazard or Danger of transgressing any Law of God. But now in this Sense of safety, I do not think that it is always a good Rule, for a Doubting Conscience to choose the safer side: On the contrary, I think, that if the Rule be thus put, and thus understood, it will often prove a Snare to a man's Mind, and rather entangle him further in Difficulties, than help him out of them.  
If it was received as a Rule, That a man is in all his Actions to keep himself at the greatest distance he can from the Danger of sinning, (which is the Notion of safety I here speak of), I dare say, there are very few Persons that converse much in the World, but have reason, almost every day, to call themselves to account for transgressing this Rule. For they do every day engage in such Actions, in which they cannot but acknowledge that they do expose themselves to a greater danger of sinning, than if they had not engaged in them.  
Thus, for instance, what man is there among us who, although he know himself to be prone enough to the sin of Intemperance in eating or drinking when Temptations are offered, and accordingly for this reason doth most seriously set himself against this particular sin; yet makes any great Scruple of going to Feasts and Entertainments when he is invited by others; nay or of making them himself, when Decency or Civility, or the serving any of his Temporal affairs doth require him so to do? But yet it is certain, that by thus doing, he runs a much greater Hazard of falling into the sin he fears, than if he should forbear all such Occasions or Temptations of Intemperance.  
Many other Instances which daily occur in Humane Life might be given, wherein good men, nay even the best of men, do for the sake of their Business, or other Laudable Designs which they think fit to pursue, frequently venture to expose themselves to such dangers of sinning as they might have avoided; and this without any Reproach from their own Conscience, or any Censure from other Men.  
The truth is, God hath no where commanded us to avoid all possible danger of sinning, but only to avoid all sin when we are in danger. It is enough for the securing a man's Duty, that he doth not transgress the Laws of God in any Action that he takes in hand: But it is not required that he should in every instance of his Conversation, preserve himself from the utmost possibility, or, (if you will) Danger of so doing. For upon this Supposition, it would be impossible for one to live like a man of this World, and perform the common Offices of Civil Life, and much more to live to any great purposes for the serving his Generation. Indeed the Result of all would be, That whoever would approve himself to be truly Religious and Conscientious, must abandon all Secular Affairs, and retire to a Cloister or a Desert.  
But it may be said, What is this to our Business? Those we now spoke of are supposed to be fully satisfied in their own Minds, that they may safely venture on the more dangerous side of an Action, for the sake of some considerable good that they design in that Action: But the Case we are now concerned in, is that of one who is altogether Doubtful whether he may Lawfully do the Action or no. To this I answer, That my Business is now to give an account of the Rule by which men are to proceed, in determining themselves in Doubtful Cases; and that which I have said, doth thus far I think come home to that Business, that if it be allowed that it is advisable in any Case to forsake the more safe side of an Action, and to choose the more hazardous: we will take it for granted, that it may be as advisable in a Doubtful Case as in any other, until it be made to appear, that God hath appointed a Rule for Doubting persons to govern themselves by, different from that he hath given to other men: Or, to speak the thing more plainly, till it be made to appear, that those who are so unhappy as to Doubt, are debarred of the privilege of Acting according to the best of their Reason and Discretion, which men that do not Doubt are allowed to do.  
But to come more strictly to the Point. I do believe there do abundance of Doubtful Cases, properly so called, frequently happen, in which no Man of Understanding, although we suppose him never so Honest, doth think he is obliged to determine himself to that side of the Action on which he apprehends there is least Danger of sinning: But on the contrary, he will often forsake that side which is safer in this sense, for that which doth more recommend itself to him upon other Accounts.  
Thus for instance, some times Doubtful Cases do happen, in which the greater Probability on one side, will turn the Balance against the greater Safety on the other. Thus if a Man should Doubt whether it may be Lawful to eat any thing Strangled, or that hath Blood in it, (because there are some Passages in the Scripture that seem to forbid these Meats); and should repair to some intelligent Person about this matter, who should give him such an account of those Texts, and of all the other Difficulties in this Affair, that the Man comes away satisfied, that it is far more Probable that all kinds of Meats are allowed by the Christian Religion, than that any are forbidden.  
I ask now, Whether this degree of Satisfaction have not weight enough to put an end to a Man's Doubt in such a Case as this, so as that he may with a quiet Conscience eat of these Meats as there is occasion? I believe most Men will be of this Opinion; but yet the Doubt here is not determined on the safer side, but on the more unsafe. For it is certain, a Man is in less Danger of sinning, if he wholly forbear these Meats, than if, for the serving a present Convenience, he do eat of them. And the Reason is plain; because there are fair Grounds from the Scripture, and Antiquity, for making it a Question whether these Meats be Lawful or no; and it is really yet a Question among many, and it was lately so to the Man himself: But no man in the World ever made a Question whether these Meats might not at any time be Lawfully forborn; there being no Law of God pretended that obliges a Man to eat of them.  
Again, As a greater Probability will turn the Balance against the safer side of a Doubt: So oftentimes such Doubtful Cases do happen, in which, when the Probabilities are equal on both sides, the Consideration of the greater Temporal Advantages on the one side, will have Weight enough with a very Honest Man to overbalance the Consideration of the greater Safety on the other. [Still taking Safety in the sense we before gave.]  
Thus for Instance, Suppose one should demand of another Man a Sum of Money which he pretends to be due to him, and the Man of whom it is demanded, after the strictest and most conscientious Enquiry he can make, is not satisfied in his own mind that it is due. But such is the Confidence of the Demander, and such appearances of Reason he offers, that the Man comes to doubt equally, whether it be due or no; so that there are here equal Probabilities on both sides. The thing in Question now is, Whether it be advisable in point of Conscience for the Man to pay the Money demanded, till he have better Evidence of the Justice of the Demands?  
If a Man be to follow the safer side, it is certain he must pay it. For it is undeniably more safe, that is, farther removed from the Danger of Sin, to satisfy the Demands, though it be to his own loss. For by this means he perfectly sets himself free from the Apprehensions even of the possibility of wronging his Neighbour, which is the sin that he fears in this Case: Whereas if he do not pay the Money, he is uncertain whether he detains the Man's Right from him or no.  
But then, on the other hand, if he should pay the money when it is no way due, (as he hath as much Reason to believe that it is not due, as that it is), how shall he answer to his Wife and Children for parting with such a Sum, which, as his Circumstances may be, he cannot spare without great prejudice to them?  
This is the Case, and these are the Arguments that are to be urged on both sides of it, And I leave it to any considering Man to judge which ought to prevail. I am pretty confident, that most Men will thus determine, viz. That since in this Case it is as Probable, that the Demands aforesaid are , as that they are Just; and since no man is obliged to departed from that he is possessed of, till it do appear by good Evidence that it is due to another Man: And since withal it is unreasonable so to do, when it will be to the Prejudice of a Man's Self and his Family: These things being so, it will be more advisable for the Man in this Case to keep his Money, till it be either by Law adjudged, or he have more convincing Proofs to his own Conscience, that he ought to pay it.  
I think I need not use either more Instances, or more Words, to show that it is not always a Rule to a Doubting Conscience to choose the safer side of the Doubt, taking the safer side for that which is at the greatest distance from the danger of sinning: It being abundantly plain, that many Doubtful Cases may, and do happen, in which, though one side may appear farther removed from the Danger of transgressing God's Law; yet while it doth not appear that the other side is unlawful, and withal it is evident that upon other accounts that side is more eligible to a Prudent Person, no good Man (if he be but as Wise as he is Good) will make any Difficulty of waveing the safer side for the more Prudent, and that without thinking himself ever the less Conscientious for so doing.  
But after all this, If on the other hand, any man have another Notion of Safety than that we have now been speaking of; that is to say, will enlarge the signification of the Word, and will call by the name of the Safer side, not that which hath only this to recommend it, that it is farther removed from the danger of sinning; but that which is freest from all Dangers and Inconveniences of all kinds whatsoever: So as that shall always be the Safer side of a Doubtful Case, which, after all things considered, doth appear to be most agreeable to the Man's Duty in the Circumstances he is in, or which is attended with the fewest Absurdities and evil Consequences of all sorts, and doth best serve all the Interests Spiritual and Temporal taken both together, that a Wise and a Good Man can propose to himself: I say if any man do mean this by the Safer side, I do readily agree with him, that it will for ever, and in all Cases, be a True, and a Wise, and a Good Rule (nay, I add), the only one, to a Doubting Conscience to follow the safer side.  
But then, in this sense of Safety, the safer side and the more Reasonable is all one thing. And consequently, this Rule of following the safer side, and that I before laid down, of following the more Reasonable, are the same in sense, through differently expressed. Only I think this latter way of expression is more plain, and less liable to misconstruction, and therefore I chose it. But it is indifferent to me how Men Word things, so long as we agree in our Sense.  
II. Having thus given an Account of the General Rule by which a man is to determine himself in Doubtful Cases; I come now, in the Second place, to treat of the several Heads, or Sorts of Doubtful Cases, wherein a Man's Conscience is concerned, and to make Application of this Rule to them; and this it will be no hard matter to do, admitting the Grounds we have before laid down.  
There is no Doubt wherein Conscience is concerned, but it will of necessity fall under one of these two Sorts. It is either a Single Doubt, or a Double one.  
We call that a Single Doubt, when a man doubts only on one side of the Action, but is very well satisfied as to the other. As for Instance, he doubts concerning this or the other particular Action, whether it be Lawful for him to do it: But on the other side, he hath no Doubt, but is very well assured, that he may Lawfully let it alone. Or, on the contrary, he is very well satisfied that the Action is Lawful, and that he may do it: But he doubts whether God's Law hath not made it a Duty, so that he cannot Lawfully omit it. This is that which we call a Single Doubt.  
We call that a Double Doubt, where a man doubts on both sides of an Action, that is to say, he doubts on one side whether he be not bound to do this Action; God's Law, for any thing he knows, made it a Duty: But on the other side, so is the Action circumstantiated with respect to him, or he with respect to it; that he doubts whether he be not bound to forbear the Action as it is now presented to him; God's Law having for any thing he knows forbid it. So that he is at a loss what to do, because he fears he may sin, whether he doth the Action or doth it not. I say, it will be impossible to put any doubtful Case wherein a man's Conscience is concerned, which will not fall under one of these two Heads.  
I. Now, as to the Case of a Single Doubt, we may thus apply the General Rule. That when a man doubts only on one side of an Action, there it is more Reasonable to choose that side of the Action concerning which he hath no Doubt, than the other, concerning which he Doubts, supposing all other Considerations be equal.  
And here comes in that famous Maxim which hath obtained both among Christians and Heathens, Quod dubitas ne feceris; which, with the restriction I have now mentioned, will for ever be good Advice in all Cases of this Nature.  
It must needs be unreasonable to venture upon any Action where a man hath the least Fear or Suspicion that it is possible he may transgress some Law of God by it, when it is in his power to Act without any Fear or Suspicion of that kind; supposing all along this Consideration of the possibility of offending by this Action, be not overbalanced, and so the Fear of it removed, by other Considerations which the Circumstances of the Action do suggest.  
Thus for Instance. Here is a Man Doubts whether it be allowable in a Christian to drink a Health, or put out Money to Interest, or to go to Law; as having conversed with such Men, or such Books as do condemn these Practices, and that not without some Colour from the Word of God. The man is not indeed so convinced by their Discourses, as to have taken up any Opinion or Persuasion that these Practices are unlawful; nor would he censure any man that uses them, because he sees there are as Good Men, and for any thing he knows, as good Arguments for the other side: But he is not so clear in his judgement about these Points, as to be able to pronounce any thing positively concerning them either way. He cannot say, that he believes them Lawful, though he is not persuaded that they are unlawful, which is the true state of a Doubting mind. Now in these and all other such like Cases the Rule is plain, That while a man's judgement continues thus in suspense, it is more Reasonable for him to forbear these Practices. For there is no pretence of obligation upon him from God's Law to engage in any of them, and why should he rashly throw himself into danger, by venturing upon an Action concerning which he is uncertain whether it be Lawful or no? He runs no hazard by forbearing these things; but if he practise them, he doth.  
Thus far is right. But then, as I said, this is always to be understood with this Proviso, Caeteris paribus. For if there should happen to be such other Considerations in the Action, as have force enough to overbalance this Consideration of Uncertainty; it will then be reasonable to choose that side of the Action concerning which I did before doubt, rather than that of which I had no doubt at all.  
Thus if the Man that makes a Question about any of the three things I before mentioned, should light into such Circumstances, that, for Instance, he must either drink such a single Health, or a quarrel is like to ensue, nay, and that perhaps to the danger of some of the Lives of the Company. Or again, that he has no means of improving his Money (in which his whole Fortune consists) in any other way but by that of Usury; so that he and his Family must in time starve, unless they be maintained by this Course. Or lastly, if an Orphan be trusted to his Care; and the Estate of that Orphan is so entangled, that he must be put upon the necessity either of waging a Law Suit for the clearing it, or suffering his near Relation, committed to his Charge, to be defrauded of his Right. I say, if the Cases happen to be thus circumstantiated; he that before doubted in General, whether it was Lawful to drink a Health, or to put out money to Usury, or to engage in Law-Suits; may, I should think, certainly satisfy himself, that it is not only Lawful, but Expedient in this particular Case, notwithstanding his General Doubt, to do any of these things; and if he be a Wise Man, he will make no Scruple of Acting accordingly.  
Indeed he cannot be well excused if he do not thus Act. For it will not be sufficient to say, I doubt whether these Practices are Lawful or Unlawful, and therefore I dare not engage in them. Why Man? if you only Doubt about them, you do by this ackonwledge, that for any thing you know they may be Lawful, as well as that for any thing you know they may be Unlawful. And if you be thus in aequilibrio, sure such pressing Considerations as those which are presented in this Case, aught to turn the Balance. Otherwise I do not know how you will answer either to yourself or the World for the Consequences that may ensue. For my part, in such Cases as these I should think, that nothing less than a Belief or Persuasion, that the thing in Question is unlawful, will justify a man's Prudence in Acting on that side which he calls the Safer, and which, had not these Circumstances happened, would really have been so.  
To conclude, if a great Good may be compassed, or a great Evil may be avoided, by doing a thing concerning which we have a General Speculative Doubt whether it be Lawful or no: This very Consideration is in Reason sufficient to silence the Doubt: That is, it is enough to persuade us, that it is not only Lawful but Advisable to do that in the present Circumstances, which before, and out of those Circumstances, we Doubted in general whether it was Lawful to be done or no.  
II. And thus much concerning the Rule by which we are to proceed in the Case of a Single Doubt, I now come to consider that which we call a Double Doubt, and to show what is to be done in that Case.  
A Double Doubt, as I have said, is this, when a man doubts on both sides of an Action; that is to say, he doubts on one side whether he be not bound to do this Action, God's Law having for any thing he knows commanded it; but on the other side, so doth the Action come circumstantiated to him, that he doubts whether he be not by some other Law of God bound to forbear it as it is now offered: So that he is at a loss what to do, because he fears he may sin whether he do the Action, or do it not.  
That which is commonly said in this Case, viz. That the Man that is entangled must get his Doubt removed, and then he may with a safe Conscience act or not act, according as he is satisfied in his own mind; is, as I said before, very often impertinent: For it is no more in a man's power to leave off Doubting when he will, than it is in the power of a Sick man to be Well when he will. And besides, though it might be supposed, that the man with Time and good Counsel might be enabled to extricate himself out of this Perplexity; yet in our Case that Benefit is not always allowed: For perhaps the Circumstances of the Case are such, that the man is under a present necessity either of acting or not acting, and whether he doth the one or the other, he doubts he offends God.  
But what then is a man to do in this Case? Why, he is to follow the same Rule that he doth in all other Doubtful Cases, and which we have been all this while insisting on; that is to say, he is to Act as reasonably as he can: And if he do this, I am sure he incurs no blame, whether he do the Action he doubts about, or do it not. If there should happen to be any sin in the Action, it comes upon some other account than that of Acting with a Doubting Conscience.  
But now the Application of this General Rule to our present Case is various, according to the Degrees of the man's Doubtfulness, compared with the Degrees of the sin he is in danger of, by acting on the one side or the other. And likewise according as other Considerations do happen about the Action, which ought to have some influence in determining the man. However, I think all those varieties may be comprised in these Four following Propositions.  
First, If the Sin we are afraid of, in doing or not doing the Action, doth on both sides appear equal, there we are to determine ourselves to that side where we have the least Doubt of offending God; that is to say, to that side which to our Reason appears more Probable to be free from the dnager of sin, rather than that other which is less Probable to be free from that danger: For certainly this will always be reasonable, that a man should choose a greater Probability before a less, supposing all other things equal.  
But Secondly, If we doubt equally on both sides; so that we apprehend that we are in like danger of transgressing God's Law whether we do the Action or do it not: In this Case we are to determine ourselves to that side on which it doth appear we shall be guilty of the least sin. For certainly, by the same reason for which we are obliged not to sin ●n at all, we shall be obliged to choose a less sin rather than a greater, where we annot cavoid sinning.  
Thirdly, If the Doubt be unequal, and the Sin likeways unequal; that is, if it so happen that one side of the Case is more probable, but the other side less sinful, as not involving a man in so heinous a Crime as the other would, if it should prove that he was mistaken: In this Case a man may choose either the one side or the other; according as the degree of the Probability, or the degree of the Sin, compared with one another, do preponderate.  
The Case may be such, that there is so much more Probability on the one side than the other, and likewise so inconsiderable a difference and disproportion between the sins we are in danger of on each side, that a Wise man will be determined to the more Probable side, and venture all the consequences of his mistakes on the other.  
But then, on the other hand, the Case may likewise be such, that the Consequences on one side, if a man should happen to be mistaken, are so terrible, that they will overbalance all the Probabilities on the other side, let them be never so great; (supposing they do not amount to so much evidence as to create a Persuasion, and so put a man out of the state of Doubting). Now here a Wise man will not Act on the more Probable side, but on that which sets him free from the danger of these Consequences. Thus if a Prisoner was tried for a Capital Offence, and the Evidence against him doth not appear so full as to create a Persuasion in the Judge or Jury that the man is Guilty, though indeed it is more Probable that he is, than that he is not: In this Case I believe all men will say, that considering there is so great a disproportion between the Evil of condemning an Innocent Person and acquitting a Guilty one, (it being Murder in the one Case) the Judge or Jury should rather follow the safer side than the more Probable, and so clear the man, rather than find him Guilty.  
Fourthly, If the Case be such, that the Man doubts equally on both sides, and the sin he is afraid of appears likewise to him to be equal on both sides: Here other Considerations are to turn the Balance. In this Case he is to consider what Prudential Inducements he has to do the Action, or forbear it; as how far his Ease and Quiet, his Advantage and Benefit, his good Name and Reputation, his Friends or his Family is concerned one way or other; and since all other Considerations, that are of a Moral Nature, are equal on both sides; those of this kind, which are the strongest, must add so much weight to the Scale, as to determine the Man either to do the Action he doubts about, or to let it alone.  
And indeed, it cannot be denied that these Considerations will often have a great Influence even upon a good Man, not only in the Case I have now put, where the directly Moral Arguments are equal on both sides, but in all the other doubtful Cases I before mentioned.  
We may talk very rationally about the Degrees of Probability, and the Degrees of Sin, and what weight each of them is to have with us, and all this with so much Evidence, that no Man can deny the reasonableness of the Rules we lay down in Thesi: But yet when we come to Act, we find that scarce any Man doth exactly proceed according to these Rules; but mixes some of these Prudential Considerations which I have mentioned with his Deliberations, and though they do not wholly, yet they help to turn the Balance. And for my part, I dare not say, that all those who thus proceed, are to be blamed for so doing; supposing that the Case wherein they thus Act, be a Case of pure Doubt, and there be no Persuasion on either side; and withal, that the Man who thus proceeds, is satisfied in his own Mind with his proceeding. The truth is, when all is said, every Man in doubtful Cases is left to his own Discretion; and if he Acts according to the best Reason he hath, he is not culpable, though he be mistaken in his Measures.  
These are all the Rules that are to be given in the Case of a Double Doubt. And I think no body can object against the Truth of them. But I am sensible of another Objection that may be made, and that is, Why I do mention them at all. Since to the Generality of Men, for whom this Discourse is intended, they seem altogether unpracticable. For how few are there who are Competent Judges of these different Degrees of Probability or Sinfulness in an Action that we here talk of, and much less are capable of so balancing these things one with another, as to be able from thence to form a good Judgement upon the whole Matter?  
But to this I answer, That if Rules are to be given at all for the determining Men in Doubtful Cases, we must give these, because we can give no other. These being the only Principles that Men have to govern their Actions by in these Cases. And I trust also, they will not be wholly useless to the most ordinary Capacities, for the Purposes they are intended. Because all may hereby at least learn thus much, viz. What Methods they are to proceed by for the guidance of their Actions in Doubtful Cases. And though they may have false Notions of the Dangers and the Degrees of particular Sins, and so may sometimes make false Applications of these Rules to their own Case; yet it is enough for their Justification, as I said before, that they have Reasoned as well as they can. Since they are not bound to Act in Doubtful Cases, according to what is best and most reasonable in itself: But it is abundantly sufficient, that they do endeavour it.  
But to render these Rules about a Double Doubt more intelligible and more useful, I think it will not be amiss to give my Reader a Specimen, both how they are to be applied to particular Cases, and likewise when they are applied, what light they give to a Man for the choosing his way in any Doubtful Case he happens to be engaged in. And since it would take up too much room to give every particular Rule a several Instance, I shall pitch upon one Case, under which I may consider all the Varieties of a Double Doubt I have now represented; and it shall be that Celebrated Case of the Sacrament, than which we have not a greater or a more frequent Instance of this kind of Doubt in any Case among us. And because I would not by the discussion of this Case, divert my Reader (against his will) from the main Argument, I have taken care to have it so marked in the Print, that every one may without trouble (if he have no mind to read it) pass it over as a long Parenthesis, and go on to the next Point.  
This is the Case.  
Here is a Man that believes it to be his Duty to take all opportunities of Receiving the Sacrament, or at least to take them frequently. But on the other side, such is his condition, that he is constantly under great Fears and Apprehensions of his being unqualified for it; and to receive the Sacrament Unworthily he knows to be a great Sin: Not that there is any grievous notorious Sin lies upon his Conscience unrepented of; much less that he is engaged in some vicious Course, which he is unwilling that his new Vows at his approach to the Lords Table should divorce him from: For indeed he desires and endeavours in all things to live honestly, and to keep a Conscience void of offence towards God and towards Man.  
But this is the Case, He is not so devout a Christian, nor lives so Pure and Spiritual a Life, as he thinks becomes the Partakers of such Heavenly Food. Or perhaps he cannot bring himself to so feeling a Sense and Contrition for his past Sins, or such ardours of Love and Devotion to our Saviour, as he hath been taught that every worthy Communicant aught to be affected with. Or perhaps he wants Faith in the Blood of Christ, not being able to apply the Benefits of his Passion so comfortably to his own Heart as he thinks he ought to do. Or perhaps, in the last place, his mind is so haunted with a company of idle and naughty Fancies, especially when he sets himself to be more than ordinarily serious, that he thinks it would be a great Profanation of the Sacrament, for him to come to it in such Circumstances.  
These, or such like, are the things that trouble him. And though he hath several times endeavoured to put himself into a better condition, yet he could never satisfy himself, nor get over these difficulties. What now must this Man do? He would fain receive the Sacrament, as thinking himself bound to do it; but he dare not receive it, as looking upon himself to be unqualified for it. If he do not come to the Lords Table, he denies his Attendance on the most Solemn Ordinance of Christianity, and so doubts he sins on that account: If he do come, he doubts he approaches unworthily, and so sins upon that account.  
It is here to be remembered, that the Question to be spoken to in this Case, is not this; What course the Man is to take for the Curing or Removing his Doubtfulness in this matter, that so he may come to the Sacrament with Satisfaction to his own mind: But this; Supposing the Man after all his endeavours cannot cure or remove his Doubt, what he must do? must he come to the Sacrament, or must he forbear? One of them he must do, and yet, which of them soever he chooseth, he fears he sins.  
If the former had been the Question, the Resolution of it would have been thus: That the Man is to use the best means he can to get better Instruction and Information about the Nature and Ends of the Christian Sacrament; and about the Qualities and Dispositions that are needful to fit a man for it, particularly those of Faith and Repentance. For it is the Man's Ignorance or Mistake about these things, that makes him pass so hard a Censure upon himself, and so occasions all the Doubtfulness in this Case. If he once come rightly to understand these Points, his Doubts would of themselves fall to the Ground; and the Man would be perfectly satisfied, that as his Case is (supposing it to be such as I have now represented) he may without any Fear or Scruple in the World at any time approach to the Holy Table; because he is indeed in such a state and disposition of mind as renders him habitually qualified for the performance of that Duty.  
But this, as I said, is not the Question before us; we here suppose the Man, either through want of Means of Instruction, or through strong Prejudices from Education, or the like, to be incapable at present of this Satisfaction, and to be in great perplexity on both sides; and that which we are to inquire into is, to which side of the doubtful Case he must determine himself. Shall he receive the Sacrament doubting as he doth? or shall he forbear it doubting as he doth?  
Now I say, a man hath no other way of coming to a Resolution of this Question, but by applying the Rules I before laid down to his present Case: which may be done in this manner.  
Since the Man we speak of doubteth that he sins whether he come to the Sacrament, or forbear, the First thing to be considered is, on which side he doubts least; or which side appears to him most likely and probable to be free from the danger of sinning: For, if all other things in the Case be equal, the Balance is to be turned on that side according to our first Proposition.  
Now if our present Question be put upon this Issue, I am confident the Man whose Case I am representing will think it more reasonable to repair to the Sacrament, even in that evil posture he takes himself to be; than customarily to abstain from it: Because by thus doing, he doth certainly follow the more probable, and the less doubtful or dangerous side of the Question. For it is evident, he cannot pretend to be half so certain of this Particular, viz. That he is unprepared for the Sacrament, which is the reason of his abstaining, as he is certain in the General that it is his Duty to frequent it.  
If indeed the Man was a person of ill Life and Manners: Or if he had been lately guilty of any Notorious Wilful Sin, and came to the Lords Table with that sin upon his Conscience unrepented of: Then I will grant, he had some reason to believe that he was as much in danger of sinning, by receiving unworthily; as by withdrawing himself from God's Ordinance. But the Case here is not so. The Man is really an honest wellmeaning Christian, nor hath he done any thing of late, which can give him any suspicion of his having forfeited that Title. Only through his Mistake about the Notion of preparation for the Sacrament, he apprehends he is not qualified as he ought to be, though yet if most others were to be Judges of his Condition, they would say he was. Why? certainly in this Case, it must be evident to the Man that he runs a greater danger of transgressing the Law of God by absenting himself from the Communion, especially if he do it customarily; than if he should come to it with all his Fears and Doubts about him. For, as I said, his Fears and Doubts of his own unworthiness, cannot possibly be so well grounded as his Fears and Doubts that he sins against God by habitually denying his attendance on that great Christian Service. For those are founded on the express Laws of the Gospel: The others are founded only on uncertain conjectural Surmises about his own condition. That is to say, he is certain that he is bound to take frequent opportunities of paying his homage to Jesus Christ in the Sacrament; but he cannot pretend to have such assurance in his Case that he is unqualified for paying that homage.  
But Secondly, Let us suppose the Doubt is equal on both sides: That is to say, that the Man hath as much reason to believe that he is an unworthy Receiver if he receives at all, as he hath reason to believe that it is a Sin in him if he do not receive. Which yet can hardly be supposed in our Case, but let us suppose it, nay, if you please, let us suppose the Man doth certainly sin, whether he recives or forbears: Here than this comes to be considered; which of these two Sins is the least: To Receive unworthily, yet out of a Sense of Duty, or not to receive at all. For on which side soever this last sin happens to be, to that side the Man is to determine himself according to our second Rule. It being eternally reasonable, That of two Evils we should choose the least, when we cannot avoid both.  
Now putting the Case before us upon this Issue, there needs no more to be done for the resolving it, than only to ask this general Question.  
Which is the greater sin of these two; for a Man to omit a known Duty, and so to break a known Law of God for Conscience sake: Or to yield Obedience to that Law for Conscience sake, when yet it so happens, that a Man cannot do that, without breaking another Law of God in the manner of his Performance of that Duty? For my part, I should think that the Man who doth this last, though he cannot be said to be Innocent, yet is he guilty in a far less degree, than the Man that practiseth the former, and a great deal more is to be said in his justification.  
Let us suppose two Men, both of them conscious to themselves, that as things stand with them, they are not in a fit condition, so much as to say their Prayers, or to perform any other act of Religious Worship as they ought to do; now one of these Men doth upon this account forbear all Prayers both Public and Private; neither using his Closet, nor frequenting the Church. The other hath such a Sense of what both Natural Religion and Christianity do oblige him to in this matter, that he dares not forbear his usual Offices either in Public or Private, though yet he believes he sinfully performs them.  
If the Question now be put, which of these two is the better Man, or the least Offender, I dare say that all men will give their Judgement in favour of the latter, though yet no Wise man will think that this Person is to be excused for living at such a rate, that he cannot say his Prayers without Sin.  
This Judgement, I say, men would pass in this Case; and there is a great deal of Reason for it. For certainly, no indisposition that a man hath contracted, of what nature soever, will take off from his Obligation to obey the Laws of God. If a man cannot do his Duty so well as he ought, he must at least do it as well as he can. And therefore let his Circumstances be what they will, he must needs be less Criminal in performing a known Duty in the best manner that his Condition will allow him, though with many and deserved Reflections upon his own unworthiness, than in wholly omitting or disusing that Duty. Because a neglect in the manner of performing a Duty, is a less fault than to neglect the Substance of it.  
Let this now that I have said be applied to our Case, and we have an easy resolution of the Question before us. viz. That since a greater sin is to be avoided before a less, when a man supposes himself to be under a necessity of being guilty of one; it is more reasonable that the man we speak of, should come to the Sacrament with all his Doubts concerning his unworthiness, than that he should customarily and habitually withdraw himself from it, because it is a greater sin to do this latter than the former.  
Well, but some say, How can this consist with St. Paul's Doctrine? Who expressly affirms, That whoever eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh 
1 Cor. 11. 29.  Damnation to himself. Can there be any more dreadful sin than that, which if a man be guilty of, it will actually Damn him? Certainly one would think by this, that a man runs a much less hazard in not Receiving at all, than in venturing to Receive whilst he hath the least Doubt that he Receives unworthithily, considering the dreadful Consequences of it.  
But to this I briefly answer. Such a man as we all along suppose in our Case, is in no danger at all of Receiving unworthily, in the Sense that St. Paul useth this Term. For the unworthy receiving that he so severely Censures in the Corinthians, was their approaching to the Lords Table with so little a sense of what they were about, that they made no distinction between the Lord's Body and common Food: 
Ibid. v. 29. v. 20, 21, 22.  But under a pretence of meeting for the Celebration of the Lords Supper, they used the Church of God as if it was an Eating or Tippling House: Some of them Revelling it there to that degree, that they went away Drunk from these Religious Assemblies. All this appears from the Text. But I hope none among us (especially none of those who are so doubtful about their being duly qualified) do profane the Sacrament in this manner.  
But further, Perhaps the Damnation which St. Paul here denounces, is not so frightful as is commonly apprehended. For all that he saith (if either the Original or the Margin of our English Bibles be consulted) will appear to be this, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh Judgement to himself. Meaning hereby, in all probability, that he who doth thus affront our Lord's Instistution, by making no distinction between the Bread of the Sacrament and common Meat; doth by this his profaneness draw severe Judgements of God upon himself. For, for this cause (saith he) many are weak and 
Ver. 30.  sickly among you, and many are fallen asleep: But here is not a word of Everlasting Damnation; much less of any man's being put into that State by thus receiving unworthily: Unless any man will say, that all those who are visited with God's Judgements in this World, are in the State of Damnation as to the next. Which is so far from being true, that St. Paul in this very place affirms the contrary, viz. in the 32. Verse, where he tells us, That When we are thus judged [in this World] we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the World, i. e. with Wicked men in another Life.  
But further, Admitting St. Paul in these words to mean Damnation in the usual Sense, yet still the utmost they can come to, will be no more than this: That whosoever eateth and drinketh thus unworthily, as the Corinthians did, is guilty of a Damnable sin. But now there are a great many other Cases besides this of the Sacrament, in which a Man is equally guilty of a Damnable Sin, if he do not perform his Duty as he ought to do. He that Prays or Hears unworthily; He that Fasts or gives Alms unworthily. In a word, He that in any Instance performs the Worship of God, or professeth the Christian Religion unworthily: I say, such a Man, according to the Protestant Doctrine, may be said to do these things to his own Damnation, upon the same account that he is said to Eat and Drink his own Damnation that Communicates unworthily in the Sacrament; though indeed not in so high a degree. That is to say, such a Man is guilty of a Sin that is in its own Nature Damnable, and may prove actually so to him, unless either by a particular or general Repentance he obtains God's pardon for it. But yet for all this, there is no man will for these Reasons think it adviseable to leave off the practice of these Duties; but the only Consequence he will draw from hence, is, that he is so much the more concerned to take care that he perform them as he ought to do.  
But in the last place. Let the sin of coming to the Sacrament unworthily, be as great and as damnable as we reasonably can suppose it: Yet this is that we contend for, the sin of totally withdrawing from it, is much greater and more damnable. So that if he who partakes of it unworthily, doth eat and drink Damnation to himself; He that partakes not at all, is so far from mending the matter, that he doth much increase that Damnation.  
The truth of this doth fully appear from what I have before spoke in General, concerning the much greater sin of transgressing a known Law of God, than of observing that Law as well as we can, though with much unworthiness. I will only add this further, with reference to this Particular of receiving the Sacrament.  
Though I am far from encouraging any to approach to the Lords Table without due Qualifications; or from extenuating any man's sin that comes unworthily; (unworthily I mean in the Scripture Sense of that word, and not as it is understood by many melancholy scrupulous Persons) Yet this I say: That if Men did seriously consider what a sin it is to live without the Sacrament, it being no other, than living in an open affront to the express Institution of our Lord Jesus, and a renouncing the Worship of God and the Communion of the Church, in the great Instance of Christian Worship and Christian Communion: And withal, what dreadful Consequences they bring upon themselves hereby, even the depriving themselves of the chief of those ordinary means which our Lord hath appointed for the obtaining Remission of sins, and the Grace and Influence of his Holy Spirit: I say, if men did seriously consider these things, they would not look upon it as so slight a matter, voluntarily to Excommunicate themselves as to the partaking in this great Duty and Privilege of Christians; but what apprehensions soever they had of the sin, and the danger of receiving unworthily, they would for all that, think it more sinful and more dangerous not to receive at all.  
I have said enough in answer to this Objection from St. Paul; perhaps too much, considering how often these things have been said. I will now go on with our Case.  
In the Third place, therefore let us suppose our Doubting Man, (for these or such like Reasons as we have given) to have such a Sense of his Duty, that he generally takes the opportunities that are offered him, of doing Honour to our Lord, by partaking in his Supper, though perhaps he is not often very well satisfied about his Preparation: But so it happens, that since his last Communicating, he finds his Mind in a much worse frame than it used to be. He hath lived more loosely and carelessly than he was wont; or perhaps he hath been very lately guilty of some grievous sin that lies heavy upon his Conscience: So that when his next usual time of Receiving comes, he cannot but apprehend himself in a very unfit condition to Communicate in so sacred a Mystery. Upon this he is in a great perplexity what to do. For on the one side, he thinks he hath more reason to believe that he offends God if he comes to the Sacrament in these Circumstances, than if he forbears; because he is more certain, that there is a Law of God that forbids him to come unworthily; than he is certain, that there is a Law of God that commands him to receive every time that he hath opportunity. But now, on the other hand, if it should prove that he is really bound by God's Law to Commemorate the Death of Christ in the Sacrament, every time that an opportunity is offered; He is sensible in that Case, it is a greater sin to neglect this Duty, than to perform it unworthily, so long still as he performs it out of Conscience. What now is the Man to do in these Circumstances?  
This is an exact Instance of the Case I spoke to in my third Proposition; where on one side the Man runs a greater danger of sinning; but on the other side, if he should prove mistaken, he sins in a greater degree.  
Now for a Resolution of this Case, I say; That if the Question be put concerning the Man's absenting himself only once or twice from the Communion, in order to the exercise of Repentance, and the putting himself into a better frame of mind, against another opportunity: The Answer (according to our Third Proposition) must be this, That it is very reasonable thus to do.  
And there is good ground for this Answer. For certainly a Man is more in danger of sinning, if he receive unworthily, than if he do not receive every time that there is a Communion. There being an express Law against the one; but no express Law obliging to the other. For Christ hath no more appointed that we should receive the Sacrament so many times in a year; than he hath appointed that we should Pray so many times in a day; or that we should give such a determinate proportion of our Annual Income to Charitable Uses. As to these things he hath bound us in the General; but as to the Particulars, the Circumstances of our Condition, and the Laws of our Superiors are to determine us. Only this we are to remember, that the oftener we perform these Duties, it is the better; and we can hardly be said to be Christians if we do not perform them frequently.  
This now being so: Though it be true, that a Man would be guilty of a greater sin, if he should at any time, though but once, abstain from the Communion, than if he should come to it with such unworthiness as we are here speaking of; supposing that Christ's Law had precisely tied him up to communicate every time that a Communion is appointed: Yet since there is so little appearance of Reason to conclude that Christ has thus tied him up; and withal on the other hand, he runs so certain a danger of sinning if he should Communicate at this time, apprehending himself to be so unworthy as he doth: This Consideration of the certain danger must needs in this Case overbalance the other of the greater sin, and make it appear more Reasonable to the Man to suspend his receiving to another Opportunity, against which time he hopes to be better prepared; than to adventure upon it in his present Circumstances.  
But then if the Question be put concerning the Man's absenting himself Customarily and Habitually from the Lord's Table upon this account of unworthiness; that which I have now said, will not hold. For in this Case, the Man is in as much danger of sinning by not receiving at all, as by receiving unworthily, nay, and a great deal more, as I shown in my first particular about this Case. And withal he is guilty of a much greater sin in wholly withdrawing from the Sacrament, than in coming to it though with never so great Apprehensions of his own unworthiness, as I shown in my second. And therefore since the danger is at least equal on both sides, he must choose that side on which the least sin lies: That is to say, he must Communicate frequently (at least so often as the Laws of the Church do enjoin him, which is three times a year, though he be in danger of doing it unworthily; rather than not Communicate at all.  
Having thus gone through Three of our Propositions concerning a Double Doubt: All that remains is, to put our Case about the Sacrament so, as that it may serve for an Instance or Illustration of our fourth and last.  
Here therefore we are to suppose our Doubting Man to be in such a Condition, that he apprehends he runs an equal danger of sinning whether he receives the Sacrament, or receives it not. And withal, so unskilful a Judge is he of the morality of Actions, that he apprehends no great difference in the degree of the sin, whether he do the one or the other.  
In this Case now, all the Man can do, is to consider what Inducements he has in Point of Prudence or Interest to do or to forbear the Action he doubts about; for since all other Considerations in the Case are equal, those of this kind are to turn the Balance, according to our Fourth Proposition.  
But if the Case turn upon this Point, I dare say no man will be long doubtful, whether he should frequent the Sacrament in obedience to the Laws, or forbear it. For it is plain, that he Acts more Prudently, and more consults his own Advantage both Temporal and Spiritual.  
As for the Temporal Advantages which a Man receives by obeying the Laws in this matter, I will not now insist on them, though they are neither few nor inconsiderable. That which I desire chief to be here considered, is this, That in point of Spiritual Advantages; it is much more advisable for our Doubtting Person to come to the Sacrament, than to abstain from it.  
For by frequenting this Ordinance, he takes the best method both to grow more worthy, if he be now unworthy; and likewise to cure the Doubts and Scruples he is now troubled with. But if he neglect this means of Grace, he not only takes an effectual course to increase and perpetuate his Fears and Doubts (it being very probable that the longer he defers his receiving the Sacrament, still the more doubtful will he be of his being qualified for it): But also is in great danger to lose that sense of Virtue and Religion that he now hath upon his Spirit; because he denies himself the use of those Means and Helps which are most principally necessary for the preserving and maintaining it.  
Now I say, supposing all other things in the Case equal, this very Consideration alone will prevail with a reasonable Man to come to the Sacrament, rather than forbear it, even at the same time that he mightily doubts whether he shall not receive unworthily.  
Thus have I given a large Exemplification of all our Rules concerning a Double Doubt in this instance of receiving the Holy Communion. If I have dwelled too long upon this Subject, I hope the Frequency and the Importance of the Case, will in some measure excuse me.  
III. Having thus prepared our way by settling the Notion and the Rule of a Doubting Conscience, I come now more directly to the main Business that is before us, and that is, to give an Account what share Humane Laws, Ecclesiastical or Civil, have in the Rule of a Doubting Conscience, or what Power they have to overrule a man's Doubts in any Case? which, according to the method I proposed, is the Third general Enquiry I am to resolve.  
This is indeed the great Point that is disputed between us and those of the Separation. Nay, I may say it is the Point upon which that whole Controversy turns, so far as a Doubting Conscience is concerned in it. And therefore I shall discuss it as carefully as I can; but yet in such a general way as that what I have to offer, may serve for all other Doubtful Cases of this Nature, as well as this which we are now concerned in.  
Their Assertion generally is this, (generally, I say: For there are some of the Dissenters, and those as Learned and Eminent as any, who have declared themselves of another Opinion) viz. That wherever a Man Doubts concerning the Lawfulness of an Action; that very Doubt of his is a sufficient Reason to make him forbear that Action, though Lawful Authority hath commanded it.  
On the other side, our Assertion is; That wherever Lawful Authority hath Commanded an Action, that Command is (generally speaking) a sufficient Warrant for a Man to do that Action, though he Doubts whether in itself it be Lawful or no.  
That I may speak clearly to this Point; I shall First premise some things in order to our more distinct understanding the State of the Question. Secondly, I shall show the Grounds and Reasons of our Assertion. Thirdly, I shall endeavour to answer the Chief Arguments that are brought on the other side.  
I. What I think needful to be premised for the right apprehending the State of the Question, I shall comprise in these following Particulars, by which it may be easily discerned how far we agree with the Dissenters in this matter, and in what we differ from them.  
First, We do readily own with them, that no Authority upon Earth can oblige its Subjects to do any Action which the Law of God hath forbidden, or to forbear any Action which the Law of God hath commanded.  
Secondly, We agree likewise with them in this; That wherever any Subject hath taken up an Opinion or Persuasion that such an Action which his Governors have obliged him to, is against the Law of God; though it be a false Opinion or Persuasion, yet it will so far bind him, that he cannot in that Instance obey their Laws without offending God. But then we say, on the other hand, That though he cannot Obey without sin, so long as this Persuasion continues; yet he is at the same time guilty of sin in disobeying, if he should prove to be mistaken; supposing that it was through his own fault that he fell into that mistake.  
Thirdly, We acknowledge further, That in a Case where a Man cannot be said to be Persuaded that the particular Action enjoined by Authority is a sinful Action; but only he Doubts whether it be so or no: Yet if the Man hath a general Persuasion that no Public Law will warrant him to act against his Private doubt; in this Case he can no more do the Action enjoined without sin, than he could in the former Case. But then if this Notion of his be false (as it is my present business to show that it is so;) he cannot be excused from sin, in disobeying his Superiors, unless upon the former account of inculpable Ignorance.  
Fourthly, We say this farther, That a Culpable Doubt doth no more excuse the doing an Evil Action, than a Culpable Ignorance, i. e. it doth not excuse it My meaning is this. If a man should be so little instructed in his Religion, as to Doubt whether that which is plainly enjoined by God's Law be a Duty or no: Or whether that which is plainly forbid by God's Law be a sin or no: (so plainly, I mean, that it is the duty of every Honest Man to know this, and he must be most criminally Ignorant that can be so stupid as to make a Doubt of it). If, I say, in such a Case as this a man should Doubt whether the thing commanded by his Superiors was Lawful or no: We are so far from saying that a Man doth well in obeying his Superiors in such an instance where their commands do so manifestly contradict the Laws of God; that on the contrary, we affirm the man is highly accountable to God for all such Actions that he doth, though they were done purely in obedience to that Authority which God hath set over him; and purely in compliance with this Principle we are now contending for, viz. That in all Doubtful Cases it is most reasonable to govern our Actions by the Commands of our Superiors.  
Far are we therefore from asserting, That whatever our Governors do command, the Subject is bound to perform, so long as he only Doubts, but is not persuaded of the unlawfulness of the thing commanded: And that if there be any sin in the Action, he that commands it is to answer for it, and not he that obeys. For we do believe, that in matters where a man's Conscience is concerned, every one is to be a Judge for himself, and must answer for himself. And therefore, if our Superiors do command us to do an Action which their Superior God Almighty hath forbid; we are offenders if we do that Action, as well as they in commanding it, and that whether we do it Doubtingly, or with a Persuasion of its Lawfulness.  
But then these two things are always to be remembered. First, That this is true only in such Cases where (as I said) a man is bound to know that God's Law hath forbid that Action which his Governors do command, and it is either through his gross carelessness, or some other worse Principle in him, that he knows it not, or is doubtful of it. For wherever a man is innocently, and inculpably Ignorant or Doubtful, how the Law of God stands as to such a particular matter which Authority hath obliged him to; as neither having means to cometo the knowledge of it; or, if he had, the Circumstances of his condition not requiring that he should so accurately inform himself about it: In such a Case as this, I say, a man cannot formally be said to be guilty of sin in obeying his Lawful Superiors, though the instance in which he obeys should happen to contradict some Law of God. For the Law of God here, is as no Law to him, that is, it doth not oblige him, because he neither knows it, nor is bound to know it. And where there is no Law, there is no transgression.  
And then further this is also to be remembered, that when we own that a man may be guilty of sin as well in obeying his Superiors, when he only doubts of the Lawfulness of the Action commanded, as when he is Persuaded that the Action is unlawful: I say, this we are to remember, that when ever this Case happens; the man's sin doth not lie in his obeying his Superiors with a Doubting Conscience (which is commonly run away with): For the man would as certainly sin, if in this Case he did the Action with a Persuasion that it was Lawful; as he doth in doing it with a Doubt, whether it be Lawful or no. But the sin lies here: viz. in doing an Action which Gods Law hath forbid; and which the man would have known to be an ill Action, if he had been so honest, and so careful in minding his Duty as he should have been. It is his Acting contrary to a Law of God, that here makes the matter of the sin; and it is his vicious criminal Ignorance of that Law which gives the Form to it. But as for the obeying his Superiors, whether with a Doubt or without one, that is no part or ingredient of the sin at all.  
Fifthly, We add this further, That whatever Power or Right we give to our Superiors, for the overruling a Private Doubt; It is not to be extended so far as either to destroy the Truth; or to supersede the Use of those Rules I have before laid down in order to the directing a man's proceeding in the Case of a Double Doubt. For this Case of obeying the Commands of our Superiors when we doubt of the Lawfulness of them being a Double Doubt as properly as any other, those Rules are here to take place as much as in any other instance.  
And therefore where ever a man's Doubts are in this Case very unequal: That is to say, he apprehends himself in much greater danger of sinning if he obey his Superiors in this particular instance, than if he obey them not; as having abundantly more Reason to believe that their Commands are Unlawful, than that they are Lawful: In that Case we cannot say ●e is obliged to obey, but should rather disobey, supposing all other Considerations be equal. For no man is bound to obey his Superiors any farther than they command Lawful things. And therefore if it be two to one more Probable that their Command is Unlawful than that it is Lawful, it is likewise more Probable that a man in this Instance is not to obey them. And a greater Probability, caeteris paribus, is always to be chosen before a less, according to our First Rule  
But, then though the Authority of our Superiors alone will not in this Case be of force enough to retrieve the Balance which is so far inclined the other way, and to turn it on its own side: Yet there may be, and very usually are, such other Arguments drawn from the Consideration of the greater sin, and the more dreadful Consequences, of disobeying in this instance, than of obeying: As will to any reasonable man outweigh all the Probabilities on the other side (so long as they are not so great as to create a persuasion) and make it reasonable for the man rather to do the Action; how strong soever his Doubts be of the unlawfulness of it (so long as they are but Doubts); than to omit it after Lawful Authority hath enjoined it.  
But however this happen: It is always to be born in mind, as before, that if it should prove that our Superiors do command nothing in the particular Instances, but what they Lawfully may do: It will not justify any man's disobedience, to say, that he apprehended it was more dangerous or more sinful to obey them, than to disobey them: For our Mistakes and false Reasonings, will not take off from the Obligation that is upon us to obey our Lawful Superiors in their Lawful Commands; unless, as I have often said, we can satisfy ourselves, that in those Instances we neither were bound, nor had sufficient means to understand better.  
And now having thus cleared our way, by removing from our Question those things that are Foreign to it, and which indeed, by being usually blended with it, have made it more Intricate than otherwise it would be; we are pretty well prepared to propose our Point.  
In the Sixth place then. Excluding (as we have done) out of our Case all those Things and Circumstances we have been speaking of, with none of which we have here to do; the plain Question before us is this.  
Whether in the Case of a pure Doubt about the Lawfulness or unlawfulness of an Action, where the Probabilities are on both sides pretty equal and where likewise the Man concerned, hath done all that he was obliged to do for the satisfying himself: Whether, I say, in this Case the Command of a Lawful Superior ought not so far to overbalance the Doubt, as not only to make it reasonable for the Man to do that of which he doubteth; but also to oblige him so to do?  
We hold the Affirmative of this Question, and I now come to give the Reasons why we so hold, which is the Second thing to be done under this Head.  
II. Our Proposition is this, That if Lawful Authority do Command us to do a thing which as on the one hand we cannot say it is Lawful; so on the other hand, we cannot say it is Unlawful; but our Judgement remains suspended, as having equal, or near equal Arguments on both sides: In such a Case as this, though if we were left to our own Choice, we should generally forbear the Action for the Reasons I before gave; yet being Commanded by our Superiors, who by the Law of God have Authority over us; it is not only reasonable, but our Duty to do it.  
For First of all, even in point of Humility and Modesty, though there was no other consideration; one would think that a Subject owes as much deference to the Judgement and Discretion of his Superiors as this comes to.  
So much influence as this, even a Confessor or a Private Friend hath over our Consciences. In a Case where we are altogether uncertain on both sides, we usually so far submit ourselves to them, as to be swayed and overruled by what they advise; and that oftentimes not so much upon Consideration of the weight and force of their Reasons, as merely upon this account, that we take them to be abler to guide us in these Affairs than we ourselves are, as having better considered them, and seeing farther into them than we do.  
I dare say there are few of those we are now disputing with, if a Doubt should happen to arise in their Conscience about the Lawfulness of any Practice in their Trade, or their other civil Concernments, and they should upon this apply to some Friend of theirs, of whose Learning and Prudence, and Honesty they have a good Opinion, and put their Case to him: But would (if the Doubt was so equal on both sides as in our Case we suppose it) without any great difficulty be concluded and determined by the Judgement of the man they thus apply to; especially if that Judgement be seconded by the suffrage of some other Learned Pious men, whom they have thought fit upon this occasion to consult likewise.  
If now the Opinions of one or two Private men be of so much weight as to overrule a Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action, when the Reasons on both sides are equal: Is it not very hard if the joint Resolution and Determination of our Public Governors, whose Office and Business it is to Consult and Command for the Best, should not in such a Case have the same Influence upon the Minds of their own Subjects? Or would it not argue much Self-conceit and Arrogance, and a very mean Opinion of our Superiors, and a great Contempt of their Authority, to refuse that respect to them which we give to every private Man almost that we think wiser than ourselves.  
Secondly, I desire that may be taken notice of, which the Casuists, and in particular our Excellent Bishop Sanderson have urged in this affair, viz. It is a known Rule in Law, That in all disputed Cases, he that is in possession of the thing contended for, hath the advantage of the other that contends with him, supposing all other things be equal. In controverted Matters, the Right is always presumed to be on the side of the Possessor, unless there be a good Reason shown to the contrary.  
Thus for Instance, If I be in possession of an Estate which another man makes a claim to: And it is equally doubtful whether that Estate belongs to him or me, yet so long as I have the Possession of it, I have a good Title to it by the Laws of God and Man; nor can I without injustice be dispossessed of it, till my Adversary hath made it appear that he hath a better Title to it than I.  
Let us now apply this Rule to our present Case. Here is a Contest or Dispute between the Superior and the Subject, about a matter of Right as to a particular Action. The Superior saith it is his Right to Command his Subject in this Instance, and accordingly doth Command him. The Subject saith that he doubts whether his Superior hath Right to Command him in this Instance, because he doubts whether this Command be not against the Law of God.  
But in the mean time the Superior is in actual possession of the Power and Authority to Command, though it be uncertain and doubtful whether as to this Instance he do not exceed the just Limits of his Power.  
Why, certainly by the former Rule, so long as the Case is thus doubtful, the Subject must yield; and at no hand by his disobedience dispossess his Superior of that Authority he is possessed of, till he be convinced in his own Conscience that he hath greater reason to disobey in this Instance than to obey; which in our Case it is impossible he should have, because we here suppose that the Reasons on both sides are equal.  
But, Thirdly, If this Argument appear too subtle; let the Question before us be decided by the Common Rule, viz. That in all Doubtful Cases the safer side is to be chosen.  
Now putting the Point upon this Issue, I ask which is safest, with respect to Conscience, for a man to obey his Superiors in such a purely Doubtful Case as we here speak of: Or to disobey them? I think this Question will soon be answered by any Man that will attend to what I am going to represent, viz.  
There is a Plain Law of God, and acknowledged by us to be so, that Commands us to obey our Superiors in all Lawful things: But as to the particular Case about which we are now supposed to Doubt, it is very Uncertain and Questionable to us, (even after our best endeavours to satisfy ourselves) whether there be any Law of God which forbiddeth that thing which our Superiors have enjoined us.  
This now being so, we thus argue. If it should prove that our Superiors do in this Instance command an Unlawful thing; yet the hazard we run in obeying them is very small and inconsiderable, in comparison with that we run in disobeying them, supposing it should indeed prove that they command nothing but what is Just and Right, and conducing to the Public Good.  
For by doing the former, by obeying our Superiors, the only hazard we run, is of transgressing some Unknown Law of God; some Law which doth no way appear to us; all that we can pronounce after our best enquiry being no more than this, that it may be there is such a Law, and it may be there is not: And therefore we may reasonably presume that if there should indeed be such a Law of God; it is either not of such consequence that we in our Circumstances were bound to know it, or if it was, that we had no sufficient means to cometo the Knowledge of it: in each of which Cases, as I said, a Man's Ignorance doth excuse the violation of the Law.  
But now, on the other side, if in such an Instance as this we disobey Authority when it hath peremptorly laid its Commands upon us; we venture upon a much greater danger. For in that Case we run the hazard of transgressing a Plain Law of God; a Law of which no man can or aught to be supposed Ignorant; and withal, a Law it is of such Importance and Consequence to Mankind, that we may truly say, the very being, as well as the Happiness of all Societies depend upon it.  
Supposing now this to be a true Account of the hazard we run in Acting on one side or the other in our present Question, I leave it to any indifferent person to judge, whether it be not much safer in such Circumstances as we here speak of to obey our Lawful Superiors with a Doubting Conscience, than to disobey them with a Doubting Conscience.  
Fourthly, If there yet remain any dispute in this matter, let, if you please, our Saviour's Rule determine it, As ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye unto them. We desire no more favour for our Superiors, than this eternal Law of Equity will oblige us to.  
If a man will but be so impartial, as to pass the same Judgement in the Cause of Authority when he is a Subject, as he doth in his own Cause when he is a Superior, we believe there would be presently an end of this Controversy.  
For let men talk as gravely as they please about the danger of obeying the Public Laws with a Doubting Conscience: Yet I dare appeal to themselves, whether they would not think it very unreasonable for any Domestic of theirs, over whom they have Lawful Authority, to live in Contradiction to the Private Rules and Orders of their Family, upon a pretence of doubting whether those Orders were Lawful or no.  
If a Parent, for Instance, should command his Son to sit uncovered before him; He would not take it for a good Answer from the young man, to say, Sir, I am doubtful whether it be not unlawful to use any such Ceremonies to Men, and therefore I pray excuse me, if I do not pay you that Respect you require.  
If a Master should order his Servant to provide Dinner for him on the Lord's Day; and he should reply; I would do it with all my heart, but that I am in doubt whether it be not forbidden by God's Word to do any Work on the Sabbath. I am not indeed persuaded that it is forbidden, but in the mean time I am not satisfied that it is Lawful, and therefore till I be resolved in this Point, I pray Sir, be pleased to Pardon me.  
Would now a Parent or a Master think these Answers Reasonable? would he take them in such good part as to think his Son or his Servant had done nothing but what they were bound to do in thus refusing to obey his Commands? No, I dare say he would not, but on the contrary would tell them; you are my Son or my Servant, and you must leave it to me to judge what is fit for me to command and for you to do. I will take care to command you nothing but what is lawful and justifiable: But in the mean time, you must not think by your foolish Doubts and Scruples (so long as you confess you know nothing unlawful in what I bid you do) to control my Orders and Commands, that I think neither becomes you to do, nor me to suffer.  
I dare say most men would judge this a very fitting and just Reply in such a Case. And if so, it is a strong Argument, that we are all naturally apt to think that in purely Doubtful Cases, our Superior is to be obeyed notwithstanding our Doubt, and that if in any Case we think otherwise, it is where our own Liberty and Interest are concerned, and where consequently we may be justly presumed unequal Judges, as being prejudiced in favour of ourselves.  
Fifthly, Let me add this one Consideration more, and I have done. If in merely Doubtful Cases, our Superiors have not a Power of Determining us; what will their Authority signify? If it be not of weight enough when the Scales hang even to turn the Balance; it is truly the lightest thing in the World. Indeed it is worth nothing; and there will not be left Power enough in those that are to govern us, for the securing in any tolerable degree the Peace and Happiness of the Society they are to govern.  
For I pray consider, What can there be so wisely Commanded, or Provided for, either in a Family, in a City, or in a Kingdom, but may be liable to exception, and become a matter of Doubt to some Person or other?  
There is nothing in the whole compass of indifferent things (and such chief are the Matters of Humane Laws) but some Person or other will be found to doubt whether it be fit or lawful. And if such a Doubt be a just Reason to deny Obedience to the Law or the Command, in what a condition are all Families, and Corporations, and Societies in the World? What will be the Consequence of such a Principle? Why certainly nothing but perpetual Jars, and Disturbances, and Confusions.  
For Instance, If whenever a Prince declares War against his Enemies, it should be supposed Lawful for any Subject to withdraw his Assistance from his Sovereign in Case he doubts whether that War be a Lawful War or no; in what a sad case would that Prince or that Kingdom be, that is to be supported and protected upon these Terms? Every man is hereby made a Judge of the Merits of a War; and though he be never so Ignorant, never so Unexperienced, never so Ignorant, never so Unexperienced, never so unable to make a Judgement of these momentous Affairs of the Kingdom; yet if some Rumours or uncertain Stories have reached his Ears, that make him doubt whether this War was lawfully begun or no: Why he is upon this Principle warranted to deny not only his Personal Service, but his Contributions towards the Charge of that War. But these Consequences are intolerable; and therefore the Principle from whence they flow, must needs be thought intolerable also.  
III. Having thus given the reasons of our Assertion, I come now in the Third place to answer the Arguments that are brought on the other side.  
All the Arguments I have met with against the Doctrine we have been establishing, may be reduced to Three; and of those three, the First I have prevented by my stating the Question; the Second I have already answered in my Proofs of our Assertion: so that the Third only remains to be spoken to. However I will name the two first.  
The First Argument is drawn from the mischievous Consequences of our Doctrine. For, say they, If a man should think himself obliged in every doubtful Case to be determined by the Command of his Superiors, it would be the ready way to involve him often times in most grievous sins. As for instance, if a man should so halt between two opinions, as to doubt whether Jehovah or Baal was the true God, as the Isralites sometimes did; and at the same time (as it then happened among them) the Chief Ruler should command that Baal should be worshipped: Why now in this Case (say they) according to your way of resolving Doubts, the man must be obliged to worship an Idol, and to renounce the true God.  
This is the Argument. But it is no Argument against us: Because in the stating of our Question, we have excluded all such Doubts out of it, as do proceed from a man's Gross and Criminal Ignorance of his Duty (as it is Apparent and Notorious that the Doubt in this Instance doth). On the contrary, we are as forward to acknowledge as they, that if any man do an Action that is plainly contradictory to the Laws of God, it is not his Ignorance, and much less his Doubtfulness, that will excuse him, though he do it in obedience to his Governors. So that though this Argument would fall heavy enough upon those that plead for an Absolute Blind Obedience to Authority in all things indiscriminately, (which no man of the Church of England doth): Yet it doth not at all touch us, who only assert, That where we doubt equally, whether an Action be Lawful or no, and have used our best endeavours to satisfy ourselves how the Law of God stands as to that matter, there the Command of our Superiors is to overrule our Doubt.  
But further, to show what little force there is in this Argument, which indeed hath made a great deal of noise; we will try whether it will not make as much against our Adversaries, if they will give us leave to put the Case, as it seems to make against us, when they put the Case.  
Let us suppose therefore, as before, that an Israelite was very Doubtful whether Jehovah or Baal was the true God: And let us suppose likewise (as we reasonably may) that the King of Israel made a Law, that all the Temples and Altars of Baal should be demolished, and that Jehovah only should be worshipped. What advice now would they give to the doubting Man in this Case? Will they say that he must comply with the King's Laws, and worship Jehovah only, while yet he is doubtful in his own mind whether Baal be not the true God? Why this is against their own Principle, and gives away the Cause to us. But, will they then say, that while this Doubt remains, the Man must not obey Authority in worshipping Jehovah only; but he must either worship Baal and not Jehovah; or both Baal and Jehovah together; Why, this is indeed agreeable to their Principle; but then I appeal to my Reader, whether according to their way of resolving of Doubts, a man is not as necessarily engaged in Idolatry, and other grievous sins, as he is by our way.  
So that you see this Argument concludes as strongly against them, as against us. But in Truth it concludes nothing either one way or other, but is wholly Foreign to the Question, as I shown in my stating of it, whither I refer the Reader.  
The Second Argument is drawn from the Limitations which God himself hath put to the Obedience we are to pay to our Governors, and it may be form thus. God hath not commanded us to obey our Superiors absolutely, and in all things; but only in all such things as are not contrary to his Law: So that where ever we are uncertain whether the Commands of our Superior be Lawful or no, we must at the same time be as much uncertain whether we be bound to obey: And if so, how can you say that it is any more our Duty to obey them, than to disobey them in a Doubtful Case?  
To this we answer, That though we acknowledge that no Man is bound to obey his Superiors any farther than they command Lawful things: Yet when ever it happens that they command such things as we equally doubt whether they be Lawful or no; there are so many weighty Reasons to be given, why a man should obey rather than disobey in that Case, as will persuade any Wise and Good Man to think it his Duty to obey. And for those Reasons I refer my Reader to the Five Particulars I before insisted on.  
The Third and indeed the Principal Argument, is drawn from the words of St. Paul in the 14th of the Romans, and the last verse, He that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of Faith; and whatsoever is not of Faith is sin. From whence they thus Argue, If it was a sin in those Christians that St. Paul speaks of to eat any Food, though in itself Lawful to be eaten, so long as they Doubted whether it was Lawful or no: Then, by parity of Reason, it must be a sin to do any other Action, so long as we have a Doubt in our minds concerning the Lawfulness of it; and if so, it is not the Magistrates commanding that Action, that will make it cease to be a sin in us to do it.  
This is the great Argument that is brought against our Point, and I shall give it a full and a just discussion: Because, in truth, if we come clearly off from this Text of St. Paul; not only all that is said against Obeying Authority with a Doubting Conscience will fall to the ground: But likewise most of the difficulties which entangle and perplex the Case of a Doubting Conscience in other matters, will be in a great measure removed.  
But before I enter upon a particular discussion of this Text, with reference to our present Controversy, it will be needful to premise some general Account of it, for the sake of ordinary Readers, that so understanding before hand the Case which the Apostle speaks to, and the meaning of the Expressions he here useth, they may be the better able to go along with us.  
First, therefore, I shall give an Account of the Subject matter of St. Paul's Discourse in this Chapter. II. Of what is meant by Doubting in this Text. III. What is meant by eating not of Faith. IU. What is meant by being Damned or Condemned for so doing.  
First, As to the Subject Matter of St. Paul's Discourse in this Chapter; it is undoubtedly the Case of those Jewish Christians that were not so fully instructed in their Christian Liberty, but that they still believed all the Ceremonial Laws of Moses, concerning the Observation of Days, and the Difference of Meats, to be still in force, and to oblige their Conscience: Or at least they mightily doubted whether they did or not. So that whereas other Christians, who were better instructed, made no scruple of eating any kind of Food, though forbidden by the Law of Moses: These men had great Reason to forbear such kind of Meats, because they were Persuaded, or at least it appeared more probable to them, than otherwise, that they were bound so to do.  
That this was the Case of those that St. Paul here styles the weak Christians, appears from several passages of this Chapter, nor I think is it much questioned by any. As for what is intimated in the second Verse, concerning their abstaining from Flesh altogether, and only eating Herbs; which would make one think that it was not purely their respect to the Law of Moses, but some other thing, which made them thus to put a difference between Meats; because by that Law, they were no more tied from Flesh (excepting only Swines-Flesh and a few other sorts) than they were from Herbs: St. chrysostom hath well obviated this difficulty, in the Account he gives of the Case of those Christians. There were (saith he) several of the Believing Jews, who taking themselves to be obliged in Conscience by the Law of Moses even after their Christianity, did still retain the Observation of Meats, not daring wholly to throw off the Yoke of the Law: These now, lest they should be found out, and reproached by the other Christians for thus abstaining from Swines-Flesh, and the like, upon account of Conscience; chose to eat no Flesh at all, but to feed altogether upon Herbs; that so this way of living of theirs, might pass rather for a kind of Fast or Religious Abstinence, than for a Legal Observance. Thus St. chrysostom; and to the same purpose Theodoret and Theophylact.  
But if any one be not satisfied with this Account of that Business; but will further contend, that St. Paul here doth not only speak to the Case of Jewish Christians who were zealous for Moses' Law: But also takes in the Case of some Gentile Christians at that time, who (upon a Pythagorean Principle they might have entertained) were Averse to the eating any kind of Flesh; as thinking all such Food to be : They may, notwithstanding what I have said, enjoy their own Opinion. For it is indifferent to our Controversy, whether the Persons whose Case is here spoken to, were Jews or Gentiles. Only thus much appears plainly, that the most of them were Jewish Christians, who, together with their Christianity, had a Conscientious regard to the Law of Moses.  
Secondly, As for what is meant by [Doubting] in the 

The word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] doth no where, either in Scripture or any other Author, signify to Doubt; but most usually to Discern, or Distinguish, or make a D●fference, as it is frequently used in the New Testatament. Vid. Matt. XVI. 3. Acts XV. 9 I Cor. IV. 7. VI 5. XI. 29. The word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is sometimes taken Actively, and then it hath the same Signification with [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] i. e. to make a difference. As is plain, not only in St. Judes' Text here quoted; but in St. James, Ch. II. 4. Where our English Translation hath indeed very well rendered the Apostles Sense thus [Are ye not Partial]. But if they had truly rendered his Words, they must have thus Translated [Do ye not make a difference?]  
Again, sometimes it is taken Passively, and then the Signification of it is this, to be Divided, or Severed, or Distinguished. And when it is used in this Sense, it sometimes happens that the English word [Doubting] doth conveniently enough express it. Doubting, being indeed nothing else, but a Man's being Divided as to his own mind. And accordingly in some places, our Translators have thus Englished it (though I believe in some of those, more proper words might be found out to express its Sense). But though in a Few Texts it be thus used in Scripture; yet I do not find that any Profa●e Author did ever use it in this Se●se of Doubting. And therefore unless there be evident reason, I do not know why we should departed from the natural and usual Signification of the Word in the T●xt we are now upon.   Text, the Reader may be pleased to take notice, that the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which we here translate [He that doubteth] doth as properly signify to distinguish or make a difference, as to Doubt, or Hesitate. And thus it is used both by Profane Writers, and in Holy Scripture, as particularly in the 22 d. of St. Jude's Epistle. And of some have compassion, making a difference, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the very word in the Text.  
Now considering the Apostles Argument in this Chapter is the Case of the Jewish Christians, who were divided in their Persuasions about the Legal Observations, some making a difference between clean and unclean Meats, and such like things; and others making none: It seems every whit as proper and natural, and more suitable to the scope of the Place, to take the Word in this Sense in this place, rather than in that other, according to which it is usually translated. So that the Text is thus to be rendered, He that maketh a difference between clean and unclean Meats; If he do eat any thing which he judgeth to be unclean, he is damned or condemned for so doing, because he eateth not of Faith.  
And so probable is this rendering, that our English Translators took care to put it in the Margin of our Bibles, as may be seen by every one. Nor doth it want good Authority, for the Vulgar Latin thus translates the place, and not only so, but Erasmus Hentenius, and generally all the Latin Expositors, if we may believe Estius, who yet himself interprets it the Common way.  
Indeed I doubt not but this is the true Version of this Word in this Text, However I do not so much stand upon it, as to preclude any man from the liberty of taking the other if he likes it better. For though this way of rendering doth better serve our Purpose, (as quite putting an end to the Controversy): Yet our Cause doth not so absolutely depend upon it, but that we may very well allow of the common Translation; as will appear hereafter.  
Thirdly, As for the Word Faith, which is here used; let it be taken notice of, that when in the verse before the Text, the Apostle speaks of having Faith; and in the Text, of eating without Faith, or not of Faith; and that, whatsoever is not of Faith, is Sin; We are not to take Faith here in the large sense, as it signifies a Belief in Jesus Christ, or an Assent to God's Revelations, particularly those of the Gospel; which is the usual Notion of Faith in the New Testament: But only for a man's Assent to the Goodness or Lawfulness of any particular Action that he takes in hand.  
So that to have Faith about an Action, is to be persuaded that that Action may be Lawfully done in the present Circumstances, or at least not to be Conscious of any Reason that should make it unlawful. And, on the other side, to do an Action without Faith, or not of Faith, as the Apostle here expresseth it, is to do an Action of the Lawfulness of which we are no way satisfied, but, on the contrary, think we have good reason to believe that it is an unlawful Action.  
Fourthly, Whereas St. Paul saith, that he that doubteth or differenceth, is damned or condemned, if he eat; we are to take notice, that that expression is not to be understood of the punishment of his eating in the other World, (which is that which in common speech we call Damnation): But only of the guilt of his eating as to his own Conscience. Indeed there is no colour why our Translators should here use the Word [Damned], since [Condemned] is the natural Word, whether we consider the Propriety of the Greek or the English Language.: So that this is the meaning of the Proposition. He that doubteth (with such a Doubt as is here spoken of) and yet eateth; such a Man is condemned for so doing. Condemned, how? why condemned of himself, (as the Apostle had expressed it in the verse before), condemned of his own Conscience, because without necessity, having free power over his own Actions, he doth that which he apprehends to be sinful.  
I dare say, the Reader will be satisfied of the Truth of our Interpretation, as to both the last named Particulars, if he will carefully read the foregoing verse together with the Text (as indeed they do but both make one complete Sentence) and judge of one by the other.  
St. Paul hath for a good while been addressing himself to the stronger Christians, in order to the persuading them so to use their Knowledge and their Christian Liberty, that they might edify the Weak Brethren among them, but in no ways give Scandal to any of them, and he thus concludes his Advice in this Chapter.  
Hast thou Faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth: But he that doubteth (or maketh a difference) is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of Faith, and whatsoever is not of Faith, is sin.  
I dare appeal to any indifferent person, that hath read St. Paul's foregoing Discourse in this Chapter, whether the meaning of this whole Passage be not to this Effect.  
Art thou so well instructed in thy Religion, as to be persuaded that the Gospel hath taken away all difference of Meats, and that thou mayest Lawfully eat of any Food that is set before thee? why, it is very well for thee; but then, be content that thou art thus persuaded, and do not upon every occasion make such an ostentation of thy Faith in this matter, nor despise others that have it not; as to lay a Snare before thy Weak and Un-instructed Brethren, who are of another persuasion, to sin against their Conscience, by Acting as thou dost. It is sufficient for thee that God seethe thy Faith, and that thou canst justify thy eating to thy own Conscience. For I can assure thee, it is no small Happiness for a Man to be able to satisfy his own Conscience in that Action which he takes in hand.  
[This is undoubtedly the meaning of that expression, Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he approveth. That is, it is a great Comfort to a Man that his Conscience doth not condemn him in that Action which he thinks fit to do. In ea re quam agendam suscipit, saith Grotius; In eo quod agendum elegit, saith Estius; En ce qu'il veut fair, saith the late excellent French Translation. And it is just the same thing that St. John saith in other words. Eph. I. 3, 21. My Brethren, if our own hearts (i. e. our Conscience) condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God.]  
But then, (as the Apostle goes on) as to those that are so uninstructed in the Nature of Christianity, as still to make a difference between clean and unclean Meats; as it infinitely concerns them to have a care what they do; so it concerns thee likewise to have a care how thou layest a stumbling block before them. For in what a Condition would any of them be, if being tempted by thy Insolent Carriage, and Unreasonable Example, he should through Fear or base Compliance venture to eat such things as he judgeth to be unclean? Why, certainly he is both an ill and a miserable man for so doing; because he is condemned of his own Conscience. For he eats not only without being convinced of the Lawfulness of his eating, but presuming the contrary, and whatever is thus done against Conscience, must needs be a sin. This I take to be the true meaning of this whole Passage, for which, if need was, we might produce several Authorities, particularly that of St. chrysostom, who gives much the same account of it.  
Having thus given an account of the Text as it lies in the Chapter, and with relation to the Business that St. Paul had there in hand. I now come to consider it with reference to our present Controversy with the Dissenters, and to take off the Argument they bring from it, against the Position we are now contending for.  
Their Argument, as I said, is this.  
St. Paul here affirms, That whosoever Doubteth about the Lawfulness of any particular Meat, and while that Doubt remaineth, eateth of that Meat, such a man Sins, and is Condemned for so doing; because he eateth not of Faith. If now it be so in this particular Case, it must be so in all other Doubtful Cases; and consequently in the Case of Obeying Authority, where a Man Doubts of the Lawfulness of the thing enjoined. That is to say. Whosoever, in any Case whatsoever, doth an Action of the Lawfulness of which he Doubts; he sins, and is Condemned for so doing, because he acteth not of Faith.  
This is the Argument fairly put, and I shall now endeavour as fairly to answer it.  
And first of all, I say, This Argument proceeds upon a false Ground. For it supposeth St. Paul in this Text to speak to the Case of a purely Doubting Conscience, (which is the Subject of our present Controversy): Whereas it may be made to appear with good Evidence, that it is the Case of a resolved Conscience only, that he here Treats of. So that this Text is wholly misapplied by the Dissenters, and makes nothing at all to the Business. For though there be indeed in this Text a very severe Censure of all those that Act against any kind of Persuasion; yet there is nothing here said that toucheth a man's Acting Doubtingly, either one way or other.  
That this is true, appears from the Account I have before given of the Subject matter of the Apostles Discourse in this Chapter; which is, the Case of those Christians who were not barely Doubtful and Wavering in their own Minds, whether they might Lawfully eat of such Meats as were then Disputed: But were Persuaded they ought not; as believing that the Law of Moses, which had declared them , was still in force; or else believing them to be  in themselves.  
That this was indeed the Case here discussed, seems very clear from the 2 d and 5th Verses of this Chapter, where the Apostle states it; and more particularly from the 14th Verse, where he gives a summary Resolution of it; and in my Judgement the very same Resolution that he doth in the Text. I know (saith he) and am persuaded that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. So that it seems the Person whose Case St. Paul speaks to, was not uncertain or unresolved whether the Meats under Deliberation were clean or unclean; but he was persuaded they were unclean, he esteemed them to be such, and he must of necessity do so, so long as he believed the Law of Moses to be in force, as by all that appears in this Chapter he did believe.  
But may some say, If this was the Case, why then doth St. Paul use the word Doubting in the Text? To Doubt of the unlawfulness of an Action, is quite another thing, than to be Persuaded of the unlawfulness of it.  
In answer to this, I refer my Reader to the Account I have before given of the Word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which may as properly be rendered, He that maketh a difference between Meats; as he that Doubteth about Meats. Now if this Version be admitted, the ground of this Objection is quite taken away. And I see no reason why it should not be admitted, since (as I said) it is as natural as the other, and withal, it makes the Apostles Sense to run more coherently with what he had said before.  
But further, Let if you please the common Translation be retained; let the Text be interpreted of one that Doubteth, and not of one that maketh a difference: Yet still this will make nothing against what we have now said. For it is undeniably plain, that what St. Paul here calls Doubting, is in our way of speaking a degree of Persuasion. My meaning is this. The Doubting which St. Paul here speaks of, is not that where a man's Judgement is suspended, upon account of the equal Probabilities on both sides of the Question, which is the proper Notion of Doubting, and that which we are now concerned with: But he speaks of a Doubt strengthened with so many Probabilities, that it wanted but very little of a Persuasion; or, to speak more properly, it was a real Persuasion, though with some mixture of Doubtfulness in it. That is to say, the man had so strong Convictions of the unlawfulness of eating on the one hand; and so little satisfaction about the Lawfulness of it on the other; That if he was not fully persuaded that it was a sin to eat; yet it appeared by many degrees more probable to him that it was a sin, than that it was not.  
That this now was the Case, is evident beyond all exception, from the words that follow. He that doubteth (saith the Text) is condemned if he eat, that is, Condemned of his own Conscience, as I shown before. Now how could that be, if the man was not in some degree persuaded that his eating was unlawful? It is certain no man can be further Condemned of his own Conscience for doing any Action, than he doth believe that Action to be forbidden by some Law of God. To say therefore, that a man is Condemned of his own Conscience for eating, must of necessity imply, that he doth believe his eating to be unlawful, and if so, it is certain he doth more than simply douht whether it be lawful or no.  
Well, But doth not the Apostle say in this very Chapter, Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind? What is the meaning of That, but that every one should assure himself that the Action he takes in hand is a lawful Action, or else he doth not act with a safe Conscience? And is not that the very same thing that is here said, He that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of Faith, or with a full persuasion? There is therefore good Reason why we should interpret this Text in the proper Sense of Doubting, the Apostle himself directing us so to do by this passage.  
This is the most considerable Objection that can be made against our way of expounding this Text, and probably it was with a respect to that passage that so many Interpreters have Translated it as they have done; but whether they had any just reason from thence so to do, is the Question. Or rather I think it will be no Question with any one who attends either to the design, or the words of the Apostle in that passage.  
The passage is in the 5th Verse of this Chapter, where the Apostle is giving an Account of the state of the present Controversy. One man (saith he) esteemeth one day above another, another man esteemeth every day alike: Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. So we render it, but how truly, I shall now examine.  
It cannot well be conceived by the coming in of these words, that St. Paul had any such thing in his mind when he writ them, as we would now make them to express. It was certainly none of his business in this place to oblige the contending Parties to get full persuasions in their several ways, and then all would be right, for there was too much of that already amongst them. Neither was it his meaning here to tell them, that if in any Case they acted without a full persuasion of the Lawfulness of the Action, they sinned against Conscience; for besides that this is certainly false, it was nothing at all to his purpose.  
But this was that which he designed in this passage, to persuade both the contending Parties quietly to permit each other to enjoy their several Opinions and Persuasions (in those little matters, which did no way concern their Duty,) without Censuring or Judging one another.  
This now is a meaning that perfectly suits with all the other good advice he gives them in this Chapter, and this meaning he doth express in as apt words as can be thought on. One man esteemeth one day above another, another man esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be filled with his own mind. Or, satisfied with his own Persuasion. The Original words are [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (without the Preposition) as is read in some good Copies) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]. Which, saith Grotius, is an Hebrew way of expression, and signifies no more than this, Quisque fruatur sua Sententia. Let every Man enjoy his own Opinion: Or, as the Vulgar Latin most properly Translates, Vnusquisque in suo sensu abundet. i e. Let every one abound in his own Sense: Or lastly, as the Commentaries that go under the Name of St. Ambrose, Vnusquisque remittatur suis Consiliis, Let every one be left to his own Counsels. And to the same sense also both St. Crysostome and Theodoret do expound this passage. This Interpretation, though it be very different from that in our English Bible, yet expresseth the Signification of the Original Text as well as that, and withal, hath better Authority to recommend it: but that which we chief stand upon, is, that the Subject Matter, and the scope of the Apostle doth necessarily require this Interpretation.  
For, in truth, If this passage be rendered the common way, so as that it shall import that every Man, in every Case, is to be fully persuaded in his own mind, I do not know how the Precept here given, can be supposed to be either Reasonable or Possible. It is certainly no more in every Man's Power to be satisfied about all his Doubts; than it is to believe or disbelieve what he pleases. When there appears Reason of Doubting, it is in vain to command a Man not to Doubt. Nay, it is as much a Man's Duty to Doubt, and to keep his Judgement in suspense, when the weight of Probability is on both sides equal, as it is to believe or to disbelieve upon clear Evidence. Or rather in that Case a Man cannot choose but Doubt. He cannot reasonably, nay, he cannot possibly do otherwise.  
I think, by what hath been said, it doth plainly appear, that this Text of St. Paul we are upon, [viz. He that Doubteth is condemned if he eat] hath nothing to do with a Doubting Conscience in our Sense; but only with a resolved one; and consequently, that the Argument which is brought from hence against our Assertion, is nothing at all to the purpose, because it is grounded upon a false Exposition of the Text.  
But though this is (as I think) the true Answer to this Argument; and the Answer indeed which I mainly stand upon: Yet there is another Answer given to it by the Casuists; which, because it is the Answer that our Learned Bishop Sanderson thought fit to pitch upon, I ought not to pass it by without mention, nor, if I can, without some improvement.  
I must confess, if we do admit this Answer, the Authority and Obligation of a Doubting Conscience will be set higher than I do in this Discourse suppose it: But however, it may be a good Answer to the Dissenters; because it unties the difficulty upon their own Principles: The Answer is this.  
2. In the Second place, Allowing that the Man whose Case St. Paul speaks to in this Text, was really a Doubting Person, and not one that was Persuaded (as we have hitherto supposed): Yet it doth by no means follow, that, because this Man was guilty of Sin, and Condemned for eating those Meats, of the Lawfulness of which he Doubted: Therefore a Man that Obeys Authority in an Instance where he Doubts of the Lawfulness of the Command; that such a Man Sins and is Condemned for so doing. This, I say, doth not at all follow.  
For there is a vast Disparity in the Cases; and to argue from one to the other, is to argue from a Particular to an Universal, or from one Particular to another, without respect to the different Circumstances of each Case; which is against all the Rules of Logic.  
If St. Paul had said, [He that Doubteth is Damned if he Act] there had been some pretence for making his Sentence an universal Proposition, so as to extend to all Doubting Men in all Cases: But now only saying, [He that Doubteth is Damned if he eat] it shows that he only spoke to the Particular Case that was before him; and that other Cases are no farther concerned in his Proposition, than as they do agree in Circumstances with the Case he there speaks to.  
Now the Case the Apostle there treats of, and That which we are now concerned about, are so far from any way agreeing in the main Circumstances, by which a Man is to measure the Goodness or the Badness of an Action, that there cannot be two Doubtful Cases put, that are more different, as ● shall now show.  
If St. Paul do at all here speak to the Case of a Doubting Man; he speaks of one that Acted Doubtingly in a matter where it was in his own Power to Act without a Doubt: That is, He was in such Circumstances, that he knew he might certainly without sin refuse to eat those Meats concerning which he doubted; for there was no colour of obligation upon him to eat them: But yet in this Case, where he was perfectly at Liberty to let alone; for the serving some evil unwarrantable ends, he would not choose that side which was safe, and where he need fear no sin, which was to forbear; but would choose that side that was Doubtful; that is, would run a needless hazard of transgressing some Law of God. It is of such a Man, and in such a Case as this, that St. Paul speaks, when he saith, He that Doubteth is condemned if he eat: Supposing indeed that his words are at all to be expoundin this Sense.  
But now because it is thus in this Case (and in all such like, if you please): Doth it therefore follow from these words, that a Man that is in other Circumstances; that is not at Liberty to choose his own way; as not being at his own disposal, but under the Direction and Government of Authority: That this man sins and is condemned if he obey the Orders of his Superiors, when he is Doubtful of the Lawfulness of the thing in which he expresseth his Obedience? No, by no means. For this Case hath a quite different Consideration.  
In the former Case there was only danger on one side, and that was in Acting, and the Man might forbear if he pleased, and that without any danger: But in the other Case there is danger on both sides, and the man runs at least as great a hazard in forbearing the Action, (nay, we say, a much greater,) as if he should do it.  
So that undeniably (unless we will make one Rule to serve for all Cases, though never so different, which is the absurdest thing in the World): For any thing that St. Paul hath here said to the contrary; this latter man may not only without sin do the thing he doubts of; but is bound to do it. Whereas, if the other man spoken of in the Text, should do the Action he doubts of, it might be a sin in him.  
But further, That St. Paul meant not to extend his Proposition to all Doubtful Cases, but only to such Cases as he here treats of; is pretty evident from the Reason that he gives, why he that eateth Doubtingly sins in so doing; viz. Because he eateth not of Faith.  
He doth not say, He that Doubteth is Condemned if he eat, because he eateth with a Doubting Conscience. If he had said so, I grant the Reason of his Proposition would have reached all Doubting men in all Cases; but this is that which he saith, He that Doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of Faith.  
So that if there be any Doubtful Cases wherein a Man may Act with Faith notwithstanding his Doubt: I hope it will be allowed, that those Cases are excepted out of St. Paul's Proposition.  
Now, that there are such Cases; and that our Case of Obeying Authority is one of them, I thus prove.  
Whosoever so Acts, as that he is satisfied in his own mind, that what he doth is according to his Duty in the present Circumstances: Such a Man Acts with Faith in reference to that Action. This is evident from the very Notion of Faith, as it is here spoken of, of which I have before given an Account.  
But now it is very possible, that a Man may have a Doubt concerning the Lawfulness of an Action, and yet be in such Circumstances, as that he shall be satisfied that is very reasonable and agreeable to his Duty, nay, (as the Case may be) that he is really bound to do that Action concerning which he thus Doubts, rather than not to do it: Because the not doing that Action, all things considered, appears to him more dangerous, or attended with worse Consequences.  
This now being granted, it undeniably follows: That wherever a man lights into these Circumstances, he is not a Sinner, even according to the strictest Sense of these words, though he Act with some kind of Doubt, because he Acts in Faith; That is, he is resolved in his own Conscience, that thus it behoveth him to act in the present Case, and that it would be unreasonable or sinful to act otherwise.  
So that let our Adversaries make the most of St. Paul's words that they can, it is a very Illogical Inference, to say, That whoever Acts with a Doubt upon his Conscience in any Case, is guilty of Sin; and much more is it so, to affirm it in our present Case of Obeying Authority. For it is certain, that many Men are (and I believe all Men may be) satisfied, that in a purely doubtful Case, it is not only more reasonable, but their Duty to Obey their Superiors.  
Well, But it will be said, Do not we here talk contradictions? Can a Man have Faith about an Action, that is, be resolved in his own Conscience that such an Action is to be done, or may lawfully be done, and yet Doubt concerning it at the same time?  
I Answer, This is so far from being a Contradiction, that it is a Case that every day happens, where a Man hath a Doubt on both sides, as it is in the Instance before us. A man often hath very great Doubts of the Lawfulness of this or the other Action, when he considers the Action in general: But yet when he comes to weigh the Circumstances he is in, and the Reasons he hath in those Circumstances for the doing the Action; he may be persuaded, that it is better for him to do the Action, than to let it alone, notwithstanding all the Doubts he hath about it. That is, Though he doubt of the Lawfulness of the Action itself, considered without his present Circumstances; yet as it comes Circumstantiated to him, he doth not doubt but it may be lawfully done by him. But of this I have spoke largely before, in my Explication of the Rule of a Doubting Conscience.  
But is not all Doubting contrary to Faith? I answer, No, it is not: For such kind of Doubting as we here speak of, doth, we see, very well consist with Faith. My meaning is, it is not necessary, in order to a Man's having Faith about an Action, that all his Doubts concerning that Action should be destroyed; it is abundantly sufficient that they be overbalanced.  
That which I would say, is this. Wherever a man hath such a degree of Persuasion touching any Action he is deliberating about, that he believes it more advisable to a reasonable man, all things considered, to do than Action, than to forbear it; such a man hath all the Faith that is needful to the doing that Action with a safe Conscience; though in the mean time he may have such Doubts concerning that Action, as will perhaps be too hard for him to resolve, and will create him likewise some trouble and uneasiness in the doing of it. Though indeed, to speak properly, I think these ought not any longer to be called Doubts, after they are thus overruled or overbalanced; but rather to go under the Name and Notion of pure Scruples, which the Casuists of all Persuasions do not only allow, but advise that a man should act against.  
In plain English, That Doubtfulness about an Action which St. Paul speaks of, and which he Censures as a sin; was such a Doubtfulness, as after the Action was done, rendered the man Self-condemned; his Conscience could not but reproach him for doing as he did: But now in our Case, the Man is not at all Self-condemned, because he hath the Testimony of his Conscience that he hath acted according to the best of his Judgement and Discretion. Though he acts with a Doubt, yet he is satisfied he hath made the most reasonable Choice that he could in his Circumstances. And wherever a man doth so, he both acts in Faith, and without any danger of Condemnation from his own Conscience.  
So that after all the Bustle that is made about doing or forbearing an Action with a Doubting Conscience; you see there is no great intricacy in the Case, nor any necessity of sinning on both hands, always supposing a man to be Sincere and Honest. For if he be really so, he will always do that which he judges most according to his Duty, or at least, that which he judges to be consistent with it; and wherever a man doth thus, it is certain he Acts with a safe Conscience, notwithstanding any Doubt he may have about the Action. Because more than the former a man cannot do, and more than the latter he is not bound to do.  
As for what sins an Erroneous Conscience may engage a man in; or what troublesome Reflections a Melancholy Imagination may occasion to him in these Cases; I am not to answer for them, they are of another Consideration.  
iv Having thus largely treated of the Nature of a Doubting Conscience, and of the Rules by which a man is to Act, whenever it happens; and that, both when he is left at his own Liberty, and when he is under the the Commands of others: All that remains to be done, is to speak something about the Authority or Obligation of a Doubting Conscience; which is our Fourth and last general Head.  
But in truth the Discussion of this might very well be spared, after what I have said relating to this Argument in several places of the foregoing Discourse, particularly under my last Head. However I shall endeavour to give some Account of this Point; though I intent it a very short one, because, indeed what I have to offer is not so much any new matter, as an Application of the Principles I have before laid down to our present purpose.  
The Point in question is concerning the Authority of a Doubting Conscience: Or, Whether a Doubting Conscience doth bind at all, and how far?  
In answer to this, I say in general; It is certain that a Doubting Conscience of itself lays no Obligation at all upon a man any way: Indeed it is a kind of Contradiction to suppose that it should.  
For, I pray, What is the Notion of a Doubting Conscience, but this, That a man is uncertain or unresolved in his mind, whether as to this particular Action he be bound or not bound? To suppose now, that a man is obliged in Conscience either way, by virtue of this Doubt; is plainly to suppose, that a man takes himself to be bound, while yet at the same time he is disputing with himself whether he be bound or no.  
To speak this plainer if I can. Since Conscience, as I have often said, is nothing else but a man's Judgement concerning Actions, whether they be Duties or Sins, or indifferent: And since the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding Actions, or neither Commanding or Forbidding them; is the only Rule by which a man can judge what Actions are Duties, and what are Sins, and what are Indifferent: It plainly follows, that a man cannot be bound in Conscience to do any Action, which it doth not appear to him, that God's Law hath some way or other Commanded, and made a Duty; or to Forbear any Action which he is not convinced in his Judgement, that God's Law hath some where or other Forbidden, and so made a Sin. And therefore, since in a Case where a Man is purely Doubtful, he cannot be supposed to have any such Convictions that the Law of God doth either Command or Forbidden the Action Doubted of (for if he had, he would no longer Doubt:) It follows likewise by undeniable Consequence, that a Man's Conscience is not bound on either side of the Action, but he may either do it or forbear it with a safe Conscience.  
So that if there be any Obligation at all upon a man to Act thus, rather than otherwise in a Doubtful Case; that Obligation must arise upon one of these two Accounts, viz. Either there is some Law of God concerning a Doubting Conscience, which hath tied a man up to such precise measures of Acting: Or, at least a man hath a Persuasion that there is some such Law of God.  
Now I grant, That in both these Cases, there doth a direct Obligation pass upon the man's Conscience: But than it is to be remembered, that this Obligation doth not arise from the man's being Doubtful in his Conscience; but from his being resolved in his Conscience. That is to say, if there be really any such Law of God; it is the Obligation of a Right Conscience. Or if there be not, but the man only judges that there is; it is then the Obligation of an Erroneous Conscience: But as for the Obligation of a Doubting Conscience there is no such thing.  
The great, therefore, or indeed the only Point that is to be inquired into, in order to the Resolution of our present Question, is this. Whether there be any Law of God which doth determine our Actions one way or other, in the Case of a Doubt; and what that Law is?  
Now in answer to this Inquiry, I say, That it doth not appear that there is any express Law of God in Holy Scripture, that hath laid any Obligation upon us as to this particular of a Doubting Conscience, either one way or other.  
The only Texts that I know of, which are thought to make for this purpose, are the two passages in the 14th of the Romans, which I have before largely given an account of, viz. That in the 5th Verse, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. And that other in the last Verse, He that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of Faith. But now I think I have made it plain, by several Arguments, that these Texts do not at all concern our present Case of a Doubting Conscience, properly so called.  
So that there being no express Particular Law of God in Scripture, about acting with a Doubting Conscience, we seem to be left as to that Affair, to the General Laws of God, as they are declared, whether by Nature or Scripture.  
Now the most that any Man can be Obliged to by the General Laws of God, whether Natural or Revealed, in the Case of a Doubt, is only these two things. First, to use his Endeavour to get himself as well instructed in his Duty as his Circumstances and Opportunities will allow him. And Secondly, where he is at a loss for Information in that Case, to Act as reasonably as he can.  
I do not say, that a Man in every Doubtful Case that happens, is strictly obliged to thus much. But I say, it is impossible he should be obliged to more. Because indeed more than this he cannot do; and no man can be obliged to more than is in his Power.  
 therefore a Man in a Doubtful Case takes care to observe these two things, he Acts with a safe Conscience, however he may act Doubtingly in that Case.  
Thus far I think we are clear beyond Exception. But it may be, some will not be satisfied with this Account of our Point, but will be putting a farther Question.  
We have before laid down several Rules about a Man's Acting in a Doubtful Case, the sum of all which comes to no more than what we have now said, viz. That in every doubtful Case a man is to act as reasonably as he can. The Question now is, Whether a man is strictly bound in Conscience always to follow this Rule? Or, which is to the same effect, Whether a man in a matter concerning which he hath only a pure Doubt, may not without sin indifferently choose either side of the Action, though yet perhaps one side doth appear to him more reasonable or more safe than the other?  
This Question is indeed more curious than useful. But however, since it properly falls under the Argument we are now treating of, and tends somewhat to the clearing of it: I shall venture to say something to it. Only I declare beforehand, that I mean not in what I shall say, to assert any thing Dogmatically, but only to propose, in order to further Examination: And withal, that whether that which we say be true or false; it doth not at all affect the Merits of the main Cause we have undertaken.  
That now which I have to say to this Question, is this. That though it be eternally fit and natural, and conducing to a man's Happiness both in this World and the other, that he should in all Cases, and especially in Doubtful Cases, govern his Actions by the best Reason that he hath, (and certainly the Wiser and the Better any man is, the more steadily will he pursue this Rule): Yet, on the other hand, I dare not say, that a man is strictly bound in Conscience so to do; so as that he is properly guilty of sin if he do not.  
My Reason is this. Because there is no Law of God which doth oblige us in all Cases, to do that which is Best: And if we be not bound to do always that which is Best, we are not bound to do always that which is most Reasonable; for certainly, that which is Best, is always most Reasonable: And if we be not bound to do that which is most Reasonable much less are we bound to do that which is Safest, because that which is Safest, is not always either Best or most Reasonable And if there be no Law of God that doth oblige us to any of these things; than it is certain we do not sin if we Act otherwise, For where there is no Law, there is no Transgression.  
Now, That the first of these Principles is true, we have as good Proof as can be desired, viz. the Authority of St. Paul, who hath in the 7th. of the first of the Corinthians thus determined: And if that be true, the other two must needs be so likewise, because they follow from it by unavoidable Consequence.  
Taking now this for granted. I ask what Law doth a man Transgress, that in a purely Doubtful Case chooseth either side indifferently, without respect to what is Safest or most Reasonable. Always supposing that the side he chooseth, be not in itself evil and forbidden by God. I say, according to these Principles he transgresseth no Law at all, and consequently cannot properly be said to sin at all.  
If the man be at all guilty, it is upon one of these accounts, viz. either because he Acteth against the dictate of his Conscience, or because he Acteth against the Law of God, in preferring that which is less reasonable and safe, before that which is more so.  
Now, Upon the former account he is not at all guilty, for his Conscience hath passed no Dictate, no Verdict in this matter, and therefore he cannot be supposed to act against any such Dictate or Verdict: The man is in such a state that he either believes he may act as he doth, without violation of his Duty: Or, at least he hath no belief to the contrary; so that his Conscience doth not any way Condemn him.  
And as for the other thing, of his not choosing that side of the Doubtful Case which appeared to him most reasonable; it is true, if there was any Law of God which obliged him to make such a Choice, he would be guilty of sin if he chose otherwise. But now it doth not appear, that there is any such Law of God. Nay, so far from that, that it appears from St. Paul that there is no such Law, but that every man is left to his own liberty in this matter; always supposing that he take care not to choose, or do any thing that he judgeth to be inconsistent with his Duty; which in our Case we do likewise suppose.  
But then having said this, we must add further. That though we here have concluded, that no man in a Doubtful Case properly so called, is strictly obliged by any Law of God under the penalty of sin, to choose one side more than another, but may indifferently choose either.  
Yet in the first place, Whoever doth believe, or is persuaded in his own Mind, either that he ought not at all to Act against a Doubt, or that in every Doubtful Case he is bound to follow the safer side such a man, so long as he so believes, cannot without sin Act according to the Principles we have now laid down.  
And Secondly, We are far from encouraging any man to act thus hand over head in a Doubtful Case; much less from commending him for so doing. For though we say, that, strictly speaking, a man doth not sin which way soever he Act in a purely doubtful Case; yet on the other hand, I think he is but in a low Dispensation as to Virtue and Goodness, that never looks further into his Actions, nor takes more care about them, than only that they be not directly sinful.  
He that is hearty Good, will with St. Paul not only consider what things are Lawful, but what things are Expedient and do Edify.  
It will not ordinarily be sufficient to engage such a man in an Action, to satisfy him, that he may do that Action without transgressing any Law of God: But he will examine whether the doing or forbearing the Action doth more serve the ends of Virtue and Charity. And accordingly as that appears to him, so will he determine his Choice.  
In a word, The Better and the more Virtuous any man is, the more delicate and tender sense will he have, not only of that which the Law of God hath precisely made his Duty, and so in a proper Sense doth oblige his Conscience; but also of every thing that is Reasonable and Excellent, and Praiseworthy: So that it will really grate upon his mind, to do many things which, in strict speaking, cannot be accounted unlawful or forbidden.  
And thus it is in our present Case. If we suppose a man to be a Devout Christian, and a sincere Lover of God, he will not be able to prevail with himself, in a Case where he Doubteth, to choose either side indiscriminately (though if he should, I do not know, as I said before, what Law of God he transgresseth): but he will weigh and consider the Reasons on both sides, and that which appears to him after such Consideration, to be most reasonable, and conducing to God's Glory, and his own and the World's good, that shall have the preference.  
To come to a conclusion. The sum of what I have now said is this. As Conscience is the immediate Guide of our Actions: So the Rule by which Conscience itself is to be guided, is the Law of God, and nothing else.  
Though therefore we cannot be safe in following our Conscience, where our Conscience is not guided by the Law of God, (because, as I have often said, our false Judgement of things doth not cancel our Obligation to act according to what the Laws of God require of us; unless we can justly plead unblameable Ignorance of those Laws):  
Yet, on the other hand, wherever Conscience tells us, that we must do this Action, because the Law of God hath commanded it; we must do it, or we sin.  
And again,  Conscience tells us that we must avoid this Action, because the Law of God hath forbidden it, we must forbear that Action, or we sin.  
But if Conscience cannot say that this Action is commanded or forbidden; there we are not tied under the penalty of sinning, either to do or to forbear that Action.  
But yet if a Man's Conscience should thus suggest to him; Though I cannot say directly that this Action is a Duty, or that it is a sin, because I am at a loss how the Law of God stands as to this matter, and consequently, I cannot lay any direct Obligation upon you either way; yet my advice is, that you would choose this way, rather than the other: For this way, all things considered, appears most fit and reasonable to be chosen, for there is more Probability that this is the right way than the other; or there is less harm, though you should be mistaken, in going this way than the other: Now in this Case, though a man be not properly obliged under the Gild of Sin to obey his Conscience, because Conscience doth not propose the Choice to him under that Condition; yet if he be a Wise and a Good man, he will undoubtedly choose that side which Conscience, all things considered, hath represented to him to be the most fit and reasonable to be chosen.  
And thus much concerning our Fourth and last General Head.  
Thus have I largely discussed the Case of a Doubting Conscience in general, and answered all the Considerable Inquiries that can be made about it. I am not sensible that I have left any material difficulty in this Argument untouched; though I am very sensible I have said a great deal more than needed, in order to the Resolution of that Case, for the sake of which, I undertook this Discourse. But I intended such a discussion of this Argument, as would serve for all other Cases as well as that.  
I do not know whether it be needful to make a particular Application of what I have said upon a Doubting Conscience to the Case of our present Dissenters. However, it will not be amiss if I offer something towards it; if it be but to save the Reader who is concerned in that Case the Labour and Trouble of doing it.  
The Case which I am to speak to is briefly this. There are several Persons that are unsatisfied about the Lawfulness of our Communion, as it is established and enjoined; and that, upon several Accounts. Some perhaps Doubt of the Lawfulness of all Forms of Prayer. Others about the Lawfulness of our Form. Others Doubt about the Lawfulness of our Ceremonies, or our way of Administering the Sacrament: And others it may be about other things. None of them can indeed say, that any of these things do go against their Conscience, or that they believe the use of them to be unlawful: For that is the Case of a Resolved Conscience, with which we have nothing here to do: But they are undetermined and uncertain whether they be Lawful or no; and so long as they continue under this Suspense of Judgement, they dare not join in our Worship; fearing they would sin against God if they should.  
Now of those that thus Doubt there may be two sorts.  
There are some perhaps that have only a Single Doubt in this matter. That is to say, They make a Doubt whether they may Lawfully join with us, so long as those suspected Conditions are required of them: But they make no Doubt, but are very well satisfied that they may Lawfully Separate from us.  
Again there are others that Doubt on both sides, as they have good Reason to do. That is, As they Doubt on one hand, whether the Terms of our Communion be not sinful: So they Doubt on the other hand, whether it be not sinful to Separate upon account of those Terms.  
Now of these likewise, there may be two sorts.  
Some perhaps are equally Doubtful whether the Terms of our Communion be lawful or no.  
Others Doubt unequally; that is, are more inclined to believe that they are Sinful than that they are Lawful.  
That now which is to be enquired into is; What is most Reasonable and Adviseable in Point of Conscience to be done in each of these Cases.  
Now as to the first of these Cases where a man hath only a Doubt on one side, and that is, Whether he may Lawfully Communicate with us; but he hath no Doubt that he may lawfully Separate. To this I say two things.  
First, That the man's Doubting only on one side in this matter, doth not make it more safe for him to Separate, than if he had Doubted on both sides. Because indeed if he must Doubt at all, it is his Duty, he is bound to Doubt on both sides; and he is guilty of gross and criminal Ignorance of the Laws of God, if he do not. And if so, than his Doubting only on one side, doth not alter the Case, but it must have the same Resolution as if it was a Double Doubt properly so called.  
If it be said that it is a constant Rule of a Doubting Conscience, and we have allowed it as such; that in Cases where a man hath only a Doubt on one side of an Action, it is more safe to choose that side on which he hath no Doubt, than that other concerning which he Doubts: I do readily grant it. But than it is to be remembered, that that Rule is always intended, and doth only obtain in such Cases where a man may certainly without danger of sinning forbear that Action of the Lawfulness of which he Doubts; though he cannot without danger of sinning do the Action so long as he Doubts about it. But now in our Case here, it is evident to all men that are not wilfully blind, that as there may be a danger of Sinning, if a man should conform with a Doubting Conscience: So there is certainly a danger of Sinning (nay, and we say a much greater danger) if a man do not conform. So that that Rule hath here no place at all.  
The truth is, Our Case if it be rightly put, is this. A man is here supposed to reason thus with himself. I am very well satisfied in my own mind, and I make no Doubt at all, that I may Lawfully and without danger of Sin, cut myself off from the Communion of the Church [which yet by his Christianity he is bound to maintain and preserve as far as he can] And I may likewise lawfully and without danger of sinning, live in a constant Disobedience and Refractariness to all that Authority that God hath set over me [too which yet by as plain Laws as any are in Nature, or the Gospel, he is bound to be subject:] I say I am satisfied in my own mind, that I may lawfully do both these things. But I am very unsatisfied and doubtful whether in my present Circumstances, it is not my Duty thus to do so as that I shall Sin if I do not.  
What now would any Prudent man say to this Case? Why certainly he would say this? That he who can Doubt after this fashion, is either a very Ill man, or a very Ignorant one. And that such a man doth a great deal more stand in need of good Advice, and wholesome Instructions about the plain Duties of Christianity; than of Rules and Directions how to behave himself in Doubtful Cases. Because indeed the best Rules of that kind are not to his Case, so long as he continues thus Ignorant. And if he should observe them, yet that would not justify his Acting, if it should indeed prove contrary to the Law of God, because it was both in his power; and it was his Duty to know better. A man's Right proceeding according to the Rules of a Doubting Conscience, in a Case where he is entangled by a wilfully Eroneous one; will no more discharge him from Sin as to his Soul, if he do an evil Action; than the Second Concoction though never so regular, can rectify the Errors of the First as to his Body.  
But Secondly, Though that which I have now offered be the proper Answer to the Case before us: Yet there is this further to be said to it, viz. Though we should suppose that the Law of God had not obliged us to keep the Unity of the Church, or to obey our lawful Superiors; but had left it as an indifferent matter, and that there was no danger at all in forbearing these things; but the only danger was in doing them: So that the Doubt about Conformity, should have perfectly the Nature of a Single Doubt as it is put in the Case. I say, now even upon this Supposition it will bear a just Dispute, whether Conformity or Nonconformity be the more eligible side; Nay, I say further, that if the Rule I laid down about a Single Doubt be true, it will appear, that as things now stand, it is more reasonable for a man to Obey the Laws, and Communicate with the Church, so long as he hath only a bare Doubt about the Lawfulness of these things, than to Disobey and Separate.  
For thus I argue. Though in a Single Doubt the Rule be, That a man should choose that side of an Action concerning which he hath no Doubt; rather than that concerning which he Doubts: Yet as was said before, that Rule is always to be understood with this Proviso, that all other Considerations in the Case be equal. If it should happen that a very great Good may be compassed, or a very great Evil may be avoided, by Acting on the Doubtful side: That very Consideration hath weight enough with a Wise man to turn the Balance on that side; and to make that which abstractedly considered, was a Doubtful Case, to be clear and plain when it comes clothed with such Circumstances. As I gave Instances in the Case of Usury and Law Suits. And twenty more might be added to them, if it was to any purpose.  
If this now be admitted for Truth, we have a plain Resolution of the Case before us, and that is this. There are so many great Advantages both to the Kingdom, and to a man's self, to be obtained by Worshipping God in the way of the Church; and likewise so many both Public and Private Mischiefs and Inconveniences that are consequent upon Separation: That if in any Case these Considerations have weight enough to Overbalance a simple Doubt about the Lawfulness of an Action, they will certainly have sufficient weight in this Case. And that man who is not swayed by them, doth not Act so reasonably as he might do.  
For my part, I should think it very foolishly done of any man, that so long as he is utterly uncertain whether he be in the right or in the wrong (as every one that Doubteth is) should be so confident of his Point; as to venture upon it no less a stake than the Peace of the Kingdom where he lives, and the Security of the Religion Established; and withal his own Ease and Liberty, and lastly, the Fortunes also of his Posterity. And yet such a wise Venture as this doth every one among us make, that upon the account of a bare Doubt about the Lawfuless of the things enjoined in our Communion, doth persist in disobedience to the Government, and Separation from the Church.  
I wish this was well considered by our Doubting Dissenters: They are wise enough as to the World in other matters; it is to be desired that they would be as wise in this. And if they were, I dare say it would not at all prejudice their Wisdom as to the other World. It will be but little either to their Comfort or their Reputation at the long run, to have it said of them; that besides the Disturbance they have all along occasioned to the Public Peace and Unity, they have also brought their Estates and Families into danger of Ruin, by the just Prosecutions of Law they have drawn upon themselves; and all this for the sake of a Cause which they themselves must confess, they are altogether uncertain and unresolved about.  
But this will appear much clearer, when we have set the Doubt about Conformity upon the right Foot, viz. Considered it as a Double Doubt, as indeed it is, in its own Nature: Which I come now to do.  
In the Second place, There are other Dissenters who (as they have good reason) do Doubt on both sides of this Question. As they Doubt on one hand, whether it be not a sin to Conform to our Worship; because there are several things in it which they suspect to be unlawful: So on the other hand, they Doubt whether it be not their Duty to Conform to it; because the Laws of the Church and of the Land, do require them so to do. And of these, as I said, there are likewise two sorts. Some perhaps are equally Doubtful whether the Terms of our Communion are Lawful or no, and consequently must Doubt equally whether they be bound to Conform or no. Others Doubt unequally. That is to say, of the Two, it appears more probable to them, that our Communion is Sinful, than that it is a Duty.  
Now as to the first of these Cases, The Answer is very short, and it is this. We have before proved by many Arguments, that in a Case of a Pure Doubt, about the Lawfulness of an Action where the Probabilities on both sides are pretty equal: In that Case the Command of Authority doth always turn the Balance on its own side; so, as that it is not only reasonable for the man to do that in Obedience to Authority, of the Lawfulness of which he Doubteth; but it is his Duty to do it; he sins if he do not. For this I refer my Reader to the Third General Head of this Discourse.  
The only difficulty therefore is in the other Case, where the Doubt is unequal. And here the Case is this. As the man apprehends himself in danger of sinning if he do not come to Church, and obey the Laws: So he apprehends himself in a greater danger of sinning if he do. Because it doth appear more probable to him, that our Communion is Sinful, than that it is a Duty: And a greater Probobility, caeteris paribus, is always to be chosen before a less.  
But to this likewise we are ready provided of an Answer from the foregoing Discourse, viz. That though it should be supposed that in such a Case as this, where the Balance is so far inclined one way; the Authority of our Superiors alone will not have weight enough to cast it on its own side: Yet in this Particular Case of Church Communion, there are so many other Arguments to be drawn from the Consideration of the greater Sin, and the more dreadful Consequences, of disobeying the Laws than of obeying them; as will with any Impartial Conscientious Man outweigh all the Probabilities on the other side, so long as they are not so great as to create a Persuasion; and make it reasonable for him rather to Conform, how strong soever his Doubt be about the Lawfulness of Conformity (so long as it is but a Doubt;) than to continue in Separation. Vide Third Proposition about a Double Doubt. pag. 27.  
This is the Issue upon which we will try the Point before us, and I refuse no indifferent Man, that will but have the Patience to hear what we have to say, to be Umpire between us and our Dissenting Brethren, as to this Controversy.  
In the first place, let us suppose and admit, that the man who hath these Doubts and Suspicions about the Lawfulness of our Established Worship, doth really Doubt on the true side; and that he would indeed be a Transgressor of the Law of God, if he should Conform to it. But than it must be admitted likewise, that That Law of God which forbids these things in dispute, is wonderfully obscurely declared.  
There are no direct Prohibitions, either in the Law of Nature or the Book of God about those things that are now Contested; so that the unlawfulness of them is only to be concluded from Consequences.  
And those Consequences likewise are so obscure, that the Catholic Church from Christ's time till our Reformation, was wholly ignorant of them. For though it doth appear, that either these, or the like Usages, have always been in the Church: Yet it doth not appear, in all that compass of Time, either that any Particular Church ever condemned them as sinful: Or indeed, that any Particular Christian did ever Separate from the Church upon the Account of them.  
And even at this Day, these Consequences by which they are proved unlawful, are not discovered by our Governors either in Church or State. No, nor by as Learned and Religious Divines of all Persuasions as any in the World.  
The most Divines, by far the most; and those as Pious and as Able as any, are clearly of Opinion, that there is nothing Unlawful in our Worship; but that, on the contrary, all things therein prescribed are at least Innocent, and free from sin, if not Pure and Apostolical.  
So that if it should at last prove, that they are all mistaken: Yet the Law of God, which forbids these things, being so very obscure, and the Sense of it so hardly to be found out; it is a great Presumption that a man may very innocently and inculpably be Ignorant of it. And if so, it will be a very little, or no sin at all in him to act against it. Because if it was not his Duty to know this Law, it cannot be his Sin that his Practice is not according to it. And if it was his Duty to know it, yet it being so obscurely delivered, and only to be gathered by such remote Consequences; it can at most be but a Sin of Ignorance, in an ordinary Person, where so many of the best Guides are mistaken, if he should transgress it.  
And then farther, This must likewise be considered. That if Conformity to our Liturgy and Worship should prove a sin in any Instance: Yet the Evil Consequences of it extend no farther than the Man's Person that is guilty of it. There is no damage ariseth either to the Christian Religion, or to the Public Interest of the Kingdom, by any man's being a Conformist. But on the contrary, as things stand with us; Unity and Conformity to the Established way, seem to bring a great advantage to both (as I hinted before) and to be a probable means to secure us from many Dangers, with which our Reformed Religion, and the Peace of the Kingdom is threatened.  
Well, but now on the other hand. Let us suppose the contrary side of the Question to be true, viz. That our Governors in this matter are in the Right, and we are in the Wrong. That there is nothing required of us in the Church of England, as a Term of Communion, but what is very Innocent and Lawful; however it be our misfortune to Doubt that there is, and in a zealous Indulgence to these Doubts, we take the liberty to live in open disobedience to our Lawful Governous, and to break the Unity of the Church into which we were Baptised.  
I say, admitting the thing to be thus; what kind of Sin shall we be guilty of then? Why certainly we are guilty of no less a Sin than causelessly dividing the Body of Christ, against which we are so severely cautioned in the New Testament.  
We are guilty of the Breach of as plain Laws as any are in the Bible, viz. Of all those that oblige us to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace: that Command us to Obey those that are over us in the Lord; to be subject to the Higher Powers; to submit to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake; to be subject not only for Wrath. but for Conscience sake. I say, these plain Laws we disobey for Conscience sake; and we disobey them too in such Instances, where we have the whole Catholic Church of old, and far the greatest and the best part of the present Church, of a different Persuasion from us.  
Well, but as if this was not enough. What are the Consequences of this our Sin? (For by the Consequences of a sin, the greatness of it is always to be estimated, I speak as to the Material part of it, with which we are here concerned.) Why, they are most Terrible and Dreadful, both with respect to ourselves and others.  
By this unnatual Separation, we do, for any thing we know, put ourselves out of the Communion of the Catholic Church; and consequently out of the enjoyment of the ordinary means of Salvation.  
We maintain and keep up Divisions and Disorders in the Church, and lend a helping hand to all those Animosities and Hatreds, all that bitter Contention and Strife, and Uncharitableness, which hath long torn the very Bowels of Christ's Church, and given occasion to that Deluge of Atheism, and Profaneness, and Impiety which hath overspread the Face of it.  
We put Affronts upon our Lawful Governors, who should be in the place of God to us. We give Scandal to all our Brethren that make a Conscience of living Peaceably and Piously. And lastly, as we offer a very fair Handle and Pretence to all Discontented and Factious men to Practice against the Best of Governments: So we take the most effectual course to Ruin the Best Constituted Church in the World, and with it the Reformed Religion in this Kingdom.  
This now being the Nature, and these being the Consequences of our Separation from the Established Church among us: I leave it to any indifferent man to Determine, whether any Doubt about the Lawfulness of our Communion, though that Doubt be backed with greater Probabilities than do appear on the other side; nay, if you will, with all the Probabilities that can consist with the nature of a Doubt; can have weight enough to Balance against such a Sin, and such Consequences as Separation in our Case doth involve a man in? I think there is no unconcerned Person but will pronounce, that supposing where there are Doubts on both sides, a man is to choose that side on which there is the least appearance of Sin; he is in this Case certainly bound to choose Communion with the Established Church, rather than Separation from it. And that is all I Contend for.  
But now, after all this is said; it must be acknowledged, that if there be any man who hath other apprehensions of these matters, and that after a Consideration of all things that are to be said for or against Conformity, it doth appear to him upon the whole matter, both more probable that our Communion is sinful, than that it is a Duty; and withal, that to Communicate with us, will involve him in a greater sin, and in worse Consequences, than to continue in Separation: I say, if any man have so unfortunate an understanding as to make such an estimate of things; we must acknowledge, that according to all the Rules of a Doubting Conscience, such a man is rather to continue a Nonconformist, than to obey the Laws of the King and the Church. But then let him look to it; for his acting in this Case according to the best Rules of a Doubting Conscience, will not (as I said before) at all acquit him either of the Gild or Consequences of Criminal Schism and Disobedience: Supposing that indeed he is all along under a mistake as (we say) he certainly is; and that there is nothing required in our Communion, that he might not honestly and lawfully comply with, as there certainly is not. Unless in the mean time, the man fell into these mistakes without any fault of his, and God Almighty, who is the Judge of all men's Hearts and Circumstances, doth know he had not means and opportunities to understand better.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 27. l. 7. for annot cavoid, r. cannot avoid. p. 35. l. 3. for this last, r. the least. p. 43. l. 28. after Spiritual, add by doing the Former. p. 61. l. 1. r. because. p. 62. l. penult. r. chrysostom. p. 66. l. 9 r. no wise. p. 94. l. 19 r. Probability.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
1. A Discourse concerning Conscience, the first Part. Wherein an Account is given of the Nature, and Rule, and Obligation of it. And the Case of those who Separate from the Communion of the Church of England as by Law Established, upon this Pretence, That it is against their Conscience tojoyn in it, is stated and discussed.  
2. A Resolution of this Case, viz. Whether it be Lawful to Separate from the Public Worship of God in the Parochial Assemblies of England, upon that New Pretence which some Men make, of the Case being much altered now from what it was, when the Puritans wrote against the Brownists, and the Presbyterians against the Independent?  
3. Resolution of two Cases of Conscience in two Discourses? The First, Of the Lawfulness of Compliance with all the Ceremonies of the Church of England. The Second, Of the necessity of the use of Common-Prayer in Public.   

A DISCOURSE ABOUT A SCRUPULOUS CONSCIENCE: Containing some PLAIN DIRECTIONS For the CURE of it.  
LONDON, Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleetstreet, and B. took at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1684.   

A DISCOURSE ABOUT A Scrupulous Conscience, etc.  
IT is not my Design in the following Discourse, to expose or upbraid the Weakness of any of our Dissenting Brethren; but rather charitably to contribute what I can towards the healing and curing of it: and this I take for granted, That we cannot do greater Service either to the Church of Christ, or Souls of Men, than by all prudent Means to root those needless Scruples out of their Minds, which have been the Occasion of such unchristian Separations and dangerous Divisions amongst us; at first begun, and still maintained, generally, upon the Account of such Things, as I verily believe, a well-instructed Conscience need not be concerned or disturbed about.  
Here I shall first show what I understand by a Scrupulous Conscience, then observe some few things concerning it; and lastly, offer some plain Rules and Means by which we may best get rid of it.  
First, What is a Scrupulous Conscience? Now Conscience, as it is a Rule of our Actions, is nothing else but a Man's Mind or Judgement concerning the moral Goodness or Evil, Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Things; and as this Judgement is either true or false, so is our Conscience either good and well-grounded, or erroneous. The Divine Law made known to us either by the light of Nature, or plain Scripture, or direct consequence from it, such as any honest man may understand, is the Rule of Conscience, or of that Judgement we make of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things: so that our Conscience is a safe Rule and Guide of Actions no further, than as itself is directed and warranted by the Law of God.  
1. A good and well grounded Conscience is, when we carefully abstain from whatever God hath forbidden, don't neglect doing any thing which he hath commanded, and as for other Mats left indifferent and at liberty, we do them or forbea doing of them, according as the Rules of obedience to Superiors, Prudence, and Charity, do require. This is the Health and sound State of the Mind.  
2. An erroneous Conscience is, when we judge that to be evil or unnecessary which God hath expressly commanded, and is our Duty; or that to be good and necessary which he hath plainly forbid, and is really sinful. Now our Consciences cannot alter the nature of things: that which is our Duty remaineth so, and we sin by omitting it, notwithstanding we in our Consciences think it unlawful to be done; and what is really Evil continueth such, and is Sin in us, however our Consciences tell us it is our duty to do it: and the fault is more or less compassionable and pardonable, as the causes of the Error are more or less voluntary and avoidable. This is a grievous Disease and deadly Sickness of the Mind, when we thus grossly err in our Judgements, and act according to our mistaken Opinion of Things.  
3. A scrupulous Conscience is conversant about things in their own Nature indifferent, and it consists  
Either in strictly tying up ourselves to some things which God hath no where commanded; as the Pharisees made great conscience of washing before they did eat, and abundance of other unnecessary Rites and Usages they had of men's own inventing and devising, which they as religiously, nay more carefully observed than the indisputable Commands of God himself:  
Or in a conscientious abstaining from somethings which are not forbid, nor any ways unlawful. Touch not, taste not, handle not, doubting and fearing where no Fear is, thinking that they should as much offend God by eating some kind of Meats, wearing some Garments, as they should do were they guilty of Murder and Adultery. Which is the Case of many amongst us, who by such Scrupulosity about little matters, seem more precise and austere than other good and honest Christians are, or themselves need or aught to be.  
Far be it from me, by any thing I shall now say, to discourage the greatest and tenderest care any Christian can take, to keep himself from all Sin, from all Occasions and Temptations to it, from the least appearance of Evil, of what is really such: and to do any thing that is in itself sinful, out of confidence that it is lawful, is far worse and a more grievous Offence than to abstain from many things which are truly lawful, out of an Opinion that they are sinful. Notwithstanding this, I cannot but reckon it the chief Policy of the Devil, the grand Enemy of all that is good, when he cannot persuade us that there is nothing at all sinful or unlawful, than to make us suspect every thing for such, or at least, that there is great danger of displeasing God by the most indifferent and innocent Actions; by these means ensnaring and entangling men's Consciences, and rendering Religion a most troublesome Burden to them.  
A scrupulous Conscience therefore starts and boggles, where there is no real Evil or Mischief; is afraid of omitting or doing what may be omitted or done without Sin. Which I know not how better to illustrate than by those unaccountable Antipathies or Prejudices that some men have against some sort of Meats, or living Creatures, which have not the least harm or hurt in them, yet are so offensive and dreadful to such Persons, that they fly from them as they would from a Tiger or Bear, and avoid them as they would do the Plague or Poison. Just thus do some Men run out of the Church at the sight of a Surplice, as if they had been scared by the Apparition of a Ghost.  
I proceed to the second thing I propounded, to observe to you some few general things concerning this scrupulous Conscience; as,  
1. That this is a very sickly, crazy temper of Mind, a great Indisposition, a state of Weakness and Infirmity, It ariseth from Ignorance and want of right Understanding our Religion, from undue timerousness or unsetledness of Mind, from Melancholy, or unreasonable Prejudices and Mistakes about the Nature of things. Such scrupulous Persons are like fearful Women, that wander in the Dark, who seeing nothing to affright them, yet fancy many things, which make them tremble every step they take: or like those who see only by an uncertain glimmering twilight, their Imagination once abused and prepossessed, transforms every Object into a Monster or Giant.  
Thus this Scrupulous is the same with what in other Words some call a tender Conscience, so tender that every thing hurts and wounds it, like a tender Eye which the least Dust or Smoke greviously offends, or a tender Constitution of Body, which the least Air or Wind mightily disorders and discomposes. Now this is far from being any Virtue or Commendation in us, this is no desirable Qualification, nor a matter of Ambition to be thought Men of such tender Consciences, no more than it is for a Man's Reputation to be sickly and often indisposed. A good Conscience is firm and steady, well settled and resolved, and such needless Scruples about things lawful are at the best a sign of an ungoverned Fancy, and a weak Judgement. As the niceness and squeamishness of a man's Stomach that distastes wholesome Food is a symptom of an unsound and unhealthy Body. This doth not argue any extraordinary holiness or purity above others, as the Pharisee conceited of himself, Stand off, come not nigh me, touch me not, for I am holier than thou, because he washed himself so often. No, we are yet in a childish state, and whilst we are frighted with such Bug-bears and Phantasms, we have not yet arrived to the Understanding or Resolution of a Man.  
2. This Scrupulosity about little matters may be, and is often a sign of Hypocrisy. I take not upon myself to judge any Persons. Let every man look to himself; but thus certainly it was with the Scribes and Pharisees of old; They strained at every Gnat, stumbled at every Straw, would starve sooner than eat their Meat with defiled hands, would not for the World wrong a Man of a Cummin-seed, or a spear of Mint, and by this wonderful exactness and strictness in some instances, they easily gained the Reputation of the greatest Saints; so that it is said to have been an ordinary Proverb among the Jews, That if but two Persons in the World went to Heaven, one of them would be a Scribe the other a Pharisee. Yet for all this, if we will believe our Saviour's account of them, they made nothing of swallowing Camels, living in the greatest and most known Wickedness.  
Alas! their Consciences would not give them leave to enter into the Governors' Hall to go amongst the Heathens, for fear of being polluted by them, yet at the same time they stuck not at suborning false Witnesses against the best and most innocent Person that ever lived. They blamed the Disciples for plucking the ears of Corn on the Sabbath-day, as if they, poor tender-hearted men, were offended and grieved to the Soul at such Profaneness, and yet they thought it nothing to deny relief and succour to their own Parents, when in Want or Distress; they made no Bones of Rapine and Extortion, oppressing the Poor, or devouring Widows Houses. By their curiosity about some external Observances, they hoped to make amends for their gross Transgressions in other Cases of far greater weight and moment. Since they denied themselves many things which God had allowed them, they hoped he would readily forgive them, though in some other things they took a greater Liberty than he had permitted them.  
Had any of us been present when Mary, St. John 12. 3. took the Ointment of Spikenard, very costly, and anointed the Feet of Jesus, and had heard Judas' Rebuke, Why was not this Ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the Poor? (He scrupled such a profuse expense, though about our Saviour himself. He thought it might have been better employed, to more useful purposes.) Should we not from this have straight concluded him the most charitable and conscientious of all Christ's Disciples, and yet this overgreat care for the Poor was only a pretence and covering for his thievish Intention.  
They therefore who are so scrupulous about little indifferent matters, aught to approve their Honesty and Sincerity by the most accurate Diligence in the Practice of all other Duties of Religion, which are plainly and undoubtedly such. They who pretend to such a tender Conscience above other Men must know, that the World will watch them as to the fairness and justice of their Deal, the calmness of their Tempers, their behaviour in their several Relations, their Modesty, Humility, Charity, Peaceableness, and the like. If in all these things they keep the same Tenor, use the same caution and circumspection, and be uniformly conscientious, than it must be acknowledged, that it is only Weakness or Ignorance that raiseth their Scruples, not any vicious Principle; and the condition of those who are under the Power of such Scruples, is much to be commiserated.  
But, when I see a Man scrupling praying by a Book or Form, and yet living without any sense of God or fear of him, afraid of a Ceremony in God's Worship, and not afraid of a plain damnable Sin, of Covetousness, rash censuring his Brethren, of Hatred and Strife, Faction and Schism, and Disobedience to Superiors; when I see one that out of Conscience refuseth to kneel at the Sacrament, and yet dares totally neglect the Communion; who takes great care not to give offence to his weak Brother, but can freely speak evil of Dignities, and despiseth his lawful Governors; it is not then uncharitable to say, That it is not dread of displeasing God, but some other buy end or Interest that acts and moves such a Person, and in pleading the Tenderness of his Conscience he is no other than a downright Hypocrite.  
On the other side, Let a Man be never so punctual and critical in his Conformity to all the appointed Ceremonies and Usages in our Church, let him constantly attend God's solemn Worship, and behave himself most reverently and decently at the Public Prayers; yet if this Man be profane and intemperate, a Derider of true Piety and Godliness, if he lives loosely and at Random, all his regular Devotions, all his bowing and kneeling to the Honour of our Saviour, all his niceness about his Worship to perform it in the most orderly manner, all his Zeal for the Church shall avail him nothing. He is no better than the Pharisee, washing the outside, whilst he is within full of all Wickedness and Uncleanness. To be so concerned about little things, whilst we make no Conscience of the greater, is the most evident sign that can be given of a false Christian. And hath it not often happened in the World, that such a mighty Scrupulosity about our Duty hath proved a very successful way of growing great or raising an Estate, by giving Men so fair an opportunity of imposing upon the credulous and unwary? So that I have known it advised as an useful Caution to those who would live in the World, always to stand upon your Guard and look to your Pockets, when you deal with those who pretend to greater Tenderness and Exactness than other undoubtedly sober and honest Christians generally do.  
3. Where Persons are truly honest and mean well, there is nothing more troublesome and vexatious than such unreasonable Scruples about things lawful. This must needs be an intolerable disturbance to a man's Mind, and breed great Anxiety and Inquietude, when Persons are continually shivering and trembling lest by every thing they do they incur the Divine Displeasure; and it certainly disables a man from performing his necessary Duty. He is likely to make but a slow Progress in his Journey, who instead of going on cheerfully in his way, is frequently at a stand, doubting which foot he should set forward, or what particular Path he should choose. This robs men, in a great measure, of that Peace and Satisfaction which they might otherwise find in Religion, whilst they are daily perplexing themselves with untying Knots which themselves only have fastened. Scruples about things indifferent, when once we attend to and entertain them, like the Plague of Flies amongst the Egyptians, will be constantly buzzing in our Ears, and tormenting us with their Impertinency; till at length we come to distrust every thing, and there is nothing that belongs to ordinary Civility, no recreation we can use, no  we can wear, no discourse we can hold with others, no conversation we can maintain, or business which we transact in the World, but we shall raise some trifling Objections or Scruples about it, which will make our Condition continually uneasy and restless. For,  
4. These Scruples are infinite and endless: for, being grounded upon some very little and inconsiderable Reason, there is hardly any thing to be done but some small Exceptions may be started against it, which may soon puzzle and confound the more ignorant sort of Christians. Thus he that scruples a Minister's officiating in a white Garment, may easily be brought to doubt of the fitness of his doing it in Black, and then he proceeds against any solemn distinct Habit, and at last against the Office of Ministers itself, and tells you all God's People are holy, and that all Christians are a Royal Priesthood, and we have no need of Teachers, for we are all taught of God. From scrupling the Sign of the Cross after Baptism, Men have soon come to question Infant Baptism itself: they have at first perchance disliked only some significant Ceremonies in God's Worship, of Humane Appointment, but thence they have gone on to deny all outward bodily Reverence, and thought it not expedient to pull off their Hats in Churches, than not to do it before Magistrates, at last not at all: and thus by giving place to such little Scruples, they become afraid of speaking, looking, or doing any thing like other Men.  
This is notorious amongst us. Those who have taken Offence at some things in our Church, and have thereupon separated from us, and associted themselves with a purer Congregation, have soon disliked something amongst them also; and then they would reform themselves farther, and after that refine themselves more still, till at last they have sunk down either into Quakerism, Popery, or Atheism. This doth not only now and then happen in the World, but is the probable effect of embracing and cherishing such Scruples, that men go on scrupling one thing after another, till at length they doubt of every thing.  
5. Lastly, This needless scrupling of lawful things hath done unspeakable mischief to the Church of Christ, especially to the Reformed Church of England; a Church reform according to the most Primitive and Apostolical Pattern, by the best and wisest Rules, in which, even by the Confession of the soberest and most considerable of our Dissenters nothing is required, as a condition of Communion, that is sinful; yet how is she rend and torn, mangled and divided, how hath she been assaulted, undermined, and in danger to be the second time overthrown upon the Account only of Habits and Gestures, and particular Forms, Rites, and Modes of Discipline and Worship, with which some Men are not well satisfied or pleased, which they judge might be better done and ordered another way, or which they rather would have left at liberty, that every man may do therein according to his own Discretion or Opinion.  
In the great and necessary Truths of Religion we all profess to be agreed. We all worship the same God, believe in the same Lord and Saviour, have the same Baptism, the same Faith, the same Hope, the same common Interest, our Sacraments, as to the main, are rightly administered according to our Saviour's Institution, our Churches are acknowledged to be true Churches of Jesus Christ: but there are some Constitutions, which respect chief outward Order and the decent Performance of Divine Worship, against which men have received strange Prejudices, on the account of them have raised a mighty noise and clamour against the Church, and have openly separated from its Communion, as if by renouncing of Popery we had only exchanged one idolatrous Service for another. About these skirts and Borders, the dress and circumstances of Religion hath been all our quarrelling and contention; and these Differences have proceeded to such an height, as to beget immortal Feuds and Animosities, to break and crumble us into little Parties and Fractions, whereby mutual Edification is hindered, our common Religion suffers Reproach, the Enemies of it are strengthened and encouraged, public Peace endangered, and brotherly Love, the Badge of Christ's Disciples, quite lost amongst us: and the continuance of these miserable Distractions amongst us upon such frivolous Accounts (if compared with the Interests of Peace and Charity) is a matter of sad consideration to all lively Members of Christ's Body, and forebodes great evils impendent over our Church and State. I doubt not to say, that the Devil hath fought more successfully against Religion under the Mask of a zealous Reformer, than under any other disguise whatever.  
The grand Enemy of Mankind hath by various ways and means all along contrived and endeavoured to defeat the designs of Heaven for the Good and Happiness of Men: and as the Divine Wisdom hath in several Ages of the World manifested itself for the encouraging and promoting of true Righteousness and Holiness, so hath the Devil always been at work to oppose what he could find most proper for the hindering the good effect of God's Kindness towards us. When the fullness of Time came, by the appearance of the Son of God in the World, he was in a great measure dethroned, his Kingdom overthrown, and the last and most effectual means were used for the recovery of Men out of his Snare and Power. When therefore he perceived that by all the grievous Persecutions he raised against the Church it spread only so much the faster, that at last the whole Heathen Idolatry fell down before the Cross of Christ; when he was shamefully expelled out of his Temples, and from his Altars, his Oracles silenced, and the Religion of Jesus prevailed every where; he than betook himself to his old Serpentine Arts of dissimulation. Since he could no longer oppose Christ's Kingdom by open War, he resolved to turn Christian, and to set up for Christ's Deputy, and substitute here on Earth, to fight against Christians under Christ's Banner, and by adulterating and corrupting the Christian Doctrine, to spoil it of all its Efficacy, to introduce his old Heathen Rites and Idolatrous Ceremonies, as unwritten Traditions from Christ himself or his Apostles, and so under his Name and pretended Authority to exercise all that cruelty, oppression, and fraud, which is so pleasing to his own infernal Nature, hoping to burn, destroy, root out all true Christians from the face of the Earth, under colour of propagating the Catholic Faith, and enlarging Christ's Kingdom in the World.  
When Christendom had long groaned under this miserable Tyranny, it pleased God in many places of Europe, but especially here in England, to set on foot a Reformation of Religion, which was happily and peaceably accomplished among us by the favour and countenance of public Authority and the wise Counsel and Advice of our Reverend Bishops and other Ministers. To nip this in the Bud, the Devil raised that sharp Persecution in Qu. Mary's days, in which our first Reformers gloriously sealed what they had done with their Blood: but this proving ineffectual, that he might the better frustrate the ends of our Reformation, himself would turn Reformer too; A great Cry was soon raised against our Church, as not sufficiently purged from Popery, our Bishops, our Prayers, our Ceremonies were all Antichristian, and it was not long before all Ministers, Tithes, Temples, and the Universities too, were condemned as such; and God knows they had well nigh reform away all Learning, true Religion, and Worship of God, and under the specious Pretence of paring off all Superfluities, had grievously shaken the Foundations of Christianity itself; insomuch, that it came to pass, as some of those who now descent from us did then complain, That Professors of Religion did openly oppose and deride almost all that Service of God out of Conscience, which other Men used to do out of Profaneness. And what infinite mischief this rash and intemperate Zeal for reforming Abuses and Corruptions hath done to our Church and Nation, if the Experience of this last Age will not sufficiently convince men, it is not to be hoped that any Discourse should. We little consider whose Interest we thus serve and promote: we do his work who is most delighted with Strife and Confusion, and every one can tell who that is, and where he reigns. To be sure by these uncharitable Separations we highly gratify the common Enemy, whose great Design and Policy it hath all along been, by the Follies and invincible Scruples of Protestant Dissenters to weaken, and by degrees pull down the Church of England, and then we all become an easy Prey to Rome.  
If any now tell me, that to prevent this great Mischief and Danger that ariseth from our Divisions, it is not so necessary that the People should lay down their Scruples, (which they cannot well do, since no one can at any time think or believe as he will) as it is that the Impositions themselves, the Matters scrupled at, should be removed and taken away, and then Peace and Unity may be better secured. To this I only answer these two things:  
1. I now consider things as they at present stand amongst us. We have a Church settled and established by Law, in which nothing that is sinful is enjoined. What the Duty of our Governors and Superiors is, how far they may or aught to condescend to the Weakness or Scruples of others, I shall not take upon me to determine; that is another Question which belongs not to us. But I consider now only what private Members of such a Church are to do, and then I say, scrupling the Use of some things prescribed by the Church, will not justify our leaving it; nay, as I shall show afterwards, it is our best and safest course to submit and comply with such Orders, notwithstanding our Scruples. But I add,  
2. If this were a sufficient Reason why the Constitution of any Church should be altered, because some things are scrupled in it, there never could be a settled Church as long as the World stands; for, since there will be always a difference in men's Understandings and Tempers, some weak and injudicious, others peevish and proud, there will consequently be many that shall scruple and be offended at the best and most innocnt Constitutions. And if the Ceremonies now in use amongst us had not been retained at our first Reformation, those very Persons, who are now so much dissatisfied with the Imposition of them, would perhaps have been the first that should have then complained of the want of them. Of which we have this notorious and undeniable Evidence in the late times, when our Church was laid in the Dust, when none of those Ceremonies or Forms which are now objected against were imposed or commonly used, yet even then were men gathering Congregations out of Congregations, purifying and reforming still further; Scruples increased, Sects and Divisions upon them multiplied, and never such Distractions and Confusions in Religion as in those days; and without the gift of Prophecy one may foretell, that if what is principally found fault with in our Church was now abolished, yet those that are given to Scruples would at least in time find cavilling Objections against any Constitution that can be made. They are like Men given to sue and go to Law. They never want some Pretence to disturb themselves and their Neighbours.  
Men may talk of reconciling our Differences, and making up our Breaches to their Lives end, and propound their several Projects, and frame their Models, and conceive fine designs of Union and Accommodation, yet none of these will have any effect, or do any good, till Men learn Humility and Modesty, and be contented to be governed by others in things indifferent, till Self-conceit and Pride be in some measure rooted out; and when this is effectually done, there will then be found but little need of any Alteration in the present Constitution.  
The foundation of our Peace and Agreement must be laid in the reforming ourselves and our own Tempers. The way to unite us lieth not so much in amending the present Establishment, Government, Liturgy, endeavouring to add to it, or leave out of it, till all Parties amongst us are satisfied, (which indeed can never be effected) as it doth consist in our becoming more truly Christian in our Lives and Tempers. They are our vicious Dispositions, more than our different Apprehensions, that keep us at such a distance. Let the terms of Communion with the Church be what they will, yet as long as Men retain the same quarrelsome Mind, and industriously seek for Doubts and Scruples, and are glad to find them, and prefer their own private Opinion and Judgement before the Wisdom and Authority of all their Governors, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, it is plain our Divisions and Animosities will not, cannot cease.  
But this leads me to the last thing I designed to discourse of; which was, to propound to you the best ways and means by which men may get rid of and ease their Minds of such Scruples; where I shall especially consider those that relate to our communicating with our Parish-Churches. You must not expect that I should descend to, and answer the particular Exceptions which hinder men from constant Communion with us; but only in general I shall crave leave to advise some few things, which would mightily tend to the removing those Doubts and Scruples that yet detain so many in a state of utter Separation from us, or at least discourage their total and hearty joining with us. Which charitable Design and Attempt, however unsuccessful I may be in it, yet cannot, I hope, be unacceptable to any, whose Consciences are pestered with such Scruples, since I endeavour only to deliver them from those Mistakes, which beside the disservice they do to Religion and the Protestant Interest, do also expose them to trouble and danger from the Public Laws and Civil Magistrate. Of many Rules that might be given in this case, I shall insist only on these following.  
1. We should take great care to beget and cherish in our Minds the most high, and worthy, and honourable Thoughts of God Almighty. This is the Foundation of all Religion; and as our Apprehensions of God are, such for the most part will be his Worship and Service. Accordingly as we conceive of his Nature, so shall we judge what things are most pleasing to him, as also what they are that are most offensive and distasteful to him.  
Now consider, I beseech you, Can that Man have becoming and excellent Thoughts of the Divine Nature, who imagines that God regards any particular Gestures, Habits, and Postures so far, as that the acceptance of our Service and Worship should depend upon such Circumstances of our Religious Actions? When with all Humility and true devotion of Heart a sincere Christian prostrates himself at the Throne of God's Grace, and with earnest Desire and Affections begs those good things that are according to God's Mind and Will, can we believe that the Father of our Spirits shall refuse and reject his Petition because it is delivered in a certain prescribed form of Words? Shall his importunate renewed Requests fail of Success because he still useth the same Expressions, and reads his Prayers out of a Book? Is God pleased with variety of Words? or the copiousness of our Invention, or the elegancy of our Phrase and Style? Is it not the Heart and inward frame of Spirit that God principally respects in all our Prayers? Or can we think so meanly of God, that he should shut his ears against the united Prayers of his People, because offended at the colour of the Garment in which the Minister officiates?  
Suppose two Persons, both with equal Preparation, with true Repentance and Faith to approach the Lord's Table; one of them, out of a deep sense of his Unworthiness to receive so great Blessings, and out of a grateful acknowledgement of the Benefits therein conferred upon him, takes the Sacrament upon his Knees, in the humblest Posture; the other sitting or standing: can you think that the Sacrament is effectual or beneficial, or that God blesses it only to him that sits, or that it would not have been of the same advantage to him if he also had received it kneeling? To surmise any such thing, is surely to dishonour God, as if he were a low, poor, humoursome Being, like a Father that should disinherit his Child, though in all Respects most dutiful to him, and every way deserving his greatest Kindness, only because he did not like his Complexion, or the colour of his Hair. The wiser and greater any Person is to whom we address ourselves, the less he will stand upon little Punctilios.  
Under the Jewish Law the minutest circumstances of Worship were exactly described and determined by God himself, and it was not ordinarily lawful for the Priests at all to vary from them. But it was necessary then that it should be thus; because the Jewish Worship was typical of what was to come hereafter, and those many nice Observances that were appointed were not commanded for themselves, as if there were any Excellency in them, but they were shadows of things to come, which are all now done away by the Gospel, and the bringing in of everlasting Righteousness, the only thing always pleasing to God, and agreeable to his Nature: It is a spiritual rational Service God now expects from us, and delights in; and he must look upon God as a very fond and captious Being, who can persuade himself that our Prayers and Thanksgivings, and other Acts of Worship, though we be most hearty and devout in them, yet shall be rejected by him only because of some particular Habits or Gestures we used, which were neither dishonourable to God, nor unsuitable to the nature of those religious Performances.  
Such mean Thoughts of God are the true ground of all Superstition, when we think to court and please him by making great Conscience about little things; and so it hath been truly observed, that there is far more Superstition in conscientious abstaining from that which God hath no where forbid, than there is in doing that which God hath not commanded. A man may certainly do what God hath not commanded, and yet never think to flatter God by it, nor place any Religion in it, but he may do it only out of obedience to his Superiors, for outward Order and Decency, for which end our Ceremonies are appointed, and so there is no Superstition in them. But now a Man cannot out of Conscience refuse to do what God hath not forbid, and is by lawful Authority required of him, but he must think to please God by such abstaining: and in this conceit of pleasing or humouring God by indifferent things, consists the true Spirit of Superstition.  
2. Lay out your great care and zeal about the necessary and substantial duties of Religion, and this will make you less concerned about things of an inferior and indifferent nature. As on the one hand our fierce Disputes and Debates about little things and circumstances are apt to eat out the Heart and Life of Religion, so on the other side, minding those things most, in which the Power of Religion doth consist, is the best way to cure our Scrupulousness about little things. This was the Apostle's Advice to the Romans, cap. 14. amongst whom eating or not eating some Meats, observing or not observing some days, had occasioned as much Trouble and Scruple as Forms of Prayer and Ceremonies do now amongst us, ver. 17. The Kingdom of God is not Meat or Drink, but Righteousness, Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost. What needs all this Stir and Bustle? This censuring, disputing, and dividing about Standing or Kneeling, these are not the great matters of our Faith; they are not worth so much Noise and Contention. The great stress and weight in our Religion is laid upon the Duties of a righteous and holy Life, and a peaceable Spirit and Conversation, and then he adds, ver. 18. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men.  
Thus when you betake yourselves to your Prayers, let it be your greatest care to fix in your Minds a due sense of God's Infinite Majesty, of your own Vileness and Unworthiness, of your manifold Wants and Necessities, and the greatness and goodness of the things you petition for, and his readiness to grant them upon your humble Request; and the more you do this, the less solicitous you will be about the form or words of your Prayers. He that minds those things most on which the efficacy of his Prayers for Christ's sake doth depend, will not stand in need of, nor require new Phrases every time to stir his Attention or to raise his Affection. Thus let Men be very diligent and conscientious in preparing themselves for the Holy Communion; let them come thereunto with lively Apprehensions of Christ's Love in dying for us, with hearty Resolutions of Amendment, and true Charity towards all Men; the more concerned they are about these necessary things, the less afraid will they be of offending God by kneeling at the Administration, or coming up to receive it in one part of the Church rather than another: for, they will find that they are quite other things in which true Religion consists, in a new Nature, in a divine temper of Mind, in the constant Practice of Holiness, Righteousness, and Charity; which make a Man really better, and more like unto God.  
He that places any Religion in not putting off his Hat, or sitting at the Sacrament, or not standing up at the Creed or Gospel, as I before showed you, hath no worthy Thoughts of God; so neither hath he any right Notion of Christianity, which consists only in unfeigned Piety towards God, and sincere Love to our Brother, not in any external Rites or Observances, which are in their own Nature variable and mutable, and are different in several Churches.  
3. It would greatly contribute to the removing these Scruples which hinder the blessed Union of Christians amongst us, if men were but really willing to receive satisfaction. This alone would go half way towards conquering them. But when they are grown fond of and nourish their Doubts and Prejudices, and converse only with those Men, read only those Books, and hear those Discourses which are made of their side, which serve to heighten and strengthen their Jealousies and Suspicions, when they avoid the means of Conviction as dangerous Snares and Temptations, and look upon this tenderness or aptness to be offended, as a sign of Grace and extraordinary Conscientiousness, there can be but little hopes of recovering such Persons to a right apprehension of things. Whereas would they come once to distrust their own Judgements, to suppose that they may perhaps be all this while mistaken, would they calmly and patiently hear, faithfully and impartially consider what is said or wrote against them, as eagerly desire and seek for satisfaction, as Men do for cure of any Disease they are subject unto; would they, I say, thus diligently use all fit means and helps for the removal of their Scruples, before they troubled the Church of Christ with them, it would not prove so very difficult a Task to convince and settle such teachable Minds.  
If therefore any Man be possessed with Doubts or Scruples against any thing practised or required in our Church, let him first read some of those excellent Books, that are written with all the fairness and evidence imaginable, on purpose to explain and justify those things that are most usually excepted against; let him consult with some of our Church before he leaves it. Let him honestly repair to the Minister of his Parish, or some other whom he hath in greater estimation, and ingenuously open his Mind to him, declaring what it is he most stumbles at, and hear what can be offered for the Resolution of his Doubts. If consulting with one Person will not do it, let him advise with others, and try this often, before he condemns us, and divides from us. Would Men do this seriously, with earnest desire of instruction, without doubt we should have far fewer Separatists, and they who after this did still descent from us, would be far more excusable in it, than otherwise they are, and this is no other than what men ordinarily do in their temporal Affairs. When they have any fear or suspicion about their worldly concerns, they presently repair to those who are best skilled, and most able to resolve them, and in their judgement and determination they commonly acquiesce and satisfy themselves. Hath any man a scruple about his Estate, whether it be firmly settled, or he hath a true legal Title to it? The way he takes for satisfaction is to advise with Lawyers, the most eminent for Knowledge and Honesty in their Profession. If they agree in the same Opinion, this is the greatest assurance he can have that it is right and safe. Thus is it with one that doubts whether such a custom or practice be for his Health, the opinion of known and experienced Physicians is the only proper means to determine him in such a Case. The reason is the same here. When any private Christian is troubled and perplexed with fears and scruples that concern his Duty, or the Worship of God, he ought in the first place to have recourse to the Public Guides and Ministers of Religion, who are appointed by God, and are best fitted to direct and conduct him; I say, to come to them, not only to dispute and argue with them, and pertly to oppose them, but with all modesty to propound their doubts, meekly to hearken to and receive Instruction, humbly begging of God to open their Understandings that they may see and embrace the truth, taking great care that no evil affection, love of a Party, or carnal interest influence or bias their Judgements.  
We do not by this desire men to pin their faith upon the Priest's Sleeve, or to put out their own Eyes that they might be better guided and managed by them; but only diligently to attend to their Reasons and Arguments, and to give some due regard and deference to their Authority: for it is not so absurd, as may by some be imagined, for the Common People to take upon trust from their lawful Teachers, what they are not competent Judges of themselves.  
But the difficulty here is, how shall a private Christian govern himself, when the very Guides and Ministers of Religion determine differently concerning these matters in question amongst us? Some warranting and allowing them, others as much disapproving and condemning them: by what Rule shall he choose his Guide? To which I briefly reply;  
1. As for those who scruple at Conformity, and are tolerably able to judge for themselves, let not such rely barely upon the Authority either of the one or the other. All we desire of them is, that they would equally hear both sides, that they would think that the Ministers of the Church of England have some Sense and Conscience too as well as other Men, and are able to say somewhat for what they do themselves, or require of others; that laying aside all Prejudices, Favour to or admiration of men's Persons, they would weigh and consider the Arguments that may be propounded to them, being diffident of their own Apprehensions, and indifferent to either part of the Question; that they would think it no shame to change their Mind when they see good reason for it. Can we thus prevail with the People diligently to examine the Merits of the cause, our Church would every day gain more Ground amongst all wise Men: for we care not how much Knowledge and Understanding our People have, so they be but humble and modest with it, nor do we desire Men to become our Proselytes any further than we give them good Scripture and Reason for it.  
2. But as for those who are not so capable of examining or judging for themselves (as few of the common People who separate from us really are; they not being able to give any tolerable account of their dissent from us, only in general Words declaiming against Popery, Superstition, Antichristian and Unscriptural Ceremonies, Humane Traditions, etc.) such had better trust to and depend on those Ministers, of known Sufficiency for their Office, who are regularly and by the Laws of the Land set over them, than any other Guides or Teachers that they can choose for themselves. This to be sure is the safer course, which in doubtful cases is always to be taken. I speak now of these present Controversies about Forms and Ceremonies so hotly agitated amongst us, which are above the Sphere of common People, out of their profession; not of such things as concern the Salvation of all men, which are plain and evident to the meanest Capacities. When therefore in such cases, about which we cannot easily satisfy ourselves, we follow the Advice of the publicly authorized Guides and Preachers of Religion, if they chance to misled us, we have something to say or apologise for ourselves. Our Error is more excusable and pardonable, as being occasioned by those, to whose Judgement, by God's Command, we did owe a great Respect and Submission. But when we choose Instructors and Counsellors to ourselves according to our own Fancy and liking, and they teach us contrary to the Doctrine of our lawful Ministers, if then we prove to be in the wrong, and are betrayed into Sin, we may thank our own Wantonness for it, and are more severely accountable for such Mistakes.  
Thus let a Man that is troubled with any threatening disease, apply himself rather to the Licenced Physicians or Chirurgeons, of approved Skill and Honesty; and if he chance to miscarry under them, yet he hath this contentment, that he used the best and wisest means for his Health and Recovery. But if he leaves them all, and will hearken only to Quacks and Empirics, though they advise him quite contrary to what the others prescribed, if under their hands he grows worse and worse, he must then charge his own perverse Folly or idle Humour, as the cause of his Ruin.  
4. In order to the curing of our Scruples, we should thoroughly understand and consider, what is the true Notion of lawful, and how it differs from what is necessary, and from what is sinful. That is necessary or our Duty which God hath expressly commanded, that is sinful which God hath forbid; that is lawful which God hath not by any Law obliging us either commanded or forbid: for, Where there is no Law, saith the Apostle, there is no Transgression, Rom. 4. 15. There can be no Transgression, but either omitting what the Law commands, or doing what the Law forbids. For instance, If any Man can show where kneeling at the Sacrament is forbid in Scripture, where fitting is required; where praying by a Form is forbid, and extemporary Prayers are enjoined, then indeed the Dispute would soon be at an end: but if neither the one nor the other can be found, as most certainly they cannot, then kneeling at the Sacrament, and reading Prayers out of a Book, must be reckoned amongst things lawful. And then there is no need of scrupling them, because they may be done without Sin: nay, where they are required by our Superiors, it is our Duty to submit to them, because it is our Duty to obey them in all lawful things.  
This way of arguing is very plain and convincing, and cannot be evaded but by giving another Notion of Lawful. And therefore it is commonly said, that nothing is lawful, especially in the Worship of God, which God himself hath not prescribed and appointed, or that hath been abused to evil Purposes. And on these two Mistakes are chief grounded men's Scruples about indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in God's Worship.  
1. That only is said to be lawful in God's Worship which he himself hath prescribed and appointed; so that this is thought Exception sufficient against the Forms and Usages of our Church, that though they are not forbid, yet they are not where commanded in Scripture. Who hath required these things at your hands?  
Now here I only ask, Where our Saviour or his Apostles have forbidden us doing any thing in God's Worship, which is not by himself commanded, or where in the New Testament we are told, that God will be angry with us for doing any thing which he hath no where forbid, either by general or particular Laws? For unless this can be shown, there can be no colour for this Pretence, and we are sufficiently sure, that no such Place can be produced out of the Bible. It is acknowledged by all, that the Holy Scriptures, as to all that is necessary to be believed or done in order to Salvation, as to all the essential and substantial Parts of Divine Worship, is a plain and perfect Rule; but it is as certain, that the outward Circumstances of Time, Place, Habit, and Gesture, are not determined in the New Testament, as they were in many cases by Moses' Law: and yet God cannot be, at least visibly and publicly, worshipped without them. If therefore these be not determined in Scripture, and it is unlawful to do any thing in God's Worship but what is so determined, it follows that God cannot be worshipped at all, unless we could worship him in no Time, Place, Habit, or Gesture: nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can, with a good Conscience, perform any part of God's Worship, if this Principle be admitted for true, that whatsoever is not commanded is forbid, since the external Circumstances of religious Actions, without which they cannot be performed, are not prescribed or determined in Scripture; and so he must commit a Sin every time he prays or receives the Holy Sacrament.  
Besides, this Reason would oblige us to separate from all the Churches that ever were or are in the World, there being no constituted Church in which there are not some Orders and Injunctions for the regulating the public Worship of God no where commanded in Scripture. We could never, upon this Principle, have held Communion with the Primitive Churches, which undoubtedly had their instituted significant Ceremonies; nor is there any Church at this day, that hath not by its own Authority determined some of the Circumstances of Divine Service for the more decent and orderly Performance thereof. Nay, those very Persons that make this Exception, do themselves practise many things in the Worship of God, without the least shadow of a Divine Command, to which they oblige their Hearers and Communicants: for, conceived Prayers, sitting at the Eucharist, sprinkling the Infant at Baptism, the Minister's officiating in a black Cloak or Coat, are full out as unscriptural, humane, uncommanded, as any Gesture, Habit, or Form used in our Church.  
2. That is said to be unlawful which hath been abused to sinful Purposes, to Idolatry or Superstition; so that nothing ought to be retained in our Worship, though it be not forbid by God, which was used in times of Popery. Hence the ordinary Objection against our Parish Churches is, that they are not sufficiently purged from Popery; that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the Times they lived in; that what they did was very commendable and a good Beginning, but they were forced to comply with the necessities of the Age, which would not bear a complete Reformation▪ They left a great deal of Popish Trash in the Church, hoping by degrees to reconcile the Papists to it, or at least, that they might not make the Breach too wide, and too much prejudice or estrange them from it. But we now live under better means, have greater Light and Knowledge, and so a further and more perfect Amendment is now necessary. Thus the Order of Bishops is decried as Popish and Antichristian, our Liturgy as taken out of the Mass Book, and our Ceremonies as Relics of Idolatry.  
But the truth of the case is this. We must consider, that those of the Church of Rome do hold and maintain all the Essentials of Christianity, but then by degrees, as they found Opportunity, they have added a number of impious and pernicious Doctrines to the Christian Faith, the Belief and Profession of which they equally require of all that are in their Communion. Besides this, they have introduced several idolatrous, and superstitious Rites and Practices into the Service of their Church, never heard of for the first four hundred Years, by which they have miserably defaced and corrupted the Worship of God, and made it necessary for all those that love their own Salvation, to separate from them. Now our first Reformers here in England did not go about to invent a new Species of Government, to devise new Rites and Ceremonies and a new form of Worship, such as should be least excepted against, and then obtrude it upon this Nation, as was done at Geneva, and some other places; but they wisely considered, that if they did but reject what the Romanists had added to the Faith and Worship of Christians, lay aside their novel Inventions, Usurpations, and unwritten Traditions, there would remain the pure, simple, Primitive Christianity, such as it was before the Roman Church was thus degenerated: nor have we any thing of Popery left amongst us, but what the Papists had left amongst them of Primitive Religion and Worship.  
As we must not receive the evil for the sake of the good, so neither must we reject the good for the sake of the evil. In our Church we pray neither to Saints nor Angels, nor the Virgin Mary, our Liturgy is in a known Tongue, we deny the Laity no part of the Sacrament, nor the reading of the Scriptures, we offer no Mass Sacrifice, nor Worship Images or the consecrated Bread. We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony in use amongst us, that is purely Popish. But we must be obliged to part with the most sacred, venerable and usefullest things in our Religion, if this be a sufficient reason of our forbearing any thing, because the Papists abuse it.  
This therefore I conclude to be the best and plainest rule for the governing of our Consciences, not wilfully to omit any thing that God hath commanded, to avoid to the utmost of our Power what God hath forbid; and what ever else we have no particular Divine Law about, to guide ourselves by the general Rules of Scripture, the commands of our Superiors, and by the measures of Prudence, Peace, and Charity. This one rule (and it cannot but seem a very reasonable one) would soon put an end to our squabbles and janglings about Forms and Ceremonies and other indifferent things.  
5. In order to the bringing men to a compliance with the Laws of our Church, we must desire them to consider that there never was nor ever will be any public Constitution, that will be every way unexceptionable. The best policy, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, that can be established will have some flaws and defects, which must be borne and tolerated. Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise, that never could be foreseen or provided against; and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence, than the evil we pretend to cure by it. Let the Rules and Modes of Government, Discipline, public Worship, be most exact and blameless, yet there will be faults in Governors and Ministers as long as they are but men. We must not expect in this World a Church without Spot or Wrinkle, that consists only of Saints, in which nothing can be found amiss; especially by those who lie at the catch and wait for an advantage against it.  
If men will scruple and reform, as long as any thing remaineth which they can object against, they must even come at last, as a Reverend Person of our Church hath observed, to the state of that miserable Man who left all humane Society that he might not be defiled with other men's Sins, and at last cut out the Contents of Chapters and Titles of Books out of the Bible, because they were humane Inventions added to the pure Word of God. Men must be willing, if ever they would promote Peace and Unity, to put candid Constructions and favourable Interpretations upon things, to take them by the best handle, and not strain things on purpose that they might cavil the more plausibly, and raise more considerable Objections against them. We must not make personal, accidental Faults, nor any thing a pretence for our leaving the Communion of our Church, which ariseth only from the necessary condition and temper of all humane Affairs, that nothing here is absolutely perfect.  
6. And lastly, if you cannot by these, and other the like considerations, not now to be mentioned, get rid of, and conquer your Scruples, then be advised to lay them aside, to throw them out of your Minds as dangerous Temptations, and act positively against them.  
But here I easily imagine some ready presently to ask me, Do you persuade us to conform to the Orders of the Church though we are not satisfied in our Minds concerning them? I answer, That I think this the best Advice that can be given to such scrupulous Persons. It would be an endless infinite thing, and Communion with any Church would be altogether unpracticable, if every private Christian was obliged to suspend joining himself to it, till he was perfectly satisfied about the reasonableness and expediency of all that was required, or was in use in that Church: for indeed, private Persons are by no means proper Judges of what is fit and convenient in the Administration of Church-Government, Discipline, or public Worship, no more than they are of matters of State, or the Reasonableness of all Civil Laws. Common People generally have neither Patience to consider, nor Judgement to weigh all Circumstances, nor Wisdom to choose that which is best; these things of a Public Nature belong only to our Superiors and Governors, and if they appoint what is unfit, indecent, or inconvenient, they only are accountable for it. It is not the fault of those that join with such Worship, or yield to such Injunctions (not plainly sinful) for the sake of Peace and Order.  
I know therefore no better Rule for the directing and quieting men's Consciences than this, that as to all such Matters as relate to Public Order and decent Administration of God's Worship, they should without any superstitious Fearfulness comply with the Customs of the Church they live in, never troubling themselves, nor curiously examining what is best and fittest, as long as there is nothing enjoined or done, which (after due enquiry) appears to us contrary to any Law of God. Thus St. Augustin directs us in that often quoted place, where he tells us, He knew no better course for a serious prudent Christian to take, in matters of Rites and Customs, than to follow the Church's Example where he is: for whatsoever is prescribed neither against Faith or Manners, is a matter in its self indifferent, and to be observed according to the Custom of those he lives among. This was agreeable to the Counsel St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, gave him when he was sent by his Mother to inquire his Judgement about the Saturday Fast, When I am at Rome, saith the Bishop, I fast on the Sabbath, but at Milan I do not. So thou likewise, when thou comest to any Church, observe its Custom, if thou wouldst neither be an offence to them, nor have them be so to thee. Which St. Augustin ever after looked upon as an Oracle from Heaven.  
I do not by this encourage Men to venture blindfold on Sin, or to neglect any reasonable care of their Actions; but if People raise all the Difficulties and Objections they can start, before they proceed to a Resolution about things that have no manifest Impiety in them, nor are plainly nor by any easy consequence, contrary to the revealed Will of God, this cannot but occasion infinite Perplexity and Trouble to men's Minds, and there are but few things they shall be able to do with a safe and quiet Conscience. Should all those that have some little Arguments against the Sign of the Cross, puzzle themselves with the Objections usually urged against Infant Baptism, and defer baptising their Children till they were fully satisfied about it, I doubt not but the baptising of Infants would soon be as much scrupled at as the crossing them now is. But there is no apparent Evil in it; it is the Practice of the Church we live in, it is no where forbidden in Scripture: this ordinarily is sufficient Warrant for what we do.  
Before we separate from a Church, or refuse to comply with its Orders, we ought to be fully satisfied and persuaded of the Unlawfulness of what is required, that it is forbid by God; because by leaving the Communion of any Church, we pass Sentence upon and condemn it, which ought not to be done upon light and doubtful causes: but there is not the same necessity that we should be thus fully satisfied about our Conformity to all things prescribed by the Church. We may presume them to be innocent, unless they plainly appear to us otherwise.  
The Judicious and Learned Bishop Sanderson thus expresseth it in his fourth Sermon Ad Clerum, The Law taketh every Man for a good Man and true, till his Truth and Honesty be legally disproved: and as our Saviour sometimes said, He that is not against us is for us: so in these matters (he speaks of those Ceremonies that for Order sake, and to add the greater Solemnity to sacred Actions, are appointed in the Church) we are to believe all things to be lawful for us to do, which cannot be shown by good Evidence either of Scripture or Reason to be unlawful.  
If any one be afraid that this Principle once imbibed would introduce Popery, make People greedily swallow, and without any Examination submit to every thing their Superiors please to impose upon them, let him only consider (which we all agree in) that there are many things in the Popish Worship and Religion manifestly evil, and forbidden by the revealed Will of God, which renders our Separation from them necessary, and so consequently justifiable: whereas the things objected against in our Church are at worst only doubtful and suspicious, or rather not so good and expedient as might be devised: and this surely makes a wide difference in the case.  
But doth not St. Paul say, Rom. 14. 19 I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean it is unclean? Doth not he expressly tell us, That whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin? that is, Whatever we do without a full Persuasion of the lawfulness of it, though it be not so in itself, yet is a Sin in him that doth it against his Conscience. And doth not the Apostle say, He that doubteth is damned if he eat, before he is convinced that it may be done? I desire here therefore only to be rightly understood, and then these things are soon reconciled.  
1. When I speak of a Scrupulous Conscience, I suppose the Person tolerably well persuaded of the lawfulness of what is to be done, but yet he doth not like or approve of it, he hath some little Reasons and Exceptions against it, it is not the best and fittest, all things considered. This is properly a Scruple, and is certainly the case of all those, who do sometimes (to save themselves from the severity of the Laws) join in our Worship, and communicate with us; which we presume they would never do did they judge it absolutely sinful and forbidden by God. So that though it should be granted that a man cannot innocently do that of which his Conscience doubts whether it be lawful or not, yet a Man may, and in some cases is bound to do that which is not unlawful, though upon some other Accounts he scruples the doing of it.  
2. If the Question be about things wherein we are left wholly to ourselves, and at Liberty, having no very weighty Reason for the doing of them, than it may be the safest way to forbear all such things we scruple at. Of such cases the Apostle speaks in the  Places, of eating or not eating some Meats; neither of them was required by any Law. Eating was no instance of Duty, nor was it any ways forbidden Christians: where to do or not to do is perfectly at our own choice, it is best for a Man to forbear doing that of which he hath some suspicion, though he be not sure that it is sinful. As suppose a man have Scruples in his Mind about playing at Cards and Dice, or going to see Stage-Plays, or putting out his Money to Usury, because there is no great Reason or Necessity for any of these things, and to be sure they may be innocently forborn without any Detriment to ourselves or others; though we do not judge them absolutely sinful, yet it is safest for him who cannot satisfy himself concerning the Goodness and Fitness of them, wholly to deny himself the use of them. But in these two cases it is most for the quiet of our Consciences, to act against or notwithstanding our Fears and Scruples, when either our Superiors, to whom we own Obedience, have interposed their Commands, or when by it we prevent some great Evil or Mischief.  
1. When our Superiors, either Civil or Ecclesiastical, whom by the Will of God we are bound to obey in all lawful things, have interposed their Commands, our Scruples will not excuse or justify our Disobedience. If indeed we judge what is commanded to be absolutely unlawful, though it be a false erroneous Judgement, yet whilst we are under such persuasion we are by no means to do it upon any Inducement whatever.  
If I only doubt of the lawfulness of any particular Action, and it be an instance wherein I am at liberty, I am still bound not to do it. For, Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin. I am certainly innocent when I forbear; I may commit a Sin, If I do it, Wisdom would therefore, that the safer part be chosen. But now if I am by the command of my Superiors obliged to it, my choice is then determined, it than becomes my Duty, and it can never be safe or advisable to neglect a plain Duty for an uncertain Offence. Thus most and best Casuists do determine about a doubtful Conscience, particularly the forenamed reverend Bishop, in the same Sermon, Whatsoever is commanded us by those whom God hath set over us, either in Church, Commonwealth, or Family (quod tamen not sit certum displicere Deo, saith St. Bernard) which is not evidently contrary to the Law and Will of God, aught to be of us received and obeyed no otherwise than as if God himself had commanded it, because God himself hath commanded us to obey the Higher Powers, and to submit ourselves to their Ordinances.  
But now this is more plain concerning Fears and Scruples only about the conveniency and expediency of things, these aught all to be despised when they come in Competition with the Duty of Obedience. Would men but think themselves in Conscience bound to pay the same Duty and respect to the Judgement and Authority of Magistrates and Governors, whether in Church or State, as they do expect their Servants and Children should to themselves, they would soon see the reasonableness of such submission. For all Government and Subjection would be very precarious and arbitrary, if every one that did not approve of a Law or was not fully satisfied about the reasonableness of it, was thereby exempted from all Obligations to obey it. This is to give the Supreme Authority to the most humoursome or perverse sort of Christians: for, according to this principle, no public Laws and Constitutions can be valid and binding, unless every scrupulous, though a very ignorant Conscience, consent to them.  
2. We are not to mind or stand upon our Scruples, when they probably occasion a great evil, a general mischief. They are not fit to be put in the balance with the Peace of the Church and Unity of Christians. Suppose for once that our public way of Worship is not the best that can be devised, that many things might be amended in our Liturgy, that we could invent a more agreeable Establishment than this present is (which yet no man in the World can ever tell, for we cannot know all the inconveniences of any Alteration, till it comes to be tried) yet granting all this, it cannot be thought so intolerable an Evil as contempt of God's Solemn Worship, dividing into Sects and Parties, living in Debate, Contention, and Separation from one another. If there be some Rites and Customs amongst us not wisely chosen or determined, some Ceremonies against which just Exceptions may be made, yet to forsake the Communion of such a true Church of Jesus Christ, and set up a distinct Altar in opposition to it, to combine and associate into separate Congregations, is (as it is somewhere expressed) like knocking a man on the head because his Teeth are rotten, or his Nails too long. How much more agreeable is it to the Christian Temper, to be willing to sacrifice all such Doubts and Scruples to the Interests of public Order and divine Charity; for better surely it is to serve God in a defective imperfect manner, to bear with many Disorders and Faults, than to break the Bond of Peace and brotherly Communion.  
For this we have the Example of our Blessed Lord and Saviour, who lived and died in Communion with a Church where there were far greater Corruptions both as to Persons and Practices, than can be pretended to be in ours at this day; yet though he was the great Reformer of Mankind, he forsook not the Jewish Church, but assembled with them in their public Synagogues, which answer to our Parish-Churches, preached in the Temple though they had made it a Den of Thiefs, observed their Festivals, though some of them of humane Institution, nay commanded his Disciples to continue to hear the Scribes and Pharisees, though they were a most vile and wretched Generation of Men. Great were the Pollutions and Misdemeanours in the Churches of Rome, Corinth, Galatia, yet no one Member of them is ever commanded to come out or separate from those Churches to join in a purer Congregation or to avoid mixed Communions, or for better Edification. For Men to be drunk at the Sacrament was certainly a worse Fault than to kneel at it, or for a wicked Man to intrude himself; yet the Apostle doth not advise any to withdraw from that Church, but only every one to examine himself. We ought to do all that we can do without Sin, submit to an hundred things which are against our Mind or we had rather let alone, for the sake of Peace and Unity, so desirable in itself, so necessary for the Glory of God, the Honour of Religion, for our common Interest and Safety, for the Preservation of what I may, without Vanity, call the best Church in the World.  
I cannot stand now to tell you, how earnestly this Duty of maintaining Unity amongst Christians is pressed in the New Testament; how concerned our Blessed Master was, that all his Disciples should agree together and live as Brethren; how severely the Holy Apostles chid and rebuked those that caused Divisions and Strife amongst Christians, reckoning Schism and Contention amongst the most heinous and dangerous Sins. It should make both the Ears (one would think) of some amongst us to tingle, but to hear what Sense the Primitive Christians had of the sinfulness of separating from and breaking the Communion of Christians, nay, what the old Non-conformists here in England have said of it, yet remaining in Print, charging the People to be as tender of Church-Division as they were of Drunkenness, Whoredom, or any other enormous Crime. And did Men know and consider the evil of Schism, they would not be so ready, upon every slight occasion, to split upon that Rock.  
Let us therefore divert our Fears and Scruples upon greater Sins. It is far more certain, that causeless Separation from the Communion of Christians is sinful, than that Kneeling at the Sacrament, or Praying by a Book, is such. Why then have Men such invincible Scruples about one, and none at all about the other? They run headlong into the Separate Assemblies, which surely are more like to Schismatical Conventicles than any thing in our Church is to Idolatry. Let Men be as scrupulous and fearful of offending against the Christian Laws of Subjection, Peaceableness, and Charity, as they are of worshipping God after an impure manner, and this alone will contribute much to the making up those Breaches which threaten sudden Ruin to our Church and Nation. I only add here, that in all that I have now said I am not conscious to myself, that I have used any Argument or affirmed any thing, but what many of those very Ministers, who now dissent from us, did teach, and maintain, and print too, against the Independents and other Sectaries that divided from them when they preached in the Parish-Churches. And if this was good Doctrine against those who separated upon the account of Corruptions, for purer Ordinances in those Days, I see not why it is not as good against themselves, when upon the very same Pretences, and no other, they divide from us now.  
The Lord grant that we may all come at last to be of one Mind, to live in Peace and Unity, and then the God of Love and Peace shall be with us.  
FINIS.   

SOME CONSIDERATIONS About the CASE OF SCANDAL, OR Giving Offence TO Weak Brethren.  
LONDON: Printed by H. Hills Jun. for T. Basset, at the George in Fleetstreet; B. took, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard; and F. Gardiner, and the White Horse in Ludgate-street. 1683.   

Of giving OFFENCE TO Weak Brethren.  
IT hath been often observed concerning our Dissenting Brethren, that when they are urged to mention any one thing required of the People in the Public Worship of God in our Parish Churches, judged by them absolutely sinful, on the account of which their separation from us is necessary, and consequently justifiable, they either put us off with some inconveniencies, inexpediences or corruptions, (as they call them) some things appointed and used, which in their opinion render our service less pure and spiritual; (the chief of which exceptions have been considered in several Discourses, lately written with great temper and judgement for the satisfaction of all honest and teachable minds:) Or else some of them tell us, that they are indeed themselves sufficiently persuaded of the lawfulness of all that is enjoined, they do not see but a good Christian may serve God acceptably and devoutly our way, and may go to Heaven living and dying in our Communion; but then there are many other Godly, but weaker Christians of another persuasion, with whom they have been long joined: And should they now, at least totally, forsake them, and conform, they should thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences, which are not thus convinced of the lawfulness of holding such Communion with our Church, in Prayers and Sacraments, as is by Law required. Which is a sin so Heinous and of such dreadful Consequence, that our Saviour tells us, St. Matt. 18. 6. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a Millstone were hanged about his Neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea; and in St. Paul's account it is no less than Spiritual Murder, a destroying of him for whom Christ died, Rom 14. 15.  
Now this Case of giving Offence to weak Brethren, I have undertaken briefly to consider, where I once for all suppose (as all those must do who make this the ground of their refusing to Communicate with our Church) that nothing is amongst us imposed as a condition of Communion, but what may be done without sin; for were any thing in itself sinful required by our Church, there could be no room for this Plea of Scandal: That alone would be sufficient reason for Separation from us. I Discourse therefore at this present only with such, who for their own particular could well enough join with us, but dare not do it for fear of Offending those, who yet scruple and are dissatisfied at the use of our Prayers and Ceremonies.  
Nor do I design exactly to handle the whole Doctrine of Scandal, or Elaborately explain all the places of Scripture concerning it, or state the Cases there treated of; Nor shall I now meddle with the Duty of Governors and Superiors, how far they ought to condescend to the weakness, ignorance, prejudices, and mistakes of those under their care and charge; but I shall confine myself to this one Question.  
Whether there doth lie any obligation upon any private Christian (as the case now stands amongst us) to absent from his Parish Church, or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer and Ceremonies by Law appointed, for fear of Offending or Scandalising his weak Brethren?  
Here I shall First of all inquire, what is the true notion of a weak Brother. Secondly, What it is to Offend such an one. Thirdly, How far and in what instances we are bound to consider the weakness of our Brother.  
First, For the resolution of this Question it is necessary to know, what is the true notion of a weak Brother. Now a weak Brother or weak in Faith in Scripture denotes one newly converted to Christianity; and so neither thoroughly instructed in the principles, nor well settled in the practice of it, the same whom our Saviour calls a little one, and the Apostle a babe in Christ. 1 Cor. 3. 1.  
Conversion to Christianity is often called our new birth, and consequently at men's first entrance into the Christian Church, they were for a while reckoned as in an Infant state; and accordingly were to be most tenderly handled and nursed, and gently used, with all favour and indulgence, not driven faster than they were able to go; till by degrees, by the improvement of their knowledge they came to be of full Age, as the Apostle expresseth it, Heb. 5. 14.  
They were at first to be fed with Milk, to be taught the easiest and plainest Doctrines, against which least exceptions could be made; (as our Blessed Saviour himself would not at first tell his Disciples of the shame and sufferings he was to undergo, and when he did speak of them it was covertly and obscurely, so that they did not perfectly understand him, lest they should by it have been presently discouraged and tempted to have forsaken him;) not unnecessary burdens were to be laid upon them, which might render their new Profession grievous to them; every Stumbling-block and prejudice was to be removed out of their way, that might occasion their falling; the grown Christians and proficients were Charitably to condescend to the capacity of these Novices, and make allowances, and for a time bear with their Ignorance and many mistakes and Childish humours, and deny themselves their own Liberty, and become even as Children with them, as if themselves were of the same mind and understood no better, than these raw beginners.  
Now these fresh Disciples, little ones or Babes are the same with those St. Paul Rom. 14. calls weak Brethren, weak for want of Age or Growth, or as the Original word rather signifies, Sickly and Feeble; like a Man beginning to recover from a wasting Disease, his distemper, though cured, yet hangs a long time upon him, the Dregs of it still remain: He must for a while be carefully attended and watched, since every little thing discomposes him, and hazards a relapse. So was it with these first Converts. As soon as ever they were brought to acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, and were willing to become his Disciples, they were immediately Baptised, though as yet they understood but little of the Nature or design of the Gospel. The Apostles and first Preachers of our Religion were in haste to make more Proselytes, and therefore presently Baptised all that were willing to it without that previous Instruction and Preparation, which afterwards, when Churches were settled, was made necessary before Heathens or Jews could be admitted by Baptism. Thus the same day the Apostles Preached Christ to the Jews, Acts 2. they Baptised about three thousand of them, and Philip without any delay Baptised the Eunuch, as soon as he professed to believe that Jesus was the Son of God: and the Jailor and his Household were Baptised the same hour at midnight, at which Paul and Silas spoke unto them the word of the Lord. After their Baptism they were to be tutored and trained up in their new Religion, where great care was to be taken, great prudence and caution used towards them, lest they should suddenly fly back and repent of their change; for having been bred up, and so long lived Jews or Gentiles, and then of a sudden turned Christians, they retained still a great love and kindness for many of their old Customs and Opinions, they had mighty and inveterate prejudices to overcome, the Old man was by degrees to be put off, and therefore they were at first treated with all the tenderness and condescension imaginable, the stronger and wiser Christians would not stand rigidly on any little matters, would for the present tolerate many things, which were necessary afterwards to be done away, hoping that in time they might be better taught, and be brought off those mistakes they now Laboured under.  
Had the Apostles in the beginning plainly told all the Jews of the ceasing of their Laws, the abrogation of their Ceremonies and Worship, the no necessity of Circumcision, the taking in of the Gentiles, they would never have born such Doctrines, they would never have become Christians upon such terms, nor ever endured those Teachers, who seemed to make so little account of Moses and their Temple. Now to gain these St. Paul became weak himself, tied up himself while amongst these Jewish Converts to such observances, which he was really free from, as if he had the same doubts and were of the same opinion with those weak Christians, and advises all others who did understand their Liberty, yet to oblige their Brethren by the same inoffensive carriage.  
This than was the difference between the strong and the weak, the strong were the well-grounded, understanding Christians, that knew it was lawful for them to Eat all kind of Meats, that Christ had set them free from the burdensome Yoke of the Jewish Ceremonies, the weak, though Brethren, that is, believers in Christ, yet abstained from some Meats, judging them unlawful or unclean, and observed days, and Zealously retained the Mosaical rites, not being yet sufficiently instructed in that Liberty our Saviour had purchased for them, or in the nature of his Kingdom, which consisted not in Meat or Drink, but in Righteousness and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost. Hence I observe,  
1. That the rules which are laid down in Scripture concerning weak Brethren principally respect those times when our Religion made its first appearance in the World, and were temporary provisions for the easier proselyting men to the Faith of Christ, or the better securing and fixing those that were already come into the Church. They are not standing Laws equally obliging all Christians in all Ages, but were suited to the Infant state of the Church, or rather to its condition whilst it was but an Embryo, till Churches were form and settled, and our Christianity had got firm Footing and Possession in the World. Thus St. Paul tells us, 1 Cor. 9 19 For though I be free from all Men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law, as under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law. To them that are without Law, as without Law (being not without Law to God, but under the Law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without Law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the Gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. This was the Apostles design in all these Compliances and Civilities to win many to the Faith of Christ, by these wise arts to insinuate himself and his Doctrine into them: but when he had once made his way, he then taught them another lesson, and behaved himself after a far different manner. Now to do as St. Paul did, would always be the duty and wisdom of one in his circumstances, who had his office and was to propagate any Religion amongst Heathens and Infidels; like a Master that dealeth not so sharply with his Scholar at his first entrance into the School, as he thinketh fit to do afterwards. But the directions St. Paul gave, and according to which himself practised at the first planting of Christianity, do no more agree with our times, wherein Christianity is become the National Religion, countenanced by the Civil Laws and Authority, and so generally professed by every one amongst us, that we hardly know of any other Religion, than the same  we did wear in our Infancy would serve us now when we are of full Age.  
We ought indeed to be very careful of Children, and lead them by strings, and remove every straw and rub out of their way, lest they stumble and fall, but it is ridiculous to use the same care towards grown men. None of us Labour under those prejudices the first Christians did, who forsook a Religion in which they had been bred, and long lived; and as to the Jews had left a way of Worship commanded them by God himself, confirmed to them by many Miracles and Wonders, delivered to them from their Fathers by a constant succession of Prophets sent from God. There is not now amongst us any such competition between two Religions, but every one learneth Christianity as he doth his Mother's Tongue. The Apostles therefore and Governors of the Church carried themselves towards these new Converts, as God Almighty did towards the Children of Israel, when he brought them first out of Egypt. He for a while led them by a Pillar of Fire and of a Cloud, gave them Water out of the Rock, and reigned down Bread and Flesh from Heaven. This he did for them whilst in their passage, thus extraordinarily provide for them, and in some cases even humour that People, lest upon every little pretence they should return back to the Garlic and Onions of Egypt; but after they were settled in the Land of Canaan, he then left them in their own hands, by ordinary Common means to take care of and provide for themselves, he did not show the same indulgence to them, as he did whilst they were in the Wilderness.  
St. Paul would not take that reward that was due to him for Preaching the Gospel, but himself Laboured hard night and day, because he would not be chargeable to his Converts, 1 Thess. 2. 9 and this he did for the furtherance of the Gospel, that all might see he did not serve his own Belly. But surely our Dissenting Brethren do not think themselves obliged by this Example, in places where Public maintenance is settled on Ministers by Law, to refuse to take it, and earn their own Bread by some manual occupation, though thereby they avoid giving offence to Quakers, and those who call them hirelings, and say they prophesy only for filthy lucre.  
Thus it is usually observed, that St. Paul writes quite after a different manner to the Romans and to the Galatians, though upon the same subject. In his Epistle to the Romans amongst whom he had never yet been, he pitieth and pleadeth for the weak Christians, chargeth that they should not be despised or cast off, that no cause of offence should be given them, but to the Galatians a People that had been fully instructed in the nature of their Christian Liberty, amongst whom himself had planted the Gospel, and had been present in person, and so knew that they understood better; when some of them fell into the same Error, thinking Circumcision and the observation of the Mosaical Law necessary to Christians, he chides them sharply and rebukes them more severely; Who hath bewitched you O foolish Galatians, etc. He who would condescend to the Ignorant Novices amongst the Romans, would not in the least comply with the Galatians, that had or aught to have had more knowledge and light: and afterwards when the reason of such forbearance ceased, when the nation of the Jews had rejected Christ, and the Gentile world was come into the Church, the observation of the Mosaical Law, and the distinction of meats contained therein, was so far from being tolerated in those, whether Jews or Gentiles, who through mistake thought themselves obliged to it, that it was condemned by the Rules and Canons of the Church. The sum of all this is, that whatever Argument may be drawn from St. Paul's discourses about weak Brethren by way of Analogy, or Similitude, or Parity of reason, yet there are no such weak persons now amongst us, as those were for whom the Apostle provideth, or as those little ones were, for whom our Saviour was so much concerned.  
2ly, I would desire our Dissenting Brethren to consider by what pretence they can challenge any privilege belonging to them under the notion of weak Christians, when according to their own opinion and conceit of themselves, they are of all men furthest off from being such in any sense. This is as if a man worth a Thousand pound per annum, should Sue in formâ pauperis.  
They who take upon themselves to be teachers of others, wiser and better than their Neighbours, the only Sober and Godly party, and are too apt to despise all other Christians as Ignorant or Profane, with what colour of reason can they plead for any favour to be shown, or regard to be had to them in compliance with their weakness? Tho they love to argue against us from the example of St. Paul's condescension to the uninstructed Jews or Gentiles, yet it is apparent that they do not in other cases willingly liken themselves to those weak believers, or Babes in Christ. They have really better thoughts of themselves, and would be Leaders and Masters in Israel, and prescribe to their Governors and give Laws to all others, and do prefer their own private opinion (which they call their Conscience) before the Judgement of the wisest men, or the determinations of their Lawful Superiors. And if in all instances we should deal with them as weak persons, turn them back to their primer, advise them to learn their Catechism, they would think themselves highly wronged and injured.  
If the several Dissenters amongst us did in good earnest look upon themselves as weak, that is, Ignorant, Wavering, half Christians, did they think their dislike of the Constitutions of our Church to be the effect of such weakness, they would be either more careful to hid it, or would more diligently seek out for remedy; they would be more modest and humble, not so forward to judge and condemn what they do not understand; they would not encourage one another to hold out and persist in this their weakness, nor breed up their Children in it, nor so Zealously endeavour to instil the same prejudices and mistakes into all with whom they converse. But the truth is, they ordinarily look upon their opposition to the orders of our Church as the effect of an higher illumination, greater knowledge than other Men have attained unto, they rather count us the weak Christians, if some of them will allow us so much; for otherwise if they do not take us for the weaker and worse Christians; Why do they separate from us? Why do they associate and combine together into distinct Congregations, as being purer, more select Christians than others? Now though such persons as these may be in truth very weak, of little judgement or goodness, notwithstanding this conceit of themselves and their party, yet these are not by any means to plead for indulgence under that Character, nor to expect we should forgo our just Liberty to please and humour them.  
And that this is nothing but the plain truth is sufficiently evident from this one observation, that many amongst them will grant our Reformation to have been very excellent and laudable for those days of Darkness and Ignorance wherein it was first made: But we now, say they, see by a clearer light, have greater knowledge, and have arrived to higher perfection, and so discover and cannot bear those faults and defects, which before were tolerable. Now who doth not see that these two pleas are utterly inconsistent and destructive of one another? to desire abatement of the Ceremonies, and abolition or alteration of the Liturgy in compliance with their weakness, and to demand the same because of the greater knowledge and light they now enjoy, above that Age wherein this present Constitution of our Church was established. This shows they will be either weak or strong according as it best suits with the Argument they are managing against us; they are contented to be reckoned as weak, only that on it they may ground a plausible objection against us.  
3 Those who are really weak, that is, Ignorant and injudicious, are to be born withal only for a time, till they have received better instruction. We cannot be always Bahes in Christ, without our own gross fault and neglect; he is something worse than a weak man who is fond of, and resolutely against all means of Conviction persists in his Ignorance and mistake. The case of young beginners and Novices is very pittiable, who have not been taught their lesson, but the same condescension is not due to those, who are ever learning and yet are never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, not for want of capacity to understand, but for want of humility and willingness to be instructed. Such who are peevish and stubborn, whose Ignorance and Error is Voluntary and affected, who will not yield to the clearest reason, if it be against their interest or their party, can upon no account claim the privileges of weak persons.  
It is a great piece of inhumanity and cruelty to put a stumbling-block in the way of a blind man, but he walks at his own peril, who hath eyes and will not be persuaded to open them, that he might see and choose his way. Thus our Saviour answered his Disciples when they told him that the Pharisees were offended at his Doctrine, Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the Ditch, St. Matt. 15. 14. They were resolved not to be satisfied with any thing our Saviour said or did, they watched for an advantage and sought occasion against him. It was their Malice, not their Ignorance, that made them so apt to be offended. Of these therefore our Saviour had no regard, who were so unreasonable and obstinate in their opposition.  
Not that I would be so uncharitable as to condemn all, or the generality of our Nonconforming Brethren for malicious and wilful in their dissent from us. God forbidden that I should pass such an unmerciful sentence on so many (as I believe) well meaning, though miserably abused persons, to their own Master they stand or fall. But however,  
1. I would out of charity to them beg earnestly of them, that they would thoroughly examine whether they have Conscientiously used all due means in their power for information of their judgements concerning those things they doubt of; whether they have sincerely endeavoured to satisfy themselves, and have devoutly Prayed to God to free their minds from all prejudices and corrupt affections, and have patiently considered the grounds and reasons of their Separation from us; for unless it be thus really with them, their weakness is no more to be pitied, than that man's Sickness, who might be cured by an easy remedy if he would but vouchsafe to apply it, or would submit to good Counsel.  
2. I must say that old and inveterate mistakes, that have been a thousand times answered and protested against, are not much to be heeded by us. If people will by no means be prevailed upon, having sufficient light and time allowed them, to lay aside their Childish apprehensions and suspicions, they can hardly be thought to deserve that compassion and tenderness St. Paul prescribes towards weak Brethren. I shall give one plain instance. Let us suppose that at the first Reformation of Religion amongst us some very weak (and such they must be if honest) were offended at the Church's requiring Kneeling at the receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as seeming to them to imply the adoration of the Bread and Wine, and as likely to harden some Ignorant People in that monstrous conceit of Transubstantiation: But now after so many public Declarations made by our Church, wherein she avows that no such thing is intended, after the constant profession of so many, that have used that decent Ceremony, that they abhor the Doctrine of Christ's bodily presence, nay after the courageous sufferings, even death itself, of those that first Established this Reformation, rather than they would worship the Host; if after all this, people shall still clamour against this gesture as Popish, and be offended with those that use it, as if thereby they gave divine honour to the Elements, all that I shall say is this, it is a great sign that it is not infirmity only, to which condescension is due, but something worse that raiseth and maintaineth such exceptions and offences.  
This I suppose holds true even in things where the offence ariseth from their doubtful or suspicious nature, that are capable of being misunderstood and abused, and may be apt through mistake to provoke or tempt others to evil. Yet if there be no moral evil in them, and the doing of them is of some considerable consequence or advantage to me, I am bound to forbear them no longer, than till I have taken due care to inform others rightly of the matter, and warn them of the danger, till I have endeavoured to rectify their judgements concerning the innocency of my action and intention, and given them notice of the evil that might possibly by my action happen to them. If I dig a pit, or lay a block in the way, whereby others not knowing any thing of it are hurt and wounded, here I stand chargeable with it, and am guilty in causing them to fall; but if they are plainly and often told of it, and being forewarned yet will run into the danger, they are then only to thank themselves, and it is purely their own fault. Now if it be thus in cases that are liable to suspicion and misinterpretation, it holds much more in our Ceremonies and the orders of our Church, where the offence that is taken at them ariseth not so much from the nature of the injunctions, as from men's gross Ignorance, misconceit or perverseness. Thus men are no longer weak in Scripture sense, than they are inculpably Ignorant, or which is all one, the Plea of weakness is gone, after that sufficient instruction hath been given or offered to them, and other allowances made according to men's different capacities of understanding. This shall suffice for the first thing propounded, to show what is the true notion of a weak Brother.  
2 I proceed to give you an account what it is to offend such an one. Because I writ for the use of the Common people only, I shall not trouble them with the several significations of the Greek word which is Translated Scandal or offence, nor distinctly consider the several places of Scripture where it is used, only so far as plainly to show, First, that people are generally mistaken in the sense they have of it. Secondly, What it is truly to offend or give offence.  
1. That people are generally mistaken about the sense of offending or giving offence. For by it they commonly understand displeasing or grieving another, and making him angry with them, and so consequently they think themselves in Conscience bound to forbear all those things, which godly persons do not like or approve of, or is contrary to their fancy and judgement. It is notorious, that most of the ordinary sort of Dissenters, who assign this as the reason of their not conforming to the Established Laws of the Church, because by doing so they shall offend their Brethren, mean nothing else by it, but that they shall fall into disgrace with, incur the displeasure and provoke the anger of those, with whom they have held Communion for a long time in religious exercises. They, good men, will be mightily troubled and vexed to see or hear such a sad thing, and this is taken by many amongst them for an heinous crime, even the same which St. Paul calls Scandalising a weak Brother, to do any thing which may chance to put any of their Godly Brethren out of humour.  
The occasion of this false apprehension is in all likelihood the Ambiguity of our English word offend, which is used in the Translation of our Bibles. In our Language it signifies to displease, or to do something which another dislikes; but the Greek word, which is so rendered, signifies to lay a stumbling block in the way of another, which causes him to fall, or to ensnare and deceive him into something that is evil, as I shall show more largely presently. We must not therefore interpret the places of Scripture, where offend or offence are found by the common importance of the words amongst us, but by the undoubted signification of the Original word, which all learned men agree to have quite another sense.  
It must not be concealed that there is one place in the famous fourteenth chapter of the Romans that seems to favour this popular conceit v. 15. If thy Brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably, and it is the only one I know of that sounds this way, but surely it is more reasonable, that this one verse should be interpreted by all the other places of Scripture about this matter, than all the rest explained agreeably to this single verse. Nay it sufficiently appears that by grieving our Brother, is not meant displeasing him, or making him sorry or sad, but wounding or hurting him, and so it is used to denote, that which causes grief or sorrow. For in the very next words it follows, destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died; and what is here expressed by grieving is v. 13. called, putting a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall, and v. 21. it is good neither to eat Flesh, nor drink Wine, nor any thing whereby thy Brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak; all which signify the same with being grieved. To be offended or grieved is not to be troubled at what another hath done out of pity and concern for his Soul, but to receive hurt ourselves from it, being by it drawn or deceived into some sin, and our own fall occasioned by what our Brother hath done, is that which creates the grief and trouble. But because this mistake doth so generally prevail amongst many, as I hope, well disposed people, who think that they must not do any thing, at which good men are displeased or grieved, I shall offer these few things to their consideration.  
1. That thus to censure and condemn the actions, and to be displeased and angry with the persons of those that differ from them, or refuse any longer to join with them in their Separate Congregations, is a great instance of peevishness and uncharitableness, and is that very sin which St. Paul often warns his weak believers against, viz. that they should not rashly judge those who knew their duty, and understood their Christian liberty better than themselves. This seems to be the same with that Argument the Papists use to persuade men into, or to keep them in their Communion, as the safest way to Heaven; since they so confidently damn all Men, whom, though never so unjustly, they thrust out of their Church. Because some of our Dissenting Brethren are so froward and unmerciful in their censures, and so fond of their own way, as to brand all that return to the Church with the infamous names of Apostates, Time-servers, Men that have made Shipwreck of Faith and a good Conscience, and have forsaken Christ for fear of Persecution, and the like, therefore all those, who are convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity, yet ought still to continue with them in their Separation, lest they provoke and irritate their anger and displeasure against them; and thus any company of men, that shall join together and resolve to quarrel with all that do not as they do, or that shall leave their society, must oblige all for ever to remain with them, for fear of giving them offence. If what I do is not evil in itself, it cannot become such, because another Man is causelessly angry with me for doing of it. Let but those, who Separate from us, mortify all pride and overweening opinion of themselves, and their own way, let them lay aside all Zeal of parties and little singularities, and learn to judge righteously and soberly of themselves and others, and then the cause of all this offence will be soon removed.  
2. they that pretend that this fear of offending, that is, displeasing their weak Brethren hinders their compliance with the Church, ought seriously to examine themselves, whether it is not really only the care of their credit, and reputation with their party, that keeps them from Conformity. They are ●oth to lose that share they have in the affections of so many, or to sink in that estimation they have obtained of great Sanctity, by joining with the strictest and purest Christians. For undoubtedly men's reputation amongst a part is a very great temptation to detain them in Error, and is a mighty prejudice to their understanding and receiving the truth, or the doing of their Duty, when it will expose them to reproach and opprobrious nicknames. Thus our Saviour said of the Jews, John 5. 44. How can ye believe, who receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God?  
When therefore Men tell us, it will be a Scandalous thing for them now to conform, they often mean nothing else by it, but that it will be unhandsome, and a disgraceful thing for them to change their mind, and confess their mistake, and retract what they have so long, and so Zealously defended. Or else let them look well, that it is not some paltry secular interest, that lies at the bottom, they dare not Offend their weak Brethren, that is; they are afraid they shall lose their trade, they shall disoblige many of their good customers, they get their livelihood by such a Congregation, and therefore they must continue of it. But this is truly to become the servants of Men, such as these are the most rank Men-pleasers, and therefore it is good advice of Mr. Baxter in his Cure of Church divisions, p. 141. Please men in all things lawful for their good and Edification; and become all things to all men in a lawful way: But depart not from the principles or practice of Christian Union, Communion, Charity or Sobriety, to please a dividing hot brained Party, not to escape their sharpest censures.  
3. If to displease our weak Brother were the sinful offending him, condemned by St. Paul, it would prove an intolerable Yoke upon men's Consciences, would beget endless perplexities and difficulties, so that we should not be able to do any thing, though never so indifferent, with a quiet and well assured mind, since as the World now is, some one or other will in this sense be Scandalised at it. By doing we shall anger some, by forbearing we shall provoke others; and since those, who call themselves weak, are divided and shattered into several Sects and Factions, each condemning all the other, it is impossible for us to comply with any one of them, but we shall thereby displease all the rest. He therefore, that would with a good Conscience perform his duty, in whatever place he lives, or relation he stands in, must displease both good and bad Men, as things now are amongst us. It is a very small thing, as St. Paul tells us, to be judged of Men, when they pass their unwarrantable censures upon us, and our actions; and they, who govern themselves by the opinions and fancies of others, can never tell whither they shall be led by this principle. They are slaves to the Party they espouse, and must run with them into all the Folly and Extravagance they can be guilty of; or if at last they are forced to leave them, they shall in the end be more hated and despised by them, than if they had never humoured them at all.  
4. I add only, that according to this Rule, that we must not do any thing which may displease or grieve our weak Brethren, we do in effect submit our Judgements and Consciences to the conduct of the most ignorant and injudicious Christians, and yield to them that Power and Authority over us, which we deny to the Magistrate and our Lawful Superiors; and it cannot but seem a very hard case, that they who are so tender of their Christian liberty, and think it so highly infringed and violated by the determinations of their Superiors about indifferent matters, should yet suffer themselves to be thus straight tied up by the wills and passions of their weak Brethren. If this were so, saith Mr. Baxter, p. 134. of the forenamed Book, the most Childish and Womanish sort of Christians, who have the weakest judgements, and the strongest wills and passions must rule all the World; for these are hardliest pleased, and no man must displease them. Whatever condescension therefore may be due to the weak and Ignorant, yet it was never intended that they should govern the wiser, and better instructed Christians in all their actions; and who can Govern more Absolutely, than they whose wills must never be crossed, and whom none must displease? From all this I conclude, that this cannot be the sense of Scandalising or giving Offence, viz. doing of something, which another takes ill, or is angry with us for it.  
2. I am now in the Second place to show, what is the true meaning of Offending or Scandalising in Scripture. The Greek word which we Translate Scandal or Offence signifies either a Trap and Snare, or else more commonly something laid in the way of another, which occasions his stumbling or falling, by which he is bruised and hurt, and so consequently, whatever it was that hindered Men from becoming Christ's Disciples, or discouraged them in their new Profession, or tempted them to forsake that Faith they had lately embraced, is called a Scandal or Offence. It is sometimes rendered an occasion to fall as Rom. 14. 13. occasion of stumbling, as 1 Joh. 2. 10. a stumbling-block, Revel. 2. 14. or a thing that doth Offend, as St. Matt. 13. 41. In all which places there is the same Original word.  
Hence to Offend or Scandalise any one, as it is commonly used in the New Testament, is to do something, which tends to estrange or fright Men from the Christian Profession, to beget in them hard and unworthy thoughts of it, or is apt, when they are converted, to turn them from it, and make them repent of their change. Of this I shall give some few instances out of the discourses of our Saviour and his Apostles.  
Thus our Blessed Lord, St. Matth. 17. 27. is said to have paid tribute, lest he should Offend or Scandalise the Jews. This was more than he was bound to; for he tells us, the Children are free. But he did it, that he might not give any occasion to his Enemies to represent him to the People, as a contemner of their Law, or an Enemy to Caesar, (according as you understand that Tribute to be paid either to the Romans or the Temple) and so prejudice them against his Person and Doctrine. Thus our Saviour's own Countrymen, who were acquainted with his Father, and Mother, and Kindred, who knew the meanness of his Birth and Education, Mark 6. 3. were Offended or Scandalised at him. They were astonished at the great things he did, and the greater things he spoke, and would in all probability have believed on him, had they not known his mean Original and employment. Is not this the Carpenter, the Son of Mary, etc. After the same manner, when our Lord, St. John 6. 61. had discoursed of eating the Flesh of the Son of Man, they that heard him, taking it in a gross carnal sense, were Offended or Scandalised at him. They began to doubt of his being a true Prophet, or the Messiah, who would teach his Disciples to turn Cannibals.  
Thus again our Saviour, before the night in which he was betrayed told his Disciples, St. Matt. 26. 31. all of ye shall be Offended or Scandalised, because of me this Night; that is, shall fly away and shamefully forsake me, when you behold my hard usage, and dismal sufferings. So Christ Crucified, 1 Cor. 1. 23. to the Jews was a Scandal or stumbling-block; that is, they had set their minds and hearts on a temporal earthly King, and expected to be freed from the Roman Yoke, and to be restored to their former Dominions and greatness, as the effect of the coming of their Messiah, and therefore could not be persuaded to own him for their Prince, and Saviour, and the Son of God, who was put to such a Cursed and Ignominious death. In the same sense they who heard the Word of God, Mark 4. 17. and received it with gladness, but having no root in themselves, when Affliction or Persecution arose for the Words sake, were presently offended or Scandalised; that is, were ready to leave and renounce that Profession, that was likely to cost them so dear.  
After the publishing of the Gospel by the Apostles, that which most stumbled the Jewish Converts, was the danger Moses' Law and their Temple Worship, and the singular preeminences of the Seed of Abraham, seemed to be in of being undermined by Christianity. They were strangely wedded to their Legal observances, fond of Circumcision and those peculiarities, which distinguished their Nation from the rest of mankind, they were jealous of any Doctrine, that encroached upon their Privileges, or tended to bring them down to the same level with the Uncircumcised World. This mightily Offended them, and hardened them against Christianity; whereas on the other side, the Gentile Converts with as much reason, were afraid of putting their Necks under so heavy a Yoke, or being brought into subjection to the Jewish Law, and there was no such effectual way to scare them from Christianity, as when it came attended with the burden of the Mosaical Ceremonies; which were an Offence to them; that is, did discourage them from believing in Christ, or continuing in his Faith. Now to prevent the mischiefs, that might arise from these different apprehensions amongst the Christian Proselytes, was the occasion of the meeting of that first Council at Jerusalem, mentioned Acts 15. and of those directions which St. Paul gives Rom. 14. concerning our behaviour towards weak Brethren.  
Another case there was concerning eating of things offered to Idols, of which St. Paul discourseth in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 8. and 10. the sum of which seems to be this, that the stronger and wiser Christians ought to abstain from eating what had been offered to Idols, though as ordinary meat, in the presence of any one, who with, Conscience of the Idol, did eat it as a thing offered to an Idol. For such there were in the Church of Corinth so weak, as not yet to have quite left off their Idolatrous Worship, and a Christians eating what had been Offered in Sacrifice before such an one might serve to harden, and confirm him in his Error, whose Conscience being weak is defiled. Of whose Soul St. Paul professed himself to have so great regard, that he would eat no such meat as long as the World lasted, rather than lay such a stumbling-block before, or wound their weak Consciences. In all these places and many more that might be named (for the fuller explication of which I refer you to interpreters, and those that have written largely on this subject) no less than Apostasy from the Christian Faith was the sin, into which these weak Christians were so apt to fall, and by an undue use of our Liberty to give occasion to another's forsaking the Christian Religion, whereby our Saviour loseth a Disciple, and the Soul of our Brother perisheth, is the proper sin of Offending, or giving Scandal.  
I shall mention but one place more, which is Revel. 2. 14. where Balaam is said to have taught Balac, to cast a stumbling-block or Scandal before the Children of Israel, which relates othis enticing them by the Daughters of Moab to Fornication and Idolatry, and by that means provoking God against them. So that in the most general sense to Scandalise or Offend any one, is, to give occasion to his sin, and consequently his ruin and undoing; and this I suppose will be granted by all, that do not receive their opinions from the mere sound of words. Hence I shall conclude these few things.  
1. The better Men are, the harder it is to Scandalise them: Those are not such Godly persons, as they would be thought, who are so ready at all turns to be Offended; for how can they be reckoned to excel others in knowledge or goodness, who are so easily upon every occasion drawn or tempted to sin? Thus Mr. Baxter himself tells the Separatists in his Cure of Church Divisions. Usually, saith he, men talk most against Scandalising those, whom they account to be the best, and the best are least in danger of sinning; and so they accuse them to be the worst, or else they know not what they say; for suppose a Separatist should say, if you hold Communion with any Parish Minister or Church in England, it will be a Scandal to many good people: I would ask such an one, Why call you those good people that are easily drawn to sin against God? Nay, that will sin because I do my duty: Therefore if you know what you say, you make the Separatists almost the worst of men, that will sin against God, because another will not sin.  
The great thing our Nonconformists pretend unto above other men is tenderness of Conscience, by which they must mean, if they mean any Virtue by it, a great fear of doing any thing that is evil; and this, where it is in truth, is the best security that can be devised against being Scandalised or Offended, by what other Men do; that is, against being drawn into sin by it. So that they do really disparage and severely reflect upon the Dissenters, who are thus afraid of giving them Offence▪ as I have explained it.  
2. No man can with sense say of himself, that he shall be Scandalised at what another man does; for it is as much as to say, that by such a person and action, he shall be led into sin ignorantly, and his saying this confutes his ignorance: If he knows it to be a sin, he is not betrayed into it, nor doth he fall into it through ignorance and mistake (which is the case of those that are Scandalised) but wilfully commits it. This a great Bishop compares with the peevishness of a little Child, who when he is commanded to pronounce the word he hath no mind to, tells you he cannot pronounce that word, at the same time naming the word he pretends he cannot speak. Such Nonsense it is for a man to forbid me doing any thing upon pretence it will be a Scandal to him, or make him through mistake fall into some sin, when by this it is plain, that he knows of it beforehand, and so may, and aught to avoid the stumbling-block that is laid before him, and the danger that he is exposed unto. Surely saith Solomon, Prov. 1. 17. in vain is the Net spread in the sight of any Bird.  
If to Offend or Scandalise, any one is to tempt and draw him into some sin, whereby his Conscience is wounded, there then can be no fear of giving Offence by our Conformity to the orders and usages of our Church, because there is nothing appointed by or used in it, but what may be complied withal without sin: For this, as I before observed, is supposed in the Question I at first propounded to discourse of; that he, who absented from his Parish Church for fear of Offending his weak Brethren, was convinced in his own mind of the lawfulness of all that is enjoined; and therefore by his own Conformity, he can only engage others to do as he hath done, which as long as he is persuaded to be lawful, I do not see how he can be afraid of Scandalising others by it, or making them to sin by his Example, unless he will imagine his Brethren, not so weak, but so wicked, as to Worship the Host, because he Knelt at receiving of the Sacrament, and to adore the Cross because he bows at the Name of Jesus, or that they will renounce all Religion because he hath forsaken their ways of Separation: This cannot but prove a vain excuse for me to forbear doing that, in which there is really no evil, lest by the Authority of my example I make others sin in doing the same innocent action; which in this case is so far from being to be feared, that if by my example I prevail with others to return into the Communion of our Church, they are not thereby at all Scandalised, but I have done them a most signal kindness and benefit.  
If it be said, that though what I do is in itself lawful, yet it may minister occasion or provocation to others to do something else that is unlawful, and so I become truly guilty of giving Offence; I Answer, that we are accountable only for the natural tendencies, or probable effects of our actions, which may be easily foreseen and prevented. Remote probabilites and contingencies and bare possibilities come not into reckoning, nor are they at all to be weighed. If in every action I am bound to consider what advantage a wicked sensual Man, or a weak silly man might take, and what Arguments he might possibly thence draw to encourage himself in sin and folly, or excuse himself from the care of his Soul and Religion, this would open the door to infinite Scrupulosity and trouble, and I should hardly be able to do or speak any thing without the incurring the guilt of giving Scandal. Now this being supposed, I dare boldly challenge any Man to name any one sin either against God, our Neighbour, or ourselves, that our Conformity doth give any real probable occasion unto; and it is very uncharitable to conceit, that our Nonconforming Brethren will out of mere perverseness, or spite and revenge run into sin, on purpose to make our leaving them criminal and vicious; which if any should be so wicked as to do, yet they would lose the design of their malice, and prove the only guilty persons themselves.  
The only thing I imagine can be further said in this case is, that though I am well satisfied myself, yet by my Conformity I may tempt and provoke others that are not satisfied concerning the lawfulness of it, nay those who judge it absolutely sinful, yet rather than stand out, or being moved by the opin on they have of my goodness and Wisdom, to follow my example with a doubting or gainsaying Conscience. Suppose a Master of Family that used to frequent the private Meetings, and his Wife and Children and Servants used to follow him thither; but afterwards, by reading of such good Books as have been lately written, is himself satisfied concerning the lawfulness of going to Church, and at last thinks it his duty so to do, only he is afraid that the rest of his Family to please and humour him, will be apt also to forsake the private Meetings, and go along with him to Church, though it be altogether against their judgement and Conscience: Or suppose him a man of eminency amongst his Neighbours, on whose favour many do depend, of great interest and reputation, by whose example many are swayed and led. Tho himself doth conform upon good reasons and principles, yet his example may invite many others to it, though they have received no satisfaction concerning the lawfulness of it.  
Now here I desire these three things may be considered.  
1. It is certain that it is as unlawful to go to the Separate Meetings against one's Conscience, as it is to go to the public Church against ones Conscience. Why then ought not this man to be as afraid, when he leaves his Parish-Church and frequents the private Congregation, lest he should draw some to follow him thither with a doubting Conscience; as well as he fears, if he leaves the Meetings and resorts to his Parish-Church, some not satisfied concerning the lawfulness of it, should come after him thither? The influence of his Example, interest, reputation, is the same in both instances; the danger of giving this Scandal is equal; that therefore wh●ch aught to determine his practice must be his own Judgement and persuasion.  
2. Such an one, who hath been a Separatist, but is now himself satisfied of the lawfulness of Conformity; aught to take great care and pains in endeavouring to satisfy others also, especially those, whom he hath any cause to think to have been led into the ways of Separation by his example: He must not be ashamed to own his former mistake, to set before them the reasons on which his change is grounded, and must do this publicly and frequently, persuading others to use the same helps and means, which were so effectual for his own conviction. And thus he doth all that lieth in his power to prevent this ill effect and shall not be further answerable for the consequences of what he doth.  
3. It is truly observed by some that considering the known temper of the Nonconformists, it is not very likely any such mischief should ensue, viz. that by the example of one or more leaving their Separate Assemblies, others should be moved to follow them against their own Judgement and Conscience. It is abundantly notorious how they have used to treat those that have deserted them; with what irreconcilable enmity they have prosecuted them, looking upon them as their worst Enemies, passing more grievous censures upon them than upon those who have all their lives long continued in our Communion.  
4. I proceed in the last place to observe from what I have discoursed concerning giving Offence, that if to Offend any one, be to lead him into sin, than we may Scandalise and give Offence to others, as soon by pleasing them and complying with them, as by dipleasing them and going contrary to their mind and humour.  
St. Paul, who Circumcised Timothy, Acts 16. 3. in favour of the weak Jews that he might insinuate and ingratiate himself into them, refused to Circumcise Titus, Galat. 2. 3. though he made the Jews angry by it, yet he would not give place by subjection, or submission and condescension to them, no not for an hour: He considered the different states and conditions of the persons he had to deal withal. He complied to Circumcise Timothy, lest all the Jews with him should have forsaken the Christian Faith, and for the same reason he denied to Circumcise Titus, lest those of Jerusalem should think he was of opinion, that the Jewish Law held still in force, and so the Cross of Christ should become of no effect to them. He pleased indeed the former for fear of driving them from Christianity, and for the same reason he displeased the latter, lest he should give them occasion to think the observation of Moses' Law always necessary. He had truly Scandalised them, if he had done as they would have had him: He had Offended them in the true Scripture sense, if he had pleased and humoured them; and this is the most ordinary way of Scandalising Christians amongst us, by not plainly telling Men of their faults and mistakes, by not speaking freely and roundly to them, nor acting courageously, whereby they become hardened and confirmed in their folly and ignorance.  
To this purpose I cannot but repeat the words of Mr. Baxter in the Book I have so often cited; Many a time, saith he, I have the rather gone to the Common-Prayers of the public Assemblies for fear of being a Scandal to those same men that called the going to them a Scandal: that is, for fear of hardening them in a sinful Separation and Error; because I knew that was not Scandal which they called Scandal; that is, displeasing them, and crossing their opinions; but hardening them in an Error or other sin, is true Scandalising. Understand this, or you will displease God under pretence of avoiding Scandal, p. 135.  
Thus by complying with our Dissenting Brethren we really do them that mischief which we would avoid, and fall into the sin of giving Scandal, whilst we are running from it; We countenance and encourage their sinful Separation and Division; we confirm them in their dangerous Errors and Mistakes; we by our practice condemn those things, which yet in our Consciences we allow and approve of, and by our Authority and influence harden others in their unreasonable prejudices and opposition against the lawful Commands of their Superiors. They think us of the same mind with themselves, whilst we do the same things, and that we judge as ill of the Church of England, as long as we refuse to Communicate with it, as themselves do; and thus we give occasion to their sin, and those infinite mischiefs which have happened both to Church and State, upon the account of our Religious disputes and divisions; which surely ought to be well thought of and considered by a sort of Men amongst us, who shall go to Church in the Morning, and to a Conventicle in the Afternoon; who halt between both, and would fain displease neither side, but indeed give real Offence to both. From all this I think it is very plain, that he, who is satisfied in his own mind of the lawfulness of Conformity, but is afraid of giving Offence by it, if he be true to this principle, aught to hasten the faster to his Parish-Church, that he might not Offend those very Dissenters of whom he would seem to be so tender; and thus I have done with the Second thing I propounded to show, what is meant by Offending or Scandalising,  
3. It remaineth in the Third and Last place to inquire; how far, and in what instances we are bound to consider the ignorance or weakness of our Brother? In Answer to this, that I may proceed with all the clearness I can, I shall now suppose notwithstanding all I have already said, that our Dissenting Brethren are truly weak persons, and that there may be some danger of their being through their own fault Offended by our Conformity; yet taking this for granted, I shall plainly show that he, who is in his own mind convinced of the lawfulness of coming to his Parish-Church, and using the Forms of Prayer and Ceremonies by Law appointed, ought not to forbear doing the same for fear of giving such Offence to his weak Brethren. There are many other things to be considered in this Case, besides this matter of private Scandal; and if there be greater evil in, and greater mischief to others, and a more public Scandal doth follow our forbearing Communion with the Church and withdrawing into private Assemblies, than can happen by our leaving them and returning to the Church, and complying with its orders, we ought then to conform notwithstanding the Offence that is imagined may be taken at it. For these two things, as I suppose, are agreed on all hands; one is, that nothing which is sinful may be done to avoid Scandalising others; the other is, that to avoid a less Scandal being taken by a few, we must not give a greater Scandal and of vastly more pernicious consequence to a much bigger number of persons; and by these two Rules I shall now judge of the Case at first propounded.  
1. Nothing that is sinful may be done to avoid others being Scandalised, which is directly the Apostles Doctrine, Rom. 3. 8. That we must not do evil, that good may come; nor is any necessary duty to be omitted out of prudence or charity to others, lest they through Error or Ignorance be hurt by it: We must not to prevent the greatest sin in another, commit the least sin ourselves, nor disobey God's Law, and so run the hazard of our own damnation, though it be to save the Soul of our Brother. Thus Calvin tells us, Instit. lib. 3. c. 19 Quae necessaria sunt factu, nullius offendiculi timore omittenda sunt. Whatever is necessary to be done by virtue of God's Command is not to be omitted for fear of Offence; and again in the same place, Hic Charitatis rationem haberi decet, sed usque ad arras. Our charity to our Brother ought to be limited by this, that we do not for his sake displease God.  
The very best things and actions may be perverted by Men of ill-disposed or weak minds, false consequences and unjust inferences may be strained from them; as we know the grace of God in the Gospel was abused into an argument for licentiousness, and Christ himself is said to be set for the fall of many, St. Luke 2. 24. but still this doth not Cancel our obligations to universal obedience to God's Law, nor can it alter the nature of good and evil, duty and sin; which are no such uncertain contingent things, as to depend upon the constructions others shall make of our actions, or the conclusions they shall draw from them. God Almighty in the making of his Laws hath a perfect comprehension of all the accidental events, that may happen either through the weakness or wickedness of Men; and we must not think ourselves to be wiser than God, taking upon ourselves to dispense with his Commands without any allowance from him, as if himself had not foreseen those inconveniences which may arise from our doing our duty: it can therefore never be, that obedience to God should give any real Scandal; and whatever Offence may be taken at my doing of my duty, it is a contradiction to imagine it imputable to me, as a sin or fault, (for it is to suppose one to disobey God, in obeying him) but they alone are chargeable who are Offended by it.  
Now by the express Command of God, we are obliged to obey the lawful injunctions of our Superiors, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical; and if any are so hardy as to deny this, they must seek for another Bible out of which to judge of God's will; for there is hardly any one duty of Religion more plainly Commanded, more frequently and earnestly pressed in the New Testament, than quiet and peaceable subjection to Authority, both in Church and State, in all things lawful, and that not only to avoid punishment, but for Conscience sake; and to refuse obedience in such things, is a sin against the fifth Commandment. That the Conformity required by our Church, contains not any thing in it unlawful, must be granted, as I have already observed, by all those who make use of this Plea of Scandal, from all which the necessary Conclusion is,  
Since we may not redeem a Scandal by disobedience to God, since God hath plainly required our submission to those whom he hath set over us in all things, lawful; since it is acknowledged by those I now discourse with, that Conformity to the Church is enjoined by a competent Authority, and is lawful; I say the necessary conclusion is, that no Man can with a good Conscience refuse to conform only for fear of Scandal.  
Our Dissenting Brethren, when they are urged with this Argument neither do nor can deny any of the Premises, they must confess that no sin may be committed upon any account whatsoever, and that a Man is not bound to provide for his Brother's safety by wounding his own Soul; they cannot deny but that God hath Commanded us to be subject to Lawful Authority in all things lawful, but then to evade the force of this reasoning, they have endeavoured to load the conclusion with some seeming difficulties and absurdities, which they pretend follow from this principle, that we are bound to obey, notwithstanding the Scandal that may ensue upon it. The chief of these I shall mention, and briefly return an Answer to them.  
1. It is pleaded that those precepts, which contain only rituals, are to give place to those, which do concern the welfare of men's Bodies, and much more to those, which do respect the welfare of our Brother's Soul; so that, when both together cannot be observed, we must neglect or violate the former, to observe the latter: That this is true even of some Commands given by God himself; to which purpose our Saviour doth produce that saying of the Prophet Hosea, I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice. Now if Sacrifices prescribed by God himself, which were so considerable a part of the Divine Worship under Moses' Law, yet were to give place to acts of mercy, how much more are the positive injunctions of Men, that concern only the externals and circumstantials of Religion to yield to the Royal and indispensable Law of Charity, of which this duty of not giving Offence to others, is such an Eminent part. Thus saith Mr. jean's in his Second Part of Scholastical Divinity, What Laws of any Earthly Wight whatsoever concerning Ceremonies can be more obligatory, than the Commands of God touching the externals of his Worship and Service; and yet it is his will and pleasure, that these externals of his Worship should be laid aside for the performance of outward works of mercy: If therefore the sacred Ordinances of God are to give way unto works of mercy unto the bodies of Men, surely then much more is the trash of human inventions to yield unto a work of mercy to the Souls of Men.  
In answer to this, it is readily acknowledged that when there doth happen any such interfering between two Commands of God, the one Positive, the other Moral, the Positive aught always to give place to the Moral; and by the same reason the positive Commands of our Superiors ought certainly to give way to the Moral Commands of God, which are of eternal and immutable obligation. They cease to bind us either in case of absolute necessity, or when they plainly hinder our performance of any Moral duty to God or our Neighbour; and the Church is presumed to dispense with its orders, as God Almighty doth allow the neglect of his own positive Institutions in such circumstances. But then this is only, where the necessity is urgent and extreme, the sin we must otherwise commit evident and certain; and at last our Obedience is dispensed withal only for that one time.  
Thus in a case of necessity, Our Saviour St. Matth. 12. 5. acquits David and his followers of all blame, who being ready to perish for hunger, did eat of the Shewbread, which otherwise, was not lawful for them to eat; but had they taken a particular fancy to that Bread, and refused to have eaten of any other, because that best agreed with their Stomaches and was most pleasing to their Palate; can we think our Saviour would have so easily excused them? Or which is nearer to our Case; because God did prefer acts of Mercy before Sacrifices where both could not be done, yet this would not have justified any man's wholly leaving off Sacrificing, or refusing to do it at Jerusalem, inventing another way of Worship, as more expedient than Sacrificing, or choosing another place to Sacrifice in, which might be more convenient for all the Jews than that City was. We may leave our Prayers, forsake the Church to save the life of our Neighbour, or to quench the firing of his House, but still this would be but a pitiful pretence for our wholly absenting ourselves from Church, and constant neglect of our Prayers, because in the mean time our Neighbour's life may be invaded, or his house fired by ill Men, of which there is great store in the World, and so he may stand in need of our help, which is a more acceptable Service to God than any acts of Devotion. So that however this Argument may serve to excuse the omission of some things Commanded by lawful Authority, by those who otherwise are perfectly conformable, in extraordinary cases which very rarely happen, and for which no provision could be made by Law; yet to be sure this will not at all help those, who bid open defiance to the Laws, stand out in manifest opposition against them, live in plain disobedience and contradiction to them as if they were altogether free from them, nay set up a distinct way and form of Worship of their own, and all this because they are loath to Offend those, who are not satisfied of the wisdom and goodness of what is appointed.  
Thus our Dissenting Brethren can gain but little by this Plea if granted to them; for upon this account of exercising mercy and charity towards their Neighbours, they can be excused from Obedience to their Superiors in such cases only, in which they may be excused also from the observation of the Sabbath, from Prayer public or private, from Worshipping of God either in the Church or in a Conventicle, nay from Obedience to God himself; had he pleased in the Scriptures positively to have required whatever is at present enjoined by our Church; and let them well consider, whether if God had plainly in his Word prescribed all that our Church doth Command, they would have thought itself to have refused compliance with such divine impositions, because they were unreasonably offensive to some Godly people: If our Dissenters will but acknowledge themselves bound to submit to the determinations of their Superiors about the things in controversy between us, so far, as the Jews were bound to obey the ordinances of God concerning his external Worship delivered by Moses; and that they are freed from such obligation to obey the Laws of their Governors only in such cases, as the Jews were excused from offering their accustomed Sacrifices, or as they think themselves at liberty to break the Sabbath, to omit Gods Public Worship, I suppose this dispute would soon be at an end, for they dare not own, that the Scandal others may take at such things, which yet are to give place to moral duties, is sufficient to void their obligation to the doing of them.  
Mr. jean's (whose objections I shall the rather consider because of his eminency amongst the Presbyterians, though I find myself somewhat prevented by a late Writer, who hath taken particular notice of them) thus putteth the Question, Suppose, saith he, the greatest Monarch upon the face of the Earth should command the meanest and lowest of his Slaves, upon some important affair to ride Post through such a City, without any of the least stay or diversion, and then it should happen that a company of little Children should be playing in the Streets, can this Slave think that he is obliged to ride over them? No surely, he ought to use all means, and take all care possible to execute his Commission without doing any hurt, or damage to any person whatever; but if he would have stated the case right, it should have been done thus; suppose this Slave should utterly refuse to do as he was Commanded, and for his justification should plead, that he must be forced to ride through many Towns and Cities, where are many little Children, who are often playing at the Doors or in the Streets; he knows not but that some of them may be in his way, or chance to run between his Horse's legs, and therefore to avoid the doing of this mischief, which might possibly happen, he resolves not to stir one foot from his own home. Is this pretence sufficient to excuse his disobedience? No more can our Nonconformity to the rules given us by our Superiors be innocent, because some may be Scandalised at our Obedience.  
2. It is further said that Scandal is in the nature of it spiritual murder, and if where Authority hath determined our choice, we must hold to their determination, any Scandal to the contrary notwithstanding, it seemeth then in case the Magistrate command it, we may lawfully murder the Soul of our Brother, wound his weak Conscience, and destroy with our meats, our Ceremonies, the work of God, and him for whom Christ died. It is good, saith St. Paul, Rom. 14. 21. neither to eat Flesh, nor to drink Wine, nor any thing whereby thy Brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. But our Prelatists, saith Mr. jean's, determine quite otherwise. If Authority enjoin it, it is good, say they, to eat Bread, drink Wine, wear a Surplice, use the sign of the Cross in Baptism, though thereby never so many Brethren stumble, or are offended, or made weak.  
But all this is mere bugbear, fitted only to fright Children and such weak persons, as we are now treating of; for it can never be shown, how wearing a Surplice, or Kneeling at receiving of the Sacrament, or Crossing the Infant's forehead, hath any tendency towards the scaring Men from Christianity, or making them to deny Christ, and forsake and grow weary of his Religion, which I have sufficiently proved to be the only proper Scandalising of our Brother, which St. Paul so highly aggravateth, and chargeth with the guilt of destroying and murdering his Soul; none of these things do directly and immediately lead or tempt any man to any sin: Whatever Scandal may follow is wholly accidental and the fault and mistake of those only, who are Offended, and to provide always against such Scandals is an impossible undertaking; for they may follow the most innocent actions, nay the most necessary duties, and this Argument concludes as strongly against obedience to any other Command of God, if by it my Brother may stumble, or be offended, or be made weak, as it doth against submission to our Superiors in things lawful.  
They that make these Objections do not sufficiently consider, that by God's Law we are bound to obey the Lawful Commands of our Superiors; and it is not only the Law or Ordinance of Man, of which they seem to make so little account, but it is the Law of God also, that is violated by our disobedience to our Governors in things Lawful: The Comparison therefore ought not to be only, as they make it, between an human Authority determining some indifferent things, and the divine Law of charity to the Soul of our Brother, but between the divine Command of obedience to our Superiors, and the avoiding of Scandal: Here we affirm, that we cannot be bound to transgress a plain Law of God, or which is all one in this Question, a lawful command of our Superiors for fear of some evil that may by chance happen to some others through their own fault; and we prove it by this reason, which our Dissenting Brethren must own for true and good, because every one is bound to have a greater care of his own than others Salvation, and consequently rather to avoid sin in himself, than to prevent it in his Brethren.  
If it be here asked, as it is by some, whether any human Authority can make that action cease to be Scandalous, which if done without any such Command had been criminal upon the account of the Scandal that followed it, I Answer, that no Authority, whether divine or human, can secure that others shall not be Offended by what I do out of obedience to their Commands, but than it doth free me from all guilt and blame, by making that to become my duty to do, which if I had done needlessly without any great reason, and my Brother had been hurt and his Conscience wounded by it, might have been justly charged with uncharitableness, greater or less according as the Scandal was more or less probable to follow.  
This must be granted, that the Laws of God or Man, otherwise obligatory, do not lose their binding force because of some Scandal, that may possibly happen from our Compliance with them, or else all Authority is utterly void and insignificant, and every Man is at liberty to do all things as himself pleaseth; for, to borrow the words of the excellent Bishop Sanderson, To allow Men under pretence that some offence may be taken thereat, to disobey Laws and Constitutions made by those that are in Authority over us, is the next way to cut the sinews of all Authority, and to bring both Magistrates and Laws into contempt; for what Law ever was made, or can be made so just and reasonable, but some Man or other either did or might take offence thereat. Whether such a Constitution or Command of our Superiors be Scandalous or no, every one must judge for himself; and so according to his own private opinion of the goodness or hurtfulness of what is required, he is free to obey it or not, which is directly to dissolve all Government, and to bring in certain disorder and everlasting confusion, every one doing what is good in his own Eyes.  
3. It is said, that Avoiding of Scandal is a main duty of charity; May Superiors therefore at their pleasure appoint, how far I shall show my charity towards my Brother's Soul? then surely an inferior Earthly Court may cross the determinations of the High Court of Heaven: This Mr. jean's urgeth also out of Amesius; but it is easily replied,  
That here is no Crossing the determinations of God, since it is his express will, that in all lawful things we should obey our Governors, and he who hath made this our duty, will not lay to our charge the mischiefs, that may sometimes without our fault through the folly and peevishness of Men follow from it, and certainly it is as equal and reasonable, that our Superiors should appoint how far I shall exercise my charity towards my Brethren, as it is, that the mistake and prejudice of any private Christians should set bounds to their Power and Authority, Cancel the public Laws, or that every ignorant and froward Brother should determine, how far we shall be obedient to those, whom God hath set over us either in Church or State.  
But to give a more full Answer to this we must know, that, though charity be the great duty, especially of the Christian Religion, yet duties of justice (as they are commonly called) are of stricter obligation than duties of charity, and we are bound to pay our debts, before we give an alms. Now obedience to Superiors is a debt we own to them, which they have right to exact of us, so that they may accuse us of injury, if we perform it not. But a great care to hinder sin in others, or not to Scandalise them is a duty of charity, which indeed we are obliged unto as far as we can, but not till after we have given to every one what is his due and right. It is therefore no more Lawful for me, saith the forenamed most Judicious Bishop Sanderson, to disobey the lawful Command of a Superior, to prevent thereby the offence of one or a few Brethren; than it is lawful for me to do one man wrong to do another man a courtesy withal; or than it is lawful for me to rob the Exchequer to relieve an Hospital. According to that known saying of St. Austin, Quis est qui dicat, ut habeamus quod demus pauperibus, faciamus furta divitibus? Who is it, that saith it is lawful to steal from the rich, what we may bestow on the poor? or to refuse to pay Taxes, on pretence that you know those who have more need of your money?  
To this Mr. jean's replies, Suppose, saith he, the care of not giving offence be in respect of our Brother but a debt of charity, yet in regard of God it is a legal debt, since he may and doth challenge it as due, and we do him wrong if we disobey him: Here I grant indeed, that both are required by God at our hands, that we should be obedient to our Superiors, and that we should be always ready to show charity to our Brethren; but then I say, this is not the charity which God requires, when I give to those in want, what is none of mine own. This is not an instance or expression of that love and kindness, which by the Law of God we own to our Brother, to do him good by wronging our Superiors. God hath obliged Servants to be merciful to the poor to their power, as well as to be true and faithful to their Masters; but that is no part of the mercy which God requires from them, to give away their Master's goods without his leave, though it were to those who stand in great need of relief. God hath Commanded all Christians to have a great care of being any occasion of their Brother's sin or fall; but then this must necessarily be understood only of things subject to our own ordering and management. In all cases, wherein we are at our own disposal, we are bound charitably to regard our Brother. But in instances, where our practice is determined by Authority, our Superiors only are to consider the danger of Scandal; we must consider the duty we own to them, this being a matter wherein we cannot show our charity without violating the right of our Superiors; It remains then, in the words of another great Bishop, in what case soever we are bound to obey God or Man, in that case and in that conjunction of circumstances we have nothing permitted to our choice, (and consequently there is no place for any act of charity) and have no Authority to remit of the right of God or our Superior; and to comply with our Neighbour in such Questions, besides that it cannot serve any purposes of piety, if it declines from duty in any instance, it is like giving Alms out of the portion of Orphans, or building Hospitals with the Money and spoils of Sacrilege.  
4. It is further said by Mr. jean's out of Amesius, If determination by Superiors is sufficient to take away the sin of Scandal, than they do very ill, that they do not, so far as is possible, determine all things indifferent, that so no danger may be left of giving Offence by the use of them. Then the Church of Rome is to be praised in that she hath determined so many indifferent things. Then St. Paul might have spared all his directions about forbearance out of respect to weak Brethren, and fully determined the matters in debate, and so put an end to all fear of Scandal.  
This truly seemeth a very odd way of arguing, and all that I shall say to it is, that it supposeth nothing else worthy to be considered in the making of Laws, or in the determinations of Superiors about indifferent things, but only this one matter of Scandal; and the project itself, should it take, would prove very vain and unsuccessful. For though we truly say, that we are bound to comply with the Orders and Ceremonies of the Church of England, they being but few and innocent, and so giving no real ground of Offence; yet we do not say the same upon supposition our Church had determined all circumstances in God's Worship she possibly could, which would perhaps have been a yoke greater, than that of the Ceremonial Law to the Jews; nor if she had prescribed as many Ceremonies as the Church of Rome hath done, which manifestly tend to the disgrace and Scandal of our Christian Religion; and as for the course St. Paul took, it is plain that some things upon good reasons were determined by the Apostles, as that the Gentile Converts should abstain from blood, and things strangled, and offered to Idols, which decree, I presume, they might not Transgress out of charity to any of their Brethren, who might take Offence at such abstinence, and other things for great reason were for a time left at liberty, which reason was taken from the present circumstances of those the Apostles had to deal withal; though afterwards, as I observed before, when that reason ceased, determinations were made about those things which St. Paul had left at liberty, and if St. Paul had determined the dispute about meats and days one way, they, who had followed so great an Authority, whatever had happened, had surely been free from the sin of Scandal; but still the Scandal had not been prevented, but all the contrary part had been in danger to have been utterly estranged from Christianity; and that was reason sufficient why St. Paul did not make any determinations in that case. For Governors are not only to take care to free those that obey them from the sin of Scandal, but also to provide, that as little occasion, as is possible, may be given to any to be Scandalised.  
There are other Objections offered by Mr. jean's, out of Amesius and Rutherford, against this Doctrine of our obligation to obedience to Superiors in things lawful, notwithstanding the Scandal that may follow; but they either may be Answered from what I have already said, or else they chief concern the case of Governors, and are brought to prove that they act uncharitably, and give great Offence contrary to St. Paul's rules, who take upon them determinately to impose unnecessary rites by which they know many good Men will be Scandalised, but this is not my present business to discourse of, though I cannot forbear saying these two things, which I think very easy to make out.  
1. That our Church of England hath taken all reasonable care not to give any just offence to any sort of persons, and the offences that have been since taken at some things in our Constitution could not possibly have been foreseen by those who made our first Reformation from Popery, and so they could not be any reason against the first establishment: Nor,  
2. Are they now a sufficient reason for the alteration of it; unless we can imagine it reasonable to alter public Laws made with great wisdom and deliberation as often, as they are disliked by, or prove Offensive to private persons. If this be admitted, there then can never be any settled Government and order in the Church; because there never can be any establishment, that will not be liable to give such Offence. They who now take Offence at what the Church of England enjoins, on the same or a like account will take Offence at whatever can be enjoined, and the same pretences of Scandal will be good against any establishment they themselves shall make; for though they will not use these reasons against their own establishment, yet in a short time others will take up their weapons to fight against them, and what served to destroy the present Church will be as effectual to overthrow that, which shall be set up in its room: so that whatever alteration is made, if this be allowed for a sufficient ground of it, viz. to avoid the Offence that some men take at the present constitution, yet still we shall be but where we were, and new Offences will arise, and so there must be continual changing and altering, to gratify the unreasonable humours and fancies of Men; and should any one party of Dissenters amongst us get their Form of Government and Worship established by Law, I doubt not but they would Preach to us the very same Doctrine, we do now to them. They would tell us that private persons must bend and conform to the Laws, and not the Laws to private persons; that it was our own fault that we were Offended; that our weakness proceeded from our unwillingness to receive instruction; that the weak were to be governed, not to prescribe to their Governors; that we must not expect that what was with good reason appointed and ordered should be presently abrogated or changed out of compliance with men's foolish prejudices and mistakes. It is sufficiently known how strict and rigorous botht the Presbyterians and Independents are and have been where they have had any advantage, and what little consideration or regard they have had of their Dissenting Brethren, though they would have us so tender of them.  
Thus much I think sufficient to show that the Precept of Obedience to Superiors in things Lawful is more obligatory, than the Precept of avoiding Scandal; whence it follows that it is our duty to obey in such instances, though Offence may be taken at it, because no sin is to be committed for the avoiding Scandal.  
I might from this head further argue, that if we must not commit any sin to avoid giving Offence, than it is not Lawful to Separate from our Parish-Churches upon that account; because all voluntary Separation from a Church, in which nothing that is unlawful is required as a condition of Communion, is the sin of Schism, and that is a sin of the blackest dye and greatest guilt, noted the in Scriptures for an act of carnality, a work of the Flesh and of the Devil; for the necessity of our coming to Church, and Worshipping God in the same public place with our Neighbours, and submitting to the Government, Discipline and Customs of that particular Church we live in, doth not depend only upon the Statutes of the Realm which enforce it, and the Command of the Civil Magistrate who requires it; but by the Law of our Religion all needless Separation or Division amongst Christians, breaking into little Parties and Factions, from whence comes strife, envying, confusion and every evil work, is to be most carefully avoided, as the very bane of Christianity, the rending of Christ's body, and as utterly destructive not only of the peace, but of the being of a Church. So that should all the Laws about Conformity and against Conventicles be rescinded and voided, should the Magistrate indulge or connive at the Separate Assemblies, yet still this would not make our joining with them not to be sinful. Since to preserve the unity of Christians and one Communion, is the necessary duty of every member of the Church, and it can never be thought a justifiable thing, to cut off ourselves from the Communion of the Church or the Body of Christ, out of compliance with any erring or ignorant Brethren. But the sinfulness of withdrawing from the Communion of our Church, either totally or in part, hath been so evidently shown in some late discourses written on that subject, that I do despair of convincing those of the danger of it, who can withstand the force of all that hath been already offered to them: I only conclude thus much, that there is far more of the sin of uncharitableness in such Separation and Division, than there can be in all the Offence that is imagined to be given by our Conformity.  
From what I have already at large discoursed it plainly follows, that they are things merely indifferent, not only in their own nature, but also in respect to us, in the use of which we are obliged to consider the weakness of our Brethren. What is our duty must be done, though Scandal follow it: What is evil and sinful aught to be left undone upon the score of a greater obligation, than that of Scandal; but now in matters, wherein our practice is not determined by any Command, we ought so to exercise our liberty, as if possible to avoid giving any Offence to our Brethren. This is an undoubted part of that charity, which one Christian ought always to be ready to show to another, by admonition, instruction, good example, and by the forbearance of things Lawful, at which he forseeth his Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandalised, to endeavour to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief; and this we teach and press upon our People as much as Dissenters themselves can, in obedience to St. Paul's rules about meats and days, things neither in themselves good or evil, nor determined by any Authority, and therefore they were every way a proper instance, wherein Christians might exercise their charity and compassion one to the other; and in such cases St. Paul declares, that he would rather wholly forego his liberty, than by these indifferences endanger the Soul of his Brother; as in that famous place 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat make my Brother to offend, I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth, lest I make my Brother to Offend; where by Flesh and meat is to be understood such as had been Offered unto Idols, which though lawful for a Christian to eat at common meals, yet the Apostle would wholly abstain from, rather than wound the weak Conscience of a Brother. If I by the Law of charity (as the Reverend Bishop Taylour saith, Great exemp. p. 420) must rather quit my own goods than suffer my Brother to perish, much rather must I quit my privilege. And, We should ill die for our Brother, who will not lose a meal to prevent his sin, or change a dish to save his Soul; and if the thing be indifferent to us, yet it ought not to be indifferent to us whether our Brother live or die.  
After this manner do we profess ourselves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power, to win and gain our Dissenting Brethren to the Church. We grant that those, who conform, are obliged by: this Law of charity not needlessly to vex and exasperate our Dissenters, nor to do any thing which they are not bound to do, that may estrange them more from the Church; but to restrain themselves in the use of that liberty God and the Laws have left them, for the sake of peace and out of condescension to their Brethren. We dare not indeed omit any duty we own to God, or our Superiors either in Church or State, nor can we think it fit and reasonable, that our Apostolical Government, Excellent Liturgy, Orderly Worship of God used in our Church, should all be presently condemned and laid aside, as soon as some Weak men take Offence at them; but in all other things, subject to our own ordering and disposal, we acknowledge ourselves bound to please our Brother for his good unto Edification.  
I only add here, that this very rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent and undetermined aught to have some restrictions and limitations, several of which are mentioned by Mr. jean's, whom I have so often named; as First, That we are not to forbear these indifferent things, where there is only a possibility of Scandal, but where the Scandal consequent is probable; for otherwise we should be at an utter loss and uncertainty in all our actions, and never know what to do. Secondly, Our weak Brethren must have some probable ground for their imagination that what we do is evil and sinful, or else we must wear no Ribbons, nor put off our Hats, but come all to Thou and Thee; and for this exception he gives this substantial reason, that if we are to abstain from all indifferent things, in which another without probable ground imagineth that there is sin, the servitude of Christians under the Gospel would be far greater and more intolerable, than that of the Jews under the Mosaical administration. Thirdly, This must be understood of indifferent things that are of no very great importance; for if it be a matter of some weight and moment, as yielding me some great profit, I must only for a while forbear it, until my Brother is better informed. Lastly, We must not wholly betray our Christian liberty to please peevish and froward people, or to humour our Neighbour in an erroneous and superstitious opinion; for which he quotes Mr. Calvin, who in his Comment upon 1 Cor. 8. 13. tells of some foolish Interpreters, that leave to Christians almost no use at all of things indifferent, upon pretence to avoid the Offence of Superstitious persons.  
Now though all this is generally true, yet I think there are no certain unalterable rules to be laid down to direct our practice in this affair. For it being an exercise of charity, must be determined by the measures of prudence according to circumstances, and we may as well go about to give certain rules for men's charity in other cases, and fix the proportion, which every Man ought to give of his estate towards the relief of the poor, as positively to tell how far a Man must deny himself in the use of indifferent things, and forego his own liberty for the sake of his Brother, and so I end this head with those words of the learned Dr. Hammond in his little Treatise of Scandal: This whole matter is to be referred to the Christians pious discretion or prudence, it being free to him either to abstain, or not to abstain, from any indifferent action (remaining such) according as that piety, and that prudence shall represent it to be most charitable and beneficial to other men's Souls. Thus I have done with the first proposition, that nothing sinful is to be committed to avoid Scandalising others.  
2. I proceed now to the Second, that to avoid a less Scandal being taken by a few we must not give a greater Offence, and of vastly more pernicious consequence to a much bigger number of persons: Not that such a case can ever happen, wherein we must necessarily give just Offence to one side or other, and so are uncharitable, whether we do or forbear to do the same action; for than we should be under a necessity of sinning, which implies a contradiction, but yet it may and often doth happen, that some weak persons may take Offence at my doing, and others be more Offended at my forbearing to do the same thing, and thus whether I do it, or not, I shall give Offence, though not justly, nor through my own fault, to some one or other. In such circumstances therefore we are to consider, which way is given the greater and more dangerous Offence, and it can never be either prudence or charity to abstain from that, which may Scandalise our Brother, when by forbearance a greater and more public Scandal is ministered to others; for in this case we have greater reason on the account of Scandal itself to do, than to forbear that action, as all that writ on this subject do and must acknowledge, and for which they usually quote that saying of Bernard, Prudenter advertendum est scandalum scandalo non emendari, etc. We are prudently to mark that one Scandal is not mended by another; which kind of emendation we should practise, if to take off offence from one party, we give offence unto another.  
This was the occasion of that famous Contest between the two great Apostles mentioned in the second Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, St. Peter had freely conversed with the Gentile Christians, and had eat with them all kind of meats; but afterwards when certain believing Jews from Jerusalem, who were still Zealous for Moses' Law, and the distinction of meats, came to Antioch, out of fear of Offending them and occasioning their falling off from the Faith of Christ he abstained from that liberty, and withdrew from that conversation, which before he had without any scruple used; and all the believing Jews that were at Antioch followed his example, and separated themselves from their Gentile Brethren. Now St. Paul considering the greater Scandal and mischief, that would follow this pretended tenderness of St. Peter and his compliance with the Jewish Christians, and that it was a likely way not only to confirm them in their error, but also wholly to exclude the Gentiles from the Faith of Christ, and so to hinder Christian Religion being propagated in the World, he withstood Peter to the face, and chid him sharply for his imprudent behaviour, who to avoid offending some of the weak Jews did give a far greater Offence, and of much more dangerous consequence to the Gentile Converts, of whom the Christian Church was chief to consist. In this case therefore of Scandal we are not only to regard one side or party of Men, but as the same St. Paul directs us, 1 Cor. 10. 32. We must give none offence neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God.  
It would swell this discourse much beyond my present design to set forth at large the many and great Scandals, which are given by those, who Separate from the Church of England; and I doubt not but if this matter was rightly considered, and we were but impartially careful to avoid giving all Offence to others, we should soon find ourselves much more obliged upon this account of Scandal peaceably to communicate with our Church, than to continue divided from it. I shall hint at some few of the most obvious considerations, by which we may a little Judge which way the greater Scandal is given.  
1. By leaving the Parish-Churches and joining to the Separate Assemblies, we do mightily establish and harden (as I have before observed) those Dissenters, with whom we associate, in their sinful Separation and Erroneous persuasion of the unlawfulness of conformity; for it is but reasonable with them to judge, that we do the same things for the same reasons with themselves; and this is the true Scandalising of our weak Brethren, leading them into, o confirming them in an evil course: Whereas by our forsaking them and returning to the Church we may possibly incline some, that are sincere amongst them, to consider and suspect their own way, and inquire after the Arguments that prevail with us to conform, and they may begin to think that there is not so much evil in it as they have all along supposed, and thus our Authority or example may contribute something towards the gaining our Brethren.  
2. Which also I have just mentioned before, whatever Sect or denomination of Dissenters we join with, we Offend all the other Sects or Parties amongst them: for they agree only in their opposition to the Church of England, but in other things they have their distinct Forms and Models of Worship, and Shibboleths, and they think as ill, and sometimes speak as hardly of one another, as they do of Conformists. Which would evidently appear, if any one sort of them should get the upper hand; the rest of them would all act as fiercely, and complain as loudly of that Party that did prevail, as they now do of the Church of England. Till therefore they all agree in one way and speak the same Language there is no reason why any one Sect of them should challenge our condescension to them, to the dissatisfaction and Offence of all the other Dissenters, who have as good a right to this Plea of weakness as themselves.  
3. Hereby great Offence is given to all those who do conform; for this Separation from the Church is a public condemning of the Government, Orders, Discipline or Doctrine of our Church, and is apt to breed scruples and perplexities in well meaning, but less knowing members of it, and by degrees produces a distaste or dislike of our Worship, and plainly hinders the efficacy of the ordinances of Christ as administered in our Church, whilst it creates prejudices in people against them as impure and corrupt; and why there should not be a due regard had to those many, who are Offended at our Dissenters Conventicle Worship, as well as of those, who are said to be Scandalised by our Church service, I cannot at all guess. I shall only say here, that irreverent sitting at the receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, men's unmannerly wearing their Hats in time of Divine Worship, and oftentimes putting them off but half way at their Prayers, their indecent postures and antic gestures at their devotions, the extravagancies and follies (not to say worse) some of them are guilty of in their extemporary effusions, the strange uncouth Metaphors and Phrases they use in their Preaching; in a word, the slovenly performance of Divine Worship amongst the Dissenters is much more Scandalous, than all the Ceremonies of our Church can ever be.  
4. Consider the Scandal that is hereby given to Magistrates and our Superiors, by bringing their Laws and Authority into contempt; concerning which the forenamed Mr. jean's in his first Edition of his Discourse about Abstinence from all Appearance of Evil, hath these words, If, saith he, it were better to be thrown into the bottom of the Sea with a Millstone about ones Neck, than to offend a little one, a poor and illiterate Artisan, what expression shall we then find answerable to the heinousness of a Scandal given to a Pious Magistrate, to a Religious Prince, to a Parliament, and Convocation, to an whole Church and Commonwealth?  
5. By this Separation from the Church, great Scandal is given to the Papists; not that they are displeased at it; they are not indeed offended in that sense, but this serves wonderfully to harden them in their false and Idolatrous Worship; it increaseth their confidence, that their Church is the only true Church of Christ, because amongst them only is found Peace and Unity; and this is a mighty temptation to many wavering Christians to turn Papists: insomuch that Mr. Baxter hath told us, that Thousands have been drawn to Popery, or confirmed in it by this Argument already, and he saith of himself, that he is persuaded, that all the Arguments else in Bellarmin, and all other Books that ever were written, have not done so much to make Papists in England, as the multitude of Sects among ourselves. This indeed is a great Scandal to our Protestant Religion, and is that which the Papists are on all occasions so forward to object against us, and hit us in the teeth with; and by our hearty uniting with the Church of England, we may certainly wrest out of their hands the most dangerous weapon they use against the Reformation.  
6. This tends to the Scandal of Religion in general. It prejudiceth men against it as an uncertain thing, a matter of endless dispute and debate; it makes some Men utterly reject it as consisting mostly in little trifles and niceties about which they observe the greatest noise and contention to be made or as destructive of the Public Peace of Societies, when they see what dangerous feuds and quarrels commence from our Religious Differences, and all the disorder and confusion that they have caused here in England, shall by some be charged upon Christianity itself.  
Thus our causeless Separations and Divisions open a wide door to Atheism, and all kind of Profaneness and Irreligion: After this manner it was of old, and always will be, where there are Parties in Religion, and one contends that their Separation is lawful, and the other that it is unlawful, the Common people soon become doubtful and ready to forsake all Religion.  
I might add here, that such Separations necessarily occasion breach of Charity; they beget implacable enmities and animosities: Hence cometh strife, emulation, envying, one Party continually endeavouring to overtop the other, watching for one another's halting, rejoicing in one another's sins and misfortunes, constant undermining one another, to the disturbance of the Public Government, and endangering the Civil Peace; of all which and much more than I can now mention the present distracted condition of our Nation is so great and undeniable an evidence, that there need no more words to show the mischiefs that attend such Divisions; and now let any one judge, whether the Peace and Unity of the Church, the maintaining of Charity amongst Brethren, the keeping out Popery, and Atheism, the preservation of the Authority of the Magistrate, and quiet of the Society we are Members of, the honour and credit of our Religion. Lastly, Whether giving Offence to all both Conformists and Nonconformists, those only excepted of our own particular Sect and Division, nay Scandalising them also in the true and proper sense of Scandal, be not of far greater and more weighty consideration, than the fear of displeasing or grieving some few weak dissatisfied Brethren; Woe to those, by whom Offences come. But these things I have very lightly touched, because they have been the subject of many Sermons and discourses lately published.  
To sum up all I have said,  
Since they, who descent from the Church of England, are not such weak persons as St. Paul all along describes and provides for; since we cannot by our Conformity really Scandalise or Offend them in that sense, in which the Scriptures use those words; since though we did give Offence to them by our Conformity, yet that would not excuse us from doing our Duty, and by refusing to Conform we should do both them and others greater hurt and mischief; I think I may safely conclude, that there cannot lie any obligation upon any private Christian (as the case now stands amongst us) to absent himself from his Parish-Church, or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer or Ceremonies by Law appointed, for fear of Offending his weak Brethren.  
I end all with one word of Advice. First, to those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity. Secondly, to those who are satisfied that it is lawful.  
1. To those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity, and therefore urge so hard that they ought not to be Offended by us. I would beseech them that they would take some care and make some Conscience to avoid giving any needless Offence to those of the Church of England, and this cannot but be thought a reasonable request, since they require all others to be so tender of them. They ought not therefore to meet in such numbers, nor at the same time at which we assemble to Worship God in our public Churches. Let them not affront our Service and Common-Prayers, nor revile our Bishops and Ministers, nor put on their Hats when at any time they chance to be present at our Service in our Churches, nor talk nor read in Books, nor make sour faces at our Devotions, and when they observe these and other the like rules, they may then with a better grace (though with little reason) find fault with our Conformity as Offensive to them. I would be loath to say any thing, that should exasperate or provoke any of the Dissenters whose satisfaction I design: I very well know their weakness, that they cannot endure to be told of their faults. However I must tell them, that there are no sort of persons in the Christian World professing Religion and Godliness, that have done such Scandalous things, as some of those who call themselves Protestant Dissenters. I forbear to name particulars.  
2. As for those who are satisfied concerning the lawfulness of Conformity, I would desire them so to order their return to the Church, as not to give any just Offence to those whom they forsake; that is to say, that they would do it hearty and sincerely, that all may see they Conformed with a willing mind, being persuaded that it is their duty so to do, and not merely to satisfy the Law, or to save their Purses, or to get into an Office, or to capacitate them to Vote or the like. For such a kind of Conformity, as some practice, and call Occasional Communion, which is coming to Church and Sacrament to serve a turn, is truly Scandalous to all good Men of what persuasion soever.  
FINIS.   

Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER.  
A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, in Answer to Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Job, etc.  
Considerations of present use, considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government.  

1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England.  
2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience, which Respect Church-Communion.  
3. The Case of Indifferent things, used in the Worship of God, Proposed and Stated, by considering these Questions, etc.  
4. A Discourse about Edification.  
5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience, Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England?  
6. A Letter to Anonymus, in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship. In two Parts.  
8. The Case of Mixed Communion. Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations, and Mixed Communion?  
9 An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers, and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England.  
10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament, Stated and Resolved, etc. The First Part.  
11. Certain Cases of Conscience, etc. The Second Part.  
12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons, and of going to hear where Men think they can profit most.  
13. A serious Exhortation, with some Important Advices; Relating to the late Cases about Conformity, Recommended to the Present Dissenters from the Church of England.  
14. An Argument for Union, etc.  
15. The Case of Kneeling at the Sacrament. The Second Part.   

1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists ask of us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther?  
2. A Discourse about Tradition, showing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be Received, and what Tradition is to be Rejected.  
3. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England.  
4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith, etc.    

THE Charge of Scandal, And giving OFFENCE BY CONFORMITY, Refelled, And Reflected back upon SEPARATION. And that place of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 10. 32. that hath been so usually urged by Dissenters in this Case, asserted to its true Sense, and vindicated from favouring the end for which it hath beed quoted by them.  Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God. 
LONDON: Printed for Fincham Gardiner, at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street. 1683.   

To the Christian-Reader.  
THou art not ignorant (I suppose) that this Argument hath been handled by a far better Pen, an Author that doth every thing he undertakes with that accuracy of Judgement, and strength of Reason, that becomes a person of his Character; and therefore mayest wonder what so mean a Scribe hath to do after him.  
I have but this Answer only to give thee; that it is neither affectation, nor conceit of this Paper, that is the cause. This Discourse was showed to some persons, both friends to the world and the Author, who was wholly ignorant that the Subject was undertaken by another, and was thought fit to be stayed till it was seen what that Discourse expected then would be; with a design to suppress it wholly, had the Method or the Management been near alike: which because it was not, and because the same thing that hits one fancy, may not do so to another, or not to all, it was determined to venture this to the Public also.  
Which the Author doth with Prayer for, and true Charity unto all that need such Discourses; beseeching God, that they may honestly and impartially consider what hath been offered to them of late, to satisfy all their most material Scruples and Objections, and that they may find a suitable effect upon their own minds.   

THE Charge of Scandal, And giving OFFENCE by CONFORMITY REFELLED.  
THere are very few things within the Sphere of Christian Religion, that more trouble and distract the thoughts of men, than how to govern themselves, and order their actions with respect to things that are called Indifferent.  
In things that are essentially good or evil, or are made so by some plain Command or Prohibition of our great Law giver, all Parties are soon agreed; and there needs not any question or dispute between them in these: The Rule is plain, and (supposing men honest) there cannot be any great mistake about them.  
But in things that are left wholly undetermined by God, and neither directly, nor by just and natural consequence either enjoined or prohibited by any Law of his, there men sail not by so plain a Compass, but have a larger Scope, and may more easily mistake their Course.  
It cannot therefore be less than a good service to men, to direct them safely in this Unbeaten tract, and to prescribe to them such Rules, to which if they carefully attend, they can never fall into any dangerous error.  
This is our Apostles charitable design in this Chapter; to which I shall have a respect in managing this present Argument, viz. 1 Cor. 10. and by governing ourselves by the measures of his discourse in it, we may be able to hit those great Rules of our actions in these things.  
The Apostles discourse is indeed but of one particular instance of these, i e. the eating, or not eating things that had Leen offered in Sacrifice by the Gentiles to their Daemons; which I shall have occasion to explain at large hereafter to you.  
But it is equally applicable to all things of the like Indifferent nature. And there are two Rules laid down by him there, which men ought to govern themselves by in the use of such things.  
1. The First is the Glory of God, v. 31. Whatsoever therefore ye do, whether ye eat or drink, do all to the glory of God; i. e. whatever ye do in these things, be sure you have respect to the Law and Will of God, and take heed that you violate none of the divine Commandments, either by what you do, or what you refuse to do in things of this nature. For this is the true notion and meaning of doing all to the glory of God, i. e. Keeping us close to the observance of those Laws and Rules that he hath commanded us. For then God is most truly glorified by us, when we express a great sense of his Sovereignty and Laws in all that we do. But this by the way.  
The 2d Rule is Charity, and respect to the benefit and advantage of those we converse with, and live among; that we neither grieve nor injure them by any thing that we do, or neglect to do: and this is the meaning of these words, so often quoted by our dissenting Brethren: Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God.  
This is that Rule of our actions in all indifferent things, which I have chosen to consider in this discourse: and the rather, because we have some contest with our dissenting Brethren about it.  
There hath been great talk about Scandal and giving Offence to weak and tender Consciences, by Conformty and Compliance with all those things which the Church of England requires in her Liturgy: and amongst all the other Arguments and Pretences against it, this hath been pressed to serve in the Cause, either to add some real weight to the rest, or at least to add to their number.  
Though (to tell you plainly) I think it is only to make a show, and to render the bulk of their Exceptions the bigger, that this is summoned to the Muster, and not for any real weight that there is in it to serve the Cause.  
However, whatever there is in it, a great noise is made with it; and as a mighty noise hath been made about Scandal, and great pains used to wrest the notion of it to serve men's purposes in these things: so great art hath been employed to accommodate it to the present purpose, and to fright men with the guilt and danger of it, from complying with the Institutions of the Church, which (as is pretended) are so very great a Scandal and Offence to weak Consciences.  
Two great and popular Pleas against the Liturgy of the Church of England, and the Ceremonies retained by it, have been these: tenderness and scruples of Conscience, in some; and fear of Scandal and giving Offence to such, in others.  
Some men have pleaded their own Scruples, and want of sufficient Conviction and Information, and excused their omission of these things, from that saying of the Apostle, Rom. 14. 23. Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.  
And some have alleged their fear of Scandal and offending others, and pleaded that in bar of their compliance, from these words of the same Apostle, Give none offence, etc.  
How much the sense of the first place is mistaken, and how false the consequence that is made from it is, I am not now obliged to show. My Province at this time is about the second, this place that I have now quoted: in order to which, I intent to do these two things.  

1. Show that this place is not at all concerned in our present Question, nor will serve that purpose that the Dissenters from our Church allege it for.  
2. That if it were, it would conclude against them and their practice, in the present Case betwixt us.   
1. I begin with the first, which is to show, that this place is not concerned in our present Case, nor pertinently urged by our Brethren against their Conformity to the present Rites and Usages of the Church.  
And this I might do, from two things mistaken greatly in the application of this Text.  

1. The true notion of Scandal and Offence here mentioned.  
2. The nature of the things to which it is applied, which is vastly different from what men scruple or forbear in our Case.   
1. From the true notion of Scandal and Offence that is mentioned in this place, and in many other places in the New Testament.  
I do not intent here a large Discourse of the nature of Scandal in the general, or a removing and rectifying those many common mistakes in the world about it; but only to observe so much as will be sufficient to my present purpose.  
1. Then I observe, that as there are only two notions of Scandal in the New Testament, so there are only two Cases in which men are properly and primarily capable of being guilty of it, I mean in giving it to others.  
1. The first notion of Scandal is, That it is a Snare or a Gin, by which men are entrapped and drawn into some plain sin and wickedness. In which sense it is used in many places, and particularly in that famous Speech of our Saviour's, Matth. 18. 6. to 10.  
And men do then give offence, or scandalise others, when they do that which directly and in its own nature tends to induce others either to do that which God hath forbidden, and is a sin; or omit that which he hath commanded, and is a plain Duty: both which men may do several ways, which it is not now so very needful to reckon up singly.  
2. The second notion of Scandal●is, That it is some just cause of grief or trouble to others in their Christian course, and that which hinders them from walking in it with that cheerfulness and security that they otherwise would.  
According to which sense it is rendered Offence in this, and many other Texts of Scripture, i. e. some just cause of offence, of trouble or grief given to another by something that he sees us either omit, or do.  
In this sense it is used in many places of the New Testament, not for that which is a direct occasion of another man's sin, but a just cause of his grief and sorrow, and discouragement in the way of Duty: So it is used particularly, Joh. 16. 1. and Rom. 14. 15. it is expressed by grieving.  
And in this sense men give offence to others, when either by doing, or neglecting something themselves, they give just cause of sorrow or grief to others, and discourage them in their Christian course, and occasion to them some trouble and grief of mind, that otherwise might be free from.  
2. Having observed this therefore, I proceed in the second place to observe, that neither of these notions of Scandal can be accommodated to our present case; nor can we be said to give offence to others, in either of these senses, by conforming to the Institutions and Rites of the Church of England.  
1. Not in the first sense; for that can only be in one, or both of these two cases: either first, by doing that which is essentially and in its own nature evil and a sin; Or secondly, by doing that which is directly a temptation and a snare to induce another to do that which is a sin.  
Now if it can be shown, that complying with the Rites and Service of the Church of England is giving offence in either of these senses, than I here profess, I will myself immediately turn their Proselyte, and renounce Conformity, and protest against it for ever.  
1. It hath scarce ever yet been so much as intimated, that the Church of England requires any thing as a condition of Communion with her, that is essentially evil. None of our adversaries (that I know of) have yet dared to charge her Doctrine with falsehood, or her Discipline with any thing that is in itself evil: And when any shall adventure to do it, I doubt not but he will find enough to enter the lists with him.  
Even our bitterest Enemies of the Romish Communion have dared to charge us no further in either of these, but only that we are defective in both, and reject many things which the Church of Christ (as they pretend) hath believed and practised in the ancient and primitive ages of it.  
They would rather choose to call us Schismatics, than Heretics, or to prove us Heretics; not because we believe or teach any things for necessary Doctrines which are false, but rather because we do not teach or believe all things that are Christian and true.  
Neither do they charge our Liturgy, and Service, or Form of Worship, with any thing that is materially evil, no nor redundant, but only deficient in many Usages and Rites, which they pretend to be Apostolical. And if our own Brethren must be more spiteful and bitter against us than our worst Adversaries, let them look to it, that even they become not their accusers at the great day.  
But yet (thanks be to God) they have not adventured to do this, and will be unsuccessful enough when they do it; and therefore themselves free us from giving any offence in our Conformity, in this sense of giving offence, i. e. doing any thing which is formally a Sin ourselves, and thereby inducing others into the same evil by joining with us.  
2. Neither secondly do I see any one sin, that Conformity is directly introductive of, or a temptation unto; and I will believe it will puzzle the most curious and inquisitive to find out any such.  
I have so much charity for my dear Mother the Church, and so much duty (I thank God) yet left in me, as to dare to justify her from this imputation. I am sure she intends no sin in what she doth, nor known of any evil, that her Communion will betray any man into.  
All that she designs in her Doctrine, is to teach the truth as it is in Jesus, and to keep close to that Symbol of Faith, which was once delivered unto the Saints.  
And what she intends and aims at in her Liturgy and Discipline, is by the one to keep men from innovating and corrupting that Faith, or debauching it in their manners, and detaining it in unrighteousness: And by the other, to direct them to worship God in such a way, as is suitable to his own nature, and to the Principles of such a holy Religion; and thereby conciliate that grace that may enable them to live so, as the Worship of such a God, and the Belief of such a Religion require, and oblige them to do.  
I must confess, in one thing the Church of England may be an occasion of a great deal of sin in the world; but it is such as will as little advantage our Brethren to have it granted, as it will be any disparagement, or disadvantage to be caused by it.  
I mean, in being an occasion of all that in and guilt that all those bring upon themselves, that rail and cry out so much upon it; that separate and divide from it, and studiously maintain and keep up an unreasonable and downright Schism against it.  
But certainly all men will see that this is an offence only taken, and not given; and ought no more to be objected against the Church, than Murder and Adultery, Theft and Robbery ought to be charged upon the Laws of God, that declare the same to be sin. Were there no such thing as the Constitution of a Church, these men would not be guilty of Schism, and unjust Separation from it. But so, if there were no Law, there would be no transgression; and Adulterers may as well accuse the Law for their sin in one case, as Schismatics can accuse the Constitution of the Church in the other. They are both in this case equally culpable, i. e. indeed not at all.  
In a word, and to conclude this Period; if Piety, and becoming expressions of Devotion in the public Worship of God: If Gravity, Decency, and Order in the Offices of Religion; And if engaging men to a due respect and regard to the rules of the Gospel, be sins or evils to be eschewed and dreaded by men; then I will grant that Conformity to the Church of England may possibly give offence (in this sense of giving of it) but if not, I do not see any reason to apprehend or fear any danger at all of it.  
By these considerations it will appear, we are free from giving offence by our Conformity to the Rules of our Church, in this first sense of Scandal and giving Offence.  
2. I proceed therefore now to inquire, if we cannot clear ourselves sufficiently from it in the second notion of these things also.  
And this I think will best and most plainly be determined, by considering what can be thought just cause of sorrow and grief to a good man, or a reasonable discouragement or hindrance to him in his way of Duty. I mean still, cause of these given to him by another.  
Now these, I think, I may reduce pretty safely to these three Heads.  

1. Some dishonour offered to God and his Religion.  
2. The Wickedness and Profaneness of men.  
3. The making the way of Religion and Duty more cumbersome, and difficult than otherwise it would be.   
These are great and just causes of offence and grief to a good man. It cannot but greatly afflict a good man to behold his God (whom he adores, and honours, and loves above all things) affronted and dishonoured, his Laws violated, his Authority contemned and trampled upon by daring and foolish men: Rivers of waters (saith the holy Psalmist) run down mine eyes, because men keep not thy law. Psal. 119. 136.  
And it cannot but be cause of the like sorrow to such a man, to see other men, for whom he hath a great and concerning charity, and whom he loves as his own soul, to live in sin, and a contempt of God, to wound and destroy their precious Souls, and to provide matter for eternal torments.  
And any thing that discourageth a man in the way of his Duty, or renders it more perplexed and troublesome to him, may be justly called an offence or grief to him. I do not easily understand how this kind of offence can properly be said to be given any other, but by some of these ways.  
Now let our debate be determined by these things, and let the issue be, Whether Conformity can be grieving others upon any of these accounts.  
It cannot, I am sure, be said, or at lest nothing like a proof be offered, that we offend men hereby, because we either do any dishonour to God, or to his holy Religion by it: It is much truer, that we bring honour and reputation to both by it.  
To God, by taking the best course we can pitch upon to secure the Solemnity and Decency of his Worship: And to Religion, by taking care that all the great Services of it be performed decently and to edification, and not profaned by the ignorance, or temerity of every bold and unskilful undertaker.  
2. Nor secondly can it be pretended that hereby we let men be spectators of our wickedness and profaneness, and so grieve and make sad the hearts of good men, while they see us without any fear of God before our eyes.  
I have that charity for the modesty and integrity of our Dissenting Brethren, that they will not call our Worship Idolatry, and the service of Baal any longer; though it cannot be dissembled, that a great part of the less-discerning Rabble have been taught by them, so to account and think of it. But if any have been misled into such an Opinion, I would beg them to come, and behold our way of public Worship, for their better conviction.  
3. No, nor thirdly do I see how it can be any offence upon its making the way of Religion and Duty more cumbersome, or difficult to others, than it would be.  
It would be a hard matter for any to show where he is hindered from being good, by seeing others conformable to the Church; or what obstruction that casts in his way of Duty. I will at any time undertake to show, that it may be an help and advantage to him, and a furtherance to him in the way of Religion and Salvation; but let or hindrance it can be none.  
If it be pretended, that by this we make Religion cumbersome, and clog that with Rites and Ceremonies, that is a plain and easy thing; I grant the Objection were reasonable, and the Charge of giving offence undeniable, were it either so as it began to be of old in St. Augustin's time, or is at present in the Roman-Church, clogged with so many antic and garish Ceremonies, that it requires a great deal of study to be an exact Ritualist, and is a thousand times harder to remember, and observe all the Rites and Modes of any Service and Office in Religion, than to do the thing a hundred times over.  
But let me beg men to consider whether this Charge can be just against a Church and its Liturgy, which enjoin but three Ceremonies, against which the Dissenters themselves can object, and these too not in the same, but so many distinct Services, and which are little more than barely determining those circumstances of Habit and Gesture, which are natural and necessary to all our actions.  
If these things can be thought to make the Practice and Services of Religion burdensome, than any of the Postures in which our Brethren perform their Worship will make that so too; and then the Directory will be as chargeable and faulty in this, as the Liturgy.  
These things will be sufficient, upon this first way that I proposed, to show, that conforming to the Institutions of the Church is not concerned in any thing the Apostle speaks in this place, nor can come under his notion of giving offence to any, which he speaks against in it.  
I will not deny, but that some may be offended and troubled at it. It is too visible how much some men are troubled to see a Church constituted among us; to behold it protected by Law and Power, and to see so great a deference and respect paid unto it, and its way of Worship (as blessed be God is at present) by multitudes both of great and good men. I do not doubt but it is greatly maligned and envied by men, and it is little less than a continual trouble and grief to them. It is contrary to their private Interest, and so long as it is so, their designs and aims will never be effected.  
But so ill men are troubled at a good Government; and Thiefs and Robbers may be vexed that Honest men are secured from them; and these may as well cry out, that the Laws and the Government are an offence to them, as others may, that they are offended at the Church and Conformity.  
Sure we know things better than to call every thing a Scandal that any man is vexed or troubled at: If we must acknowledge that an offence, or forbear doing every thing for fear of Scandal, that every ill designing man is pleased to take exceptions against; it is more than probable we must do nothing at all, nor venture to undertake any thing, till we see whether all persons will be pleased with it or not: We must not call every thing an offence that pleaseth not the humour of every man; for than nothing can avoid that character.  
But this is not enough to say in this matter; for it will serve us much further, not only to justify ourselves from this imputation, but to reflect it back upon those that charge us: For when we have well considered things, we shall find, that the Scandal will fall upon our Accusers; and not Conformity, but Separation will be found to be the giving Offence, and that in both the notions of giving it that have been named.  
Separation is indeed the Scandal, as being both an evil in itself, and that which betrays others into many evils.  
If ever there were such a thing as Schism in the world, or if the Separation of the Donatists, or any that were ever made from the Communion of a National Church were a Schism, I think it hath been sufficiently proved on our behalf, that the present Separation from our Church is really a Schism.  
And if Schism be a damnable sin, (and so it is, if we will judge either by the Doctrines of the Apostles, or their best Successors, yea and few sins greater) than we shall need no other argument to prove Separation to be indeed the Scandal, and that in the greatest notion of Scandal too.  
And we sadly see what great mischiefs it is introductive of; what uncharitableness and railing, what pride and censoriousness it betrays men into Schism was scarce ever content to be alone. Men think it not enough to separate from the Communion of the Church, unless they go to justify their Separation, by aspersing what they separated from; and so men are inevitably betrayed into envyings and bitter rail, into strife and contention, and all those evils that such things are naturally productive of.  
And I am sure it is a sore grief and trouble, and an offence (in the second notion of it) to many good men, who cannot but be grieved greatly.  
To see the Institutions of Christ so disregarded, the great Duties and Services of Religion so slighted and neglected; and to behold the Peace and Welfare of the Church (which cost the Saviour of the world so dear, and is so greatly beloved by him) so very little consulted, or rather purposely betrayed.  
To behold men allow themselves (nay glory) in such damnable sins; destroy their Souls by the guilt of them, and wilfully forfeit the benefit of all that Christ hath done, and suffered for them.  
And lastly, to see the way of Religion so perplexed with idle Questions, and made intricate by needless Disputes; and to see so many unreasonable Controversies started, and such eager Quarrels amongst Christians, which the best men sometimes have much ado to weather, and get over so as they should do.  
These are the things that make many sad, and aching hearts among those whom God hath not made sad, and these are the effects of the sad Divisions and Separations among us. These therefore are the Scandal, and the things that so much offend, and these are the Divisions for which there are such search of heart at this day.  
I would to God some men would seriously consider things, they might then possibly begin to reflect upon themselves and their own actions, and perhaps see cause to take some part of that reproach upon themselves, which they are pleased so prodigally to cast upon us.  
2. But I have another thing yet, to show the error of applying this Speech of the Apostle to our case: For as there is a mistake in the notion of Scandal and Offence, so there is too, in those things to which the giving offence here relates; and they are vastly different from those things in the Church, that we conform unto, by which the offence is pretended to be given.  
The difference I mean is this; that however they may be things in their own nature equally indifferent, yet the supervening command from lawful Authority may make a vast difference between them. Those things to which this Text relates, were indifferent, and undetermined too, no humane Law had taken cognizance of them; but the Institutions or Ceremonies of the Church, in which it is pretended we give offence, are things already determined by the Laws of men, and such as a lawful Authority hath bound us to the practice of.  
I shall not need to have any controversy, I hope, with any about the nature of them; nor will any of the tragical Outcries against them prove them essentially evil. Though some men have been taught to call them Rags of Rome, Instances of Superstition, and Relics of Idolatry; these are words of course, and arts of railing, which proclaim indeed the rancour and malice of some men's spirits, but do not change the nature of things. And certainly a stranger that should hear all this outcry, and at last find the things declaimed so against are but pure Modes and Circumstances of things, he would either greatly question the judgement and honesty of some men; or at least conclude, that a little thing will serve those men to quarrel with, that are resolved either to find faults, or to make them.  
2. Nor secondly shall I need here to dispute whether such things may be enjoined by a lawful Authority in the Service of God: This hath been done fully already by a more learned hand; to which I have nothing here to add, but that our Brethren, and all the several denominations of them, do the same thing themselves, and sufficiently confute their own Objection. So hard is it for them to frame any argument against us, which may not like a two-edged weapon wound themselves.  
And time was, when some of them found it sadly true; the Arguments that they had used against the Church of England, others galled their own sides with; and they were forced to think those answers good for them, which they will not allow to be so for us against them. And what dealing that is, I leave others to judge!  
3. No nor thirdly do I think it worth the while, to stay to answer that trifling Objection, That this command of men altars the nature of the things; and sure the Church of England thinks them more than Indifferent, or else it would not lay so much weight upon them, nor make so very great a stir about them.  
It is a great mistake, to think that the commanding of things indifferent makes any alteration in the nature of them; it altars them indeed with respect to us and our practice, but the things remain the same; and the Church commands them as things fitting to be done, but Indifferent still in their nature; and so the Church of England declares them to be, after her commanding them: And her public Declarations and Rubrics sufficiently acquit her from all such thought; and if men will not believe her own Protestations, but still pretend that she believes contrary to what she solemnly professeth, it is but another instance of some men's ingenuity and candour towards her, and needs not be counted strange in this Age.  
Nor is her standing so stiff (as men speak) for these things, any argument of her thinking otherwise of them: for however a Ceremony be in itself a small thing, yet Faction and Disobedience is a great one, and aught with all care to be suppressed; and that Church needs not be blamed for its sharpness against Dissensions about these, which hath already by sad experience found, that gratifying Faction in these, hath in the issue been the utter overthrow of her whole Constitution.  
If any Church may be excused in this, certainly this may, which hath already felt the smart of Indulging in them; and cannot but be concerned, when it sees the same practices pursued again; and that too, by those very men who trampled upon her with so much cruelty and scorn in the late time of her visitation.  
The beginning of strife (saith Solomon) is as when one letteth out a River: and so we have found Faction in these things to be also; and therefore no wonder if the wisdom of the Church apply itself with so much care, and quickness to obstruct the smallest beginnings in that, as men do to repair the least breach in those Banks, which keep in the waters of the other.  
4. Nor fourthly do I think I have any pertinent occasion here to assert the obligation of humane Laws, or to dispute whether they oblige the Consciences of men in things that God hath left undetermined: We need but consult Scripture for this, which will be plain, so long as the 13 Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and the first Epistle of St. Peter shall remain in the Canon, and not be expunged utterly by those men, that truly would not be much more injurious to it in this instance, than they are in some others.  
But were there no Scripture for it, I suppose we should not need to dispute it with any men, that ever are in Authority. There are few of these that will permit their own Authority to be disputed, or Conscience pleaded against it, by their Children or Servants, or those that they have the conduct of.  
And we are beholding to our Brethren for letting us know their minds in this: For no men have been more rigorous in exacting obedience to all their Ordinances, and reproaching and punishing all that dissented from them, as Enemies to God and Christ, than they know who in times past were.  
Never were Institutions of men magnified more for promoting the honour of God, exalting the Kingdom and Sceptre of Christ, nor men charged more strictly in point of Conscience with obedience to them. So that the crying out against becoming the servants of men, is but an artifice to pull down Government, which when men have once leapt into, they will by no means endure to be used against themselves.  
5. But that which I am more directly concerned here to show is, that the things related to in this Text were not only indifferent, but undetermined too: I mean, no Law had been made by the Church about them one way or other. The truth of which it concerns me to make out, not only to serve my present purpose, but because it may be something questioned, from what we read Acts 17. 29. where among the Canons of that Apostolic Council, this is the first; That ye abstain from meats offered to Idols: which seems to be the very thing that the Apostle is discoursing of in this place.  
And first, it cannot be denied, that in the beginning of the Apostles Discourse upon these things, from v. 14. to v. 25. the same things are related unto, that are prohibited by that Canon of the Council; i. e. the eating in the Idolatrous Feasts of the Heathen, and of those meats which they knew were by that Rite offered in Sacrifice unto their Idols. For the Heathen Sacrifices were not finished only at their Altar, but the Solemnity was continued and completed by their eating and drinking together upon the remainders of what they had actually offered and consumed in Sacrifice: Just as some of the Jewish Sacrifices (we know) were, from whom the Heathen transcribed many of their practices, aping them in almost all their Institutions.  
2. But than secondly, that which he takes occasion to discourse of afterwards, and to which this Speech immediately relates, seems to be very different from what he had been speaking of before, and which is the thing prohibited by the Council of the Apostles.  
Which will appear sufficiently, from these two Considerations.  
1. That the Apostle here takes upon him a liberty to indulge a Latitude in these things; which be sure he would never have done, had it been in that very Case, that the Apostles had determined before.  
And this we may be the more certain of, by considering the circumstances of that whole affair, which (so much as concerns our present business) was briefly thus: The Jewish Converts retained a great veneration for the Ceremonial Law, to which they had been enured, and educated in the observation of: these being interspersed abroad in many places, where many of the Heathens were converted to Christianity, were greatly offended with that liberty, which they saw the others took in the use of those meats which their Law prohibited as unclean.  
This caused hot Contests, and sharp Disputes between the two Parties, to the breach of Christian Communion, and the great Scandal of their Religion. The Apostles therefore are consulted in this great affair; and having maturely considered, and canvassed the matter, determine only to restrain the liberty that the Gentile-Converts took, in these three instances: To abstain from things offered to Idols, and from things Strangled, and from Blood.  
St. Paul, as he was the Apostle of the Gentiles, so he was the great Agent for them in this business, and the chief person that carried these Constitutions of the Apostles unto their Churches; of which at this time the Church of Corinth was one principal, and most considerable.  
Now it is not to be supposed that the Apostle would carry this Constitution and Order to them, which they so joyfully and thankfully embraced (saith St. Luke) and afterwards presently would take upon him to dispense with the strict observation of, and to grant a great Indulgence and Latitude in.  
This would be the ready way to expose himself and his Doctrine too, to contempt and censure, and to give cause for a sharper reproof of himself, than he gave to St. Peter, for a lesser matter than this was.  
So that we may be sure, the particular matter here related unto, was not the Case which the Canon of the Apostles had regulated, but that it was some other thing which had not been determined by them.  
2. And this we may collect also from the Phrase in which he discourseth this matter here in this Text: Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, ask no question for Conscience sake, v. 25. and, If any of them that believe not, bid you to a feast, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, invite you to an entertainment [for there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek] and ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, eat, ask no question for conscience sake, v. 27.  
By both which expressions it is plain, that the Apostle here is discoursing of another matter than what was enjoined by the Canon, or at least of the same thing under a very different denomination and circumstance from that it is considered in there. For meat bought in the Shambles, and eating in the common entertainments of their Heathen Neighbours, are plainly different from the notion of things offered to Idols, taken notice of by the Canon.  
And this whole matter will be made plain, by giving an account of it, and showing wherein the things offered to Idols intended by the Apostles, and those discoursed of by the Apostle in this place do differ.  
The things offered to Idols, forbidden by that Council were such, part whereof was not only offered in Sacrifice, but was solemnly eaten afterwards as the Idols meat; and the whole Feast continued as a solemn act of Religion and Sacrifice, (as we know it was) and performed not only as a Rite of confederating with the Idol, but of being more closely united unto him, and receiving a divine afflatus, and influence from him.  
And although the Idol to which this was done, was really nothing, and the whole performance a mere vanity, having no real foundation at all in nature, and so possibly these meats might have been safely partaken of, by those that were well instructed, and knew these things: Yet the Apostles thought fit to forbid them, for the forementioned reason of giving offence to the Jews; and St. Paul enlargeth their reason in this Chapter; because it was a confederating with Devils, and being partakers at the table of Devils, which he condemns as hugely unbecoming them that eat at the Lords Table, vers. 20, 21.  
Grotius is so exact in this matter, as to tell us there were two ways by which men might eat of things sacrificed to Idols, in the sense that the Apostles mean.  
1. Vel aliquid a Tabulâ, &c▪ i. e. when at their public Feasts they sent some part off the Table to be offered solemnly to the Idol, and to entitle him to the whole Feast.  
2. Vel ab Aris ad Mensam defertis; or when they took some considerable portion from the Altar, and fed upon it at the Table, as part of the Idols portion, as was hinted before.  
Now for the Christians to be present at, and to partake of these things, was that which the Apostles forbidden in that Canon; and which St. Paul also is so sharp upon, from 14 to 24 of this Chapter.  
But that which he speaks of afterwards, is vastly different from it, and plainly means, either that part of the Offering which they afterwards spent in their ordinary meals, or which was publicly sold afterwards in the Shambles.  
The first of these is easily understood, and was common among them, to offer some part of the Sacrifice to their Idols, and to reserve the rest for their own common use; not looking upon it as sacred, and the Idols portion, as in some great and solemn Sacrifices they did; but that which was truly their own, and at their own disposal, especially having given a part of it to their Gods.  
The other, i e. what was sold in the Shamble●, Critics give two accounts of:  
1. It was either that which the Butcher sold, part of which he himself had offered to the Idol, before he brought the rest to the Shambles. Vel à Màcellario, qui ante quam ad marcellum carnes ferret, aliquid de Aram in dedisset.  
2. Or that part which belonged to the Priests, and which they often sold; having (its probable) either more than they could spend themselves; or perhaps having a mind to exchange it for other meat, which they might purchase with the money they sold it for. Vel à Sacerdotibus, qui partes quae ipsis cederent, venderent, saith the same Author.  
Now these were the meats about which the Apostles had made no order at all. So that men were at their liberty to buy and eat them if they pleased, without ask any questions, or troubling themselves with any scruples of Conscience about them.  
And which the Apostle commands them to abstain then only from, when knowing what they were, their eating them might wound the Conscience of another, and they might give offence thereby either to the Jews. or to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God. To the Jews, by seeing them make so little a matter of Idolatry: to the Gentiles, by encouraging and confirming them in that Idolatry, which they ought by all means to seek to wean them from: and to the Church of God, by seeing them so careless and regardless of the good and benefit of others, and without all charity to them.  
By all which I hope it is sufficiently clear, that these things to which this Speech relates, were not only indifferent in their nature, but undetermined also as to their use, no Law having passed one way or other upon them.  
Now this makes them vastly different from the things scrupled among us, and by conformity to which Offence is pretended to be given: For the use of these is already determined, and several Laws both of the Church and State, both of the Spiritual and Temporal power, have passed upon them.  
So that how indifferent soever they may be in themselves, yet it is not indifferent to us whether we observe them or not; but it is now matter of Obedience, and plain Duty; and these things are tied upon the Conscience, as strongly as any matter of humane command is or can be.  
And therefore in these we cannot show favour and indulgence to others if we would; for we ourselves are under Authority, and bound up by the Laws of those above us. We have not the power of doing or forbearing, nor can we now abstain for fear of offending another man's Conscience, without grievously wounding and worse offending of our own; and whatever may be the consequence of our Conformity, as to another man, yet we certainly Know, the neglect of it will be a downright sin, and a grievous guilt unto ourselves.  
So that in this matter the fear of giving offence to others is impertinent, a Snare, and a direct Temptation; and as improperly urged against Conformity, as it would be against any other Duty how necessary soever, to tell us that there are a great many men that will be offended with our doing of it. In this and all such cases, we stand immediately responsible unto God, and may justly retort that so much abused and mistaken Apology of the Apostles, Whether it be not right to obey God, rather than regard men, judge ye.  
2. But there is a second thing yet incumbent upon me, and that is to show, that supposing the Text were pertinently urged against Conformity, and there were a real possibility of giving offence by it, yet it would not serve that purpose that it is produced for by our Dissenting Brethren, but on the contrary make very much against them.  
And this I shall endeavour to make good, by considering who the persons are that the Apostle here cautions us against giving offence unto; not only the Jews, nor only the Gentiles, nor both these only, but the Church of God.  
From whence, before I come to the main Improvement of this place against the purpose and practice of our Dissenting Brethren, we may take occasion to consider what the object of Scandal is, and who they are that men ought especially to regard in their cares not to give it.  
At the time of the Apostles writing this, there were three different sorts of men that might be offended with eating things offered to Idols: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the body of Christians, which he here calls the Church of God.  
In analogy to which, there are, and always will be, different Parties among which men converse: Upon which account it will concern us to inquire, what our respects to them in this matter ought to be, and whether we ought to make any difference among them. And this we may resolve ourselves in, by considering the Cases that concern us; which I think are only these two.  
1. When we perceive, or have reason to think, that what we are going to do will offend all Parties equally, than no doubt but we ought to forbear it. This was plainly the case here.  
The Jews might be prejudiced against Christianity by this practice, seeing its Professors make so little a matter of Idolatry, which their Law so strictly prohibited, and God had always declared himself so severe against.  
The Gentiles might be encouraged and confirmed in their Idolatry, by seeing men of the most holy Religion (as they called themselves) consent with them in it.  
And the Church might be offended too, by seeing her Members have so little a regard to her Constitutions, and the plain Canons of her great Founders.  
And therefore they ought to be extremely careful and cautious what they did in this nice point; and so ought we always to be in such cases.  
2. But secondly, it may so happen, that what we do may only offend some. These different Parties may have different apprehensions of the same thing. Some may think it lawful, or a Duty; others may scruple it, or condemn it as a sin. Now in this case it will concern us to consider how we ought to govern ourselves, and our actions, and what difference to make in our respects to men.  
And the Apostles Rule in this Text, will be a safe measure and direction to us, especially it Ecumenius his Note be true, as it commonly is in all places where a Climax or Gradation is used, as it seems plainly to be in this place: His words are these; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. consider what the Apostle saith, how he puts the chief thing last, and makes giving offence to the Church of God that which especially we ought to have a care of: and he gives this reason for the equity of this Rule, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. it concerns us to endeavour to win others unto the Faith, but by no means to offend and grieve those that already profess it. And certainly nothing can be more just and reasonable than this is.  
So that the sum of this advice is plainly this; You ought, as near as you can, to do nothing to offend any; but however, take care not to offend the Church: You ough to have a charitable respect to all particular persons, of what denomination soever, whether Jews or Gentiles; but especially to the Church, and never to give offence to that by any thing that you do.  
Now this will be a clear guide to us in our present case: and not only acquit Conformity, from all guilt of Scandal, but cast it wholly upon Separation, and refusing to comply with the present Constitutions of the Church, since that is a direct giving offence to those which the Apostle chief respects in this prohibition, i. e. the Church of God.  
I stay not now to give the notion of the Church: I doubt not but all contending Parties understand that competently well.  
Nor to prove the present national Church of England to be justly called the Church of God: this (God be thanked) is fully done, against both the opposite Factions against her; those that call her Heretical or Schismatical, on one hand; and those that reproach her as Popish and Antichristian, on the other.  
Were her present Constitutions to be tried by Apostolical and Primitive practice; her Faith to be judged by that of the first Centuries, and four most truly General-Councils; or her Liturgy and Discipline, her Rites, Ceremonies, and way of public Worship, to be compared with what we can collect and judge of those purest times: Or were she to stand or fall by the judgement and suffrages of the most able and learned of Protestant Divines abroad since the Reformation; she would not only be justified, but commended; not only pass for a true and sound part of Christ's Church, but the most sound and Orthodox, the most truly Primitive and Apostolical of any at this day on the face of the earth.  
But I wave all this, and proceed to apply this Advice and Rule of St. Paul to our own Case, as it is at this day, with respect to Scandal, and the danger of it, by conforming to the Church; which is plainly this.  
The Church of England having reform itself from those Corruptions that had sullied the truth and beauty of Christian Doctrine and Worship; not by Noise and Tumult, and popular Faction, which too much influenced some foreign Reformations, but upon grave and sober advice, with the concurrence of the lawful Civil Power; digested her Doctrinals into such a number of Articles, as she judged most consonant to the Faith and Doctrine of the Apostles and first Councils: established such a Form of Worship, as upon most diligent enquiry and search, she found most agreeable to the practice of pure and Primitive Ages; and retained only such Rites and Usages as she found most ancient, and freest from any just and reasonable Exceptions and Abuses.  
All these thus constituted and framed, she imposeth as Conditions of her Communion, and requires Conformity unto of all her Members. She will be grievously offended if any of her Children reject, and comply not with this Constitution, as knowing her Knowledge and Integirty questioned, her Authority despised, and that Power that hath confirmed all this, contemned by so doing.  
On the other hand, there are some particular men, some Heretics, some Schismatics, some either designing or less instructed persons, that declare themselves offended by conforming to this Constitution.  
The question now is, how we shall govern ourselves, and which of these Considerations we will permit to sway us: Whether respect to the Church and just Authority, and fear of giving offence thereto, shall engage us to conform; or whether respect to some private persons, and fear of offending and angering them, shall cause us to cast off all regard to those Laws and Constitutions, and all care to comply with them.  
This is the plain Case; and were there no other Considerations to determine us, (when yet there are many) I would desire nothing plainer than the direction of the Apostle in this Text; where he tells us, that the persons we ought chief to have a care not to give offence unto, are the Church of God. If some private persons and the Church come in competition, and we must needs offend some, we ought to have a greater respect to the Church, than unto them. And were it truly giving them offence, (which yet it is not) yet were it so, I say, we ought not to attend so to that Consideration, as to cast off all regard and care to the Church of Christ.  
This (I think) is a Rule so very reasonable at the very hearing of, and so fair upon its own reasons, that I do not know whether it be really worth while to go to add any strength to it: We might venture it to its own strength to stand or fall, and may challenge any one to assault or undertake it.  
Yet however, I shall proceed to enlarge a little more upon it, and to add some Considerations which may make it something more popularly plain and convincing.  
1. And first, I desire to have it fairly considered, whether we ought not to have at least as fair a respect to the Church of God, as to any private persons, of what character or denomination soever.  
I do not see upon what reasons any person can deny this to me, especially in a case where we cannot charge the Church with any plain degeneracy, or open Apostasy from the Doctrine or Practice of the Scriptures.  
When any particular Church degenerates plainly either in Doctrine or Worship, there I am not concerned to determine how far she forfeits all that respect that she might otherwise claim from men, nor how much the Credit of a single person may vie with her. Perhaps when the Church was degenerated into Arrianism, the judgement of Athanasius, and some few other Bishops, was more to be regarded than that of a whole Synod; and in the horrid Apostasy of the Roman Church, perhaps the single Doctrine of John Huss was preferable to that of the whole Council of Constance. But still in both these Cases (or any other parallel ones) that respect derived itself not from their persons, but was wholly owing to truth, and the holy Scriptures that stood with them.  
But blessed be God, this is not our case; our Church doth challenge and triumph over all charges of any such Apostasy; and all the disputes and contests with her by any of these men, are about things confessedly doubtful, and such as are in their own nature indifferent: things about which (to say the least) it is as possible that single persons may err and mistake, as it is for the Church; unless in this also (as in many other instances) men fall in with the grossest Tenet in Popery, that single persons may more reasonably pretend to Infallibility than the whole Church.  
Every man derides, and thinks he can baffle all the pretences of the Bishop of Rome to Infallibility, and therefore should blush and be ashamed of his own either arrogating it to himself, or ascribing it to another. For, the truth is, I do not see but his pretences are as just as another man's, i e. indeed they are both monstrously unreasonable.  
And yet alas this is not the least source of the unhappiness of this Age; nor need I be condemned for staying a little while to drop a tear upon it. Men turn Dictator's in Religion, and impose their own Dreams as magisterially upon their Followers, as if they were oracular; and I am persuaded, their Disciples hang as much upon their single authority and confidence, and yield as absolute and implicit Faith to all their Doctrines, as ever any poor Papists, against whom they exclaim so tragically for blind Obedience and Faith: They are kept in as absolute subjection to their placits, and dare no more read and consult Books that are written to inform them, than a poor Papist dare let a prohibited Book be seen in his House, by a Father of the Inquisition.  
If ever people followed their leaders blindfold, these men do: they will not hear any thing against them; They have their persons in admiration; and I wish I could not say of some, for filthy lucre's sake, or at least some mean reasons equivalent thereto. They will not so much as submit to means of Information; they commonly say they are satisfied already; and the single blustering of one of their own Rabbis, shall signify more with them, than all the Arguments of the most Learned and sober men living beside.  
But I am insensibly drawn aside from my chief Subject, which is not to treat so much of a respect of Credit and Faith, as of Tenderness and Charity; which is certainly as justly due from us to the Church, as to any private persons whatsoever; and it cannot but be as unreasonable to fail in the one, as in the other. It is every whit as unjust for men to be more regardless of grieving and troubling the Church of Christ, as it is foolish and unreasonable to set up one single man's opinion against that of many others, that are in the same circumstances and advantages of Knowledge, and every way both as knowing and as upright as himself.  
Whatever considerations there are to determine our Charity to single persons, there are the same (at least) to make it necessary towards the Church, and as strong reasons to restrain us from offending the one, as the other: Whatever becomes an Argument in one case, is equally so also in the other; and if it be not as effectual with us, we are partial in the Law, and distinguish without any reasons, but those of our own partial and unjust respects.  
Let men be pleased to look into the Scriptures, and consult the practices of our Lord himself, or his Apostles after him, and their thoughts will soon be resolved in this matter; they will find the one calling for as much deference and respect to the Church, as to private persons, and the other upon all occasions as careful to pay it; and in all cases extremely careful not to give offence to it in any thing whatsoever; as were easy to show in Instances enough that are plain and obvious to all that read, and can scarce pass unobserved by any.  
This is the first Consideration; and I appeal to all, if it be not a very easy Postulatum, a very modest and reasonable intimation: and yet (I assure you) it were a good point gained, and a very good step towards our peace, were men hearty in their concessions of it. Would men pay but the same deference to the Church of Christ, and her Constitutions, as they readily do to their own single Opinions, or the confident suggestions of some admired Leader, we might quickly hope to see some end of our Questions and Disputes: And would they be but as tender of giving any offence to the Public, as they are of doing so to every little person of their own party, we might begin to hope, that the Constitutions of our Church might gain some respect, and some measure of peaceableness and modesty bless the Inhabitants of this Nation once more.  
2. But this is too little to suggest, and the lesser part of what I would propose to consideration upon this Subject: and therefore in the second place, I desire it may be considered, whether we ought not to have a greater respect to the Church of God, than to any single or private persons whatsoever.  
And truly I think this is as reasonable a Postulatum as the other, and that which will be as soon granted true by all that duly consider things. In all things whatsoever, the Public requires more respect from us than any private person; and the welfare of the one, is to be preferred by us before that of the other.  
If the Church of Christ and any private Party of men come in competition, and it so happen, that we probably may give offence to one, we ought to let our regard to the Church sway and determine us, and think it a less evil that some particular persons be offended, than that trouble or offence be given to the whole Church.  
That saying of Caiaphas, recorded Joh. 11. 50. though spoken with an unjust and barbarous design, yet is a certain and rational truth: It is expedient that one man suffer, and not the whole Nation perish: And it is certainly a less evil to grieve or offend some private persons, than to trouble and disturb, and endanger the Constitution of the whole Church; which we must needs do, if at every private persons pleasure, we take upon us a liberty to dispense with the Commands and Institutions of it.  
And this is a Rule that not only all wise Nations, but even all men still act by, in Cases that are any way like to this.  
All Nations prefer the Public good before the Private: and think it much better, that some single persons suffer inconvenience, than that the Public be endangered; and have ever set the worst Characters upon those men, that have sacrificed the good of their Country to their own private Ambition and Revenge; and never regarded what Confusion and Mischief thus bring upon it, so they may please and gratify their own Passions. All the world hath ever hated and reproached these as Monsters of men, and I hope we in time shall learn to do so also.  
Nay, we see nothing more common among the wisest Nations, than to punish single persons for the correction and good of the whole; and many times to cut off those, whose crimes in their own nature were not so great, and who seemed fairly capable of mercy, only to be Examples and Warnings to others, and to deter them from any thing by which the Public might be endangered, and which were but the least steps to the dissolution of its Government,  
And we shall see all men act by this Rule too, in their own concerns, even any of our dissenting Brethren themselves. They do not suffer every particular person to neglect, and speak against their establishments, but choose rather to punish and molest them, than endanger their whole Constitution.  
And they prefer their own Body, and the health of it, before any particular Member: they readily gash and cut one, to save all; yea, and will have a putrid and mortified Member taken off, rather than it shall endanger the good of the whole Body. So true is it, that the more Public good aught to be preferred to the more private, and that all men naturally yield a greater respect to the whole Society, than they do to any single Member of it.  
And that the same Rule ought to be observed by us in our present Case of giving Offence, I shall endeavour to make evident, both by plain Warrant of Scripture, and by some proper Considerations, which all men allow the reasonableness of in other cases.  
1. I begin first with searching what warrant for this we can find in holy Scripture, either in the Precepts and Directions of it, or in the Lives and Actions of those who are proposed there to our imitation.  
And first, as for Precept and Direction, I think that of St. Paul, Gal. 6. 10. to be very plain, and a firm foundation for what I am upon: As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those of the household of faith. Where it is plain, the Apostle not only allows, but enjoins us to make a difference in our Charity, and to show this upon all occasions, rather to the household of Faith, (i. e. to the Church of God) than to any other person or persons whatsoever.  
This place is full, and directly comes up to our present Case, and the pretences made about it: For Charity is as direct and plain a duty, as the not giving offence; it is as strictly enjoined as the other; and the neglect of Charity is as severely threatened, as the giving Offence is, or can be: And yet for all this, when the Church of Christ, and any other persons whatever, come in competition, and are Candidates for our Charity, we ought to show it unto that, and not unto these. And the same reasons that determine thus our Charity, will determine as well our care of not giving Offence; especially since this is a proper and principal act of Charity, and no one (that I know of) more so.  
This will be a sufficient answer to all the tragical stories of the sin of Scandal, and the great necessity of not giving it to any.  
We are expressly charged not to give Offence, and so we are expressly charged above all things to put on Charity.  
In giving Offence, we must have a regard to the meanest person in the Church, and a woe is denounced against him that offends a little one. And so we are in charity commanded too, and a woe threatened to him that shuts up his bowels of Compassion from the meanest servant of God. Yea, this is commanded even to the creatures below us.  
And yet for all this, we must prefer the Church before all others; and if it should so happen, that Charity could not be showed unto both, we ought to determine our respects and Charity to the Church, and to suspend the acts of it unto the others; and must do so too in our Charity of not offending or grieving the Church, unless some disproportion could be showed in this from the other acts of Charity, or some reasons here to alter the case; which, I am very sure, cannot. This place alone, if there were none others, sufficiently determines this Case.  
And that we are warranted also by the Precedents of the New Testament to act by this Rule, the actions of those great men whose lives are there recorded for our imitation, do show us.  
The Life of our blessed Saviour is a good example for us in this, as well as in all other instances of duty that are incumbent on us: We find him in every thing paying a mighty deference to the Church of the Jews, and studiously avoiding to give any displeasure or offence unto them; and this in many things which they themselves had introduced, without any express Warrant or Command from God; as were easy to show, and hath been by many learned men of late.  
But there is one instance which comes pretty well up to our present case; and that is his paying Tribute, of which you have the story, Matth. 17. 27. there is no doubt but by this he might give some offence (in this lose notion of offence) i. e. occasion some trouble in his followers, by owning himself a stranger, and paying Tribute as such; nevertheless he chose to do that, rather than to give any offence to the Public: Notwithstanding, that we offend them not, etc.  
Whether the persons he was so careful here not to offend were the Roman Government, or the Church of the Jews, it is all one to our present Case. If it were the Church of the Jews, than we see he was more careful not to offend them than his own Followers. But if it were the Government of the Romans, it concludes more strongly for us and for our present Case, where the Government is Christian, and that of the Church and of the Kingdom one and the same; where we cannot offend the Church, but we must offend the Government and Civil Power too, under whose protection and favour it is established, and whose Canons it hath adopted into its own Laws.  
After this great example, I proceed to take notice of some that we find registered in the life of St. Paul to the like purpose. I instance only in two, which will be sufficient.  
The first was his circumcising Timothy, of which you have the story, Acts 16. 1, 2, 3. It is certain, Timothy might have objected against Circumcision, and pleaded his freedom from any obligation to it, being the Son of a Grecian Father; and there is no reason to doubt but it must be irksome and troublesome to him: yet for all that, St. Paul hath greater respect to the Church of the Jews in those parts, which might be offended, had he not been circumcised, his Mother being a Jew.  
The other is that famous story of St. Paul's shaving his head and purifying himself in the Temple with the men that had a vow upon them, just according to the manner prescribed in the Levitical Law: you have the account of it Acts 21. from 23, to 27.  
I do not at all question, but this action of St. Paul must be strangely looked upon at first by Trophimus, and those other Heathen Converts that came with him to Jerusalem, who knowing his Doctrine, and manner of conversation abroad, could scarce choose but reflect with some trouble upon this action; and the truth is, it was a plain temptation to them to have some hard thoughts of him. Yet notwithstanding this, St. Paul preferred his respect to the Church of Jerusalem, and chose rather to incur this censure of theirs, than to give any offence to the Church of Christ which was there.  
From which example a great advantage may be drawn, not only to direct us what regard to have to the Church of God in general, above any private persons; but even to a National or Local Church, which is but a member and part of Christ's Church, and from which, the constitution of other Churches as to Customs and Usages may be different.  
St. Paul might have pleaded strongly against this thing, to which St. James advised him, especially upon the account of offence to those that were with him, and to others from whom he came; yet for all this, his respect to the present Church where he was, and his care not to offend it, overcame all other considerations, and caused him readily to do that, which neither they were greatly pleased with, nor himself in all probability neither.  
Which hath often brought to my mind, the Apostolical temper of St. Ambrose, in that famous answer of his to St. Austin's Mother, which he magnifies so highly for Oracular and Divine; That at Milan he did not observe the Sabbath-fast, because it was not the usage of his Church; but at Rome he did, because it was the custom there: advising her in all such things, to make the custom of the present Church her Precedent and Rule, and by no means to give any offence to it.  
By both which notable Examples, we may learn by what measure to govern ourselves in these things; namely, a respect to the Usages and Constitutions of the present Church we are in, provided they be not sinful, and plainly contrary to any Law of God: for of such things I am speaking all this while, and about such things it is that our present dispute about giving offence is by both sides acknowledged to be.  
I only add one thing more, before I leave this Precedent, That if we ought to have this great and overruling respect to any National Church of Christ, to which we chance to come, and in which we sojourn, we certainly ought much more to have the same to our own National Church, in which we not only live, but were born and baptised Members of; and therefore suffer our regard to it to overrule all other respects to private persons that may interfere with it.  
These things might be enough to assure the reasonableness of the present Consideration; and I do not see what can well be objected against them.  
2. And yet I shall proceed to some Popular Considerations here also, which are owned for sound and good Rules to act by in all other like Cases, by all sorts of men; and which, when applied in our Case, will presently determine it our concern and duty, to have greater care not to give offence to the Church of God, than to any private persons.  
Four of these I shall just mention, and leave to take effect by our leisurely consideration of them.  
1. That offending the Church, is offending the greater party: I hope, I may say, not only greater than any other single denomination of men, but than all of them together.  
I know how forward each party hath been to boast its number, and some to threaten Authority with their strength; and to that purpose, to make false musters, and great shows; to crowd together upon all occasions, and to make it piacular for one to be absent, when either the Party or the Cause was to be credited.  
But thanks be to God, that we have public evidences now, and of late, that the Church-party is not so small and inconsiderable as some men would have it thought to be.  
It is true, honest men are not apt to be noisy and tumultuous; the sense of their own Integrity satisfieth them, and the assurance that they are known to God, is to them more than Ten thousand witnesses. They do not use to boast of themselves, nor court greatly man's observance; they keep their station, and use not to run from place to place; an art by which the same man may appear ten or twenty; and this perhaps hath made some good men fearful, and some others confident: But thanks be to God, they know one another better now, and have signalised their numbers to material purposes.  
Now this aught to be a swaying consideration with all scrupulous persons in this case. In all others, it is thought safest to offend the lesser party, supposing them but in the same circumstances with others: And when a Dissenter considers that by Conforming, he can but offend some few of his own small party, or at most but some few of others, but by his Separation shall certainly offend the whole Church, methinks it should soon teach him which side of the Question to choose.  
Unless those few must be counted the only wise, and the only good, the sober and the godly party; and the whole Church be disparaged, as consisting only of ignorant and lose, silly and dissolute persons.  
When, blessed be God, plain experience contradicts both, and shows them to be equal at least to their supercilious accusers, both for knowledge and virtue; and there is nothing to make them appear otherwise, but only the Pride and Uncharitableness of some men, whose interest it is to have them believed to be so. But Wisdom is justified in her Children.  
2. Offending the Church of Christ must needs be of worse consequence than offending any private party of men. I need not stay to remark each single instance in which this is evident, every man's reason will suggest enough to him.  
Neither God, nor Religion, can be so much concerned in the one, as in the other; nor can the Souls of men, or the peace of the World, be so much endangered by private offences, as by those against the public Church: men's guilts are higher and more injurious to themselves, and the effects are more dangerous and mischievous to others: which is another good consideration to sway men in this case.  
For a wise man will weigh the probable effects of what he doth; and where an honest and uninstructed man is uncertain whether he may do or forbear such things, and after his enquiry remains scrupulous and unresolved, it is a good means to determine himself by, to consider as well as he can what the effects and consequences of what he is going to do or forbear, in all likelihood will be; and that which he sees attended with a train of the worse, and more mischievous consequences, disargues itself, and pronounceth its own condemnation: And by these effects he may make as true a difference, as if the plain essence and nature of the things were naked unto his view.  
3. Offending the Church of God, is offending those to whom we own more duty than we do unto any private party whatsoever.  
I confess, charity and respect, and all the possible ininstances of it, we own to every private person with whom we converse, and to whom we are any way related; and God hath made all this, matter of plain duty.  
But it is a great deal more than this, that we own those that are over us in the Lord, and his whole Church; even as much more as we own of deference and Duty, of Obedience and Submission to a Father and a Governor, and those that God and Nature hath set above us, above that common Charity and Duty that we are to owe to one that is in all respects our equal.  
The Laws of all Nations consider us under greater obligations to our Parents, and to our Country, than to any single persons whatsoever; and make injuring of a Father or our Prince, more heinous than doing the same to a common person upon the same level with us.  
And I am sure the Laws of God, and Religion too, considering us as Members of the Church, and calling the Governors of it our Fathers in Christ, let us know what great duty we own to them; and of how much greater guilt it must needs be, to offend them, than our Fellow-christian, or any Party in which we can be engaged. There is a complication of sins and guilt in the one, when there is but the breach of common charity in the other.  
I deny not but men may join themselves to such a Party, and make another man their Guide, and commit themselves to the Conduct of him, and thereby oblige themselves to more duty than they own to others. But this is duty of their own choice, and the failure in it a sin of their own causing; and doth no more supersede their original and primer obligations, which God and Nature had laid on them, than the being faithful to a company of Banditi will excuse disloyalty to our Prince and Country; or than giving a gift to the Corban among the Jews, would atone undutifulness to a wanting Parent.  
However men may divide themselves from the Church, of which Providence and Religion have made them Members, and enter themselves into separate Factions; yet they must remember that they own duty to it still; that no voluntary and second Compacts of their own, can dissolve their primitive Obligations; or their care to continue faithful to the one, expiate their regardless offending of the other: for they do owe more duty to the one than to the other; what they pretend to owe to one, is contracted by themselves; but what they own to the other, is bound on them by the sacred and strong ties of Religion and Providence.  
And this is another good Argument to determine a scrupulous person in this matter: If he be in doubt which he had best to offend, the Church of Christ, or his own private Party, and know not by what considerations to determine his resolution; let him in God's name consider to which he owes most, what the Laws of God make his duty to the one more than to the other; and then, if he be honest and single-eyed, he will soon be able to resolve his scruple, and know what choice he ought to make.  
4. Offending the Church of God is truly a grievous Scandal, and an Offence, in the true Gospel-notion of it; but the offending particular persons may possibly not be so.  
That which I mean is this; the Church of God we may be sure will not take offence but upon just reason; but other men may call that an offence to them, which really is not. If we do that which grieves and injureth the whole Church, than we do properly offend, and are guilty of Scandal in the true notion of it. But if we only offend some private persons of our own party, they may call that an offence which is not so: For every grieving (and offending of another in that sense of the word) is not a formal Scandal, as I hinted before, and hath been since this, made clear by a better Pen.  
And to apply this to our present matter in debate, this is really so in our Case of Conformity: the refusal of it, and separating ourselves from the Communion of the Church, is truly that giving of offence which the Gospel condemns; it is laying a snare in the way of men, intrapping them into that damnable sin of Schism; it is an obstructing the effect of Religion, and a direct hindrance of that Concord and Love, that Unanimity and Peace, that it so strictly calls for among Christians, and designs to render the World happy by.  
But you may challenge any dissenting person to show how angering some private persons, and a single party of Schismatics, can be a Scandal to them; or to name any one sin that it is temptation to them to commit, and to instance that prejudice or disservice that it doth to Christian Religion.  
It is possible (I must confess) that grief and anger at such a persons Conformity, may irritate and provoke men to some things that are evil. But then I say that this is the fault of them that are angry, and not his, with whom they are causelessly offended; it may be taking an offence on their parts, but not giving it by him. For if we must call every thing an offence, that any man doth pervert into an occasion of evil, there will scarce any, no not the best actions of men, escape that denomination.  
This methinks is a very material consideration, and aught always to sway with men in this Case; and if men could not determine themselves in it by other Reasons, yet they might by this: They should consider which is most likely to judge truest what is Scandal, and what is not; and when both sides say they are offended, which is likely to be so indeed.  
Particular persons, and Parties of men may mistake, and it is notorious, often do call that an Offence and Scandal, which is not so. But the whole Church is not so like to take cognizance of, and be offended publicly with any thing which doth not deserve that name. To which we may cast in this consideration, to add weight to the other: Every offence to a single private person or persons, is not the sin of Scandal; but no man can offend the Church of God, but he sins grievously, and is directly guilty of a great Scandal.  
To conclude, the sum of all that I would have considered on this Subject, is this.  
1. That the fear of giving offence to weak and uninstructed persons by Conformity to our Church, and returning to the Communion of it, is causeless, and wholly without any just reason: Conformity being neither a sin, nor causal of any, nor any just cause of offence to any persons whatsoever.  
2. That it is now matter of plain and indispensible duty, tied on us by the Commands and Laws both of God and man, and therefore carefully to be done, whatever may be the consequences of it to others: That no snares or possibilities of offence to some men by it ought to supersede our care, or can atone the sin of neglecting of it: That we cannot forbear it now, for fear of offending others, without grievously offending ourselves, and our own Consciences.  
3. That our refusing to Conform, will greatly offend the Church of God; and indeed it doth so: Not only our own National Church of England, but even all the Reformed Churches abroad too, as may be seen in some Declarations of the Great men among them of late, who cannot but grieve to see their great Bulwark, and the whole Reformation, so battered and weakened by this means, and such great advantage thereby given to the great Enemy against it.  
And therefore that this consideration ought to preponderate all the scruples and fears, and fancied possibilities of giving offence to private persons of our own party by it.  
And lastly, that the effect of all this, discover itself in a speedy conscientious care, and honest endeavour to put a period to our causeless Separations and Divisions, which are the only true Scandal and giving Offence that I know of in this Case.  
That we no longer go on madly to contrive our own Ruin, in pulling down those Walls, and making those Breaches in our Church's Banks, at which the Enemy may, and, without God's immediate interposition, will suddenly break in as a mighty resistless torrent.  
That we may all of us return to the Communion of the Church, whose Doctrine is Orthodox, and Government Apostolical, and whose terms of Communion none of us dare term sinful: In which we may acceptably serve our God, and happily save our own Souls; live happily, and die comfortably, and pass into the Communion of that Church Triumphant above, which sings incessant Hallelujahs to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. To whom let us also give all possible praise and Thanksgiving, both now and for evermore. Amen.  
FINIS.   

BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER.  
A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Job, etc.  
Considerations of present use, considering the Danger resulting from the change of our Church-Government.  

1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England.  
2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion.  
3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God, proposed and Stated, by considering these Questions, etc.  
4. A Discourse about Edification.  
5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience, Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England?  
6. A Letter to Anonymus, in answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship. In two Parts.  
8. The Case of mixed Communion: Whether it be Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixed Communions?  
9 An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers, and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England.  
10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved, etc. The first Part.  
11. Certain Cases of Conscience, etc. The second Part.  
12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons, and of going to hear where men think they can profit most.  
13. A serious Exhortation, with some important Advices, relating to ●he late Cases about Conformity, recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England.  
14. An Argument for Union; taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestant's.  
15. The Case of Kneeling, etc. The Second Part.  
16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal, or giving Offence to Weak Brethren.  
17. The Case of Infant-Baptism, in Five Questions, etc.   

1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists ask of us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther?  
2. A Discourse about Tradition, showing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be received, and what Tradition is to be rejected.  
3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England.  
4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith, etc.    

A COLLECTION OF CASES AND OTHER DISCOURSES Lately Written to Recover DISSENTERS TO THE COMMUNION OF THE Church of England.  
By some Divines of the City of London.  
THE SECOND VOLUME.  
LONDON, Printed for T. Basset, at the George in Fleetstreet, and B. Tooke, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1685.   

Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER.  
A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, in Answer to Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Job, etc.  
Considerations of present use, considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government.  

1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England.  
2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience, which Respect Church-Communion.  
3. The Case of Indifferent things, used in the Worship of God, Proposed and Stated, by considering these Questions, etc.  
4. A Discourse about Edification.  
5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience, Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England?  
6. A Letter to Anonymus, in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship. In two Parts.  
8. The Case of Mixed Communion. Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations, and Mixed Communion?  
9 An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers, and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England.  
10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament, Stated and Resolved, etc. The First Part.  
11. Certain Cases of Conscience, etc. The Second Part.  
12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons, and of going to hear where Men think they can profit most.  
13. A serious Exhortation, with some Important Advices; Relating to the late Cases about Conformity, Recommended to the Present Dissenters from the Church of England.  
14. An Argument for Union, etc.  
15. The Case of Kneeling at the Sacrament. The Second Part.  
16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal, or giving Offence to Weak Brethren.  
17. The Case of Infant-Baptism, in Five Questions, etc.  
18. The Charge of Scanned. I and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled, etc.   

1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists ask of us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther?  
2. A Discourse about Tradition, showing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be Received, and what Tradition is to be Rejected.  
3. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England.  
4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith, etc.    

A CATALOGUE OF ALL THE Cases and Discourses Contained in the second Volume of this COLLECTION.  

1. CErtain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in public Worship. In two Parts.  
2. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common-Prayers, etc.  
3. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience, Whether the Church of England's symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England?  
4. A Defence of the Resolution of this Case of Symbolising, etc.  
5. The Case of Infant-Baptism.  
6. The Case of the Cross in Baptism considered.  
7. A Persuasive to frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper.  
8. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved. In two Parts.  
9 A Discourse about Edification.  
10. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons.  
11. An Argument of Union, taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in England, who profess and call themselves Protestant's.  
12. A Serious Exhortation, with some important Advises relating to the late Cases about Conformity, recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England.    

CERTAIN Cases of Conscience RESOLVED, Concerning the Lawfulness of Joining WITH Forms of Prayer IN Public Worship.  
PART I.  
VIZ.  

I. Whether the using of Forms of Prayer, doth not stint and limit the Spirit.  
II. Whether the using Public Forms of Prayer be not a sinful omission of the Ministerial Gift of Prayer.  
III. Whether Praying by a Public Form doth not deaden the Devotion of Prayer.   
The Second Edition  
LONDON: Printed by H. Hills Jun. for T. Basset, at the George in Fleetstreet; B. took, at the Ship in St. Paul's Chuch-yard; and F. Gardiner, at the White Horse in Ludgate-street. 1683.   

A RESOLUTION OF THE Cases of Conscience, Which concern the Use of FORMS of PRAYER.  
ONE of the main Points which our dissenting Brethren insist on to justify their Separation from our Church, is, That our Public Worship is performed in a Form of Words of Man's Invention; which, they conceive, is unlawful; for hereby, say some of them, the Holy Spirit, who inspires our Prayer, is stinted and limited, and hereby the Gift of Prayer, say others, which the Holy Spirit communicates to Ministers, to enable them to express the Devotions of their Congregations to God, is rendered useless; and not only so, but even the Devotions of the Congregation too are mightily deadened, by being continually expressed in the same form of words: besides, that the wants of Christians being various, casual, and emergent, cannot be so fully represented in a fixed Form, as in conceived Prayers, which upon the account of their variation in Expressions, may be the better extended to the continual variations of men's cases and circumstances: besides all which, say they, we have no warrant for the use of Forms, either in Scripture, or pure Antiquity; and if we had, yet an universal imposition of them, can by no means be lawfully complied with: this, according to the best recollection I can make, is the sum of what our Brethren urge against the lawfulness of joining with us in a stated Liturgy, or Form of Public Worship: and therefore, in order to the satisfying their Consciences in this matter, I shall reduce their whole Plea to these following Cases, and endeavour a plain and clear resolution of them.  

1. Whether Praying in a Form of Words, doth not stint or limit the Spirit of Prayer?  
2. Whether the Use of Public Forms of Prayer, be not a sinful neglect of the Ministerial Gift of Prayer?  
3. Whether the constant Use of the same Form of Prayer, doth not very much deaden the Devotion of Prayer?  
4. Whether the common wants of Christian Congregations may not be better represented in conceived Prayer, than in a Form of Prayer?  
5. Whether there be any warrant for Forms of Prayer, either in Scripture, or pure Antiquity?  
6. Whether, supposing Forms to be lawful, the imposition of them can be lawfully complied with?   

Case I. Whether Praying in a Form of Words, doth not stint and limit the Spirit of Prayer?  
In order to the resolution of this Case, it will be necessary to explain first, what it is that the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer; and secondly, what is meant by stinting or limiting the Spirit in Prayer.  
1. What is it that the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer? I answer, there are some things attributed to him which were extraordinary, and temporary; and others that are ordinary, fixed, and standing: The through state and distinguishing of which will very much contribute to the resolution of this present Case, and therefore I shall insist more largely upon it.  
First, I say there are some things attributed to the Holy Spirit in this matter of Prayer which were extraordinary and temporary; and that was the immediate Inspiration of the matter of Prayer, together with an ability to express and utter it in known or unknown Languages: thus as for the immediate inspiration of the matter of Prayer, we read in the Old Testament of Prayers and Praises, which, upon special occasions, were immediately indicted by Divine Inspiration: for so when Hannah presented her Son to the Lord in Shiloh, the Text only saith, that she prayed, and said; but the Targum paraphrases it, that she prayed by the Spirit of Prophecy, and accordingly praying and praising by immediate inspiration, is frequently called prophesying: So 1 Sam. 10. 5. The Spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy; that is, as Expositors generally interpret it, thou shalt utter Spiritual Psalms and Hymns by immediate inspiration on the place; and to the same purpose is the word used Numb. 11. 25. 1 Chron. 25. 1. and accordingly in the New Testament it is said of Zacharias, that he was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, blessed be the Lord God of Israel, etc. The matter of all which Prayers and Praises, together with those in the Book of Psalms, and sundry others recorded in Scripture, was immediately dictated to those inspired persons by the Holy Ghost, and delivered by them without any recourse to their own invention or consideration, though as to the words of them, it may be justly questioned, whether they were not left to their own composure, as it seems very probable, the words of all other inspirations were; for considering how the inspired persons differed in their stile, according as they differed in their education, in their natural parts, and intellectual improvements, it is very likely they themselves composed and worded their own inspirations, the Spirit of God taking care only so to oversee and direct them, that their words might not misrepresent their matter; and if so, how much less reason have we to suppose, that the Spirit inspires the words of our Prayers: but this I shall not insist on.  
However, after that great descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, wherein the gift of Tongues was communicated to enable the first Planters of the Gospel, to propagate it through the World, it's certain that not only the Matter of their Prayers, but even the very Language too in which they express them, was immediately inspired, insomuch that they were not only enabled to Pray upon the place in apt and fluent Expressions, but also to Pray in Languages, which they never understood before, and which even then they understood but very imperfectly, and also to interpret those Prayers into the vulgar Language, which themselves or others had uttered in unknown Tongues; and this, among others, the Apostle calls a Spiritual Gift, 1 Cor. 12. 1. which, as I remember, is the only place where the Gift of Prayer is mentioned in Scripture: and in 1 Cor. 14. 14. it is also called a Spirit, where he gives us an account at large of this miraculous way of praying.  
Now that this miraculous Gift of praying in, and interpreting Prayers out of unknown Tongues was extraordinary, and temporary, and peculiar to the Primitive Ages of Christianity, is evident, because the design of it was not only to enable the first Planters of the Gospel to perform their Ministerial Office in the vulgar Languages of the several Nations they were sent to, but also to be a sign from God, as all other Miracles were, for the confirmation of the Gospel; for so the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 14. 22. That Tongues were for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: and therefore since it's granted of all hands, that the gift of Miracles was extraordinary, and intended only for a demonstration of the Gospel to the Infidel World, and after that to cease, there can be no doubt but this miraculous Gift of Prayer was so too.  
But that the Spirit's inditing the Matter, and, if you will, the words of those inspired Prayers, was also extraordinary, will require a larger proof; because it is looked upon by many of our dissenting Brethren as an ordinary and standing Gift, which the Spirit doth and will communicate to all successive Ages of the World. Against this Opinion of theirs, therefore I shall briefly offer these following Reasons to their consideration:  
1. That there is no promise of any such Gift, and therefore no reason to expect the continuance of it. For whatsoever standing and ordinary benefits we receive from God, we receive them by virtue of the New Covenant, in which he hath promised to us all those good things which we can reasonably expect at his hands; and the promise of God being the only foundation of our hope, it is presumption to promise ourselves what he hath not promised us: but now in all the New Covenant we have not the least intimation of any such promise, viz. That the Spirit will immediately indite to us the Matter and Expressions of our Prayers; For as for that of Zachary 12. 10. which is the only promise that is pretended in the case, it's evident, at first sight, that it's nothing to the purpose; I will pour out upon the Inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of Grace and Supplications, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn. What is all this to the immediate inspiration of the Matter and Expressions of our Prayer, when it's plain, that the Spirit of Supplication here is the same with the Spirit of Grace, or of inward Piety and Devotion? even as the following words imply, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and mourn: that is, for their horrid sin of crucifying me. But that there is no such promise in the New Covenant is evident, from what is acknowledged of all hands, viz. That there are many good Christians who could never pretend to any such inspiration, who are some of them fain to be beholding to their own recollection and invention for the Matter and Words of their Prayers, and others, for want of a sufficient quickness of invention, to be beholding to Forms of Prayer of other men's composure; neither of which they need, were they immediately inspired: And I am very confident 'twould be looked upon by all sober Dissenters as a very rash and unjust censure to affirm, that a man cannot be a good Christian, who doth not pray by immediate inspiration, but is always fain to depend either on his own invention, or a Form of Prayer for the Matter and Expressions of his Devotions: and if so, how can this consist with a standing promise of immediate inspiration of Prayer in the New Covenant? unless we will suppose that there are Blessings promised in the New Covenant, to which good Christians may have no right or title, and of which they may never actually partake, which is utterly to destroy the nature of the Covenant, which extends to all who perform the conditions of it, and to cut off all our dependence upon it.  
2. That as there is no promise, so there is no need of any such immediate inspiration. 'Tis true, Christ hath promised by his Spirit, to be with us to the end of the World, and assured us, that he will give his Spirit unto every one that asks, and to what end hath he promised this, but only to supply our Necessities, and enable us to perform those Duties, which, through our own impotency, we cannot perform without him? for so he argues from the readiness of Parents, to supply their Children with what is necessary to their bodily life and subsistence, to the readiness of God to bestow his Spirit (that is to all the purposes that are necessary to their Spiritual Life, as the parallel plainly implies) upon them that ask him. So that all we can expect by virtue of these promises is only this, That the Spirit of God will be ready to aid and assist us in all those necessary cases, wherein our Duty and Spiritual Life is concerned; and therefore if there be no necessity of an immediate inspiration of either Matter or Words to enable us to Pray, it is an unwarrantable presumption to expect it by virtue of these or such like promises.  
And that there is no necessity, I conceive, is very apparent; for,  
First, As for the Matter of our Prayers, the Holy Spirit hath already sufficiently revealed it to us in the Gospel, and as plainly instructed us what we are to pray for, as he can be supposed to do by any immediate inspiration: so that with a very little consideration, we may thence easily recollect what it is that we need, and what we are warranted and commanded to pray for; and for a summary of the whole, we need go no further than our Church's Catechism, which in answer to that Question, after the Lord's Prayer, What desirest thou of God in this Prayer? sums up the whole matter of our Prayer in a few, plain, and easy words. And to suppose, after such a clear revelation of the matter of Prayer, a necessity of immediate inspiration of it, is in effect to suppose, that we have neither reason enough to understand the sense of plain words, nor memory enough to retain and recollect it. But against this, that passage of St. Paul is objected by our Brethren, Rom. 8. 26. We know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groan, which cannot be uttered. For which words, We know not what to pray for as we ought, they infer, that how plainly soever the matter of Prayer is revealed to us, we cannot in all cases know what it is without an immediate inspiration: which must either suppose, that all matter of Prayer is not plainly revealed to us, or that though it be, we cannot understand it; whereas the Apostles words imply neither the one nor tother, for it's plain those words, we know not what to pray for, are not to be understood simply, but with reference to, as we ought; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for what to pray for as we ought, we know not; which plainly refers to the manner, and not to the matter of our Prayer, how to pray for any thing with that fervency of desire, that dependence upon, and resignation to God, as we ought, of ourselves, we know not without the assistance of the Spirit of God; if therefore the Spirit hath already sufficiently revealed to us, what the matter of Prayer is (as he must be supposed to do, if the Scriptures be sufficient) I see no reason why he should reveal it again by immediate inspiration; and if there be no necessity of it, I know no warrant we have to expect it. But then,  
2. As for the Words of Prayer, by which we are to express the Matter of it, what necessity can there be that these should be immediately dictated to us, when as if we have not quickness enough of fancy and invention to express our wants and desires in our own words, we may readily supply that defect by Forms of Prayer of other men's composure, which with very short additions and variations of our own, we may easily adapt to all our particular cases and circumstances? and to imagine that with such helps and assistances we cannot word our desires to God without an immediate inspiration, is to suppose, that we are mere whispering Pipes, that can breathe out nothing but what is breathed into us.  
3. That as there is neither promise, nor need of any such immediate inspiration of Prayer, so there is no certain sign or testimony of it remaining among us: whenever God inspired men with Divine matter and words, his Way was always to attest the divinity of their inspiration with some certain sign by which themselves, and others, might be well assured of it; and though at this distance from the inspired Ages we cannot certainly determine by what token it was that the Prophets knew the divinity of their own inspirations while they were seized with them; yet this we know, that after they were delivered of them, God always took care to attest them by some miraculous operation: for so Miracles are styled by the Apostle, the evidence and demonstration of the Spirit, as being the constant signs and tokens of Divine inspiration; and indeed without such signs to distinguish it from false pretences, we were better be without inspiration, than with it, because we shall be left under an unavoidable necessity, either of admitting all inspirations which pretend to be divine, or of rejecting all that are truly so: as to instance in this case of Prayer, we know 'tis possible for men to have the matter and words of it dictated to them by a natural, or Diabolical, as well as a Divine Enthusiasm, and therefore it is highly requisite if such Divine Enthusiasm, or Inspiration, be continued to us, that the proper signs and testimonies of it should be continued too, that so we may be able to distinguish that which is divine, from that which is natural or diabolical; otherwise we must either conclude them all to be natural, or diabolical, or believe them all to be divine, and entertain them accordingly.  
If you say there is no need of either, because the Scripture is sufficient to distinguish them; I answer, that thought the Scripture may be sufficient to distinguish the matter of the inspiration, whether it be true or false, yet it is not sufficient to distinguish the inspiration itself, whether it be divine, or natural, or diabolical: For  
First, as for natural Enthusiasm, it is not at all impossible for a man to pray agreeably to Scripture by natural inspiration, by which I mean a natural or accidental fervency of temper, arising either from a constant heat of constitution, or a casual agitation of the spirits, occasioned either by vapours of heated melancholy, or an intermixture of sharp and feverish humours with the blood; which as all men know, who understand any thing of the nature and composition of humane bodies, naturally heightens and impregnates the fancy, and causes the images of things to come faster into it, and appear more distinct in it, and consequently produces a very ready invention of matter, and extraordinary fluency of words: so that if under a fit of this natural fervency, a man's fancy happens to run upon God and Religion, he cannot fail to pray with great readiness and fluency, and sometimes with that extraordinary passion and enlargement, as shall cause him assuredly to believe himself immediately inspired by the Spirit of God: of the truth of which, instances enough might be given not only among Christians, but also among the Devoto's of Mahomet, and the Poets and Orators of the Heathens, whose fancies have been very often so strangely exalted by the fervour of their temper, or disease, that not only they themselves, but they that heard them, believed that they were inspired by God. Supposing then, that under a fit of this natural Enthusiasm a man should pray agreeably to Scripture, how shall he be able to know by Scripture whether the present inspiration he is under, be natural, or divine? and how will it be possible for him to avoid, many times, attributing the natural effects of his temper, or disease, to the immediate operation of the Spirit of God?  
But you will say, we all agree that the Spirit of God inspires good men with holy and fervent affections in their Prayers, and yet it cannot be denied that this fervency of affection doth sometimes also proceed from the present temper of our bodies, notwithstanding which, we have no other sign or testimony besides that of Scripture, whereby to distinguish when 'tis divine, and when natural; doth not therefore the want of such sign as effectually conclude against the Spirits inspiring the fervour of our Prayers, as against his inspiring the matter and words of them? I answer, no; For, as for the former, we have a sure word of promise, which we have not for the latter; and therefore if we can claim the promise, we have just reason to conclude when we feel our affections actually excited, that how much soever other causes might contribute to it, the Holy Spirit was the principal cause; but where we have no promise, we have no ground for such conclusion: besides which, we have no such need of signs to enable us to distinguish in the one case, as in the other; For as for the inspiration of affection, we may easily distinguish whether it be natural or divine, by our own sense; if our present fervour be accompanied with a fixed and constant devotion of soul, we may certainly conclude, that the same Spirit which inspired the one, inspired the other; and whether it be so accompanied or no, that natural sense and feeling we have of our own motions and affections, will quickly inform us, and we have no more need of an outward sign to satisfy us in this matter, than we have to know whether we are hungry or thirsty: but if the present fervour of our affections in Prayer be only a sudden fit and pang of devotion, that finds and leaves us habitually indevout, we have just reason to conclude, that 'tis entirely owing to our present bodily temper: whether therefore our affections in Prayer are inspired by God, our own sense will inform us, if we impartially consult it; but whether our matter and words are so, no sense we have can resolve us: we may feel the matter of our Prayer pour in upon us with extraordinary readiness, and be enabled to pour it out again with extraordinary fluency, and yet all this may proceed from our own fancy and invention, quickened and enlarged by merely natural Enthusiasm; and therefore, unless we had some other sign, besides that of Scripture, 'twill be impossible for us to distinguish between a divine and natural inspiration of matter and words, because that which is natural, may be as agreeable to Scripture, as that which is supposed to be divine; and God hath given us no inward sense to distinguish between one and tother: and can it be imagined that had he meant to continue this Gift of inspiration to us, he would have thus left us in the dark concerning it, without any certain sign whereby we might distinguish, whether it be from his Spirit, or from an ill-affected Spleen, or a Fever?  
But then, secondly, as for Diabolical Inspirations of Matter and Words in Prayer we have sundry very probable Instances, such as Major Weir, who is said to have received his Inspirations through a Staff, Hacket, David George, and that Monster of wickedness John Basilides Duke of Russia, who were all of them possessed with such a wonderful Gift of Prayer, as did not only charm and ravish those that heard them, but seemed, in the opinion of the most wise and impartial, to exceed the power of nature; which renders it very probable that the matter of their Prayers was for the most part agreeable to Scripture, otherwise 'tis hardly conceivable how they could have procured to themselves so many admirers, and abused so many honest minds into a belief that they were immediately inspired by God. And since by inspiring his Votaries with such matter of Prayer as is agreeable to Scripture, the Devil may sometimes serve his own ends, since he may thereby puff up giddy minds with pride, and self-conceit, and more effectually recommend Seducers and false Teachers to the World; it's very reasonable, to suppose that this subtle Agent who so throughly understands his own game, will in some case be forward enough to do it: and if in any cases we may reasonably suppose, that the Devil may inspire men with such matter of Prayer as is agreeable to Scripture, than we can never certainly distinguish by Scripture, whether it be the Spirit of God, or the Devil, that inspires us. And can we, without blaspheming the goodness of God, imagine, that if he had continued this Gift of immediate inspiration to us, he would have neglected to continue such signs and testimonies of it as are necessary to distinguish it from the inspirations of the Devil? doubtless 'tis much better for us that this Gift should be totally withdrawn, and that as to the matter and expressions of our Prayer, we should be left to the guidance of Scripture and Reason, than that by the continuance of it without some certain sign to know and distinguish it, we should be left under a fatal necessity, either of rejecting Divine Inspirations, or of admitting Diabolical for Divine. And therefore since we have no such sign continued among us, we have all the reason in the world to conclude, that this Gift is discontinued, and ceased: especially considering that we have not only no certain sign of any such inspiration in the conceived Prayers of those which most pretend to it, but many very certain ones of the contrary; I will instance in four.  
1. The great impertinence, and nonsense, and rudeness, to say no worse, that are sometimes mingled with these Extempore Prayers. I will not give Instances of this, because it is so notorious, that our Brethren themselves cannot but in part acknowledge it: now to attribute these faults of conceived Prayers, to immediate inspiration, would be to blaspheme the Holy Ghost, and father our own follies upon him, and yet sure had he thought meet to have continued to the Church this Gift of inspiration of Prayer, it would have been in order to the securing the Worship of God from those rudenesses and indecencies to which extemporary Prayers of men's own conceiving are liable; and if so, to be sure in public Prayer at least, he would have constantly taken care to inspire such matter as is fit to be offered up to God, and such expressions as are fit for such matter; that so the Public Worship of God, which is the most serious and solemn thing in the World, might not be rendered ridiculous by the folly and inadvertency of men. Whereas on the contrary, we see those public Prayers which arrogate to themselves the honour of being inspired, are generally more liable to these indecencies, than Forms of humane composure, and that those Prayers which consist of premeditated matter and words, are commonly much better sense, and far more decent and pertinent, than our extemporary effusions; which how it should come to pass I know not, supposing the continuance of inspiration of Prayer, unless we will suppose, that Humane Composures may exceed Divine Inspirations, and that men may ordinarily premeditate better Prayers than the Spirit of God inspires. And methinks it seems very strange, that the Spirit should continue this Gift of inspiration to secure the Worship of God from nonsense and impertinence, and yet that after all, it should remain more liable to these indecencies, than if our public Prayers were offered up in premeditated Forms, composed out of our own or other men's inventions  
2. Another sign that our composed Prayers are not immediately inspired is, that they are so generally tinctured with the particular opinions of those that offer them. You may observe that in all public Controversies of Religion, men's Opinions are generally to be known by their Prayers, especially if they zealously espouse either side of the Question: for then the debate runs so much in their heads, and they look upon God and Religion so very highly concerned in it, that they can hardly frame a Petition, Confession, or thanksgiving, without giving some intimation of their particular Persuasion; and many times one of the Petitions is, That God would hinder the propagation of the contrary Persuasion, and convince their Adversaries of the Error and Falsehood of it. Thus for instance, when the Contest ran high between the Presbyterians and Independents, the Arminians and Calvinists, how easy was it to distinguish them by their Prayers from one another? Whether this be not so, I appeal to our Brethren themselves, and to all the World? And if so, what plainer evidence can be given, that their Prayers were not inspired, but of their own invention, and composure? For either we must suppose this Gift of Inspiration to be confined to one Party, which would be to stint the Spirit with a witness, and everlastingly to puzzle ourselves where to find it, among so many contending Parties that pretend to it; or else we must affirm a horrid Blasphemy, viz. That the Spirit inspires Contradictions, and indites contrary Prayers to men of opposite Parties.  
3. Another plain sign that our conceived Prayers are not immediately inspired is, That that which gives them the reputation of being so, is not so much the matter, as the way and manner of expressing them. For as for the matter of Prayer, I suppose our Brethren will not deny, but our Forms may equal at least, if not exceed their conceived and extemporary Prayers, and that 'tis possible for men, upon mature thoughts and deliberations, to compose and pen a Prayer, that shall be as full and comprehensive of the common cases, and necessities of Christians, as if he had conceived, and indicted it upon the place. And if all the matter that is in a conceived Prayer, may be easily contained and expressed in a Form, than all the difference between one and tother must lie in the way, and manner of expressing it, and consequently it must be only upon this account, that the one must pretend to inspiration more than tother. Now there are only two differences between Forms, and conceived Prayers, as to the way, and manner of expressing the matter in them; neither of which are so considerable, as to give the one a fairer pretence to inspiration than the other: The first is, that whereas the matter of a Form of Prayer is expressed in set, and premeditated words, the same matter in conceived Prayer is expressed in extemporary words; and is it not strange, that upon such a slight, and inconsiderable difference, the one should be thought to be more inspired than the other? as if the Spirit of God continued the Gift of Inspiration to no other purpose, but to enable men to ask those Blessings in extemporary words, which they might as well have asked in premeditated ones. The second is, that conceived Prayers do generally more enlarge and amplify on the matter of Prayer, than Forms, in which we being always tied to such a set of words, have not that liberty to expatiate on our several cases, and necessities; but this is so far from adding to the value of conceived Prayers, that it rather lessens, and depreciates them; for if you observe these admired enlargements, and amplifications, are generally nothing else but only the same matter expressed again in different words, which makes our conceived Prayers run out many times to that inordinate length, the same matter being repeated in them over and over in varied phrases and expressions: how then can we entertain such mean conceits of the wisdom of the holy Spirit, as to imagine he would continue to us the Gift of immediate inspiration, merely to enable us to repeat the same matter of Prayer to God ten or twenty times over, in different phrases and expressions? especially considering that by so doing he would cross the orders of our Saviour, who expressly forbids us in our Prayers to use vain repetitions, (or as Munster's Hebrew reads it, to multiply words above what is fit and seasonable) thinking we shall be heard for our much speaking; to which he subjoins this reason, For your Father knows what things you have need of before you ask him, Matth. 6. 7, 8. As if he should have said you need not lengthen out your Prayers with so many copious enlargements, and varied repetitions of the same matter, as if you meant thereby more fully to instruct your Father in your wants and desires, for before ever you ask, he knows your needs, and therefore a few words will suffice to express your desires to him, And when our Saviour hath required that our Prayers should be short, and pithy, and stripped of all needless multiplicity of words, what reason have we to think that the Holy Spirit, who is his Vicegerent in the Church, would continue the Gift of Inspiration merely to amplify and enlarge them? These enlargements of conceived Prayer therefore, are so far from being, signs of their immediate inspiration, that supposing the Spirit to be of the same mind with our Saviour, they are generally signs of the contrary.  
4. Another plain sign that our conceived Prayers are not immediately inspired is, That that extraordinary manner, and way of expressing them, for which they are thought to be inspired, doth apparently proceed from natural causes: for, as I showed before, the reason why our conceived Prayers are thought by us and others to be inspired is, that we are many times enabled in them to enlarge extempore, with so much readiness, and fluency: which may be easily resolved into mere natural Enthusiasm, or present fervour of temper. And that from hence this fluency and enlargement in Prayer doth ordinarily proceed, seems very evident by two undeniable signs; first, that according to our brethren's own confession, it comes upon them much oftener in their public, than in their private Devotions. For this is an ordinary case in their Divinity; how comes it to pass that good men often find themselves so enlarged in their public and so strengthened in their private Prayers? And indeed, supposing the Spirit did ordinarily inspire the matter and words of their Prayer, I see not how it could be well resolved, unless we suppose the Spirit to be more concerned to inspire us with fluency of matter and words, when we are to speak before men, than when we are only to speak before God. The true resolution therefore of the case is this, that in our private Prayers we want the sighs, and groans, and passionate gestures of a devout Congregation, to chafe and excite our affections, and the reverence of a numerous Auditory, to oblige us to teaz and wrack our inventions; for want of which our spirits are not ordinarily so vehemently agitated and heated as when we Pray in public; where being more than ordinarily warmed, partly with our own efforts and struggle, to invent, and partly with the warmths and pious fervours of the Congregation, we are many times transported by this natural Enthusiasm, into raptures of passion and enlargement; this I say is the only reason that can be assigned of it, unless we will suppose that which is very unsupposeable of the Spirit of God, viz. That he is more solicitous to indite our Prayers when we are in the presence of men, than when we are only in the presence of God. Secondly, Another sign that this admired fluency and enlargement in Prayer proceeds from mere natural Enthusiasm is this, that generally in the beginning of the Prayer they find themselves streighten'd and confined, both as to the matter and words of it, till they have Prayed on for a while, and then they grow more ready and fluent; which how it should come to pass, I know not, supposing the Prayer were inspired, unless perhaps the Spirit comes in only in the middle, or towards the latter end of their Prayer, but leaves them to their own invention in the beginning, and what reason there should be for such an imagination, I confess I am not able to guests. The true account therefore of the matter is this, that in the beginning of the Prayer their Spirits are usually dull, and sluggish, and do not flow and reflow so briskly to their heads and hearts as afterwards, when they have been throughly chafed and heated with a labour and exercise of invention; by which being excited and awakened, they naturally raise the drooping fancy, and render the invention more copious, fluent, and easy. So that merely by the Laws of Matter and Motion, as plain an account may be given of this extemporary fluency, and enlargement of Prayer, as of any other natural effect whatsoever; and therefore for our Brethren to attibute to the immediate inspiration of the Spirit of God, that which hath such apparent signs of its derivation from natural causes, is, I conceive, very unwarrantable. By all which, I think, it's very evident, not only that we have no sign of the continuance of this Gift of Inspiration of Prayer remaining among us, but that we have manifest signs of the contrary.  
4. And lastly, That to suppose the continuance of this Gift of Inspiration of Prayer, is to suppose more than our Brethren themselves will allow of, viz. That their conceived Prayers are infallible, and of equal authority with the Word of God. For if our Prayers are dictated to us by the Spirit of God, they must be as infallible as he, whose infinite knowledge cannot suffer him to be deceived, and whose infinite veracity will not admit him to deceive: and if so, than whatsoever he dictates, or inspires, must be removed from all possibility of error, or mistake; and consequently our Prayers must be so too, supposing he inspires the matter and words of them. And as they must be infallible in themselves, so they must be of equal authority with Scripture: for that which gives the Scriptures the authority of the Word of God, is, their being inspired by the Spirit of God, and therefore whatsoever matter or words are so inspired, are as much the Word of God, as any matter or words in Scripture: All Scripture is given, saith the Apostle, by the Inspiration of God. And therefore whatsoever is given by his Inspiration, must necessarily be his Word: for what those Holy Men of God spoke, who delivered the Scripture, they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 1 Pet. 1. 21. and therefore what they delivered was the Word of God, because their Mouths were the Oracles through which God spoke; if therefore when we Pray, we are moved, as they were, by the immediate inspiration of God, what we pray, must be as much the Word of God, as what they spoke. So that either our Brethren must affirm, that their conceived Prayers are of equal authority with Scripture, (which I am sure no sober Dissenter will presume) or deny that they are immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost.  
And thus I have shown what those extraordinary Operations are, which the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer. I proceed in the next place to inquire what the ordinary and standing Operations are, which the Scripture attributes to him, and which he hath promised to continue to the end of the World. Of which I shall give but a very brief account, because herein we are all agreed.  
In short therefore, the ordinary Operations of the Spirit consist in exciting in us the graces and proper affections of Prayer, such as shame and sorrow in the confession of our sins, a sense of our need of mercy, and a hope of obtaining it in our supplications for pardon, resignation to God's will, and dependence on his goodness in our Prayers for temporal mercies, and deliverances, hunger and thirst after righteousness in our Petitions for his grace and assistance, and in a word, gratitude, and love, and admiration of God in our Praises and Thanksgivings for Mercy. For in these divine and gracious Affections, the life and soul of Prayer consists: as for the Words and Expressions of it, about which our Brethren disagree with us, they are of no other account with God, than as they signify to him the graces and affections of our Prayers without which he regards them no more, than he doth the whistling of the wind; and therefore since these affections are the main of our Prayer, and words are nothing in his account in comparison with them; can any man be so vain as to imagine, that those affections will be ever a whit the less acceptable to him, because they are presented in a form of words, and not in extemporary Effusions? Sure that Father would be very capricious, that should deny Bread to his hungry Child, merely because he asked it to day in the same words that he did yesterday; and to imagine that God will dislike or reject the good affections of our Prayer, merely because they are every day expressed in the same form, is to suppose him a very captious Being, and one that is more taken with our words, than with our affections: the contrary of which he hath given sufficient proof of in this very particular, in that whereas he hath withdrawn from us as I have proved at large) the inspiration of the words of our Prayer, and left them to the composure of our own or other men's invention; he still continues to inspire us with the affections of Prayer, and to excite them to a due activity. For to this, among other purposes, it is, that he hath promised to continue his Holy Spirit to us, to enable us to address ourselves to him with devout and holy affections: thus Gal. 4. 6. Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba father: that is, by kindling devout and filial affections in your souls, enabling you to cry to God with all earnestness and assurance, as to a kind and merciful Father: and hence also we are said to Pray in or by the Holy Ghost, Judas 20. it being by him that those good affections are raised in us that we offer up to God in our Prayers: and therefore we may well be said to Pray by the Spirit, because 'tis by the Spirit that we are inspired with those holy affections which are the soul of our Prayer; and accordingly the Spirit is said to make intercession for us with sighs and groans, which are not to be uttered, Rom. 8. 26. which words are far from asserting the inspiration of the matter and words of our Prayer, though they are urged by our Brethren for that purpose: for as for the matter of Prayer, here is not the least hint of the Spirits inspiring it, for as to that, the Christians, whom he speaks of, were well instructed already by their Christian institution; but all that is affirmed, is, that the Spirit enabled them to offer up the matter of Prayer to God in a most devout and affectionate manner; with sighs and groans, that is, with earnest and flagrant affections. And as for the words of Prayer, the Text is so far from implying the inspiration of them, that it plainly tells us, that those sighs and groans which the Spirit inspired, were such as were not to be uttered or worded. And surely to inspire us with affections that are too big for words, cannot imply the inspiration of words. So that the Spirit's interceding for us with sighs and groans that are not to be uttered, can imply no more, than his exciting in us the proper affections of Prayer; and in this sense he is said in the next Verse, to make intercession for the Saints according to the will of God, viz. by enabling them to offer up the matter of Prayer to God with such fervent and devout affections as are necessary to render it acceptable to him: which is properly to interceded for us; for as Christ, who is our Advocate in Heaven, doth offer up our Prayers to the Father, and enforce them with his own intercessions; so his Spirit, who is our Advocate upon Earth, begets in us those affections which render our Prayers prevalent, and wings them with fervour and ardency: the one pleads with God for us in our own hearts, by kindling such desires there as render our Prayers acceptable to him; and the other pleads with him for us in Heaven, by presenting those desires, and soliciting their supply and acceptance. And thus you see what that standing and ordinary Operation is which the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer.  
And now, before I proceed to determine the present case, I shall only farther inquire, what is means by that Phrase of stinting and limiting the Spirit. In short therefore, to stint or limit the Spirit, is a modern Phrase, of which there is not the least intimation in Scripture, or Antiquity; but 'tis a term of Art coined and invented by our Brethren, and applied only to the present controversy, concerning the lawfulness of Forms of Prayer. Which, by the way, is a plain evidence that this argument against Forms, viz. That they stint the Spirit, is very new, since, though Forms of Prayer were used not only in the Scripture Ages, as I shall show hereafter, but also in all successive Ages of Christianity; yet, till very lately, we never heard one syllable of stinting or limiting the Spirit by them.  
The meaning of which Phrase is this; That by using Forms of Prayer, we hinder the Spirit from affording us some assistance in Prayer, which otherwise we might reasonably expect from them: for so our Brethren explain the Phrase, viz. That by confining ourselves to a Form of Words, we restrain the Spirit from giving us that assistance, which he ordinarily vouchsafes in conceived Prayer.  
And now, having fully stated the Case, the resolution of it will be short and easy. It hath been shown at large, that there are two sorts of assistances in Prayer which the Scripture attributes to the Spirit; the first extraordinary, and temporary; viz. the immediate inspiration of the matter, and words of Prayer: the second ordinary, and abiding; viz. exciting the devotion, and proper affections of Prayer: If therefore the Spirit be stinted, hindered, or restrained, by Forms of Prayer, it must be either from inspiring the words and matter, or from exciting the affections of Prayer; as for the latter, to which this Phrase of stinting is never applied by our Brethren, I shall discourse of it at large in the third Case, wherein I shall endeavour to prove, that Forms of Prayer are so far from restraining the devotion of it, that they very much promote and improve it. And as for the former, viz. the inspiration of the matter and words of Prayer, that I have proved was extraordinary, and intended only as other miraculous Gifts were, for the first propagation of the Gospel; and therefore since as to this matter, the Spirit hath stinted himself, it's certain, that Forms of Prayer cannot stint him; for how can that be stinted which is not? and if now there be no such thing as immediate inspiration of Prayer, how can it be limited by a Form of Prayer? In a word, if the Spirit of his own accord hath long since withdrawn this Gift of inspiration, how can it be now said that he is restrained from communicating it by any cause without him?   

Case II. Whether the Use of Public Forms, be not a sinful neglect of the Ministerial Gift of Prayer?  
In order to the resolution of which Case, it would be necessary to give a brief state of it, according as it is put, and urged by our Brethren. By the Gift of Prayer then, they mean an ability to express our minds to God in Prayer, or to offer up our desires and affections to him in words, befitting the matter of them: which ability, say they, is given by God to his Ministers, as a means of public Prayer, and in order to their being the Mouths of their Congregations to God, to represent to him the common Cases and Necessities of their People; and therefore since God, say they, hath given us this Gift, as a means of public Devotion, and in order to our offering up the Prayers of the People, it may be justly questioned, whether we may lawfully omit the use of it, by using public Forms of other men's composure.  
Now, before I enter into a particular consideration of this Case, I shall briefly premise these two things:  
1. That this Case concerns the Clergy only, and not the Laity: For suppose that it be unlawful for Ministers to omit the use of their own abilities to express the Devotions of their Congregations, what is that to the People? are they accountable for their Ministers faults? or will God reject their sincere Devotions, because the Person that utters them is guilty of a sinful omission? if so, it will be of dangerous consequence to them to join in any public Prayers at all, whether they be Forms, or Extemporary; they being every whit as accountable for the nonsense, impertinence, and irreverence of their Ministers in the latter, as for their omitting the use of their own abilities in the former: if therefore this omission be a sin, it is the sin of the Minister; as for the People, they join with him indeed, in offering up the matter of Prayer, which is contained in the Form he pronounces, but they join not with him in the omission of the use of his ability; that is his own proper act, and deed; and therefore if it be unlawful, it's he, and he only that is accountable for it: and if the matter of Prayer in which they join with him be good, and expressed in decent and suitable words, they join with him in nothing but what is acceptable to God, and 'tis not to be imagined that God will be angry with them, because he neglected to express their desires in words of his own composure and invention.  
2. I shall also premise, that this is not the case of the Clergy of the Church of England, who, though they stand obliged to the constant use of a stated Liturgy, yet are not hereby restrained from the exercise of their own abilities in public Prayer: for after they have finished the Service appointed in the Liturgy, they are permitted to use their own conceived Prayers in the Pulpit: in which they have the same liberty, that the dissenting Ministers can claim or pretend to; that is, to express in their own words all the matter of public Prayer, with all the sobriety, affection, and seriousness they are able; And a long and unrestrained permission of our Governors, though it be against Law, is a kind of allowance, until they reinforce the Law upon our parties, and some there are who believe the conceived Prayers which we generally use to be expressly allowed in our 55th Canon, which directs, that before all Sermons, Lectures, and Homilies, the Preachers and Ministers shall move the People to join with them in Prayer, in this form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may. Now that, to this effect, as it stands opposed to this form, is meant some Prayer of our own, composed to this purpose, seems in their opinion very probable from what is generally practised in the Church, which in doubtful cases, is the best explication of her meaning. Since therefore the use of our Liturgy doth not exclude the exercise of our Gift of Prayer, But leaves us free to exert it, so far as it is fit, that is, with convenient brevity, I see not how this Case can concern our Clergy; for if the evil of Forms consists in the Minister's omission of his own Gift, as this Case supposes, than where the use of Forms doth not oblige us to this omission, but leaves us as free to exercise this Gift, as those are who use no Forms at all, the supposed evil is removed from it.  
Having premised these things, I shall proceed to a particular resolution of the Case, which I shall do in these following Propositions.  
1. That this Ministerial Gift of Prayer, or ability to express in our own words, the common Devotions of our Congregations to God, is either natural, or acquired. 'Tis true, if we had any reason to believe, that in their admission to holy Orders, God did inspire his Ministers with this ability, we might thence more plausibly infer, that 'twas his will that we should ordinarily exercise it, and that it was not lawful to neglect or omit it, by using Forms of other men's composure; it being unlikely that God should inspire them with an ability, which he did not intent they should make use of: but of Gods inspiring us in our Ordination with this Gift, or Ability, we have not only no promise in Scripture, which is the only foundation upon which we can reasonably expect it; but in fact, we have no experience of any such matter among us: for not only we, but the Dissenting Ministers must own, if they will speak ingenuously, that just before their Ordination, they were as able to express the Devotions of a Congregation, as they were just after; which shows that they had no new ability to Pray, inspired in their Ordination: and as yet, I could never find any proof, either from Scripture, or Experience, that this ability to Pray in words of our own composure, had any thing more in it, than a promptness of invention and speech; which some men have by nature, and which others have acquired by art and practice; and if so, this ability is no otherwise the Gift of God, than our natural strength and vigour, or our skill in Languages and History. And methinks it's very strange, that after all this talk of the gift of Prayer, which is supposed ordinarily at least to be conferred on rightly ordained Ministers, our Brethren should not be able to produce one Promise, wherein God hath engaged himself, to confer it; no nor one Text of Scripture, which implies such a Promise; all that he hath promised his Ministers is, to concur with their honest endeavours, so far forth as it's necessary to enable them to discharge the Duties of their Office, and to suppose that they cannot do this, without praying Extempore, or in their own words, is to take the matter in question, for granted.  
2. That this natural or acquired Gift, is not where appropriated by God to prayer, but left common to other uses, and purposes; For though in Ministers especially, it is ordinarily called a Gift of Prayer, yet it is not where styled so in Scripture: indeed the ability of praying in unknown languages, is once called a Gift, as I observed before, but as for this ordinary ability, whether natural, or acquired, of praying in our native language, it is not where spoken of in Scripture, under the name of a Gift of Prayer, nor is there the least mention of any such ability given by God to men, purely to enable them to pray, and unless our Brethren can produce some Text of Scripture, which yet they never attempted, wherein God hath appropriated this Gift to the purpose of Prayer, they must give us leave to conclude, that he hath left it common to all other honest uses, and purposes that it can be applied to; and that in short, it is nothing but a freedom of Utterance, and Elocution, which in some is natural, and in some acquired, by which they are enabled readily to express their minds to God, or men; and therefore to how many honest purposes this common Gift of God is applicable, to so many it's designed, and intended; and consequently, may as well be called the Gift of Conversation in good company, and the Gift of pleading at the Bar, and the Gift of disputing in the Schools, or the Gift of Oratory in the Forum, as the Gift of Prayer in Private, or Public worship; it being all but one and the same Gift applied to several uses, and purposes; accordingly we find that those who have this Gift, have it not only while they are speaking in Prayer, but when they are speaking upon other occasions; and that ordinarily they can express themselves to Men with the same readiness, and fluency in conversation, as they express their minds to God in Prayer, which is a plain argument that their Gift is not appropriate to Prayer, but common to all the other uses, and purposes of Elocution.  
3. That this Gift of utterance not being appropriated by God to Prayer, may upon just reason, be as lawfully omitted in Prayer, as in any other use or purpose 'tis designed for: I do confess had God any where appropriated it to the end of Prayer, those who have it, were obliged to use it to that end, and to omit it ordinarily, by confining themselves to forms of other men's inditing, would be to neglect a means of Prayer of God's special appointment and institution; for had he any where intimated to us, that he gave it us purely to enable us to pray without any respect to any other end, we could not have omitted the use of it in Prayer without crossing his intention, and frustrating him of the only end for which he intended it, but since he hath given us no such intimation, we may justly conclude that he intends it in common for all those honest ends to which it is applicable, and if so, 'tis no more unlawful to omit using it to one end than to another, so that either it must be wholly unlawful to omit using our own Elocution to any purpose whatsoever whereunto it may be honestly applied, or it must be lawful to omit it in Prayer, and consequently supposing I have this Gift of utterance, either I may not use a form in petitioning my Prince, or a Court of Justice, or I may use a form in addressing myself to God in Prayer, since my Gift is common to both these purposes, and no more appropriated to the one than the other; in short therefore, as for those common Gifts of God which are applicable to sundry purposes, and which he intends no more for one than for another, it is left to our own liberty and discretion, whether we will apply them to this or that particular purpose or no, and no man is obliged to use his Gift to all those just and lawful purposes it is capable of, and if he hath two Gifts which serve to the same purpose, there is no doubt but he may lawfully omit the one, and use the other as he sees occasion; and so it is with this Gift of utterance, which is naturally serviceable to sundry excellent purposes, and among others to this of expressing our minds to God in Prayer, but it being serviceable to this in common with others, it is left to our liberty whether we will employ it in this, in that, or in another purpose, and we are neither obliged to employ it in all, nor in this more than in another, but if we have another Gift that is serviceable to the purpose of Prayer as well as this of utterance, it is left to our own pious discretion whether we will use this or the other; so that unless our Brethren can prove that this Gift of Utterance or Elocution is by special command of God made an appropriate means of Public Prayer, they will never be able to prove, either that it is more unlawful to omit the use of it in Prayer, than in any other Office of Elocution, or that if we have any other means of Prayer, we are determined to this more than to another.  
4. That to read our desires to God in other men's Words, is as much a means of Prayer, as to speak them in our own, for to speak in our own Words, is no otherwise a means of Public Prayer, than as it serves to express to God the Common cases and necessities of the Congregation, and if these may be as well expressed by Reading them in other men's Words, as by speaking them in our own, the end of Public Prayer is as effectually served by the one, as by the other, and sure no man will deny, but that by a Form of Words composed by another, he may express the common Devotions of a Congregation, as well as by extempore or premeditated words of his own invention; for this would be in effect to say, that none but himself can compose a public Prayer, or at lest none so well as he; for if another Prayer may be as expressive of the Devotions of a Congregation as his own, I can see no reason why the reading of that may not be as proper a means of public Prayer, as the speaking of this; here then are two means of Prayer, viz. reading other men's Forms, and speaking our own Conceptions, and therefore unless our Brethren can prove, that God hath expressly chosen the one, and rejected the other, they must acknowledge both to be lawful; and if we cannot lawfully omit the one, because it is a means of Prayer, neither can we lawfully omit the other, because it is so too; and therefore either we must be obliged to use them both, which is impossible at the same time, or we must be left at liberty to use either, according to our own discretion. In sum therefore, since we are not inspired with any peculiar Gift of Prayer in our ordination, and since our Gift of praying in our own words is not appropriated by God to this use, but left in common to other purposes, and since what is not appropriated by God, may be lawfully omitted, when there are other means of Prayer, and since in fact there is another means of Prayer besides this of praying in our own words, viz. praying in the words of others, which God hath left as free to us as the former, it plainly follows from the whole, that to omit the use of our own Gift, and in the stead of it to use that other Gift of praying in the words of others, is not in itself any way sinful or unlawful.   

Case III. Whether the Use of Public Forms of Prayer doth not deaden the Devotion of Prayer?  
For thus our Brethren argue, that by the command of God we are obliged not only to pray, but to pray with the utmost devotion we are able, and accordingly to use such means of Prayer as are most apt to heighten and intent our devotion, and thus far we agree with them; if therefore Forms are in themselves, and not through our fault and erroneous prejudice, less apt to quicken and raise devotion than conceived Prayers, it will be granted of all hands, that this is a good Argument against the use of them. This therefore is the case wherein we differ, our Brethren say, that Forms of Public Worship, (for 'tis that we are now discoursing of) are in themselves apt to dispirit and deaden the Devotions of those that use them; we say the contrary, viz. that public Forms are in themselves more apt to improve and quicken the common Devotions, than Extemporary Prayers of the Ministers own conceiving: In order therefore to the clearing and full resolution of this Case, we will briefly inquire into these three things:  
1. What these advantages to Public Devotion are, which conceived, or extemporary Prayers pretend to?  
2. Whether these Advantages are not for the most part fantastical and imaginary, and whether so far as they are real they are not much more peculiar to Forms than to extempore Prayer?  
3. Whether besides these common advantages public Forms have not peculiar advantages, which conceived Prayers cannot pretend to?  
1. We will inquire what those advantages to the public Devotions are which conceived or extemporary Prayers pretend to; in short, it is pretended in the behalf of conceived Prayers, that they do much more fix the attention, and raise the intention of the People's minds in Prayer, than public Forms; that is, that they do more confine the rovings of men's thoughts in Prayer, and keep their minds more attentive to it, and that they do much more warm and enliven their affections in it; for, say our Brethren, the Devotions of the people are very much raised or deadened by the performance of the Minister, according as he is more or less devout in it; and as for the Minister, he must needs be much more devout in a Prayer of his own conceiving, than in the use of a public Form; because first, say they, 'tis impossible for him to keep his mind so attentive in reading a Prayer, as in conceiving one in his own mind, and speaking it from his own conceptions; the care of performing which naturally bounds the wander of his thoughts, and keeps them more fixed and attentive; and secondly, because when he utters his words immediately from his affections, his thoughts have not that scope to wander, as when he reads them out of a Book. And as conceived Prayer doth more fix the attention of the Minister, so it doth also more raise his intention, or in other words, more warm and inflame his affections; for first, whereas in reading a Form, his affections follow his words, and are raised and excited by them, in conceived Prayer, his words follow his affections, and are immediately uttered from, and indicted by them; and secondly, How is it possible, say they, that the words of another, which he reads out of a Form, should so well express his affections as his own; besides, thirdly, that while he is reading his Form, his soul is so intent in directing his eye to read, that it cannot direct its affections to God with that fervour and intention as it might do in conceived Prayer. These are the supposed helps which the Ministers devotion, and from his the People's receive from conceived Prayers, above what Forms of Prayer can afford: and as conceived Prayer hath these peculiar advantages to raise the Minister's devotion, and by his the People's, so it hath another advantage by which it more immediately influences the devotion of the People, viz. that the matter of it is still expressed in new words, which must needs much more affect the attention of the People, than when it is always expressed in the same words without any variation; And this, so far as I can gather from the Writings of our Brethren, is the sum of what they plead in behalf of conceived Prayer, as to its peculiar advantageousness to public Devotion above stated Forms.  
2. Therefore we will inquire whether these Advantages are not in a great measure imaginary, and whether so far as they are real, they are not much more peculiar to Forms, than to conceived Prayer. And here I will readily grant, that by expressing a serious and devout affection, the Minister doth really advantage the Devotion of the Congregation, even as by his good example in all other things he excites the people to a pious and virtuous imitation; in whose eyes devotion never looks so amiable, as when 'tis expressed in serious and well composed words, accompanied with a devout, a sober, and affectionate behaviour: both which are equally necessary to excite the devotion of the People: if therefore it be really true, that the use of conceived or extempore Prayer is in its own nature most apt to fix the attention, and excite the intention of the Minister in Prayer, it must be confessed that herein it hath the advantage of Forms. 1. Therefore we will inquire whether these advantages it pretends to, as to the exciting the Minister's attention in Prayer, be real, or no: The first advantage is, that the very conceiving the matter of his Prayer, and speaking it from his own conceptions, doth naturally more bind his attention, than the reading it out of a Form; but I beseech you, what doth it more bind him to attend to? is it to attend to the words and phrases? if so, then 'tis not to attend to the acts of Prayer, or is it to attend to those acts which are the proper business of Prayer? that is to be ashamed of sin, and to bewail it in confession, to be sensible of the common wants, and common dependencies upon God for supply in petition, to admire God's perfections, and gratefully commemorate his goodness in praise and thanksgiving; for in these things the true devotion both of Minister and People consists; and 'tis only by being an example of these in his Prayer, that the Minister excites the devotion of his people: 'tis by confessing sin, as if he were ashamed of, and sorry for it, that he excites their shame and sorrow; by petitioning for mercy, as if he were sensible of the want of it, and did hearty desire it, and depended upon God for it, that he excites their sense of need, and their desire, and hope of relief, and supply; by praising and thanking God, as if he hearty admired his excellencies, and gratefully resented his goodness that he excites their admiration and gratitude; that mode of Prayer therefore which is most apt to fix the Minister's attention to these acts of devotion, must needs be most apt to excite the devotions of the people: Now as for the mode of praying from his own conceptions, I really think that it is much more apt to unfix the Minister's attention to these acts, than that of praying by a Form; because it forces him to attend to other things at the same time, viz. the recollection of matter, and invention of suitable expressions, which must more or less divert him from attending to the inward acts of devotion, according as his fancy and tongue are more or less pregnant and voluble; it being impossible for him to attend at the same time, to several things, as closely as he may to one: but when he prays by a Form, his matter and words are ready before him, and so he hath nothing else to do, but to attend to his devotion; and certainly when a man hath but one thing to do in Prayer, he may attend to that more fixedly and closely, than when he hath two or three: 'tis true, by being released from attending to the invention of his matter and words, his mind is more at leisure to wander, and instead of attending as he ought more closely to the acts of devotion, by employing those thoughts which in conceived Prayer he employs in invention, in a closer attention to the acts of devotion, he may, if he please, permit them to rove abroad; but if he doth, the fault is in himself, and not in the Form he prays by: the design of his Form is to release his mind from all other business in Prayer, but only that of inward devotion, which is the life of Prayer, that so it may be the more attentive to it: but if instead of applying his mind to this design, he suffers it to wander abroad, he makes an ill use of a good thing, and converts that which is in itself a help to devotion, into an occasion of indevotion: But 'tis objected, that while his thoughts are employed in inventing the matter and words of his Prayer, they are attending to the duty of Prayer, and while they are so they are well employed, though they should not be so attentively fixed upon the inward devotion of Prayer, as they might be in the use of a Form: to which in short I answer, That to invent the matter and words of Prayer, is not to pray, but to study a Prayer; and till our Brethren have proved, that our inventing the matter and words, is a part of our duty of Prayer, which is the Question in debate between us, we can by no means grant, that our attention to it is attending to the duty of Prayer; we believe that when we pray devoutly by a Form, we discharge the whole duty of Prayer, though we do not invent the matter and words ourselves, and when we see the contrary proved, we will not only yield that to attend to inventing, is to attend to the duty of Prayer; but that it is unlawful to pray by a Form: but in the mean time we can yield neither one, nor t'other. Seeing then that Forms are in themselves more apt to fix the Minister's attention to the inward acts of devotion, and seeing that 'tis by attending to these acts, or at least by seeming to do so, that he influences the attention of the people, it necessarily follows, that in this respect Forms are more advantageous to public devotion, than conceived or extemporary Prayer. But then,  
2. It is pretended that conceived Prayer is in itself more apt to fix the Minister's attention in Prayer than Forms, because in conceived Prayer he utters his words immediately from his affections, by reason of which his thoughts have not that scope to wander, as when he reads them out of a Book: to which, in short, I answer, That if he hath devout affections, he may utter his words as immediately from his affections in a Form, as in a conceived Prayer; and therefore this pretence is altogether insignificant; for his own invention is as much a medium between his affections and utterance in Praying extempore, as the Book in praying by a Form; as for instance, suppose that in confessing sin, he be affected with shame and sorrow, he cannot express it in words, but by using his own invention, or a Form, and whether he uses one or tother, he uses a medium to express it; and why those words which he reads should not be as immediate to his affections as those which he invents, provided they do as fully express them, I am not able to apprehend; in short therefore, if he hath devout affections, they will at least as much confine his thoughts from wandering when he prays by Form, as when he prays Extempore, if he hath not, he cannot utter his words from his affections, either in the one or tother.  
2. We will inquire whether those advantages which our Brethren ascribe to conceived Prayer above Forms, as to the raising the Minister's intention in Prayer, be real, or no: first they pretend that in reading a Form, his affections follow his words, and are raised and excited by them: whereas in praying extempore, his words follow his affections. This I confess is a very curious distinction, but I am not able to apprehend either what foundation there is for it, or how it is applicable to the matter; for first what necessity is there either that his affections should follow his words in a Form, more than in a conceived Prayer, or that his words should follow his affections in a conceived Prayer, more than in a Form? why may not a man be devoutly affected with the matter he prays for, before he expresses it in a Form of words, as well as before he expresses it extempore? since if he be acquainted with the Form, he cannot but know beforehand what he is to pray for in it; and therefore if he be truly devout, cannot but be affected with it, before he prays for it; and so on the other hand, why may not a man as well be unaffected with the matter he prays for in conceived Prayer, till he hath expressed it, as with the matter he prays for in a Form? or what reason can be assigned, why the affection may not follow the words, and be excited by them in the one, as well as in the other? may not a man pray inconsiderately, and suffer his tongue, to run before his heart in both? and may not his affections which were before asleep, be awakened by the sound of his words in either? In short therefore, since in praying by a Form, a man may know as well at least, and hath as much time to consider the matter he is to pray for beforehand, as in praying extempore; what reason is there why it should be more difficult for him to affect his soul beforehand with it in the one, than in the other? and if it be equally hard and easy in both, than 'tis equally possible for his affections to go before, or follow his words in either. But than secondly, suppose it were true, that in conceived Prayer the words follow the affections, and in a Form the affections the words, how doth it from hence follow, that conceived Prayer doth more intent and heighten the affections, than Forms? what reason can there be assigned, why those acts of inward affections, which follow our words in Prayer, should not be as intense and vigorous as those which go before them? why may not a man exert as flagrant an act of desire, immediately after he hath expressed his Petition, as immediately before, especially if that be true which our Brethren affirm, and which most men find by experence; that the words of Prayer, if they are proper and expressive, do naturally quicken and excite the affections; so that if it be the matter only that excites the affections, they may be as vehemently excited after the words are spoken as before; if it be the words also, the afflections must be less vehemently excited excited before the words, than after: in short therefore, when the Minister prays in public, whether it be by Form, or extempore, he prays on, without making any long pauses between one Petition and another, so that as soon as ever he hath conceived the matter, he expresses it, and whether it be immediately before or immediately after, or while he is expressing it, that he joins his affection to it, there can be no reason assigned, if it be the matter he joins them to, why he should more affect it now, than then, there being nothing in the order of before or after, to raise and excite his affection: and if so, his affections following his words, though it were necessary to his praying by a Form, can be no disadvantage to his Devotion, nor the contrary an advantage to it, though it were necessary to his praying extempore: but than secondly, it is pretended that the Minister cannot so well express his devout affections in other men's words, as in his own, and therefore when he prays in a Form of words of other men's composure, 'tis impossible his affections should be so livelily represented, as when he prays extempore: To which in short I answer, That the Ministers business in public Prayer is not to express the degrees and heights of his own affections, or to acquaint God of the particular and extraordinary fervencies of his own soul: for in public he prays as the common mouth of the Congregation, and therefore he ought not to express to God in the name of the People, any matter that is peculiar to himself, or to represent his own particular extraordinary fervours, as the common case of the Congregation, but his words ought to be such as every honest and ordinary Christian may truly join with, as the sense and meaning of his own soul; and for him to express to God in the name of the People, such heights of Devotion as few or none of them are arrived to, is as bad as to confess in their names such sins to God, as few or none of them are guilty of. So that if the Minister hath such peculiar heights of affection as can be fitly expressed only in his own words, he ought not to tell God of them in a public Prayer, in which he is to express nothing but what is the true and common sense of every honest and sincere Christian; and this certainly may be as fitly expressed in another man's words as in his own, unless we will suppose that no man can so well express the common sense of a Christian Congregation, as he that prays extempore, yea, and that he himself cannot so fitly express it in premeditated words, as in extemporary ones; neither of which I suppose any sober Dissenter will affirm. But than Thirdly and lastly, it is also pretended, that in the use of Forms, the Minister's soul is so engaged in directing his eye to read, that it cannot be so intensely affected with what he prays for, as when he prays extempore; in answer to which, I leave the Reader to judge, whether the recollecting of the matter of Prayer, the disposing of it into a due method, and inventing of proper phrases to express it, (neither of which are acts of Prayer, as I showed before) must not much more busy and engage the Ministers foul when he is praying publicly, than the directing of his eye to read; that is, whether one that hath so perfect a habit of reading as that he can readily exercise it without employing one thought about it, cannot read a Prayer more easily, than invent one? for so much easier as it is to read than to invent a Prayer, so much less his soul hath to divert it from being affected with what he prays for when he prays by a Form, than when he prays extempore. And thus you see that those advantages which are ascribed to conceived Prayer, as to the raising the Minister's Devotion, are such as are either imaginary, or as aught rather to be ascribed to Forms.  
But it is pretended, that Forms of Prayer do not only deaden the Minister's Devotion, and so by consequence the People's, but that they do also deaden the People's by a more direct and immediate influence, because they still express the matter of Prayer in the same words, which when the People have often heard, will be apt to cloy their attention, whereas the very newness and variety of words, in which conceived Prayers are expressed, doth naturally awaken and entertain their minds and keep them more fixed and intent. For answer whereunto, let us consider upon what it is that this novelty and variety of expression doth keep our minds so fixed and intent on; is it upon the matter of Prayer? doubtless, No; for that is generally the same, especially the matter of public Prayer, and therefore if it were that that fixed our minds, 'twould as well do it in the same as in new and varied expressions; and since the matter of public Prayer is old, and for the main will be always so, why should it not as well affect us in old words as in new, provided they expressed it with equal propriety and fitness; but if it be merely the nowness of the phrase 'tis expressed in, that fixes their minds: there is nothing in it but a mere surprise and amusement of their fancies, which instead of fixing doth unfix their minds from the internal acts of Prayer, and divert its attention from the devotion to the oratory of it; so that this fixation of their minds on the novelty of the phrase and method of Prayer, is so far from being an advantage, that 'tis a distraction to their devotion. As for Forms of Prayer, there is no doubt but they may be composed with the same advantage of expression, and pronounced with the same affection as the Prayers of our own extempore composure, and if they are so, they will have the same advantage of the music of speech to excite the Devotions of the People; but as for novelty of method and expression, that may indeed entertain their minds and divert them from roving out to other objects, but even this entertainment is a roving and excursion of their minds from the acts of Prayer, which, while they are amused with the novelty of the phrase and method of the Prayer, can be no more intent on the devotion of it, than while they are busied about secular objects and affairs. And indeed that seeming devotion that is raised in the minds of the People by the gingling of the Ministers words about their fancies, is generally false and counterfeit, for as words do naturally impress the fancy, so the fancy doth naturally excite the sensitive affections; so that when the affections are excited merely by the art and music of the words of Prayer, it is not Devotion but Mechanism; for there is no doubt but men may be and many times are strangely affected with the words of Prayer, when they have not the least spark of true devotion to the matter of it; for when they fancy the matter of Prayer, and are affected with it merely for the sake of the words, the movement of their affection will cease as soon as the impression is worn out which the words make upon their fancies, and if in the mean time they happen to hear any other matter expressed in the same affectionate words, they will in all probability be as much affected with it, as they are now with the matter of Prayer, but if the mind be truly devout and doth affect the matter of Prayer for itself and not for the sake of the words, I cannot imagine how new words should any way advantage its devotion, unless they were to express new matter. Since therefore the matter of public Prayer neither is nor aught to be new, unless it be upon extraordinary public emergencies, what colour of reason can there be assigned, why the devotion of the hearers should be more affected with it in new words than in old, supposing it be expressed and pronounced with the same propriety and affection in both. And thus I have shown that those advantages of public Devotion, which are pretended to be peculiar to conceived Prayers, are for the most part imaginary, and that so far forth as they are real they are more peculiar to Forms of Prayer, I proceed to the third and last enquiry, viz.  
3. Whether there are not sundry advantages of public Devotion peculiar to Forms of Prayer, which conceived Prayers cannot pretend to? That there are, I do affirm, and will endeavour to prove by these following Instances.  
1. One great advantage that is peculiar to public Forms of Prayer, is, That the People may address themselves to them with greater preparation; for if they please, they may peruse the words beforehand, and consider the sense and matter of them, and endeavour to affect their minds with it; as for instance, when I know beforehand what words my sins will be confessed in, when I am to join in the public Devotions, I can consider beforehand the sense and meaning of them, and prepare such affections as are suitable to them; as suppose the confession be that of our Church's Liturgy, wherein we begin with Almighty and most merciful Father; I can consider the meaning of these words before I come to Church; and from the consideration of God's almighty and most merciful nature, excite my affections to an awful dread of his power, and an ingenuous sense of his mercy; by which, when I come to join with these words in the public confession, I shall be duly affected with the sense of them, and my soul will be ready melted into all that filial sorrow and humiliation for my sin, which the consideration that I have offended by it an Almighty and most merciful Father suggests; and so if I consider, and apply beforehand all the rest of the confession, I shall thereby tune and set my affections to the sense and matter of each particular phrase and expression in it; which 'twill be impossible for me to do when I am to join with an extempore Prayer; because I cannot know beforehand what the phrases and expressions of it will be; besides which, upon the words of public Forms, there may be written excellent Paraphrases and Meditations, such as is that of the Companion to the Temple; by reading of which the Devotions of the People may be very much excited and improved; which is such an advantage as the words of extempore Prayer will not admit of.  
2. Another advantage peculiar to public Forms, is, That in joining with them the People may pray with more understanding, than they can well be supposed to do in conceived and extempore Prayer, wherein generally the Minister is forced to make use of such words and expressions as come first to hand, having not leisure enough to pick and choose his words, without making long and undecent pauses and interruptions, so that sometimes he is fain to use a hard word, which perhaps not half the People understand, because an easier doth not come to his mind, and sometimes to entangle his expressions with long Parentheses, sometimes to darken his matter with far fetched Metaphors, or to express it by halfs in broken Sentences, and sometimes to run out his Periods to an inordinate length, by which the sense of them is very much clouded and obscured: these and such like inconveniences all the World knows do very commonly attend extempore Effusions: and let a man's fancy and tongue be never so fluent and voluble, he can never be so secure of expressing himself intelligibly to the People when he prayers extempore, as he might be if he took time enough beforehand to choose his words, and form his expressions, so that the People may be much more secure of understanding what they pray for when they join with a Form, than when they join with an extempore Prayer; for to be sure in composing public Forms more care will be taken of the phrase, that the words may fit the matter, and express it intelligibly to the People, than there can be in extempore Prayer; which admits of no long consideration, no alteration upon second thoughts, no after-scanning or revisal, as Forms of Prayer do, but it must pass as it happens, whether it be intelligible or no, by reason of which those who occupy the room of the unlearned, are many times forced to break off praying for want of understanding what the words and expressions of the Prayer mean; for whether the Prayer be spoken in an unknown Tongue, or in words that are unintelligible to the People, it is all one to them, for still their understanding is unfruitful, and so long their devotion must be broken and interrupted.  
3. Another advantage peculiar to public Forms, is, That the People may join with them with much more faith and assurance, than they can with extempore Prayers; it must doubtless be of great advantage to a man's devotion in public, to be satisfied beforehand that the matter he is to pray for is good and acceptable to God; for by this means he will be enabled to pray on with a stronger saith and surer hope of being heard and accepted; but this a man can never be satisfied of aforehand, that joins in extempore Prayer, unless he hath an implicit faith in his Minister, that he will say nothing to God but what is true, nor ask any thing of him but what is lawful; which how he can certainly depend on, I cannot imagine, especially consisidering that the Minister who prays is many times a stranger to him, both as to his person and principles, and for all that he knows may be very erroneous, rash, and unadvised, or very ignorant of what is matter of Prayer, and what not; And even those Ministers whom he knows, and can best confide in, are not always so very sure of their hands, but that some times they may mistake their passion for their zeal, and reek their anger or faction in their Prayers, or in the heat and hurry of speaking what comes next, let drop an error before they are ware, or express themselves so doubtfully, or unadvisedly, that an honest and discerning mind may not be able to join with him; so that in joining with an extempore Prayer, it is very necessary, (as hath been observed by an excellent Divine upon this Argument) that as we go along with the Minister, we should judge of what he saith before our hearts consent to it, and if it should so happen, that by reason of the novelty, or ambiguity, affectation, or indigestedness of his expressions, or any such rub in our way, we cannot readily judge, but are fain to hesitate, and deliberate upon this, or that passage; in the mean time he who prays is gone on, and now upon a new subject, and we are left behind, and at a loss, and perhaps miserably confounded before our Devotion can close in again, and no sooner it may be, is it well fixed, but 'tis led away again into the same inconveniency and maze: all which may be easily prevented by the use of public Forms; of the matter and expressions of which, the People may easily satisfy themselves aforehand, and when this is done, they will have nothing else to do, but to pray and keep their holy affections a going, they will have no new Judgement to make of what is said, no doubtful phrase or matter to examine, and their judgement being satisfied before they begin to pray, with the words and matter of the Prayer, their devotion may go on with it, without pause or stop in an even and uninterrupted current.  
4. Another advantage peculiar to public Forms, is, That they have much less in them to divert the affections of the People from the matter of Prayer. For as for extempore Prayer, it is very apt to disturb the devotion of the People, whether it be well or ill performed, if he who performs it hesitates, or blunders, or expresses himself in crude, undecent, or fantastic phrases, instead of attending to the matter, and joining their affections with it, they will in all probability be pitying, or contemning him, carping at what comes next, and running descants on his weakness and impertinence; if he perform well, and his method be orderly and artificial, his matter good, and his expressions fluent and apt, and easy, they will in all probability be admiring his parts, and entertaining their curiosity with the elegancy of his phrase, the solidity and promptness of his judgement, and the art and finery of his composure; either of which must very much divert and call off their affections from the matter; whereas while they are joining in public Forms, to which they have been accustomed, and in which neither the strength, nor weakness of the Ministers parts appears, they have none of all these snares to entangle their devotion: for being used to the words, and phrase, and method, they have no temptation to concern their minds any farther about them, than as they convey the matter of the Prayer to them, and having none of the  diversions, to carry away their minds from the matter, they may doubtless, if they please, attend to it with much more fervour and affection.  
5. Another peculiar advantage to the People's Devotion in joining with public Forms, is, That they are more secured as to the decency and solemnity of their public Worship; and I suppose there is no body will question, but that the decent and solemn performance of public Worship, is highly advantageous to the Devotion of the People. But now whilst they join in extempore Prayers, the decency and solemnity of the performance, doth altogether depend upon the ability and present disposedness of the Minister: So that if he happen to be a man of a mean elocution, of an unready memory, or an unfruitful invention, it is impossible the Office should be performed with that decency and solemnity, that is necessary to affect the minds, and excite the devotions of the People; yea instead of that perhaps, the wretched dulness, the blundering, confusion, and impertinence of the performance, may turn their devotion into scorn and laughter; for of this I have seen too many sad experiments: but suppose the Minister be a man of pregnant parts, and ready invention and elocution, yea and of great Piety and Devotion too, yet 'tis possible he may be frequently liable to great indispositions of body, and mind, to dulness, and inadvertency, to wandering, and distraction of thoughts, to deficiencies of invention, and failures of memory, and encumbrances of mind, with outward cares and accidents; and if he be, what remedy is there, but that he must many times pray confusedly, and omit a great deal of the matter of Prayer, and utter a great deal of it in broken or undecent expressions? and how can he avoid being sometimes at a loss, both for words and matter, and being forced to supply the present defects of his invention, with fulsome repetitions of what went before? and how is it possible almost but that a great deal of flat and empty nonsense, a great many crude and undigested conceptions, and rash and unadvised expressions should escape from his lips before he is ware? and this, if he hath any grain of modesty in him, must, upon the least reflection, put him into a greater confusion, and so amaze, and bewilder him, that throughout the whole Prayer perhaps, he will hardly be able to recover himself to any consistency of thoughts: Now is it not a hard case, that the decency and solemnity of the public Prayers of a Congregation, should depend upon the uncertain and variable temper and disposition of one single person; so as that if he happen to be indisposed or disordered in his body or mind, the Devotions of 500 or 1000 persons must partake of his disorders and distractions; for how much soever he is indisposed, their Prayer can be no better than what he is able to pour out extempore, and how flatly, unadvisedly or confusedly soever he prays, they must pray after him, or not pray at all; which vast inconvenience is wholly cured and prevented, by a well composed Form of Prayer, for how weak soever the Ministers parts be, or how much soever he may be at present indisposed, if he can but read distinctly and seriously, the Devotion of the People will not be at all affected or influenced by it; for whatsoever his parts, or present temper be, they will be sure to find an orderly and methodical Prayer to join with; a Prayer that is comprehensive of all their common cases and necessities; that is sober and good, mature and well advised as to the matter; that is full and plain and decent as to the phrase and expression of it; and in a word, that is every way suited to all the parts, and ends, and offices of public Devotion; And if they please, they may satisfy themselves beforehand, that there is nothing in the Prayer they are to join with, but what becomes public Worship, which is the most serious and solemn thing in the World.  
6. Another peculiar advantage of public Forms, is, That in joining with them the People may be better secured of the reality and sincerity of their own Devotion. For in joining with extempore Prayers, there is no doubt but they may, and many times do mistake the tickling of their fancies, for true and sincere Devotion; for their fancies being surprised, and amused, merely by the novelty of the expressions, will naturally influence their sensitive passions and chafe them into such warmths as an undiscerning judgement may easily mistake for the holy fervours of Devotions; they find themselves strangely heated in the Prayer, and upon that immediately conclude, that they are wonderfully devout, without ever enquiring, whether it be the matter, or the phrase and expression that heats them; and so from those transports of passion, which are merely the effects of new and surprising words striking briskly on their fancies, they many times take occasion to flatter themselves into a great opinion of their Piety and Godliness; whereas many of these persons are notoriously immoral in their lives, and utterly disaffected to the matter they pray for with so much seeming earnestness and affection; which is a plain argument, that their affection is not to the matter, but merely to the words and expressions; and in all probability the same surprisingness of expression would have as much effected them at a Play, as it doth at a Prayer: thus for instance, when they hear God or Christ spoken of, and their goodness and perfections presented in a new and surprising strain of expressions, their fancy many times is strangely smitten with it, and this makes their spirits flow with a sweet and placid torrent to their heart; and by their frisking about it, to sooth and tickle it into great complacency and pleasure; till at last it opens and dilates its orifices, and the grateful flood breaks in, and drowns it in delight and ravishment; and yet all this many times, instead of being a real complacency of their souls in God, is only a complacency of their fancies in the phrase by which he is described and represented, and had they heard the Hero of Play described in the same phrase, they might probably have been moved to the same affection to him, as they are now to God and their Saviour; for the same kind of influence that new and surprising expressions have upon men's fancies in Prayer, they will have when applied to other matters; And if we will believe Plutarch, it was an ordinary thing with the Greek Sophists, by their honeyed words, surprising phrases, singing tones, and effeminate accents, to excite their Auditors into a kind of Bacchical Enthusiasm; and no doubt but those hearers, of whom he there speaks, who were wont to applaud their Orators at the end of their Declamations with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, divinely, heavenly, unimitably spoken; found themselves as much moved, as many a man doth at an extempore Prayer; who yet verily believes, that it is not merely a movement of his fancy, but of his sincere and true devotion. This therefore is a great disadvantage of extempore Prayer in public, that merely by amusing the fancies of the people with the surprising novelty of its expressions, it puts them into fits of counterfeit devotion, and makes them many times imagine that they are hearty affected with the matter of the Prayers, when 'tis merely the phrase of it that by striking on their fancies, moves their sensitive affection. But whether this movement of affection be fancy, or devotion, a man may much more easily distinguish when he joins with a Form, than when he joins with an extempore Prayer; for he being acquainted aforehand with the phrases and expressions of the Form, it is not to be supposed, that they should much surprise and amuse his fancy, and therefore if notwithstanding that, he finds himself hearty affected in the Prayer, he may much more securely conclude, that it is the matter, and not merely the words that moves and affects him. And thus, with all plainness and sincerity, I have endeavoured to represent those peculiar advantages, which Forms of Prayer have above extempore one's, as to the quickening and improving the Devotions of the People: I might have given other Instances of it, but these I think are sufficient to determine the case in debate, and to convince any unprejudiced man, that pious and well composed Forms, are so far from deadening the public Devotions, that they contribute sundry great advantages to it. And indeed if public Forms do deaden the People's Devotion, it must be either as they always confine the Devotions of the People to the same set of words, which, as I have proved at large, is a great advantage to their Devotion; or as they do pro tempore confine them to a certain set of words; in which sense the Ministers extempore Prayer is a Form to the People, and doth as much confine their Devotions to a certain set of words, pro tempore, as any stated Form whatsoever.  
And now, if after all this, it be objected by our Brethren, that they find by Experience, which is the best Argument, that Forms do actually deaden their Devotion, I would beseech them seriously to consider, whether this experience of theirs be not founded in an unreasonable prejudice; and if it be, whether it's fit that their unreasonable prejudice should prescribe to the whole Church? it's certain, that there are other men as truly pious and devout as they, who find by experience, that joining with the public Forms is a great advantage to their Devotion; so that here is experience against experience; and certainly where there are two contrary experiences of the same thing, they cannot both proceed from the nature of the thing; but one, or t'other must necessarily arise from the disposition and temper of those who are conversant about it: Now I have showed that Forms of Prayer are in themselves real advantages to public Devotion, and that they are so, there are many thousands of good Christians can attest by their own experience; and therefore if our Brethren do not experience the same, the fault must lie in their own prejudice, or temper, and there is no doubt to be made, but would they hearty endeavour to cure their own prejudice, and to dispossess their minds of those groundless Piques they have entertained against our Liturgy; would they but peruse it with impartial eyes; consider the contents, and labour to affect their minds with the sense and matter of it; they would quickly find the same experience of its advantageousness to public devotion, as those blessed Martyrs did who composed it, used, and at last died for it, and valued every Leaf of it as an inestimable treasure; and as we should consent in our experience, so we should also in our communion, and with one heart and one mouth glorify our Father together.  
FINIS.    

CERTAIN Cases of Conscience RESOLVED, Concerning The Lawfulness of Joining WITH Forms of Prayer IN Public Worship. PART II. VIZ.  

iv Whether the common wants of Christian Congregations may not be better represented in conceived Prayers than in Forms?  
V Whether there be any warrant for Forms of Prayer either in Scripture or pure Antiquity?  
VI Whether supposing Forms to be lawful, the imposition of them may be lawfully complied with?   
LONDON: Printed by J. C. and F. C. for T. Basset, at the George in Fleetstreet; B. took, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard; and F. Gardiner, at the White Horse in Ludgate-street. 1684.   


CASE IU. Whether the common Cases and Wants of Christians can be so well expressed in one Constant Form, as in a Conceived Prayer?  
IT is objected, That not only the Cases of particular Christians, but the common Cases of Christian Societies and Assemblies are subject to infinite Changes and Alterations; that they have many times new Judgements to be humbled for, new Blessings to return thanks for, new Dangers to deprecate, and new Hopes to pursue and solicit, which the Composers of our standing Forms could not foresee, and for which by consequence they could not provide suitable Petitions and Thanksgivings; besides which, particular Churches may at one time be more pure and reformed, and at another time more depraved and degenerated; and certainly such different states require different Confessions and Prayers: and therefore to suit and adapt one common Form to common Cases and Necessities, which are so very variable and alterable, seems as vain an attempt, as 'twould be to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all its changes; whereas were the public Prayers left to be conceived and worded by the Ministers, sufficient provision might be made for all these alterations and changes, by their varying their Confessions, Petitions, and Thanksgivings, according as the common Cases and Exigencies of their People vary: and therefore since conceived Prayers are most fit to represent the public Cases and Necessities, they think it very unlawful that the public Prayers should be performed by a Form. In order to the full and plain resolution of this Case therefore I shall lay down these following Propositions:  
1. That the common Cases and Necessities of Christians are for the main always the same, and therefore may be more fully comprehended in a Form, than in an extempore Prayer: for public Prayers ought not to descend to particular Cases and Necessities, because they are the Prayers of the whole Congregation, and therefore aught to comprehend no more than what is more or less every man's Case and Necessity: They ought to confess sin in no other particular instances or aggravations, than such as are justly chargeable upon a Congregation of Christians; nor to petition or return thanks for any other Mercies, but what a Christian Congregation may be supposed either to stand in need of, or to have received; because the Confession, Petition, and Thanksgiving is in the name of the whole Congregation, and therefore aught to comprise nothing in them but what is the common Case of all, and what every one may truly and sincerely join with. Now as for these matters of Prayer which are common to Christian Congregations, they are for the main always the same; the same sins and aggravations of sin which were fit for a common Confession of Christians one thousand years ago, are for the main as fit for our common Confessions to this day; and the Mercies which we need and receive in common now, are for the main the same with what all Christians before us have needed and received in common. As for instance, the Mercies which in public Prayer ought to be petitioned for, are such as all Christians have a common need of, and aught to have a common concern for; such as the forgiveness of our sins, the peace of our Consciences, the assistance of Divine Grace to deliver us from the power of sin and Satan, and make us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, redemption from Death and Hell, protection and success in all our honest Concerns and Undertake, and the daily supply of our bodily Wants and Necessities; and in general, the preservation and direction of our Governors, the peace and welfare of our native Country, the prosperity of the Church, the propagation of the Gospel, and the success of its Ministers in the work of the Lord. And these were the main matter of the common Petitions of Christian people a thousand years ago, and will be so a thousand years hence. Since therefore the matter of public Prayer is for the main always the same, I can see no reason why, so far as it is the same, it may not be more comprehensively expressed in a Form, than in an extempore Prayer; which depending on the present invention and memory of the speaker, it is impossible almost, but of so many particulars, some should be many times omitted, or at least not so fully and distinctly expressed, as it might be in a well-considered Form; the Composer of which hath much more time to recollect the matter, and may supply whatsoever was omitted at first, upon a second or a third revisal: and I dare appeal to any impartial Judge, whether in our Church's Litany, how meanly soever our Brethren may think of it, there be not a much more distinct enumeration of the main particulars of public Petitions, than ever he met with in any extemporary Prayer.  
2. That such alterations of the common Cases and Necessities of Christian Churches as could not be foreseen and provided for at the first forming of their Liturgies, may for the most part be provided for in new Forms, when they happen; for so our Church, we see, hath done in all such new Cases as are of a more public and general concern: though the Composers of our Liturgy could not foresee the Horrid Powder-Plot, and the strange discovery of it, the impious Murder of the late King, and the happy Restoration of this, yet upon the happening of those great Events, our Church hath always taken care to provide such Forms of public Prayer as are every way suitable to the Case: and as for those extraordinary Cases which might be foreseen, because they happen more frequently in the course of things, such as want of Rain, or fair Wether, Dearth and War, Plague and Sickness, there may be Forms composed for them aforehand, as there are in our Church's Liturgy; so that it is no Argument at all against public Forms, that they cannot make a due provision for extraordinary Cases and Events: for before they happen, extempore Prayers can no more make due provision for them than Forms; and after they happen, as due a provision may be made for them by Forms as by extempore Prayers.  
3. That supposing such provision for extraordinary Cases be not or cannot be made in the public Form, yet that is no Argument why it should not be used so far forth as it comprehends the main of the common Cases and Necessities of the People: for, as I showed before, the main matter of public Prayer may be much more fully comprehended in a studied Form, than it can reasonably be supposed to be in an extempore Prayer; in which, in all probability, there will be more omissions, as to what respects the ordinary cases of Christians, than there are in the public Form, as to what respects their extraordinary cases: so that if the Form ought not to be used, because it extends not always to all their extraordinary Cases, for the same reason extempore Prayer ought not to be used, because it extends not always to all their ordinary Cases. But since, as hath been proved at large, the use of Forms is upon sundry accounts of great advantage to the public Devotion, it's very reasonable that they should be used so far forth as they can and do express the common Cases and Necessities; and that the people should not be deprived of the benefit of joining with them in the main matters of public Prayer, because such extraordinary matters may occur as either are not or can be expressed in them; especially when  
4. The defect of such new provision, for extraordinary Cases, may be supplied by the Minister in a public Prayer of his own: for, as I observed before, our Church allows, or at leasts permits the Minister to use a Prayer of his own composure in the Pulpit; in which, if any extraordinary Mercy or Judgement, for which there is no provision in our Liturgy, happen to the place he lives in, there is no doubt but he may and aught to supply the Devotion of his People with such Confessions, Petitions, and Thanksgivings, as are proper and suitable to the occasion: and where this is allowed of or permitted, the non-provision for such extraordinary Cases in the established Liturgy can be no bar at all against the use of it, provided its Prayers be good, and comprehend all ordinary matters of Prayer; it is sufficiently provided for ordinary public Devotion, and so far doubtless may be lawfully used, sufficient provision being otherwise made for all those extraordinary matters which it doth not or could not comprehend. The sum of all therefore is this, That as for the ordinary and main matters of public Prayer, they may be more fully and distinctly comprehended in a Form, than in an extempore Prayer; and as for those new matters which extraordinary public Emergencies do administer, they may for the generality be as well comprehended in a new Form, as in a new extempore Prayer; and though it should not or could not be expressed in the public Form, yet that is no bar against our joining with it in all other matters of Prayer, especially when these new matters of Prayer may be comprehended and expressed in a public Prayer of the Minister's own composure.   

CASE V Whether there be any Warrant for Forms of Prayer in Scripture, or pure Antiquity?  
IN which Case there are two Inquiries to be made: 1. Whether there be any Warrant for Forms of Prayer in the holy Scripture? 2. Whether there be any evidence of the public use of them in the primitive and purer Ages of the Church?  
1. Whether there be any Warrant for the use of Forms of Prayer in holy Scripture? Where by Warrant must be meant either, first, positive Command; or secondly, allowed Example; for upon both these our Brethren insist: First, they require us to produce some positive Command, upon this pretence, that nothing ought to be used in the Worship of God, but what is commanded by him; which, how true it is, is not my present business to inquire, that being done already to excellent purpose, in the Case about Indifferent Things. But because upon this pretence our Brethren reject the use of Forms as unlawful, I shall endeavour to prove these two things:  

1. That supposing this pretence were true, yet it doth not conclude against the use of Forms.  
2. That supposing it did conclude against the use of Forms, it equally concludes against conceived or extempore Prayer.   
1. That supposing this pretence were true, viz. That what is not commanded by God, ought not to be used in his Worship, yet it doth not conclude against the use of Forms: for though we do not pretend that God hath anywhere commanded us to pray to him by Forms and no otherwise, or that all the Prayers which we at any time offer to him, should be first composed into a Form; yet we do assert, that he hath enjoined some Forms to be used and offered up in Prayer, though together with those particular Forms we grant there might be, and doubtless sometimes were other Prayers to be offered up to him. Thus in the Old Testament we read of sundry Forms of Prayer enjoined to be used by God himself, and which is the same thing, by persons immediately inspired; so Numb. 6. 23, 24, 25, 26. On this wise, or thus, shall Aaron and his sons bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless thee and keep thee, the Lord make his face shine upon thee, the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. In which words the Priest did solemnly invocate and pray for a Blessing on the people, and he is commanded to do it, saying unto them this very Form of words, The Lord bless thee, etc. which is as plain an injunction of this Form, as words can well express. So also in the expiation of uncertain Murder, Deut. 21. 7, 8. the people are enjoined by God to say, Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel 's charge. So also at their paying their third years Tithes, they were expressly enjoined to use this Form of words, I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, etc. Look down from thy holy habitation from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the land which thou hast given unto us, as thou swarest unto our fathers, the land that flows with milk and honey. And as God enjoined them these and suchlike Forms for particular occasions, so David, by inspiration from God, appointed them the Book of Psalms for their Public Service: for so in the Titles we find several of them particularly recommended to the Choires of the Priests and Levites for parts of their Vocal Service, some to the Sons of Korah, others to Asaph, others to Jeduthun, and a great many to the Master of the Music. And though others have no title at all, as particularly the 96th and 105th, yet 1 Chron. 16. 7. we find that they were delivered by David into the hands of Asaph and his brethren, for Forms of Praise and Thanksgiving to God; and accordingly, 2 Chron. 29. 30. we are told that Hezekiah the King commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord, with the words of David and of Asaph the seer. And this Liturgy was renewed by Ezra, at the laying the Foundations of the second Temple; for so, Ezra 3. 10, 11. the Priests and Levites were ordered to praise the Lord after the Ordinance of David King of Israel, and accordingly they sung together by course, in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord, because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever towards Israel. And besides all these instances of Forms of Prayer appointed by God in the Old Testament, we have a very considerable one in the New, and that is the Lord's Prayer, which in Luke 11. 2. our Saviour thus prescribes, When ye pray, say, Our Father, etc. in which he doth as expressly enjoin them the using of that Form of words as was possible for him to do in any humane Language: for if he had said, When ye pray, say or use this Form of words, it could not have been more expressive of his intention to impose it as a Form, than his bidding them, when they prayed, to say, Our Father: And if we will not admit that to be the sense of a Text, which the words of it do as plainly signify as they could have done if it were, we have no way to determine the sense of any Scripture, but may eternally play upon the plainest words of it with quirks of wit and fancy. But it is objected by our Brethren, That in Matth. 6. 9 where our Saviour also delivers this Prayer to the Disciples, instead of bidding them say Our Father, he only bids them pray after this manner, Our Father, etc. which is a plain argument, say they, that he gave it to them not as a Form, but as a Pattern and Directory of Prayer. To which I answer, 1. That where the same matter is mentioned ambiguously in one Text, and plainly and expressly in another, it's a necessary rule of interpretation, that the sense of the doubtful and ambiguous Text should be determined by the words of the plain and express Text. Now it's plain, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pray thus, is of a doubtful signification, and may as well denote, Pray in these words, as after this Pattern and Direction; and he who is bid to pray thus, obeys the command, whether he prays for the same things in others, or in the same words; so that had our Saviour expressed himself in no other words but these, it might have been doubtful whether he meant to prescribe it as a Form, or as a Directory of Prayer: but say Our Father, is plainly and expressly, say these words, Our Father; and he who is bid to say such words, disobeys the command, though he should say the same thing in other words: so that had our Saviour expressed himself in no other words but these, there could have been no doubt but that his meaning was to prescribe those words for a Form of Prayer; unless we could have supposed, that by this Injunction, say Our Father, we are not obliged to say Our Father; and how could we have supposed that, without high presumption, had it not been for this pretence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pray thus? Since therefore pray thus is a doubtful expression, it is very reasonable it should be interpreted by say Our Father, which is a plain and determinate one; and if so, the sense of both must be this, When ye pray, use this Form of words, which I here prescribe you, Our Father, etc. 2ly. I answer, that our Saviour gave not this Prayer to his Disciples after the manner of a Directory, but after the manner of a Form of Prayer: had he given it to them merely as a direction what they were to pray for, in all probability he would have expressed himself after another manner, and instead of bidding them say Our Father, or pray thus, Our Father, he would have bid them call upon God by the Name of their heavenly Father, and beseech him to cause his Name to be glorified and hallowed in the World, and his Kingdom to spread and advance, etc. instead of which, he gives them a formed Prayer, and bids them say it: And therefore since he gave it to them after the manner of a Form, and not after the manner of a Directory, and since we may reasonably suppose that he intended they should use it after the same manner in which he gave it, it follows, that he gave it to them to be used as a Form, and not merely as a Pattern, or Directory. 3 . I answer, That supposing that when he bid them pray thus, in the sixth of St. Matthew, he prescribed it only as a Directory for Prayer, yet it doth not follow but that when he bade them say Our Father, in the 11th of Luke, he might prescribe it as a Form, because it is not the same prescription in both, but different, and given them at a different time, and upon a different occasion: the first was given them in the Sermon upon the Mount, and in the second year after his Baptism; the second was given them upon their own request, after he had done praying, and in the third year after his Baptism: and whosoever shall consult both places, will soon be convinced that the Lords Prayer in St. Luke was delivered at another time, and upon a quite different occasion from that in St. Matthew. It's highly probable therefore that the Disciples, when 'twas delivered in St. Matthew, looked upon it merely as given 'em by way of a Directory or Copy by which they were to frame and compose their Prayers: for if they had thought it given 'em as a Form of Prayer, it is not imaginable why they should request him to teach 'em a Form to pray by again, when he had taught 'em one before: either therefore their request in St. Luke must be very impertinent, or it must be to desire him to teach 'em something more than they apprehended he had taught 'em in St. Matthew; but they knew that in St. Matthew he had taught 'em already how, and in what manner to pray; and therefore what further could they now request of him in St. Luke, but that he would teach 'em a Form of Prayer? Supposing then that St. Matthew's words were intended by our Saviour merely for a Directory according as his Disciples apprehended, yet it doth not follow that St. Luke's were so intended too, because it was not only given at a different time, and upon a different occasion, but the occasion was their requesting our Saviour to teach 'em something more than what he had taught 'em in St. Matthew, that is, something more than a mere Pattern or Directory for Prayer; and what else could that something more be but a Form? Especially considering, 4ly. That the occasion of Christ's giving 'em this Prayer in St. Luke, was their requesting him to teach 'em to pray as John taught his Disciples: for it was the custom of the Jewish Doctors, as our Learned Lightfoot hath proved, to teach their Disciples a Form of Prayer as the Badge and Livery of their Discipleship; according to which custom it seems, John the Baptist had taught his Disciples a Form of his own composure; which the Disciples of Jesus understanding, they make it their request to him, that he, according to this laudable custom, would teach them to pray also, that is, teach 'em a Form of Prayer even as John had taught his Disciples: And that it was a Form, and not merely a Directory of Prayer which they requested, is evident not only from this custom of the Jewish Doctors, but also from the reason of the thing: for how can we reasonably imagine that either John or our Saviour's Disciples should be ignorant how to pray, since as they were Jews, they had their set hours of daily Prayer which they constantly observed? viz. the third, the sixth, and the ninth, besides which, as I observed before, the Disciples of our Saviour had already received a Directory of Prayer from him; so that without all controversy, that which they now request of him was not a Directory but a Form: When therefore upon this their request he bid 'em say, Our Father, they had all the reason in the World to believe that he prescribed it as a Form; and unless he prescribed it as a Form, he did not answer their request even when he pretended to answer it.  
But it is further objected by our Brethren, That supposing our Saviour did prescribe it as a Form of Prayer to his Disciples, yet it was only pro tempore, till such time as they were more fully instructed and enabled to pray by the coming of the holy Ghost. To enforce which, they observe, that this Prayer was not directed by Christ to be offered up in his Name, as all their Prayers were to be after his Ascension into Heaven: for though hitherto, that is, while Christ was upon Earth, his Disciples had asked nothing in his Name, John 16. 44. yet he enjoins 'em after his Ascension to ask in his Name, John 14. 13, 14. John 16. 23. which is a plain token, say they, that if he did prescribe 'em this Prayer as a Form, he intended it should be of no longer use than till after his Ascension; otherwise he would have inserted into it his own Name, in which from thence to the end of the World all Christian Prayers were to be offered up: and accordingly, say they, in all the New Testament we have not the least intimation of the Disciples using this Form.  
In answer to which Objection, I shall endeavour to make out these three things: 1. That our Saviour hath not given us the least intimation, that he prescribed this Form pro tempore only, or for a certain time. 2. That his not inserting his own Name into it, is no argument at all that he so meant or intended. 3. That though there be no mention in the New Testament of the Apostles and Disciples using it, yet this is no argument either that they did not use it, or believe themselves obliged to use it.  
1. That our Saviour hath not given us the least intimation that he prescribed this Form pro tempore only, and not for continual use; nor indeed do those who object it, produce the least shadow of any such intimation: and I would beseech my Brethren to consider of what dangerous consequence it may be for them to pronounce Christ's Institutions null, and extinguish the Obligations of them, without producing his authority for it: for, at the same rate, they may make void all the Institutions of our Saviour, and pronounce even Baptism and the Lord's Supper temporary Prescriptions, as the Quakers do, as well as the Lord's Prayer. Whatsoever Christ hath instituted without limitation of time, doth always oblige, though the perpetuity of the Obligation be not expressed by him: and therefore unless the Objectors can prove that Christ hath limited the use of the Lord's Prayer to such or such a time, say Our Father must as much oblige now, as it did when it was first delivered. But perhaps it may be said, that though Christ hath not in express words limited the use of this Form to such a time, yet since his own Name, wherein all Prayers were to be offered up after his ascension, is not inserted into it, this is a fair intimation, that he never intended it should be used after his ascension. I answer therefore,  
2. That his not inserting his own Name into it, is no argument at all that he never intended it should be used after his ascension: we do acknowledge, that after he was ascended and sat down at the right hand of his Father, all his followers were obliged to offer up their Prayers in his Name or Mediation; but withal we do affirm, that they may offer up their Prayers in his Name, though they do not name him: for thus we have several Prayers of Christ's Disciples recorded in the New Testament, which, without doubt, were offered in his Name, and yet his Name is not inserted in them, at least not as implying his mediation, as particularly Acts 4. 24. for indeed to pray in the Name of Christ, is to pray in his mediation, and to hope and depend upon his sacrifice and intercession for a gracious answer of our Prayers: and if we expect all good through Jesus, and wholly rely upon his merit for the acceptance of our Prayers, we pray in his Name though we do not name him; so that Christ's not inserting his Name into this Prayer of his, doth not at all hinder us from offering it up in his mediation. 'Tis true, could it be made appear, that he did not intent we should offer this Prayer in his Name, it would thence follow, that he did not intent we should use it after his ascension; but his not inserting his Name into it, is no argument at all that he did not intent we should offer it in his Name, since we may as well and truly offer it in his Name, though he is not named in it, as if he were; and he hath not given us the least intimation of his will to the contrary: 'tis true, he did not express his Name in it, because as yet they to whom he gave it, were not to ask in his Name, he being not yet ascended; but now that he is ascended, we can as well offer it in his Name, as if his Name had been expressed in it: how then doth it follow, that because he did not direct them to offer it in his Name▪ before his ascension, therefore he did not intent they should offer it in his Name afterwards? especially considering that he himself had so framed it, that after his ascension, when the Doctrine of his Mediation was to be more fully explained to them, they could not offer it at all but in and through his mediation: for now that we understand his mediation, we know that we are the Sons of God, in and through him; and therefore when we thus invoke God, Our Father which art in Heaven, we must implicitly invoke him in and through Jesus Christ, through whom alone we acknowledge it is that God is peculiarly our Father. Since therefore our Saviour hath so composed this Form, as that after his ascension his Followers could offer it up no otherwise, but in and through his mediation, this is a plain indication, that he intended that after his ascension they should offer it in his mediation, though his Name be not expressed in it; and what though it be not expressed? yet it may be expressed, and always hath been in the Prayers immediately preceding it: for though we do believe that our Saviour hath commanded us to use this Form, at least in our public Worship, yet we do not pretend that no other Prayer is to be used besides, either in public or in private; and if we use another Prayer before it, we may express in the transition to it, as we ordinarily do, that 'tis in the Name and Mediation of Jesus Christ that we pray, Our Father, etc. Since therefore when we say Our Father, we do implicitly pray in Christ's mediation, and also explicitly in the Prayers annexed to it, how doth it follow, that because Christ's Name is not expressed in it, therefore he did not intent we should offer it in his mediation, or therefore he did not intent it for a standing Form?  
3. That though there be no mention in the New Testament of the Apostles and Disciples using it, yet this is no argument either that they did not use it, or that they did not believe themselves obliged to use it: for the great design of the New Testament being to give an account of the Life of Jesus, and of the Doctrines and Precepts of his Religion, together with those miraculous Works by which it was confirmed, it can no more be expected that the Prayers of the Christian Assemblies should be recorded in it, than that the Liturgy of the Church of England should be recited in the Exposition of the Creed, or the whole Duty of Man. And therefore as the New Testament takes no notice of their using the Lord's Prayer, so neither doth it take notice of any other particular Prayer that they used in their public Assemblies: from whence we may as reasonably conclude, that they used no Prayer at all, notwithstanding our Lord commanded them to pray, as that they did not use the Lord's Prayer, notwithstanding he commanded them to say, Our Father; or at least that they did not Baptise in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, since notwithstanding Christ commanded them to do so, yet there is no record in the New Testament of their baptising any persons in that Form. So that from the silence of the New Testament in this matter, it would be very unreasonable to infer, that the Apostles omitted the Lord's Prayer, notwithstanding he once commanded them to use it; especially considering that those who lived nearest the Apostolical Ages, and so were the most competent Judges of what was done in them, where the Scripture is silent, did always use this Form in their public Prayers, and believe themselves obliged to do so: For thus in the Apostolic Age Lucian makes mention of a Prayer which they used in their public Worship, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, beginning from the Father; which doubtless was the Lord's Prayer: vid. Lucian. Philop. And Tertullian, who lived about an hundred years after the Apostolical Age, discoursing of the Lord's Prayer, tells us, that Novis Discipulis, novi Testamenti Christus novam Orationis Formam determinavit, (i. e.) That Christ hath instituted a new Form of Prayer for his new Disciples. St. Cyprian, who was but a small matter his Junior, reckons his giving a Form of Prayer among those divine and wholesome Precepts which he imposed on his People: and a little after, Oremus, saith he, Fratres dilectissimi, sicut Magister docuit, etc. Let us pray as our Master hath taught us, let the Father own the words of his Son; and since, saith he, we have an Advocate with the Father, when we ask pardon for our sins, let us ask it in the words of our Advocate; and how much more shall we prevail, for what we ask in Christ's Name, if we ask in his Prayer? De Orat. Domin. So St. Cyril acquaints us, that after the general Prayer for all men, followed that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. the Prayer which Christ taught his Disciples. Cyril. Cat. Mist. 5. Thus also St. Jerom: Docuit Apostolos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio, credentes audeant loqui Pater Noster. Hieron. in Pelag. l. 3. And St. Austin tells us, that in his time the Lords Prayer was every day said at the Altar, and that almost every Church concluded with the Lords Prayer. And St. Chrysostom speaking of those who would not forgive injuries, tells 'em, etc. When thou sayest, Forgive us 
Hom. 42. 50. ep. 59 ad Paul. Qu. 5. St. Chrysde simultat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  our Trespasses as we forgive; if thou dost not forgive, thou beggest God to deny thee forgiveness: which is a plain evidence that this Form of Prayer was of ordinary use in his Age; and that 'twas then thought matter of duty to use it syllabically, is evident from what follows. But, saith he, you will say, I dare not say, Forgive me as I forgive, but only Forgive me: To which having answered, That however he said it, God would forgive him as he forgave, he concludes thus: Do not imagine 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that you are secured from this danger by not pronouncing all the Prayer; do not therefore curtail it, but as it is instituted, so use it, that so the necessity of daily using the whole, may compel thee to forgive thy Brother. And St. Gregory expressly affirms, That the Apostles themselves 
Ep. l. 7. c. 6.  did always at the Consecration of the Eucharist make use of the Lords Prayer. By these and sundry other Testimonies which are quoted by learned men upon this argument, it's evident that the Church of Christ in all Ages looked upon the Lord's Prayer as a standing Form given by our Saviour, to be perpetually used by Christians: and to be sure, they who believed the institution of it to be perpetually obliging, could not make the least doubt, but that it was constantly used in the Apostolic Age. And my thinks 'tis very strange, that had the institution been temporary, the Church of Christ for fifteen hundred years should never be wise enough to discover it; and it seems to me a very high presumption for us to determine against the constant belief and practice of the Church in all Ages, without the least warrant so to do, either from our Saviour or his Apostles.  
By all this therefore it's abundantly evident, that both in the Old and New Testament there have been Forms of Prayer instituted and appointed by God himself; so that were that true which our Brethren affirm, that nothing ought to be admitted into the Worship of God which he hath not commanded, yet this will not conclude against the admission of Forms of Prayer, since there are Forms which God himself hath commanded.  
But they object yet farther, That all that this proves is, that Forms of Prayer of God's appointment may and aught to be admitted into his Worship; which no body doubts of: but from hence it doth by no means follow, that men may appoint Forms of humane composure: for those Forms of Prayer which God prescribed were immediately dictated by him to those inspired persons who delivered 'em; and therefore we may as well pretend to appoint new Scripture for public instruction, because those inspired persons did so, as to appoint new Forms for public Worship. Now because I perceive this Objection is very much insisted on by our Brethren, I shall endeavour to return a full and clear answer to it, in these following Propositions: First, That this Objection allows the prescribing of Forms of Prayer to be lawful in its own nature. Secondly, That it must allow the prescribing of public Forms to be not only lawful, but good and useful. Thirdly, It must also allow that Gods prescribing Forms of Prayer by inspired persons, is so far forth a Warrant for our imitation, as the thing itself is good and useful, and lawfully imitable by us. Fourthly, That though it follows, that because God by inspired persons hath prescribed Forms of Prayer, therefore the Church may prescribe them upon God's reasons; yet it doth by no means follow, that therefore it may prescribe them as Scripture or divine Inspirations.  
First, That this Objection allows the prescribing of Forms of Prayer to be lawful of its own nature, that is, to be void of all intrinsic evil, and to have no contrariety in the nature of it to the eternal Rules and Dictates of right reason: for this Objection granting, as it doth, that God hath prescribed Forms of Prayer, must either admit that God may do, and hath done that which is intrinsically evil, and repugnant to right reason, or grant that the prescribing of Forms hath no intrinsic evil in it. And in particular, it is to be considered, that our Saviour's prescribing his Form was a tacit approbation of other Forms that were prescribed before, and that not only by God, but by men too: for though besides those Forms which were prescribed by God for the public Worship of the Jews, their Doctors tell us of sundry Forms of humane Composure that were used in their Temple and Synagogues in our Saviour's time, yet he was so far from disapproving either them, or that which John Baptist taught his Disciples, that in conformity to the later, he prescribed a Form to his own Disciples; which Form of his, as our Learned Gregory hath proved, he collected out of Forms of Prayer which were then used among the Jews, in whose Books the several parts and clauses of it are extant almost verbatim to this day: and certainly had he disapproved their Forms as evil and sinful, he would never have collected his own Prayer out of 'em. Since therefore our Saviour hath not only given us a Form, but hath also given it under such circumstances as do plainly signify his approbation of other Forms, it necessarily follows, that either he hath approved that which is evil, or that Forms of Prayer are not evil.  
Secondly, That this Objection must allow the prescribing of public Forms to be not only lawful in itself, but also good and useful: for whatsoever God doth, he is directed to do by his own infallible Wisdom; which always proceeds upon the best reasons, and proposes the best ends of action to him, and the most effectual means to compass and obtain 'em: when therefore we grant that God hath done such or such a thing, we must either allow the thing to be good and useful to some excellent end and purpose, or suppose that he did not consult his Wisdom in it, or that his Wisdom was mistaken. He therefore who allows that God hath prescribed Forms of Prayer, must either blaspheme his Wisdom, or grant the prescribing 'em to be good and useful. But it is objected that the prescribing 'em was good and useful only at that time, and under those circumstances wherein they were prescribed: as for instance, in the times of the Old Testament it may be allowed, that the prescribing of Forms might be good and useful, the Jews, to whom they were prescribed, being a carnal, dull, and stupid People; and yet under the times and circumstances of the Gospel-state, which is so vastly different, the prescribing 'em may not only cease to be good, but become hurtful and injurious. To which in short, I answer, 1st. That supposing it were the Carnality, Dulness, and Stupidity of the Jews that rendered Forms so useful to 'em; I doubt that as to those particulars, the case is not so much altered with the generality of Christians, but that they may be useful still: and though 'tis to be hoped we are not altogether so very dull and carnal as they were, yet, as it hath been made appear in the former part of this Treatise, we are not so perfectly refined from Dulness and Carnality, but that Forms of Prayer may still be very useful to us. But, 2ly. this Objection allows not only that there were Forms of Prayer prescribed in the Old Testament, but that our Saviour himself hath also prescribed one in the New, for all successive Ages to pray by; and if so, than we must either blaspheme the Wisdom of our Saviour for prescribing what is vain and useless, or grant the prescription of Forms to be good and useful, not only for the Jewish, but also for the Gospel-state.  
Thirdly, This Objection must also allow that Gods prescribing Forms of Prayer by inspired persons is so far forth a Warrant for our imitation, as the thing itself is good and useful, and imitable by us: if God doth such or such a thing because it is good, and useful to some end, that is a sufficient Warrant for us to do the same, provided we have the same reason: for, to imitate God is not only our privilege, but our duty. But how can we be said to imitate Him, if so far as our power extends, we do not the same things that he doth, when we have the same reasons? Since therefore God as supreme Governor of his Church hath prescribed Forms of Prayer because they are good and useful, those whom he hath substituted to govern for him, are thereby sufficiently warranted to prescribe 'em too, so long as they continue so; so that Gods prescribing 'em is a sufficient argument that they are useful; and that they are useful, is a sufficient reason for the Governors of the Church to prescribe 'em also, because for that reason God himself hath prescribed 'em: and certainly our Spiritual Governors, who are in God's stead, are sufficiently warranted to do as God hath done, when they have Gods own reason to do it. Against this I know nothing can be objected, but only that common and fundamental Principle of all our Separations, viz. That God himself hath forbid the prescribing of any thing in or about his Worship but what he himself hath prescribed: and therefore whatsoever reason there may be for it, no other Forms ought to be prescribed but what are of his own inditing and prescription. The falseness of which hath been sufficiently demonstrated in the Case about Indifferent Things: And therefore as to the matter in hand, I shall only say, that the Objection strikes with equal force against Extemporary words which God hath not prescribed, as against Forms of words which he hath not prescribed: for as I have already proved, Part 1. and shall yet further prove hereafter, praying Extempore by our own Gift of expression is no more prescribed by God than praying by a Form; and therefore the words of Extempore Prayers are no more prescribed by him than the words of Forms: so that if the latter may not be admitted into the Worship of God, because they are not prescribed by him, neither may the former. And indeed, he who prays extempore, doth as much prescribe a Form of words to the people in public Worship, as he who prays by a Form, their devout desires and affections being equally confined to this particular Set of expressions in both. And if each single Presbyter may prescribe a Form of words to the People which God hath not prescribed 'em, how much more may the Governors of the Church? Admitting therefore that such words may be prescribed in Prayer as God hath not prescribed, his prescribing of Forms of Prayer must be a sufficient Warrant for the Governors of his Church to prescribe 'em when they have his reason so to do.  
Fourthly, and lastly, That though it follows that because God by inspired persons hath prescribed Forms of Prayer, therefore the Governors of the Church may prescribe 'em upon God's reasons; yet it doth by no means follow, that therefore they may prescribe 'em as Scripture, or Divine Inspiration. As briefly to instance in another case: Because God the supreme Governor of his Church, hath taken care to instruct it by inspired persons, it thence follows that those whom he hath appointed to govern it, should take care to instruct it too; but it doth by no means follow, either that they should instruct it by inspired persons, or that they should pretend to instruct it by Divine Inspiration: for they have the same reason that God had to instruct it, viz. because it's good and useful to the best purposes. And so far as they have the same reason with God, they ought to do the same thing; but they cannot have the same reason that God had to instruct it by inspired persons, because 'tis not in their power so to do: and therefore as they cannot be obliged to it, so neither ought they to pretend to it. And so it is as to prescribing Forms of Prayer: for, That God himself hath prescribed 'em to his Church by immediate Inspiration, may be a sufficient Warrant for Church-governors to prescribe 'em too; but it cannot be a sufficient Warrant for 'em to prescribe 'em by immediate Inspiration: for they may have the same reasons to prescribe 'em that God had, viz. because they are good and useful for public Devotion; but they cannot have the same reason to prescribe 'em by immediate Inspiration, because that is not in their power, and therefore 'twould be a manifest cheat for 'em to pretend to it. Had they the same common reasons with God for both, his Example would warrant 'em not only to prescribe 'em, but to prescribe 'em as Scripture and Divine Inspiration; but since there is a peculiar reason why they may not prescribe 'em as Scripture, viz. because they cannot without manifest falsehood and presumption, which reason is not at all applicable to the bare and simple prescribing 'em, therefore it doth by no means follow, that if they may lawfully do the latter, they may lawfully do the former also. Having thus answered the Objections of our Brethren, it remains, that supposing that Principle were true, viz. That nothing aught to be admitted into the Worship of God, but what God hath commanded; yet it doth not universally conclude against the admitting Forms of Prayer into his Worship, because he himself hath commanded some Forms, and by commanding them hath licenced and authorized the Governors of his Church to prescribe others upon the same reasons.  
I proceed therefore to the second general Head proposed, which was to show, that supposing this Principle, viz. That nothing aught to be admitted into the Worship of God but what is commanded by him, did conclude against Forms of Prayer, it equally concludes against conceived or extempore Prayers; because these are no more commanded by God than Forms, nay indeed as to public Worship, have much less claim to Divine Authority than Forms: but we will suppose at present the Forms of Prayer were not at all commanded, yet this we assert makes no more against them than it doth against Extempore Prayers, there being no command of God requiring us to pray Extempore, or to utter our affections in Prayer in our own conceptions and expressions. It is indeed very confidently asserted by our Brethren, That wheresoever we are commanded to pray vocally, we are commanded to pray in our own conceptions and words: but that this is not so, is evident from what has been discoursed before, viz. that God hath commanded men to pray in sundry Forms of his own composure; and sure in those cases wherein they were commanded to pray vocally in God's Conceptions and Words, they could not be commanded to pray vocally in their own. Thus far therefore our Brethren must grant, if they will be determined by express words of Scripture, that the commands to pray vocally are not to be always understood of praying Extempore, but sometimes of praying by a Form: and therefore by the way, I cannot but wonder why they should appropriate as they do the name of vocal Prayer to praying in their own words, and not as well allow the expressing our desires to God in the words of a Form to be called Prayer, but only saying or reading of a Prayer: for I would fain know, did the Priests and Levites praise the Lord when they praised him in the words of David and Asaph? did they pray to him when they expressed their desires to God in those Petitionary Psalms which were directed to be used in their public Worship? or did the Primitive Christians pray when they pronounced the Lords Prayer in their solemn Devotions? If so, then there is no doubt but speaking to God in a Form of words may as well be called Prayer, as speaking to him in our own Extempore words: for vocal Prayer consists in the speaking of our devout affections to God; and if they are spoken, they are vocal, whether it be in our own Extempore words, or in a Form: if we only speak the words of Prayer, whether they be Formed or Extempore, and do not send up our affections with them, we only say a vocal Prayer, but do not vocally pray; but if the words we speak carry our affections with them, we vocally pray whether they be the one or tother. If our Brethren can prove that vocal Prayer consists in speaking our desires to God in words of our own Extempore effusion, we will readily yield them the whole Cause; but this they will never be able to prove, whilst there are so many instances in Scripture of vocal Prayer by a Form. But they pretend that whatsoever instances there may be of Forms in Old times, God hath declared in the New Testament that it is his will we should pray by our own Gifts of Expression and Utterance for the future; which if they can prove, we will readily yield that praying by Forms is unlawful, though not impossible: but as for the matter of proof, they do not so much as pretend to produce any express prohibition of praying by Forms; and all that they urge is only some remote and far-fetched consequences against it. Now supposing it had been the will of God and our Saviour, that we should not pray by Forms, it seems very strange, that in all the New Testament there should be no express prohibition of it; for first, the Jews, as I shown before, had several Forms prescribed them in their public Worship; and that they used Forms in our Saviour's time, not only their Modern Rabbins do assert, but Philo himself, who lived not longer after, makes mention of the holy Prayers that 
Phil. de victim. p. 843.  were offered by the Priests in the time of Sacrifice. And the Samaritan Chronicle, as hath been observed upon this. Argument, makes mention of a Book in the year of the World 4713, which contained those Songs and Prayers that were always used before their Sacrifices. And since the Jews, who were a most tenacious People of their Rites and Customs, were always wont in their public Administrations to worship God by Forms, how necessary was it to have given some express prohibition of them, had it been his intent to exclude them out of his Worship for the future? especially considering that the Sect of the Essenes', who, as it's highly probable, did of all the Sects of the Jews, most readily embrace Christianity, are particularly remarked by Josephus, for that 
De Bel. Jud. l. 2. c. 7. p. 785.  they did use before the Sunrising, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, certain Prayers which they received from their Ancestors. And when those Jews who were the most disposed for Christianity, and did most readily embrace it (insomuch that in a little time the whole Sect of them seems to have been swallowed up into the Christian Church) were so addicted to the use of Forms, how can it be imagined, that had our Saviour intended they should use them no longer, he would not have taken care to give them some express warning of it? But when, instead of so doing, he bids them, when they prayed, to say Our Father, how could they otherwise apprehend, but that it was his meaning, that they should still continue to pray by a Form, as they had always done before? And if he had not so intended, it seems very strange he should take no care to undeceive them, or to prevent their being deceived in this matter by some express command to the contrary: for considering all, there was not a more urgent occasion for an express prohibition of any Rite or Usage of the Jewish Church, than of this of praying by a Form, supposing the prohibition of it had been intended; and yet I dare boldly affirm, that there is not one Rite of that Church which our Saviour intended to forbid, but is much more plainly and expressly forbidden than this is pretended to be. For the proof of this, and which is more, of the main assertion, viz. that there is no injunction in Scripture of praying by our own gifts of utterance without a Form, I shall particularly examine the several Pretences from which our Brethren infer such an Injunction.  
1. Therefore, they pretend that God hath promised and given to all good Christians an ability to utter their minds in vocal Prayer to him; and therefore for them to omit the using this ability to the end for which God hath given it to them, and pray by Forms of other men's composure, is contrary to his mind and intention: which Objection hath for the main been answered already, Part 1. Case 2. wherein it hath been proved at large, that this ability which they pretend is promised and given by God for the purpose of vocal Prayer, is a common Gift which God hath no more appropriated to Prayer, than to any other common end of utterance and elocution; and that therefore to omit the using it in Prayer, is no more contrary to the intention of God, than to omit the using it upon any other just and lawful occasion. But because our Brethren urge some places of Scripture to prove that God hath promised and given it merely to enable them for vocal Prayer, I shall briefly inquire, whether it be so or no. First therefore they urge Zech. 12. 10. I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications, which, as I showed before, Part 1. Case 1. singnifies nothing to their purpose. 'Tis urged indeed, that the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here translated Supplications, doth always denote vocal Prayer, and that therefore pouring out the Spirit of Supplications, must imply communicating an ability to Pray vocally; but this is not so: for if we examine the places where this word is used, we shall find 'tis no more restrained to vocal Prayer, than any other word by which Prayer is expressed in Scripture; so that it may be as truly said, that Prayer always signifies vocal Prayer, as that this Hebrew word for Prayer doth so. Nor indeed doth it necessarily signify vocal Prayer in the only place that is urged to prove that it always signifies so, viz. Psalm 28. 2. Hear the voice of my supplication when I cry unto thee: for this phrase, the voice of my Supplication, and the voice of my Prayer, is a Hebraism, and denotes no more, than my Supplication, or my Prayer: for so in Gen. 4. 10. it's said, The voice of thy brother's blood cries from the ground; that is, it cried just as mental Prayer doth, without any material voice or sound, yet so as to move God as effectually as the loudest vocal Prayer: so that the Psalmist might cry to God with his mind, without opening his lips; and supposing he did, his Prayer had a voice which God could hear as well as if he had pronounced it never so loudly. But then in other places this Hebrew word plainly signifies at large both mental and vocal Prayer indifferently: so in Psalm 86. 6. Give ear, O Lord, unto my Prayer, attend to the voice of my Supplications: and Psalm 6. 9 The Lord hath heard my Supplication, the Lord will receive my Prayer. And as Prayer and Supplications signify the same thing, so the word Supplications is used to express Prayer in general; as in Jer. 31. 9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: where the word plainly denotes Prayer in general, without restriction to any kind of it; and so in several other places, which it would be needless to name. But suppose it were true, that the word were always used for vocal Prayer, there is no doubt but this promise of pouring out the Spirit of Supplications, intends a much greater good than the Gift of extempore utterance in Prayer, of which bad men may have a greater share than the most devout and pious; and if it doth denote a greater good, what can that be but the gift of pious and heavenly affections in vocal Prayer, of which we may as well partake in praying vocally by a Form, as by our own extemporary utterance? But 'tis yet farther urged, that in pursuance of this promise, the Apostle tells us, Gal. 4. 6. God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son, crying, Abba, Father; and that we have received the Spirit of Adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father, Rom. 8. 15. Now because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies crying with a loud voice, 'tis from hence inferred, that we are gifted and enabled by the Spirit, to express ourselves to God in vocal Prayer, and that therefore we ought not to pray by Forms. To which I answer, first, That if by any thing in these words we are obliged to cry vocally to God by our own Gifts, we are equally obliged to cry to him in these words, Abba, Father, in all our vocal Prayers, because that is the cry or vocal Prayer which the Spirit inables us to make; and the Text is every whit as express for the one as the other: and therefore if crying by the Spirit must needs denote receiving a Gift from him to pray vocally, then crying, Abba, Father, by the Spirit, must needs denote receiving a Gift from him to pray vocally, Abba, Father; and consequently, not to use these very words, when we cry vocally to God, will be altogether as sinful an omission, as not to cry vocally by our own gift of utterance or expression. Secondly, I utterly deny that crying here doth necessarily denote vocal Prayer: for how often do we find the word applied to things that have no voice at all? Thus Luke 19 40. I tell you, that if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out; and yet no body imagines that our Saviour meant that the stones should make a Speech to prove him the true Messiah. Thus also the Labourers hire unjustly detained by rich oppressors, is said to cry to God, James 5. 4. not because it offered any vocal Prayer to him, but because it moved and provoked him, as the vocal cries of injured persons do us, to avenge them upon their oppressors: and in this sense mental Prayer may be said to cry, because it moves and affects God as effectually as vocal. And accordingly it's said of the Jews, That their heart cried unto the Lord, Lam. 2. 18. so that crying unto God signifies in the same latitude with Prayer, which includes both vocal and mental. Thirdly, That supposing that our crying, Abba, Father, by the Spirit, were to be understood of vocal Prayer, yet all that can be gathered from it is only this, that when we pray vocally, we are enabled by the holy Spirit to address ourselves to God with boldness and assurance, as to a kind and merciful Father; and this we may as well do, when we pray by a Form, as when we pray extempore: for if we never cry, Abba, Father, by the Spirit, but when we word our own Prayers, we can no more be said to do it when we join with a public extempore Prayer, than when we join with a public Form, because we word our own Prayers in neither.  
But 'tis further insisted on, that the Scripture makes mention of a Gift of utterance, which the Spirit communicates to true believers, as particularly 1 Cor. 1. 5. 2 Cor. 8. 7. which Gift, say they, was doubtless given for the purpose of Praying, as well as of Preaching. To which, in short, I answer, That it is most evident, that this Gift of utterance, or readiness of Speech, was extraordinary, and peculiar to the primitive Ages of miraculous Gifts, wherein the Preachers of the Gospel were ordinarily inspired with a supernatural fluency, assurance, and volubility of Speech: for as St. Chrysostom observes, Hom. 24. ad Ephes. c. 6. this Gift of utterance is that which our Saviour promised his Disciples in Mark 13. 11. When they shall lead you and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate; but whatsoever shall be given to you in that hour, that speak ye, for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost: So that what they spoke was by immediate inspiration, without any forethought or premeditation of their own; and it being God that spoke immediately in and through them, what they delivered was the Word of God; and this Gift certainly no sober Dissenter will pretend to: and that this gift of utterance was extraordinary, is evident from Acts 2. 4. where it is said, That the Apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with Tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance: so that we may as well pretend to the Gift of Tongues, as to this Gift of Utterance, they being both miraculous and extraordinary.  
This, I think, is a sufficient Answer to those Scriptures which our Brethren urge, to prove that God hath promised and given to every good Christian an ability to express their minds to him in Prayer, these being the only Scriptures that are urged by them to prove it. But they object yet further, That supposing God hath not given to all Christians the Gift of praying extempore, yet to a great many he hath; and therefore these at least he requires to pray by their Gift and not by a Form: for so in 1 Tim. 4. 14. He expressly requires them not to neglect the gift that is in them, but to stir up the gift of God that is in them: 2 Tim. 1. 6. And as they have received the gift, even so to minister the same to one another: 1 Pet. 4. 10. And that having gifts differing according to the grace given to us, whether prophesy to prophesy, according to the proportion of Faith. And if they are obliged by these Texts to exercise their Gifts in general, then are they obliged by them to exercise their Gift of praying extempore in particular. In answer to which, I shall need do no more than explain the nature of the Gifts here mentioned; from which, I doubt not, it will evidently appear, that these Texts make nothing to the purpose for which they are cited. First then, as for the Gift spoken of in 1 Tim. 4. 14. the words themselves will sufficiently inform us what it is; Neglect not the gift ●●t is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. By which Gift it's evident St. Paul means that of the Episcopal Dignity: for first, it's here said to be given him by prophecy; for so at the first plantation of the Gospel, when the Apostles, after they had made some Converts in any City or Country, could make but a short stay among them, and were forced to substitute some new-made Convert to supply their room and perfect their beginnings, it was impossible that in so small a time they should be able by any humane means to discern which of their Converts was most fit for that employment; and therefore the Holy Ghost did ordinarily point out the person to them by immediate revelation: for so Clemens Rom. tells, that at their first preaching in every City and Country, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; i. e. they ordained their first-fruits, making proof of them by the Spirit, Bishops and Deacons. And thus Acts 20. 28. it's said of the Bishops of Asia, that the Holy Ghost set them over the Flock: and in Acts 13. 2. that as they were ministering, the Holy Ghost said, Separate to me Barnabas and Saul. And St. Clemens 
* Ep. 1. ad Cor.  tells us, that in those times they ordianed Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. discerning by the Spirit who should be ordained; and that they did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon perfect foreknowledge who should be the man; even as Moses saith, he foreknew by divine revelation, that Aaron should be advanced to the Priesthood. And accordingly St. Chrysostom upon this place thus discourses: The dignity of being a Doctor and a Priest being great, wants God's suffrage, that a worthy person may receive it; thereupon the Priests were made anciently by prophecy, that is, by the Holy Ghost; thus Timothy was chosen to the Priesthood. Since therefore this Gift of Timothy's was conferred on him by prophecy, it's evident 'twas the Episcopal Office, which in those days was always conferred by prophecy, i. e. by the immediate direction of the Holy Ghost; especially considering, 2ly. That it was not only given him by prophecy, but also with or together with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, which was the outward sign or ceremony of ordination to spiritual Offices, as is evident, Acts 6. 6. & 8. 17. & 13. 3. And that this Gift was not the Gift of prophesying and of laying hands upon others, as hath been pretended, is evident not only from the words of the Text, which assert it to be given him by prophecy, together with the laying on of hands; but also from 1 Tim. 1. 18. compared with 2 Tim. 1. 6. where this phrase, by prophecy, is thus explained; According to the prophecies which went before on thee: and this phrase, with laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, is thus rendered; By the putting of my hands: that is, together with the hands of other Presbyters. Which is a plain evidence, that by this phrase here, by prophecy, with the laying on of hands, must be meant, by divine Predictions concerning thee, together with the laying the hands of the Presbytery upon thee: and if so, what other Gift can be here meant, but only that of his Episcopal Office, which was always conferred by prophecy and imposition of hands? So that the meaning of these words, Neglect not the Gift which is in thee, stir up the Gift which is in thee, is only to admonish him to a diligent exercise of his Episcopal Power and Authority in the Flock of which he was Overseer. And what doth this signify towards the proving it necessary that we should exercise our own Gifts in vocal Prayer, and express our Affections in our own words?  
And then as for those other Texts, viz. 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. and Rom. 12. 6. I answer, 1. That there can be nothing in them against praying by a Form: for if so, they would make as much against using the Lord's Prayer, as any other Form. 2. That all that is intended in these Texts, is to stir men up to diligence and fidelity in those particular Offices and Capacities wherein they are placed: So 1. Pet. 4. 10, 11. As every man hath received a Gift, i. e. according to the Office or Capacity he is placed in, even so minister the same to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, that is, if it be his Office to teach, let him speak as the Oracles of God: if any man minister, or distribute to the poor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him do it as of the ability which God giveth; that is, proportionably to his estate: for just before, he had been pressing them to be hospitable to one another without grudging. So also Rom. 12. 6. Having then Gifts differing according to the Grace that is given to us, that is, being put into various Offices and Capacities, according to the various dispensations of Divine Grace, whether it be that of prophecy, let us prophesy, according to the proportion of faith; i. e. according to those principles of faith and good life which are known and received among us: or whether it be Ministry, that is, Deaconship, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching: or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity: he that ruleth, with diligence: he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness. In all which it is evident, the design is to excite them faithfully to discharge those several Offices whereunto God had called and appointed them: for so the word Gift, as all agree, doth in Scripture frequently signify an Office; and that in both these Texts it is so to be understood, is evident, because those things which the Apostles exhort them to, are the proper acts and exercises of those several Offices and Capacities of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and rich men: and the Argument by which they exhort them, is, that they had received the proper Gifts to which these acts appertain. So that if by these Gifts we understand abilities to perform those acts, we shall force the Argument to prove too much, viz. that it is the duty of every one to Rule, and Teach, and Minister, and Prophesy, that hath received an ability to do so; whereas, in truth, none can have a right to perform these acts, (as all sober Dissenters will acknowledge) but only such as are vested with the Offices to which they appertain. Wherefore either this Argument, having received Gifts, must oblige all men to rule, etc. that are able to do so, or else by Gifts must be meant the Offices to which those acts of ruling, etc. belong. But you will say, 'Tis evident that by some of these Gifts must be meant the ability of doing the acts here specified, as particularly that of distributing to the Poor, and showing Mercy. I answer, That as for these acts, the mere ability to relieve the poor and miserable not only authorises, but obliges us to them; and by putting it in our power, God doth as much make it our Office to relieve them, as if he had set us apart to it by a solemn Ordination: and because the ability here confers the Office, the Gift, though it signifies the Office, must necessarily include the ability too; but in all those other particulars, where the Office and Ability are distinct things, the Gift must signify the Office, distinct from the Ability; because here it being the Office and not the Ability that authorises and obliges us to perform the acts, the necessity of performing the acts must be argued from the Office, and not from the Ability. So then, if by the Gifts here spoken of, only such and such Offices are intended, by what consequence doth it follow, that because those who are vested with these Offices, are here exhorted faithfully to discharge them, therefore those who are able to pray extempore, are hereby obliged to do so? Our Brethren may as well argue from these words, that all those who are able to rule, are obliged to exercise the Episcopal Office, as that those who are able to pray extempore, are obliged to pray extempore. But than thirdly and lastly, I answer, That supposing that by these Gifts were not meant Offices, but only Abilities, yet all that can hence be argued is, that those who have them, are obliged to exercise them so far forth as is consistent with edification: for so the Apostle exhorts, That all things be done to edification; and to be sure, what he exhorts to in one Text, doth not at all clash with what he exhorts in another: and even of those extraordinary Gifts that were poured out in the Primitive times, the Apostle declares, 1 Cor. 14. that those who had them were no farther obliged to use them in the Church, than the use of them tended to edification, vers. 2, 6, 18, 19 and particularly for the Gift of Tongues, though it was immediately inspired, he totally forbids them the use and exercise of it where there was no interpreter, vers. 23, 27, 28. If then we are not to exercise our Gifts, merely because they are Gifts, but because the exercise of them tends to Edification; and if when they do not tend to it, we are to suspend the exercise of them, as it's plain we are, by this instance of the Gift of Tongues; then, although by the Gifts mentioned in the abovenamed Text were meant Abilities, and not Offices, yet it doth not follow, that those who have an ability to pray extempore, should therefore be obliged to exercise it any further than as it tends to Edification: and therefore if praying by a Form in public Worship be more for the public Edification, (and that it is, hath been proved, Part 1. Case 3.) we are no more obliged to pray extempore, though we have an ability to do so, than he who had the Gift of Tongues was to exercise his Gift, when he could not edify the public by it; and if we ought to suspend the exercise of our Gift, when it is not at all edifying, at least we are not obliged to exercise it when we may perform the same thing, without exercising it, in a more edifying manner. Having thus shown the insufficiency of those Scriptures which our Brethren urge to prove that those who are able to pray extempore are obliged to do so, it remains that hitherto no discovery can be made of any Command of Scripture by which we are obliged to pray vocally by our own gift or ability of expression: for upon the utmost enquiry I can make, these which I have answered, are the only Texts which with any show of argument our Brethren produce to this purpose. Supposing therefore it were true, that nothing ought to be admitted into God's Worship, but what he hath commanded, yet this makes a great deal more against praying by our own Gift, and in our own words and expressions, than it doth against praying by a Form, because there are express Commands for praying in some cases by a Form, but there is no Command at all for praying by our own Gifts. Since therefore there are sundry instances of God's prescribing Forms of Prayer, and since no instance can be given of his requiring us to pray by our own Gifts and Abilities, this certainly is a sufficient Scripture-warrant of the lawfulness of worshipping him by Forms.  
I proceed to the second Enquiry included in this Case, and that is, Whether there be any Warrant for the use of Forms in pure Antiquity? For it is pretended by some of our Brethren, that in the primitive Ages of the Church all public Prayers were performed by the Gifts and Abilities of him that ministered, and that there was no such things as Forms admitted into their public Worship: for the proof of which bold Assertion, they only urge two or three doubtful Authorities against a whole current of plain and express Testimonies to the contrary. In the prosecution therefore of this Enquiry, I shall endeavour, 1. To answer those Authorities which are objected by our Brethren against the use of Forms in the Primitive Ages: 2. To prove that they were used in those Ages, by a short Historical Account of the Matter of Fact.  
The first Authority which they object against the Primitive use of Forms of Prayer, is that of Justin Martyr, 
(a) Apol. 2. p. 98.  who tells us, that at the Communion the Chief Minister did send forth Prayers and Thanksgivings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, say they, according to his ability: from whence they infer, that in Justin Martyr's days, the Ministers prayed by their own Gifts and Abilities. But this hath been so fully answered by our learned Doctor Faulkner 
(b) Libert. Eccles. 113. , that I am apt to think 'twill hardly be objected any more: for he hath proved at large, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must signify with all his might, i. e. with his utmost intention and fervency: for so, as he shows, it must necessarily signify in another place of his Apology, 
(c) Apol. 2. p. 60.  where, speaking of the praying of Christians in general at the Eucharist, he tells us, that they did praise God with Prayers and Thanksgivings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, with all their might; which cannot signify, according to their Gifts and Abilities. Since whatsoever the Minister might do, it's certain, the People did not compose their own Prayers at the Eucharist; and therefore it must signify, with their utmost fervour and intention: in which sense, as he shows, the same phrase is used by Nazianzen. 
(d) Nazian. Orat. 3.   
Another Testimony they object against the use of Forms, is that of Tertullian, who affirms, 
(e) Sine Monitore, quia de pectore Oremus. Tertul. Apolog.  That the Christians did pray without a Monitor or Prompter, because they prayed from their hearts: in which words, say they, he plainly alludes to a Custom of the Heathen, who in their public Worship had a Monitor to direct them in what words, and to what God they were to offer up their Prayers. When therefore he says, that they prayed without a Monitor, his meaning must be, say they, that they prayed without any one to direct them what Form of words they were to pray in. To which I answer, first, That supposing he here speaks of the public Worship, as it seems most probable, it's evident that by this phrase, without a Monitor, he cannot mean, without any one to dictate or prescribe a Form of words to them; for in their ordinary public Prayers, their Minister was the Mouth of the Congregation; and whether he prayed by Form, or Extempore, his words were a Form of words to them, in which they were obliged to frame and express their Devotions: so that either this phrase, without a Monitor, must import, that they had none to dictate and minister to them in their public Prayers, or it cannot import that they had no public Forms to pray by, because if they had any to dictate to them, his extempore Prayer would have been as much a Monitor to direct them what words to pray in, as if it had been a stated Form of Liturgy. Whatever therefore this obscure phrase means, it's certain it cannot mean without a Form, unless it be allowed to mean without a Minister too. But then, 2ly. not to take notice of the various guesses which learned men make at the meaning of it, and by which it is sufficiently vindicated from meaning without a Form of Prayer, it seems to me most probable, that, without a Monitor, here, is meant, without any one to correct them, when either they repeated, or the Minister recited the public Prayers falsely: for the Gods of the Heathen being various, and having each their various Offices and Provinces allotted them, it was the manner of their Priests to begin their public Sacrifices with a Form of Prayer, 
(f) A. Gellins Noct. Attic. l. 13. c. 21.  which began with an Invocation of Janus and Vesta, and proceeded with various Invocations of all the greater Deities by name; 
(g) Rosm. Antiq. Rom. l. 3. c. 33.  in which they implored such favours of each Deity, as lay within their particular Province to bestow: thus, for instance, when they invocated Bacchus, they began thus; O Bacchus, Son of Semele, the bestower of Riches: 
(h) Casaub. in Ann. Eccl. Exercit. 16. N. 42.  when they offered the Cake to Janus; O Father Janus, with this I offer thee my good Prayers, that thou wouldst be propitious to me, etc. 
(i) Festus in verbor. signif.  So for Jupiter Dapalis; With this Cake, O Jupiter, I offer thee my good Prayers, that thou wouldst have mercy on me, my House and Family: 
(k) Cato de re Rustic. c. 134.  and so for Mars; I pray thee, O Mars, to be propitious to me, my Field, and Corn, and Wine, and . 
(l) Ibid. 141.  Which several Invocations, that there might be none of the names of their greater Gods pretermitted, nor none of the Prayers falsely or disorderly recited or repeated, were with great care recited by a Priest, out of the Ritual, and repeated after him by the People, 
(m) Brison. de formal. l. 1. p. 61.  there being another Priest appointed for a public Monitor: for so Pliny tells us, 
(n) Plin. l. 28. cap. 2. Vidimus certis precationibus obsecrasse summos Magistratus, ut nequid verborum praetermitatur aut praeposterum dicatur, de scripto praeire aliquem rursusque alium custodem dari qui attendat.  When any of the Chief Magistrates offer certain Prayers, lest any of the Sacred Words should be omitted or preposterously pronounced, they have one to dictate them to them out of a Book, and another, who is Overseer, diligently to attend. And accordingly Livy observes, 
(o) Liv. l. 4. Obsecratio itaque a populo duumviris praeeuntibus est facta.  That Prayer was made by the People, two men going before, or dictating to them: now that this latter of the two, whom Pliny calls the Custos, or Overseer, was the Monitor whom Tertullian alludes to, se●ms very probable, because, as Livy observes, his business was proeire populo, i. e. to dictate to the People after him, who, according to Pliny's account, did the scripto praeire, i. e. dictate to them out of the Book; and to what other purpose should he dictate to them what had been dictated before, but only to admonish and correct them when they repeated falsely or disorderly? especially considering that the reason which Pliny assigns why this Custos was appointed, was, lest any of the Sacred Words should be omitted or preposterously repeated; which was looked upon as a very ill Omen: But how could he prevent this, unless it were his Office to admonish and correct either the Priest or People, or both, when he read, or they repeated them falsely? This Monitor therefore was not he who read the Prayers, or dictated them to the People out of the Book, but he whose Office 'twas to oversee either that they were rightly dictated, or rightly repeated, or both: and indeed, there was more need that he should oversee that they were rightly repeated, than that they were rightly dictated, because they were dictated out of a Book; and so could not be so easily dictated as repeated falsely. But suppose his Office were to oversee both, yet since they were dictated in order to their being repeated, he only oversaw their being dictated rightly, in order to their being repeated rightly. When therefore Tertullian saith, We pray without a Monitor, his meaning is not that we pray without a Priest to dictate our Prayers to us, whether it were out of a Book, or extempore; but that we pray without a Custos, or Overseer, either to admonish our People of their repeating the Prayers falsely, or to admonish our Priests of their dictating them falsely, in order to the People's repeating them rightly; Because, saith he, we pray from our hearts: which words may admit of a twofold interpretation; first, because we do not vocally repeat our Prayers after our Priest, but only join our affections with them, and send up▪ our hearts and desires after them; or, 2ly. because we can say our Prayers by heart, and so are in no great danger of repeating them falsely, and consequently have no such need of a Monitor to observe and correct us: for it is well known how much Tertullian in all his Writings affects to imitate and express the Greek, which renders him oftentimes so very obscure; and therefore it's probable enough, as hath been observed, 
(p) Thornd. Relig. Assem. p. 237.  that his de pectore here, or from the heart, may be only a translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies, to say by heart; according to which account, these words of Tertullian are so far from testifying against the use of Forms, that they rather argue the use of them: for since he only denies their having a Monitor, he doth in effect grant their having a Priest to read the public Prayers to them, as well as the Heathen; and if from the heart be in Tertullian's Language the same with by heart, it's a plain case, that they used Forms; for otherwise how could they have them by heart? That this is the true account of this difficult phrase, I will not confidently affirm, because it is only my own single guess; but whether it be or no, it's certain it can no more signify without a Form of Prayer, than without a Minister to pray extempore, the one being as much a Monitor to the People, as the other.  
The last Testimony which our Brethren urge against the Antiquity of Forms of Prayer, is that of Sucrates Scholasticus, 
(q) Soc. Hist. l. 5. c. 21.  whose words they thus translate: Everywhere, and in all Worships of Prayer, there are not two to be found that speak the same words; and therefore, say they, it's very unlikely they should pray by received Forms. But how far this is from the sense of the Author, will evidently appear by considering what he had been before discoursing of. In short therefore, he had been just before relating the different Customs that were used in several Churches; and among the rest, he tells us, that in helas, Jerusalem, and Thessalia, the Prayers were made whilst the Candles were lighting, according to the manner of the Novatians at Constantinople; and that in Caesarea of Cappadocia and Cyprus, the Presbyters and Bishops always interpreted the Scripture on the Saturday and Lord's-day in the evening, the Candles being lighted: that the Novatians in the Hellespont did not observe the same manner of praying with those of Constantinople, but that for the most part they followed the Customs of the chief Churches among them: and then he concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. upon the whole, every where, and among all the Worships of Prayer, there are not two to be found that agree in the same thing; where, by Worships of Prayer, it's plain, he means the Ceremonies and Rites of Prayer that were used in several Churches: for 'twas of these he had been immediately before discoursing; and therefore his meaning can be no more than this, that among all the constituted Rites and Ceremonies of Prayer that were used in the several Churches, there were not two to be found that agreed in the same: and how doth it follow, that because they did not use the same Rites and Ceremonies of Prayer, therefore they did not use Forms of Prayer? for even now we see there are different Rites of Prayer among those Churches which do yet agree in using Forms of Prayer.  
And now I proceed to the second thing proposed, which was, to prove the use of Forms of Prayer in the primitive Ages, by a short Historical Account of the Matter of Fact. That in the first Age there was a Gift of praying extempore by immediate inspiration, seems highly probable, both from what the Apostle discourses of praying in unknown Languages, 1 Cor. 14. and from what St. Chrysostom asserts concerning it, 
(r) Chrys. in Rom. 8. 26.  viz. That together with those miraculous Gifts which were then poured out, there was a Gift of Praying, which was called by the Apostle, a Spirit, by which he who was endued with it, poured out Prayers for all the People: and while this Gift continued, perhaps (which how long it was, is very uncertain) there might not other Form be used in public Worship in those places, especially where it abounded, but only that of the Lord's Prayer; and it may be in imitation of this Gift, upon which even in the Apostles time the Christians were apt to over-value themselves, some might affect to pray extempore after it was wholly expired; but it is highly probable, that upon the ceasing or abatement of it, it was in most places immediately supplied by Forms of Prayer, which were composed either of the words, or according to the method and manner of those inspired Prayers, by Apostolical persons that heard and remembered them; for so, as the same St. Chrysostom goes on, 
(s) Chrys. ibid.  For we being ignorant of many things which are profitable for us, do ask many things which are unprofitable; and therefore this Gift of Prayer was given to some one person that was there, i. e. in the Congregation, who asked for all that which was profitable for the universal Church, and taught others to do so; that is, to form Prayers according to those inspired Models: for though I do not pretend that there were no other Prayers used in public, but only Forms either in or presently after the Age of the Apostles, yet it seems most probable that even from the Apostolical Age some part at least of the public Worship was performed in Forms of Prayer; and if so, we have all the reason in the world to conclude, that these Forms were composed according to the Pattern of those primitive inspired Prayers. Now that there were Forms from the Apostolical Age, seems highly probable, because, so far as we can find, there never was any dispute among Christians concerning the lawfulness of praying by a Form. Had this way of praying been introduced after the Primitive Ages, it would have been a most observable innovation upon the Primitive Christianity, and that in such a public matter of fact, that every Christian could not but take notice of it. Now that such an open Innovation should be so silently admitted into the Church, without the least contest or opposition, seems very strange, if not incredible. 'Tis true, there were some Innovations that crept in very early, without any opposition, but none that was of such a public cognizance as this; and unless the whole Christian World had been fast asleep, it is hardly supposeable they would ever have admitted such a remarkable alteration in their public Worship, as from praying extempore, to pray by a Form, without the least contradiction. If therefore praying by a Form were an Innovation upon their Primitive Worship, it was certainly the most lucky and fortunate one that ever was of that kind, there being no one Innovation besides it of that public nature, but what hath always found powerful Adversaries to withstand it. But not to insist upon probabilities, we will inquire into the matter of fact: And first, we have those three ancient Liturgies, which are attributed to St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. James; which though they have been all of them woefully corrupted by later Ages, yet are, doubtless, as to the purer parts of them, of great antiquity, and, probably, even from the Apostolical Age: for besides that there are many things in them which have a strong relish of the simplicity and piety of that Age, that of St. James in particular was of great authority in the Church of Jerusalem, whereof he was the first Bishop, in St. Cyril's time, who wrote a Comment upon it, 
(t) Cyril Catech. Mystag. 5:  and is declared by Proclus, Archbishop of Constantinople, 
(u) Alat de Liturg. S. Jacob.  and the sixth General Council, 
(w) Concil. Trull. c. 32.  to be St. James' own composure; which is a plain argument of the great Antiquity, if not Apostolicalness of it: for St. Cyril flourished in the year 350, and, as St. Jerom observes, 
(x) S. Jerom de Scrip. in Cyr.  composed this Comment on St. James' Liturgy in his younger years. Now it is not to be imagined he would have commented on it, had it not been of great authority in the Church of Jerusalem: and how could it have obtained any great Authority, had it not been long before received, that is, at least seventy or eighty years? Supposing then that he wrote this Comment Anno 347, as 'tis very probable, 
(y) Vid. Dr. Cave 's Life of St. Cyril.  and that this Liturgy had been received in the Church of Jerusalem but seventy or eighty years, (and less cannot well be supposed) it could not be above a hundred and seventy years after the Apostolical Age that this Liturgy was received in the Church of Jerusalem. And that there are Forms of Worship in it as ancient as the Apostles, seems highly probable: for first, there is all that Form, with a very small variation from ours, called Sursum corda, Lift up your hearts; we lift them up unto the Lord; it is meet and right so to do; it is very meet, right, and our bounden duty to praise thee, etc. Therefore with Angels and Arch-Angels, etc. all which is in St. Cyril's Comment 
(z) Cyril Catech. Mystag. 5. ; which is a plain argument that 'twas much ancienter than he. And the same is also in those ancient Liturgies of Rome and Alexandria, and in the Constitutions of St. Clemens 
(a) Constit. Clem. l. 8. c. 22. , which all agree are of great antiquity, though not so great as they pretend. And St. Cyprian, who was living within an hundred years after the Apostles, mentions it as a Form that was then used and received in the Church: 
(b) Cyprian de Orat. Dominic.  The Priest, saith he, in the Preface before the Prayer, prepares the minds of the Brethren, by saying, Lift up your hearts; that so while the People answer, We lift them up unto the Lord, they may be admonished, that they ought to think of nothing but the Lord. And lastly, St. Austin tells us, that this Sursum corda, which is the Name and Title of the whole following Form, and consequently includes it, even as Te Deum & Venite exultemus do the Hymns that go under that Title, are verba ab ipsorum Apostolorum temporibus petita, i. e. words derived from the very Age of the Apostles. And the same is asserted by Nicephorus of the Trisagium in particular, Hist. lib. 18. cap. 53. And that even from that Primitive Age there was a certain Form prescribed in Baptism, is evident by those solemn Questions and Answers that were made by the Priests, and returned by the person to be baptised; for so Tertullian 
(c) Tertul. the Resurrect. Carn.  speaking of Baptism, tells us, That the Soul is not established by the washing, but by the Answer: And St. Cyprian expressly calls it Interrogatio Baptismi, the questioning of Baptism 
(d) Cyp. 76. 80. ; which plainly shows that there were certain Questions and Answers given and returned in Baptism: and what the Question was, may be guessed by the Answer, which was this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I renounce Satan and his works, and his pomps, etc. 
(e) Clem. Constit. lib. 7.  And accordingly Tertullian; 
(f) Coron. Milit.  In the Church, and under the hand of the Priest, we protest to renounce the Devil, his pomps and works. Which form of Question and Responsal, Origen, who lived not long after, derives from Christ or his Disciples: Who is there, saith he, 
(g) In Numer. Homil. 5.  can easily explain the reason of some Words, and Gestures, and Orders, and Interrogations, and Answers, that are used in Baptism? which yet we observe and fulfil, according as we first took them up, they being delivered to us by Tradition from our Great High Priest, or his Disciples. If it be objected, that this is no Form of Prayer; I answer, that 'tis a limiting the Minister from exercising his own Gift in performing his Ministerial Office; and if in performing he might be limited to a Form of Question, why not to a Form of Prayer? And if the Church thought fit not to leave him at liberty to question extempore in Baptism, it's very improbable it should leave him at liberty to pray extempore in public, there being as great a necessity to prescribe him a Form for the later as for the former. And that de facto there were Forms of Prayer as well as of Question and Answer used in Baptism, is not only affirmed in the Constitutions of St. Clemens, but some of the Prayers also are there inserted 
(h) Clem. Constit. l. 7. . But that the Christians did very early use Forms of Prayer in their public Worship▪ is very evident from the denominations which the Primitive Writers give to the public Prayers, such as the Common-Prayers 
(i) Just. Mart. Apol. 2. p. 93. Ignat. Ep. ad Magn. , the Constituted-Prayers 
(k) Orig. Cont. Cells. l. 6. , and the Solemn-Prayers 
(l) Cyp. the laps. serm. 14. ; which last was the Title by which the Heathens then distinguished and expressed their public Forms of Prayer 
(m) Vid. Ovid. l. 6. de fastis. Statius Papin. l. 4. Senec. in Oedip. Act 2. Sect 2. , and consequently in the Language of that Age, must signify a public Form. And as for that particular Form of Prayers so often used in our Liturgy, Glory be to the Father, etc. St. Basil fetches the Original of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the tradition of the Apostles; and citys this Doxology from St. Clemens the Apostles Scholar, and from Dionysius of Alexandria 
(n) Basil. de sp. s. c. 27. & 29. , who was living Anno 200. and Clemens of Alexandria, who was living Anno 160, sets down these words as the Christians Form of praising God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
(o) Clem. Alex. Paedag.  Praising the Father and the Son, with the Holy Ghost. And therefore, though there are some who attribute the composure of this Eucharistical Hymn to the rise of the Arian Sect, yet from these Authorities it is much more probable that it was long before composed and used in the public Worship of the Church: for the Arians are sharply reproved by the Orthodox Fathers, for altering this ancient Form into Glory be to the Father by the Son, and in the Holy Ghost 
(p) Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 24. . And indeed a great-part of the Primitive Worship consisted of Hymns and Doxologies; which could no longer be extempore than while the miraculous Gifts continued, after which they must necessarily be composed into set Forms: for Tertullian tells us, that their Coetus antelucani, their meetings before day were, ad canendum Christo ut Deo, to sing to Christ as God 
(q) Tertul. Apologet. c. 2. . And Lucian before him thus describes the practice of Christians, that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spend whole nights in watching and singing of Psalms 
(r) Lucian. Philop. . So also Justin Martyr describing the Christian life, tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We are to sing Hymns, and Psalms, and Odes, and Praise 
(s) Just. Mart. Epist. ad Zen. & Heren. . Now it's evident that in Pliny's and Lucian's time, the Christians used set Forms of Hymns, not only of divine, but also of humane composure; for so Pliny tells us 
(t) Plin. Epist. l. 10. Ep. 97. , That early in the morning it was their manner to sing by turns a Hymn to Christ as to God; which Hymn was doubtless of humane composure, there being no Hymn to Christ in Scripture of that length, as to take up a considerable part of their public Service. And besides, Eusebius tells us, That very early there were various Psalms and Odes composed by Christians concerning the Divinity of Christ 
(u) Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. ; and that Paulus Samosetanus was condemned for suppressing those Hymns that were made in the Honour of Christ, as being the compositions of men of late days 
(w) Ibid. Hist. lib. 7. , though in all probability those Hymns were composed within much less than an hundred years after the Apostolical Age: but as for this Hymn which Pliny speaks of, it was earlier, for it could not be much above ten years after the death of St. John, that Pliny gave this account of Christians to Trajan; and therefore to be sure the Hymn he there speaks of, was used in the Age of the Apostles. And about the same time, Lucian makes mention of a Prayer which they used in their public Worship, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, beginning from the Father; which doubtless was the Lord's Prayer: and of a famous Hymn added to the end of their Service 
(x) Lucian. Philop. , which in all probability was the Hymn that Pliny speaks of. Since therefore the Primitive Worship did in a great measure consist of Hymns, which were Forms of Praise intermixed with Prayer, and some of these of humane composure; this is an evident Testimony of the Primitive use of Forms. And doubtless, they who made no scruple of praying by Form in verse, could not think it unlawful to pray by Form in prose: for, that praying in Meeter or composed Hymns was a very early Practice in the Christian Church, is evident from the Apostolical Constitutions, where it is enjoined, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let the People sing the verses which answer adversly to one another 
(y) Constit. Apost. l. 2. c. 5. : which way of singing was so very ancient, that Eusebius 
(z) Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 17.  urges it as an argument to prove the Essenes' Christians, because they sung by turns answering one another: But how could they thus answer to one another in their Hymns and Prayers, unless they had constant Forms of Prayer? But that they had such Forms of Responsal in Prayer, is evident, because, when Julian for the credit of Gentilism would needs dress it up, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
(a) Sos. Hist. l. 5. c. 15.  after the Order of the Christian Worship; one thing wherein he sought to imitate it was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in their constituted Prayers, that is, not in having constituted Forms of Prayer, for that the Heathen had before, but in having such constituted Forms as the Christians had; that is, as Nazianzen explains it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Form of Prayer to be said in parts 
(b) Nazian. Orat. 1. p. 102. : for this way of praying in parts Nicephorus 
(c) Niceph. l. 13. c. 8.  derives from Ignatius, who was a Scholar of the Apostles. All which to me is a plain demonstration of the great antiquity of Forms. And that in Constantine's time the Church used public Forms of Prayer, is evident from that oftencited place of Eusebius 
(d) Euseb. d● Laud. Constant. , where he tells us of Constantine's composing Godly Prayers for the use of his Soldiers; and elsewhere tells us in particular what the Prayer was: We acknowledge thee, O God, alone, etc. 
(e) Id. de vit. Constant. c. 20.  which is a plain evidence that it was a set Form of words. But it's objected that this Form was composed only for the use of his Soldiers▪ who were a great part of them Heathens; and that Constantine's composing it is a plain evidence, that at that time there were no public Forms in the Church; for if there had, what need Constantine have composed one? To which I answer, That this Form indeed was composed only for his Heathen Soldiers; for as for his Christian Soldiers, the story tells us, that he gave them liberty to go to Church 
(f) Ibid. c. 19 . And therefore all that can be gathered hence is, that the Christian Church had no Form of Prayers for Heathen Soldiers; which is no great wonder; for if they had, it's very unlikely that the Heathen Soldiers would have used it: but that they had Forms is evident, because he calls the Prayers which Constantine used in his Court, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the manner of the Church of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
(g) Ibid. c. 17.  authorized Prayers; which is the same title which he gave to that Form of Prayers which he made for his Heathen Soldiers 
(h) Ibid. c. 19 ; and therefore if by the authorized Prayers which he prescribed to his Soldiers, he meant a Form of Prayers, as it's evident he did, then by the authorized Prayers which he used in his Court after the manner of the Church, he must mean a Form of Prayer also; and since he had a Form of Prayers in his Court after the manner of the Church, than the Church must have a Form of Prayers too.  
Thus, for the first, second, and third Centuries, sufficient Testimony hath been given of the use of public Forms of Prayer; after which (not to insist upon St. Basil's, St. Chrysostom's, and St. Ambrose's Liturgies, which without all question are of great antiquity) we have undeniable Testimonies of the use of public Forms: thus, St. Chrysostom 
(i) Chrys. 2. ad Cor. Hom. 18. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For those who are possessed with a Devil, and those who are under Penance, Common Prayers are made both by the People and Priest; and we all say one and the selfsame Prayer, the Prayer which is so full of mercy. And then he goes on, and tells us how when the Priest had prayed for the People, that is, in that ancient Form of dismission, The Lord be with you, they prayed again for him in these words, And with thy Spirit.  
I confess, to me it seems at least highly probable, that they were not at first so strictly limited to one constant Form of Liturgy, but that upon occasion they might intermingle other Forms either of their own or other men's composure; though in process of time, this liberty became very prejudicial to Religion: for by this means the Prayers of Heretics were often mingled with the public Offices, and many unadvised and ill-composed Forms were introduced into the public Worship; and this St. Austin complains of: Multi irruunt in preces, non solùm ab imperitis loquacibus, sed etiam ab haereticis compositas, & per ignorantiae simplicitatem non eas valentes discernere, utuntur eyes, arbitrantes quod bonae sint 
(k) Austin de Baptism. count. Donat. lib. 6. : Many there are (speaking of the Office of Baptism) who take up Prayers hand-over-head, which are composed not only by unskilful persons, but also by Heretics; and not being able to discern what they are through their simplicity and ignorance, do use them, thinking they are very good. To prevent which great inconvenience, the Church was forced by degrees to limit and restrain this liberty: and first the Council of Laodicea, which was held about the year 314, or as others think 364, made a Canon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
(l) Concil. Laod. c. 18.  About using the same Office of Prayers in the Morning and Evening; that is, that they should not bring in new Forms at their pleasure into the public Worship, either of their own or other men's composure, as they had done before, but always confine themselves to one and the same Liturgy: for so not only Zonarus 
(m) Zon. in Council. Laod. c. 18.  and Balsamon 
(n) Balsam. ibid. , but Smectymnuus 
(o) Smect. Ans. to Remon. p. 7.  and the Presbyterian Commissioners at the Savoy 
(p) Grand Debate, p. 11.  understand it, viz. that they should use no other Prayers in the public Service, but such as had been constantly received by the Church. And that this Canon is to be understood of the received Forms, is evident both from the 15th and 19th Canon of this Council: for in the 15th they forbidden that any should go up into the Desk to sing or call the Psalm, but only the appointed Singers, who were to sing out of the public Parchments, in the which only the received Hymns were inserted; for so in the 59th Canon they forbidden the calling of the Psalms of private persons 
(q) Conc. Laod. c. 15, 18, 19 : for before, it's plain that they took the same liberty to introduce new Hymns into the public Service of their own, or other men's composure, as they had done to introduce new Prayers; and not only so, but any one who would was allowed to call the Hymn: for so Tertul. Post aquam manualem & lumina, 
Tertul. Apolog. c. 39  ut quisquis de Scripturis sanctis, vel de proprio ingenio, potest & vocatur in medium Deo canere; After their washing their hands, and lighting the Candles, any one is called forth to sing to God as he is able, either out of the Scripture, or by his own Gift of composure: But the consequence of this liberty being afterwards found as prejudicial to Religion as that of introducing new Prayers, the Council thought fit to restrain it; and therefore in this 15th Canon they forbidden the introducing new Psalms into the public Worship. So in the 18th they forbidden the introducing new Prayers, there having been the same liberty and the same ill consequence in both. And then in the 19th Canon they direct, That after the Homily the Prayers should be said for the Catechumeni; and when they were gone, the Prayers for such as were under penance; and when they have received the imposition of hands and are departed, then let the three Prayers for the faithful be offered up, the First softly, or every man to himself, the Second and the Third aloud; which is a plain argument that their meaning is to direct to the use of their stated Forms of Prayer for the forenamed occasions: for how could the Congregation say the First of the three Prayers for the faithful to themselves, and the other two aloud, unless they were Forms which they had learned by heart, and were constantly used too? After this there being, as St. Austin complains, very great disorders in the African Churches through the ill-composed and heretical Prayers which the Ministers foisted into their public Worship, and in which as it seems the Father was sometimes mentioned for the Son, and the Son for the Father; it was ordained in the third Council of Carthage 
(r) Concil. Carth. 3 d. c. 12. , That none in their Prayers should name the Father for the Son, or the Son for the Father; but that when they came to the Altar they should direct their Prayers to the Father; Et quiccunque sibi preces aliunde describit, non eis utatur, nisi prius eas cum instructioribus Fratribus contulerit: i. e. And whosoever shall write out Prayers for himself from elsewhere, that is, from any Book that hath not been publicly received and allowed (for what else can be meant by aliunde?) he shall not presume to use them till he hath first consulted about them with his more learned Brethren. Which is a plain evidence that they used Forms before; otherwise how could they have written them out from elsewhere, or from other men's composures? Whereas before, therefore, they had liberty to add new Forms, as they thought fit, to the received Liturgy, they are so far restrained by this Council, as not to do it without the advice and approbation of their more learned Brethren: but this restriction being found insufficient to prevent the ill consequences of their former liberty, it was ordained a few years after in the Council of Mela 
(s) Concil. Milev. c. 12. , That those Prayers which had been approved of in the Council, whether Prefaces, or Commendations, or Impositions of Hands, should be used of all; and that none should be said in the Church, but such as had been treated of by the more prudent, or allowed in the Synod; lest any thing contrary to the Faith should be inserted, either through ignorance or want of care. Now though these indeed were but Provincial Councils, and so in themselves could oblige no farther than their particular Provinces, yet the very Canon above-cited out of the first of them 
(t) Concil. Laod. c. 18.  is taken into the collections of the Canons of the Catholic Church, being the 122th therein; which Collection was received and established in the General Council of Chalcedon 
(*) Concil. Chalced. c. 1.  An. 451. By which establishment the whole Christian Church was obliged to the use of Liturgies, so far as the authority of the General Council extends. And then in the year 541, these Canons are made Imperial Laws by the Emperor Justinian, who enacted 
(u) Justin. Novel. 131. c. 1.  that the Canons of those four General Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcadon, should oblige as far as the Empire did extend. Of what authority the use of form Liturgies were in this Emperor's time, and long before, may be easily collected from his Novels; for he complains of the remissness of some Bishops, that they did not take care to enforce the observance of the sacred Canons; and tells us, that he had received several complaints against the Clergy, Monks, and some Bishops, that they did not live according to the Divine Canons; and that some among them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not acquainted with the Prayer of the Holy Oblation and Holy Baptism 
(w) Id. Nou. 137. Preface. : and then he declares that for the future he was resolved to punish the Transgressor's of the Canons; which had it been done before, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
(x) Id. ib. c. 1.  Every one would have endeavoured to learn the Divine Liturgies, that he might not be subject to the condemnation of the Divine Canons. Which is a plain argument, not only that there were formed Liturgies before Justinian, (for otherwise how could he expect the Clergy should learn them?) but that these Liturgies had been long before established by the Canons of the Church. And then among other things he requires, that for the future, such as were to be ordained should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
(y) Id. ib. c. 2.  Recite the Office for the Holy Communion, and the Prayer for Holy Baptism, and the rest of the Prayers: which Prayers were not made in Justinian's time, but long before; they being, as he tells us before, established by the Ecclesiastical Canons. And after this, he enjoins all Bishops and Presbyters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
(z) Id. ib. c. 6.  That they should not say these Prayers silently, but so as that the People might hear them, that so their minds might be raised to an higher pitch of Devotion. Thus, for near six hundred years after Christ, we have sufficient testimony of the public use of Forms of Prayer.  
And from henceforth, or a little after, down to Mr. Calvin's time, all are agreed that no other Prayers were admitted into the public Worship, but what were contained in the established Liturgies of the respective Churches: and even that great Light of the Reformation, Mr. Calvin, though he used to pray extempore after his Lecture, yet always used a Form before 
(a) Praef. add praelect. Calv. in Min. proph. : and his Prayers before and after Sermon were rather bidding of Prayers, according to the ancient usage, than formal Prayers 
(b) Beza, in praef. ad Conc. Calv. in Job. : and as he used a Form himself, so he composed one for the Sunday-service, which was afterwards established by the Order at Geneva: And in his Letter to the Lord Protector in the Reign of Edward the Sixth, he thus declares his judgement concerning public Forms 
(c) Calvin Ep. 87. : For so much as concerns the Forms of Prayers, and Ecclesiastical Rites, I highly approve that it be determined so, as that it may not be lawful for the Ministers in their Administration to vary from it. Nor is there any one reformed Church, whether Calvinistical or Lutheran, but what hath some public Office or Form of Prayer, especially for the Administration of the Sacraments. So that our Dissenting Brethren in England, who disallow the use of public Forms, do stand alone by themselves from all the World. And as for that extempore way of praying which they so much celebrate, and for the sake of which they despise and vilify our public Liturgy as a Relic of Popish Idolatry; they would do well to consider who it was that first introduced it into England, and set it up in opposition to our Liturgy. For first, there was one Faithful Commin a Dominican Friar, who in the 9th of Eliz. to seduce the People from the Church, thereby to serve the ends of Popery, began to pray extempore with such wonderful Zeal and Fervour, that he deluded a great many simple People; for which he was afterwards amply rewarded by the Pope 
(d) Vid. Foxes and Firebrands, p. 7, etc. . After him one Thomas Heath a Jesuit pursued the same method, exclaiming against our Liturgy, and crying up Spiritual or Extempore Prayers 
(e) Id. p. 17. , thereby to divide the People from our public Worship, telling the Bishop of Rochester by whom he was examined, That he had been six years in England, labouring to refine the Protestants, and to take off all smacks of Ceremonies, and to make the Church purer 
(f) Of which see more in the Preface of the Learned Treatise, The unreasonableness of Separation, beginning at p. 11. . And I hope when our Brethren have well considered who it is they join with, and whose Cause they advance, while they thus decry our Liturgy, and advance their own extempore Prayers in the room of it, they will at last see cause to retract a mistake which none but the Church of Rome will have cause to thank them for.   

CASE VI Whether it be lawful to comply with the use of Public Form, s when they are imposed?  
IN answer to which, a very few words will suffice: for it hath been already proved, that the use of public Forms is universally lawful, there being nothing either in Scripture, or the nature of the thing, that forbids it; but a great deal in both, that approves and warrants it: so that now the Question is no more than this, Whether a lawful thing when imposed, may be lawfully complied with? The affirmative of which is sufficiently proved in the Case of Indifferent Things. And indeed, if the Imposition of Praying in public by Forms, though lawful in itself, may not be lawfully complied with, than neither may the Imposition of praying extempore; and if so, than we must act quite contrary to what we are commanded by Authority, and pray by Form when we are commanded to pray extempore, as well as extempore when we are commanded to pray by Form: and if in lawful things Authority can oblige us to comply with this by commanding the contrary, our liberty will be altogether as liable to restraint this way as the other, because we shall be as much obliged this way to forbear a lawful thing as we are to comply with it the other. And if all men were of this opinion, that no lawful thing ought to be complied with when it is commanded, Authority might as effectually oblige them to do whatsoever it would have by commanding the quite contrary, as it can now by commanding the thing it would have. But this being quite besides the Province I have undertaken, I shall insist no farther upon it.   
FINIS.   

BOOKS Printed for Fincham Gardiner.  

1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England.  
2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion.  
3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God, proposed and Stated, by considering these Questions, etc.  
4. A Discourse about Edification.  
5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience, Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England?  
6. A Letter to Anonymus, in answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship. In two Parts.  
8. The Case of mixed Communion: Whether it be Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixed Communions?  
9 An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers, and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England.  
10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved, etc. In two Parts.  
11. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons, and of going to hear where men think they can profit most.  
12. A serious Exhortation, with some important Advices, relating to the late Cases about Conformity, recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England.  
13. An Argument to Union; taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestant's.  
14. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal, or giving Offence to Weak Brethren.  
15. The Case of Infant-Baptism, in Five Questions, etc.  
16. A Discourse concerning Conscience; wherein an Account is given of the Nature, and Rule, and Obligation of it, etc.  
17. The Charge of Scandal, and giving Offence by Conformity, Refelled, and Reflected back upon Separation, etc.   

1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists ask of us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther?  
2. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England.  
3. The Protestant Resolution of Faith, etc.    

AN ANSWER TO THE Dissenters Objections Against the COMMON PRAYERS, And some other Parts of Divine-Service Prescribed in the LITURGY OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND.  
LONDON, Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleetstreet, B. Took at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard, and F. Gardiner at the White-horse in Ludgate-street, 1684.   

AN ANSWER TO THE Dissenters Objections Against the COMMON PRAYERS, And some other Parts of DIVINE▪ SERVICE Prescribed in the LITURGY of the CHURCH of ENGLAND.  
I Believe all Considering Persons are by this time sensible what advantage the Papists make of the Separation of some Protestants from the Church of England. And the ill effects of it at present, and the worse which we have reason to fear, are so very discernible, that it may now be hoped the Consideration hereof will something abate those Prejudices of Dissenters against us, which we think have hitherto hindered the prevailing of our Reasons. Though Prejudice is hard to be removed, yet 'tis not impossible. Several Ingenuous Persons of that Persuasion have been rescued from their Prejudices against our Communion, when the mischief of these Divisions was not so apparent as 'tis now. I trust therefore, that at this time many more will, and I pray God that all of them may seriously and impartially look over the Grounds upon which they have kept up the Separation. For I am persuaded that their Objections against our Communion are not of that Consequence; ●s to Justify their forsaking it; and that themselves would discern it, if they would consider our Answers with the same Meekness and Charity wherewith we offer them. I have with great pleasure read some short Discourses lately Published that tend to this purpose, the Good Spirit where with they are written seeming to be a very likely means of conveying the Argument with all its advantage into the Minds of those that shall take the pains to read them. And though I think that which hath been said already, is enough to satisfy Judicious Men, yet by the persuasion of some Friends, I have taken upon me to Answer those Particular Objections against the Public Service of God by the Book of Common Prayer, which the Dissenters are said to insist most upon. I must confess that I have always thought the Liturgy of the Church of England to be such a truly Evangelical Form of Public Worship, that it would rather have invited Protestants to our Communion, than kept them from it. And I believe, if the Dissenters would seriously read over that Sermon of Dr. Beverege concerning the Excellency and usefulness of the Common Prayer, they would go near to be of the same mind. And I hope many of them are so, excepting only as to those Particulars wherein they are not so well satisfied: And therefore I shall endeavour through God's assistance to lay some things together, of which People of ordinary Capacities may make a Judgements and which may afford reasonable satisfaction to those that Doubt.  
It is by some pretended, That the Confessions of Sin in our Liturgy are too General, and that there are many Particular Sins which ought to have been Distinctly Confessed, of which there is no mention.  
Now I desire those that are of this Mind to consider, that there is hardly any thing in Public Worship which requires more Caution and Prudence in the ordering of it, than that Confession of Sin which is to be made by the whole Congregation: It may be too Lose and General on the one side, or it may be too Particular and Distinct on the other. And it is not so very easy to avoid both inconveniencies. The reason is, because it should be framed as all may in good earnest use it, notwithstanding the great Difference amongst those that are within the Communion of the Church; the Sins of some of them being more in number, and greater in kind, and more heinously aggravated, than the Sins of others.  
There may be this Inconvenience in a Confession very short and General, that takes in all, that it does not so well serve to excite or to express that due sense of Sin, nor to exercise that humility and self abasement wherewith we should always Confess our Sins to God. On the other hand, the Inconvenience of a very Particular and Distinct Confession of Sins will be this, That some Sins, with their Aggravations, may be Confessed in the Name of the whole Congregation, of which it is by no means to be supposed that all are guilty; and then they who through the Grace of God have been kept from them, cannot in good earnest make such Confession.  
Now I take it, that the Confessions of Sin in the Daily and in the Communion Service, are so Judiciously framed as to avoid both extremes: Since the Expressions have that large meaning as to take in the case of the best of the Congregation, who may in good earnest use them, and thereby join their Confessions with the rest. And on the other side, though they are General, yet they are so affectionately amplified, that they may well serve to express that Contrition which they ought to feel who labour under the Conscience of most hemous Sins; and, if they come duly prepared, to excite a godly sorrow for Sin, and to exercise a due sense of their own unworthiness of God's Mercy. And I desire those who are made to believe otherwise, that they would venture to use their own Judgement in this matter, and upon this occasion seriously to read over those two Confessions in our liturgy; the one, that which our daily Worship almost gins with; the other, in the Communion Office before the Absolution. And then let them judge impartially, as in the fear of God, if I have not said the Truth.  
But besides this, the Confession of Sin after the Minister has recited each of the Ten Commandments, is not only General enough to take in all sorts of Men; but it seems also to be as particular as can reasonably be desired in a Congregation, because it goes particularly through the Ten Commandments, to which it has been usual to reduce the whole Duty of Man. And this Method of Confession makes it easy for all that consider their own ways, and endeavour to understand their own state, to confess every one of them to God, yet more particularly, his known Offences in thought, word, or deed, against each Commandment.  
These things being well provided for, to find fault with this part of our Service, seems to argue want of Modesty or Judgement in those that do so. They seem to believe ours to be amiss, because they believe themselves could make a better. But, if for this and such like reasons, they think fit to break Communion with us, where will be an end of Division and Separation? I hope none of our Brethren will say, that they are not to make a Confession of their Sins in a way of expression that is possible to be mended; lest by this means they should never make any Confession of Sin at all: Since it may still remain a Question, Whether this had not been better left out, or that added, after the best care is taken. If a Form of Confession of Sins were Composed by the wifest of them, I suppose he would pretend no more than that it is so Composed, that God's People might safely and profitably use it. And this is that we may confidently say of the Confessions in our Liturgy; and if this be truly said, it ought to end the Dispute.  
And yet they who Object the Generalness of our Confessions against us, would not find it an easy task to give us better and more unexceptionable. I may safely say, they would not mend the Matter, if they could prevail to have them as Particular as they are wont to be in the Prayers of some that separate from us. For besides that they Confess against themselves so many particular Sins as many sincere Christians cannot in good earnest acknowledge themselves to be, or ever to have been guilty of, there is this other great inconvenience in such Confessions, that gross Hypocrites, and other Carnal Professors, are very apt to go away with an opinion, that their case is as good as that of the best; since by these Confessions of Sin, which describe their own case perhaps truly enough, it should seem that the rest are no better than themselves. We find it needful to warn those of our own Communion against such like mistakes, though they are not in so much danger of falling into them. We are afraid lest they that live in the Practice of wilful Sins, should think the better of themselves, because we do all confess that we have erred and strayed from God's ways like lost sheep, and have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts, and have offended against the holy Laws of God, and have left undone those things which we ought to have done, and have done those things which we ought not to have done, and that manifold sins and wickedness in thought, word, and deed, have most grievously been committed by us, against the Divine Majesty, whereby we have provoked most justly his wrath and indignation against us. But 'tis not hard for us to show these Men, that all this may be truly Confessed by the sincere and godly, as well as by Hypocrites; that though the Confession does not mention a difference, yet it does not imply that there is no difference between them, but after all, that these are in a state of Impenitence & Damnation, while those are in a state of Salvation, who yet truly confess their Sins in the same General Words with the rest of the Congregation. But there is greater danger of this self-flattery we are speaking of, where the Common Confession of Sins is so very particular as some would have ours to be. And though there is greater need of Caution against it in such places, yet the way of their Confession makes the mistake more difficult to be prevented.  
Indeed we find in the Scripture Examples of Holy Men confessing such Sins as themselves were not guilty of. Thus did Jeremiah, Nehemiah, Ezra, etc. But this was upon Solemn Humiliation for those known and public Idolatries of the Nation, which had brought Gods heavy Judgements upon them, or for Common and Scandalous Transgressions afterward. They considered themselves as part of that Community which had provoked God to send them into Captivity, and therefore they bore their part in the Common Calamity with such meekness, and confessed the Common Sins with such humility, as if themselves had offended as greatly in their own Persons as their Countrymen had done. But I conceive there is a great deal of difference between those Confessions of Sin, that such extraordinary occasions of Public Humiliation require, and those that are fit for the ordinary Service of God in the constant and stated Assemblies of the Church.  
But it ought not to be forgot, that those particular Confessions of Sin, which some Men want in our Liturgy are not properly the matter of that Public Service we are to offer daily unto God in Religious Assemblies, but of that Private Devotion which is necessary to be performed in our Closets. And if we could be persuaded seriously to enter upon this Work of Examining ourselves impartially concerning those Sins which we have more openly or secretly committed, and then to humble ourselves before God for them, with particular Confessions and suitable Prayer for his Grace and Pardon; we should then find our Affections prepared to comply with those more General Confessions of Sin, which we make with the whole Congregation; we should then have less reason to complain, that those Confessions are not apt to move us, because this way would cure the deadness of our hearts, which commonly are most to blame, when we find fault with the means that God hath provided for us.  
To conclude this Matter, There is great need of Particular Confession of Sins in Religious Assemblies, but that of another sort than what I have yet been speaking of; and that is the particular and humble Confession which every Scandalous Sinner ought to make in the Congregation, for the satisfaction of the Church, and the declaration of a true Repentance. This is not properly an Act of Worship, but of Discipline, but alas! almost lost in this miserably divided state of the Church; a loss never enough to be lamented! For so it has fallen out, that by quarrelling for a Reformation in things of an Indifferent Nature, that aught to be left to the Prudence of Governors; and the Communion of Christians is broken, and the Spiritual Authority which Christ left in his Church is exposed to Contempt, which is a Matter of a thousand times more concern, than all the Objections against the Book of Common Prayer put together, though they were as considerable as our Adversaries seem to believe they are.  
The second Objection I shall take notice of, is that against the shortness of the Collects, by reason of which it is pretended, that the Prayer is often suddenly broken off, and then begun again: And this is thought not so agreeable to the Gravity wherewith this Duty ought to be performed, nor so likely a means of exciting Reverence and Devotion in the People, as one continued Form of Prayer that might be as long as all those put together. Now in answer to this, I say,  
1. That the mere shortness of a Prayer, is not to be found fault with by any understanding Christian; since this would be to disparage that Form of Prayer which our Lord taught his Disciples, it being not much longer than most of our Collects, and not so long as some of them.  
2. That it will be hard to prove, That many of these short Prayers being offered up unto God one immediately after another, is either not so Grave or not so Edifying, as one Continued Form. I do not believe the difference to be so great, as it is made by those that do not approve our way. For the Work of Praying is as much continued all the while, as if there were but one Continued Form. Indeed, in the Book the Printed Prayer breaks off somewhat often, and there is a distinction made between the several Collects, by a New Title showing the Matter of the Prayer, and by beginning a New Line. But I hope our Brethren do not mean, that in this there is a defect of Gravity, or any hindrance of Devotion and Edification. For the abruption of the Printed Forms is by no means an interruption of our Prayer; since we still go on in Praying or in giving Thanks to God, and without breaking off, pass from one Petition, or Matter of Invocation, to another, as immediately as if the Distinct Forms we use together were all brought into the Compass of One.  
And as there is no Interruption of our Praying, caused by the frequent beginning and ending of the Collects; so neither can this cause an Interruption of Attention in the People, which is rather helped by that frequency of saying Amen, which this way requires. Nor can it be charged with a tendency to Interrupt that Devout Affection, and Godly Disposition of Mind, which is the best thing in Prayer: But on the other hand, this may be kept alive and more effectually secured, by calling upon the Name of God, and pleading the Merits of Christ so often as we do. I know some have said, this is done more frequently than is meet. But it would be a lamentable thing, if there should be any difference about this Matter. When the Decence and Convenience of a thing is considered, we should attribute much to the Wisdom of Authority, and to the Judgement of Prudent and Holy Men, such as our first Reformers were, and great numbers of Learned Persons since their time were also, who thought this manner of Praying to be Grave and Edifying. And I believe others would be of the same Mind, if they would not altogether dwell upon their Prejudice against our way; but attend a little to those considerations that favour it, and which discover the advantage and usefulness of it; which sort of Equity they that are Wise and Humble will show to all Men, much more to their Governors.  
Now the Invocation of God somewhat often by his Attributes, does of itself tend to maintain in our Minds a reverend sense of his Majesty and Presence, which we all know is of necessary use to make us Pray unto him as we ought to do. I make no question but those that have been blamed for repeating Lord, Lord, so very often in their Extempore Prayers, would think themselves somewhat hardly used, if they should not be believed, in saying, that this was not for want of Matter, but for the exciting of a reverend sense of God's Authority in themselves and others. And I think there is a little more reason why this Construction should be made of the frequent calling upon God by his Name and Perfections, in the Prayers of the Church.  
In like manner the frequency of mentioning the Merits and Mediation of Christ, is profitable for the strengthening of our Faith and Assurance that we shall be heard. And to Pray unto God in the Name of Christ being the most distinguishing Character of our Christian Devotion, This also will justify our frequent use of it. And the reason is so much the stronger, because this is one main thing that distinguisheth us from the Church of Rome, which pretendeth the Mediation of the Virgin Mary, and the Angels, and the Departed Saints, as well as of Jesus Christ. And it had not been so agreeable to the Principles of the Reformation, to have left the Name and Mediation of Christ out of the Conclusion of any of the Collects, when this Church declared her detestation of calling upon God in any other Name, but the Name of Christ. This is all I shall say to this Matter; and I hope enough is said to remove the Prejudice of all Sober and Understanding Persons against the shortness of the Collects, and against the recital of the Name or Attributes of God, and of the Name and Merits of Christ in every one of them.  
The next Exception I shall take notice of, is that against the Repetition of the Lords Prayer in the Offices of the Liturgy, and of that Hymn, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy-Ghost, etc. and of that Petition, Lord have mercy upon us, and the like.  
Now I hope that they are but very few, and I hearty wish they were none at all, that so little understand the Christian Religion, as to disapprove all use of these Forms in our Worship: I do not mean of the Lords Prayer only, but of those Affectionate Petitions, Lord have mercy upon us, Christ have mercy upon us, and of that excellent Doxology, Glory be to the Father, etc. which moreover contains a short Confession of our Faith, in opposition to the Arians and Socinians. But that which is thought too much, is that these things are too often repeated, and that regard enough is not had to that Rule of our Saviour, When ye Pray use not vain Repetitions.  
But I hope nothing of this will appear upon farther Examination. For by our Saviour's Caution against Vain Repetitions, it seems that there are some Repetitions which are not vain, and which therefore he doth not forbid. And this we must necessarily suppose, because himself Praying in his Agony, thrice used the same Petition, and that in the same Words. Now the Vanity of this kind among the Heathens which our Saviour would have his Disciples to avoid, seems to be that Repetition which proceeds from the Affectation of much speaking in Prayer, or from a belief that God will not be moved to help us, unless we use many Words, or repeat the same thing over in a tedious manner. And thus the Prophets of Baal cried out from Morning till Noon, O Baal hear us; O Baal hear us. We are far enough, I hope, from such kind of Repetitions. And since they are such tedious Repetitions as these, which our Saviour here calls Vain, Men should have a care of calling those Repetitions of Good Prayers and Praises Vain, which are nothing like these, especially in contempt of a Public Rule.  
I never yet could find, that those who charge our Liturgy with this fault, have attempted to show us those marks of difference, by which we might distinguish Vain Repetitions from those that are not Vain, which I think their pretence obliged them to do. But although the Gravity and Usefulness of that part of our Service, which they make this Objection against, might well excuse us from any farther Vindication; yet I shall say something to this purpose, for the satisfaction of those that are willing to be satisfied.  
I conceive there are these two things only to be regarded in using Repetitions in Prayer or Thanksgiving, that they may not be liable to the charge of Vanity.  
1. That the Matter Repeated be very weighty and considerable, and that it be singularly apt to move those Pious Affections which God is most pleased with in our Addresses to him. And in this respect I dare say there is no sober Christian but will grant our Repetitions to be secured from Vanity. Such Petitions as Lord have mercy upon us, deserve the putting forth of the whole strength of our Desires and Affections. And when we ascribe Glory to the Holy Trinity, we express what we ought to make the end of all our Worship, and of all the Actions of our Lives. And therefore these things will bear being Repeated, and the Repetition of them may be profitable both to excite and to express the fervour of our Minds. And I trust we shall agree, that if any one Form of Prayer will bear being used more than once, when we Worship God, it is the Lords Prayer.  
2. The second thing required to secure Repetitions from Vanity, is, That they be framed with Judgement, both with regard to the frequency, that they do not come over too often, and with regard to the disposal of them, that they come in fitly and in due place. I do not mean that this is so very nice a thing, that the difference of an hairs breadth, as we use to say, will spoil all: For in things of this Nature there is a Latitude in which Prudent Men may take their choice; but only that this is to be done with discretion and choice, and with respect to the Ends for which Repetitions may be useful. And I am persuaded that this also is not wanting in our Liturgy. For I do not find that this was ever Objected against the Repetitions we mean, that they are ordered injudiciously, unless upon the only account of too much frequency. And yet the Lords Prayer is but twice in the Ordinary Service, and but once in every other distinct Office of Prayer or Thanksgiving. The Gloria Patri is used but once at our beginning to Praise God with Spiritual Hymns, and once at the Conclusion of every Psalm, and of some of the Hymns, besides one recital thereof in the Litany, when that is used. And as for those short Ejaculations. Lord have mercy upon us; Christ have mercy upon us. The former is repeated but once in the Ordinary Service, and both but twice in the Litany. So that there is no such ground of Complaint as is pretended, that there are many Repetitions in our Form of Worship, much less that those are Vain which are there. And I do not see how they that charge our Common-Prayer Book with Vain Repetitions upon these accounts, can have a reverend esteem of the 136 Psalms, where for 26 Verses together, His mercy endureth for ever, is repeated in every Verse.  
There is indeed one thing more requisite to secure our Repetitions of the same thing in calling upon God from being Vain, and that is, That our Desires and Affections should be raised to keep pace with our Expressions. But this belongs to us to take care of. And if we would endeavour to stir up in ourselves that Zeal and Devotion of Heart, which should answer that Appearance thereof which these Repetitions make, this would satisfy us beyond all other Argument that they are not Vain. To Conclude this Matter, I desire those who do not yet approve our Repetition of the Lords Prayer, and the other short Devotions, to consider whether it be so easy to spend the time it takes up more profitably, than by joining in good earnest with the Congregation in these Prayers.  
In the next place, the Responsals of the Congregation are Matter of Offence to some Persons; They do not approve the People's saying the Confession and the Lords Prayer after the Minister, nor their alternate Reciting some Petitions in the daily Service, with the Psalms and Hymns, and least of all do they approve that part which the Congregation bears in the Prayers of the Litany.  
Now it were well, if they, who blame our Prayers upon this account, would consider what has often been said to show the usefulness of this way. Namely, That it is apt to check a wand'ring Spirit, and to help and relieve Attention; and withal, that it tends to quicken a lively Forwardness and Zeal in God's Service, whilst we invite and provoke one another to Pray and to give Thanks. These things we say not without some experience of their Truth, and we think they carry plain Reason along with them, and I do not find that they have been Contradicted by the Leaders of the Dissenting Party. It is True, they have declared their dislike of this way, but still without taking notice of what may be said for it. If I have observed right, the main Reason of their dislike is this, That the Minister, as they say, is appointed for the people in all Public Services appertaining to God, and that the Scripture makes the Minister to be the Mouth of the People to God in Prayer. And therefore I shall Examine this Reason in the first place.  
And, 1. If it were granted that the Scripture maketh the Minister to be the Mouth of the People to God in Public Worship; yet this must by no means be so Interpreted, as to make all Vocal Prayer and Thanksgiving in Religious Assemblies unlawful to the People. For than they must not declare their Assent to the Prayers which the Minister utters, by saying Amen, which yet the Scripture approves, and is not disapproved by any of those that Object our way against us. Nor must it be so taken, as if the People were to be excluded from a Vocal Part in Praising God by Hymns and Spiritual Songs. For this also is warranted by Scripture, and seems to be confessed by our Dissenting Brethren, who allow the People to Sing Psalms with the Minister.  
Now he that audibly says Amen to the Prayers of the Congregation, makes a short Responsal to the Minister: And moreover, they that sing Psalms, in which there are Passages of Prayer, Confessions, or Petitions, containing matter of Invocation proper for us, as the Psalms often do, they pray Vocally. So that notwithstanding what is pretended concerning the Ministers being the People's Mouth to God, it shall still be lawful for the People, sometimes to join Vocally in Prayer as well as in Praise, and not only by saying Amen, but by expressing the very words of Confession or Petition.  
But, 2ly. Where is it said in Scripture, that the Minister is the Mouth of the People to God, or that no Prayer may be Offered up to God in Religious Assemblies, otherwise than by the Mouth of the Minister? I doubt these say are grown so samiliar amongst some People, that they believe them to be the Words, or very near the Words of Scripture: But there are no such Words nor meaning in the Bible that I can find, or that they have found for us. It is not good to pretend the Authority of Scripture for a Doctrine that is not to be met with there.  
It is true that the Minister is the Mouth of the People to God in all those Prayers which he utters for them, and because these are many more than what the People themselves utter, he may be said to be their Mouth to God Comparatively, but not Absolutely. It will be true also, that the Minister is appointed for the People in all Public Services appertaining to God, if this be understood for the most part, or of All with little exception. Some Public Services there are which are enclosed in his Office, and he is appointed for them in behalf of the People; that is, for Administering the Sacrament, Absolving the Penitent, and Blessing the People. And therefore Prayers that immediately concern these things are to be pronounced by him only. And as for the rest, the Order of the Church, and the Authority and Dignity of the Ministerial Function, makes it fit and decent that the Minister should utter most ever of them; & that in those wherein the People have their part, he should ever go before, and lead them, and guide the whole performance: which is all taken care for in our Liturgy.  
I said before, that the Dissenters do not utterly debar the People from all Vocal Prayer and Thanksgiving of their own in God's Solemn Worship. And therefore it were great pity that they should keep at a distance from us upon Questions of this Nature. And I hearty entreat them to consider whether they may not upon their own Principles come up to the Rules and Customs of our Church in this thing.  
1. If they grant the People's interest in Vocal Praise, let them consider whether they have reason to Condemn the People's bearing a part in any of the Hymns and Psalms by alternate Responses. For the plain End of reciting those Psalms in the Congregation, is to Praise and Magnify God's Name, and to excite in our Hearts such like devout affections in doing so, as those Holy Men felt in themselves, who were assisted by God's Spirit in Composing them. And therefore the Dissenters are not obliged to demand that the People be silent all this while. I have heard some of them say, that if these Psalms and Hymns were Sung, the Congregation might then challenge to put in their Voices with the Minister. But when they are read, as they generally are in our Parish Churches, they say this aught to be the Work of the Minister only. But I cannot see why singing or not singing should make such a Difference. I grant it were better if they were every where sung, because this is more suitable to the Design of Psalms, than bore reciting is. But if they be not sung (which is customarily omitted in Parish Churches, for want of skill as I conceive) the next use of them that is most agreeable to their Nature and Design, is not that the Minister should read all, as he does other parts of the Scripture; but that the People should recite the Psalms and other Godly Hymns, with the Minister by way of Answering in turns, as the Custom is with us, more or less in most Places. For when the People rise up to do this in order to the Solemn Praising of God, this is much nearer to singing, wherein the People are allowed to bear a part in God's Vocal Praise, than the Ministers reciting all himself, and shutting out the People from any part thereof.  
But it is Objected particularly against the reciting of one Verse of the Psalms by the Minister, and another by the People; that the People's Verse is in a manner lost to some of the Congregation, since in the confused murmur of so many Voices nothing can be distinctly heard.  
Now if our Brethren should admit of what has been already said in Vindication of these Responsals; I hope this Objection will not be insisted upon. I grant, that which is uttered in the Congregation ought to be understood. But then those Verses of the Psalms which are uttered by the Congregation may be well enough understood by every one that has a Book, or who is acquainted competently well with the Psalms themselves. I need not say much in answer to this Objection, because it may be removed by every one that makes it, if he can read, and will bring a Book along with him. And as for those that cannot, I must needs say, that it is not so hard as is pretended for them also to take those Verses which are uttered by those that are near them, if they will carefully attend. And I have been credibly informed, that some devout People that could never read, have attained to an ability of reciting most of the Psalms without Book, by often hearing them in those Churches where they are alternately recited; which shows that the Murmur is not so confused, but that the Words may be heard ditinctly enough to be understood, if one has a mind to it. And then they that cannot read may by this means be more quickened, than otherwise they would be, to learn to read; however to attend, and to learn the Psalms without Book, that they also may bear their part Vocally with the Congregation in God's Praises.  
I shall add, That for the most part the Psalms are recited alternately in those Churches only, where it may be reasonably presumed that the whole Congregation can read, very few excepted. For by the way, this Method of reading the Psalms is not Commanded, but every Parish Church is left at liberty to observe her own Custom about it. In the Country Parishes the Minister generally recites all, (which way I do not think so convenient as that of Responsals, for the Reason I gave before.) But there ought to be no breach amongst us about things of this Nature, in which one way may perhaps be more convenient in one respect, and the contrary more convenient in another; and then we should not altogether dwell upon Considerations that favour our own opinion, but attend also to those that may be offered for another, and put the best construction upon it, especially in favour of a Public Rule, or a received Custom. This is more Christianlike, and will be more for the honour of Religion, and the good of other men's Souls, and for our own Comfort at last, than to strain our utmost Wit to find faults with, and to aggravate Inconveniences against the Laws or Usages of the Church where we live. This that I am now speaking of is not a Law imposed on all the Churches of our National Communion, but a Custom of some of them, which I thought good to descend, that they who think not so highly well of it as I do, may not yet break Communion with those that use it. And I hope our Brethren, who grant the People are not to be excluded from Vocal Praise, will consider that there is no inconvenience in uttering the Psalms by Responsals, but that which is pretended concerning the difficulty to understand what is said: And that there is very little reason for this pretence, seeing the Psalms are the most known parts in the Bible, and that if those few who cannot read, will be careful, they may reap great benefit by attending to the Congregation, as some have done, till themselves have been able to recite the Psalms.  
2. If they grant it Lawful and Expedient, that the People should join in Vocal Praise; I cannot see how they can Dispute the lawfulness or expedience of their joining with the Minister sometimes in Vocal Prayer. It will not be easy to show a Reason why this should be disallowed, if that be allowed. If it be said, there is some Example and Warrant in the Scripture for the one, but not for the other; it seems to be a good answer, that there is such a parity of reason, as that the express warrant of the Scripture for one, is an implied warrant for the other: Unless a Man will say, that Nothing must be done in God's Worship for which there is not express and particular Warrant; which though a Man may say when he is opposing a way of Worship which he likes not, yet he will not say it, when he comes to defend his own. It is a Principle that no Man will stand by, though sometimes he may take it up to serve a turn. The truth is, the Scripture does not pretend to give us a perfect account of the Order and Manner of the Solemn Worship of God either in the Synagogues of the Jews, or in the Churches of Christians; nor to prescribe a Form for the Service of God by the Church in after times. Several things were done in the Religious Assemblies of Christians first of all, that were peculiar to the extraordinary effusion of the Spirit in those times, and several that were fit enough for the conduct of God's Service when Miracles should cease; and of both sorts some are intimated in St. Paul's two Epistles to the Corinthians; but no Man that understands these things will say, that they are all intimated there, or any where else in the New Testament. And therefore it does not follow that they did not observe in their Worship, this or that Custom; from hence, that we do not find it written that they observed it. We do not read that the Lords Prayer was used in the time of the Apostles; but I suppose they are very few who will therefore make a question whether it was used or not. We are able to show that the People's joining in Vocal Prayer with the Minister was very anciently practised. In imitation of the way of the Christians, Julian the Apostate appointed a Form of Prayer for the Heathen, to be recited in Parts; which shows that this was a known Custom 
Naz. Orat. 3.  of the Church in those days, and that it had been generally practised before. And if this was the Primitive way, it is more probable that it was the way in the Apostles time, than that it was not. But of this let every one Judge as he sees cause. This is certain, That the Apostles left the Governors of the Church under the Obligation of ordering the Service of God according to General Rules, and prescribed that all things should be done Decently and in Order, and to Edification. And I do not think that our Brethren will ever be able to show, that this Practice which they except against, is not agreeable to such General Rules; which yet they ought to do very fully and plainly, to excuse their Nonconformity.  
That which is most urged, is, That the People speaking to God in the Church is Disorderly, and a breaking in upon the Ministers Office. But will they say that the Children of Israel entrenched upon the Priest, when they all bowed themselves upon the Pavement, and Worshipped the Lord, and Praised him, saying, For he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever; 2 Chron. 7. 3.? I have already observed, That Ecclesiastical Order is in this matter secured by the Ministers Presiding in God's Public Worship, and guiding the whole performance of it.  
But not to allow the People to make an audible Confession of Sin after the Minister, nor to utter some few affectionate Petitions, and those very short, to which they are also invited and led by him; this rather seems to savour of an affectation of undue superiority over the People, than to proceed from any fear, lest by this means they should be encouraged to invade the Ministerial Office. I believe the Laity of our Communion have as Reverend an esteem of the Sacred Function as their Neighbours, and to raise the Comparison no higher, have shown themselves ever since the Reformation, as much afraid to usurp the proper Offices of the Clergy, as those that have been drawn away from the Communion of the Church, and have been taught that they must not say a word in Public Prayer, but Amen. We should not think that we endanger our Order and the respect that is due to it, if we do not arrogate more to ourselves than is meet. It has been one great fault of the Church of Rome to advance the Priest unreasonably above the People in the Administration of Holy Things. The Dissenting Ministers may be a little guilty of this, though in a particular wherein that Church is not guilty of it. They seem to make too little account of the Flock of Christ, in Condemning our Church for permitting and requiring the People to Offer up those Petitions to God with their own Mouths, which are appointed for them in the Liturgy. The Minister assuming the whole to himself does not indeed make him much greater in the Church than he is, but they that obstinately deny any part of it to the People, do make them of much lower and meaner Condition in the Church than they ought to be. And it is something strange, that those very Persons who Contend for the interest of the Laity in some business in Religious Assemblies that more nearly touches upon Ecclesiastical Authority, than the bare offering up of a few Petitions to God, should be so unwilling to allow them this. They affirm that the People have a right to be heard before Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons are Ordained, and as several of them contend to interpose also in all Acts of Discipline: and yet they do not think them qualified to bear any part in the Prayers of the Congregation, unless by saying Amen to what the Minister utters. These things do not seem to hang well together. And I am persuaded our Church has ordered this Matter with more Judgement and Impartiality, in assigning to the People their Interest both in Acts of Worship and Discipline, within such Rules and Limits that the Clergy and Laity may know what their proper place and business is in all Ecclesiastical Assemblies.  
I have heard some Object against the People's uttering Prayers and Praises in the Congregation, that it is Forbidden Women to speak in the Church. But this is strangely misapplied to the Matter in hand. For it is plain, that the speaking mentioned by the Apostle, signifies nothing but Prophesying, Interpreting, Preaching, or Instructing; and that the reason why he will not allow this to the Woman, is because Preaching is an Act that implies Authority, whereas the Woman's part is Obedience and Subjection. They that will read the whole Chapter, will find that this is the true meaning of St. Paul. And indeed the place itself sufficiently shows it, which I shall therefore set down. Let your Women keep silence in the Churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are Commanded to be under Obedience, as also the Law saith. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their Husbands at home, for it is a shame for a Woman to speak in the Church, 1 Cor. 14. 34, 35, The Subject of this Discourse is briefly expressed in the 39 Verse, Brethren covet to prophecy, and forbidden not to speak with tongues. Now the reason given why the Woman is not to speak, viz. because she is to be under Obedience, does plainly restrain that Speaking to Prophesying, and the like, which is moreover the only sort of Speaking that is discoursed of in this place.  
I know no particular Exception under this Head which remains to be spoken to, unless it be, that the People are said to utter the Words of Invocation in the Litany for the most part, the Minister all the while suggesting the Matter of it to them. But this Objectin will be of no force, if what I have said concerning the lawfulness of allowing the People an Interest in Vocal Prayer be admitted; unless the Objection be this, That they are allowed to bear too considerable a part in that Prayer, and somewhat to the disparagement of the Ministers Office. And then I answer, That, upon Reasons which I shall presently Offer, it seems to me to be otherwise. I shall only premise that I am really troubled for their sakes who put us upon this Defence, that in Matters of Prudence and Expedience wherein there is a considerable latitude to order them well enough, that in these things I say they seem to yield so very little to the Authority and Judgement of their Governors. I do not think it hard to make out the Prudence of these Determinations so much disliked: This is not the thing I am troubled at. But I think it hard that a Public Rule should not be thought reason enough to justify things of this sort, and to oblige the People to compliance without more ado. I am sorry that our Dissenting Brethren do not consider that it is some diminution to their Modesty and Humility, to challenge, as in effect they do, a nice and punctual account of the prudence of the Public Orders of this Church, before they will Submit to 'em in Practice. Now as to the Objection before us. The People's Vocal Part in the Litany seems to be no disparagement at all to the Ministers Office upon these accounts.  
1. Although the Formal Words, of Good Lord deliver us, and We beseech thee to hear us Good Lord, be uttered by the People; yet it must be acknowledged that this is but part of the Prayer of the Litany, that which the Minister utters being the other part and the far greater part.  
2. That the Words of Prayer are begun by the Minister, not only in the Invocation of the Holy Trinity first of all; but in that Prayer Remember not Lord our Offences, and Spare us Good Lord, and We beseech thee O Lord God, etc. So that the Minister does utter the Formal Words of Prayer, and the People take them all afterward from him, excepting only the Words of that Petition, Good Lord deliver us.  
3. They are but these two short and known Petitions, Good Lord deliver us, and We beseech thee to hear us Good Lord, upon the uttering of which by the People the weight of the Objection lies. And if they will allow the People any Vocal part in the Words of Prayer, I know not what Petitions are more proper for them than such as these. As for the Repetition of them, there is this reason for it, that there is still new and distinct Matter to which they are applied. And I will be bold to say, that the repeated application of them is a great relief to attention and minding the business we are about, and evidently contributes to keep up an affectionate and ardent frame of Heart, in desiring those weighty things we ask of God in this Prayer. I could almost appeal to the keenest of our Adversaries, if that Petition, Good Lord deliver us, were applied but once in gross to the Deprecations and Supplications of that part of the Litany to which it belongs, whether we should not be more apt to let our attention fall, and to forget the meaning, and to languish in the offering up of those Prayers, than as it is now ordered. But,  
4. I think it is plain, that in offering up these Prayers to God, the Minister has the Principal and Guiding part, in that he utters all the distinct Matter of the Prayer, which the People do not, whereas he utters Words of Invocation as well as they. And now I desire our Brethren to consider, whether if the People were to utter that which is the Ministers part now; and the Minister to say that only which is theirs, they would not have more grievously complained that the Ministers Authority was slighted in the whole design, since he seemed only to learn from the People what the Congregation was to pray for.  
It is of great Consequence with what Mind we come to consider any thing; if with prejudice and dislike, we are then ready to turn all that is reasonably produced in favour for it, into an argument of distaste; and that seems unreasonable, with the quite contrary, to which we should have been more displeased if this had been instead of the other. But surely we may judge of these things with Impartiality, and if need be with Candour, as we ought to do. And if the difficulty of doing so be seen in the frequency of doing the Contrary, even amongst Men otherwise good, we have the greater need to entreat of God to enlighten our Understandings, and to rescue us from prejudices and passions in the Judgement we make of all things of this nature. I do not intimate this any way in affectation of seeming not to need this exhortation myself; but remembering my own frailty. I do hereupon admonish myself as well as others. In the mean time, if there be any Bias upon my Judgement in that esteem, I declare myself to have of the Prayers of the Church; I must confess that I believe myself to be biased on the right hand. For I take it to be much more for the safety of my own Soul, as well as the security of the Church's Peace, that I should be inclined rather to Judge too favourably of Public Rules, than to value them beneath their just worth and usefulness. But I must confess, That of all the Prayers in our Liturgy that are of Humane Composition, I should be most unwilling to part with the Litany as it now stands there. It seems to be, what it was designed to be, a Form of Prayer apt to excite our most intense and servant desires of God's Grace and Mercy. Whilst the Minister leads the people to pray against those several Sins and Evils which a Christian is most concerned to be afraid of, and at the end of every convenient period, the Congregation with one voice cries out, Good Lord deliver us; while the Minister leads them to pray for all those particular Blessings which ought to be most dear to a Christian, and the whole Congregation with one voice cries out, We beseech thee to hear us Good Lord. These Prayers seem to be offered with such affection, as I am not well able to express by any ordinary instance: In Offering them we seem to be as passionately concerned as a Malefactor upon his knees, that begs his own life. The whole Office is framed with respect both to matter and contrivance, for the raising of the utmost Devotion of good Christians, and for the warming of the coldest hearts by the heat of the Congregation. And in such a disposition it is then most fit to express our Charity, by praying for others, even all sorts of Men, as distinctly and particularly as Public Prayers will bear. And this the fullness of this Prayer doth admirably provide for, as no Man will deny, who considers it without aversion and prejudice against it, which I pray God deliver all well meaning people from, that they may not deprive themselves of so great a benefit.  
I shall say no more concerning this Matter of the people's joining in Vocal Prayer and Praise. And indeed the Reason why I have dwelled so long upon an Answer to this Objection, is, because I have observed, that some honest persons are very confident, that in this thing at least our Liturgy is to be blamed. And I hope what hath been said will to such persons give reasonable satisfaction, that for this thing it is rather to be commended. But because upon this occasion the part of the Congregation in the Litany was last mentioned: I shall now speak briefly to some other Objections against the Litany which are commonly made.  
The first of these is, That we pray to be delivered from all deadly sin, which seems to imply that there are some Sins which are not deadly.  
Now in answer to this it is by some truly enough said, That these Words do not necessarily imply a distinction between Sins that are, and Sins that are not deadly. But admitting that such a distinction was intended, yet I think no understanding Christian has reason to be offended with it. By Deadly Sin a Protestant means all such Sin as puts a Man out of a state of Favour with God. But all Sins are not thus Deadly. For in many things we offend all, and as for those Sins which the Regenerate commit through Humane Frailty only, they are not thereby put into a state of Damnation. And though all Sin be in its own Nature Deadly or Damnable; yet through the Mercy of God, and the Merits of Christ, Sins of mere Infirmity are not imputed to true Believers, and therefore not Deadly to them. But there are some Sins so heinous, that he who Commits them is thereby put into a Damnable state, and till he recovers himself by true Repentance and Actual Reformation, he cannot upon any good ground promise to himself that the wrath of God does not abide upon him. And 'tis of such Sins as these that this passage is to be understood, as appears by Deadly Sin being added to Fornication. From Fornication and all other Deadly Sin, Good Lord deliver us. So that this Petition seems to be of the same Nature with that of the Psalmist. Keep back thy Servant also from presumptuous sins, let not them have dominion over me, then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great Transgression, Psal. 19 13. Whereas therefore these Words of the Litany seem to suppose that some Sins are not Deadly, we should be very unjust to make such a Construction of them, as if they employed that some Sins are in their own nature Venial, and so slight, that they will be forgiven without any consideration; for as I have shown, we may hold that distinction which the Words suppose, and yet retain that Protestant Doctrine, that no Sin is forgiven, but through the Mercy of God, and the Merits and Mediation of Christ.  
Again, some are offended with our praying against Sudden Death.  
But why should we not by Sudden Death understand our being taken out of this World when we are not fit to die? For sometimes a thing is said to be Sudden to us when we are not prepared for it. And in this sense can any good Christian find fault with the Petition? But suppose, that by Sudden Death we mean what is commonly understood by it, that is, a Death of which a Man has not the least warning by Sickness: Are there not reasons why even good Men may desire not to die suddenly? May they not when they find themselves drawing towards their end, by their good Instructions and Admonitions make impression upon their Friends, Companions, and Relations to the bettering of them? May not their Counsels be more effectual with them than ever they were before? And is it not reasonable to believe they will be so? As for themselves, may not the warning they have of Approaching Death be improved to make them more fit to die than they were in their perfect health? In a Word, he that thinks himself to have sufficiently perfected holiness in the fear of God, and not to stand in need of those Acts of Self-Examination, Humiliation, and Devotion, by which good Men improve the warnings of Death, which Mortal Sickness or Extreme Age gives them, let him suspend his Act, and refuse to join with us when we pray God to deliver us from Sudden Death.  
There is yet another Objection which I should not have named, but that some of the Dissenters, who seem to understand very little of Religion by making it, have it often in their Mouths. That is, when we pray to be delivered by the Mystery of Christ's Holy Incarnation, etc. by his Agony and Bloody Sweat, by his Cross and Passion, etc. and by the coming of the Holy Ghost: They say, some of them, that this is Swearing, some that it is Conjuring, and I know not what. For which sayings, favouring of great profaneness, they ought to be severely rebuked; and that is all the answer they should have, were it not that some of them may be grossly ignorant of the true Sense of these Petitions.  
And therefore I say, that they might easily suppose, if they would give their Minds to it, that we pray to be delivered through the Saving Efficacy of Christ's Incarnation and Passion, etc. And yet I do not take this to be the principal meaning, or that which was intended. For I conceive that to be this, that when we say, By the Mystery of thy Holy Incarnation, and by thy Cross and Passion, etc. Good Lord deliver us; we implore Christ, who has already showed such inestimable goodness towards us, by taking our Nature to his Divinity, to Die upon the Cross, to be Buried, to Rise again, to ascend into Heaven, and there to intercede with the Father for us, and by sending the Holy Ghost to qualify the Apostles for their great Work of carrying the Word of Salvation into the World: I say we implore him who hath already done such mighty things for our Salvation, and we plead with him by that goodness which he hath already given us such great demonstrations of, by those wonders of Mercy that he hath wrought for us, that he would now go on to deliver us by his powerful Grace from these Evils which we pray against. And this is so reasonable, so devout and affectionate, so humble and thankful a way of Praying, that I am sorry that any who call themselves Believers should be so ignorant as not to understand it, or so profane and unlike what they pretend to be, as to deride it. Though God does not need to be put in mind of his former benefits towards us; yet it is fit for us to mention them in our most earnest Prayers, not only because we are to make a grateful acknowledgement of them to him, but likewise, because by this means we encourage ourselves to ask in Faith; since he who unasked hath done such great things for us, will not fail upon our earnest and humble prayer, which himself also hath required, to give us all other good things that we need, and to deliver us from all real evils of which we are in danger.  
I proceed next to consider whether there be any just cause to find fault with the reading of the Apocryphal Lessons in our Church.  
And, 1. It must be acknowledged by those who allow the usefulness of Sermons and Catechising in the Church, that those Chapters may be read in the Church, though they are not Divinely inspired Writings, since no sober Man will pretend that the Minister Preaches or Catechises by Inspiration. But if other good Instructions may be read or recited in the Church, besides the Word of God itself, why may not some Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books be read, which contain excellent Rules of good Life; and Exhortations and Encouragements to Virtue and Piety; especially since those writings were greatly esteemed by the Church in its purest Ages, when they and other Humane Writings were also Publicly read, as well as the Holy Scriptures?  
2. If it be said that those Chapters of Canonical Scripture which are omitted in the Calendar, would be more profitably read instead of the Apocryphal Chapters; it ought also to be observed, that the Chapters omitted are those of the Old Testament, which either recite Genealogies, or the Rules of the Levitical Service, or which relate matters of Fact delivered also in other Chapters that are read, or which are hard to be understood. This seems to Apologise for the Churches leaving those to be considered at home by them that have ability so to do, and appointing some Apocryphal Chapters to be read, which are more plain, and in that respect more profitable for the Common People: Unless a Man will say, that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority, it must be always more profitable to read any part of that to the people, than to use any other Exhortation, or read any other good Lesson. And then I do not know what place will be left for Sermons, since as I said before, they are no more of Divine Authority, than the Apocryphal Lessons.  
3. If it be said, that the reading of these as Lessons; is a prevailing Temptation to the Vulgar to take them for God's Word, or to think them equal to the Writings of the Old and New Testament: I believe there is no sufficient ground for this. I never heard of any of our Communion that were led into that mistake. It is certain, that our Church declareth those Lessons to be no part of Canonical Scripture, and in the 6th Article saith, That they are read for example of Life, and instruction of Manners, but that it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine: And herein she follows the Judgement and Practice of the Primitive Church, which distinguisheth between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books, esteeming those to be of Divine Authority, these not so, but indeed Godly Writings, profitable to be publicly read. And why the same use of them may not be retained with the same distinction, I can see no good Reason. For the Church of Rome's receiving the Apocryphal Books into her Canon, is not likely to misled any of our Communion; since we are not so forward to take their Opinion in any Matter of Religion.  
But in the last place, There is no Apocryphal Lesson read in our Churches upon any Lord's day in the year, and so there is not this pretence against Communion with us upon the Lords days, when it is that we do so earnestly desire the Communion of those that have separated from us. And therefore I shall at present say nothing to those Exceptions which are taken from the Matter of some of the Apocryphal Books, as that some Relations are pretended to be Fabulous, etc. For this would engage me to a greater length than I intent. But whoever thinks himself capable to judge of this Controversy, may receive satisfaction from what Dr. Falkner has said upon it in his Libertas Ecclesiast. p. 164, etc.  
To proceed; Although the Communion Service for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferred by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book, yet that has not past free from Exception. The Passages that seem to be disliked are two.  
1. That Petition in the Prayer before Consecration, That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our Souls washed by his most precious Blood. Here they say a distinct efficacy of cleansing, and a greater efficacy is attributed to the Blood of Christ, than to his Body; inasmuch as the cleansing of our Souls is attributed to the Blood of Christ, whereas our Bodies are said only to be cleansed by his Body.  
Now in answer to this, I suppose it is plain from those Words at the delivery of the Bread and Wine; The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting life. And the Blood of our Lord, etc. It is, I say, plain from hence, that our Church teaches the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies, to flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ. And therefore that former Passage is not to be Interpreted, as if our Souls were not cleansed by the Body of Christ, because they are said to be washed by his Blood. For the saying of this does not exclude the other. When the Apostle said, We being many are one Bread and one Body, for we are all partakers of that one Bread, 1 Cor. 10. 17. Though he expressed only the Bread of the Eucharist, yet no man will say he meant to exclude the Cup, as if the Unity of the Church would be argued only from their partaking in that one kind. And when he said, that we have been all made to drink into one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12. 13. he meant not to exclude the Participation of the Bread, as if that one Spirit which animated the Church, was signified only by partaking of the Cup. Nor will any Man argue from hence, that he attributes a distinct efficacy to the Bread to prove the Unity of the Body, and to the Cup to prove the Unity of the Spirit. I must needs say, that this Exception was sought, but never offered itself.  
2. The Ministers delivering the Elements into every Communicants hands, with a Form of Words recited to every one of them at the Distribution, is blamed also, as being thought a departure from the Practice of Christ at the first Institution of this Sacrament. For they say, our Lord's Words were, Take ye, Eat ye, Drink ye all of this, and therefore the People are not to take the Elements one by one out of the Ministers hand, nor ought any Form of Words to be used particularly to every one that receives. To this I answer,  
1. That it does not appear from those Words, Take ye, etc. which are spoken in the Plural Number, that our Saviour did not speak particularly to every one of his Apostles when they received, or that he did not deliver the Elements into every particular Man's hand. For the Evangelists may well be supposed to give a short account of the Institution of Christ, not of every Word he then said, but what was necessary to be related. And then what might be particularly said or done to every one, would be sufficiently related, in being related as spoken or done Generally to all. That is, if Christ had said, Take thou, Eat thou, to every one of them; this were truly related by the Evangelists, who tell us that he had said to all, Take, Eat, etc. And therefore I do not see how it can be proved, that our Practice varies from this Circumstance of the Institution: Tho, if it did, I suppose it might be as easily defended, as the Celebration of the Eucharist about Dinner time, and not at Supper, which the Dissenters themselves scruple not. But he that thinks not this Answer sufficient, let him consult the aforesaid excellent Book of Dr. Falkner, p. 218, etc. where he shall find, that it is indeed more probable that our way is agreeable to the way of the First Institution in this Matter, than that which the Dissenters would have instead of it. But for their sakes who may not have that Book by them, I shall add out of it, another answer which I think may satisfy a Reasonable Man. Supposing then that the Evangelists did not relate the Matter Summarily, but as distinctly as the Words were spoken by our Saviour. Yet,  
2. Our Saviour also Commanded his Disciples, Mat. 28. 19 to teach all Nations, Baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: But will any Christian think it hence deducible, That where divers Persons, or great numbers are to be Baptised together, the Solemn Words of Baptising them in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, may not lawfully be expressed severally to every Person? And if the Baptismal Form of Words may be Solemnly and Suitably to that Sacrament applied to every Person Baptised, by the General acknowledgement of all Christians, there can be no Reason why the like may not be allowed in the Lord's Supper. Wherefore the Practice of our Church herein is no way unsuitable to the Institution of Christ, or the Nature of the Sacrament; and the Alteration of it would be for the worse, and to the abating the Solemnity of its Administration, Lib. Eccl. p. 224.  
There remains but two more particular Exceptions which I think needful to take notice of, and those are in the Office of Baptism. And the first I mean, is,  
1. That all Baptised Infants are supposed to be Regenerated; of which, as some say, we cannot be certain.  
But I desire those that say so, to consider if the Scripture does not attribute to Baptism, as much as the Liturgy does. We are said by Baptism to be made Members of Christ's Body, By one Spirit we are all Baptised into one Body, 1 Cor. 12. 13. And to be Baptised into Christ, and to put on Christ, Gal. 3. 27. and he that is in Christ is a new creature. And to be Baptised for the Remission of sins, Acts 2. 38. Baptism is also called the washing of Regeneration, Tit. 3. 5. Now if it be made a Question, Whether Infants are Regenerated in Baptism; the Question at last must come to this: Whether they are Qualified to become Members of Christ's Body, to be admitted into God's Covenant, to receive Pardon of Original Sin, and to become New Creatures, gaining that State by Grace, which they could not have by Nature? And I do not see, that any but Anabaptists can deny this. For they that contend, as we do, that Infants are capable of Baptism, must not deny them to be qualified for this Grace of Baptism, unless they will make the Ordinance and Promises of God to be of none effect towards them. Now if Infants do by Baptism gain Remission of Sin, and are made Members of Christ; they are Regenerated and Born anew. If they do not gain this by it, what does their Baptism signify? Or what benefit can they be supposed to have by it, if they die in their Infancy, more than if they had not been Baptised at all? This is the only means of Salvation they can have. And those expressions of the Scripture above recited, with many more, will justify our Church, which supposes that this means will be effectual, so long as they are capable of none other, and therefore aught to be considered by those that make it to be of none effect.  
I shall only add, That this had been thought a strange Question in the Ancient Church, Whether Infants were Regenerated by Baptism, when the Pelagians, whose cause led them to deny it, yet durst not do it directly, because they knew it would not be endured; and therefore they confessed that Infants were to be Baptised, to qualify them for the Kingdom of Heaven, but not for the Remission of Sin. So that they themselves seemed to acknowledge the saving effect of Baptism to Infants; though as St. Austin often shown them, they contradicted themselves by so doing. But they durst do no otherwise, because the Doctrine of the Church was so plainly against them in this matter, and every Believer was so settled in it, that I remember St. Austin somewhere speaks to this purpose, that the Pelagians would have come to the point, and denied that the Baptism of Infants signified any thing at all to their Salvation, and therefore might be as well let alone; but that they were afraid the Mothers themselves of those Children would every where reproach them for it.  
The other Objection against the Office of Baptism, is this, That the Godfathers and Godmothers, that answer for Infants, are not their Parents or Guardians, but others, who have, they say, no Authority to Covenant or Act in their Names. In answer to which, I shall omit several things that might be said, and content myself with these two things, which I think may be sufficient.  
1. That in all cases where the Sureties are procured by the Parents, there they have Authority to Covenant in behalf of the Infant; and this the Objectors must grant, I think, upon their own Principles: since they contend that Parents or Pro-parents are fittest to act in behalf of the Baptised Infants, as having Authority so to do, since they have the Power to dispose of their Education afterward. For then the Sureties which are by them prevailed with to stand for their Children, have at least all that Authority which the Parents can give them. And this is sufficiently known to be the case with us. And this is that which the Church might well suppose, viz. that the Sureties, which contract with the Church in the Infant's Name, would be procured by the Parents; so that the Parent's Contracting in behalf of the Infant, is included in the Undertaking of the Sureties, who although they are required by the Church to answer for the Infant, yet are they supposed to be Authorised by its Parents also, so to do,  
2. The good Design of this Order and Appointment in the Church ought to be considered, which is not the less, for the fault of Men, and the looseness of these times, does often defeat it. For hereby the Church taketh greater security, that the Infant shall be brought up in the Knowledge and Practice of that Holy Covenant into which it is Baptised: In as much as besides the care of the Parents, which is in effect promised, and may be more reasonably relied upon without their own Solemn Act, upon the account of that Natural Affection which makes them particularly concerned; besides this, I say, there is a Particular Obligation laid upon others also, to see that the Infant be so Educated, as much as in them lies. In case the Parents should die before the Child is grown to years of Discretion, the Sureties are then more Particularly Obliged to look to their Godchild, that he be put into a way of learning and doing his Duty. If they should not die before, but be remiss, the Sureties have Authority to come to them and Admonish them of their Duty, and to let them know, that since themselves were desired by them to undertake for this Child, they as such Sureties are particularly concerned to mind the Parents of their Duty, and if need be to rebuke them sharply for neglecting it; since they did in effect, and to all purpose of Obligation undertake for the performance of it, when the Sureties undertook for the Child. Moreover when the Child is grown to years of Knowledge, and come abroad into the World, he is liable to the Charitable Admonitions of his Sureties as well as of his Parents, in case he does amiss, and their Reproofs are more likely to take place, than those of most other Persons. Now though all Christians, as Members of one Body are to take care of, and to watch over one another, yet some are more Particularly Obliged, and have greater Advantages to do those Works of Spiritual Charity than others. And I appeal to all considering Men, if Sureties at Baptism, may not with great Authority, and with likelihood of good effect, Reprove both those Negligent Parents and Unruly Children for whom they have undertaken to the Church. The Parents for not minding to Educate their Children in the knowledge and keeping of the Baptismal Vow; or the Children for not harkening to good Admonition. And in this Age when the Duty of Christian Reproof is so generally omitted; it were well if the defect were this way a little supplied. But it is by no means  that the opportunity thereof, and the obligation thereunto should be taken away. I know some will be apt to say, that this is but rarely Practised. But that is no sufficient Answer to what I have said. For when we use to judge of the goodness of a Rule or Custom by the good that comes of observing it, we must look where 'tis kept, though it be kept but by few, and not where 'tis broken. And if the Dissenters have nothing to say against the use of Sureties, but that the end of this Appointment is seldom regarded, themselves may help to remove this Objection, by returning to the Church, and increasing the number of those that do pursue the End of it. And thus doing they shall have the benefit of this Order of the Church, and the Church the benefit of their good Examples.  
As for the use of the Interrogatories put to the Sureties, and their Answers, they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism doth oblige all Baptised Persons to, and that Infants do stand engaged to perform the Vow of Baptism when they shall come to years of knowledge. This is the known meaning of the Contract, nor did I ever hear of any that otherwise understood it; and therefore I see not why it should be said to be liable to misunderstanding.  
After all, there is one General Objection yet remaining which still prevails with some Persons, and that is, That some of our Prayers are to be found in the Mass-Book, and the Breviary, and the Offices of the Church of Rome. This Objection hath made a great noise, but I appeal to Understanding Men, if there be any sense in it.  
No Man will say, that 'tis enough to make any Prayer, or Form of Devotion or Instruction unlawful to be used, that the same is to be found in the Mass-Book, etc. For then the Lords Prayer, the Psalms, and a great part of the Scriptures besides, and the Creeds must never be used by us. And therefore whether any part of the Roman Service is to be used by us or not, must be judged of by some other Rule, that is by the Word of God. So that 'tis a vain Exception against any part of our Liturgy, to say it was taken out of the Mass-Book, unless it could be shown withal, that it is some part of the Romish Superstition. I know it has been said, that the Scriptures being of necessary use are to be retained by us, though the Church of Rome retains them; but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary; but in those we ought to go as far from that Church as ever we can. But what reason is there for this? For the Danger that may happen to us in coming too near them, lies in things wherein they do ill, not in which they do well. And as for the Papists themselves, we do not in the least countenance them wherein they are wrong, by agreeing with them wherein they are right. And as for the Things themselves, they are not the worse for being used by them. We should allow the Papists a greater Power to do mischief than they have, if their using of some good things should render all use of them hurtful to us. The Case in short is this, When our Reformers were intent upon the Reformation of the Liturgy, they designed to Purge it of all those corrupt Additions, which the usurped Authority of the Church of Rome had long since brought into it; and to retain nothing but what was agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, and to the Practice of the purer Ages of the Church. And in this they did like Wise Men, because thus it would be evident to all the World, that they Reform upon just & necessary Reasons, and not merely out of a desire of Change and Innovation; since they Purged the Forms of Divine Service, from nothing but Innovations and Corruptions, and an unprofitable crowd of Ceremonies. No Man can show a good Reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book, which are to be found in the Mass-Book, but which were used also by the Church before Romanism had Corrupted it, are not as much to be Valued because they were once used by good Christians, as to be run down because they have been since used by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. But to conclude this Matter, If any Man would set himself to expose the Mass-Book, he would I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it, and things that are obnoxious to just reproof; not on things that are justifiable and may easily be defended. And the reason of this is plain, because the Mass-Book is to blame for those parts of it only, but not for these. Now for such Passages as the Mass-Book itself is not to be blamed for, neither is our Liturgy to be blamed, if we will speak justly of things, and without Prejudice and Passion.  
I have now considered all those Exceptions against the Solemn Service of God by our Liturgy, which the Dissenters are thought to insist most upon. Not but that some other Exceptions have been made by the Ministers of that persuasion: But this I hope was without design to prejudice the People against our Communion, but rather to gain some alterations, which in their Judgement would have been advantageous to the Book of Common-Prayer, and given it a greater perfection; whether they were right in this or not, I will not now dispute; being very desirous, as I pray God we may all be, to avoid Controversies in this Matter as much as may be. Nay, I believe those Prejudices of the Lay-Dissenters against the Common-Prayer, which I have endeavoured to remove, have wrought in them a greater a version to it, than the best Divines of that way intended; (I should be very sorry to find myself mistaken in this.) And this consideration was some encouragement to me to give a true account of those things they seemed to dislike most of all.  
Which I have endeavoured upon the plain grounds of Reason and Scripture, almost wholly avoiding appeals to other Church Antiquity, not but that great regard is to be had of it, and that we can defend ourselves by it; but because they are very few in Comparison who are qualified to Examine this kind of Argument. And the like I say of the Concurrence of other Reformed Churches with us in those things that are disliked.  
As for the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, it is pretended that this is a part of Worship, or a Sacrament of Man's making. The contrary to which, has been so plainly shown in late Discourses, that unless I am called to give an account of it, I cannot think fit to trouble you with this Dispute. But I hearty desire our Brethren to consider at length, that though the use of this Ceremony were not so easy to be defended as I think it is, yet that it is no Condition of Communion, because the People are not required to Sign with the Sign of the Cross, but the Minister only.  
As for Kneeling at the Communion of the Holy Table, that is indeed every Communicants Act, but of this you may expect a Discourse from another Hand, which I hope will give satisfaction to all Sober Persons, that are yet unsatisfied about it.  
And now I entreat all those of the Dissenting Party, into whose hands these Papers shall fall, that they would seriously consider, whether it be fit to venture the Gild of Schism, and the sad Consequences of it, likely to come to pass, upon such grounds as these: Let us at length consult for the Honour of this Age with Posterity, who will stand amazed to find a Separation of Protestants from this Church, carried on so long upon so little occasion given, and such weak Objections so strongly insisted upon, as to build an opposite Communion upon them. Let us Consult the Honour and the Safety of the Reformation, and no longer suffer it to be exposed to scorn and dnager, to be Laughed at, and Disgraced by the Papists, our dangerous Enemies always, but never more dangerous than now. If the Dissenters are not yet convinced, that the wide breach they have made in the Communion of Protestants, will certainly let in Popery, if it be not prevented by a timely closing with the Church of England: Nothing remains but to wait till they are convinced by the last Extremity. I can take no comfort in being assured that at last they will believe it, when, alas! it will be to no purpose to believe it. I beseech them to consider, whether we are likely to be united in any other Communion, but that of the Church of England as it is by Law Established; and whether so little account ought to be made of Law and Authority, as to say that our Governors may as well come down to them, by forbearing to require what they dislike; as they come up to the Law, by doing what it requires. Will our case bear this wantonness? Will such Expressions consist with our Duty? I beseech them by what is most dear to them, by the Honour of God, and the Love of Christ, and the Care of their own Souls, and the Charity they have for the Souls of other Men, that they will take pains with themselves to lay aside Prejudice, and Anger, and all Passions that obstruct a clear Judgement of things that have been disputed amongst us, and that they would consider impartially what we have said, as in the sight of God who knoweth the Hearts of Men. Can they propound to themselves more beneficial Designs, than to check the Profaneness and Atheism which in this last Age hath been so much complained of, than to restore in some measure the Ancient Discipline of the Church for the excluding of vicious Men from the Communion of the Faithful, than to transmit the Profession of the true Religion Established among us, down to their Posterity? The most effectual means by which they can contribute to all those good Ends, is to return hearty and unanimously to the Communion of the Church of England; all the true Sons whereof are ready to receive them with open Arms, with joy and thankfulness to God, and to them, for the good they will do us and themselves by it. But as for them, that for Worldly and Corrupt Interests, encourage and support the present Separation from this Church, I cannot expostulate with them in this manner, since such Men have not the fear of God before them, and 'tis impossible they should be touched with tenderness for the Concerns of Religion, while they continue as they are. All I shall say to them is, That when that great day of Judgement comes, which they of all Men have most reason to be afraid of, than all the dismal Consequences of this Schism which are likely to happen, will be fully required at their hands to be sure; whilst those that in mere Ignorance and Mistake have contributed to them, shall have an easier Account to give, especially if they have taken pains to inform themselves better.  
What good Effect our Applications to Men will have, we cannot say; but if it shall appear that they are not yet prepared for Instruction; we have the more reason to turn ourselves to God by earnest Prayer, that he would please to open the Understandings of the simple, and to detect the ill Designs of dishonest Men; and to enable us to bring forth more and better Fruits of Repentance, that whatever happens to this Church, it may not be forsaken of his Favour and Protection, Amen.  
FINIS.   

THE RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE OF CONSCIENCE, Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it Unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England? The Second EDITION.  
LONDON: Printed for Fincham Gardiner, at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street. 1683.   

The Case. Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes Communion therewith Unlawful?  
IN speaking to this Case, we will,  
First, Premise, that there is a wide and vast distance betwixt the Church of England and that of Rome.  
Secondly, Show, that a Churches Symbolising or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome, is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing.  
Thirdly, Show, that the Agreement that is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, is in no wise such, as will make Communion with the Church of England Unlawful.  
First. We think it necessary to Premise, that there is a wide and vast distance betwixt the Church of England and that of Rome. Our Church having renounced all Communion with the Church of Rome, this speaks the greatest distance in the general betwixt the two Churches. And as their distance particularly in Government is manifest to all, from our Churches having utterly cast off the Jurisdiction of the Papacy; so it is easy to show, that there is likewise a mighty distance betwixt them, in Doctrine, Worship and Discipline. But we shall not stand to show this in each of these distinctly, but rather make choice of this Method, viz. to show that our Church is most distant from, and opposite to the Church of Rome.  

1. In all those Doctrines and Practices, whereby this Church deprives her Members of their due Liberty, and miserably enslaves them.  
2. In all those Doctrines and Practices, in which she is justly Charged with plainly Contradicting the Holy Scriptures.  
3. In each of their public Prayers and Offices.  
4. In the Books they each receive for Canonical.  
5. In the Authority on which they each of them found their whole Religion.   
First, Our Church is at the greatest distance from that of Rome, in all those Doctrines and Practices, by which she deprives her Members of their due Liberty, and miserably enslaves them. For instance,  
1. This Church denieth her Members all Judgement of discretion in matters of Religion: She obligeth them to follow her blindfold, and to resolve both their Faith and Judgement into hers; as assuming infallibility to herself, and binding all under pain of Damnation to believe her Infallible.  
But our Church permits us the full enjoyment of our due Liberty in believing and judging; and we Act not like Members of the Church of England, if (according to St. Paul's injunction) we prove not all things, that we may hold fast that which is good, if we believe every Spirit, (which St. John cautions us against) and do not try the Spirits, whether they be of God; which he requires us to do. 'Tis impossible that our Church should oblige us to an implicit Faith in herself, because she disclaimeth all pretence to infallibility: Our Church tells us, in her 19th Article, that, As the Churches of Jerusalem, and Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith. And our Church's acknowledgement is plainly employed, in asserting the most famous Churches in the World to have erred from the Faith, that she herself must needs be Obnoxious to Error in matters of Faith; and that she would be guilty of the highest impudence in denying it.  
2. The Church of Rome imposeth a deal of most slavish Drudgery in the vast multitude of her Rites and Ceremonies, and unreasonably severe Tasks, and cruel Penances. As to her Ceremonies, they are so vast a number, as are enough to take up (as Sir Edwin Sandys hath observed) a great part of a man's life merely to gaze on: And abundance of them are so vain and Childish, so marvellously odd and uncouth, as that they can naturally bring (to use that Gentleman's words, who was a curious observer of them in the Popish Countries) no other than disgrace and contempt, to those exercises of Religion wherein they are stirring. In viewing only those that are enjoined in the Common Ritual, one would bless one's self to think how it should enter into the minds of Men, and much more of Christians, to invent such things. And the like may be said of the Popish Tasks and Penances, in imposing of which the Priests are Arbitrary, and ordinarily lay the most Severe and Cruel ones on the lightest offenders, when the most Lewd and Scandalous come off with a bare saying of their Beads thrice over, or some such insignificant and idle business.  
But the Church of England imposeth nothing of that Drudgery, which makes such Vassals of the poor Papists. Her Rites are exceeding few, and those plain and easy, grave and manly, founded on the Practice of the Church, long before Popery appeared upon the Stage of the World. Our Church hath abandoned the five Popish Sacraments, and contents herself with those two which Christ hath ordained: As is to be seen in her 25th Article, where she declares, that There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments; that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Vnxion, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel; being such as have grown, partly of the Corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures: But yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lords Supper: For that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God. The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ, to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, etc. And in saying that our Church owns not the  Popish Sacraments, is implied that she hath nothing to do with any of those very many Superstitious Fopperies which are enjoined in the Offices appointed for the Administration of those Sacraments.  
Again, Our Church no whit more imitates that of Rome in her Cruel Tasks and Penances, than in her Ceremonies; as is needless to be showed.  
In short, in our Churches few Rites, she hath used no other Liberty, but what she judgeth agreeable to those Apostolical Rules of Doing all things decently and in order; and Doing all things to Edification. And she imposeth her Rites not (as the Church of Rome doth hers) as necessary, and as parts of Religion, but as merely indifferent and changeable things; as we find in her 34th Article, where she declares that, Every Particular or National Church hath Authority to Ordain, Change and Abolish Ceremonies, or Rites of the Church, Ordained only by Man's Authority, so that all things be done to Edifying. And this Article gins thus: It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of Countries, Times and Manners; so that nothing be Ordained against God's Word.  
2. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to enslaving Passions. For instance, that of Purgatory makes them all their life-time subject to the bondages of Fear; at least those of them who are so solicitous about the life to come, as to entertain any mistrust or doubting (as it's strange if the most Credulous of them do not) concerning the Efficacy of Penances and Indulgences.  
Her Doctrine of Auricular Confession subjects all that are not forsaken of all Modesty, to the passion of Shame.  
Her Doctrine of the Dependence of the Efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention, must needs expose all considerative people, and those who have any serious concern about their state hereafter, to great Anxiety and Solicitude.  
But these Doctrines are all rejected by the Church of England. That of Purgatory she declares against in these Words, Article 22 d. The Romish Doctrine of Purgatory, is a vain thing fond invented, and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture, but rather Repugnant to the Word of God. As to that of Auricular Confession, nothing like it is taught or practised in our Church. Her Members are obliged only to Confess their Sins to God, except when 'tis necessary to Confess them to Men, for the relieving of their Consciences, and their obtaining the Prayers of others; or in order to the righting of those they have wronged, when due satisfaction can't otherwise be made; or in order to their giving Glory to God, when they are justly accused, and their guilt proved: in which cases, and such like, 'tis without dispute our duty to confess to Men.  
Nor have we any such Doctrine in our Church, as that of the Dependence of the Efficacy of the Sacraments on the Priest's intention; but the contrary is sufficiently declared, Article 26th, viz. that The Efficacy of Christ's Ordinance is not taken away by the Wickedness of those that Minister.  
3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by not a few of her Doctrines and Practices to Vile Affections and Vices of all sorts: As might be largely showed, 
See Libertas Evangelica, Chap. 17.  and will be in part, under the next Head of discourse.  
But our Church neither maintains any Licentious Principle, nor gives Countenance to any such Practice; our Adversaries themselves being Judges.  
Secondly. The Church of England is at the greatest distance from that of Rome, in all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly charged with plainly contradicting the Holy Scripture. For instance, (not to repeat any of those ranked under the foregoing head, several of which may also fall under this) Her Doctrines of Image-Worship, of Invocation of Saints (with her gross practising upon them) of Transubstantiation, of Pardons and Indulgencies, of the Sacrifice of the Mass, wherein Christ is pretended to be still offered up afresh for the quick and dead. Her keeping the Holy Scriptures from the Vulgar, and making it so heinous a crime to read the Bible, because by this means her foul Errors will be in such danger of being discovered, and the People, of not continuing implicit believers. Her enjoining the saying of Prayers, and the Administration of the Sacraments, in an unknown Tongue. Her Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lord's Supper. Her prohibiting Marriage to Priests. Her Doctrines of Merit, and works of Supererogation. Her making simple Fornication a mere Venial sin. Her damning all that are not of her Communion. Her most devilish cruelties towards those whom she is pleased to pronounce Heretics. Her darling Sons Doctrines of Equivocation and Mental Reservations; of the Pope's power of dispensing with the most Solemn Oaths, and of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to their Lawful Princes: with many others not now to be reckoned up.  
But the Church of England Abominates these and the like Principles and Practices. As to the instances of Image-Worship, Invocation of Saints, and Pardons and Indulgences, what our Church declareth concerning Purgatory, she adds concerning these things too, Article 22 d. viz. That the Romish Doctrine concerning Pardons, Worship and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, as also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture; but rather Repugnant to the Word of God. And as there is no such Practice as Worshipping of Images in our Church, so all are destroyed which Popery had Erected among us. Nor have we in our Church any Co-Mediators with Jesus Christ; we Worship only one God, by one only Mediator, the Man Christ Jesus. And the now-mentioned Practices, our Church doth not only declare to be Repugnant to the Holy Scriptures, but to be likewise most grossly Idolatrous, viz. in the Homilies.  
As to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, our Church declareth her sense thereof, Article 28th. in these Words: Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but it is repugnant to the plain terms of Scripture; overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament; and hath given occasion to many Superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Lord's Supper, only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner; and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lords Supper, was not by Christ's Ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or Worshipped. As to the Sacrifice of the Mass, see what our Church saith of it, Article 31st. viz. That the offering of Christ once made, is that perfect Redemption, Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World, both Original and Actual; and there is none other Satisfaction for sins but that alone. Wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have Remission of pain or guilt, were Blasphemous Fables, and dangerous deceits.  
As to the Church of Rome's locking up the Scriptures, and prohibiting the reading of them, Our Church hath not only more than once caused them to be Translated into our Mother-Tongue, but also, as I need not show, gives as free Liberty to the reading of the Bible, as of any other Book; nor is any duty in our Church esteemed more necessary, than that of Reading the Scriptures, and Hearing them read.  
As to Praying and Administering the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue, as this is contrary to the Practice of the Church of England, so is it to her Declaration also, Article 24th. viz. That it is a thing plainly Repugnant to the Word of God, and the Custom of the Primitive Church, to have public Prayers in the Church, or to Administer Sacraments in a Tongue not understanded of the People.  
As to Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lord's Supper; in Our Church they may not receive the Bread, if they refuse the Cup. And Article 30. tells us, That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Laity; for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment, aught to be Administered to all Christians alike. As to prohibiting Marriage to Priests, this is declared against, Article 32. Bishops, Priests and Deacons are not Commanded by God's Law, either to vow the Estate of single Life, or to abstain from Marriage; therefore it is Lawful for them, as for all other Christian Men, to Marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.  
As to the Popish Doctrine of Merit, Our Church declares against this, Article 11. We are accounted righteous before God, only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own Works, or Deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, (viz. such a Faith as purifies the Heart, and works by Love) is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of Comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.  
As to the Doctrine of Supererogation, this is confuted, Article 14. Voluntary Works, besides, over and above God's Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without Arrogance and Impiety: For by them Men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are Commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable Servants.  
As to making simple Fornication a mere Venial sin; Our Church will endure no such Doctrine. For as in the Litany she calls Fornication expressly a deadly sin, so hath it ever been accounted in Our Church, one of the most deadly, even considered as distinct from Adultery.  
As to the Church of Rome's Damning all that are not of her Communion, the Church of England is guilty of no uncharitableness like it; and never pronounced so sad a sentence against those in Communion with the Church of Rome, as great a detestation as she expresseth, in the Homilies, especially of her Idolatrous and Wicked Principles and Practices. She is satisfied to Condemn the gross Corruptions of that Apostate Church, and leaves her Members to stand or fall to their own Master, nor takes upon her to Vnchurch her.  
And as to the remaining most Immoral Principles and Practices of the Romish Church, which are all as contrary to Natural as to revealed Religion, the greatest Enemies Our Church hath, cannot surely have the forehead to charge her with giving the least countenance to any such. There being no Church in Christendom that more severely Condemns all instances of Unrighteousness and Immorality.  
Thirdly, The Church of England is at a mighty distance from the Church of Rome, in reference to their Public Prayers and Offices. Whereas our Liturgy hath been by many Condemned, as greatly resembling the Mass-Book, all that have compared them do know the contrary, and that there is a vast difference between them, both as to matter and form: Although some few of the same Prayers are found in both: and three or four of the same Rites; of which more hereafter. To show this throughout in the particulars, would be a very long and tedious task: I will therefore single out the Order of Administration of Infant-Baptism, as we have it in the Roman Ritual, and desire the Reader to compare it with that in our Liturgy; and by this take a measure of the likeness between our Liturgy and the Mass-Book, etc. there being no greater agreement between the Morning and Evening Services, and the other Offices of each, than is between these two; excepting that, besides the Lord's Prayer, there is no Prayer belonging to the Popish Office of Baptism to be met with in ours.  
For the sake of the Readers who understand no more of the Language that the Popish Prayers and Offices are expressed in, than the generality of those that make use of them, take the following account of the Popish Admonistration of Infant-Baptism in our own Tongue.  
To pass by the long Beadroll of Preparatory Prescriptions, the Priest, being dressed in a Surplice and Purple Robe, calls the Infant to be Baptised by his Name, and saith, What askest thou of the Church of God? the Godfather answers, Faith. The Priest saith again, What shalt thou get by Faith? The Godfather replies, Eternal Life. Then adds the Priest, If therefore thou wilt enter into Life, keep the Commandments; Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, etc. and thy Neighbour as thyself.  
Next, the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infant's face, and saith (as if we come all into the World possessed by the Devil,) Go out of him, O unclean Spirit, and give place to the Holy Ghost the Comforter. Then with his Thumb he makes the Sign of the Cross, on the Infant's Forehead and Breast, saying; Receive the Sign of the Cross both in thy Forehead, and in thy heart: Take the Faith of the Heavenly Precepts, and be thy manners such, as that thou mayst now become the Temple of God.  
After this follows a Prayer that God would always protect this his Elect one (calling him by his Name) that is Signed with the Sign of the Cross, etc. And after a longer Prayer (the Priest laying his hand on the Infant's head) comes the Benediction of Salt: of which this is the Form.  
I exorcise (or conjure) thee, O Creature of Salt, in the Name of God the Father Almighty ✚, and in the Love of our Lord Jesus Christ ✚, and in the Power of the Holy Ghost ✚. I conjure thee by the Living God ✚, by the true God ✚, by the Holy God ✚; by the God ✚ which Created thee for the safeguard of Mankind, and hath ordained that thou shouldest be consecrated by his Servants, to the People entering into the Faith, that, in the Name of the Holy Trinity, thou shouldest be made a wholesome Sacrament, for the driving away of the Enemy. Moreover, we Pray thee, O Lord our God, that in Sanctifying thou wouldst Sanctify ✚ this Creature of Salt, and in Blessing thou wouldst Bless it ✚, that it may be to all that receive it a perfect Medicine remaining in their Bowels, in the Name of the same Jesus Christ our Lord; who is about to come to judge the quick and dead, and the World by fire, Amen. This Idle and profane Form being recited, the Priest proceeds in his Work with the poor Infant; and next, putting a little of this Holy Salt into his mouth, he calls him by his Name, and saith, Take thou the Salt of Wisdom: (and adds most impiously) be it thy propitiation unto Eternal Life, Amen. This ended with the Pax tecum, God Almighty is next mocked with a Prayer, That this Infant, who hath tasted this first food of Salt, may not be suffered any more to hunger, but may be filled with Celestial Food, etc.  
Now follows another Exorcising of the Devil, wherein he is conjured as before, and most woefully becalled. And next the Priest Signs the Infant again with his Thumb on the Forehead, saying, And this Sign of the Holy Cross ✚ which we give to his Forehead, thou Cursed Devil never dare thou to Violate. By the same Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen. And now after all this tedious expectation, we see some Sign of Baptism approaching, for the Priest puts his hand again on the Infant's head, and puts up a very good Prayer for him, in order to his Baptism.  
The Prayer being ended, he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant, and brings him within the Church, (for he hath been without all this while) saying, (calling him by his Name) Enter thou into the Temple of God, that thou mayest partake with Christ in Eternal Life, Amen. Then follow the Apostles Creed, and the Pater Noster. But after all this, here's more exercise for our Patience; for the Priest falls to his fooling again: For now comes another Exorcising or Conjuring of the Devil. And this being also concluded, the Priest takes Spittle out of his Mouth, and touches therewith the Ears and Nostrils of the Infant. And in touching his right and left Ear, he saith, Ephphatha, (i. e.) Be opened. Then, touching his Nostrils, he saith, for a savour of sweetness: (no doubt mighty sweet!) Another Conjuration of the Devil followeth, in these Words, Be packing, O Devil, for the judgement of God is at hand.  
And now the Priest will make you hope again that he hath not forgotten his main business: For he asks the Infant, whether he renounces the Devil, and all his Works, and all his Pomps; of which he makes three Questions; and the Godfather distinctly answers to them. But alas he is thus soon gone off from his proper Work again, for now you have him dipping his Thumb in Holy Oil, and Anointing the Infant with it in his Breast, and betwixt his Shoulders, in the figure of a Cross, saying, I Anoint thee with the Oil of Salvation, in Christ Jesus our Lord, that thou mayest obtain Eternal Life, Amen.  
Then next he puts off his Purple Robe, and puts on another of a White Colour, and falls in good earnest to the great business: for having asked three more Questions out of the Creed, and received the Godfathers' Answers, and this other Question, Whether the Infant will be Baptised? and received the Godfathers' answer to that, he pours Water thrice upon the Child's head, as he reciteth over it our Saviour's Form of Baptism, doing it each time, at the naming of each of the three Persons.  
And now (that the Priest mayn't conclude less wisely than he began) comes the Chrism or Holy Ointment, in which dipping his Thumb, and Anointing the Infant upon the Crown of his head in the figure of a Cross, he thus Prayeth: O God Omnipotent, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath regenerated thee of Water and the Holy Ghost, and who hath given thee Pardon of all thy Sins, Anoint thee with the Chrism of Salvation, in the same Christ Jesus our Lord, to Eternal Life, Amen. And next, after the Pax tibi, and the wiping of his Thumb, and the Anointed head, he takes a White Linen Cloth, and putting it on the Child's head, useth this Form: Take the white Garment which thou mayst carry unspotted before the Tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou mayst have Eternal Life, Amen.  
And Lastly, He puts into the Child's, or his Godfathers' hand, a lighted Candle, and saith, Receive the burning Lamp, and keep thy Baptism blameless; keep Gods Commandments, that when the Lord shall come to the Wedding, thou mayst meet him, together with all his Saints, in the Celestial Court, and mayst have Eternal Life, and live for ever, Amen. Concluding all with this Form, Go in Peace, and the Lord be with thee, Amen.  
And as if there were not fooling and ridiculous do enough in this Office of the Common Ritual, there are divers other added to them, in the Pastoral: For instance, the Ceremony of blowing thrice in the Child's Face is here to be done Crossways. And after the Conjuration following, to which two more are here added, the Priest Crossing his Forehead, saith, I Sign thee in the Forehead in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou mayst trust in him. Then he Crosseth his Eyes, saying, I bless thy Eyes, that thou mayst see his Brightness. Then his Ears, saying, I bless thine Ears, that thou 
Which Cross are also prescribed by the Ritual in the Office of Adult Baptism, but with a variation of the Forms.  mayst hear the Word of his truth. Then his Nostrils, saying, I bless thy Nostrils, that thou mayst smell his sweetness. Then his Breast, saying, I bless thy Breast, that thou mayst believe in him. Then his Shoulders, saying, I bless thy Shoulders, that thou mayst bear the Yoke of his Service. Then his Mouth, saying, I bless thy Mouth, that thou mayst Confess him, who Lives and Reigns God with the Father, etc. Again, The Child here receives the Sign of the Cross in his Right-hand, the Priest saying, (calling him by his Name) I deliver thee the Sign of our Lord Jesus Christ, in thy Right-hand, that thou mayst Sign thyself, and drive away the Enemy on all sides from thee, and mayst have Eternal Life, etc.  
Here also the Priest is to lay his Robe on the Child in the Figure of a Cross, with a many dire menaces tormenting the Devil before his time. Here also the Ave Maria is added to the Pater Noster. The Infant likewise hath this Benediction pronounced over him before his going to the Font; The Benediction of God the Father ✚ Almighty, and of his Son ✚ and Holy Ghost ✚ descend and abide upon thee; and the Angel of the Lord keep thee, until thou comest to Holy Baptism. As if the poor Creature were in mighty danger of being carried away by the Devil, before he could be Baptised, notwithstanding all the past Conjurations, and dreadful do that had been made with him, and all the Crosses, together with the holy Oil and holy Spittle bestowed on the Infant. And lastly, (to name no more additions, though there are divers others) the Flax wherewith the anointed places are wiped is ordered to be burnt over a Pond of Water.  
If those who are unacquainted with our Church's Office of Baptism would, after the Reading of this of the Romish Church, consult ours, they will immediately acknowledge that no two things can well be more unlike than are these two Offices. And the like, as was said, may be seen in the rest, as those may perceive who, if they understand sorry Latin, will take the pains to compare theirs with ours. And whereas we asserted the same thing of their and our Forms of Morning and Evening Prayers, we might particularly instance in the Litanies. Our Litany (which I think, if comparisons may be allowed, is the choicest part of our Service), is more than any other part of the Liturgy condemned by Dissenters, as Savouring of Popish Superstition. But, as nothing but great Ignorance can make any man think it really doth so, so I am persuaded that the mere comparing it with that of the Romanists, might incline the most prejudiced to call it a most Protestant piece of Devotion: For they shall find Invocations of Saints and Angels to pray for them, the greater part of the Popish Litany. Next after the Holy Trinity, St. Mary is there invoked first by name, then as the Mother of God, then as the Virgin of Virgins. Next to her, three Angels are invoked by name. Then all the Angels and Arch-Angels together. Then all the holy Orders of Blessed Spirits. Next, John the Baptist. Next, all the Patriarches and Prophets. Next, St. Peter and all the other Apostles and Evangelists by name. Then Altogether. Then all the holy Disciples of our Lord. Then all the Holy Innocents'. Then the Protomartyr St. Stephen, and Ten other by Name. Then all the Holy Martyrs together. Then Seven more Saints. Then all the Bishops and Confessors together. Then all the Holy Doctors. Then Five more of their own great Saints by Name. Then all the Holy Priests and Levites. Then all the Holy Monks and Hermit's. Then Seven She Saints by Name. Then all the Holy Virgins and Widows. And Lastly, All the He and She Saints together.  
But the brevity I am confined to in this Discourse, will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument, of the vast distance between these two Churches in reference to their Public Prayers and Offices.  
Fourthly, We proceed to show, that there is also no small distance between the Church of England, and that of Rome, in reference to the Books they receive for Canonical. This will be Immediately dispatched: For no more is to be said upon this subject, but that, whereas the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into her Canon, the Church of England, like all other Protestant Churches, receives only those Books of the Old and New Testament for Canonical Scripture, as she declares in her Sixth Article, of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church. And she declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books in the same Article, citing St. Hierom for her Authority, That the Church doth read them for Example of life, and Instruction of manners; but yet it doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine. And after the example of the Primitive Church, no more doth ours; and appoints the reading some of them only upon the foresaid Account.  
In the Fifth and Last place, The Church of England is at the greatest distance possible from the Church of Rome, in reference to the Authority on which they each found their whole Religion. As to the Church of Rome, she makes her own Infallibility the Foundation of Faith. For,  
1. Our belief of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures themselves, must, according to her Doctrine, be founded upon her infallible Testimony.  
2. As to that Prodigious deal which she hath added of her own to the Doctrines and Precepts of the Holy Scriptures, and which she makes as necessary to be believed and practised, as any matters of Faith and Practice contained in the Scriptures (and more necessary too, than many of them) the Authority of those things is founded upon her unwritten Traditions, and the Decrees of her Councils; which she will have to be no less inspired by the Holy Ghost, than were the Prophets and Apostles themselves.  
But Contrariwise, the Church of England doth,  
1. Build the whole of her Religion upon the Sole Authority of Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures: And therefore she takes every jot thereof out of the Bible. She makes the Scriptures the Complete Rule of her Faith, and of her Practice too, in all matters necessary to Salvation, that is, in all the parts or Religion; nor is there any Genuine Son of this Church, that maketh any thing a part of his Religion that is not plainly contained in the Bible. Let us see what our Church declareth to this purpose, in her 16 Article, viz. That Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any Man, that it should be believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation. So that, as Mr. Chillingworth saith, THE BIBLE, THE BIBLE IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS: So you see the Bible is the Religion of the Protestant Church of England: Nor doth she fetch one Tittle of her Religion either out of unwritten Traditions, or Decrees of Councils. Notwithstanding she hath a great Reverence for those Councils which were not a Company of Bishops and Priests of the Pope's packing, to serve his purposes, and which have best deserved the Name of General Councils, especially the Four first; yet her Reverence of them consisteth not in any opinion of their Infallibility: As appears by Article 14. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes; and when they be gathered together (for as much as they be an Assembly of Men, whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may Err, and sometimes have Erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation, have neither Strength nor Authority, unless it may be declared (that is, manifestly proved) that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.  
Let us see again how our Church speaks of the matter in hand, Article 20. The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and Authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not Lawful for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word Written; neither may it so Expound one place of Scripture, that it be Repugnant to another. Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ (that is, as the Jewish Church was so of the Canon of the Old Testament, by whose Tradition alone it could be known, what Books were Canonical, and what not; so the Catholic Christian Church, from Christ and his Apostles downwards is so, of the Canon of the New;) Yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation. If it be asked who is to Judge, what is agreeable or contrary to Holy Writ? 'tis manifest that Our Church leaves it to every Man to Judge for himself. But 'tis Objected, that 'tis to be acknowledged, that if the Church only claimed a Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies; (that is, according to the general Rules of doing all things Decently and Orderly, and to Edification, which Power all Churches have ever Exercised) this may well enough consist with private Persons Liberty to Judge for themselves: but 'tis also said in the now Cited Article, that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith; and accordingly Our Church hath Published 39 Articles, and requires of the Clergy, etc. Subscription to them. To this we answer, that we shall make one Article Egregiously to Contradict another, and one and the same to Contradict itself, if we understand by the Authority in Controversies of Faith, which Our Church acknowledges all Churches to have, any more than Authority to Oblige their Members to outward Submission, when their Decisions are such as Contradict not any of the Essentials of our Religion, whether they be Articles of Faith, or Rules of Life; not an Authority to Oblige them to assent to their Decrees, as infallibly true. But it is necessary to the maintaining of Peace, that all Churches should be invested with a Power to bind their Members to outward submission in the Case aforesaid; that is, when their supposed Errors are not of that Moment, as that 'tis of more pernicious Consequence to bear with them, than to break the Peace of the Church by opposing them. And as to the  Subscription that is required to the 39 Articles, it is very Consistent with Our Churches giving all Men Liberty to Judge for themselves, and not Exercising Authority (as the Romish Church doth) over our Faith; for she requires no Man to believe those Articles, but at worst only thinks it Convenient that none should receive Orders, or be admitted to Benefices, etc. but such as do believe them (not all as Articles of our Faith, but many as inferior truths,) and requires Subscription to them as a Test, whereby to Judge who doth so believe them. But the Church of Rome requires all under Pain of Damnation, to believe all her long Beadroll of Doctrines, which have only the Stamp of her Authority, and to believe them too as Articles of Faith; or to believe them with the same Divine Faith that we do the indisputable Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles.  
For a proof hereof, the Reader may consult the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth, which is to be found at the End of the Council of Trent. Herein it is Ordained that Profession of Faith shall be made and sworn, by all Dignitaries, Prebendaries, and such as have Benefices with Cure, Military Officers, etc. in the Form following:  
IN. Do believe with a firm Faith, and do profess all and every thing contained in the Confession of Faith, which is used by the Holy Roman Church, viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty; and so to the end of the Nicene Creed. I most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions, and the other Observances and Constitutions of the said Church. Also the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, etc. I profess also that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary to the Salvation of Mankind; although all are not necessary to every individual Person, etc. I also admit and receive the Received and approved Rites of the Catholic Church, in the Solemn Administration of all the foresaid Sacraments (of which I have given the Reader a taste) I Embrace and Receive all and every thing which hath been declared and defined concerning Original Sin, and Justification in the Holy Synod of Trent. I likewise profess that in the Mass, a True, Proper, and Propitiatory Sacrifice is Offered to God, for the quick and dead: And that the Body and Blood of Christ, is truly, really and substantially in the most Holy Eucharist, etc. I also Confess that whole and entire Christ, and the true Sacrament, is received under one of the kinds only. I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the Souls there detained are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful. And in like manner that the Saints Reigning with Christ, are to be Worshipped and Invoked, etc. And that their Relics are to be Worshipped. I most firmly assert, that the Images of Christ, and of the Mother of God, always a Virgin, and of the other Saints, are to be had and kept, and that due Honour and Worship is to be given to them. I Affirm also, that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in his Church, and that the use of them is very Salutiferous to Christian People. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, the Mother and Mistress of all Churches; and I Profess and Swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Also all the other things delivered, decreed and declared by the Holy Canons, and Ecumenical Councils, and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent, I undoubtedly receive and profess: As also all things contrary to these, and all Heresies Condemned, Rejected and Anathematised by the Church, I, in like manner, Condemns, Reject and Anathematise. This true Catholic Faith, (viz. all this Stuff of their own, together with the Articles of the Creed) without which no Man can be Saved, which at this present I truly profess and sincerely hold, I will, God Assisting me, most constantly Retain and Confess entire and inviolate; and, as much as in me lies, will take Care, that it be held, taught and declared, by those that are under me, or the Care of whom shall be committed to me; I the same N. do Profess, Vow and Swear; So help me God, and the Holy Gospels of God. Who, when he Reads this, can forbear pronouncing the Reformation of the Church of England, a most Glorious Reformation?  
2. As to the Motives our Church proposeth for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, viz. that that Doctrine is of Divine Revelation, they are no other than such as are found in the Scriptures themselves, viz. the Excellency thereof, which consists in its being wholly adapted to the reforming of men's Lives, and renewing their Natures after the Image of God; and the Miracles by which it is confirmed. And as to the Evidence of the truth of the matters of Fact, viz. that there were such Persons▪ as the Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World (such as Moses, our Saviour Christ and his Apostles;) and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine, and Confirmed it by such Miracles, and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose Names they bear; I say, as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact, our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony, or in the Testimony of any Particular Church, and much less that of Rome, but in the Testimony of the whole Catholic Church down to us from the time of the Apostles, and of Universal Tradition; taking in that of Strangers and Enemies, as well as Friends; of Jews and Pagans, as well as Christians.  
Secondly, We proceed to show, that a Churches Symbolising, or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome, is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing. Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good, or made so by a Divine Precept, none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty: Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil, or made so by a Divine Prohibition, none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin. The Question therefore is, whether to agree with this Apostate Church, in some things of an indifferent nature, be a Sin, and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing. But, by the way, if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful, I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters (and I despair of success in arguing with any but such) will thence infer, that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable, than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion. But I am so far from taking it for granted, that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome, that I must needs profess, I have often wondered how this should become a Question: Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature, as it is not Commanded, so neither is it Forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law; and where there is no Law, the Apostle saith, there is no transgression; Sin being, according to his definition, the transgression of the Law. And whereas certain Circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither duties nor sins, to be either duties or sins, and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition; I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the Nature of that thing, and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinful. But that it doth so, is endeavoured to be proved by that general Prohibition to the Israelites, of imitating the do of the Egyptians and Canaanites, in those Words, Leu. 18. 2. After the do of the Land of Egypt wherein ye dwell, shall ye not do, and after the do of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you, shall ye not do, neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances. This place divers of the Defenders of Nonconformity have laid great weight upon, as a proof of the Sinfulness of Symbolising with the Church of Rome, Even in indifferent things. But I choose to forbear the Naming of any whose Arguings I purpose to inquire into, because I would prevent (if it be possible) the least suspicion in the Readers, that I design in this Performance to expose any Man's weakness in particular, or that I am therein Acted by any Personal Piques.  
Now then, as to the Text now Cited; not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of Arguing, without mighty caution, from Laws given by Moses to the Israelites, so as to infer the Obligation of Christians, who are under a dispensation so different from theirs, and in Circumstances so vastly differing from those they were in; I say, not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of this way of Arguing, (which all considering Persons must needs be ware of) if this general Prohibition be not at all to be limited, than it will follow from thence, that the Israelites might have no usages whatsoever in common with the Egyptians or Canaanites; and therefore, in as general terms as the Prohibition runs, our Brethren must needs acknowledge that there is a restriction therein intended: it being the most absurd thing to imagine, that the Israelites were so bound up by God, as to be Obliged to an unlikeness to those People in all their Actions: For, as the Apostles said of the Christians, if they were never to Company with Wicked Men, they must needs go out of the World, we may say of the Israelites in reference to this Case of theirs, they then must needs have gone out of the World. Now if this general Prohibition, After their do ye shall not do, be to be limited and restrained, what way have we to do it, but by considering the Context, and confining the restriction to those Particulars Prohibited in the following verses? But I need not show that the particulars forbidden in all these, viz. from v. 5th. to the 24th. were not things of an indifferent Nature, but Incestuous Copulations, and other abominable Acts of Uncleanness. And God doth Expressly enough thus restrain that general Prohibition, in the 24th v. in these Words: Defile not yourselves in any of these things, for in all these the Nations are Defiled, which I cast out before you.  
But those that allege this Text to the foresaid purpose, will not hear of the general Propositions being thus limited by the Context; (as apparent as it is, that it necessarily must) because, say they, we find that God forbids the Israelites in other places to imitate Heathens, in things of an Indifferent and Innocent Nature.  
To this I Answer, First, That supposing this were so, it doth not from thence follow, that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place, the contrary being so manifest as we have seen. But,  
Secondly, That God hath any where prohibited the Israelites to Symbolise with Heathens, in things of a mere Indifferent and Innocent Nature; I mean, that he hath made it unlawful to them, to observe any such Customs of the Heathens, merely upon the account of their being like them, is a very great mistake: Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it. One is, Deut. 14. 1. You shall not Cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead. Now, as to the former of these prohibited things, who seethe not that 'tis Unnatural, and therefore not indifferent? And as to the latter, viz. the disfiguring of themselves by Cutting off their Kickshaws, this was not merely an indifferent thing neither: It being a Custom at Funerals much disbecoming the People of God, which would make them look, as if they sorrowed for the dead as Men without hope.  
Another place insisted upon for the same purpose, is Leu. 19 19 Thou shalt not let thy Cattle-Gender with a divers kind, thou shalt not sow thy ground with mingled seed, nor shall a Garment of Linen and Woollen come upon thee. Now these three, 'tis said, are things of so indifferent a Nature, that none can be more indifferent. I answer, 'Tis readily granted. But where is it said, that these things were forbidden because the Heathens used them? Maimonides indeed (as I learn from Grotius) saith, that the Egyptians used these mixtures of Seeds, and of Linen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits; but 'tis universally acknowledged that these things, among many other, were forbidden to the Jews, as Mystical instructions in Moral Duties.  
I have found no other Text made use of to prove mere indifferent things to have been forbidden the Israelites, only in regard of Heathens using them, which make more for this purpose than these two do, nor hardly another that makes so much. But if there were never so many, it is not worth our while to concern ourselves now with them, because, though we should suppose a great number of instances of such things as were forbidden those People, for no other reason, but because the Egyptians or Canaanites used them, yet this would signify nothing to the proving Our Churches Symbolising with that of Rome in indifferent things to be Unlawful, because there is not the like reason, why in such things we may not Symbolise with Papists, that there was why the Jews should be forbidden to Symbolise in such with those Heathens. For there could not be too great a distance and unlikeness between those People and these in their usages, in regard of their strangely Vehement inclination to their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices. And upon this account, the distance was made wider (as our Brethren themselves will acknowledge) between the Jews and the Pagans, than it ought to be between Christians and them, or between Protestants and Papists. And we find that the distance that God made between the Jews and Heathens, as very wide as it was, was not wide enough to preserve the Jews from being very often (and that generally too) infected with their Superstitions, and various kinds of Idolatry: No, though they frequently paid most dear for these their Wicked Imitations of them. But, thanks be to God, there is no such inclination in the Members of Our Church to go over to that of Rome, nor hath any such inclination been observed ever since the Reformation. And where one of our Communion hath Revolted out of Love to Popery, (of those few Comparatively who have played the Apostates) we have cause to believe that many have so done merely upon the score of interest. And I need not say, that such Persons would not have been preserved from Apostasy, by our Churches being set at the widest distance possible from the Church of Rome, in indifferent things. Nay 'tis so far from being true, that there is a general inclination in our Protestants to Popery, that nothing is better known, or hath of late been more observed, than the greatest Antipathy and Aversation thereto imaginable in the generality. Upon which account, I say, the foresaid and the like Prohibitions to the Jewish Nation (although they should be understood in the sense of our Dissenting Brethren) can by no parity of reason be obliging to us Protestant Christians.  
And indeed most of them have seemed of late years to be pretty well ware of this, and therefore divers of their Writers have limited the unlawfulness of Symbolising with the Romish Church, to things that have been abused notoriously, in Idolatrous and grossly Superstitious Services. And that our Symbolising with that Church in any such things is Unlawful, they endeavour to demonstrate both by Scripture-Precepts and Examples.  
First, They endeavour to demonstrate this by Scripture-Precepts. And if any such Precept as this could be produced, That all such things as have been notoriously abused and Polluted in Idolatrous or grossly Superstitious services, should by all be abolished and laid aside, there could be no place left for dispute about this matter; and I doubt not but we should all of us express as great Zeal, as our Brethren do, for the abolishing of all such things. But no such express and unlimited Precept is pretended, but the chief of those Texts from whence our Brethren endeavour to Infer this Proposition, That it is the will of God, that all things so polluted should be utterly destroyed and laid aside, are these following: Isaiah 30. 22. Ye shall defile also the covering of thy Graven Images of Silver, and the Ornament of thy Molten Images of Gold: Thou shalt Cast them away as a Menstruous Cloth, thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence.  
Deut. 7. 25, 26. The Graven Images of their Gods shall ye burn with Fire; thou shalt not desire the Silver or Gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an Abomination to the Lord thy God. Neither shalt thou bring an Abomination into thy House, lest thou be a cursed thing like it; but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it, for it is a Cursed thing.  
Judas 23. — hating even the Garment spotted with the Flesh.  
Revel. 2. 14. I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the Doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a Stumbling block before the Children of Israel, to Eat things Sacrificed unto Idols, etc. V 20. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that Woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a Prophetess, to teach and to seduce my Servants to commit Fornication, and to Eat things Sacrificed to Idols.  
Now to their alleging of these Texts to prove the foresaid Proposition, I reply:  
First, That the last of them is altogether impertinent. For the eating of things offered to Idols condemned in those two verses, is nothing better than joining and complying with Idolaters, and Communicating in Idol-worships. Which the vile Gnostics held they might do (and accordingly practised this Doctrine) to avoid Persecution: Which abominable Sect arose in the Church (as we learn from Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, etc.) even in the Apostles times, of which Simon Magus was the first Founder. But St. Paul hath given us his Judgement concerning Eating of things offered to Idols, without any respect to Idols in Eating, in 1 Cor. 8 chap. viz. That upon no other account but that of Scandal it is unlawful.  
And the like he hath done, 1 Cor. 10. 27, 28, 29. If any of them that believe not bid you to a Feast, and you be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, Eat, making no question for Conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in Sacrifice unto Idols, Eat not, for his sake who shown it, and for Conscience sake, etc. Conscience I say not thine own, but of the others: For why is my liberty judged of another man's Conscience? That is, so as to make a thing indifferent in itself, simply unlawful to me. But the stating of this case of Scandal is the business of another's Pen, to which I refer those who need satisfaction in this matter.  
Secondly, As to those words of St. Judas— hating even the Garment spotted by the Flesh: Nothing more can possibly be gathered from them, than what we and all Christians must acknowledge, as well as our Brethren, viz. that we ought to be as Cautious of exposing ourselves unnecessarily to temptations to sin, as we naturally are of touching the Garments of infected Persons. But if the Text had run thus— hating even the Garment that was once spotted with the Flesh, or once fouled with a Plague-Sore, though it be never so well cleansed from infection, than I must confess it would be an argument for our brethren's purpose, we could make no reply to.  
Thirdly, As to the two places cited out of the Old Testament, they indeed not only serve to prove, that it was God's will that the Jews should destroy Idols, but also the Appurtenances of them. And the reason of these Precepts being given to those People hath already been showed, viz. because they were so strangely, so prodigiously addicted to the Superstitions and Idolatry of their Heathen-Neighbours. But if these and the like places should really make for our brethren's design in Citing them, and do prove that Christians are obliged to destroy, or cast away, all things notoriously defiled in grossly Superstitious and Idolatrous services, they would certainly prove more, than the more sober sort of Dissenters do desire they should. For they do not object against the lawfulness of our using the Churches, or Fonts, or Bells, which heretofore were most notoriously so defiled by the Papists. But if these Texts speak it to be the duty of Christians as well as Jews to destroy all such things, then 'tis manifest that down we must with all our Old Churches, etc. or we are guilty of an inexcusable violation of the Divine Law. And to except such things as these, after they have Evinced from such Scriptures our obligation to destroy all things notoriously polluted in grossly Superstitious and Idolatrous Services, seems to be making too too bold with the express Laws of God, which make no such exceptions, nor doth the forementioned reason of them imply any such. And therefore they have been highly condemned for making such like exceptions, by others of their Brethren who have Attained to a higher dispensation. And considering this Concession that such things as the forenamed may still be lawfully used, as also the Concessions of a nameless Author in his famous Book called Nehushtan, that no Creature of God is to be refused, nor any necessary or profitable devices of men need be sent packing upon the account of their having been much abused to the foresaid ends; I appeal to their own more sedate thoughts, whether all that can be concluded from such Scriptures is any more than this, that things so abused aught to be destroyed or abolished, by all who have power to do it, in some certain case or cases, and not merely for this reason, because they have been so abused. This, I presume, none of us will deny; and if they will acknowledge it, as they must do if they will stand to those their Concessions, they will be Constrained to give up this Cause.  
I will conclude the Argument in hand with the judgement of that Eminent Reformer Mr. Calvin, whose Authority goes farther with the generality of our Brethren, than, I think, any Man's next to the Apostles. Saith he upon the Second Commandment, I know that the Jews, throughout the time of their Pedagogy, were Commanded to destroy the Groves and Altars of Idolaters, not by virtue of the Moral Law, but by an Appendix in the Judicial or Politic Law, which did oblige that People for a time only, but it binds not Christians: And therefore we do not in the least scruple whether we may Lawfully use those Temples, Fonts, and other Materials, which have been heretofore abused to Idolatrous and Superstitious uses. I acknowledge indeed, that we ought to remove such things as seem to nourish Idolatry, upon supposition that we ourselves in opposing too violently things in their own Nature indifferent, be not too Superstitious. It is equally Superstitious to Condemn things indifferent as Unholy, and to Command them as if they were Holy. Thus you see Mr. calvin's sense agreeth exactly with Ours, touching this Point of Controversy between us and many of our Dissenting Brethren.  
Secondly, They endeavour also to make out this Doctrine of theirs by Scripture Examples. There are four or five of these Examples insisted upon, but I will trouble the Reader with considering only one of them; both because it is the Principal Example, and that which they lay most stress on; and because the Reply I shall make to this, will be as satisfactory in reference to the rest. It is that of Hezekiah his breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent that Moses had made, because the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it, 2 Kings 18. 4. Now, saith a certain Noted Author, What Example is more considerable than that of Hezekiah, who not only abolished such Monuments of Idolatry, as at their first Institution were but Men's inventions, but broke down also the Brazen Serpent (though Originally set up at God's Command) when once he saw it abused to Idolatry. And he adds, that this deed of Hezekiah Pope Stephen doth greatly Praise (citing Wolphius for it) and professeth that it is set before us for our imitation; that when our Predecessors have wrought some things, which might have been without fault in their time, and afterwards they are converted into Error and Superstition, they may be quickly destroyed by us who come after them.  
Which soever of the Stephens this was, he was a strangely Honest Pope; especially had he Practised according to this his Profession, and his Infallibility-ship had judged Impartially of Errors and Superstitions. And he citys Farellus (out of an Epistle of calvin's) for this saying, That Princes and Magistrates should learn by this Example of Hezekiah, what they should do with those significant Rites of men's devising which have turned to Superstition. And he farther adds, that the Bishop of Winchester, (in his Sermon on Phil. 2. 10.) acknowledgeth, that whatsoever is taken up at the injunction of Men, when it is drawn to Superstition, cometh under the Compass of the Brazen Serpent, and is to be abolished. And he saith, he Excepteth nothing from this Example, but only things of Gods own Prescribing. But 'tis strange if a Bishop should not except Churches, and some other things besides which are of an humane make; and as strange if there be nothing going before or coming after this acknowledgement, to lead us to a better understanding of it. We will not question our Author's faithfulness in Transcribing it, but wish he had told us which Bishop of Winchester this is, and in what page of his Sermon we might find this Acknowledgement.  
But that this Fact of King Hezekiah will not prove, that whatsoever hath been notoriously defiled in Idolatrous or grossly Superstitious Services ought to be abolished, and much less, that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for Separation from the Church that neglects so to do, will, I presume, sufficiently appear by these following Considerations.  
First, The Brazen Serpent was not only a thing defiled in Idolatrous Services, but it was made an Idol itself.  
Secondly, It was not only a thing that had once been made an Idol, or Object of Religious Worship, but it was Actually so at that time when it was destroyed. Nay, it was at that instant an Object of the most gross kind of Idolatry: It being not only bowed down to, but had likewise Incense burnt to it; this being a Rite which is never used in mere Civil Worship, like bowing the Knee, etc. but so proper and peculiar to Divine Worship, that no Rite is more so. Nay farther:  
Thirdly, It was not thus notoriously Idolised by some few of the People, but the People were generally lapsed into this Idolatry: As the Text plainly showeth. Nay:  
Fourthly, There was as little hope as could be of the People's being reclaimed from this Idolatry, while the Idol was in being: Seeing that of a long time they had been accustomed thereunto. For 'tis said, that unto those days the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it; which speaks it to have been not only a Custom, but a Custom also of a long standing.  
Fifthly, Although it had been only a thing defiled in Idolatrous Services, yet we freely grant that it ought to have been destroyed, or removed from the People's sight, if the continuance of it in their View were like to be a Snare to them, and a Temptation to Idolatry: Since now the use of it was ceased, for which, by Divine appointment, it was first Erected. But there was no necessity for this, upon supposition that it had ceased to be abused for any considerable time, and there were no appearance of an inclination in the People to abuse it again. And no doubt, all things of an indifferent Nature, that have formerly been abused to Idolatry or Superstition, aught to be taken away by the Governors, whensoever they find their People again inclined so to abuse them; at least, if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by other means.  
Sixthly, But had Hezekiah suffered the Brazen Serpent still to stand, no doubt private Persons (who have no authority to make public Reformations) might Lawfully have made use of it, to put them in mind of, and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God expressed by it to their Forefathers; notwithstanding that many, had not only formerly, but did at that very nick of time, make an Idol of it. And much more might they have Lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church, so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to join with them in their Idolatry: As we do not read of any that Separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand, as woefully abused as it was by the generality.  
I will also conclude this Head with the sense of Mr. Calvin concerning Rites used (and consequently superstitiously abused) by the Papists, expressed in these Words; Let not any think me so austere, or bound up, 
Calv. de vitandâ Superstitione etc.  as to forbid a Christian without any exception, to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance: for it is not my purpose to Condemn any thing, but what is clearly Evil, and openly Vicious. To which may be added many other such like say of this Learned Person.  
And thus much shall suffice to be discoursed upon our second general Head, viz. That a Church's Symbolising in some things with the Church of Rome, is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so Symbolising.  
We now proceed, in the Third and last place, to show, That the Agreement which is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful.  
We have showed, what a vastly wide Distance and Disagreement there is between the Church of England and that of Rome: And we have sufficiently (though with the greatest brevity) made it apparent, that a Church's Symbolising or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome, and those such too as she hath abused in Idolatrous and grossly Superstitious Services, is no just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing; And we have answered the Chief of those Arguments which have been brought for the Confirmation of the contrary Doctrine. And now, from what hath been discoursed, it may with the greatest ease be proved, that those things wherein our own Church particularly, agreeth with the Romish Church, do none of them speak such an Agreement therewith, as will justify Separation from our Church's Communion.  
Now the particulars wherein our Church Symbolizeth with that of Rome, which our Dissenters take offence at, and make a pretence for Separation (though all Dissenters are not offended at all of them, and much less so offended as to make them all a pretence for Separation) are principally these following.  
First, The Government of our Church by Bishops.  
Secondly, Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy, or Set-Forms of Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments, and other Public Offices.  
Thirdly, A Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is.  
Fourthly, Certain Rites of our Church. Particularly, the Surplice, the Cross in Baptism, the Gesture of Kneeling at the Communion, the Ring in Marriage, and the Observation of certain holidays. And to all these I shall speak very succinctly, the limits I am confined to not permitting me to enlarge much upon any of them.  
But I must first premise concerning them all in the general these following things.  
First, That I take it for granted, that they are all indifferent in their own nature: That there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them unlawful. I know no body so unreasonable as not to grant this.  
Secondly, That there is no Express positive Law of God against any of these things. I do not know of any such Law objected against any one of them. And therefore if all, or any of them are unlawful, they must be made so either by Consequences drawn from Divine Laws, or certain Circumstances attending them.  
Thirdly, That I am concerned in this Discourse to vindicate them from being unlawful, upon the account only of this one Circumstance, viz. Our Symbolising with the Church of Rome in them. Now then,  
First, As to the Government of our Church by Bishops: This is so far from being an Unlawful Symbolising with the Church of Rome, that we have most clear Evidence of its being a Symbolising with her in an Apostolical Institution. And what Eminent Divines of the Presbyterial Party have acknowledged (and is too evident to be denied or doubted by any, who are not wholly ignorant of Church-History) is sufficient (I should think) to satisfy unprejudiced persons concerning the truth of this: And that is, that this was the Government of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times, for about 1500 years together. Beza, in his Treatise of a Threefold kind of Episcopacy, Divine, Humane, and Satanical, asserts concerning the second (which is that which we call Apostolical) that of this kind is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the Authority of Bishops, in Ignatius, and other more Ancient Writers. And the famous Peter Du Moulin, in his Book of the Pastoral Office, written in defence of the Presbyterial Government, acknowledgeth, that presently after the Apostles times, or even in their time (as Ecclesiastical story witnesseth) it was ordained, that in every City one of the Presbytery should be called a Bishop, who should have pre-eminence over his Colleagues; to avoid Confusion, which oft times ariseth out of Equality. And truly, saith he, this Form of Government all Churches every where received. Mr. Calvin saith in his Institution of Christian Religion, Quibus docendi munus injunctum erat, etc. Those to whom was committed the Office of Teaching, they called them all Presbyters. These Elected out of their number in 
L. 4. cap. 4. §. 2.  each City one, to whom in a special manner they gave the Title of Bishop; lest Strife and Contention (as it commonly happeneth) should arise out of Equality. And in his Epistle to Archbishop Cranmer, he thus accosts him: Illustrissime Domine, & Ornatissime Praesul, etc. Most Illustrious Sir, and most Honourable Prelate, and by me hearty Reverenced: And tells him, that if he might be serviceable to the Church of England, he would not think much of passing over ten Seas, for that purpose. Again, in his Epistle to the King of Poland, he thus speaks of Patriarches and Archbishops; The Ancient Church did appoint Patriarches and Primates in every Province, that by this bond of Concord the Bishops might the better be knit together.  
In short, (for I must not proceed farther upon this vastly large head of discourse) I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lords Day, while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholic Church, for so many Centuries from the time of the Apostles. Nor how those that Separate from our Church upon the account of its Government by Bishops, and call it Antichristian, can defend the Lawfulness of Communicating with any Church in Christendom for about 1500 years together.  
Secondly, As to Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or set Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments, and other public Offices; It is easy to show that Symbolising with the Church of Rome herein is so far from being culpable, and much more from being a just ground of Separation from our Church, that 'tis highly Commendable. For as herein our Church no less Symbolizeth with the Primitive Church, than with that of Rome, as she is now Constituted (nothing being more certainly known, than that Liturgies are of most Ancient standing) so nothing is more highly expedient, for the due management of the public Worship of God, than the use of a Liturgy. And, indeed, instead of Expedient I might say Necessary; it being impossible to secure the performance of public Worship with that solemnity and gravity that becomes it, in a Church where its Ministers are wholly left free to the Exercise of Extemporary invention. But the handling of this Argument is the business of another new Discourse, to which I refer the Reader. I shall therefore conclude it with a citation out of calvin's Epistle Ad Protectorem Angliae; saith he; As to a Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites, I do very much approve of the publishing of a fixed one, from which it may not be Lawful for the Pastors to departed in the exercise of their Function: Thereby to provide against the simplicity and unskilfulness of some, and that the consent of all the Churches with each other may more certainly appear: And lastly, to put a bar to the skipping Levity of others, who Affect certain innovations. And therefore (as he proceeds) Statum esse Catechismum oportet, Statam Sacramentorum Administrationem, publicam item precum Formulam, there ought to be an Established Catechism, an Office for the Administration of the Sacraments Established, and also a Public Form of Prayers. And he accordingly composed a Liturgy, to be used by the Ministers in Geneva, on Sundays and Holydays. And the Exiles that resided at Geneva, in the days of Queen Mary, did by his advice draw up a Liturgy, which was Printed in the English Tongue, in the year 1556.  
Thirdly, As to a Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is, what hath been said of the vast distance between our Church and that of Rome herein, is sufficient to show that there can be no warrantable pretence for Separation from our Church, upon the account of the Symbolising that is between these two Churches in this particular. But we will particularly consider those instances of agreement between ours and the Roman Service which are most offensive to our Brethren; they are especially these four.  
1. Our many short Prayers, which some have too lighly called short Cuts, and Shred, and rather Wishes than Prayers. But there needs no other reply hereunto, than that our Learned Hooker gives, viz. That St. Augustin saith, Epist. 121. That the Brethren in Egypt are reported to have many Prayers, but every of them very short, as if they were Darts thrown out with a kind of sudden quickness, lest that Vigilant and erect attention of mind, which in Prayer is very necessary, should be Wasted and dulled through Continuance, if their Prayers were few and long. But that which St. Austin alloweth, they Condemn, etc. He might as well have said, What that good Father Commendeth; nay his words imply no small commendation. And I fear not to appeal to all Pious Souls, who without prejudice join with us in our Public Prayers, whether they find the shortness of many of them an hindrance or help to their Devotion. I don't question but that such will readily acknowledge that they find it an help. And therefore, in my weak judgement, our Symbolising with the Church of Rome in this particular, is Symbolising with her in that which is highly commendable, as 'tis so also in that wherein she Symbolizeth with very Ancient Churches.  
2. Another instance is, The People's bearing a part with the Minister in Divine Service. But Mr. Baxter hath said enough in his Christian Directory, on Q. 83. not only to vindicate the Lawfulness, but the Fitness and Expediency also, of Symbolising herein with the Church of Rome. Saith he,  
1. The Scripture no where forbids it.  
2. If the People may do this in the Psalms in Metre, there can be no reason given, but they may Lawfully do it in Prose.  
3. The Primitive Christians were so full of Zeal and Love of Christ, that they would have taken it for an injury, or quenching of the Spirit, to have been wholly restrained from bearing a part in the Praises of the Church.  
4. The use of the Tongue keeps awake the Mind, and stirs up God's graces in his Servants.  
5. It was the decay of Zeal in the People, that first shut out the Responses: while they kept up the Ancient Zeal, they were inclined to take their part vocally in the Worship. Though I were under no obligation of brevity, I should add nothing more of mine own about this matter.  
3. Another instance of this Nature is, the taking of some of the Collects out of the Mass-Book. But to this I give this, I hope as satisfactory as short Answer, viz. That these Prayers are either good or bad: if they are bad ones, they may not be used, though they were not in the Mass-Book; and upon that account the use of them would be Unlawful, not upon the account of our Symbolising in them with the Roman Church. But if they are all good ones, as they are very good, then from what hath been said, 'tis Evident that this Symbolising cannot make them bad; and 'tis a hard case that we should not be allowed the use of whatsoever is good in their Service. Our Brethren will allow of reading the same Scriptures that they do, and why then should they disallow of using what perfectly agreeth with Scripture, because they use it? Our departure from them was designed to be a Reformation, not a total Destruction and Extirpation.  
4. The last instance is, The appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books. But herein we Symbolise with the Primitive Church, rather than with this of Rome: For (as hath been showed out of the 6. Article of our Church) they are not appointed to be read as Canonical Scripture; and we perfectly agree with the Primitive Church, in reading them for Example of Life, and instruction of Manners, but not for the Establishing of any Doctrine: Which, in that Article, is showed from St. Hierom, to have been the Practice of that Church. And besides, they are not now appointed to be ordinarily on Sundays read in Our Churches.  
These I take to be the chief of those instances of our Churches Symbolising with that of Rome, in the Composure of the Liturgy, that Our Dissenters are offended at: And as for their other Objections of this kind, they are as easily answered. And I most sincerely profess, that 'tis not to me imaginable that any thing better than Extreme prejudice can make any Man a Separatist from Our Communion upon such accounts as these: As also, that I cannot understand how any devout and pious Souls that come to our Public Prayers without prejudice, can find themselves in the least tempted not to join in them hearty with the Congregation. Absolute perfection is not to be expected in any thing of a human make; but if all would read Our Liturgy with that Candour they use in reading the Books of those they have a good opinion of, as I am sure they could think nothing intolerable therein, so am I as sure, they would freely acknowledge it to be exceedingly well adapted to the design of it, viz. the exciting of Devotion, and that good temper of mind, that is necessary to Our Worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth. I am certain, the experience of very many as excellent Christians as this Age can boast of, do bear me witness, that this is no lavish commendation of Our Prayers. Dr. Tailor that blessed Martyr gave this Testimony to Our Liturgy: There was set 
Acts and Monuments, p. 1696.  forth by the most Innocent King Edward (for whom God be Praised everlastingly) the whole Church-Service with great deliberation and advice of the best Learned Men in the Realm; and Authorised by the whole Parliament, and received and Published gladly by the whole Realm; which Book was never reform but once, and yet by that one Reformation it was as fully perfected, according to the Rules of Our Christian Religion in every behalf, that no Christian Conscience could be Offended, with any thing therein contained. I mean of that Book Reform. What then would he have thought of it, had he lived to see it twice more Reform, as it hath been since?  
Lastly, I proceed to the forenamed Rites and Ceremonies of Our Church, in which Our Symbolising with Popery is so much Condemned, and made a pretence for Separation. But before I come to particulars, I will observe in the general, that the distance Our Church keeps from that of Rome in the imposition of Ceremonies, is infinitely greater than her Agreement therein with her. For, as those imposed by our Church (as hath been already said) are exceeding few, not the hundredth part scarcely of those imposed by the Roman Church, so doth not our Church impose them (as the other doth) on the Consciences of her Members as things of necessity, as parts of Religion or meritorious Services, as hath been proved out of the Articles. Now then,  
1. As to the Surplice, our Church requires not the wearing of this Garment, as an Holy Vestment, like the Priestly Garments under the Old Law, but merely for the sake of Order and Uniformity: whereas in the Church of Rome a Surplice may not be worn till 'tis hallowed in a solemn manner by the Bishop, or some one by his Allowance (as may be seen in the Missal) with divers Prayers, that it may defend him who wears it from the Assaults of the Devil; the Prayers being accompanied with a number of Cross, and, in fine, the Surplice besprinkled with Holy Water, in the Name of the Blessed Trinity. But, I say, in our Church 'tis used only as a Garment of distinction; no more holiness is placed in it, than in the Hoods worn over it merely for distinction of degrees: And the White is preferred before any other Colour, because it was a very ancient Custom in the Primitive Church for the Ministers to Officiate in White Garments. Beza saith of the Surplice, These linen Garments 
Contra Westphalum vol. 1. p. 255.  we do not so stick at, that we would have the progress of the Word of God hindered in the least for them. And we might show that Mr. Calvin much blamed contending with Authority about the wearing this Garment: Particularly in his Epistle to Bullinger. And since all the Popish abuse of this Garment is perfectly removed, I know not why all Ministers should not be of their mind; and much less can I imagine, why those who are not obliged to wear it, should be affrighted from our Churches by the mere sight of so Innocent a thing.  
2. As to the Cross in Baptism; Our Church holds so little Conformity with the Papists herein, that in no one thing of an Indifferent nature can our Symbolising with them be less scandalous. Dr. Burges in his defence of Dr. Morton, Shows, that we hold no Conformity with the Papists in the use thereof, either in the 
P. 416. etc.  time when, or place where, or manner how, or end whereto. The Minister with us (as he there showeth) may not Cross Himself, or the People, or Font, Water, Communion-Table, or Cups, or the Bread and Wine, or any other of God's Ordinances: All which in Popery the Priest is bound to do, for their Consecration, or blessing of himself, or them, as without which nothing is Consecrated. The Child to be Baptised with us, may not be Crossed before Baptism on the Forehead, Breast, or any part; which in Popery, the Priest must do, to drive away the Devil, and make the Efficacy of that Sacrament more easy and strong, as they teach. After Baptism, the Minister may not with us Cross the Children with Oil or Chrism, or without, on the Crown of the Head, as in Popery is required, to give them their full Christendom, lest they should die before Confirmation. Yea at Confirmation, the Minister is not to make the sign of the Cross on the Forehead with Chrism or without, which is enjoined in Popery as an Essential part of the Sacrament (as they call it) of Confirmation. Nay (as he proceeds) if the Child be in danger of present death, and not like to live to make profession of Christ Crucified, the Minister is directed not to use the sign of the Cross; that all may know, that we hold it not to be either Operative upon the Child, or at all necessary to the Efficacy of the Lord's Sacrament, but do only retain it, according to the first and best intention, as an outward badge of the Constant profession of Christ Crucified. And whereas 'tis said in the 30 Canon, that by this lawful Ceremony and honourable badge, this Child is dedicated to the service of Christ, the Doctor declareth that he hath good warrant to assure those who are offended at that Explication, that the word dedicated doth there import no more, than declared by that Ceremony to be dedicated, viz. by the foregoing Baptism: like as the Priest is said to have cleansed the Leper, whom he only declareth to be clean, Leu. 14. 11. And 'tis manifest from the account given of the imposing of this Ceremony in that Canon, that this Phrase cannot otherwise be understood. I shall not need to add any thing more about this Ceremony, after I have said, that our Church retains it not in imitation of the Church of Rome, but of the Primitive Christians, they thereby (to use the Words of the foresaid Canon) making an outward profession even to the astonishment of the Jews, that they were not ashamed to acknowledge him for their Lord and Saviour, who died for them upon the Cross, etc. And (as it follows) this use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, was held in the Primitive Church, as well by the Greeks, as the Latins, with one consent and great applause, etc. I conclude with Beza's judgement of the Lawfulness of 
Resp. ad Baldw. p. 324.  this Ceremony. Saith he, I know many too have retained the use of the Sign of the Cross, the Adoration of the Cross being taken away: Let them, as is meet, use their own Liberty. But in our Church, not only the Adoration of the Cross, but likewise all Superstition in the use of it, is perfectly abolished. How then can it be thought such a Symbolising with the Church of Rome as may warrant Separation from our Communion?  
3. As to the Ceremony of Kneeling at the Communion: If our Church's Declaration at the end of the Communion-Service, will not vindicate her from an Unlawful Symbolising with Rome herein, I have nothing to say in her defence. The declaration is this: Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lords Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same Kneeling (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ, therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such Profanation and disorder in the Holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue) yet lest the same Kneeling should by any Persons, either out of Ignorance and Infirmity, or out of Malice and Obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved; It is here declared, that thereby no Adoration is intended, or aught to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine, there bodily received, or unto any Corporal-Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood: For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, (for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians) And the Natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's Natural Body, to be at one time in more places than one. We see that our Church doth here, not only declare that no Adoration is in this Gesture intended, either to the Elements or to Christ's Corporal Presence under the Species of Bread and Wine; but also that, as such a Pretence is absurd and contradictions, so the adoring of the Sacramental Bread and Wine, would be Idolatry to be abhorred by all faithful Christians. So that, as nothing is in itself more indifferent than this Gesture in receiving the Holy Communion, there being not one Word said of the Gesture in our Saviour's Institution of this Sacrament, either before his Death to his Disciples, or after his Ascension to St. Paul, (who hath delivered to us what he received of the Lord about this matter, as he said, that is, all that he had received) and as Christ hath Consequently lest the particular Gesture to the determination of the Church, a Gesture being in the general necessary; so this Circumstance of Symbolising with the Church of Rome herein, cannot make Our Churches requiring Kneeling to be Unlawful (and much less our Obedience to the Church in using this Gesture) seeing all the Idolatry and Superstition too, wherewith the Church of Rome hath abused it, is perfectly removed, and 'tis required by our Church merely as a decent Reverend Gesture.  
4. As to the Ring in Marriage: The Church of Rome (as is to be seen in the Office of Matrimony, juxta usum Ecclesiae Sarisburiensis) abuseth it most notoriously. There you have it, first blessed with two Prayers; in the former of which, God is beseeched to send his blessing on this Ring, that she who shall wear it may be Armed with the Power of Heavenly defence, and it may be beneficial to her, to Eternal life, through Christ our Lord. And in the latter, the Priest, Crossing himself, Prayeth, that God would bless this Ring, which we in thy Holy Name bless, that whosoever shall wear it, may abide in his Peace, etc. Next, Holy Water is sprinkled upon the Ring: And lastly, the Bridegroom puts it upon the Bride's Thumb, the Bridegroom saying, In the Name of the Father: Then upon her second Finger, saying, And of the Son: Then on the third, saying, And of the Holy Ghost: Then on the fourth, saying, Amen. And there he leaves it. And there is expressed a special Mystery in leaving it upon that Finger. But there is used nothing of this impious or Superstitious fooling about the Ring in our Office of Marriage. All the do about it are, the Bridegrooms putting it on the fourth Finger, he saying after the Minister, With this Ring I thee Wed; and the mentioning of it in the Prayer following, as a Token and Pledge of the Vow and Covenant made between the Married Persons. So that 'tis so far from being used as a Sacramental sign among us, that it no otherwise differs from a mere civil Ceremony, than as 'tis a Token and Pledge of a Covenant made between the Parties in the most Solemn manner, viz. as in the presence of God. And in truth, this is such a Symbolising with the Church of Rome, as I should be ashamed to bestow two Words about, but that so many of our Brethren have been pleased to take offence at it.  
Lastly, As to our Observation of certain Holy days: All I shall say about it is,  
1. That there is no Comparison between the number of our holidays and the Popish ones.  
2. Our few are purged from all the Superstitious and wicked Solemnisations of the Popish ones.  
3. We observe scarcely any besides such as wherein we have the Primitive Church for our Example: Excepting those which are enjoined upon the account of Deliverances and Calamities, in which our own Nation is peculiarly concerned.  
4. An observation of them, void of Superstitious conceits about them, and only as our Church directeth, can have no other than a very good Effect upon our Hearts and lives. If we could say as St. Austin did of the Christians in his time, viz. By Festival Solemnities and set days, we dedicate and sanctify to God, the memory of his Benefits, lest unthankful forgetfulness of them, should in tract of time creep upon us, we should certainly be much the better Christians for the observation of our holidays. Mr. Calvin saith, In Festis non recipiendis cuperem vos esse Constantiores, etc. I could wish 
In Epist ad Monsbel-gardenses, p. 81, 82.  that you would be more constant in your not receiving Festivals, but so, as not to contend and make a stir about all, but about those only which nothing at all tend to Edification, and which have a manifest appearance of Superstition, etc. And he instanceth in those Days which Popery dedicates to the Celebrating of the immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and of her Assumption, on which holidays nothing, he saith, can be said in the Pulpit, by a servant of God, besides exposing the folly of those who have invented them.  
And in another Epistle, Caeterùm cùm Festi dies hîc 
In Epist. ad Hallerum.  abrogati, etc. Moreover, whereas some of your Country are much offended at the Abrogation of holidays among us, and 'tis likely that much odious talk is spread about it: And I make account that I am made the Author of this whole matter, and that by the Ignorant as well as Malicious; I can solemnly testify of myself, that this was done without my knowledge o desire, etc. Before I ever came into the City, there was no Holiday at all observed besides the Lord's day; those which are Celebrated by you were taken away by that same Law of the People, which banished me and Farel: And 'twas rather Tumultuously extorted by the violence of Wicked Men, than decreed legally. Upon my return I obtained this temper (or mean) that Christmass-day should be observed after your manner, but upon the other days extraordinary supplications should be made, the Shops being kept shut in the Morning, but after Dinner, every one should go about his own Business.  
And, no doubt, the Governors of our Church would be abundantly satisfied with such an observation of most of our holidays, as Mr. Calvin ordered at Geneva, would the People be generally so far conformable.  
And thus I have, I hope, sufficiently showed, that our Church's Symbolising in this Rite too with the Church of Rome no otherwise than she doth, can be no colour for Separation.  
It may be objected, that notwithstanding our having several times cited Mr. Calvin, for the unlawfulness of Separation from the Church of England, on the account of her Symbolising as she doth with the Church of Rome, yet he calleth her Ceremonies tolerabiles ineptiae, tolerable fooleries, which would make one think that he was not in earnest in calling them tolerable; fooling in the Worship of God being no doubt intolerable.  
In Answer hereto, let Mr. Calvin account for his joining ineptiae & tolerabiles together; but the instances he gives of things he so censured, were such as the Liturgy was cleared of, in the amendment of it under Queen Elizabeth, viz. Prayers for the dead, (that is, that they might have a happy Resurrection, not such Prayers as supposed Purgatory) Chrism at Baptism, and Extreme Unction. And besides, he saith, he was informed by Mr. Knox, of several other Popish Ceremonies that were retained, viz. the Use of Wax Candles, divers Cross at the Communion, etc. which Information was not true.  
And now, how happy should we think ourselves, would our Brethren at length be persuaded to cease fearing where no fear is; as also to fear what is really very frightful; namely, the guilt of so great a sin as that of Schism, or making and continuing a breach in the Church by Separation without just cause: The greatness of which sin none have more aggravated than Mr. Calvin, and several of our old Non-conformists; who have also zealously born their Testimony against Separation from the Church of England, and accordingly did themselves hold Communion there with generally (viz. all the Presbyterian Party) to their dying day, though they could not Conform as Ministers. And there is another very formidable Evil too, which I wish more of our Brothers had a greater sense of, viz. the advantage that our Common Enemy is too like to make of our Sad Divisions, and being crumbled into so many Sects and Parties, and hath already made, in order to their final accomplishing their designs upon us. The truth on't is, they themselves have had the main hand in those Divisions, they so upbraid us with, (of which we have abundant Evidence) having most industriously followed that advice of the famous Jesuit Campanella, viz. There is no such effectual 
Jam verò ad enervandos Anglos, nihil tam conducit, quàm dissensio & discordia inter illos excitata, perpetuóque nutrita: Quod citò occasiones meliores suppeditabit, Camp. de Mon. Hisp. p. 304. Amstel.  way to weaken the English, as to stir up strife and discord among them, and still to feed it: This will quickly put into our hands very fair advantages and opportunities. Their main spite is at the Church of England, as being well ware, that it hath ever since the Reformation been their most formidable Enemy, and the most impregnable Bulwark in all Christendom against the mighty Power and Policy of their Church of Rome. What a madness therefore is it in hearty Protestants, to join with those People in laying this Church as low as ever they are able! And by contending with our Church about innocent, if not commendable things, upon the account of her Symbolising in them with the Church of Rome, eminently to endanger the opening such a breach as shall let in all her Heresies, Superstitions, and Idolatries among us. Which God in his infinite Mercy prevent, by causing us to live more answerably to the happy Means and Opportunities we now enjoy, by quenching our as unreasonable as unchristian fierce Feuds and Animosities, and by making our Church like Jerusalem of old, a City compact together, and at Unity within itself. Amen.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 4. line 9 read unction. p. 8. l. 14. r. the Mass. p. 10. l. 8. r. Homilies especially. p. 15. l. 1. r. others. p. 32. l. 21. r. dispensation.  
FINIS.   

A DEFENCE OF THE RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE, VIZ. Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it Unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England. In Answer to a Book Entitled A Modest Examination OF THAT RESOLUTION.  
LONDON, Printed by J. H. for B. Aylmer, at the Three Pigeons, against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill. 1684.   

A DEFENCE OF THE Resolution, etc.  
SIR,  
I who know the Author of the Book, which hath given you this trouble, better than any man, do conclude that you are not more a stranger to him, than he is to you, from the Epithets you so frequently bestow upon him throughout your Papers; except you do it (which I would not be so uncharitable as to think) by way of Irony.  
In your First Paragraph you express a Liking of the Complexion of his Book; and I perceive you mean, that it pleaseth you to find it not written in a heat, and that there is nothing of a Censorious or Peevish humour, or of a haughty contempt of those he deals with, therein expressed. And he hopes that upon the same accounts, you are no less pleased with the other Resolutions of Cases, which bear this company. But he thinks it no mighty Attainment, to be able in writing to manage a Controversy Coolly and Sedately; without bitter or provoking Reflections, or contemptuous Expressions. Though men of warm Tempers may find it somewhat difficult, to govern their Spirits and Passions, as it becomes them, in the heat of disputing by word of mouth; one would think that a small measure of Humility or Good nature, or of Discretion and Prudence, should make it no hard matter to acquire that other Attainment: And, much more, that no one who is a Christian in Spirit and Temper, as well as in Notion and Profession, can find it a difficult thing to arrive at it. But enough of this.  
In your Second Paragraph, you seem to intimate, that our Author might have spared his pains in dwelling so long upon the Distance between our Church and the Church of Rome, in points of Doctrine: But he is not satisfied with the reasons you give for the needlesness of so doing. Your reasons are two; First, because he argued chief for Communion in Worship. And Secondly, you never met with the Doctrinal part of the 39 Articles charged as Popish, nor our Church reflected on, as symbolising with that Idolatrous Church, in Points of Doctrine. But these reasons have not convinced our Author, that he is over long upon this Argument; for it was not his design to show, that our Church doth not symbolise in Points of Doctrine with that of Rome, but that She stands at greatest defiance with that Church: Not, that She doth not teach her Corrupt Doctrine in her Articles; but that she designedly confutes them, and exposeth the falsity and corruption of them. And this surely was worth the showing in so many instances, for their sakes who never read or considered those Articles; as I fear very few of the Dissenters have done.  
And, whereas you say, you never met with the Doctrinal part of the 39 Articles charged as Popish (and it would be strange if you had) I say, there is too great cause to suspect, that very few of our Dissenting Brethren do understand how Anti-popish they are, though they do not charge them as Popish. And I doubt you have met with many (I am sure very many are to be met with) who have reflected upon our Church as an Idolatrous Church, though you never heard her accused as symbolising with the Idolatrous Church of Rome, in Points of Doctrine. But they will find it somewhat hard to understand, how a Church can be Idolatrous in matters of Practice, and yet be pure in her Doctrine from any tang of Idolatry. Surely her Practices must be grounded upon her Doctrines, or they would be strange Practices indeed. And it would be wonderful, if she should Practise Idola try, and yet Believe nothing that tends to the encouragement of that foul Sin; nay believe and teach all those Doctrines that are as Opposite to Idolatry, as Light to Darkness. So that I conceive nothing could be more to our Author's purpose, than to endeavour to remove that prejudice of many, against the Constitution of our Church, which is grounded upon an Opinion of its being near of kin to Popery. And what could signify more to their Conviction, that there is not any ground for such an Opinion, than the showing how abhorrent to Popery our Church is in her Doctrine; and what a testimony she beareth in her Articles against the Idolatrous and Superstitious Doctrines of the Romish Church, and the Practices which she foundeth upon those Doctrines?  
As to the several Additions you say may be made to the 
* pag. 4.  Anti-popish Doctrines contained in the 39 Articles, our Author conceives he was not guilty of any Oversight in not preventing you, because some of them are not properly Anti-popish, but contrary to the Doctrine of other Sects, which are to be found among Abhorrers of Popery as well as Papists; and others of them our Author hath not omitted, but if you'll look again, you may find them in their proper places. Viz. those Doctrines contained in Artic. VI and Artic. XI. This, under the head of Doctrines flatly contradicting the Holy Scriptures, pag. 9 That, under the head of the Authority on which each of the two Churches found'st its whole Religion, pag. 18.  
Now I hope by this time, you understand very well what our Author would have you conclude, from this first part of his Performance, which you say 
* pag. 4.  you do not well understand.  
And whereas you ask, whether it be that the 39 Articles have in them nothing of kin to Popery, as to matters of Faith? And add that you dare say, there is not a judicious Dissenter in England will say they have. I answer, if there be any injudicious Dissenters in England, that will say they have, I hope these poor people ought not to be so despised, as that we should use no means for the undeceiving of them. But our Author would have you conclude, that he hath done what he designed, which is (as hath been already said) not to show that the 39 Articles have nothing of kin to Popery, but that they are most abhorrent from it; and that our Church is at the widest and vastest distance from Popery in her Doctrinals; and consequently one would think too, in matters of Practice. But our Author does not satisfy himself to prove this by this consequence; but goes on to show it in the particular instances of matters of Practice, after he had done it in Points of Doctrine.  
To return now to your Second Page, You say that it is mightily Satisfactory to you to hear our Author assuring you, that our Church alloweth her Members the judgement of Discretion, etc. But, Sir, you needed no Authors to assure you of this, since our Church hath done it as fully, as it can be done by words; and our Author no otherwise assures you of it, than by citing our Church's Articles. But whereas you add, that this you cannot but think implieth a Liberty, not only to Believe and Judge, but to Do also according to what a man believes and judgeth; surely you will find yourself able to think otherwise, when you have considered, what is the necessary and immediate consequence of such a thought, viz. that all such things as Laws are utterly inconsistent with allowing to men the Judgement of Discretion, according to this large notion: And that, therefore our Church doth faultily Symbolise with the Church of Rome, in having any such things as Government and Discipline.  
You next say, that our Author speaketh very true as to the Popish Rites and Ceremonies, and that those in our Church are comparatively few; but you much doubt, whether the use of those few was long before Popery appeared in the world, unless he means Popery at its full growth; for that Mystery of Iniquity, as to Rituals, began to work very early. To this I answer, that the Papists may con you great thanks for this passage, it plainly enough intimating that the Primitive Fathers and Christians were for the most part Papists, though not fully grown Papists. And as to those words of St. Paul, The Mystery of iniquity doth already work, if you can do any thing like proving that the Apostle meant by the Mystery of iniquity, which began to work in his days, the use of such Rites as those you are offended with in our Church, I will engage for our Author, that he shall immediately set up for a Nonconformist.  
You say in your Third Page, that you cannot well understand how our Author saith, that our Church doth not impose her Rites as necessary, unless he means as necessary in order to Salvation, etc. But doth he not expressly tell you what he means by necessary? you found he did, if you read the whole Sentence, which runs thus, pag. 4. And she imposeth her Rites not (as the Church of Rome does here's) as necessary, and as parts of Religion, but as merely indifferent and changeable things, as we find in her 34th Article, etc. And why, Sir, did you conceal this part of the Sentence, and thus stop at a Comma?  
You thus proceed; Nor do I well understand how they are not made necessary to Salvation, when the nonobservance of them is made sinful, and meritorious of a being cast out of the Church, etc. And I assure you, that I do as little understand, if this be good arguing, how whatsoever the King commands of his Subjects, or a Master of his Servants, is not made by them necessary to Salvation, since the nonobservance of the Lawful Commands of each, is acknowledged to be sinful, by all that believe these Precepts binding, viz. Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake, etc. And, Servants obey in all things your Masters, etc. And as to the Penalty you mention, of being cast out of the Church, and cut off from the Body of Christ, which is the same thing, it amounts to thus much; That those who will by no means be prevailed with, to conform to the Laws of the Society of which they are Members, shall be cast out of it: which all Societies and Bodies Politic whatsoever, have ever thought fit to have inflicted, upon obstinate Transgressor's of their Laws, in order to the preservation of themselves, and the upholding of Government amongst them. And our Author I am certain will readily grant, that none but Obstinate Transgressor's of the Church's Laws, and such as are incorrigible by all other means first tried, aught to be cast out of the Church, and that the Sentence of Excommunication should never be pronounced against them, but as the last Remedy: As also that the design thereof ought always to be the Reformation of the Offender (as well as for example to others) never his Destruction. But how does this Penalty's being made the Sanction of the Laws of our Church, which ordain Rites and Ceremonies for Order sake, and the decent administration of Divine Worship in Public, speak these to be enjoined as necessary to Salvation, when the nonobservance of any of them is no otherwise judged to be sinful, than as it is an Act of disobedience to Humane Authority; and when this Penalty is never (according to the Rules of our Church) to be inflicted, but in case of the Offender's adding contempt to his disobedience? If any instances can be given of persons being Excommunicated upon the account of Nonconformity, who are humble and modest and peaceable, and that give good evidence of their willingness to comply with the Laws of their Governors as far as they are able with safe consciences, this I am sure is wholly the fault of Persons, not of our Constitution. But this Objection is too inconsiderable to deserve our bestowing so many words upon it.  
All that follows to the bottom of your Fifth Page, wherein our Author is concerned, hath been replied to: And there you thus speak. As in England we have a Silent and a Speaking Law, so we have also a Silent and a Speaking Church, etc. We know the Doctrine of the Church of England in the 39 Articles; but this is but Ecclesia Muta: How many have we that will tell us, We are Ecclesia Loquens, the Living Church of England; and we tell you, etc. Here follow no fewer than thirteen Doctrines taught by this Ecclesia Loquens, contradictory to the 39 Articles. But  
1. You have given us (we thank you) the very first information of this Ecclesia Loquens: But why do you expect, unless we knew you better, that we should take your bare word for it? Nay we have hardly that, for you do not in express terms affirm, but ask this Question, How many have we that will tell us, we are Ecclesia Loquens? And therefore it might suffice, to give you only this short answer, Do you tell us how many, or whether there are any, if you know. Surely this Church of yours is an Invisible Church; or, if not, none but Dissenters Eyes are clear enough to get the least glimpse of it. But the truth of it is, 'tis a mere Figment, and the very Dream of a Shadow. But  
2. Whereas a Positive Assertion of the being of such a Church of England is implied in this Question, you cannot well be otherwise understood, than as asserting, that the Prevailing party of our Church of England Divines, have obtruded upon the World this long Bead-roll of Heresies, as Articles of Faith; and so have turned the Old Church of England out of doors: And therefore you are brought to this miserable pass, that you cannot hold Communion with this New Church, except you will separate from, and bid adieu to the Old. And, in good earnest, if this be so, Dissenters are the only true Friends of the Church of England, as by Law Established; and this Church is hugely obliged to them for their Separation. But  
3. I am well assured, that you will never be able to make good this charge, or any part of it, against any number of the Divines of our Church. For I who know, I am confident, as many of them, as most men in England, can truly declare as followeth,  
That I cannot name any one Divine of our Church, who teacheth your First contradictory Doctrine to the 39 Articles, viz. That although we may not terminate our worship in an Image, yet we may bow down and worship the true God before an Image.  
Nor your Second, viz. That departed Saints know our states here upon Earth, and are praying to God for us; and therefore we may pray to them.  
Nor know I any one of our Church, who teacheth your Third, viz. That any Priest may absolve, by commission from God, more than declaratively. I mean, I know no one that maketh the Priest's Absolution to be other in Effect than declarative, though it signifies more than if pronounced by a Layman.  
Nor your Fourth, That the Natural Body and Blood of Christ, is in the Elements of Bread and Wine really. Our Church-Catechism saith that, The Body and Blood of Christ, are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper: And I know no Divine of ours that explaineth this otherwise than thus, That Believers feed on the Body and Blood of Christ, in the Lord's Supper, as truly and really as they do on the Elements; but not after a corporal and carnal manner, but after a spiritual, viz. by applying to themselves the Benefits of Christ's death by faith. And I presume you will neither assert this to be Popish Doctrine, nor deny that 'tis true Doctrine.  
Nor do I know any one of our Divines that holds your Fifth Proposition, for it may not be called a Doctrine, viz. That our Conformable Congregations are no better than Conventicles, where the Minister reads not the Communion Service at the Altar. Which you assert to be tantamount to the allowing of Prayers in an Unknown Tongue; because in multitudes of Congregations, the People cannot hear a line from him. I say, I know of no Divine of our Church, that ever asserted that such Congregations as the forementioned, are no better than Conventicles. There was indeed lately a foolish Book published to Prove them Conventicles, but it is strongly conjectured that this Book was written by a certain Layman: And what Church he is of I cannot say, nor is it a pin's matter to know. But I may as much suspect him to be a Protestant Dissenter, as a Popish, upon the score of that his Position; it being nothing of kin to the allowing of Prayers in an Unknown tongue. For (as there is not One of your Multitudes of Congregations, wherein the People cannot hear a line from him that reads at the Communion Table, except you mean, wherein every one of the People cannot; for, I doubt not, the Major part can in all where the Minister hath a voice to be well heard from the Pulpit, so) all that is read is known before to those who are not Strangers to our Prayers, or at least they may have Books to enable them to go along with the Minister, whether they can, or cannot hear distinctly one sentence from him.  
Nor do I know any one of our Divines that hath ever taught your 6th Doctrine, That whole Christ is under each Element: which you intimate is the only foundation on which the Sacrilegious Romish Practice stands. But if I could believe that Doctrine to be true, I should notwithstanding judge it an intolerable thing to refuse the Cup to the Laity, against the express Institution of our Lord.  
Nor know I any Divine of ou Church guilty of the 7th particular of your Charge, viz. That there are those who interpret the Ten Commandments so as that he who will ever be saved must do a great many works of supererogation. And if I did know any one that so interpreted the Commandments, as to make any one such work necessary to Salvation, I would not call him a Papist for it, but an Ignoramus; who understands not the word Supererogation.  
Nor know I any one that teacheth Original Sin, (thereby understanding Corruption of Nature) to be rather our Misfortune than our Fault: which is your 8th Doctrine.  
Nor consequently, that Concupiscence is no sin; which is your 9th.  
Nor your 10th, That man hath a power in his own will to choose and do what is spiritually good; (i. e.) without the Assistence of Divine Grace: And with this Assistence I hope you Dissenters do all hold it.  
Nor know I any one of our Divines who teacheth, That we are not accounted righteous before God (or Justified) only for the Merits of Christ: that is, that there is any other Meritorious cause of our Justification besides the Active and Passive obedience of Christ.  
Nor your 11th, That we are not Justified by Faith alone: Understanding by Faith, not a dead but a living Faith, that purefies the heart, and works by love.  
Nor your 12th, That good works must go before justification, and are not the fruits of Faith, but Faith itself. For I know no one of our Church that asserts more than this, that a sincere Resolution to obey all God's Commandments must, in order of nature, go before Justification.  
Nor your 13th, That there is no Eternal Predestination of persons to life, and the means tending thereunto. I know of none of our Church that have ever taught this Doctrine, as you have expressed it; nor any worse than this, That Eternal Predestination to life is not Irrespective or Absolute; which no Article of our Church saith it is. And Abundance of you Dissenters hold this Doctrine, as well as Church of England men.  
And thus have I gone over all the Doctrines contradictory to the 39 Articles, taught by your Ecclesia Loquens, yours I say, for she is not ours; and I declare again, that I know of no Divine of our Church, that teacheth or holdeth such Doctrines. If you know any, as one would think you do very many, I pray name them. You say, we spare any names in these cases; but be you entreated not to spare them. But if you won't be prevailed with, we shall very shrewdly guests at the reason.  
Sir, to deal freely with you, I cannot but wonder, at your adventuring into the World this other Celeusma; since the Author of the former had so ill success, and must needs have repent him hearty of that Undertaking. All that have consideratively read his Answerer, I am confident are convinced, that after a Great Cry, Little Wool appeared; or rather none at all. Nor can such be ignorant, what foul play was used to make our Divines of the Church of England broach Heresy. And I doubt not but you yourself have blushed at it, if you have ever read the Parallela imparia; sive Specimen fidei Celeusmaticae. Can you catch us thus dealing with the Books of your Authors, as ours have been dealt with by that Author, and some others that might be named, we should at another kind of rate have been exposed, than they have been.  
But, Sir, for God's sake, let us make as much Conscience of vile Calumny, than which there is not a more express Transgression of the Law of God, nor of the very Light of Nature, as of Obedience to Authority in such things as no Divine Law can be produced against; and nothing but strained and far-fetched Consequences. And, for God's sake also, let us at length be persuaded to have so great a concern for our common Religion, as to give over exposing it by such unchristian do, to the Scorn and Derision of our Common Enemy.  
But I cannot take my leave of this heavy Charge of yours, till I have asked you, what you infer from thence, on supposition you can make good proof of it? It is plain your design in all this talk, is to justify, if not a total, yet a partial Separation. You do indeed (to conceal nothing of your Candour) after all acknowledge, 
* p. 7.  That you are very far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men in our Ecclesia Loquens, that in these things are of another mind: And therefore, I hope, you will not excuse Separation from their Churches.  
Nay you say, 
† p. 9  That hundreds of the Speaking Church are, as we believe, as far from symbolising with the Church of Rome (you mean in Doctrine) as the Articles; And that in this thing a Separation from the Silent, as well as this part of the Speaking Church, must needs be highly Sinful. And in thus declaring, you condemn the generality of those that Separate; it being well known that Communion with those whom you will acknowledge to be Orthodox Divines, and those which you account Heterodox, is much alike boggled at. But I fear, when all is done, you condemn only separation in Heart from these Orthodox men; your Undertaking in your 8th Page makes me fear this; viz. That all the Valuable persons in Presbyterian and Independent Congregations, shall give any reasonable assurance, that they are not in Heart divided from a Single Person, in the Church of England, that speaketh in matters concerning Doctrine, as our Church doth in her Articles: But if you think that all the Communion you are obliged to hold with these Divines, is only that of the Heart; that is, thinking them Orthodox, and loving them as such, but allow it to be lawful, to refuse to worship God with them, nay and not so much as to hear them, we thank you for nothing. This is such Church Communion as will well consist with rending and tearing the Church in pieces.  
But I pray do not think that all this while I take it for granted, that 'tis lawful to separate from the Congregations of those Divines whom we take to be in some points Heterodox. Nay upon supposition that your Ecclesia Loquens did as generally departed from the Doctrine of our Church, as the Pharisees in our Saviour's time did from the Law of Moses, I shall be far from granting that Separation from their Congregations is lawful, except there be a constraint laid upon us to subscribe to their Heterodox Opinions, till you can prove that our Saviour allowed of the Jews Separation from the Pharisees; which you never can, but the contrary who cannot show? He bade his Disciples indeed, to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees; and so are we to beware of the Leaven of such Heterodox Teachers; but not so to beware of it, as not to come within their Churches; for that that caution of our Saviour is not to be so interpreted, appears not only from his own practice (who was far from being a Separatist from the Jewish Temple or Synagogues) and by what he saith, Mat. 23. 2, 3.  
In the last Paragraph of your 9th Page, you return to speak more directly to our Author: And first you reflect upon these words in his Book, p. 24. But I am so far from taking it for granted, that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome, that I must needs profess, I have often wondered, how this should become a Question: Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature, as it is not commanded, so neither is it forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law; and where there is no Law there is no Transgression, etc. To this you say, that it is an obvious begging the Question. And it might be so, if our Author stopped here, but he thus proceeds: And whereas certain circumstances will make things, that in themselves are neither Duties nor Sins, to be either Duties or Sins, and to fall by Consequence, under some Divine Command or Prohibition; I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing's being used by the Church of Rome, can be thought to alter the nature of that thing, and make it cease to be indifferent, and become sinful. So that this is the Obvious meaning of our Author's words, that he hath wondered how it should become a Question, whether a Church may lawfully agree in some things with the Church of Rome, which the Law of God hath not forbidden: And whereas some things that are not forbidden by the Law of God directly, are notwithstanding forbidden thereby Consequentially, he hath admired how the mere Circumstance of a thing's being practised by the Church of Rome, can speak it to be forbidden by God's Law Consequentially. And then he immediately betakes himself to the consideration of some of those Laws given to the Israelites, that prohibit their imitating the Do of the Egyptians and Canaanites, which are urged by Nonconformists, to prove it unlawful to imitate the Church of Rome in things of a mere indifferent nature, and that that circumstance of their being practised by that Church makes them cease to be indifferent, and to become Sinful: And endeavours to show, that this cannot with any show of reason be gathered from these Laws.  
And how, I pray, is this an Obvious begging of the Question? which is, Whether a Church's symbolising, or agreeing in some things, with the Church of Rome, be a warrant for separatian from the Church so agreeing? This, I say, is the Question which our Author handles.  
But you next make a Question for him, and say it is this, 
* p. 10.  Whether a thing in its own nature indifferent, be still indifferent as to Christians use in God's worship, when it hath been once used in Idolatrous Services; if the use of it be neither Naturally necessary to the worship of God, as it is an humane Act, nor suitable to the Ends of it, nor such without which it cannot in common judgement be decently performed? But our Author much more wonders, how this should become a Question, than how that of his own propounding should. For  
First, There are three apparent Contradictions in it. It being a contradiction to say concerning the same thing, that it is in its own nature indifferent, and yet naturally necessary to the Worship of God, as it is an humane Act. It being so too, to say of the same thing, that 'tis in its own nature indifferent, and yet unsuitable to the Ends of Divine Worship. It being a contradiction again, to say of the same thing, that 'tis in its own nature indifferent, and yet such as without which the Worship of God cannot in common judgement be decently performed. For you must mean by things in their own nature indifferent, things that are so in Divine Worship: for otherwise, you trifle egregiously in putting this Question, or make your Nonconformists so to do, for whom you put it. But you abuse them, if you do so; for that which divers of them do assert, and which occasioned our Author's Resolution of the Case of Symbolising, etc. is this; That things which might otherwise be lawfully used in the Worship of God, do become unlawful, by their having been abused in Idolatrous or Superstitious Services. And some of them do understand this in a more limited and restrained sense (as our Author hath showed) than others of them do.  
Secondly, as this Question is put, you are sure to have no Adversaries. For who ever doubted whether a thing be unlawful in the Worship of God, that is unsuitable to the Ends thereof, whether this thing hath been abused or no in Idolatrous Services?  
Now, having thus strangely put the Question, you proceed to show that from thence will follow several things, as things out of controversy betwixt us. And I perceive you are very cautious herein of reviving a certain Old controversy among yourselves, viz. Whether our Old Churches, Bells and Fonts, etc. may still be used. For you thus word your third particular wherein we are agreed, viz. That things of mere conveniency for a Religious Action, for the Service of the Ends of it may be used, though Idolaters have used the like (you are shy, I perceive, of saying the same) so as none scruple the using of Churches to meet in, etc. You say not, none scruple the using of the Old Churches which were built by Papists.  
In your next Page, you tell our Author, that you think that, 
* p. 11.  Zanchy's Rule is at least Safest, and that he knows that, in dubiis animae tutior pars est eligenda. But I think you might have Englisht it better than thus, in matters of Sin, the Safest part is always to be preferred. For in matters of Sin, or sinful matters, in my silly judgement, there is no safest part to be preferred.  
Next you positively assert, that in matters of Divine Worship, if the things used by Idolaters be not necessary, both the abuse and the use also aught to be abolished. And you say, you cannot understand what else is the meaning of the Apostle in that his Application of the words found, Psal. 24. 1. in 1 Cor 10. 28. viz. If any man say unto you, this is offered in Sacrifice unto Idols; Eat not, for his sake that shown it, and for Conscience sake: For the Earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof, etc. That is (you say) you shall not need to starve, though you do not eat of that meat, etc. To this I answer, that our Author hath freely acknowledged, pag. 36. That all things of an indifferent nature, that have formerly been abused to Idolatry, or Superstition, aught to be taken away by the Governors, whensoever they find their People inclined again so to abuse them: At least, if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by other means. But our Author utterly denies, that those Rites which our Church retaineth, that have been abused, and are still, by the Church of Rome, have been observed to be any temptation to Idolatry, or to the embracing of Popery. And therefore there is (upon this supposition) no Argument to be drawn from that Text, against the Sinfulness of using those Rites: because the Apostle there forbids the Strong Christian the eating of that meat, which a Weak Christian shall inform him, was a portion of an Idol-sacrifice, for this reason, lest he be confirmed in, or betrayed to, the sin of Idolatry by his example, not rightly understood by him. And consequently this Christian is supposed to be such a weak one, as would be in danger of making this ill use of his Example; as being but lately converted from Paganism, and not yet sufficiently instructed in the precepts of Christianity. It is manifest from the immediately following verse, that the Apostle forbiddeth the eating of meat offered to Idols upon this sole account: For saying in the former verse, Eat not for his sake that shown it, and for Conscience sake, he adds in the latter, that he means not that he should forbear for the sake of his own Conscience, but only for the sake of the others Conscience. If therefore you can prove that these Rites of our Church are Temptations to any of its Members to go over to the Romish Church, or to commit Idolatry still continuing therein, you shall be so far from being opposed by our Author, that he'll hearty join with you in endeavouring by all lawful means to have them abolished; on supposition that the Temptation cannot otherwise be taken away. But I desire you, by the way, to take notice, that it is not the Design of his Book (which you could not but see, though you would seem not to see it) to plead for the continuance of these Rites (as innocent and harmless things at least as he takes them to be) but only to persuade Dissenters not to separate from our Church upon the account of such things; and to show that their having been abused is no just ground for Separation. And, having minded you of this, I shall not need to tell you, that the other Old-Testament Text, which you have added to those which he hath replied to, is alleged very impertinently: which yet we'll bestow two or three words in answer to.  
But first let us see what you reply to what he saith to these Texts. You say, 
* p. 12.  you cannot possibly get leave of yourself (considering under what terms of Divine Abhorrence God every where mentioneth Idolatry in Holy writ, etc.) to be of the mind of our Author, that the Texts, Leu. 19 2. Deut. 14. 1. Leu. 19 19 are merely to be understood of things in themselves evil. Nor, by the way, is our Author of that mind, for he acknowledgeth, pag. 27. that the things forbidden in the last of these places are things of so indifferent a nature, that none can be more indifferent. But, he asks, where it is said, that these things were forbidden, because the Heathens used them? And he addeth, that though Maimonides saith, that the Egyptians used these Mixtures of Seeds, and of Linen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits, yet 'tis universally acknowledged, that these things, among many others, were forbidden to the Jews, as Mystical instructions in Moral duties. But to this you are perfectly silent. But why cannot you be of our Author's mind, as to the two other Texts? You say, The following part of the Chap. Leu. 18. gives some colour to interpret that place of things morally evil; yet, why are they forbidden under the notion of things done, after the do of the Egyptians and the Canaanites? I answer, because they were the do of those people, whom they were exceedingly prone to imitate, even their greatest Immoralities: And this is a sufficient Answer. Then you tell us, Nor is Deut. 14. 1. or Leu. 19 8. capable of such a sense. But our Author saith not a word of Leu. 19 8. for 'tis verse the 19th that he speaks to, and (as hath been said already) he never saith that in this place the things forbidden are morally evil, but the contrary. But as to those things forbidden in Deut. 14. 1. he showeth that they are morally evil, nor is your bare saying, that that place is not capable of such a sense, a confutation of him.  
And now we come to the Text, which you desire your Author to consider, in these words. 
* p. 12.  But because our Author tells us, he can find no other Texts, that make more, if so much, for this purpose, I shall desire you, Sir, but to consider Hos. 2. 16, 17. And it shall be at that day saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi, and shalt call me no more Baali. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth; and they shall no more be remembered by their name. Now upon this Text you say, That Baali was a very good name; if we consider it in its self what doth it signify more than my Lord? Adonai is of the same signification, by which name it was never unlawful to call God: But because the Idol was called Baal, God abhorred it; though he allowed himself to be called by another name of the same significancy. Nor will I believe our Author himself owns that it was lawful for the Jews, to apply themselves to God under the name of Baali. Now because you lay so much weight upon this Text, you shall have the fuller Answer. And,  
1. I say that God doth not in the former verse give the Jews a Prohibition no more to call him Baali, but makes them a gracious Promise that they shall not. 'Tis plain by what goes before, that the words are a Promise, viz. by the two foregoing verses: wherein God promiseth them to cease from plaguing them for their Idolatry, (that is, upon their true Repentance) and to give them again happy days. And then he saith, Thou shalt call me Ishi, and shalt call me no more Baali. That is, thou shalt call me no more by a name of Fear as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was, but by a name of Love as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, this signifying Sponsus Benignus, but that, Durus & imperiosus Maritus, or Dominus, such as Baal was to his Worshippers; as the Critics will tell you. Which is as much as to say, there shall no more be an occasion given you from my severe usage of you, to call me by a name that signifies, a harsh Lord, or he would not be to them like such a Lord as Baal was, but he would show them the kindness of a tenderly loving Husband, for the time to come.  
2. It is manifest that God's meaning was not, that they should never use that word Baal, because Idolaters used it, and an Idol was called by that name; for than they might not use the name Jah neither, because the Heathens used the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nor would God have called himself by the name of Baal, as you will find he does, Isa. 54. 5. if you consult your Hebrew Bible, as that word signifies no more than Husband.  
3. Whereas it follows in the next verse, For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth; and they shall no more be remembered by their name. The following Critics do give such a sense of them as will not in the least favour your purpose. This is Liveleius', In the renovation of the Church, Idolatry shall be abolished. Calvin's is, I will cause my people to cast away all their Lies, and to be content with the pure Doctrine of my Law. The Exposition of Vatablus is this, By Baalim God understands the various Images of Baal, which had various names according to the places wherein they were erected; as there were many Jupiter's among the Heathens. And whereas you say, because the Idol was called Baal, God abhorred that name, I must needs tell you, that to think God can abhor a good name merely because of its having been given to an Idol, speaks a childish notion and opinion of that Infinitely perfect Being.  
But after all this, let us suppose that God here forbade the Jews to call himself for the future by the name of Baal; this will not in the least affect our Author; for if it were so, it could be only upon the account of their vehement inclination to the worship of the Idol Baal; and therefore they might not take his name into their mouths, that so they might not be tempted, by using it, to worship him again: But our Author hath said enough to convince you, that there is not the least appearance of an Argument to be fetched from hence, against the lawfulness of our Ceremonies; or to prove, that since they were used without any Idolatry or Superstition by the Ancient Fathers, before they were abused by the Apostate Church of Rome, they may not return to their first use, the Idolatry and Superstition being perfectly removed: and moreover, no danger arising from the using of them, to the Members of our Church, of returning to Popery.  
But in your 
* p. 13.  next Page, you find fault with our Author for asserting, as he doth in his 28th Page; That there is no such inclination in the Members of our Church, to go over to that of Rome (nor hath any such inclination been observed, ever since the Reformation) as was in the Jews, to the Superstitious and Idolatrous practices of the Heathens. But need I show you the impertinency of your Answer to this passage? which is this, that the people now are more devoutly inclined, I very much doubt; I am sure they had much more reason than than now, to be averse to it; having more miraculous Operations and extraordinary appearances of God to them, than we can pretend to. And I am sure the hearts of all are by nature now, as bad as then. But,  
1. Doth it argue that our people are more devoutly inclined, than the Jews were, because they are not so inclined to Idolatry? Men that have nothing of Devotion in their tempers, may have no inclination at all to some certain Vices. But I need only to ask you, whether the Turks be a devouter sort of people than the Jews than were, or whether the Jews be more devout now, than they were then? because (as every body knows) they both have at present not only no inclination, but the greatest abhorrence to Idolatry, and so have had for many ages.  
2. What if the Jews had more miraculous Operations among them, etc. doth it thence follow, that we must therefore be necessarily as much inclined to Idolatry, as they were? why then are not the Turks as much inclined, or the present Jews, who have no more Miraculous Operations among them, than we have among us?  
3. What though our hearts be as bad by nature, as the hearts of the Ancient Jews were, must we needs be therefore as much inclined to Idolatry as they were? Why then, I ask again, are not the hearts of the Turks and Modern Jews as much inclined thereunto? And yet I fear the hearts of each of these are no better by nature, than theirs were. But I am almost ashamed to make any reply to such talk as this. And how, Sir, is it, that you can persuade yourself thus to object, against so plain a matter of fact, as no one can be plainer, or more indisputable?  
But in what follows, you suppose that we have a greater antipathy to Popery now, than we had formerly, though you do not grant it; and then add, that if so, you fear the Irish Rebellion, and the Fire of London and other places, have more contributed to it, than people's natural inclinations to true Worship; or aversion from Idolatry. Well, let the cause thereof be what it will, if we have a greater Antipathy, that's as much as our Author asserted: He did not assign the Cause of it.  
But, I pray, did you observe any greater inclination to Popery before the Fire of London, than you now observe? Or before the Irish Rebellion either, if you are so old as to be able so early to make Observations? I may ask too, what hath made the so often mentioned Turks or Modern Jews to be so exceedingly averse to Idolatry, that the Irish Rebellion, and Fire of London must needs make us so, and nothing else?  
By this time, I hope you need not to be told the reason, which you say you understand not, why there is not a necessity, for the keeping as wide a distance between Protestants and Papists, as God appointed should be kept between the Jews, and the Egyptians. Though I will lay you a wager, you cannot prove that there is not as great a distance in Rites and Ceremonies between our Church and the Church of Rome, as there was by Divine Appointment between the Jews and the Egyptians. And I'll lay you another, that there is a greater than was by Divine Approbation between the Jews and divers of the Heathen Nations.  
The next Page, viz. the 14th, containeth nothing but what hath been already fully answered; or what is so trifling as not to deserve the least consideration.  
In your 15th Page, you say that our Author cannot but know that Calvin, P. Martyr, and Zanchy, and others of our Famous first Reformers, have said much more against the retaining unnecessary things abused to Idolatry, than he can bring to testify any of their Approbation of them. But, in the mean time, I perceive you are very willing to have it thought, that Mr. Calvin made no bones of contradicting himself; though we beg your pardon for not believing it, till you are pleased to cite those passages wherein he doth so. Methinks you might have favoured us with one at least, in opposition to those many our Author hath cited. But why should you be so altogether silent too, in the quoting of your other Authors? But if you had been never so copious herein, except you could have brought them in pleading for the Lawfulness of Separation upon the account of the Rites retained in our Church, which are abused by the Papists, you cannot but be ware that all your Quotations had been nothing to the purpose of confuting our Author. But you are so far from being able to do this, that you cannot find them so much as pleading against the Lawfulness of Ministerial Conformity. But, on the other hand, I presume you need not be told, that divers of them have declared their Judgements for it: Nor that Zanchy particularly, at the same time endeavoured to persuade Queen Elizabeth to moderate the urging of Ceremonies, and to persuade the Ministers not to stand it out against her Majesty's pleasure, if she could not be prevailed with. And this he saith he did by the advice of his Prince, and many Ministers.  
You proceed to tell us, That our Famous Reformers by the Spirit of Prophecy have lamented the probable future state (you should have said the certain future state, if they were acted by the Spirit of Prophecy) of those Churches, that have retained any Nest Eggs belonging to those Old Birds. What Religion is come to the Saxon, and divers other Lutheran Churches, we need not tell our Author; what is coming among us, time will show. But no considerative man needs to be told, Sir, that if we should be so miserable as to have Popery again prevail in this Kingdom, we are not to thank our Liturgy, or our Rites and Ceremonies for it, as the true cause thereof, but our as Unreasonable as  Divisions, and our being crumbled into so many Sects and Parties, which have extremely weakened our Church; which, were she as a City united within herself, would still be, no doubt, as impregnable a Bulwark against the Assaults of the Romanists as she hath (God be thanked) hitherto been. And for this reason alone, though these Divisions tended to no other Mischief (as several other great and lamentable ones are produced by them) I would not for all the world fall under the guilt of having contributed to them, by instilling such prejudices into the minds of people as might cause them to withdraw from the Communion of our Church, and embody themselves in separate Congregations.  
Page 15. You next reply to what our Author saith in reference to Hezekiah's breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent, in his 35th Page. And whereas he saith,  
1. That it was not only a thing defiled in Idolatrous Services, but was made an Idol itself. You reply, but no more than the Cross, or the Picture of the Virgin Mary, is at this day made by the Papists. I answer, do you show, if you can, what Papists have made an Idol of an Aerial Sign of the Cross. And as to the Picture of the Virgin Mary, is that one of our Ceremonies?  
2. Our Author saith that the Brazen Serpent was at that time actually used as an Idol. You reply, So is the Cross by the Papists. But is this an Answer? You know the only pertinent Answer would have been, that it is made use of as an Idol by Church of England-men, as the Brazen Serpent was by Jews. But this is so far from being true, that there is no Cross used among us, that was ever made an Idol, or Object of Worship, by the Papists.  
3. Our Author saith, That the Jews were generally lapsed into this Idolatry. You reply, so are the Papists universally. But if you would speak to the purpose, you should have said, and proved, that so are Church of England-men, either universally or generally.  
4. Our Author saith, that there was little hope of reclaiming the Jews any other way. You say, there is as little hope of reclaiming the Papists from their Idolatry of the Cross. But I will not a third time repeat the same Answer. Only I will ask whether there be any hope of reclaiming the Papists from their Idolatry by our laying aside our Ceremonies?  
5. Our Author saith, that although the Brazen Serpent had been a thing only defiled in Idolatrous Services, yet we freely grant, that it ought to have been destroyed, or removed out of the people's sight, if the continuance of it in their view were like to be a snare to them, and a temptation to Idolatry. You reply, may not the like be said of what Dissenters plead against? But you have been already told, that the like may not be said, with any colour or show of reason.  
6. Our Author saith. That if Hezekiah had let it stand, private persons might have made use of it, to put them in mind of the wonderful mercy of God, expressed by it to their Forefathers. This you acknowledge, but say, that the Question at present under our debate is, whether Hezekiah might lawfully have let it stand, and removed it into the Temple? whether his setting it up by the Ark, or Mercy Seat would have purged it? But for shame, Sir, do not say that this is the Question in debate between us.  
In your 16th Page, you express very great offence, at those next words of our Author, pag. 36. And much more might they have lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church, so long as there was no constraint laid upon them, to join with them in their Idolatry. But you leave out what follows, viz. as we do not read of any that separated from the Church, while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand, as woefully abused, as it was, by the Generality. And do you find that the pious Jews did separate upon this account? Or if they did not, will you say that they were guilty of Sin? For my part, I dare not say so; nor that it would be a sin now, not to separate from our Church, though our Governors were so remiss as not to Excommunicate Idolaters, if such were found therein; any more than it is so, upon the account of Promiscuous Congregations, and Mixed Communions: As the Worthy person that published the Resolution of that case, hath clearly proved, and proved too that it is Unlawful to separate upon that pretence. But you say, you can never believe this, till some can prove to you, that a Wife may lawfully, contrary to the command of her Husband, stay in a Family of Whoremongers, provided that she be not compelled to play the Whore. I answer, that a Wife may not lawfully, though her Husband hath not expressly forbidden it, stay in a Family consisting wholly of Whoremongers, except to bear her Husband company, and in that case it is her duty to stay. But where hath Christ forbidden us to Communicate with a Church out of which Idolaters are not ejected, though Idolatry be not enjoined. You say he hath done it in those words, Rev. 18. 4. — Come out of her my people, but I pray read on, and you have an answer, that ye be not partaker of her sins, and that ye receive not (viz. by partaking of her sins) of her plagues? And moreover, I presume you will acknowledge, that the Babylon which the Christians were commanded to come out of, is the Idolatrous Church of Rome: But I need not acquaint you, that you cannot continue in this Church, except you will yourself also be an Idolater.  
But I will not stand to dispute this point with you, it being nothing to the business of our Author's Book; and all he asserts as to this matter, doth amount to no more than this, That we are not obliged to renounce Communion in pure Ordinances, with such as we know to be guilty of Idolatry, when it lies not in our power to keep them away.  
And now you have brought me to our Author's Third Head of Discourse, viz. That the Agreement which is between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, is in no wise such, as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful.  
You say, Page 17th, That if our Author had said all Communion, (viz. with the Church of England) is not unlawful, you had fully concurred with him; believing that this Church cannot be justly charged with Idolatry, and that some Communion may, and aught to be held with any Church that is not so charged. If you mean by some Communion, a not being divided in heart, as you before express it, I say again, we thank you for nothing; the Communion which our Author pleads for, being (as yourself observes in your first Page.) chief Communion in Worship. But you proceed, saying, but as he hath laid it, I cannot agree with it. I am sure Christ had Communion with the Jewish Church, and I believe he had so, in all acts of worship of his Father's Institution, and I am as sure he had no Communion with them in the Traditional part of their worship, as I am, that he would not himself practise, what he condemned so severely. But are you not as sure that our Blessed Lord had Communion with the Jewish Church, in all acts of worship instituted by his Father, as you are that he had no Communion with them in the Traditional part of their Worship? I am sure, that in the former part of that saying you are too too cautious, and in the latter not so cautious as you ought to have been: For you may be sure of the contrary to what you affirm so positively, when you have considered, that our Lord could not have so freely been admitted into the Temple, had he not observed divers Traditions or Canons of the Elders, without complying with which none might come thither. I shall not stand to instance in particulars, but refer you to Dr. Leightfoot's Temple Service, pag. 115. to 120. And again, you may yet be more sure of the contrary, when you have considered, how our Lord complied with Jewish Traditions, in the celebration of the Passover; and such too as altered certain circumstances prescribed in its First Institution. Particularly, his ordering the Preparation of the Lamb on the 14th day, when Moses ordained the taking of it up upon the 10th day. His eating the Passover lying along, being the posture in which they eaten their ordinary Meals, according to a Jewish Tradition, as you may see in Dr. Leightfoot's foresaid Book, pag. 143, 144. whereas, according to Moses his Institution, it was to be eaten with their Loins girded, etc. and in haste, or standing. His complying with the Jewish customs of drinking Wine at the Passover, and concluding with the Hallel, or a Hymn. And not these only but more Traditions than these, Dr. Leightfoot will satisfy you, were conformed to by our Blessed Saviour.  
But you say Christ condemned severely the Jewish Traditions: But I say, he did not at all condemn all Jewish Traditions, and none but such as by which they made the Commandments of God of none effect: And such as they placed special Holiness in, and necessary to acceptance with God; as is too evident to need my standing to prove it. And, Sir, when you can prove that our Ceremonies are like to those condemned Traditions, I will undertake that our Author shall be as zealous against complying with them, as he is now against separation from our Church upon the account of them.  
But to go on, whereas our Author saith, of Episcopal Government and the three other following things, pag. 38. That he takes it for granted that there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them, to make them Unlawful; and therefore that they are indifferent in their own nature. You reply, pag. 18. That there are few things to be named unlawful in this sense. I answer, there are as many things unlawful in this sense, as there are things prohibited by the Moral Law, and if you please to consult our Expositors of the Decalogue, I presume you'll find those things not a few.  
You say at the bottom of this 18th Page, That it troubles you to read your Author saying, I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day, while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholic Church, etc. And why, I pray, Sir, doth this trouble you? You give this reason why, viz. Because certainly, for the Apostolical practice in the Observation of the Lord's day, we have the infallible evidence of Holy Scripture, Acts 20. 1 Cor. 16. But you must prove that we have in those Scriptures, or some other, infallible evidence for the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day, and not for the mere Apostolical practice, or you will say nothing to the purpose. But to save myself the labour of saying more upon this Argument, and of replying to those few lines that follow against the Primitiveness of our Episcopacy, I entreat you to consult Mr. Chillingworth's Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy demonstrated, together with the most Learned Dean of Saint Paul's his Ample Proof of these two Propositions, in his unreasonableness of Separation, p. 244, etc. viz. First, that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church. And Secondly, That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ, nor devising a new species of Churches without God's Authority.  
As to what you say, p. 19 about Liturgies, viz. that they cannot be indifferent, if indeed (as our Author speaks) they be highly expedient to be universally imposed, yea necessary. I reply, you have not caught him in a Contradiction, as you think; for his saying concerning Liturgies, etc. pag. 38. is, That he takes it for granted, that they are all indifferent in their own nature. And tells you what he means by those words, in the next; viz. that there is nothing of viciousness or immorality in any of them, etc. Now is it a contradiction to say of the same thing, that it is indifferent in its own nature, and that 'tis necessary considering certain circumstances? And I farther say, that Liturgies are necessary, considering, that through humane Weakness and Frailty, the performance of public worship with that Solemnity and Gravity, which it calls for, cannot be secured; and yet notwithstanding they are still things in their own nature indifferent; and so are all those things too which God 's Positive Laws have made necessary; as all know who understand the difference between Moral and Positive.  
But as to the Antiquity of Liturgies, which you say our Author knoweth to be denied, you have had a good while extant that Discourse which he said was expected, and which you say you will patiently wait for, to give you satisfaction, about this matter. And it is excellently fitted (as I hope you have before now found) not only for the satisfying of Dissenters about that point relating to Liturgies, but divers others also.  
In your next Paragraph, you tell us, that all Divines will readily acknowledge, that such a Method and Order of a Liturgy, as is not contrived in Subserviency to the 3 General Rules, of Doing all to Edification, the Glory of God, and not giving offence to any of the Churches of God, may make it unlawful. And I also do readily acknowledge this, and am confident that you cannot prove, that Ours is not so contrived as to be made not Subservient unto those Rules. And as to the last of them, whatsoever Churches please to take offence at our Liturgy, I am sure it gives no offence to them.  
In what follows you profess, that you never thought it unlawful for any Laic, wholly to separate from the Church of England, because of our Liturgy (and I hope you think it no more Lawful for a Clergyman) nor did yourself ever so separate. But for all that, you know that many hundreds and I fear some thousands do. But you say, there is a new Generation started up, that not only makes you a Separatist, but all Conformable Ministers, if they do not every time read the Second Service at the Altar. This in good earnest, is somewhat a hard Case; but I pray Sir, by what figure do you call one Startup Warm Head a new Generation?  
In your next Paragraph, pag. 20. You say, Our Author hath spied four little Thorns in some Dissenters Flesh, which he hath very charitably endeavoured to pick out. And you add, that you will candidly inquire if no bit of them remain which may cause pain, and hinder healing. To make no reflection, Sir, upon your expressing yourself thus phancifully, your meaning must be, that you will inquire whether our Author hath not well defended the four things in our Liturgy, which Dissenters object against as symbolizing with the Roman Service, from being liable to just Offence: Of which,  
The First is, The shortness of many Prayers. But you say not one word in answer to what he speaks in the Vindication thereof: But tell us, that if some Dissenters think that throughout the Scriptures there is nothing like this to be found, either in the Prayers of Solomon, etc. or any others, and be a little stumbled at it, you cannot condemn them: But you must needs condemn it as an error in them, to think there are no short Prayers to be found in the Holy Scriptures, when there are many more short, than there are long Prayers: When our Saviour used in the Garden thrice, a shorter Prayer than is any one in our Service: And when the Form he left behind him for our use is a very short one. But if the using of a short Prayer be not the thing blamed, but the using of several such in the same Service, instead of one very long one, I must take leave to say, this is mere Wantonness. And whereas you say, you cannot condemn Dissenters, if they be a little stumbled at it; I say, to be stumbled at it so, as to make it one pretence for not joining with us in our Prayers, is not to be a little stumbled at it. And you know that that which our Author is concerned to do is, to persuade Dissenters not to be so much stumbled at any thing in our Prayers, as to leave our Communion upon the account thereof. Though he would be very glad to have them so well pleased with all of them, as not to be in the least stumbled at any of them.  
The Second instance is, The People's bearing a part with the Minister in Divine Service. And whereas our Author hath thought it enough to transcribe what Mr. Baxter hath said in five particulars, to vindicate both the Lawfulness and Fitness hereof; you reply not one word to any of them. But you think you have balanced (as your word is) those five with five of your own. 1. You say, These Responses do not suit the gravity and solemnity of Divine Worship. But we say they do; and our yea is as good as your nay. 2. You say, many read false oftentimes. And whose fault is it, if they do? But it appears from what is coming, that you cannot prove it. 3. You say, Many Children and Girls, understand not what they do. And therefore why do you permit them to join in Singing? And why do you suffer them to hear Sermons? 4. Those that cannot read, you say, are not edified in a confused noise, not being able to understand what is read. And then I hope you might have spared your second particular; for those that read falsely cannot then be observed so to do in this confused noise. 5. You say, Many lewd and profane persons, are thus made to bear their share in the Ministerial part of Public Worship, etc. But do you prove that this is bearing a share in that part of Public Worship which is proper and peculiar to the Minister; and then we will grant that not only no profane men, but no Laymen neither, be they never so good, may have their part therein. 6. You say, There is no such practice in the Churches of God, in New England, Scotland, France, Holland, etc. Do you think that our Author hath taken the Solemn League and Covenant, that you urge such an Argument as this to him? If you do, you are much mistaken, Sir. But Mr. Baxter tells you, in his fifth particular, That it was the decay of zeal in the people that first shut out the Responses: And therefore those Churches you mention should do well to imitate ours in this particular. I am constrained, Sir, to tell you again, that I am ashamed of taking any notice of such talk as this.  
The Third instance is, The taking of some of the Collects out of the Missal. You say you wish our Author had told us how many. But I say, 'tis not worth the knowing (if it were I could soon tell you) if those that are taken thence are all good ones. And (considering what hath been said) this is a sufficient Answer. Remember our Author hath told you, that our Departure from the Church of Rome, was designed to be a Reformation, not a total Destruction and Extirpation. And I suppose the zeal of some Reformers that hurried them upon making no discrimination between things faulty, and those that were innocent, occasioned that honest saying of Zanchy's, which I have heretofore somewhere met with, viz. Non intelligo istam Reformatorum Mundi Theologiam.  
As to that which follows to the last Paragraph of pag. 23 d. Enough abundantly hath already been said to satisfy you that you might have spared it. Only let me once for all tell you, that whereas both here and elsewhere, you insist upon our being at perfect liberty as to the using or not using those unnecessary things, wherein we symbolise with the Church of Rome; you ought to know that while they are Enjoined, we who are under Government are not at liberty; as the Christians in the Apostles days were, as to the Eating of Meats, etc. And whereas you touch here upon the topic of Scandal, I can not hope to satisfy you about this Point; if the two late judicious Resolutions of that Case cannot do it: To which I refer you, and aught so to do, it not falling within our Author's Undertaking.  
The Fourth instance is, The Appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books. And what you say under this head, amounts to thus much, that you think it were better if they were not appointed. And therefore I perceive you are not for making this a Pretence for Separation, and Consequently you can have no controversy with our Author about it. Whether it were better or not, that we should imitate the Primitive Church in reading them now and then on holidays and ordinary Weekdays, merely for Example of life, and instruction of Manners, but not for the Establishing of any Doctrine, let it be left to our Superiors to judge. But though you have a greater latitude than many other Dissenters, as to this matter, yet you say that all should not be forced out of their wits, nor made to do what, they cannot, as well as you, apprehend lawful. No, God forbidden, that any one should be forced out of his wits upon such an account. But whom can you name that hath had the least trouble given him, for not being at Church on a Weekday Holiday?  
But I must take notice of one more passage, before I proceed, viz. holidays are the same with Sabbath-days, with those who judge that there is nothing but Tradition for either. Here is a good Wipe for our Author. But I pray, Sir, did he say that there is nothing but Tradition for the Observation of the Sabbath? He said that indeed, pag. 40th, from whence it may be inferred, that he believes that the Apostolical institution of the Observation of the Lord's day, is wholly to be gathered from the uninterrupted Tradition or Practice of the Catholic Church; and is that such a small matter to found it upon? When 'tis the foundation on which is built the Canon of the Holy Scriptures. But who are they that tell you, that from the Uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholic Church may be gathered the Apostolical institution of the Other holidays? Name any one if you are able that so saith, or that saith that they are of Apostolical institution.  
Now we are come to those particular Rites and Ceremonies of our Church, in which our Author saith, pag. 45. Our symbolising with Popery is so much condemned. And you say, pag. 24th. that he observeth in the general,  
1. That our Ceremonies are not the hundredth part (you should have added scarcely) of those used by the Papists. And this you grant; but you add, that we may as well Symbolise in thirty as in three. But I must make bold to tell you, you never uttered a more inconsiderative saying. It seems then, 'tis no matter how many Ceremonies are used in Divine Worship, so they be all innocent. I am sure St. Augustin was not of this mind. But it may be you'll say there are none innocent. But if so, you cannot say that we may as well use thirty as three: Because the thirty must necessarily be a great hindrance to that attention of mind that Divine Worship calls for; but he must have a Weak head indeed, whose mind must needs be diverted by three.  
2. Our Author saith, that our Church imposeth them not, as the other doth, on the Consciences of her Members, as things of Necessity, as parts of Religion or meritorious Services. And you need not one word more of Answer to what you object against this than you have had already given you, viz. pag. 6.  
In your 25th. page, you begin, as our Author does, with the Ceremony of the Surplice; and  
1. You say, he rightly observeth that all are not obliged to wear it. And this is sagaciously indeed observed by him, if he does observe it; but he only saith, that he cannot imagine why those who are not obliged to wear it, should be affrighted from our Churches, by the mere sight of so innocent a thing, as he before had proved it to be, as it is used in our Church; but shown it is far from being an innocent thing, as it is used in the Church of Rome.  
2. You say, that you are not scandalised at the sight of it. But for all that, you know that not a few Dissenters do profess to be so.  
3. You say, that you are not sure, that they use a Garment of the same form in the Church of Rome; though they use some Garment of the same Colour; so that you doubt, whether in that we do symbolise with the Church of Rome or no. I was in good hope when I had read thus far, that there would have been no Controversy between you and our Author about this Ceremony. But I presently found myself mistaken; for  
4. You make us notwithstanding faultily to symbolise with the Church of Rome, in that we will not suffer this Garment to be worn but in Acts of Worship. So that, you say, it is neither merely for necessity, nor natural decency, nor Ornament, nor for distinction. But I say that this Garment is required, both for Ornament and Distinction. You say it is not required for either, because all Ministers wear it not at other times. But I deny your Consequence; for it is required as an Ornamental Garment in Divine Worship, and for distinction between a Minister officiating and not officiating. You may as well say that for the same reason, the Judges Scarlet is neither for Ornament nor Distinction. And seeing it is such an Offence that this Garment should be appropriated to Divine Worship, I desire you, Sir, at your Leisure to answer our Famous Hooker's Question, viz. To solemn Actions of Royalty and 
Eccl. pol. Book 5th. p. 228. Last Edit.  Justice, their suitable Ornaments are a Beauty; are they only in Religion a Stain? Time was when putting on a Gown merely for the Desk and Pulpit was accounted no Offence by Nonconforming Ministers, and consequently they did not then espy any Unlawfulness, in appropriating a Garment to Religious exercises. Nor do we place one jot more holiness in a Surplice than in a Gown, or Cloak either. But you say, may not jealousies of some homage by it intended to God, and such thoughts, as those you suggested, arise in weaker Christians? I answer, whether these thoughts may arise in them or no, you take as effectual a course as you can that they should arise in them. And as for Homage intended to God by wearing the Surplice, I don't think any Christians so weak as to fancy such a thing, if you and others would but let them alone, and not fill their heads with objections against innocent things, when you might employ your time with them to infinitely better purpose. I pray, Sir, be not offended if I once for all freely tell you, that by your possessing these weak Christians with all imaginable objections against the Lawfulness of obeying Governors in things which are made by yourselves doubtful to them, and not with one Objection against the Unlawfulness of Disobedience in doubtful matters; is the way to make them everlastingly weak, and to make them worse than weak too. It saddens the hearts of not a few good people to observe, that the fearful consequents of such do have not yet made you sensible whose interest you have all along served, by the means of them.  
You next object three things against the Ceremony of the Cross in Baptism, pag. 26.  
1. You say, it is an adding to the Divine Institution unnecessarily. I answer we add nothing to Divine Institution. I mean we add nothing more to Baptism, or any other Ordinance, as of Divine Institution, than yourselves do. And as to the Vnnecessariness of this Ceremony: if it were necessary it would be no Ceremony, at least not humane one. If you mean there is no necessity of imposing it. It is enough for a Ceremony that it is imposed for good and profitable ends and uses: And our Church tells you for what ends and uses this of the Cross is required, in the 30th Canon. If you mean there is no necessity of using it, now it is imposed: I beg your pardon for being of a contrary opinion, till you prove it to be a Transgression of any law of God: And when you have done this, I will grant that it is necessary not to use it.  
2. You say, we attribute to the sign of the Cross, more than is truly due to it, as the Papists do. But we say, we do not, and shall persist in saying so, till you prove we do.  
3. You say, that to expound Dedicated in the Canon by Declared (you should have said declared to be dedicated) is a Catachrestical use of the word. What care I for that, if the word ought so to be expounded. You say, you will take no private Doctor's word for it, though greater than Dr. Burges. But you cannot otherwise understand that word, except you will make our Church to speak contradictions in that Canon.  
There is nothing you object, or I think can object, against the Ceremony of Kneeling at the Communion, but you may find most satisfactorily answered in the Learned Resolution of the Case of Kneeling, etc. But yet we will not wholly pass by what you say against it. Having called the Declaration of our Church concerning it, an excellent Declaration, pag. 26th, you say, pag. 27th, that it may be it satisfieth you, abstracting your thoughts from the Bread, while you are upon your Knees: And he that cannot, with the greatest ease in the world, abstract his thoughts from the Bread, must be almost starved with fasting. But, it follows, if all cannot be so satisfied, shall they therefore be Ruined for their doubt in this thing? You shall have no new answer to this, besides ask you this Question, if there be any danger of Ruin in this case, who are most charitable to these Doubters, those that do their utmost to satisfy them, that they may not come near the danger, or those that use their utmost endeavours to make all means unsuccessful, that are used for their Satisfaction?  
I must needs take notice also of your pleasant answer to this passage in our Author, pag. 49. viz. That there being nothing said of the Gesture in our Saviour's Institution of this Sacrament, he hath consequently left the particular Gesture to the Determination of the Church; a Gesture being in the general necessary. Your answer is, Our Saviour bade his Disciples Baptise, but saith nothing of Water, nor from what Fountain or River; hath he therefore left it to the Church's determination; that Ministers shall Baptise only with Rose-water, or Water fetched from the River? Truly, Sir, a smile is the best Reply that is due to this. But do you in sober sadness then think, that nothing is left by Christ to the Church's Determination, neither place, nor time, nor any other Circumstance? If this be not wild Fanaticism, there is no such thing in nature; and I know you'll acknowledge it. But if the Church may determine the place of public worship, and the times of day when to meet, because our Lord hath not determined such particulars; why may not the Church determine particular Gestures, when they are not by him determined? And can you think, Sir, that it is well done after this manner to Ridicule the Church's Power? No, I know you cannot think so, and therefore this was an hasty Slip from your Pen, which you will not upon Second thoughts justify.  
You say at the Bottom of this page, That you do not think what our Author mentions, pag. 50. of the Ring in Marriage worth the speaking to: Because Dissenters generally believe the Ring a Civil Pledge, etc. I wish they universally thought so, and if they do not (as time was when you know they did not) I know not why you should add, that How it comes into our debate you cannot tell.  
Next you spend the best part of two pages upon our holidays, which is our Author's last instance of Rites which Dissenters are offended with, upon the account of our Symbolising in them with the Church of Rome. And  
1. You say, That it is God's Prerogative alone to make a day Holy, i. e. such as it shall be sinful for any to labour in. But do you think that God 's Vicegerents have not power given them to set apart days to a holy use? And in any other sense we do not think that any day is capable of being made Holy. 'Tis manifest from what follows, that you do not think so. And if you do not, can you think that our Governors have no power to forbid ordinary Labour upon those days, which they have so set apart? And if they have this power, can you think it lawful to disobey those laws of theirs, that prohibit working on those days? And, if this be not lawful, than I fear 'tis Sinful.  
2. You say, That God's Revelation of his Will for solemn Praises upon the Receipt of Signal Mercies; or solemn Prayers in times of great Distress, justifieth Magistrates, or Churches in setting apart in such Cases, Days for Praise and Prayers. Then, I hope, the Magistrates or the Church, have power to make a day Holy; and Consequently, they may forbid opening of Shops, and Ordinary labour, on such a day: And therefore 'tis sinful to disobey them herein.  
3. You say, That all such days ought to be entirely spent in Religious Exercises. But notwithstanding you are so dogmatical, in this thing, I am Confident upon second thoughts you'll acknowledge you were too rash: For you cannot really think what you assert with such Confidence, except you can find in your heart to reprove Ringing of Bells, and innocent Recreations after Sermon, on the Fifth of November, as Profanations of that Holiday. And I hope we may make bold to call that day a Holiday; it being so according to your own Concession in the foregoing particular.  
4. You say, That to spend an hour of such a Day in Prayer, and all the rest in Idleness, Drinking, Revelling, Gaming, etc. is not to keep a Holy but a Licentious Day. No body doubts this: But are you obliged by our Church so to spend Her holidays? And if you are not, but may keep them as strictly as you please, what a strange objection is this against the lawfulness of observing them!  
5. You say, That there is no need of keeping any such days, in Commemoration of the Birth, Death, Resurrection or Ascension of Christ; because God hath appointed fifty two, every year for that purpose. I answer, if you mean by no need, that there is no absolute necessity of the Churches setting apart days for the Commemoration of Christ 's Birth, Death, etc. we will perhaps grant it; but what then? Doth it thence follow that the well observing such days doth not tend to our Edification, to the more building us up in our holy Faith, and increase in Holiness? you dare not say or think so. But I say farther, that the well observing them is of admirable use. And nothing would tend more to our Growth in all the Christian Virtues, than besides the general Meditation on the Birth, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord every Lord's day, to set days apart for the particular Meditation on Each of these Grand Mysteries of our Religion: There being in each of them more than enough to employ a whole day in admiring thoughts of it, and in praises to God for it, and in making Applications of it to our Spiritual Advantage. And therefore I am certain, you would spend your pains to far better purpose, if instead of prejudicing People's minds against the observance of such days, you would Excite them (like the good Fathers of the Primitive Church) to the well observing, and making the best improvement of them. The generality, God knows, of Professors of Christianity, are too too carelessly and irreligiously disposed of themselves, to need to be dissuaded from the using of any helps to their being made more devout, and better People. And where there is one among us that is apt to be too superstitiously inclined, I fear there are some hundreds, who are more inclined to the other Extreme, that of profaneness. But our Author hath sufficiently showed, that the Popish Superstitions are perfectly removed by our Church from the Observation of holidays. And no man that observes them as our Church directeth, can have the least temptation from the Observance of them to be superstitious.  
6. You say, That to keep a day Holy to any Saint, is to make an Idol of that Saint. And do you think our Church in her Festivals, designs keeping Days holy to Saints? if you do not think so, why are you thus impertinent? But if you do, than you declare that she makes Idols of Saints. And if so, why did you pag. 17th declare it, as your belief, that the Church of England cannot be justly charged with Idolatry? But I think, that the making an Idol of a Saint, is idolatry.  
7. You say, That to keep a Day of Thanksgiving, for blessing the world with such a Saint, is what God hath no where prescribed; what neither the Jews, nor Christians, in the first times ever did. So that it seems you are not so ignorant, as you now seemed to make yourself; but, do know why many of our Festivals receive their names from certain Saints. And why may we not, on certain Days, meet together, to praise God for blessing the world with such Saints, as have been next to our Blessed Lord, the most Glorious instruments of good to the world; and at the same time hear those Chapters read wherein their worthy deeds are recorded; and together with other Prayers put in one, for grace to follow those blessed Examples of a holy Life (of both active and passive Obedience) which they have, through the Divine grace, left behind them? What Sin is there in all this? Nay, why should not this highly become us, and be of singular advantage to us?  
You give two reasons why this is unlawful. 1. Because God hath no where prescribed it. But must we be at this time of day, told that nothing is lawful relating to the Worship of God, but what is expressly commanded; when the Idleness and Folly of that Doctrine, hath been over and over exposed as it hath been? But 2dly you say, That this is that which the Jews, nor Christians in the first times never did. But, if you mean by the First times, the times of the Apostles, 'tis more than you can prove, that the Martyrdom of St. Stephen was never solemnly commemorated by the Christians in their time. And I presume you would not have had the Martyrdoms of the Apostles commemorated, before they were Martyred, what if this be not recorded, is it therefore a certain Argument that it never was? You find not I think the Martyrdom of any one of the Apostles recorded in holy Scripture, except St. James'. But if you mean by the first times, the Primitive times, I perceive you never read, or have forgotten, The Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, concerning Policarp's Martyrdom. But I hope it needs not to be proved to you, that the Catholic Church observed Martyrum Natalitia, the Days whereon they were crowned with Martyrdom, even from the Second Century: But where do you find it prescribed in God's word, or recorded that it was practised in the Apostles times (for to be sure you mean those by the First times) to praise God for the good Examples of Holy men, among other great Blessings, is it therefore unlawful so to do, as well as to do it upon Set Days? You will not assert so absurd a thing. In short, Sir, think not that we need either Precepts or Examples, to justify our doing of that, which the very Light of Nature, and Right Reason, do plainly declare to us, to be, though not a necessary duty, yet highly becoming us, and praiseworthy. And we are certain that it is dictated thereby to be highly becoming us, to commemorate, at Annual Selected times, the unspeakable Goodness of God to us in giving us such Shining Lights as the Holy Apostles, etc. and to meditate upon Christ glorified in them, who with admirable courage first preached and propagated his Gospel in the World, and with admirable Patience, for the sake thereof, endured the greatest of Miseries and Calamities, and at last Sealed it with their Blood.  
8. You say, But if Devout persons will set apart Days, (you might have said too, will observe Days set apart by the Church) to give God thanks for any signal mercies (among which I think, every Apostle is a most signal one) or to put up Prayers for any people in distress, provided they do not mock God, in giving him an holy hour, instead of an holy day, and spend the rest of the day in Idleness, Gaming, Drinking, etc. (And can you think that any of our Devout people, do not abhor such practices as much as you?) Dissenters will never blame, or condemn them for it. I hoped you would have said, they will join with us, since Authority requires it.  
9 You say, Finally Dissenters will never separate from the Church of England, for the true keeping of a day holy to God, etc. Yes surely they will, if it be a Saints day at least, as one would think by what you have said. But you add, that they will separate from the Looseness and commonly practised Profanation of it (and so do thousands of those that are no Dissenters, I hope) or such as were only so, in the Pope's Calendar, as St. George, etc. Now you would, Sir, again feign yourself more ignorant than you are; for, no doubt, you know as well as we, that St. George his day is no Church of England Holiday. And for all your [&c.] you cannot but know too, that Our Church hath no Festival-days called by any Saints names, but such as all Christians own for the Greatest of Saints, except those Innocents' who had the honour to suffer for Christ's sake, before they were of age to know him. We have indeed a Fastday, occasioned by the Horrid Murder of King Charles the Martyr, whom we deservedly honour as a Great Saint. But I never heard that this Saint stands in the Pope's Calendar, and I'll warrant you never shall. We should be glad to hear, that He stands in yours; however we hope He will never be blotted out of ours.  
And now, having done with our Author, you spend a good part of your five last Pages in such discourse, as is so far from tending to the composing of our Differences, and healing our wide and most dangerous Breaches, that it hath the most apparent tendency to the making them irreparable beyond all Remedy. And 'tis enough to convince all sober people, that the cause of those that separate is desperate, to observe what strange principles are taken up of late in the defence of Separation; even such as the Old Non-conformists would have thought very wild ones, serving no better purpose than the Unhinging of all. And those, Sir, which you here lay down so dogmatically not offering any proof of them, you shall find most shamefully baffled by the Dean of St. Paul's, in his forementioned excellent Book.  
For my part, I am too much tryred with Scribbling thus long, to take into consideration this close of your Book, farther than reflecting upon two or three passages; though I am not at all obliged to take notice of those neither, as a Defender of our Author. And indeed (to deal like a  Friend with you) it was but the other day before I could be persuaded to think it needful to Reply at all.  
You say, pag. 31. That Separation in these three Cases is Lawful, if not Necessary.  
Your First case is, When such errors are in the Constitution of a Church, as, if they had been known before, aught to have hindered Union with it. But you do not tell us what Errors those are. Would you have your Readers take it for granted, that there are such Errors in the Constitution of the Church of England? But we may guests at one of those Errors in our Constitution, from that which you say, pag. 30. viz. That Governing Churches must have proper Officers, which cannot be, unless elected by the Governed; who could never part with their Right in choosing Officers, etc. But what Right they have you will soon learn from the Reverend Dean Stillingfleet, in his unreasonableness of Separation, pag. 307, etc. There you will find they have no Right at all, or I am much mistaken. From what you say in these two Pages, and that which follows (in which your discourse is such, that 'tis hard to say certainly what you would be at) I shrewdly conjecture, that you believe it Lawful to separate from the Church of England, although she had neither Ceremonies nor Liturgy to scare men away.  
Your Second case is, When a Church is turned Idolatrous; that then it is necessary to departed from it. And here we have no Controversy.  
Your Third is, When a Church will not admit a man's abiding in it, unless he will do something which his Conscience tells him is sinful. But, Sir, will you not acknowledge, that it cannot justify our Separation that something is required which we judge sinful, whilst we will not impartially use all means for the duly informing of our judgements: whilst we call it a running into Temptation, to read what is offered us in Defence of the Lawfulness of that, we have a prejudice against: Whilst we so confide in our own judgements, or in the judgements of our Party, as not to bear to hear that 'tis possible we should be mistaken? Surely all truly good men will acknowledge this.  
You say, in all these Cases Separating is Lawful, if not Necessary: For in the two first Cases we ought to Separate (And then I hope in those cases it is Necessary and not only Lawful to Separate) in the last we may prudently and warily departed, etc. And why do you so mince the matter, by changing your phrase, when your meaning is that you may Separate? And why do you so mince it too in saying, in the two first Cases we ought to Separate? which supposeth that in this Case you are at your Liberty, and that, though you may lawfully Separate yet it is not a necessary duty so to do. And why again do you say, we judge this no sinful Separation? Why don't you speak out and say 'tis a Necessary one? Except you think that a man may lawfully act against his Conscience. But you have given me sufficient assurance in your Book, that this you do not think.  
You say, pag. 33. If any others in former Ages, or in our own, have had any other apprehensions of the significancy (you would have said signification) of the Terms, Church, Schism and Separation, whom we own to have been Holy and Excellent men, till we see their Notions justified from Holy Writ (which alone can determine these things) we must crave leave to descent from them, and believe that had they lived in our times, they would have dissented from their own Apprehensions under a more perfect light, etc. But  
1. What would you have said to us, if we had given this Answer to your citing Holy and Excellent men, such as Calvin (whom our Author hath so often appealed to in his Book) and others against our Notions? I am sure you would have severely upbraided us with having a wonderful opinion of our own judgements. Especially if our Notions ran counter to all Antiquity, and the Judgements of all Holy Excellent men in former Ages, and to the generality of such in our own Age and Time. But this I dare say may be asserted of your Notions concerning the Terms, Schism and Separation; and much of your talk concerning the Term Church too.  
2. How came you to have more light than the Holy and Excellent men in former Ages, and in our own Age too? which you plainly suppose yourselves to have. Nay you suppose this, as to multitudes of such persons also as are your Contemporaries. For you say, pag. 7. We are far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men, in our Ecclesia Loquens, etc. that is, Among Conformable Divines of the Church of England.  
3. This Answer would far better become the Quakers than you; they pretending to inspiration, which you do not.  
I will now conclude with a Remark or two on those words, with which you begin the concluding part of your Book.  
You say, pag. 29. And now how happy should we not only think ourselves, but indeed be, would our Brethren but leave disputing; how far it is lawful for the Spouse of Christ, to have Communion with the Great Whore; and only argue how far we come short of symbolising with the First and Purest Gospel Churches, of which we have Records in Holy Writ. To this I say  
1. How Unaccountable is this Charge you lay against your Brethren! when you know that they are in as perfect a Separation as yourselves, from the Communion of that Apostate Church, which you mean by the Great WHORE.  
2. It lieth not in your power to show us a Church, which more symbolizeth with the First and Purest Gospel Churches, than the Church of England. And as for those Churches which you believe do come nearer to the First and Purest, it hath often enough been demonstrated with invincible strength, that the main thing (viz. the point of Government) in which you conceive they more agree with these Churches, doth speak them far less to agree with them, than the Church of England does: And speaks them to be therein unlike to the whole Catholic Church of Christ for fifteen hundred years together, from the time of the Apostles.  
We do not pretend that the Constitution of our Church is absolutely perfect, we do believe that such a Constitution is the peculiar privilege of the Church Triumphant; but we bless God that 'tis no more imperfect, and we who live in complete Communion with this Church are well assured that there is nothing either in the Constitution thereof, or in what is required thereby, that hindereth us from being as good Christians as ever were in the world. We cannot find after all the pains that you and others have taken to prove the contrary, that there is imposed upon us any one condition of Communion that does contradict any Law of God; that tends in the least to the depraving of our Souls, to the gratifying of any one corrupt Affection, or the making us unmeet for the Heavenly Happiness. And this our Holy Martyrs thought as well as we: And gave a Demonstration hereof by their Excellent Lives, and Heroic Behaviour under the greatest Torments; they not only patiently but also joyfully enduring them for the sake of Christ. Nor do we find, any more than they did, that we are debarred by our Church of any Helps for the building of us up in our most holy faith. And whereas you express such mighty zeal for Purer Ordinances, we think that zeal would be much better employed in endeavouring after Purer Hearts: And that this contending with your Superiors, and your Brethren about some things enjoined, hath been infinitely more prejudicial to men's Souls, and contributed unspeakably more to the impurity both of men's hearts and lives, than the impure Ordinances you so complain of. And therefore all good and pious Church of England men cannot but say, How happy should we not only think ourselves, but indeed be, would our Brethren but leave disputing with such mighty concern about little things, and things that are perfectly harmless and innocent: Would make no more Sins, than God and their Blessed Saviour have made: Would be as fearful of culpably Disobeying Authority as of culpably Obeying it: Would be as thankful that they are in no worse Circumstances, as they are full of Complaints that they are in no better: Would take as much pains to satisfy themselves, how far they may lawfully hold Communion with our Church, as how far they may lawfully Separate from it: Would be as willing to read those Books that are written in the defence of the things enjoined by our Church, as to read those which are written in opposition to them: Would as impartially consider the vast distance between our Church and that of Rome, as thus dwell upon the most inconsiderable Agreement that is between them; which our Author hath convincingly to any unprejudiced person proved, to be no justifiable pretence for Separation. And if we would well digest those excellent words of the Apostle, Rom. 14. 17, 18. The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost: For he that in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God and approved of men. And, if we would follow after the things that make for 
v. 19  peace, and things wherein one may edify another. And lastly, if we would at length be persuaded to Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and 
Eph. 4. 31, 32.  clamour, and evil speaking, against one another, be put away from us, with all malice: And to be Kind and affectionate one to another (notwithstanding the Difference of Apprehensions) tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us. I say, if we could once be brought to this temper, we should be unspeakably more happy, than those things you express so passionate a desire of could possibly make us. And without this blessed temper, we shall be miserable wretches, though there were no Agreement in any one Rite between Rome and us, and though our Ordinances were as pure as 'tis your wish to have them: Nor will our bidding the greatest defiance to the Antichrist in the Roman Chair one whit avail us, while the Spiritual Antichrist, which is the worse of the two, continues possessed of his Seat in our Hearts.  
And so, Sir, I hearty bid you Farewell.   

ERRATA.  
Page 19 Lin. 12. read in their greatest. p. 27. l. 30. deal? p. 32. l. 1. read is so contrived.  
FINIS.   

Books sold by R. Horn, T. Basset, R. Chiswell, B. Tooke, Brabazon Aylmer, W. Rogers, and F. Gardiner.  

1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England.  
2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion.  
3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God, proposed and Stated, by considering these Questions, etc.  
4. A Discourse about Edification.  
5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience, Whether the Church of England 's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England?  
6. A Letter to Anonymus, in Answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship. In two Parts.  
8. The Case of mixed Communion: Whether it be Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixed Communions?  
9 An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers, and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England.  
10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved, etc. In two Parts.  
11. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons, and of going to hear where men think they can profit most.  
12. A serious Exhortation, with some important Advices, relating to the late Cases about Conformity, recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England.  
13. An Argument for Union; taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestant's.  
14. The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England considered.  
15. A Persuasive to Frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  
16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal, or giving Offence to the weak Brethren.  
17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in five Questions, etc.  
18. The Charge of Scandal, and giving Offence by Conformity, Refelled, and Reflected back upon Separation, etc.  
19 A Defence of the Resolution of this Case, viz. Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England. In Answer to a Book Entitled, A Modest Examination of that Resolution.    

THE CASE OF Infant-Baptism. In Five QUESTIONS.  

I. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism?  
II. Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism by Christ?  
III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church, which appointeth Infants to be Baptised?  
iv Whether it be the Duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism?  
V Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Believers, who were Baptised in their Infancy?   
LONDON, Printed by T. Hodgkin, for Tho. Basset, at the George in Fleetstreet; Benj. took, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard; 1685.   

THE CASE OF Infant-Baptism. The Previous Discourse.  
THE better to prepare the mind of my Reader for what I shall say in this Discourse about Infant-Baptism, I think it requisite to premise a short Introduction.  
First, Concerning the Original, And Secondly, Concerning the Nature of the Jewish Church.  
Thirdly, Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it, and the Persons that were capable of Initiation.  
And Lastly, Concerning the alteration of it from the Mosaic into the Christian Oeconomy, or to express myself more plainly in the 
* Heb. 2. 5, 6.  Scripture-phrase, concerning the alteration of the House of Moses into the House of Christ.  
As for the Original of the Jewish Church, it is to be referred unto Abraham the 
† Rom. 4. 11.  Father of the Faithful purely considered as a Church. But if it be considered as a Commonwealth, or as a Church under such a Political Regulation, than it is to be referred unto Moses, who was called, even by Heathen Writers, the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sect. 7.  Legislator of the Jews. These two Considerations of the Jewish Church, purely as a Church, and as a Commonwealth, or as a Church under such a mixture with a Commonwealth ought heedfully to be distinguished.  
1. Because there is ground for such a distinction in the nature of the thing.  
2. Because this distinction is made by the Apostle, who was of the Seed of Abraham, an Hebrew of the Hebrews, and by consequence very well qualified to understand the difference betwixt the Jewish Oeconomy as a Church, and as a Commonwealth.  
First, I say, there is a Ground for such a distinction in the Nature of the thing, as is evident to any Man, who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church-Christian before, and after its Union with the Empire. Before its Union with the Empire, it subsisted by itself purely as a Church above three hundred years, in a State of Persecution, from Christ unto Constantine the Great; and just so the Jewish Church for above four hundred years subsisted by itself in a State of Peregrination and Captivity from Abraham unto Moses, who brought them out of Egypt, and gave them the Law.  
But Secondly, As there is ground for this distinction in the nature of the thing, so is it in effect made by the Apostle, Gal. 3. 17. This I say, that the Covenant that was before confirmed of God [with Abraham] in Christ, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul, that it should make the Promise [to Abraham] of none Effect. Here is a plain difference made between the Covenant or Promise which God made with Abraham and his Seed, when he separated him from the World unto himself, and that Political one, which he afterwards made with the Jews, when he gave them the Law: And this difference is also observed, Rom. 4. 13. The Promise, that he should be the Heir of the World, was not given to Abraham, or to his Seed through the Law, but through the Righteousness of Faith: For if they which are of the Law be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise is of no effect  
From these words, which distinguish so plainly between the Covenant which God made with Abraham, or the Promise, which he made unto him, and the Law, it is evident that the beginning of the Jewish Church purely considered, as a Church, is to be dated from the Covenant which God made with Abraham, and therefore in the second place, the way to find out the nature of the Abrahamical, or pure Jewish Church, is to consider the nature of the Covenant, or Promise upon which it was founded; and if we examine the Scriptures, we shall find, that it was an Evangelical Covenant: For substance the same with that which is since made betwixt God and us through Christ. This will appear upon a Review of those Scriptures which teach us, That Faith was the Condition of this Abrahamical Covenant; that it was made with 
* Fide autem stare justitiam, & illic esse vitam praedictam est apud Habbaccuc. Justus autem ex fide vivet. Ind Abraham pater Gentium credidit. In Genes. credidit Abraham Deo, & deputatum est ei ad justitiam. Item Paulus ad Galatas. Abraham credidit Deo & deputatum est ei ad justitiam. Cognoscitis ergo qui ex fide sunt hi sunt filii Abrahae, providens autem Scriptura quia ex fide, etc. Cyprian. advers. Judaeos. Judaeos à Deo recessisse.— successisse vero in eorum locum Christianos fide Dominum promerentes, & de omnibus Gentibus, ac toto orbe venientes. Cyprian. ad Quirin. Testim. L. 3.  Abraham, as the Father of the Faithful, and in him with all Believers, with his Spiritual, as well as Carnal Seed, proceeding from him by Spiritual, as well as Natural Generation; and that the Blessings or Promises of this Covenant belonged unto them upon the same Account of their Faith.  
To this purpose speaketh the Apostle in the Fourth Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, from the 9th. to the 15th. Verse: Cometh then this Blessedness [of Justification by Faith] upon the Circumcision only, or upon the Uncircumcision also? For we say, that Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness; how was it then reckoned? When he was in Circumcision, or in Uncircumcision? Not in Circumcision, but in Uncircumcision; and he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of (the Promises made to) the Righteousness of Faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised that [so believing before Circumcision] he might be the Father (both) of all them that believe, tho' they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also (as his Children) and the Father of Circumcision to them, who are not of the Circumcision only, but (who) also walk in the Steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham, which he had, being yet uncircumcised; for the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World (in his Posterity) was not to Abraham, or his Seed, through (the Righteousness of) the Law; but through the Righteousness (which cometh) of Faith: For if they [only] which are of the Law be Heirs, (his) Faith (so much celebrated is made void, and the Promise made (to it) of no effect. So Gal. 3. from the 5th to the 10th Verse: He therefore that ministereth unto you the (extraordinary Gifts of the) Spirit, and worketh Miracles among you; doth he it by the works of the Law, or by the Faith, which you have heard preached, even as (it is written of) 
* Quoniam autem & in Abraham praefigurabatur fides nostra, & quoniam Patriarcha nostrae fidei, & velut propheta fuit, plenisfimè Apostolus docuit in eâ Epistolâ, quae est ad Galatas dicens, Qui ergo tribuit vobis Spiritum & operatur virtutes in vobis— Irenaeus Lib. 4. cap. 38.  Abraham, (he) believed God, and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness; know ye therefore, that they which are (the Children) of Faith, the same are the Children of Abraham; and God in the Scripture foreseeing that he would justify the Heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all Nations be blessed. So then they which be (the Children) of Faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham who is the Father of them that believe. Afterwards in Verse 26. Now to Abraham, or his Seed, or Race were the Promises [of God] made: He, (i. e. God, or Moses his Penman) saith, Not to Seeds, or Races, as if there were divers of them; but to thy Seed, i. e. to one of thy Seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the (Abrahamical) Covenant that was before confirmed by God in Christ, the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul, that it should make the Promise (made unto Abraham) of none effect.  
From all these Texts put together, it is plain, that the Abrahamical Covenant, upon which the Jewish Church, as such, was founded, was of a Spiritual, Evangelical Nature, and perfectly verified and fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who was made of the Seed of Abraham, and in whom all the Families of the Earth are blessed, and whose Day Abraham himself saw, and rejoiced. It is farther evident from them, that this Covenant was made with Abraham, as the Father of Believers, and with his Posterity, not as proceeding from him by natural, but by spiritual Generation, as Heirs of his Faith, as is plain from Rom. 4. 16. Therefore (the Promise) is of Faith, that so also it might be by Grace; to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed (of Abraham) not to that only, which is of the Law; but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham, who is the Father of us all, both Jew and Gentile, that believe. So Chap. 9 6. etc. not as tho' the Word or Promise of God to them had taken none effect: For they are not all (the) Israel which are descended of Israel; neither because they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children (of God's Covenant) but ('tis said) in Isaac shall thy Seed be called; [though Abraham had more Sons] that is (all) they which are the Children of the Flesh, these are not the Children of God; but the Children of the Promise (only as Isaac was) are counted for the Seed.  
Hence saith the Apostle in the name of the Christians, 
Phil. 3. 3.  we are the Circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and have no Confidence in the Flesh, and it is one God which shall justify the Circumcision by Faith, and the Uncircumcision through Faith; and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and Heirs, according to the Promise, which God made unto Abraham.  
Furthermore, that this Covenant was Evangelical, and made with the Posterity of Abraham, not as his Natural, but as his Spiritual Offspring, will appear in the third place from the initiatory Sacrament into it, which was Circumcision, or cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh; as it is written, You shall Circumcise the Foreskin of your Flesh, and it shall be a Sign of the Covenant betwixt me and you. Hence the Covenant of which it was the Sign, is called by 
* Acts 7. 8.  St. Stephen, the Covenant of Circumcision; and▪ Circumcision on the other hand is called by St. Paul, the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith; Faith, or Faithful Obedience being the Condition of that Covenant which God required of the Children of Abraham, and which they promised to perform. It also signified the Circumcision of the 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Justin. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 260. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. p. 261.  Heart; as Moses said unto the People of Israel, Circumcise the Foreskin of your Hearts, Deut. 10. 16. and in Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will Circumcise thine heart, and the hearts of thy Seed, that thou mayest love the Lord thy God with all thine. Heart, and with all thy Soul, that thou mayest live. And agreeable unto this Spiritual Signification of Circumcision, St. Paul saith Rom. 2. 28. He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither is that Circumcision, which is outwardly in the Flesh, but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and Circumcision is that of the Heart, in the Spirit, and not in the Letter, whose Praise is not of Men, but of God.  
As to the Persons who were capable of initiation into the Jewish Church by this Sacrament, we have a very plain account at the institution of it in Gen. Chap. 27. I will (saith God unto Abraham) establish my Covenant between Me, and thee, and thy Seed after thee for an Everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee, and thy Seed after thee— Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations; this is [The Token of] my Covenant, which ye shall keep between Me and you, and thy Seed after thee, every Male among you shall be Circumcised. And ye shall Circumcise the flesh of your Foreskin, and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt Me and you, and he that is eight days old shall be Circumcised among you, every Male in your Generations, he that is born in the House, or bought with Money of any Stranger, which is not of thy Seed, he that is born in thy House, and he that is bought with thy Money must needs be Circumcised, and my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant.  
From this account of Persons to be Circumcised, it is plain,  
First, That Gentiles who were born of 
* Exod. 12. 48, 49.  Gentile Parents in Abraham's House, or bought with his Money, as Servants than were, and Blacks are now among us, were to be initiated into the Covenant by Circumcision, from whence it appears, that the Spiritual Race of Abraham were the Children of the Covenant, and that when God promised to be a God to him, and his Seed after him, he meant the Children of his Faith. Hence in all Ages of the Jewish Church, if any Gentiles embraced the Jewish Faith and Religion, they were admitted into it by Circumcision, and thereupon reckoned among the Posterity of Abraham, and the peculiar People of God, although they were not the Children of Abraham according to the Flesh. There were great numbers of Gentiles thus converted to the Jewish Faith and Religion, and grafted like wild Branches into the Olive-Tree, in all the Ages of the Jewish Church. Not to mention particular Persons, we read that many of the Medes and Persians became Jews in the time of Ashuerus, Esther 8. 17. 
* Selden de jure l. 2. c. 2.  Likewise, in the time of David and Solomon, vast numbers of the neighbouring Countries embraced Judaisme, and in the time of Hyrcanus the whole Nation of the Idumaeans turned Jews, and lived in their own Country according to the Jewish Rites. This short account of the Jewish Proselytes may satisfy any Man, who is not perverted beyond cure, that the Church of the Jews was not founded upon, nor constituted by natural Generation, but by Spiritual Regeneration, as the Church Christian is, and that those, who were then related unto God, as Members of his Church were so, because they were the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, who then was and still is the Father of the Church, and Church Members, to whom he is related not in his Natural, but in his Religious Capacity, as he was a Believer, and the Father of all those that believe.  
But Secondly, It is manifest from this Scriptural account of persons to be Circumcised, that Circumcision was an Ordinance of Latitude, comprehending Persons of all Ages, and that Children, and Minors not yet arrived at years of Discretion, who were incapacitated, as to some ends of Circumcision, were notwithstanding to be solemnly initiated by it, as well as grown Men, who were capable of all. God was pleased to call them his; nay, they were his Property, as much as their Parents of whom they descended, he looked upon them as holy and separate, and as Candidates of the Covenant, and he thought them so well qualified for admission into it, that he would not have it put off beyond the eighth day.  
He that is eight days old, or as it is in the Original, a Son of eight days, shall be circumcised among you. God was so far from excluding of them from Sacramental Initiation upon the account of natural incapacity, that he limited the time for the administration of it, beyond which he would not have it deferred. And accordingly the Jews ever did most religiously observe it, from the time of Abraham unto the time of John the Baptist, and Christ, who were both Circumcised the 
* Luke 1. 59 2. 21.  eighth day. Nay when any Gentile turned Jew, they immediately Circumcised his Children if he desired it; always understanding that Children were called and elected by God in their Parents. Thus saith God unto Abraham, I will establish my Covenant between thee and me, and thy Seed after thee for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and thy Seed after thee.  
The great Goodness of God made him thus separate the Children with their Parents from the rest of the World, and look upon them as part of his chosen peculiar People, by which they became relatively Holy, and of a religious Consideration, and differed from the Children of Unbelievers, as much as their Parents did from the Unbelievers themselves. Since therefore God was pleased to be so gracious as to choose the Children with their Parents, and look upon them as Holy upon their account, it is no wonder that he should oblige them to dedicate, and devote them betimes unto him, by solemn initiation into his Church. I say, he called and elected them in their Parents, and with them separated them unto himself from the World, and, agreeably to the nature of this Gracious Call, and separation, he made it a sufficient qualification for their actual admission into the Church, by the initiating Ordinance, which the Children of Heathens were not capable of, because they were not so called, and chosen, and separated of God.  
This was ground enough for their admission into the Church, and for God to look upon them, as Believers, though they could not make open Profession of their Faith, as Abraham did before he was Baptised, and it is certain, after the example of Abraham, all 
* Selden de Synedr. l. 2. c. 3.  adult Proselytes did. But though Abraham professed his Faith before he was Circumcised, Isaac the next Heir of the Promise was Circumcised before he professed, or could profess his Faith, because if he lived he was as sure to profess it by virtue of his Calling, and Election as any adult Proselyte was to continue in the Profession of his.  
In the mean time the Faith and Consent of the Father, or, if the Child had none, of the Susceptor or Godfather, 
1 Maccab. 2. 46.  and of the Congregation under which he was Circumcised, was believed of old by the Jews to be 
† Seld. de jure lib 2. c. 2. de Synedr. l. 1. c 3.  imputed to the Child, as his own Faith and Consent. They had very good ground in the Scriptures for this Opinion, because the Infidelity and Disobedience of the Parents, in wilfully neglecting, or despising Circumcision, was imputed to the Children, who were esteemed and punished as Breakers of the Covenant, when they were not circumcised, as it is written, Every uncircumcised Male, whose Flesh of his Foreskin is not circumcised, that Soul shall be cut off from his People; he hath broken my Covenant; and therefore if the Act of Parents 
Cassand. de Baptism. Infant. p. 732.  in neglecting to bring their Children to Circumcision was reputed theirs, much more their Act in bringing them to it might well be reputed as their Act and Deed. Thus in Numb. 3. 28. we find the keeping of the Sanctuary imputed to the Males of the Cohathites of a month old and upwards, because their Fathers actually kept it, and they were to be trained up unto it; and in Deut. 29. 11, 12. the little ones are expressly said to enter into Covenant with God, because the Men of Israel did so; and thus also our Blessed Lord, who took upon him the Seed of Abraham, although he healed 
* Matth. 9 29.  grown Persons for their own Faith; yet he healed 
† Mark. 9 23. Matth. 8. 13. Joh. 4. 50. Vid. Cassand. de Baptismo Infant. p. 729. Dr. Tailor of Baptising Infants, Great Exemplar. Part. 1. Sect. 9  Children upon the account of the Faith of their Parents; or others who besought him for them; as it were imputing it to them for their own Faith.  
Having now briefly discoursed of the Original, and Evangelical Nature of the Jewish Church, and the Initiatory Sacrament of it, and the persons that were initiated thereinto, I now proceed to make a few Observations upon the Alteration of it, from the Mosaical into the Christian Oeconomy; or from the Legal State of it under the Old Testament, into the Evangelical under the New.  
For as it was the same for Substance under the Law that it was before it; so it still remains the same for Substance under the Gospel, that it was under the Law. The Foundation is the same, tho' the Superstructure and Fashion of the House be very different. For Abraham is still the Father of the Faithful; and we that believe under the Gospel, are as much his Seed, and Children in God's prime Intention, and the true meaning of the Words, as those that were Believers under the Law.  
Hence it comes to pass, that the Church-Christian is called in the New Testament, the New and Supernal Jerusalem; to let us know, that Christianity is nothing but Spiritual Judaisme, the same City new reform, constituted upon a new Charter, blessed with more noble and ample Privileges than formerly; and every way better built, and more August than it was. Thus in Rev. 3. 12. Unto him that overcometh (saith the Son of Man) I will write the Name of my God, and the Name of the City of my God, which is New Jerusalem, which is come down out of Heaven, from my God: that is, I will acknowledge him that holds out to the end for a person truly godly, and for a true Member of the pure Catholic Christian-Church, which is the Spiritual Jerusalem descended from above. And so Chap. 21. 2. I saw the Holy City New Jerusalem coming down from God, down out of Heaven prepared as a Bride, adorned for her Husband, meaning Jesus Christ. So in Gal. 4. Jerusalem which is from above, or the Supernal Jerusalem is [a] free [City] which is the Mother of us all.  
Hence also it comes to pass, that St. Peter in his first General Epistle, calls the Christians by those proper Titles and Appellations which God gave unto the Jews, as unto his peculiar People, viz. a chosen Generation, a Royal Priesthood, an Holy Nation, a peculiar People; which must needs imply, that the Christian Church is fundamentally, and radically the same with the ancient Church of the Jews. Accordingly St. Paul tho' he was the Doctor of the Gentiles, yet compared the calling of them to the engrafting of the wild Olive-Tree into the old Olive-Trees Stock. If some of the Branches (saith 
* Rom. 11. ●.  he unto them) be broken off [through Unbelief] and thou being a wild Olive Branch, was grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness of the [Ancient] Olive-Tree, boast not against the Branches [so cut off] but if thou boast [remember that] thou bearest not the Root, but the Root thee; and afterwards, If thou wert cut off from the Olive-Tree, which is wild by Nature, and wert grafted contrary to [thy wild] Nature into a good Olive-Tree, how much more shall these [unbelieving Jews] which be the natural Branches, be re-grafted into their own Olive-Tree? From this Comparison it is plain, that the Jewish and Christian Church are the same in the Root and Stock: And from this radical Argument that is betwixt them, it proceeds, that St. John in his Symbolical way of Writing in the Apocalypse, calls the Christians Jews: Behold I will make them of the Synagogue of Satan which say they are Jews but are not, Rev. 3. 9 2. 9 Indeed, as Judaisme was nothing but mystical Christianity; so Christianity is nothing but reformed Judaisme, which made our Saviour, who was the Reformer of it, say unto the Jews, Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, and the Prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to perfect and fulfil. And unto his Disciples, who under him were to be Master-Builders of his House, he said, That a Scribe, or Doctor rightly instructed unto the Kingdom of God, was like a Man that is an Housholder, who bringeth out of his Storehouse things both new and old. Thereby showing, as Irenaeus observes, that he must be a 
L. 4. c. 21. & 43.  very skilful Scribe in the Old Testament, that was fit to make a Workman of the new. The Old Testament and legal Oeconomy was to be his Magazine, and Storehouse, out of which he was to fetch many serviceable pieces for the new Building; and accordingly our Saviour, tho' in reforming the House of Moses, he was fain to pull it down, that it might be enlarged, yet both he that began the Reformation, and his Apostles, who finished it, like Men that were Householders, used much of the Old Timber and Materials, and conformed it too, as much as they could, after the manner of the old. 
* Dr. Hammond of Infant-Baptism.  They introduced as much of Judaisme into the Christian Religion, as the nature of the Reformation would well bear, and adhered as much as they could to the old, both in the Matter and Form of the new Oeconomy; and laid by few Jewish Rites and Customs, but such as were fulfilled in Christ and Christianity, as the Antitype and Substance of them; or else such as were inconsistent with the Nature of the Church-Christian, as it was to be a manly, free, and universal Church.  
These were the two reasons for which Christ and his Apostles so much altered the Face of the Church from what it was under the Mosaical Oeconomy, First, because very many of the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies were 
† Ac primò ita his in rebus comparatur, ut antitypus in typi locum succedat, eumque adeo loco moveat, ut simul atque antitypus adsit, nullus deinceps typo locus, nullus usus reperiatur. Outramus de Sacrificiis, Lib. 2. c. 16. p. 204.  fulfilled in Christ and Christianity; and Secondly, because many of them were inconsistent with the nature of a manly, free and universal Church, such as Christ intended his should be.  
First, Then, many of the Ecclesiastical rites, and usages of the Jews were laid aside, at the time of Reformation, because they were fulfilled in Christ, as the Antitype, and Substance of them, as is plain from the words of the Apostle, Col. 2. 16. Let no man judge you in Meat, or in Drink, or in respect of an Holiday, or of the New Moons, or of the Sabbath days, which are a Shadow of things that are to come to pass; but the Body is Christ: that is to say, Let no Man impose upon you the Doctrine of Mosaical Abstinence, or condemn you for eating and drinking things prohibited by the Jewish Religion, or for not observing their Feasts, New Moons and Sabbaths, which are but Types of Christianity; and therefore aught to be laid aside. The like he doth show in his Epistle to the Hebrews, concerning the Temple, Priesthood, Altar, Sacrifices, and the whole Temple-Service; as is plain from many Passages, whereof I shall recite some. The Priesthood being changed, there is made also of necessity a change in the Law, Chap. 7. 22. The Holy Ghost, this signifying thereby, that the way into the holiest of all, was not yet made manifest, while, as the first Tabernacle was yet standing, which was but a Figure for the time then present, in which were offered both Gifts and Sacrifices; that could not make him that did the Service perfect [and cleansed] as pertaining to the Conscience, which stood, or consisted only in a certain use of Meats and Drinks, and divers Washings, and other carnal Ordinances imposed on them, [as Types] until the time of Reformation [by Christ] Chap. 9 8, 9, 10. So vers. 24. Christ [with the Blood of his Sacrifice] is not entered into the Holy Places made with Hands, which are the Figures of the true. And after all, Chap. 10. 1. the Law having only a Shadow of the good things to come, and not the Solidity of the things themselves, can never with those [umbratical] Sacrifices, which they offered year by year continually make the Comers thereunto perfect.  
It would make a Book of itself, to recite all the Types and Shadows of the Old Testament, which are applied to Christ and Christianity by the Writers under the New. Besides what occurs in the Apostles Writings, there is much to the same purpose in the Epistle of St. Barnabas, which is very ancient; the Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho the Jew; and the Fourth Book of Irenaeus, who after insisting upon many typical things, and persons in the Old Testament, at last concludes in the 38th Chapter, Nihil enim vacuum, nihil sine signo; that almost every thing in it was typical, and had a mystical Reference to something under the New.  
But Secondly, as many of the Ecclesiastical Rites, and Usages of the Jewish Church were taken away, because they were fulfilled in Christ and Christianity, so many others were annulled, as being inconsistent with the nature of the Church-Christian, as it was to be a manly, free, and universal Church.  
First, As it was to be a manly Church in opposition to the legal Pedagogy of the Jews, as St. Paul called it in saying, That the Law was but a Schoolmaster to bring them unto Christ [Gal. 3. 24] and that the Jews were under it as Children are under Tutors, and Governors, until the time appointed by the Father, the Fullness of Time, when God sent forth his Son, [Chap. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4.] Hither we may refer abundance of those Precepts which concerned their Washings, and Purifications, or their Abstinence from menstruous Women, and unclean Creatures, which God imposed upon them in that State of Minority, chief to lecture unto them moral Purity and Temperance: For they had childish Understandings, and were, like Children, to be instructed by Symbols, and Symbolical Lessons, as is plain from the Precept about their Phylacteries, Numb. 15. 38. Speak unto the Children of Israel, and bid them that they make Fringes in the Borders of their Garments throughout their Generations, and that they put upon the Fringes of their borders, a Ribbon of Blue, and it shall be unto you for a Fringe, that you may look upon it, and remember all the Commandments of the Lord, and do them, and that ye seek not after your own Heart, and your own Eyes, after which ye use to go a Whoring.  
But Secondly, As many of their Rites and Ceremonies were annulled at the time of Reformation, because they were inconsistent with the manly nature of the Christian Religion, so others were annulled, because they were not consistent with the free nature of it, in opposition to the Servile nature of the Jewish Church, which is excellently set forth by the Apostle, Gal. 4. 22, etc. Abraham had two Sons, the one by a Bondmaid, the other by a Freewoman, but he that was born of the Bondmaid was born according to the Flesh, but he that was born of the Freewoman, was born [by virtue of the] Promise which God made unto Abraham: Which things are an Allegory, for these [two Women] are the two Covenants. The one the Covenant which was made on Mount Sinai, which gendereth to Bondage, and this was Agar. For this Agar is [the figure of] Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is [still] in Bondage with her Children. But [Sarah is the figure of the Spiritual] Jerusalem, which is [come with Christ from] above, which is the Mother of us all.  
Now this Ecclesiastical Bondage, and Servitude of the Jews, consisted in the vast number of their Religious Rites and Observances, which if a Man consider in retail as to the Days, Weeks, Months, and Years, which they were bound to observe; the multitude of Sacrifices of all sorts, which they were bound to offer; the frequent Washings and Purifications they were bound to undergo; the strict distinction they were to make of clean from unclean Animals; the Rules and Ceremonies they were bound to observe at Births, Marriages, Burials, at Bed and Board, at Home and Abroad, in Sickness and in Health, nay, even in Ploughing, Sowing, and Reaping, he shall find that they were left almost in nothing to their own Freedom and Discretion, but that the Observances, to which they were bound in almost all their Actions, took up half of their time.  
Such a burdensome and grievous Oeconomy was that under which the Jews lived, but yet how severe and slavish soever it was, it was suitable to the slavish temper of that People, upon whom God imposed all these Carnal Ordinances for the hardness of their hearts, and propension to Idolatry, as 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Justin Martyr often observes in his Dialogue with the Jew.  
They were apt to forget God, and therefore he loaded them with so many Divine Rites and Observations, that at all times and places, and in every action, they might be put in mind of him, and this Ceremonial Yoke was so heavy upon them, that it was little less than intolerable, according to St. Peter, who said, Why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples, which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear? This he said in the Council at Jerusalem, against the believing Pharisees, who taught, that it was needful to Circumcise the Gentile Christians, and to command them to keep the Mosaical Law, not yet rightly understanding, or believing, that it was one end of Christ's coming to set them free from the Mosaic Observances, as the Apostles then declared, and as St. Paul afterwards instructed the Galatians, who were led away into this error, saying, Stand fast therefore in the Liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the Yoke of Bondage.  
Hither therefore we are to refer the annulling not so much of any particular sort of Jewish Ceremonies as of the whole Mass of them, even the dissolution of the whole Ceremonial Law, of which the Jews were grown weary, and with which they had been for a long time heavy laden, when Christ called them to take his Yoke and Burden upon them, which was to be so easy, and light.  
But then in the last place, as the obligatory force of all the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies were taken away, because they were inconsistent with the free nature of the Christian Church: So some more especially were annulled, as being inconsistent with the universality of it, as it was to be a Catholic Church.  
Hither we may refer all those which were set up by God as 
* Maimonides more Nevoch. p. 3. c. 37.  Mounds and Hedges to keep the Jews from mixing and conversing with their Idolatrous Neighbours, and their Idolatrous Neighbours from being too familiar and well acquainted with them. Such as these were those of not rounding the Corners of their Heads, and of not shaving of the Corners of their Beards, of not letting their  gender with divers kinds, of not sowing their Fields with mingled Seed, nor their Vineyards with divers Seeds; of not Ploughing with an Ox and an Ass together, and of not wearing a Garment of Linen and woollen. God enjoined them these, and other things in opposition to the neighbouring Idolatrous Nations, that there might be a mutual strangeness and hatred betwixt them, and that by these and other Ceremonial Singularities, they might be distinguished from the rest of the World. But then Christ coming to break down the middle wall of Partition betwixt the Jews and Gentiles, and to abolish the Enmity of Ordinances that was betwixt them, that he might make Peace betwixt them, and reconcile them both into one Body in the Cross, it was requisite to this end, that he should abolish these, and all other distinguishing Characters betwixt them, which would have hindered the Progress of the Gospel, had it been clogged with Jewish Rites and Ceremonies, which were become so odious, and ridiculous to all the Gentile World.  
In particular, For this reason he was obliged to change the Initiatory Sacrament, and the Seal of the Covenant of Grace, I mean Circumcision, by which the Jews (excepting a few 
* The ancient Egyptians, Ethiopians, Ismaelites, Cholchians.  Nations) were distinguished from all the World.  
They were become 
† Jura Verpe per Anchialum. Mart. Credat Judaeus Apelles. Horat. Ferro succiderit inguinis oram. Petron. Mox & praeputia ponunt. Juven. 1 Cor. 7. 18. Is any Man called, being circumcised, let him not be uncircumcised. i e. Let him not use means to attract the Praeputium, which the Jews did often to avoid Shame, and Persecution in Gentile Countries.  odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it, and for this reason it would have been a mighty bar to the Progress of the Gospel, had the Gentiles been to be initiated thereby.  
Furthermore, it alone was reckoned as a grievous burden by reason of the painful and bloody nature of it; and for that Reason also was laid aside, as being inconsistent with the free and easy nature of the Christian Religion; for if Zipporah was so much offended at Moses, and called him a bloody Husband upon the account of it, we may well presume how much the Gentiles would have been offended at the Apostles, and at their Doctrine, upon the account thereof.  
No Religious Rite could be more ungrateful to Flesh and Blood, and therefore the Wisdom of our Lord is to be admired in changing of it into the easy and practicable Ceremony of Baptism; which was of more universal significancy, and which 
* Diabolus ipsas quoque res Sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur, tingit & ipse quosdam, utique credentes, ac fideles suos— caeterum si Numae superstitiones revolvamus— nun  diabolus morositatem illam Judaicae legis imitatus est? Tertull. de praescrip. haeret. c. 40. O nimium faciles! Qui tristia crimina caedis tolli flumineâ posse putatis aquâ.  Pagans (as Paganism was nothing but Judaisme corrupted by the Devil) practised, as well as Jews.  
Hitherto I have given the Reasons of altering the Jewish Oeconomy, and of reforming of it into the Christian Church, but then my undertaking obliges me to prove what before I observed, that 
* Verissimum enim est, quod vir doctissimus Hugo Broughtonus ad Danielem notavit: Nullos à Christo institutos ritus novos, etc. Grotii opusc. Tom. 3. p. 520. See Dr. Hammond in his discourse of the Baptising of Infants.  Christ and his Apostles, who were the Reformers of it, did build with many of the old Materials, and conformed their new house, as much as they could, after the Platform of the old. This will appear from Baptism itself, which was a Ceremony by which 
† Seld. de jure l. 2. c. 2. de Synedr. l. 1. c. 3. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae, p. 42. Hammond on Matth. 3. v. 1. and of the Baptising of Infants. Jacob Altingius dissert. Philologica Septima de Proselytis.  Proselytes both Men, Women, and Children were initiated into the Jewish Church. Though it were but a mere humane Institution, or, as the dissenting Parties usually phrase it, a mere humane Invention; yet so much respect had our blessed Lord for the Ancient Orders and Customs of the Jewish Church, that being obliged to lay by Circumcision for the reasons above mentioned, he consecrated this instead of it to be the Sacrament of initiation into his Church, and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. So likewise the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was certainly of 
| Mede 1 Book disc. 51. b. 11. Christian Sacrifice. Grot. Opusc Tom. 3. p. 510. Dr. Cudworth on the Lord's Supper. Thorndike of Religious Assembly. chap. 10. Dr. Taylor 's great Exemplar. p. 1. disc. of Baptism. Numb. 11.  Jewish Original, as hath been showed by many Learned Men, and the Correspondence of the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, to the Highpriest, Priests and Levites, doth show that the Subordination of the Christian Hierarchy is taken from the Jewish Church, as St. Jerome observes in his Epistle to Evagrius. Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento, quod Aaron, & filii ejus, & Levitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, & Presbyteri & diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia. What the Highpriest, Priests, and Levites, were in the Temple, that the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, are in the Church according to Apostolical Constitution taken from the Old Testament.  
Hither also is to be referred that wonderful Correspondence betwixt the Priesthood and Altar of the Jewish and Christian Church, as it is most excellently discoursed by the Learned, and Pious 
a In his Discourse concerning the one Altar, and the one Priesthood, etc.  Mr. Dodwell.  
To all which, I may add many other Institutions, as that of 
b Dr. Tailor his great Exemplar Disc. of Baptism. Numb. 11. Lightfoot on 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 4.  Excommunication, and of the ritual performance of Ordination, Confirmation, and Absolution of Penitents by Imposition of Hands, all which are of Jewish Original.  
Likewise, the Observation of the ancient Lovefeasts before the Holy-Eucharist, which for their extreme inconvenience, were taken away by the 
c Concil. Sext. in Trull. c. 24.  Church's Authority; the use of Festivals and Fasts; the Institution of the Lord's day, which is nothing but the Sabbath translated. In a word, the manifold and almost entire Correspondence of the Church in her public Assemblies, and Worship with the Synagogue, as it is set forth by Mr. Thorndike, in his Book of Religious Assemblies, even to the formal use of the Hebrew-word, 
d 1 Cor. 14. 16 Rom. 11. 36. Eph. 3. 21. Phil. 4. 20. 2 Tim. 1. 17. Heb. 23. 27. 1 Pet. 4. 11. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 1. 7. Just. Mart. Ap. 2. p. 97. Iren. l. 2. c. 10. Athan. Apol. add const. Imper. p. 683.  Amen.  
Hitherto I have made a short Previous Discourse concerning many useful Particulars. As  
First, Concerning the beginning, or Original of the Jewish Church.  
Secondly, Concerning the Nature of it.  
Thirdly, Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it, and the Persons that were capable of Initiation.  
And Lastly, Concerning the alteration of it from the Legal into the Evangelical Dispensation; wherein I have briefly shown the true grounds of that blessed Reformation, and how tender Christ, and his Apostles were of Altering or rejecting, more than was necessary, or of receding more than was needful from the Jewish Church.  
All these things I thought necessary to be discoursed [as Praecognita] to fit and prepare the Reader's mind to understand the State of the Controversy about Infant-Baptism, as it is proposed in these five Comprehensive Questions. 1. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism? 2. Whether they are excluded from Baptism by Christ? 3. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptised? 4. Whether it be the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism? 5. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with believers, who were Baptised in their Infancy? The whole merit of the Controversy about Infant-Baptism, lies in these five Comprehensive Questions, and I shall presently proceed to the stating of them after I have showed, that Circumcision was a Sacrament of equal Significancy, Force, and Perfection with Baptism, and that Baptism succeeded in the room of it, not as the Antitype succeeded in the place of the Type, but as one positive Institution succeeds in the place of another, and this also is necessary to be foreknown by the Reader, because the Anabaptists endeavour to shift off the force of many good Arguments, which otherwise are not to be evaded, by saying that Circumcision under the Old Testament, was a Type of Baptism under the New.  
Now to show that Circumcision was not a Type but only the Forerunner of Baptism, we must note, that strictly and properly speaking, there was the same difference betwixt the Type and the Antitype, as betwixt the Shadow, and the Substance, or betwixt a Man and his Picture in a Glass; 
* Deinde (quod maximè advertendum) id inter Antitypum & Typum interest, quod quae revera in Antitypo vis in est, ea non nisi specie tenus, aut gradu longè exiliori in Typo extiterit. Enimvero quamvis Typus nonnunquam rem aliquam cum Antitypo suo communem habuerit, ea tamen res multò minùs in Typo, quam in Antitypo semper valet— ita ut vis rei adumbrantis virtutis in adumbratâ repertae nil nisi Symbolica quaedam Species, aut tam exilis gradus fuerit, ut pro umbrâ quâdam haberi possit. Outramus de Sacrif. l. 2. c. 18.  insomuch, that what was really, literally, and properly in the Antitype, and of perfect Efficacy and Power, was generally, but Symbolically and representatively in the Type, and figurative of something, which did in a more noble, perfect, eminent, and efficacious manner belong to the Antitype, than it did to it.  
Thus the blood of the Legal Sacrifices were but Shadows, and Representations of the Blood of Christ, and the purging and cleansing Virtue in their Blood, serving to the purifying of the Flesh, was also but a faint and umbratical resemblance of the more noble and efficacious cleansing Virtue of his Blood which purges the Conscience from dead works. So the Brazen Serpent was but a Shadow or Symbol of Christ upon the Cross, and the healing Virtue which, belonged to it, was but a figure, or shadow of that more eminent, and powerfully healing Virtue, which was in Jesus Christ. But the case is not so betwixt Circumcision, and Baptism, because Circumcision hath no Symbolical likeness with Baptism, nor any thing belonging to it common with Baptism, which doth not as literally, properly, fully, and eminently belong unto it, as unto Baptism itself.  
For First, Is Baptism a Sacrament of initiation into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel? So was Circumcision before, and under the Law. Is Baptism now a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith? So was Circumcision then. Doth it properly, and effectually confirm and establish the Covenant betwixt God and us now? So did Circumcision then, as it is written, you shall Circumcise the Flesh of your Foreskin, and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt me and you. Baptism doth nothing under the Gospel, which Circumcision did not as properly, and effectually under the Law. This was then as absolute and real a Sacrament, as that now is. This did then as really initiate true Believers, as that now doth. It never was an Umbratical Sacrament, or shadow of another Sacrament, it never did Umbratically initiate Believers, or Umbratically, and in show and Similitude only confirm the Covenant betwixt God, and the Seed of Abraham; and therefore could not be a Type of Baptism, no more than the Broad Seal of England 300 Years ago was a Type of this.  
Accordingly it is never mentioned in the New Testament as a Type of Baptism, nor Baptism, as the Antitype of it; but on the contrary, the only Typical Adumbrations which are found of it in the Gospel, are such things, which have some Symbolical likeness with it, and were fitted upon that account to be Types thereof.  
The First, Is the Baptising of the Israelites in the 
* Mare autem illud Sacramentum Baptismi fuisse declarat beatus Apostolus, Dicens, nolo enim vos ignorare.— Et addidit, dicens, haec autem omnia figurae nostrae sunt. Cyprian. Ep. 69. Ed. Ox.  Red-Sea, 1 Cor. 10. 2. Where the Red-Sea is a Type of the Water of Baptism, their passing through it, when they were delivered from Pharaoh and his Host, a Type of our passing through that, and of our deliverance thereby from the Devil, and his Angels; and their Captain and Deliverer Moses, a Type of our Saviour Christ.  
The Second, Is the saving of Noah and his Family in the Ark, the like figure whereunto, saith the Apostle, even Baptism doth also save us, 
† Item Petrus ipse quoque demonstrans, etc. Cyprian. Ep. 74. ad Pompeium contra Epist. Stephani, & in Firmilian. Ep. contra eandem Epist. ad Cyprian. & in Ep. 69. Quod & Petrus ostendens unam Ecclesiam esse, etc.  1 Pet. 3. 21. Here it is plain, that the Waters of the Flood were a shadow of the Waters of Baptism, the Ark a Type of the Church, and that the passing of the Ark through the Waters did prefigure our passing through the Waters of Baptism in the Ark of the Church.  
But as for Circumcision it hath nothing in it Symbolical of Baptism, nor was it an Umbratical, but a real Confignation of the Covenant of Grace, every way as real, and substantial an Ordinance, as Baptism now is, and therefore succeeded in the room of it, not as the Antitype did in the place of the Type, but as one absolute Ordinance or positive Institution doth in the place of another, according to the Apostle, who saith unto the Colossians.— In whom also ye are Circumcised, with the Circumcision made without hands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in Baptism, Col. 2. 11, 12.  
But in the second place, if we consider the Original of Baptism, as a Jewish Institution, we shall find it very improbable, that Circumcision should be a Type of it, because a Type properly speaking is a 
* Typus, quatenus vox ista sensum habet Theologicum, ita definiri posse videtur, ut sit futuri alicujus Symbolum quoddam, aut exemplum ita à Deo comparatum, ut ipsius plane instituto futurum illud praefiguret. Quod autem ita praefiguratur illud Antitypus dici solet. Outramus de Sacrificiis, l. 1. cap. 18.  Symbol of something future, or an Exemplar appointed under the Old Testament to prefigure something under the New.  
But, Baptism was itself of Jewish Institution under the Old Testament; and by consequence could not be Typified, and prefigured by Circumcision, with which it was coexistent, and used with it for many years together in the Jewish Church.  
The Jewish Church made it a Ceremony of initiating Proselytes unto the Law, and our Saviour liking the Institution, continued the use of it, and made it the only Ceremony of Initiating Proselytes unto the Gospel, superadding unto it the complete Nature of an Initiatory Sacrament, or the full force of Circumcision as it was a Sign of the Covenant, and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith.  
These things being premised, let us proceed to the stating of the former Questions. And first of all,  

Quest. I. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism?  
Which, considering what hath already been said concerning the Spiritual and Evangelical Nature of the Covenant, which God made with Abraham, and the initiation of young Children into it by God's especial appointment, cannot without rashness be affirmed. Nothing can reflect more dishonour upon the Wisdom of God, and the practice of the Jewish Church than to assert Infants to be uncapable of the same privilege, which God, and the Jewish Church granted unto them. For God commanded them to be Circumcised, and the Jewish Church commanded them to be Baptised, as well adult Proselytes, and if they were then capable both of Circumcision, and Baptism, surely they are capable of Baptism now.  
If they be not, from whence comes the difference? Not from the Nature of the Covenants, for the Covenant, which God made with Abraham, and his Seed, was, as I have showed, the same Covenant for substance, which he hath since renewed with us in Christ: Nor from the Signs and Seals of the Covenant; for Circumcision was a Sign and Seal of the same Grace, or of the same Righteousness of Faith under the Old Testament, that Baptism is now under the New.  
Wherefore, since the Covenants were for substance the same, both Spiritual and Evangelical Covenants, and the Grace of those Covenants the very same, and only the Rites and Ceremonies which were Signs of those Covenants, and Seals of that Grace being different; what hinders in the nature of the thing, but that Infants who were capable of the one, should not also be capable of the other? Is Baptism a more Spiritual Ordinance than Circumcision? That cannot be, because Circumcision is a Gospel-Ordinance; I mean, an Ordinance of the Gospel which God preached before unto Abraham, and if the Spirituality of outward Ordinances are to be measured from the ends of their institution, than Circumcision was every way as Spiritual as Baptism, because it really signed the same Covenant, and sealed the same Grace, and was a Ceremony of Initiation to the same Spiritual Seed of Abraham, that Baptism now is.  
Wherefore, if the relative nature of Circumcision, considered as a Sacrament, was the same under the Law, that Baptism is under the Gospel, it must needs follow, that Children under the Gospel, are as capable of this (supposing no new Command to exclude them) as under the Law, they were of that; if Infant Church-Membership, or the Initiation of Infants was then no absurdity, surely it can be none now: If God under the Old Testament vouchsafed it as a gracious Privilege unto Children to be incorporated with actual Believers, and with them to be made members of his Church; without a Prohibition to the contrary, they must needs be capable of the same Privilege still. Nay, if Infants were admitted into the Church, when the entrance into it was more grievous, and not without blood, how unreasonable is it to assert, that they are now uncapable of admission into it, when the entrance into it is made more easy, and more agreeable to the natural weakness of a young and tender Child? Certainly if the Jewish Infants were Circumcised with the most painful and bloody Circumcision made with hands, Christian Infants, without a Special Countermand from God, must be deemed capable of the Circumcision made without hands, I mean of Baptism, which is the Circumcision of Christ. What God hath Sanctified, and Adopted, and made a Member of his Church, let no Man presume to think it uncapable of Sanctification, Adoption, and Church-Membership, but yet so rash and extravagant have the professed Adversaries of Infant-Baptism been, as to pronounce little Infants as uncapable of Baptism, as the young ones of unreasonable Creatures, and that it is as vain to call upon God to send his Holy Spirit upon them, as to pray him to illuminate a Stone or a Tree.  
Nay, upon this very Presumption, that Infants are uncapable of Baptism, they assert Infant-Baptism to be a Scandalous abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism, a mere Nullity and insignificant performance, and scornfully call it Baby-Baptism, forgetting all this while that Circumcision of Infants was no scandalous abuse of the Ordinance of Circumcision, but a valid and significant Performance, and that in their Phrase there was Baby-Circumcision, and Baby-Baptism in the Jewish Church.  
The reason why they conclude Infants uncapable of Baptism, is taken from the consideration of their incapacity, as to some ends and uses of Baptism, which cannot be answered (say they) but by the Baptism of grown Persons, who are capable of understanding the Gospel, and of professing their Faith, and Repentance, and of submitting unto Baptism, and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthened in the use of it; but Infants being utterly incapable of understanding the Gospel, or of professing their Faith, and Repentance, and of submitting unto Baptism in which they are merely passive, or of having their Faith strengthened in the use of it, they ought to be deemed uncapable of Baptism, whose ends are so much frustrated, when it is applied unto them.  
But this way of arguing, how plausible soever it may seem at first hearing, is weak and fallacious, and highly reflecting upon the Council, and Wisdom of God.  
First, It is weak and fallacious, because it makes no distinction betwixt a strict institution, which is instituted by God for one, or a few ends, and procisely for Persons of one sort, and an Institution of Latitude, which is instituted by him for several ends, and for different sorts of Persons differently qualified for those several ends. Of the first sort, was the Ordinance of Fringes , which could only concern grown Persons, because they only were capable of answering the end, for which it was instituted, viz. To look upon them and remember the Commandments of the Lord, and of the latter sort is the Holy Ordinance of Marriage, which was appointed by God for several ends, and for Persons differently qualified, and capacitated for those several ends, in so much, that Persons, who are incapacitated as to some ends of Marriage, may yet honestly Marry, because they are capable of the rest. All the ends and uses, for which it was appointed can only be answered by the Marrying of Persons who are capacitated for procreation of Children, notwithstanding superannuated Persons, who are past that capacity, are not incapable Subjects of Marriage, nor is the Marriage of such invalid, or an abuse of the Holy Ordinance of Marriage, because they are capable of answering one end, for which Marriage was ordained.  
This shows how fallaciously the Anabaptists argue against Baptising of Infants, because of their incapacity as to some ends and uses for which Baptism was ordained; they ought first to have proved, what they take for granted, that it was a Divine Institution of the first sort, which I call a strict Institution, and then their Argument had been good, but this they will never be able to prove, because Baptism succeeded in the room of Circumcision, which was a Divine Institution of the latter sort, and because our Saviour was Baptised, in whom there was a greater incapacity, as to the ends of Baptism, than possibly can be in Infants, even as he was in a greater incapacity as to answering the ends of Circumcision, than ordinary Jewish Infants were. John verily did Baptise with the Baptism of Repentance, and thereby sealed unto the People the Remission of their Sins, and therefore understanding very well that our Lord was not capable of this, and other ends of his Baptism, he forbade him, telling him, that he was fit to be the Baptist, than to be Baptised of him; but yet as soon as our Lord gave him one general reason why he ought to be Baptised, viz. Because it became him to fulfil all Righteousness, he suffered him, which shows that Baptism is a Divine Institution of Latitude, and that in such an Institution the incapacity of a Person, as to some ends, doth not incapacitate him for it, when he is capable of the rest.  
But Secondly, This way of arguing from the incapacity of Infants, as to some ends of Baptism is highly reflecting upon the Wisdom of God; who commanded young Babes to be Circumcised, although all the ends of Circumcision could not be answered, but by the Circumcision of adult Persons, who only were capable of understanding the nature of the Institution, and the nature of the Covenant, into which they were to enter, of professing their Faith and Repentance, and of submitting unto the bloody Sacrament, in which Children were merely Passive, and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthened upon sealing unto them the Remission of their Sins.  
Wherefore, the full force of this Objection rises up against Infant-Circumcision, as well as Infant-Baptism, because Circumcision was instituted for the same ends, that Baptism now is, and accordingly when Men were initiated by Circumcision they were to profess their Faith, and Repentance, and shortly after at their Baptism solemnly to renounce Idolatry, and all idolatrous Manners and Worship, and their idolatrous Kindred and Relations; and yet upon the desire of such Proselytes, their Children were initiated both by Circumcision, and Baptism, though they were altogether uncapable of understanding, or doing those things which their Fathers did.  
Wherefore, those Men who argue against Infant-Baptism, because it doth not answer all the ends of Baptism, reproach the Divine Wisdom, and the Wisdom of the Jewish Church, not considering, that Circumcision was, and Baptism is an Institution of great Latitude and compass, designed on purpose by God for Children, in whom there is a capacity for some, nay, for the 
* Rem Praecipuam in Baptismo non attendunt, hoc est restificationem divinae benevolentiae in foedus & tutelam suam suscipientis & gratiam conferentis, etc. nam in Baptismo praecipua res est divina gratia, quae consistit in remissione peccatorum, regeneratione, adoptione, haereditate Vitae aeternae, cujus sane gratiae Infants & indigentes & capaces sunt. Cassand. de Bapt. Infant.  chief ends of Baptism, as well as for Men and Women, in whom there is a capa, city for all.  
They are capable of all the ends of it, as it is instituted for a Sign from God towards us, to assure us of his Gracious favour, and to consign unto us the benefits of the Covenant of Grace. For their Childhood doth not hinder, but that they may be made Members of the Church, as of a Family, Tribe, College, or any other Society, nor doth it incapacitate them any more from being adopted the Children of God, than the Children of any other Person, nor of becoming Heirs of Eternal Life by virtue of that Adoption, than by virtue of any other civil Adoption, the Heirs to such a Temporal Estate. For Children are capable of all acts of Favour and Honour from God and Men, and of being instated in all the Privileges of any Society, though they cannot as yet perform the Duties of it, nor understand any thing thereof. Since therefore, Children are as capable, and stand as much in need of almost all the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace, and the Privileges of Church Membership as Men, is it not as fit that the Confirmatory Sign of those Benefits and Privileges should be applied unto them as well as unto these? Should a Prince Adopt a Beggar's Child, and incorporate him into the Royal Family, and settle a part of his Dominions upon him, and to solemnize and confirm all this, should cut off a bit of his Flesh, or command him to be washed with Water, who would count this an insignificant Solemnity, or say, that the Child was not capable of the Sign, when he was capable of the chief Things signified thereby? Or to make a Comparison, which hath a nearer semblance with the Case of Infant-Baptism. Suppose a Prince should send for an attainted traitor's Child, and in the Presence of several Persons assembled for that purpose, should say: You know the Blood of this Child is attainted by his Father's Treason, by Law he hath forfeited all Right to his Ancestors Estate, and Titles, and is quite undone, though he be not sensible of his wretched Condition. My Bowels of Compassion yern upon him, and here I restore him to his Blood and Inheritance, to which henceforward he shall have as much right, as if the Family had never been attainted. I justify him freely, and declare myself reconciled unto him, and that no spot or imputation may hereafter lay upon him, I here before you all wash him with pure water, to signify that he is cleansed from his Original Attaindure and Corruption of Blood, and that he is as fully restored to his Birthright, as if he had never been Attaint.  
Now suppose this were done for a poor attainted Infant, could any Man say that the action was insignificant, and invalid, because the Child knew nothing of it, or that he was incapable of the Sign, when he was capable of being washed from the Attaindure, and of being thereby restored to his blood, and Birthright, which was the chief thing signified thereby?  
These things should be well considered by the Despisers of Infant-Baptism, against whom I may urge for Precedents the Circumcision, and Baptism of the Jewish Church, both these, as I must often observe, were applied unto Infants as well as adult, and actual Believers under the Old Testament, and accordingly, tho' Abraham believed, and solemnly professed his Faith before he was Circumcised, yet I hope they will not say that God acted foolishly, in commanding Isaac, etc. to be Circumcised before he understood the ends of Circumcision, or could believe, much less make profession of his Belief. He was entered Sacramentally into Covenant with God before he was able to recontract, or understand what the condition of the Covenant was, but yet I presume they will not say he was Circumcised in vain, although he was under the very same incapacity as to the ends of Circumcision, that Infants are of Baptism now.  
The best way, that I know, they have of evading the force of this Argument, is by saying, that Circumcision was more proper for Infants than Baptism, because it left a significant Mark, and Character in their Flesh, whereas Baptism is a transient Sign, and leaves no significant Impression behind it, whereby to instruct Men and Women what was done unto them in their Infancy. But this is a mere shift:  
First, Because the Mark, and Character, which Circumcision left in the Flesh of the Child, was as insignificant to him during the time of his Nonage, as Baptism is to Christian Infants, neither afterwards could he tell, but by the instruction of others, what the meaning of that Character was, and for what ends it was imprinted in his Flesh. And therefore, according to their way of reasoning against Infant-Baptism, it ought to have been deferred till the full years of discretion, when the Circumcised Person might have understood the Spiritual Signification thereof.  
Furthermore, in answer to this Objection, I must remind them, that the Mark and Character which Circumcision left behind it, was of no force, or signification, unless it did appear from the 
* Ezrah 2. 62. Nehem. 7. 5. 64.  Registers of the Tribes, that the Person circumcised was a Jew.  
I say, the Character which Circumcision left behind it, was merely of itself of no force nor signification without the Registers, or written Genealogies, because without them neither the circumcised Person himself, nor the Church could know in many Circumstances whether he were a true Son of Abraham, or an Egyptian, Ismaelite, or Samaritan, who were all Circumcised as well as the Jews. If Baptism then be a Transient, Circumcision was an Equivocal Sign, and therefore these pretended circumstantial Differences signify nothing, nor make any substantial difference betwixt Circumcision and Baptism, as to the capacity of Infants unto both. They are capable of contracting a Spiritual Relation unto God by this, as formerly they were by that; they are capable of having their Spiritual attaindure removed; they are capable of receiving the Blessings of the Covenant, tho' they cannot perform the duties of it, and God may solemnly bind himself unto them, tho' they cannot as yet personally bind themselves unto him.  
But Secondly, Allowing that Circumcision was more proper for Infants, than Baptism, yet this difference is wholly avoided by referring the Practice of Infant-Baptism not only unto Infant. Circumcision, but unto the Original Practice of Infant-Baptism in the Jewish Church; which understood very well, that it was but a transient rite, and left no Character upon the person, who was initiated thereby. Those therefore who take upon them to argue against Infant-Baptism from this or any other pretended reason, take upon them to censure, and condemn the Jewish Church, which for many Age's Baptised Infants, and Minor Proselytes into the Covenant, as well as actual Believers, and yet were never censured, or reproved for it by any Prophet, which we may presume they would have been, had Baptismal Initiation of Infants into the Covenant been so absurd, insignificant, and abusive a practice, as the Professors against Infant-Baptism vainly pretend it is.  
Having now, I hope, sufficiently proved, that Infants are not uncapable Subjects of Baptism. Let us proceed to state the next Question, which is this.   

Quest. II. Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism by Christ?  
Where, in the first place, I must observe, that the Question ought to be proposed in these Terms, and not Whether Christ hath commanded Infants to be Baptised? For as a good 
* Herodot. lib. 2.  Author observes of the River Nile, that we ought not to ask the reason, Why Nile overflows so many days about the Summer-solstice? But rather Why it doth not overflow all the Year long? So in the Controversy about Infant-Baptism, the enquiry ought not to be, whether Christ hath commanded Infants to be Baptised? But whether he hath excluded them from Baptism? Because, considering the practice of the Jewish Church as to Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism too, it must needs be granted, that a Command from Christ, to initiate Proselytes out of all Nations into the Christian Religion, must without an exception to the contrary, be understood to comprehend Infants, as well as Men.  
As for Example, suppose our Saviour had not changed the Seal of the Covenant, but instead of Baptising, had said unto the Apostles, Go, and make all Nations my Disciples, 
Dr. Stillingfleets Vindication of the A. C. p. 100  Circumcising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. I appeal to any Impartial Man's judgement, whether the Apostles receiving such a Commission to Circumcise Proselytes of all Nations, would not have presumed without directions to the contrary, that it was Christ's Intention that the Infants of adult Proselytes should be Circumcised as well as Proselytes themselves, according to the Commandment of God under the Old Testament, and the Practice of the Jewish Church.  
And if a command to Proselyte and Circumcise all Nations would, without an exception, have comprehended Infants, as well as Men, why should it be imagined that the command to Proselyte and Baptise all Nations should not likewise comprehend them, seeing that Infant-Baptism, as well as Infant-Circumcision had been the immemorial Practice of the Jewish Church.  
This is so true, that supposing our Saviour had intended the gathering of Churches among the Gentiles according to the Old Testament, and the Custom of the Jewish Church, he need not have expressed his meaning in any other manner, than by saying unto the Apostles; Go Proselyte all Nations, Circumcising and Baptising of them, etc. Nay he could scarce have expressed his Intentions in a more emphatical or intelligible manner unto them, who being Jews must needs have the same Apprehensions as to the Subjects of Initiation, and Church-Membership under the Gospel, that they had under the Law. They had lived under a Dispensation, where Infants were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism into the Church, and without they had been instructed to the contrary, they must naturally have understood their Commission of Baptising to have extended unto Infants, as well as actual Believers; as if, for instance, God should now extraordinarily call twelve Men of any Christian Nation, where Infant-Baptism had been a constant and universal Practice, and bid them go, and Proselyte the Indians, baptising them, etc. None of these Men could possibly imagine, that Infants were excepted out of their Commission; but common ●ense, on the contrary, would oblige them to understand it according to the usage of their own Church.  
Besides, abstracting at present from the Controversy, Whether Christ did, or did not exclude Infants from Baptism? What reason can any Man give, why he who fetched so many of his Institutions from Jewish usages, should exclude them from it, and recede in this Point from the Jewish Church.  
They are every way as capable of the visible Signs of Gods invisible favour, and of the Benefits of the Abrahamical Covenant under the New Testament, as they were under the Old, they are as fit Subjects of Baptism now, as they were of Circumcision and Baptism then, their initiation into both Churches seems to be equally rational, because, though the sign of the Covenant be altered, yet the Covenant still remains the same. In a word, there lay no Obligation upon our Blessed Lord, to lay aside the practice of Infant-Baptism, as being inconsistent either with the Free, or the Manly, or Universal nature of the Christian Church.  
Thus much I have said to show, why the Question betwixt us and the Dissenters upon the account of Infant-Baptism should be, Whether Christ hath excluded Infants from Baptism? And not Whether he hath commanded Infants to be Baptised? And certainly, the Premises being considered, there is far more reason to conclude, that Christ should have prohibited Infants from Baptism, if it had been his intention not to have them Baptised, than that he should have commanded them to be Baptised, if it had been his intention to continue the practice of Infant-Baptism. For he need not have commanded his Apostles to do that, which they would naturally have done of themselves without a Prohibition, and that he did not prohibit them to Baptise Infants, is now the thing to be proved, in showing, that he did not exclude Infants from Baptism.  
For if he excluded them from Baptism, he either excluded them from it directly by an express Prohibition not to Baptism them, or consequentially by so limiting, and determining the Subject of Baptism, as to make it unapplicable unto them.  
That he never excluded them by any express Prohibition, the Anabaptists themselves do grant, because there is no such Prohibition to be found in the New Testament; but then they pretend, that it was Christ's intention that grown Persons should be the only Subjects of Baptism, because the Gospel requires, that Persons to be Baptised should first be Taught, Believe, and Repent.  
First, The Gospel requires, that they should be Taught, as in Matth. 28. 29. Go and teach all Nations, Baptising them, etc.  
Secondly, That they should believe, as in Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the World, and Preach the Gospel to every Creature, saying, He that Believeth, and is Baptised shall be saved.  
Thirdly, Repentance, as in Acts 2. 38. Repent, and be Baptised every one of you in the Name of Jesus.  
But now, say they, these three Qualifications before Baptism, can belong to none but grown Persons, to Men and Women, at years of discretion, and therefore none but such aught to be Baptised. And accordingly, we find that Baptism was practised upon these terms throughout the History of the Acts, and in Heb. 6. 1, 2. Repentance and Faith are mentioned as prerequisite qualifications to Baptism in these Words, Not laying again the Foundation of Repentance from deadly works, and of Faith towards God, of the Doctrine of Baptisms.  
These are the Arguments, by which the Adversaries of Infant-Baptism endeavour to prove, that Christ so limited the subject of Baptism, as to exclude Infants from it. But in this they are grievously mistaken, because these, and the like Texts do of themselves no more prove, that grown persons are the only Subjects of Baptism, than the words of the Apostle, 2 Thes. 3. 10. prove that grown Persons only are to eat. The Apostles words are these: When we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. From whence in their Sophistical way it may be argued thus.  
It belongs only to grown Persons to eat, because the Apostle requires, that Persons who eat, should first Work; but now this Apostolical qualification of working can belong to none but grown Persons, and therefore none but such aught to eat.  
I have made use of this Parallel instance to show how inconclusive the former way of arguing against Infant-Baptism is in itself, and how impossible it is to prove from the Texts , or any other like them, that Baptism is restrained to grown Persons, because none but grown Persons can be Taught, Believe, and Repent. And I will further discover the weakness and fallacy of this Argument from a familiar Comparison, which any common Capacity may understand.  
Suppose then there were a great Plague in any Country, and God should miraculously call eleven, or twelve Men, and Communicate unto them a certain Medicine against this Plague, and say unto them: Go into such a Country, and call the People of it together, and teach them the Virtues of this Medicine, and assure them, that he that believeth, and taketh it from you, shall Live, but he that believeth not, shall Die.  
Upon this Supposition I demand of these Dissenters, if the words of such a Commission would be sufficient for the Missioners that received it, or any others to conclude, that it was God's intention, that they should administer his revealed Medicine to none, but grown Persons, Because they only could be called together, and taught the Virtues of it, and believe or disbelieve them who brought it. No certainly, this way of arguing would not be admitted by any rational Man, because the Children would be as capable of the Medicine, as the Men, though they were ignorant of the benefits of it, and merely passive in the Administration thereof.  
Wherefore seeing Children, as I have showed, are capable of the benefits of Baptism, and seeing the Apostles who received a Commission to go and Teach, and Baptise all Nations, Or, as it is in the words of St. Mark, to Preach the Gospel to every Creature, saying, He that believeth and is Baptised shall be saved. I say, seeing Children are capable of the benefits of Baptism, and the Apostles, who received this Commission, knew them to be capable of it, and to have had both Circumcision, and Baptism administered to them in the Jewish Church, how should they, or any others imagine from the tenure of such a Commission, which was given unto them, as Planters of Churches, but that it was Christ's intention that Children, as well as grown Persons were to be Baptised?  
Should God in the days of David, or Solomon, have called eleven or twelve Prophets, and given them the same Commission, which [Mutatis Mutandis] Christ gave to his Apostles, bidding them go and Teach all Nations the Law, Circumcising, and Baptising of them in the Name of the God of Abraham, and teaching them to do whatsoever he had commanded them, I say, should he have sent them out to Preach the Law to every Creature, saying, He that believeth, and is Circumcised, and baptised, shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned, would a Commission so worded have been of itself a sufficient ground for them to think, that it was God's intention to restrain Circumcision and Baptism to adult Persons, contrary to the practice of the Jewish Church? Or, if in a short History of their Mission, and Undertaking, we should have read, that they Circumcised, and Baptised as many Proselytes, as gladly received their word, would this have been an Argument that they did not also Circumcise and Baptise the Infants of those believing Proselytes, according to the Laws, and Usages of their Mother-Church? No certainly, such a Commission to Proselyte Strangers to the Jewish Religion, could not in reason have been strained to prejudice the customary right of Infants to Circumcision, and Baptism, and therefore in parity of reason, neither could the Apostles so understand their Commission without other Notices, as to exclude Infants from Sacramental Initiation into the Church.  
The plain truth is, their Commission was a direction how they should proselyte Strangers to Christianity, according to the nature of propagating a new Religion in strange Countries, as it is set forth by the Apostle, Rom. 20. 14. How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a Preacher? And how shall they Preach unless they be sent? Accordingly they were sent out to Preach, or to Disciple Men, and Women by Preaching, and to Baptise as many of them, as should upon their Preaching Believe, and Repent. But though the Order of Nature required that they should proceed in this Method with grown Persons; as the Jews were wont to do with Proselytes to the Law, yet it did not hinder, that they who had been born, and bred Jews, should initiate the Infants of such Proselyted Persons, according to the usage of the Jewish Church. What need Christ have said more unto them, when he sent them out, than to bid them Go, and teach all Nations, Baptising them in the Name of the Father, etc. Or, to Preach the Gospel to every Creature, and tell them, that he that would believe the Gospel, and be Baptised, should be saved. But then the respective sense of these words could only concern adult Persons, and their qualification for Baptism, but could in no reason be construed by them, to exclude Infants, but only unbelieving Men, and Women, whereof none were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism, before they were taught Christianity, and had confessed their Faith and Sins. Should God, as I said before, call twelve Men of any Church, where Infant-Baptism had been the constant and undoubted practice, and bid them go, and Preach the Gospel in the Indies to every creature, and to say, He that believeth the Doctrine which we Preach, and is Baptised with the Baptism which we Administer, shall be Saved: I appeal to any Dissenter upon the account of Infant-Baptism, whether he thinks that these Men, bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism, could in probability so interpret this Commission, as to think, that it was God's intention, that they should exclude the Infants of believing Proselytes from Baptismal admission into the Church.  
The Professors against Infant-Baptism, put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour: He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be Saved: But if they would well consider the next words, they would find, that Infants are not at all concerned in them, because it follows, but he that believeth not shall be Damned. The same want of Faith, which here excludes from Baptism, excludes also from Salvation, and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants, unless they will say with the 
* The Petrobusians. vid. Cassandris praefat. ad Duc. Jul. Cli. & praefat. advers. Anabaptistas'.  Original Anabaptists, that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism, excludes them from Salvation too. Wherefore, it is plain, that the believing, and not believing in that Text, is only to be understood of such as are in capacity of hearing, and believing the Gospel; that is, of grown Persons, just as the words in Joh. 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life, and he that believeth not shall not see Life, but the Wrath of God abideth on him.  
Thus far have I proceeded to show, how inconclusively and absurdly the Anabaptists go about to prove, that Infants ought to be excluded from Baptism from the  Texts, which speak of the Order of Proselyting grown Persons, and their Qualifications for Baptism; and as little success have they with some others, which they bring to show how unprofitable Baptism is for Infants, as that in 1 Pet. 3. 21. Where the Apostle tells us, that external Baptism of putting away the filth of the Flesh, of which Infants are only capable, signifies nothing, but the answer of a good Conscience towards God, of which, say they, Infants are altogether uncapable; to which the answer is very easy, that another Apostle tells us, that external Circumcision of which Infants were only capable, profited nothing without keeping the Law, which Infants could not keep, nay, that the outward Circumcision, of which Infants were only capable, was nothing, but that the inward Circumcision of the heart, and in the spirit was the true Circumcision, and yet Infants remaining Infants were utterly uncapable of that; so that their way of arguing from this and such like Texts, proves nothing, because it proves too much, and stretches the words of the Apostles unto undue consequences, beyond their just Meaning, which was only to let both Jews and Christians know, that there was no resting in external Circumcision, or Baptism, but not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcised, and Baptised.  
So weak, and unconcluding are all the Arguments, by which the Anabaptists endeavour from Scripture, to prove, that Christ hath limited the Subject of Baptism unto grown Persons; put them all together they do not amount to any tolerable degree of probability, much less unto a presumption, especially if they be put in the balance against the early and universal practice of the Catholic Church. Had not the Church been always in possession of this practice, or could any time be showed on this side the Apostles, when it began. Nay, could it be proved, that any one Church in the World did not Baptise Infants, or that any considerable number of Men otherwise Orthodox, did decline the Baptising of them upon the same Principles, that these Men do now, than I should suspect that their Arguments are better than really they are, and that Infant-Baptism might possibly be a deviation from the rule of Christ. But since it is so universal, and ancient a practice, that no body knows when, or where it began, or how from not being it came to be the practice of the Church, since there was never any Church Ancient or Modern, which did not practise it, it must argue a strange partiality to think, that it could be any thing less, than an Apostolical Practice, and Tradition, or the Original use of Baptism in its full Latitude under the Gospel, which it had under the Law. Had the 
* Ecquid verisimise est tot ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint? Nullus inter multos eventus unus est. Exitus variasse debue●at error doctrinae Ecclesiarum. Quod autem apud multos unum invenitur, non est e●ratum, sed traditum. Tertull. de praescriptione Haeret. c. 28.  Churches erred they would have varied (saith Tertullian) but what is one and the same amongst them all, proceeds not from error but Tradition. Or, as St. 
† De Baptismo contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24.  Augustine saith upon this Subject, That which the Universal Church doth hold, and was never instituted by Councils, but was always retained in the Church, we most rightly believe to have descended from nothing less than Apostolical Tradition.  

* Cassand. advers. Anabapt. p. 675.  Menno, one of the most learned of the Anabaptists about the time of the Reformation, was so pressed with this way of arguing, that he acknowledged Infant-Baptism to be as old, as the time of the Apostles, but then he said, it proceeded from false-Apostles, and false-Teachers in the Apostles times. But if it came first from false Apostles, and false-Teachers, in the time of the Apostles, how came it to pass that we heard nothing of that Innovation in the Writings of the Apostles or of their Companions and Contemporaries, such as St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, & c? How came St. John who survived unto the latter end of the first Century to pass it over in silence, or how came the Spirit in the Revelations, which by his Pen reproved so many abuses in the Churches, not to censure this? It is very strange, that none of the Penmen of the Holy-Ghost, nor none of their Assistants, and Companions should animadvert upon so scandalous an abuse of the Holy-Ordinance of Baptism, which in a short time would fill the Church with shame Christians, and destroy the Essence thereof. In like manner, if it came in by false Teachers, in the next Age to the Apostles, how came it to pass that none of the famous Saints and Martyrs, who flourished then, opposed it as a dangerous Innovation, nor gave us any account thereof? They wrote against the Heresies of Simon, Menander, Saturnus, Cerinthus, Ebion, Valentinus, Basilides, Martion, etc. but we find nothing in them against Infant-Baptism, though we are sure from 
* Omnes enim venit [Christus] per semet ipsum salvare, omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur ad deum, infants, & parvulos, & pueros, & juvenes, & seniores, i. e. Christ came to save all by himself, all, I say, who by him are born again to God, Infants, and little Ones, and Boys, and Young and Old. In the Ancient Writers Baptism is called Regeneration, and Baptised Persons are said to be Regenerate, or born again, according to the Scripture, which calls it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the washing of Regeneration, Tit. 3. 5. Hence saith Just. Mart. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So hath Phavorinus observed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Holy Baptism is called Regeneration, and those who would see more proofs of it, may consult Suicerus in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dr. Ham. on Matth. 19 28. John 3. 5. Selden de jure l. 2. c. 4. But if after all this evidence any Anabaptist will say, that renascuntur in this place of Irenaeus, doth not signify Baptised, or born again of Water, than it must signify Regenerated, or born again of the Spirit; and if Infants, and little Ones can be born again of the Spirit, than they are capable of being born again of Water, or of being Baptised, as Vossius argues disp. de Baptismo, p. 181.  Irenaeus, and 
† De Baptisma. Where what he speaks about deferring the Baptism of Infants, shows that it was the practice of the Christians in that Age, Pro cujusque personae conditione, ac dispositione, etiam aetate, cunctatio Baptismi utilior est, praecipuè tamen circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse est, si non tum necesse, sponsores periculo ingeri?— Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum? But this Opinion of his, that it was more convenient to defer the Baptism of Infants, was his own singular opinion, as much as that was of deferring the Baptism of Virgins and Widows, till they were Married, which follows in the next words. Non minore de causâ innupti procrastinandi, etc. And he shows the same cause why he would have the Baptism of Children, and un-married Women deferred, for fear they should be tempted to renounce Christ after Baptism. Siqui pondus intelligant Baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem, quam dilationem: fides integra secura est de salute. But then how absolutely necessary he thought Baptism for Infants in case of extreme danger is evident from other Passages, as Cap. 13. Quum vero praescribitur nomini sine Baptismo competere salutem, and Cap. 17. Sufficiat scilicet in necessitatibus utaris, sicubi, aut loci, aut temporis, aut personae conditio compellit. Tunc enim constantia succurrentis excipitur, quoniam reus erit perditi hominis, si supersederet praestare, quod liberè potuit. So likewise in his Book de anima, Cap. 39 Adeo nulla fermè Nativitas munda est Ethnicorum— Alioquin meminerat dominicae definitionis, nisi quis nascatur ex aquâ & Spiritu, non ibit in regnum Dei, i. e. Non erit Sanctus. Ita omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur, tamdiu immunda, quamdiù recenseatur.—  Tertullian, that it was practised in that Age.  
Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, who were all the 
* Act. Mart. Ignat.  Scholars of St. John, as likewise Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Hegesippus, were all contemporary with Irenaeus who was 
a Ep. Irenaei ad Florinum. advers. Haeres. l. 3. cap. 3. l. 5. cap. 33.  the Disciple of Polycarp, (and who as he tells us in several places of his Works, conversed with several Ancient 
b Epist. ad Florinum. advers. Haeres. lib. 2. cap. 39  Presbyters, that had lived in the Apostles times, of whom he had enquired after the Apostles practices) and yet this inquisitive Father says nothing against Infant-Baptism though we are sure from him and his contemporary Tertullian, that it was then of general practice in the Church.  
What meaned all these Men to let such a pestilent practice pass uncondemned, which in a short time, would leave none in the Church but Mock Christians, and so prevail against the Catholic Church, which our Lord promised the Gates of Hell should not prevail against? What, would not the Holy Ghost preserve so much as one Church among so many, from such a dangerous error, but suffer them all to embrace it without Opposition? 
* Nunc omnes Ecclesiae erraverint, deceptus sit & Apostolus de Testimonio reddendo Nullam respexerit Spiritus Sanctus, uti eam in veritatem deduceret, ad hoc missus à Christo, ad hoc postulatus de patre, ut esset doctor veritatis. Neglexerit Officium Dei villicus, Christi Vicarius, sinens Ecclesias aliter interim intelligere, aliter credere, quam ipse per Apostolos praedicabat. Ecquid verisimile est tot ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint? Tertul. de prescript. Haereticorum. c. 28.  Would he suffer them all so soon to Apostatise, and to practise, and believe otherwise, than Christ had taught, and the Apostles preached No! It is impossible, that they should all consent in such a dangerous error, or that they should all peaceably, and tamely submit to it without opposition, or that such an alteration should be made without Observation no body can tell how, or when.  
Wherefore these Dissenters are very unreasonable in charging the Church universal with apostasy from Christ upon the account of Infant-Baptism, and in striving to throw her out of the possession of such an ancient, and general practice merely by such indirect and consequential Arguments from the Scriptures, as the Ancient Fathers never drew from them, nor we can admit against their general practice and consent. Certainly those places of the 
* Neque verò ignota fuerunt Ecclesiae, & priscis Ecclesiae patribus Evangelicae & Apostolicae Scripturae loca in quibus poenitentia, & fides unà cum Baptismo requiri videntur. Sciebant enim probe haec ad adultos — Cassand. Praefat. advers. Anabapt.  New Testament; which require a Profession of Faith, and Repentance, in grown Persons before Baptism, were understood by the Ancient Fathers, they undoubtedly had well read and considered the History of Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles, but yet they never drew this absurd Consequence from them, that because Faith and Repentance were to go before Baptism, which is an Institution of Latitude, in Adult Persons, that therefore Baptism was not to go before Faith, and Repentance in Children and Minors, as both Circumcision, and Baptism in the like Case were wont to go before them in the Jewish Church. They knew the difference betwixt the admission of actual and potential 
See Dr. Taylor of Baptising Infants, great Exemplar, Sect. 9 part 2.  Believers, and also knew it was a very great inconsequence to argue from the Qualifications, which the Gospel requires in those, to the Exclusion of these. I freely acknowledge to them, that no Arguments are equal to the Scriptures, when the Interpretations of them are not doubtful, yet when they are so, I appeal to any sober Dissenter of this, or any other Persuasion, whether the harmonious practice of the Ancient Churches, and the undivided consent of Apostolical Fathers be not the most sure and authentical Interpreters, that can be betwixt Men, and Men. They thought Infant-Baptism lawful, and valid, and no abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism, and let any modest and moderate Man judge, whether so many Famous 
* Hanc desipuere praeterita saecula, ut tot millibus parvulorum per mille, & eo amplius annos illusorium Baptisma tribuerent & à Christi temporibus usque ad vos, non veros ei Christianos, said Phantasticos crearent? Siccine caecatus est orbis terrarum, tantaque huc usque caligine involutus, ut ad aperiendos oculos suos, & ad tam diuturnam noctem illustrandam post tot Patres, Martyrs, Pontifices, & universalem Ecclesiarum Principes vos tamdiu expectarit? Petrus Abbas Cluniacens. apud Cassandr.  Saints and Martyrs, so near the Apostles times, should fall into such a Delusion, as to conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism, and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians, and Mock-Churches, or that a little Sect, which must have separated from all the Ancient, as well as Modern Churches, that were ever yet discovered, should be in a great, and grievous Error themselves.  
Let them begin with the first Testimonies about the practice of Infant-Baptism, viz. at the latter end of the second, and beginning of the third Century, and take the pains to consult the successive Writers of the Church. St. Irenaeus, as I have observed, was the Disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the Disciple of St. John, and Tertullian was contemporary with the last days of St. Irenaeus, and the next Writer in whom we find Infant-Baptism mentioned as an 
a In Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. pro hoc & Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis Baptismum dare, quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati, quae per aquam, & Spiritum ablui deberent. In Lucam Homil. 14. Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum— & in lib. Homil. 8. quia per Baptismi Sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur, propterea baptizantur & parvuli.  Apostolical, and Universal Practice, I mean Origen, flourished within fifteen years after Tertullian's Death. St. Cyprian was Contemporary with the latter days of Origen, and his Epistle to Fidus the Presbyter is such an account of Infant-Baptism, that it alone is enough to Convince any Soul, where Prejudice doth not reign, that it always was the practice of the Church. Fidus had written unto him to let him know, that he thought it was not lawful to Baptise Children before the Eighth Day, according to the Law of Circumcision, to which he returned this Answer. 
b Quantum autem ad causam Infantum pertinet, quas dixisti intra secundum, vel tertium diem, quo nati sunt, constitutos, Baptizari non oportere, & considerandam esse legem Circumcisionis antiquae, ut infra octavum diem eum, qui natus est, Baptizandum, & Sanctificandum non putares, long aliud in Concilio nostro omnibus visum est. Ep. 58. p. 95. Ed. Rigalt.  That he, and the Council (which consisted of 66 Bishops) were of another Opinion, having determined, that as God under the Gospel was no accepter of Persons: So he was no accepter of Ages, but that Infants might be Baptised as soon as they were born, to wash away their Original Sin. The African Church was one of the most flourishing, strict, and pious of the Primitive Churches, and this resolution of the Council (which as St. Augustin observed an 100 Years after, was not novum decretum) supposeth that Infant-Baptism had been the Original, and immemorial practice of that Church. This Council sat about the middle of the third Century, 150 Years or thereabouts after the Death of the last surviving Apostle; and about the middle of the fourth Century we find Gregory Nazianzen speaking thus. 
c Orat. 40. in Sanct. Baptisma. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  Hast thou a Child? Let not Sin get the advantage, but let him be sanctified from his Infancy, and consecrated by the Spirit from his tender Years. But it may be thou art afraid to have him consigned, because of the weakness of his Nature, what a silly Mother art thou, and how weak in Faith? Anna promised Samuel to God before he was born, and not fearing any thing of Humane Weakness, but trusting in God, Consecrated the Child to the Priesthood, almost as soon as he saw the Light. Thou wilt have no need of Superstitious Charms, and Annulets for him, in which the Devil steals to himself from silly Souls, the Honour which is due to God, but call upon him the name of the Holy Trinity, which is the most safe, and excellent of Charms. And afterwards, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  so far the Baptism of those, who desire Baptism, but what shall we say of Infants, who are sensible neither of the gain, nor loss of it, shall we Baptise them? Most certainly, if they be in danger, for it is better, that they be Sanctified without the Sense of it, than that they die uninitiated and unconsigned; and my reason is taken from Circumcision, which was administered on the Eighth Day unto Infants, that had no Reason, to which I may add, the saving of the Firstborn in Goshen, by the sign of the Blood on the Lintel of the Door, and the two Side-Posts.  
The Brevity, which I design in this Treatise, will not permit me to recite many more Authorities, which are very 
b Vid. testim. Veter. Script. de Baptism. apud Cassand. & Gerhard. Joh. Voss. disp. 14. de Baptismo.  numerous out of Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerom, Augustin, etc. But I shall rather superadd some Considerations, which confirm this Ancient Tradition of Infant-Baptism, and are sufficient to induce any considerate and impartial Man to believe, that so Ancient, and universal a Practice was as old, as the Planting of Churches by the Apostles, and originally derives its Authority from them.  
For first, if Infant-Baptism was not the Practice of the Apostles, but an Innovation, it is very hard to imagine, that God should suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous Practice, which would in time Un-Church it, while Miracles were yet Extant in the Church. The same Holy Spirit, that was the guide of the Apostles, into all Truth, was the Author of Miracles too, but the first four Witnesses, which I have produced for Infant-Baptism, to wit, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, do all likewise assure us, that Miracles were then not extraordinary in the Church.  

c Adversus haereses, l. 2. cap. 56, 57 & Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. cap. 7.  Irenaeus tells us, that the true Disciples of Christ did then dispossess Devils, and had the Gift of Tongues, and of Prescience, and Predication, and of healing the Sick, and that the whole Congregation meeting together did by Fasting and Prayer, often raise the Dead, and that many so raised were then alive in the Church. Nay, he tells us, that the number of Spiritual Gifts were innumerable, which the Church all the World over then received from Christ, and I truly confess it cannot enter into my heart to believe, that God should suffer the Church to Embrace such a pernicious Error (as Infant-Baptism was, if it was not of Apostolical Tradition) and fill the Christian World with Mock-Christians, while he bore them Witness with Signs and Wonders, and divers Miracles, and Gifts of the Holy Ghost.  
Tertullian in his 
a Et ad Scapulam, c. 2.  Apologetic tells us, that the Christians had then power to make the Gods of the Heathen confess themselves to be Devils. Nay, he Challenges the Heathens to bring any one of those, that were acted, and inspired with any one of their Gods, and Goddesses, whom they worshipped, and if that Daemon God, or Goddess, not daring to tell a Lie before any Christian, should not confess itself to be a Devil, than they should shed the Blood of that Christian upon the Place.  
Origen in his Answer to Celsus, frequently appeals to the Miracles, which the Christians wrought in his Days, particularly in the first 
b Cambridge Edition, p. 34.  Book, he saith, that they exorcised Daemons, healed the Sick, and foresaw Future Events. And in the 
c p. 334. See also p. 62, 80, 124, 127, 376.  seventh Book, he proves, that Christians did not their Miracles by any curious Magical Arts, because Idiots, or illiterate Men among them did by nothing but by Prayers, and Adjurations in the Name of Jesus, banish Devils from the Bodies and Souls of Men.  

d In Epist. ad Donatum; vid. & Epist. ad Magnum & ad Demetrianum, p. 202. Ed. Rigalt.  St. Cyprian tells us, that the Christians in his days had power to hinder the Operation of deadly Poisons, to restore Madmen to their Senses, to force Devils to confess themselves to be so, and with invisible strokes and Torments to make them cry, and howl, and forsake the Bodies, which they possessed. These are the first four Witnesses, which I have produced for the Practice of Infant-Baptism, and let any man judge, whether the Church could yet run into a Church-destroying Practice within such an Holy, and Miraculous Period, as this.  
But secondly, If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition, or were derivable from any thing less than Apostolical Practice, how came the 
a Vid. Vossii hist. Pelag. l. 2. pars. 2 Thes. 4. & 13. disp. de Bapt. Thes. 18. & disp. 14. Thes. 4. Cassand. praefat. ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. & Testim. veteru de Bapt. parvulorum, p. 687.  Pelagians not to reject it for an Innovation, seeing the Orthodox used it, as an Argument against them, that Infants were guilty of Original Sin It had been easy for them, had there been any ground for it, to say that it was an Innovation crept into Practice since the time of the Apostles, or that it was brought up by False-Apostles, and False-Teachers in the Apostles Times, but then they were so far from doing this, which they would have been glad to do upon any colourable Pretence, that they practised it themselves, and owned it for an Apostolical Tradition, and as necessary for children's obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven, though they denied that they were Baptised for the Remission of Original Sin.  
But thirdly, If Infant-Baptism were not in Practice, from the first Plantation of Christian Churches, or were derivable from any other Cause than Apostolical Tradition, let the Opposers of it tell us any other probable way how it came to be the uniform practice of all Churches, not only of such as were Colonies of the same Mother-Church, or had Correspondence with one another by their Bishops, and Presbyters, but of such as were Original Plantations, and betwixt which there was likely none, or but very little Communication, by reason of the vast distance, and want of intercourse betwixt the Countries where 
b Brerewoods' Inquiries, c. 23 Cassand. exposit. de auctor. Consult. Bapt. Infant. p. 692.  they lived. Among these, of the latter sort are the Abassin-Church, in the further Ethiopia, and the 
c Osor. l. 3. de rebus gest. Eman. cit. à Vossio in disp. 14. de Baptismo brerewood's Inquiries, c. 20.  Indian Church in Coulan, and Crangonor, and about Maliapur, Planted by St. Thomas, both which practice Infant-Baptism, though in all probability they never had it one from the other, or both from any third Church. It is very incredible, that God should suffer all Churches in all the Parts of the World to fall into one and the same Practice, which certainly is a Church-destroying Practice, if the Apostles and their Assistants did not Baptise Infants, but only grown Persons.  
One may easily imagine, that God might suffer all Churches to fall into such an harmless Practice as that of Infant-Communion, or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People, in bringing their Children to the Sacrament, as we do with bringing them to Prayers, but that God should let them all (not preserving any one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity) fall into a Practice, which destroys the Being of the Church, is at least a thousand times more Incredible, than that the Apostles, without a Prohibition from Christ to the contrary, (and no such Prohibition is Extant in the New Testament) should Baptise Infants according to the Practice of the Jewish Church.  
But in the fourth Place, what Account can rationally be given, why the Jewish Christians, who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision, should not have been much more offended, if the Apostles had refused to initiate Children under the New Testament, which had always been initiated under the Old. Is it reasonable to believe, that those, who complained so much merely because the Apostles Taught the Jews, which lived among the Gentiles, that they should not Circumcise their Children, would not have complained much more if they had not Baptised them, but quite excluded them, like the Infants of Unbelievers from Admission into the Church. It must in all probability have galled them very much to see their Children Treated like the Children of mere Strangers, and to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that Embraced, and those that resisted the Faith. For they always looked upon Pagan Children, as Common, and Unclean, but upon their own, as Separate, and Holy; and St. Paul makes the same distinction between them, 1 Cor. 7. 14. But had the Apostles taught, that the Children of those, who were in Covenant with God, had no more right unto Baptismal Initiation, than the Children of Idolaters, who were out of the Covenant, they had Taught a Doctrine, which certainly would have offended them more, than all they Preached against Circumcision, and keeping the Ceremonial Law. Wherefore, since we never read among their many Complaints upon the alteration of the Jews Customs, that they complained of their children's not being initiated by Baptism, it is a greater presumption that the Apostles, and their Assistants Baptised their Children, than the want of an Express Example of Infant-Baptism in the New Testament, is that they Baptised them not.  
Having now showed, first, that Infants are not uncapable of Baptism.  
Secondly, That they are not excluded from it by Christ; but that on the contrary, we have very convincing Reasons to presume, that the Baptism of Infants, as well as of grown Persons, was intended by him. Let us now proceed to make a fair and impartial enquiry upon the Third Question.   

Quest. III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church, which appointeth Infants to be Baptised?  
And this, considering what I have said upon the former Questions, must be determined in the Negative, Whether we consider Infant-Baptism only as a thing lawful, and allowable, or, as a Thing highly requisite, or necessary to be done.  
I know very well, that my Adversaries, in this Controversy, will be apt to deny this distinction betwixt Lawful and Necessary; as acknowledging nothing in Religious matters to be lawful, but what is necessary, according to that common Principle imbibed by all sorts of Dissenters, That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters, but what is commanded by some Precept, or directed unto by some special Example in the Word of God.  
Hence they ordinarily say, Can you show us any Precept or Example for Baptising Infants in the New Testament, if you can, we will grant, that the appointment of it is lawful, but if you cannot, we disallow it as unlawful, nay, as an Usurpation, and will never be of a Church, which so Usurpeth it over the Consciences of Men.  
This way of Arguing is plausible to the Vulgar, and would be very good, were there such a Principle in the Scripture, as this, from whence they Argue, viz. That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters, but what is warranted by Precept, or Example in the Word of God. Wherefore, as the Men with whom I have to deal in this Controversy, are generally Persons of good natural Understandings:  
So in the First place, I beg them to consider, that there is no such Rule in the Scripture, as this, and therefore those, who teach it for a Scripture-rule, or Precept, do themselves impose upon men's Consciences, as bad as Papists, and, like them and the Pharisees of old, teach the Traditions of Men for Doctrines of God. On the contrary, the Gospel tells us, that Sin is the Transgression of a Law, and that where there is no Law there is no Transgression; and according to this plain, and intelligible Rule, though the Baptising of Infants were not commanded in the Scriptures, yet the Church would have Power and Authority to appoint it; upon supposition that it is not forbid.  
Secondly, I desire them to consider the absurdity of this pretended Scripture-rule, in that it takes away the distinction betwixt barely lawful, or allowable, and necessary, and leaves no Negative mean betwixt necessary and sinful, but makes things forbidden, and things not commanded to be the very same.  
Thirdly, I desire them to consider, what a slavish Principle this is, and how inconsistent it is with the free, and manly nature of the Christian Religion, under which we should be in a far more servile, and Childish condition, than the Jews were under the Law, which as it is evident from the Feast of Purim, and from the Institution of Baptism among the Jews, allowed private Persons to practice, and the Church to appoint things of a Religious nature, which God had not commanded to be done.  
Lastly, I entreat them to consider, how utterly impracticable this pretended Principle is, as might be proved from the contrary Practice of all those, who advance it against Ecclesiastical Authority, and particularly from their own Practice, in Baptising grown Persons, who were bred up from Infants in the Christian Religion, and in admitting Women to the Lords-Supper, who were not admitted to the Passover, nor Paschal-cup of Blessing, without any Precept, or Precedent for so doing in the Word of God.  
This little well considered, is enough to obviate all Objections against my first Assertion, viz. That it is not lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptised, upon supposition, that Infant-Baptism is barely lawful, and allowable; but if any man desire further satisfaction, as to this point, he may have it abundantly in the case of indifferent things, to which I refer him, it being more my business to show here that Infant-Baptism is at least, a lawful, and allowable thing.  
To prove this, I need but desire the Reader to reflect upon the State of the two first Questions: For if Infants be as capable of Baptism under the Gospel, as they were of Circumcision under the Law, and if Christ have not excluded them from it neither directly, nor consequentially: Otherwise, if Baptism be an Institution of as great Latitude in its self, as Circumcision its Forerunner was, and Christ hath not determined the administration of it to one Age, more than one Sex: Once more, if Children may be taken into the Covenant of Grace, under the Gospel, as well as under the Law, and Christ never said, nor did any thing which can in reason be interpreted to forbid them to be taken in: In a word, If they are capable of all the Ends of Baptism now, that they were of Circumcision then, and of having the Privileges of Church-Membership, and the Blessings of the Covenant consigned unto them, and Christ neither by himself, nor by his Apostles did forbid the Church to satisfy and fulfil this their capacity: Or last of all, If Christ hath only appointed Baptism instead of Circumcision, but said nothing to determine the Subject of it, than it must needs follow, that Infant-Baptism must at least be lawful, and allowable, because it is an indifferent, and not a forbidden, or sinful thing. But upon this supposition, that it were left undetermined, and indifferent by Christ, it might like other indifferent things be lawfully appointed by any Church, from which it would be a Sin to separate upon that account. For in this case, Churches might safely differ in their practice about Infant-Baptism, as they do now in the Ceremonies of Baptism; and those who lived in a Church which did practise it, ought no more to separate from her for appointing of it, than those who lived in another Church, which did not practise it, aught to separate from her, for not appointing thereof.  
Thus much I have said, I hope with sufficient moderation, upon supposition, that all I have written upon former Questions, doth but satisfactorily prove, that Infant-Baptism is only lawful, and not highly requisite and necessary; but than if it be not only lawful, but highly requisite and necessary, so that it ought to be appointed, than it must needs be much more sinful to separate from a Church, which appointeth Infants to be Baptised.  
Now, as to the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism, supposing that my Reader bears in memory, that I have said upon the last Question, (to make it appear with the highest degree of credibility, that Christ instituted Baptism for Infants, as well as grown Persons, and that the Apostles, and their Companions Practised Infant-Baptism) I must here entreat him further to observe, that there is a twofold necessity in matters of Christian Faith and practice, one which proceeds from plain dictates of natural reason, or from plain and express words of the Gospel, where the sense is so obvious and clear, that no sober man can mistake it, or doubt of it, and another which proceeds from the general Scope and Tenor of the Gospel, or from doubtful places in it so, or so understood and interpreted by the unanimous voice, and practice of the ancient Catholic Church.  
The first degree of necessity is founded on oftensive certainty, and demonstration, wherein there is no room left for Objection.  
And the Second is founded upon violent presumption, where the Objections on one hand are insufficient to move, or at least to turn the Balance, if put in the Scale against the other, which is weighed down [Mole universatis Ecclesiae] with the authority of the Universal Church. And because this Rule, like others, is not so intelligible without an Example, I will add some Instances of things, which are necessary to be believed, and practised by every good Christian under both these Notions of necessity, that they may be better understood.  
According to the First Notion of it, it is necessary to believe, that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, and the Son of God, because it is delivered in express words of Scripture.  
And according to the Second Notion of it, it is necessary to believe, that he is of the same substance with the Father, and equal unto him, and that there are three distinct, and coequal Persons in the Godhead, which are all but one God, because these Doctrines, though they are not to be found in express words in the Gospel, yet they are to be collected from several places of it, which were always so interpreted by that ancient Catholic Church.  
Again, according to the First Notion of necessity, it is necessary for all Men to believe the Word of God, whether spoken or written, because natural reason teacheth us so to do.  
And according to the Second Notion of it, it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament, to be the Word of God, and no other (how Divine, and Orthodox, and Ancient soever they may be) because they, and they only have been received for such by the ancient Catholic Church.  
In like manner as to matter of Practice, by the First sort of Necessity, it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God, because Reason, and Scripture plainly teach them so to do.  
And by the Second sort it is necessary, that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week, because the Observation of the Lords Day, appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament, as tehy are interpreted to this sense by the universal Practice of the ancient Catholic Church.  
To proceed, according to the First Notion of Necessity, Church-Government is necessary, because it is enjoined by the Dictates of Common reason, and most express places of Scripture.  
And according to the Second Notion of it, it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament, to be the Word of God, and no other, (how Divine and Orthodox, and Ancient soever they may be) because they, and they only have been received for such by the Ancient Catholic Church.  
In like manner as to matter of Practice, by the First sort of Necessity, it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God, because Reason, and Scripture plainly teach them so to do.  
And by the Second sort it is necessary, that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week, because the Observation of the Lords Day, appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament, as they are interpreted to this sense by the universal Practice of the Ancient Catholic Church.  
To proceed, according to the First Notion of Necessity, Church-Governmenr is necessary, because it is enjoined by the Dictates of Common reason, and most express places of Scripture.  
And according to the Second Notion of it, it is necessary, that the Church should be governed by Bishops (where they can be had) distinct from, and Superior to Presbyters, because this Government appears to be instituted by Christ from several Passages of the New Testament, as they are explained by the uniform Practice of the Primitive Catholic Church.  
Furthermore, according to the first sort of necessity, it is necessary to administer the Lords Supper, because our Saviour hath commanded it in express words.  
And accordlng to the Second, which is also an indispensable degree of Necessity, it is necessary to administer it to Women, though they never were admitted to the Passover, or Paschal Postcaenium, which answered unto it, because we can prove from some probable places of the New Testament, that they were admitted unto it, as those places are in equity to be interpreted by the universal Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church.  
To conclude, according to the former Notion of Necessity, it is necessary to Baptise, because our Lord hath commanded it in express words.  
And according to the Second, It is in like manner necessary to Baptise Infants, because we can prove their Baptism from the Scope, and Tenor of the Gospel, and from many Passages of it, as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church.  
First, From the Scope and Tenor of the Gospel, which it is reasonable to presume, would extend the Subject of Baptism, as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision, and Baptism.  
And Secondly, From many Passages in the Gospel, whereof I shall recite some. Except a Man be Born again of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. John 3. 5. Suffer the little Children to come unto me, and forbidden them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God. Mark 10. 14. The three noted places, which inform us, that the Apostles baptised whole Households, as of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1. 16. Lydia, Acts 16. 15. and the Jailor, Acts 16. 33. The Unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the [BELIEVING] Wife, and the unbelieving Wife is Sanctified by the [BELIEVING] Husband; else, were your Children [Common, or] Unclean, but now they are Holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. And were all Baptised unto Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea, 1 Cor. 10. 2.  
The requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism, may be fairly concluded from these Texts.  
For the First seems to make Purgation by Water, and 
* Alioquin meminerat dominicae desinitionis nisi quis nascatur ex Aquâ & Spiritu non introibit in Regnum Dei, id est, non erit Sanctus, ita omnis anima usque eo in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur, tamdiu immunda, quamdiu recenseatur. Tertull. de Animâ. cap. 39, 40. Pro hoc & Ecclesia traditionem suscepit ab Apostolis etiam parvulis Baptismum dare— quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati, quae per aquam & spiritum ablui deberent. Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. & in Luc. Hom. 14. Propterea Baptizantur & parvuli, nisi enim quis renatus, etc. Omnes venit [Christus] per semetipsum salvare, omnes inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos & pueros, & juvenes, & seniores. Irenae●s l. 2. c. 39  the Spirit equally necessary for all: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unless one be born again, etc.  
From the 
* Tertullian de Bapt. ait quidem dominus, nolite prohibere illos ad me venire. This he saith by way of Objection, which shows, that this Text was in his time understood for Infant-Baptism, but then because it was his present Opinion, that Cunctatio Baptismi praecipue circa parvulos was utilior, he answers, Veniant dum adolescunt, veniant dum discunt, dum quò veniant docentur.  Second, it is reasonable to conclude, that little Children are capable of Proselytism, or entering into the Covenant after the Jewish manner, when they are brought unto it by others.  
First, Because they are declared 
a Cassandr. de Baptism. Infant. p, 730.  capable of the Kingdom of God.  
And Secondly, Because 
b Dr. Ham. of Infant-Baptism. Sect. 22. 28.  the Original words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from whence the Word Proselyte doth come.  
From the Third, it is reasonable to conclude, That they Baptised the Children upon the Conversion of the Parents, after the Custom of the Jewish Church.  

c Tertul. de anima c. 39 Hinc enim & Apostolus ex Sanctificato alterutro ●exu Sanctos procreari ait, tam ex seminis praerogatiuâ, quàm ex institutionis disciplinâ. Caterum, inquit, immundi nascerentur, quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis, & per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios, ut hujus spei pignora, Matrimoniis, quae retinenda censuerat, patrocinaretur. Alioqui meminerat.—  From the Fourth, it is reasonable to believe, That the Foederal Holiness of Believers Children makes them Candidates for Baptism, and gives them a right unto it.  
And the Fifth makes it reasonable to conclude, from the Type to the Antitype, that if the Jews with their Children were umbratically Baptised unto Moses in the one, that Christians and their Infants should be really Baptised in the other.  
To all which may be added 
d Rom. 5. Psal. 51. 5. Rom. 3. 23, 24. Joh. 3. 5, 6. 2 Cor. 15. 21, 22. 2 Cor. 5 14, 15. Job 14 4. Vid Voss. hist. Pelag. l. 2. part 2.  other Texts, which have been alleged by the Ancients both 
* Voss. hist. Pelag. p. 1. Thes. 6.  before and after the Pelagian Controversy, to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary, to wash away their Original Sin, which makes them obnoxious to Eternal Death.  
I say, the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism, might be fairly concluded from these Texts, without the Tradition of the Ancient Church, though without it, I confess, it could not be demonstrated from them, as the Doctrines of the Trinity, and the Deity of the Holy Ghost may be fairly, and sufficiently proved from those Texts which the Orthodox bring for them, without Ancient Tradition, though without it, they could not be demonstrated from them, because they do not assert it in express words.  
But then, as those Texts in Conjunction with Tradition, do put those Doctrines out of all reasonable doubt: So do the other, which I have cited in Conjunction with the Practice of the Ancient Church, put the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism out of Question, because the Church in the next Age unto the Apostles, practised Infant-Baptism, as an Apostolical Tradition, and by consequence, as an Institution of Christ.  
In like manner, as the  Arguments taken from the Style, Sanctity, Dignity, and Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures, and the perpetual Analogy, and Conformity of the several Books contained in them, are by themselves but probable, and no demonstrative reasons, that all the Books contained in the Canon, and no other, are the Word of God, but in conjunction with the Testimony, and Authority of the Ancient Catholic Church, amount to a Demonstration: So, though the Texts which I have cited, are of themselves but probable Arguments for the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism, yet in concurrence with such a Comment upon them, as the Practice of the next Age unto the Apostles, and all Ages since, from one Generation to another, they amount to such a demonstration, as is called in Logic, Demonstratio ducens ad absurdum, and are a violent Presumption, that Children ought to be Baptised. I might run on the Parallel, as to the other Instances of Episcopal Government, the admitting of Women to the Communion, and the Observation of the Lord's day; and therefore let the Adversaries of Infant Baptism consider well with themselves, Whether rejecting of it after a Concurrence of such Texts, and such a Tradition to establish it, they do not teach others, especially Atheists; pure Deists, and Sabbatizers; to which I may add Sceptics, Socinians, and Quakers, a way to deny all the rest.  
Thus much I have said concerning the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism, to show that it is not lawful to separate from a Church for appointing of Infants to be Baptised, when there are such cogent reasons arising from the concurrence of Scripture, and Antiquity, to presume that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Tradition, and an Institution of Christ. And I have designedly called it a requisite, to distinguish it from an absolute necessity, lest the Reader should think I were of St. Augustin's Opinion, who thought Baptism indispensibly necessary to the Salvation of Infants, so that a Child dying unbaptised, through the carelessness, or Superstition of the Parents, or through their mistaken Belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism, were 
* Potest proinde rectè dici parvulos sine Baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros. Multum autem fallit, & fallitur, qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros, dicente Apostolo Judicium ex uno delicto — August. de peccat merit. & remiss. contra Pelag. l. 1. c. 16. Vid. & contra Julianum Pelag. l. 5. c. 8.  infallibly damned.  
No, I intended no such severe Conclusion, (because we ought not to tie God to the same means, to which he hath tied us) but only to show that the Baptism of young Children is antecedently necessary, and 
† Articles of Religion, Artic. 27.  in any wise to be retained in the Church, as being most agreeable with the Holy Scripture, the Apostolical Practice, and the Institution of Christ. And to set this way of arguing more home upon the Consciences of those, who Dissent from the Church upon the account of Infant-Baptism, I appeal unto them, Whether Scripture, and Antiquity, standing against Infant-Baptism in the same posture of evidence, that they now stand for it, it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church, for not Baptising Infants, as they do now for Baptising of them.  
Let us suppose, for Example, That the Disciples of Christ, instead of rebuking those, that brought little Children unto him, had brought them to him themselves; and he had been much displeased at them for it, and said, I suffer not little Children to come unto me; for the Kingdom of God is not of such: Let us put the case, That two Evangelists had recorded this supposed Story, and accordingly we had been assured, by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles, that then there was no Baptising of Infants, and that the Apostles Baptised them not, and that there never was any Church in after Ages which did practise Infant-Baptism: Upon this Supposition, I appeal unto them, Whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World, for not allowing of Infant-Baptism against the Concurrence of such a Text, to the contrary, and the sense and practise of the Catholic Church.  
The case, which I suppose one way, is the real case the other, only with this difference, that the supposed case would have but the benefit of one Text, whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Conjunction with Tradition; and therefore, seeing there are so many Texts, and such a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism, Why should it not be looked upon as one of the common Notions of Christianity, like the Parallel Doctrines , though it be not commanded (especially when, as I have showed there was no need of commanding of it) in express Words.  
I know the Dissenters of all sorts, and especially those, for whose sake I am now writing, are bred up in great prejudice, and sinister Suspicions against Tradition, declaiming against it, as very uncertain, and against the use of it as very derogatory to the sufficiency of the Word of God. But as to the first part of their Objection against the certainty of Tradition, I desire them to take notice, that there is a certain, as well as an uncertain; an undoubted, as well, as a pretended Tradition, as there are true, certain, and undoubted, as well as pretended, and uncertain Scriptures, and that there are sure ways whereby ingenious, and inquisitive Men, may satisfy themselves, which is one, and which is the other.  
The way then to find out true and undoubted Tradition, as 
* Advers. Haeres. c. 3.  Vincentius Lirinensis teacheth, is to try it by these three Tests. Universality, Antiquity, and Consent.  
First, By Universality, If all the Churches, wheresoever dispersed, or how different soever in their Languages, and Customs, do believe or practise such a Doctrine.  
Secondly, Antiquity, If what all the Churches all the World over doth so believe or practice, was no innovation, but Believed, and Practised in the Ages next to the Apostles, when such Fathers governed the Churches, or such Famous Men lived in them, as knew the Apostles, and conversed with them, or lived near unto those, or with those Apostolical Men, who so knew them, or conversed with them, or lived near unto them.  
Thirdly, Consent, If it appear that such a Doctrine was the consentient belief or practice of all the Fathers in those Ages, or of all except a very few, who had no proportion to the rest.  
To which I will add, First, That this Tradition must be written, and not Oral. And  
Secondly, That it must be proved in every Age from Books that were written in it, and whose Authors, whether under their own, or under borrowed Names, had no interest to write so.  
And therefore, though the Testimonies for Infant-Baptism in the Constitutions, going under the name of 
* L. 6. c. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — Baptise your Infants, & educate them in the Discipline, and Admonition of God, for saith our Lord, Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbidden them not.  Clemens Romanus, and the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, bearing the name of 
a C. 7. Where arguing for Infant-Baptism, he saith, Of this we say the same things, which our Divine Ministers of Holy things instructed by Divine Tradition brought down to us.  Dionysius the Areopagite, are of no authority as to the first Century, when St. Clement, and St. Denis lived; yet they are most excellent authorities for the third; and fourth Century, when they were written, because they had no interest to write for Infant-Baptism. The like, I may say, of the Testimony which the 
b Quaest. & respons. 56. Where, he saith, That there is this difference betwixt Baptised, and unbaptised Infants, that Baptised Infants enjoy the good things of Baptism, which those, that are not Baptised do not enjoy, and that they en●●● them by the Faith of those, who offer them to Baptism.  Ancient and Judicious Author of the Answers to the Orthodox concerning some Questions, gives of Infant-Baptism, it is of no authority as for the second Century, when Justin Martyr, whose name it bears, flourished, but being a disinteressed writer, it is of excellent authority for the third, when it was written.  
So much for the Test whereby to try certain, and undoubted from uncertain and doubted Tradition, and happy had it been for the Church of God, if all Writers at the beginning of the Reformation, had made this distinction, and not written so, as many of them have done, against all Tradition without any discrimination; whereas Tradition, as I have here stated it, is not only an harmless thing, but in many cases very useful and necessary for the Church. It was by Tradition in this sense, that the Catholics, or Orthodox defended themselves in the fourth Century against the Arians, and the Church of afric against the Donatists, and the Protestants defend themselves, as to the Scripture-Canon, and many other things against the Innovations of the Papists And therefore, in answer to the Second part of their Objection against Tradition, as detracting from the Sufficiency of the Scriptures, I must remind them, that the Scriptures, whose sufficiency we admire, as well as they, cannot be proved to be the Word of God without Tradition, and that though they are sufficient, where they are understood to determine any Controversy, yet to the right understanding, and interpretation of them in many points, Tradition is as requisite, as the 
* Lex currit cum praxi.  practice of the Courts is to understand the Books of the Law.  
This is so true, that the Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the Baptising of such grown Persons, as were born, and bred in the Church merely from the Scriptures, in which the very Institution of Baptism hath a special regard unto Proselytes, who from Judaisme, or Gentilism, would come over unto the Christian Faith. Accordingly they cannot produce one Precept, or Example for Baptising of such as were born of Christian Parents in all the New Testament, but all the Baptised Persons we read of in it, were Jews, or Gentiles; and therefore they cannot defend themselves against the Quakers, [who for this, and other Reasons, have quite laid aside Baptism] without the Tradition, and Practice of the Church.   

Quest. iv Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents, to bring their Children unto Baptism?  
To state this Question aright, I must proceed in the same order, that I did upon the last.  
First, In arguing from the bare lawfulness, and allowableness of Infant-Baptism.  
And Secondly, From the necessity thereof.  
As to the lawfulness of it, I have already shown upon the last Question, That there is no necessity of having a Command, or Example for to justify the practice of Infant-Initiation; but it is sufficient, that it is not forbidden to make it lawful, and allowable under the Gospel. Nay, I have showed upon the Second Question, that of the two, there is more reason that Christians should have had an express command to leave off, or lay down the practice of Infant-Initiation, because it was commanded by God in Infant-Circumcision, and approved by him in Infant-Baptism (which the Jewish Church added to Infant-Circumcision) under the Legal State. Commands are usually given for the beginning of the practice of something, which was never in practice before; but to justify the continuation of an anciently instituted, or anciently received practice, it is sufficient, that the Power, which instituted, or approved it, do not countermand, or forbidden it: and this, as I have shown, being the case of Infants-Initiation, the Initiation of them by Baptism under the Gospel, must at least be lawful and allowable, and if it be so, than Parents, and Pro-parents are bound in Conscience to bring them unto Baptism in Obedience unto the Orders of the Church. For the Church is a Society of a People in Covenant with God, and in this Society, as in all others there are Superiors, and in Inferiors, some that must Order, and some that must observe Orders, some that must Command, and some that must Obey; and therefore, if the Catholic Church, or any Member of it commands her Children to observe any lawful thing, they are bound by the Common-Laws of all Government, and by the Precepts in the Gospel, which regard Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline, to observe her Commands. Obey them (saith the 
* Heb. 13. 17.  Apostle) who have the Rule over you, and submit yourselves unto them, for they watch for your Souls Accordingly we read that St. 
† Act. 16. 4.  Paul, as he went through the Grecian Cities delivered the Christians the Decrees, which the Apostles had made at Jerusalem, to keep; but I think, I need not spend more time in the Proof of a thing, which all Dissenters will grant me, for though they differ from us, as to the Subject of pure Ecclesiastical Power, yet they all agree, that there is such a Power, and that all lawful Commands proceeding from it, aught to be Obeyed.  
Wherefore, if Infants are not uncapable of Baptismal Initiation, as is proved under the first Question, nor excluded from it by Christ, as is proved under the Second; but on the contrary, there are very good Reasons to presume, that Christ at least allowed them the benefit and honour of Baptism, as well as grown Persons: then the Ordinance of any Church to Baptise them must needs lay an Obligation of Obedience upon the Consciences of Parents, and Pro-parents, who live within the Pale of it, because the matter of that Ordinance is a thing not forbidden, but at least, allowed by Jesus Christ.  
But because People, when the are once satisfied with the lawfulness, are wont, especially in Church-matters, to inquire into the expediency of their Superiors Commands, and to obey them with most Cheerfulness, and Satisfaction, when they know they have good reasons for what they ordain; therefore, lest any one whom perhaps I may have convinced of the bare lawfulness of Infant-Baptism, should doubt of the expediency of it, and upon that account be less ready to comply, I will here proceed to justify the practice of the Church in this Particular; by showing  
First, That Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants.  
And Secondly, That the Baptising of them conduceth very much to the well-being and edification of the Church.  
First then, Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants, because they are capable of the Benefits, and Privileges of Baptism.  
This I shown in general before, under the first Question, and now I will show it in a more particular manner of Induction, by insisting upon the several Ends, for which Baptism was ordained.  
First then Baptism was ordained, That the Baptised Person might be thereby solemnly consecrated unto God, and dedicated to his Service, and I hope I need not prove, that Children are capable of this benefit; since Jewish Infants were Consecrated to God by Circumcision; and the Scripture tells us, that 
* Judges 13. 15.  Samson was a Nazarite from the Womb, and that Samuel from the time of his Weaning, was dedicated unto the Lord.  
Secondly Baptism was ordained, That the Baptised Person might be made a Member of Christ's Mystical Body, which is the Holy Catholic Church. This is a great, and honourable Privilege, and no Man can deny, but Infants are as capable of it under the New, as they were under the Old Testament. Nay, so far are they from being under any Natural Incapacity, as to Church-Membership, that they are ordinarily born free of Kingdoms, Cities, and Companies; and therefore, why any Man should think it not so proper for the Church-Christian to be as indulgent to them, as the Jewish Church was, and Civil Societies usually are, I profess I cannot tell.  
Thirdly it was ordained, That the Baptised Person might by that Solemnity pass from a State of Nature, wherein he was a Child of Wrath, into a State of Adoption or Grace, wherein he becomes a Child of God.  
For by our First Birth we are all Children of Wrath.  
But by our Second Birth in Baptism, we are made Children of God: And why it should be so improper for a Child to pass in this solemn manner from one Spiritual, as well, as from one Temporal State to another, or be Solemnly Adopted by God, as well as Man, or  
Lastly, Why a Child may not be Adopted under the Gospel, as well, as under the Law? I am confident, those who are willing to defer the Baptism of Infants, would be puzzled to give any rational account.  
In the Fourth place, Baptism was instituted for a Sign to Seal unto Baptised Persons the pardon of their Sins, and to confer upon them a Right of Inheritance unto Everlasting Life; but Baptism hath this Effect upon Infants, as well as upon adult Persons, for it washes them clean from 
* De hoc etiam David dixisse credendus est illud, qui in peccato concepit me mater mea, pro hoc & Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit, etiam parvulis Baptismum dare. Sciebant enim illi, quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum, quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati, quae per aquam & spiritum ablui deberent. Origen. in Ep. ad Lous. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Contra Celsum l. 4. Quanto magis prohiberi non debet Infans, qui recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ Nativitate contraxit. Cyprian. in Ep. ad Fidum. Those that would see more Testimonies out of the Ancients about Original Sin, before the time of the Pelagian Controversy, may consult Irenaeus l. 4. cap. 5. l. 5. cap. 16. l. 3. cap. 20. l. 5. cap. 14. 17, 21. and many more cited out of Just. Mart. in Dial cum Tryph. Tatianus his Scholar, Athanasius, etc. by Vossius in his Hist. Pelag. l. 2. part 1. Th. 6. Vid. Can. Concil. Carthag. 112.  Original, as it doth Men, and Women both from Actual and Original Sin. I say, it washes them clean from Original Sin, and seals the Pardon of it, and the assurance of God's favour unto them, and being cleansed by the washing of Regeneration from the guilt of that natural vitiosity which they derived from Adam, and which made them obnoxious to the displeasure of God, they become reconciled unto him, and acquire as certain a Right to Eternal Life, upon their justification, as any actual Believer in the Word. I cannot deny, but they may be saved without Baptism, by the extraordinary, and uncovenanted Mercies of God, and so may actual Believers, who die unbaptised, if they did not contemn Baptism; but then the hopes which we ought to have of God's Mercy, in extraordinary Cases, ought not to make us less regardful of his sure, ordinary, and covenanted Mercies, and the appointed means, unto which they are annexed.  
But in the Fifth place, Baptism was ordained, That being admitted into the Covenant, and engrafted into Christ's Body, we might acquire a present Right unto all the Promises of the Gospel, and particularly unto te promises of the Spirit, which is so ready to assist Initiated Persons, that it will descend in its influences upon them at the time of their Initiation in such a manner, and measure, as they are capable thereof.  
This the Primitive Christians found by experience to be so true, that they called Baptism, by the names of 
* Heb. 6. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Just. Mart. Apol. 2. 94. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. 40. † Vid. Cypriani Ep. 1. ad Donatum.  Illumination, Grace, and Unction; and we need not doubt, but they talked, as they felt; and for this reason, they Baptised Infants, because they knew that they acquired a Right unto the same Spirit by Baptism, who would be sure to preside, and watch over them, and act upon their Souls according to the measure of their capacity, and prevent them in their very first do with his gracious helps.  
Wherefore, though it should be granted, that the Holy Ghost cannot be actually conferred upon Infants in Baptism, by reason of their natural incapacity (as Anabaptists rashly assert) yet the Baptising of them is not frustraneous, as to this great End of Baptism, because they thereby acquire an actual Antecedent Right to the Assistances, and Illuminations of the Holy Spirit, which they shall receive, as soon, and as fast, as their natural incapacity removes.  
This distinction betwixt having the Spirit, and having a Right unto the Spirit, holds not only in Infant-Baptism, but in the Baptism of Hypocrites, and secret Sinners, who by submitting unto the Ordinances of Baptism acquire an actual Antecedent Right unto the Spirit, although they are in a moral incapacity of receiving the Graces of it, till their Hypocrisy is removed. Nevertheless, their Baptism is not ineffectual as to this End, but is a means of conferring the Holy Ghost upon them without rebaptisation, because though they cannot receive it at the moment of their Baptism, by reason of their Hypocrisy, as sincere Penitents do, in whom there is no such Moral Impediment; yet by virtue of it, they will be sure to receive it afterwards, as soon, as they shall in any degree become capable thereof.  
Those are the Blessings, and Benefits, consequent upon Baptism by God's appointment, of which Infants are as capable, as actual Believers, and let any Impartial Man judge, Whether it is more for their benefit, that this manifold capacity in them should be actually answered by the timely Administration of Baptism, or that it should lay void and unsatisfied, till they came to years of Discretion? Which is best for a Child that hath the Evil, to be Touched for it, while he is a Child, or to wait till he is of sufficient Age to be sensible of the Benefit? Or to make one Comparison more, which would be best for a Traitor's Child, to be presently restored to his Blood, and and Estate, and his Prince's Favour, or to be kept in a mere capacity of being restored till he was a Man?  
But besides these Benefits which are consequent upon Baptism by God's appointment, there is another no less profitable to young Children, which will justify the practice of Infant-Initiation, and that is to have such an early pre-engagement laid upon them, which without the highest Baseness can Ingratitude, they cannot afterwards retract. No Person of common Ingenuity, who hath any sense of honour, or any tolerable degree of Conscience within him, can without shame and horror break those Sacred Bonds asunder, by which he was bound to God, in his Infancy, when he comes to Years of understanding; but on the contrary, will think himself in Honour, and Gratitude, bound to own, and stand to the Obligation, which he then contracted, when he was graciously admitted to so many Blessings and Privileges, before he could do any thing himself towards the obtaining of them, or understand his own good. It would argue a Person to be of a very ill nature, and untoward Disposition to break such solemn Foederal Vows, and therefore, we see that Children generally do readily take upon themselves their Baptismal Obligations, when they come to the use of reason, whereas were they left alone, to their own Freedom, when they would be Baptised, they would be apt to put it off from time to time, through the averseness that the corrupt nature of Man hath to such strict, and Spiritual Engagements, and in such a State of Liberty, as this, Men would need, as many, and as earnest Exhortations unto Baptism, as unto the Lord's Supper; and in such an Age, as ours is at least, reluct as much to come unto that, as we see by experience they do unto this. Wherefore, upon Supposition that Christ doth but allow Children to be brought unto him in Baptism, The Wisdom of the Church is highly to be applauded for bringing them under such an early, and beneficial pre-engagement, and not leaving them to their own liberty at such years, when Flesh, and Blood, would be apt to find out so many Shifts, and Excuses, and make them regret to be Baptised.  
And therefore in the Second place, as the Baptism of Infants is very Beneficial, and profitable unto them: So it conduceth very much to the well-being, and edification of the Church, in preventing those Scandalous and Shameful delays of Baptism, which grown Persons otherwise would be apt to make, putting of it off till the time of some great sickness, as many were wont to do in the third and fourth Century, when being not Baptised in their Infancy, they did ordinarily receive Baptism, as Papists now receive extreme Unction, when they were ready to expire.  
For, as it is usual now for Persons to defer the receiving of the Lord's Supper, for fear of Damnation, mistaking the Apostle, where he saith, He that Eateth and Drinketh unworthily, Eateth, and Drinketh Damnation to himself: So in those Ages it was usual for Persons to defer their own, and their children's Baptism out of a 
* Dr. Caves Prim. Christian. part 1. ch. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. p. 647 & 649. Sed mundus rursus delinquit, quò male comparetur diluvio, itaque igni destinatur, sicut & homo, qui post Baptismum delicta restaurat. Tertull. de Baptismo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Nyssen de Baptismo.  kind of Novatian Principle, for fear that if they fell into Sin after Baptism there would be no place for Repentance, mistaking that place of the Apostle, where 'tis said, that if they, who were once enlightened [i. e. Baptised] fall away, it is impossible to renew them again unto Repentance.  
Now the Baptising of Children being deferred by their Parents out of this Superstitious fear, they, when they came to be Men and Women, put the doing of it off for several Reasons, and Pretences, which we learn out of the Writers of those times.  
Some deferred it out of Worldly Love, and a Carnal loathness to renounce their sinful Pleasures, and take upon them the Yoke of Christ. Some put it off pretending want of leisure through multitude of worldly business; others out of laziness, and careless negligence. Others were wont to plead the insufficiency of their knowledge, 
See Mr. Walker's Excellent Preface to his Treatise of Infant-Baptism.  others the inconveniency of the present time; others would not be Baptised, but at such a time, or in such a place, as such a City, or such a River, or by such a Person, or in such a Company. Some would put it off upon a pretence of not having such, or such Relations present, others would decline it upon the account of some small Expenses, that attended it; others because they relucted to confess their Sins, others because they favoured not the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, or to comply with the Arians; some because they would imitate the Example of Christ, who was not Baptised till the 30th Year of his Age, and some out of fear of Persecution.  
This happened formerly to the great shame, and dishonour of the Christian Religion, though the 
* Gregor. Nazianz. Greg. Nyss. and St. Basil.  Fathers sharply and vehemently Wrote, and Preached against it; and therefore, upon supposition of the bare lawfulness, or indifferency of Infant-Baptism, I cannot but approve the Wisdom, and Prudence of those Churches, which appoint it, because the practice of it doth prevent such shameful, and scandalous Neglects of Baptism, which to the great prejudice of Christianity, as Experience hath taught us, would otherwise arise in the Church.  
Thus much upon enquiry into the lawfulness, and expediency of Infant-Baptism, to show Christian Parents what an indispensable Obligation lies upon their Consciences to bring their Children to be Baptised in Obedience to the Church, which hath appointed Infant-Baptism; but then if Infant-Baptism be not only necessary because the Church hath appointed it, but the Church hath appointed it because it is necessary, and in any wise to be retained, than this Antecedent sort of necessity doth yet lay a stronger Obligation upon the Consciences of Parents to initiate their Children as being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles, and the Intention, and Will of Christ.  
First, As being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles, who it is highly to be presumed, authorised the practice of Infant-Baptism, because, it was practised in the next Age unto them.  
And Secondly, As being most agreeable to the Intention, and Will of Christ, who it is to be presumed would have forbidden, and countermanded the Jewish practice of initiating Infants, if he had not had a mind they should be Baptised.  
Wherefore 
* Nam quum paedo-Baptismus in Ecclesiâ Judaicâ in admissione Proselytorum ita fuit notus, usitatus, & frequens, ut nihil ferè notius, usitatius, & frequentius, non opus erat, ut aliquo praecepto roboraretur. Nam Christus Baptismum in manus suas atque in usum Evangelicum suscepit, qualem invenit, hoc solùm addito, quod ad digniorem finem atque largiorem usum promoverit. Novit satis gens universa parvulos solitos Baptizari, Illud praecepto opus non habuit, quod Communi usu semper invaluerat. Si prodiret jam edictum regale in haec verba: Recipiat se unusquisque die dominico ad publicum conventum in Ecclesiâ, insaniet certè ille, quicunque olim hinc argueret non celebrandas esse die dominico in publicis conventibus preces, conciones, Psalmodias, eo quod nulla in edicto de iis mentio. Nam cavit edictum de celebratione diei dominicae in publicis conventibus in genere, de particularibus autem divini cultûs speciebus ibidem celebrandis non opus erat, ut esset mentio, cum istae ante datum edictum, & cum daretur, semper, & ubique notae essent, & in usu assiduo. Ipsissimo hoc modo res se habuit cum Baptismo, Christus cum instituit in Sacramentum Evangelicum, quo in professionem Evangelii omnes admitterentur, ut olim in Proselytismum ad Religionem Judaicum. Particularis eò spectantia modus scilicet Baptizandi aetas Baptizanda, sexus Baptizandus, etc. regulâ & definitione opus non habuerunt, eo quod haec vel lippis & tensoribus nota erant ex communi usu. E contra ergo planâ & apertâ prohibitione opus erat, ut Infants & parvuli non Baptizarentur, si eos Baptizandos nollet servator.— Si aboleri istam consuetudinem vellet Christus aperte prohibuisset. Silentium ergo ejus & Scripturae paedo-baptismum firmat, & propagat. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae in Matth. 3. 6.  his very not repealing of that practice, is a sufficient Demonstration, that it was his pleasure it should be continued; it was the practice of the Jewish Church before he came, and the practice of the Church Christian not long after he departed, and we find the practice of it in the one, harmoniously answering to the practice of it in the other; and therefore what was before, and what was after this time, we may well presume, was continued in the interim during the time of the Apostles, as his presumed Will and Intention, who never did, or spoke any thing, that can reasonably be interpreted, that he would have the Jewish custom of admitting Infants into the Church, laid aside; and therefore, his silence, and the silence of the Scriptures, are so far from being Arguments against Infant-Baptism, that considering the Antecedent usage of it, they are very strong Presumptions for it, as the Learned Author in the Margin foregoing doth excellently prove.  
To this purpose also, have I discoursed above, upon the Second and Third Questions; and therefore if Christ in the Reformation of the Church, from the Law into the Gospel, did not repeal the Ancient practice of Infant-Baptism, but left Baptism to be administered in the same Latitude, as before his time, than it must needs be concluded, that there lies the same Obligation upon Parents (abstracting from the Commands of the Church) to desire Baptism for their Children, as for grown Proselytes to desire it for themselves.  
For what authority soever enacts any thing concerning Children, or Persons under the years of discretion, doth lay at least an implicit Obligation upon Parents, and Pro-parents to see that act be performed. As if for Example, an Act of Parliament should be made, that all Persons whatsoever, Men, Women, and Children, should pay so much an Head unto the King, the Act, by the nature of it, would oblige Parents, and Pro-parents, to pay for their Children, and the Minors in their custody, as well as for themselves. Or, if in the time of a general Contagion, the Supreme Power should command, that all Men, Women, and Children, should every Morning take such an Antidote, that Command would oblige Parents to give it unto their Children, as well, as to take it themselves. Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended, or instituted by our Saviour in its ancient Latitude for Children, as well, as grown Persons, it must needs lay an Obligation upon Parents, and Pro-parents to bring them to the Holy Sacrrament, otherwise the Divine Institution would in part be made void, and frustrated of the Ends for which it was instituted, as if it did not also lay an Obligation upon Adult Persons to offer themselves unto the Holy Sacrament, it would be of no force at all.  
To sum up all in short. When our Lord first appointed Baptism, and afterwards said, Go, and Proselyte all Nations, Baptising them, etc. either he intended that Children should be Baptised, as well as Grown Proselytes, or he did not; if he did not intent they should be Baptised, Why did he not plainly discover that Intention? Nay, Why did he not plainly forbid them to be Baptised, as they were wont to be, but if he intended they should be Baptised according to the ancient custom in the Jewish Church, Parents are as much bound to offer them unto Baptism, as Adult Believers, Men and Women, are bound to offer themselves.  
What I have here said about the Obligation, which lies upon Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism, concerns all Pro-parents to whose care Children are committed, as Guardians, Tutors, and Churchwardens; and lest any should ask, as some Sceptically do, at What time they are bound to bring them unto Baptism? As soon, as they are born, or the next day after, or when? I answer, by showing the impertinency of that Question, in reference to Grown Believers thus: When must a Believing Man, or Woman be Baptised? As soon as he Believes, or the next day after, or when? And truly the Answer is the same to both Questions, at any time, the Gospel indulging a discretional Latitude in both Cases, and only forbidding the wilful neglect of the Ordinance, and all unreasonable, and needless delays thereof.   

Quest. V Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Believers, who were only Baptised in their Infancy?  
The stating of this, depends upon what I have said upon the Second, and Third Questions, to prove, That Infants are capable Subjects of Baptism, and that it is lawful to Baptise them; and if I have not erred, as I hope I have not, in those two Determinations, than the Baptism of Infants is lawful, and valid, and if the Baptism of them be lawful, and valid, than it cannot be unlawful to Communicate with them, when they come to be Men, and Women.  
Accordingly, it never entered into the Heart of any of the ancient Christians to refuse Communion with grown Believers, who had been Baptised in their Infancy, whether they were Baptised in perfect health, as Children most commonly were, or only in dnager of Death, as the Children of those Novatian kind of Parents above mentioned always were, who were so far from thinking Infant-Baptism a Nullity, or Corruption of Baptism, that they thought it necessary for them in case of apparent danger, and durst not let them die un baptised.  
Some others deferred the Baptising of their Children, because they thought them too weak to endure the Severities of the Trine immersion; and others, perhaps, according to the private Opinion of 
a De Baptismo. c. 18. Ait quidem dominus, nolite illos prohibere ad me venire, veniant ergò dum adolescunt, veniant dum discunt, dum, quò veniant, docentur.  Tertullian and 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 40.  Nazianzen, thought is more convenient to delay the Baptising of them till they were capable of being Catechised, between Three, and Four years old, but still this delay of Baptism supposed their continuing in health, but in case of danger they thought it 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  necessary to Baptise them, and if they survived the danger, looked upon them as lawfully, and validly Baptised.  
These were all the Pleas we read of for deferring the Baptism of Infants among the Ancients, who never urged this for one, that Infant-Baptism was unlawful, or invalid. No, They never argued against it from the want of those pre-requisite Conditions in Children, which Christ, and the Apostles required in Adult Proselytes, nor from the want of Precept, and Example for it in the New Testament, but so understood the Scriptures, as to think it as lawful, and warrantable as the Baptism of grown Believers, and necessary in case of danger; and just so did those, who deferred their Baptism, for fear of sinning after it, think the Baptism of Men and Women only necessary at the last extremity, in apparent danger of Death.  
But then if the ordinary practice of Infant-Baptism be not only lawful, and valid, but also necessary, as appearing most agreeable to the presumed Will of Christ, who did not countermand the practice of it, and most conformable to the practice of the Apostles, as can be proved from the practice of the very next Age unto them; than it must not only be lawful to Communicate with Believers, who were Baptised in their Infancy, but an exceeding great Sin, and Presumption to refuse Communion with them upon that account.  
In a word, If Infant-Baptism be not only lawful, but necessary, what a grievous, and provoking Sin, must it needs be, to disown those for Members of Christ's Body, whom he owns to be such? But if it be neither, as Anabaptists vainly pretend, than there hath not been a true Church upon the Face of the Earth, for Eleven hundred Years, nor a Church, for above Fifteen hundred, with which a true Christian could Communicate without Sin.  
This is a very absurd, and dreadful consequence, and inconsistent with the purity of the Apostolical Ages, while the Church was so full of Saints, Martyrs, and Miracles, and represented as 
* See Dr. More's Apocalypsis Apoc. Preface, p. 20. and on the 11. Ch. of the Rev. v. 1, 2.  Symmetral by the Spirit of God under the Symbol of Measuring the Temple of God, and the Altar, Revel. 11. 1, 2.   

THE CONCLUSION.  
ALthough in the management of this Controversy against the Anabaptists, I have endeavoured so to state the Case of Infant-Baptism, as to obviate, or answer all the Considerable Pleas, and Material Objections, which they are wont to make against it; yet there are two of their Objections, of which I have yet taken no notice, thinking it better, that I might avoid tediousness, and confusion in determining upon the preceding Questions, to Propose, and Answer them a part by themselves.  
The First of these two, is the ancient Custom of giving the Communion unto Infants, which they endeavour with all their Art, and Skill to run Parallel with the practice of Infant-Baptism, although there is not the like Evidence, nor the like Reason for the practice of that, as there is for the practice of this.  
First, There is not the like Evidence for the practice of it, St. 
a Ac nequid de esset ad criminis cumulum Infantes quoque parentum manibus vel impositi, vel attracti: amiserunt parvuli, quod in primo statim Nativitatis Exordio fuerunt consecuti. Nun illi cum judicii dies venerit, dicent: Nos nihil fecimus, nec derelicto cibo, ac poculo domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus. Afterwards he tells a Story of a little Girl, who having been carried to the Idol-Feasts, was afterwards brought by her Mother who knew nothing of it, to the Communion, when he administered it; and when the Deacon brought the Cup to her, she turned away her Face from it, but the Deacon pouring some of the Wine into her Mouth, she fell into Convulsions, and Vomitings, which the Holy Father looking upon, as a Miracle, did thereupon discover, that she had been polluted at the Idol-Feasts. Vid. & August. ad Bonifacium Episcop. Ep. 23. vol. 2.  Cyprian being the first Author which they can produce for it, and after him the 
b Cap. 7. Contemplate. 3. p. 360, 362.  Author of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and 
c Catechesis 3. isluminat. Hierosolym.  Cyril of Jerusalem are the next, who make mention of it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century, and then St. 
d De verbis domini in Evang. Johan. Epist. 23. 106, 107. Lib. 1. de peccatorum merit. & remiss. cap. 20. lib. 1. Contra Julianum c. 11. Contra duas Epistolas Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 22. lib. 4. cap. 14.  Augustine in the Fifth, who indeed speaks frequently of it, as of the practice of the Church in that Age.  
These are all the Authorities for Infant-Communion, that I know of, till St. Augustin's time; whereas besides the authority of St. Cyprian, which is the first they have for Communicating Infants, we have the authority of a whole Council of Fathers, in which he presided, and of Origen, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, who was the Scholar of St. Polycarp, and the Grand-Scholar of St. John.  
And then, whereas among the Writers of the 4th Century, there are but the two above-cited, who make mention of Infant-Communion, we have St. 
* See them all cited at large in Walker's Plea for Infant-Baptism, from p. 266. to p. 275.  Hierom, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, and the Third Council of Carthage, who all speak of Infant-Baptism, as of a thing generally practised, and most of them, as of a thing, which ought to be practised in the Church.  
Furthermore, none of the four Testimonies for Infant-Communion, speak of it, as of an Apostolical Tradition, as Origen doth of Infant-Baptism, not to mention that the Pelagians never owned the necessity of Infant-Communion, as they did of Infant-Baptism: All which things considered, show, that there is nothing near the like Evidence in Antiquity for the practice of the one, as there is for that of the other.  
And as there is not the like evidence for the constant, successive, and general practice of Infant-Communion, that there is for Infant-Baptism: So there is not the like Reason for the practice of it.  
First, Because Baptism is the Sacrament, or Mystery of Initiation, of which Persons of all Ages are capable; it being instituted chief for an initiatory Sign to solemnize the admission of the Baptised Person into the Church, and to Seal all the Blessings of the Gospel unto him, as a Member of Christ. This is the Substance, or Chief end of Baptism; which, as I have showed upon the Second, and Fourth Questions, is equally answered in the Baptism of Children, as well as of professing Believers; Confession of Faith, as well as Confession of Sins, being but accidental Circumstantials, which are necessary with respect to the State of the Person to be Baptised, but not to Baptism itself. But on the contrary, the Holy Eucharist, or Communion, is the Sacrament of Perfection, and Consummation in the Christian Religion, being primarily, and chief instituted for a Sacrificial Feast in remembrance of Christ's Death, and Passion, which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety, Children are not capable to perform.  
But Secondly, There is not the like Reason for Baptising, and Communicating Infants, because that is grounded upon the Authority of many Texts of Scripture, which without the Concurrence of Tradition are fairly, and genuinely interpretable for it; but this is grounded only upon one Text [John 6. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood ye have no life in you] which it is doubtful whether it is to be understood of the Holy Eucharist, or no, because it cannot be understood of it but in a proleptical sense, the Lord's Supper having not been yet instituted by him; or if it be to be so understood, yet the sense of it ought to be regulated by the Chief end of its Institution contained in those words of our blessed Saviour, do this in remembrance of me, and this do ye, as oft, as ye drink it in remembrance of me. Wherefore though this Text were literally to be understood of the Holy Eucharist, as St. Augustine first interprets it, yet it ought not to be strained to Infant-Communion, because Infants cannot partake of the Holy Banquet in remembrance of Christ. And therefore though the Custom of Communicating Infants prevailed by Degrees in some Ages of the Church, yet the Western Churches discerning the mistake upon which it was grounded, have long since laid it aside, though they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism, as fully answering the Chief end of Baptism, and as being founded upon more, and clearer Texts of Scriptures, and a much more noble Tradition, than Infant-Communion is.  
But Thirdly, There is not the like reason for Baptising, and Communicating Infants, because the Correspondent practice of the Jewish Church in Infant-Circumcision, and Infant-Baptism, answered as a Pattern unto that under the Law, but there was nothing of a Pattern under it, which answered so to Infant-Communion, because a Child never partook of the 
* Exod. 12. 26, 27.  Passover, before he was old enough to take his Father by the hand, and to go up from the Gates of Jerusalem unto the Mount of the Temple, and to inquire about the meaning of the Service, and was capable of understanding the nature of it, as it was done in remembrance of their Deliverance out of Egypt.  
And in like manner when the Children of Christians are old enough to be instructed in the nature of the Holy Communion, and to understand that, than they may partake of it, be it as soon, as it will, if they are Baptised and Confirmed; though it is true, that Christian Children are usually much older, than the Jewish were, before they Communicate, which is merely accidental, because it requires a riper reason to understand the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist, which is done in remembrance of our Spiritual Deliverance by the Sacrifice of Christ, both God and Man, upon the Cross, than to understand the plain and easy meaning of the Passover, which was annually kept in remembrance of the Temporal Deliverance of the Jews.  
But to speak yet more fully of Infant-Communion, the practice of it is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism, that it mightily confirms it, because none were, or could be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion, till they were validly 
* Theodoret. Therapeut. Serm. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Baptised, and therefore the practice of Infant-Communion is a most emphatical Declaration, that all the Churches, wherein it ever was, or 
a As in the Greek, Russian, and Abyssin Churches, and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies.  still is practised, were of Opinion that the Baptism of Infants was as lawful, and valid, as that of professing Believers can be.  
As for the Original of this custom, it is not known when it began, probably it came in by degrees from the ancient, and laudable custom of administering the Lord's Supper to grown Persons presently after their Baptism; and if so many of the ancient Churches were so tender towards Infants, as to bring them to the Communion, rather than deprive them of the least shadow of right, what shall be said in excuse of those uncharitable Men, who will rather destroy all the Churches in the World, than bring their Children unto Baptism, of which they are capable, and to which they have a Right so highly probable, if not certain, and infallible, as I have proved above?  
The Second Objection against Infant-Baptism, which I took no notice of, but reserved for this place, is taken from their incapacity to engage themselves in Covenant unto God. For, say these Men, all who enter into Covenant, and receive the Seal of the Covenant, must contract, and stipulate for their parts, as well as God doth for his, and therefore St. Peter saith, That the Baptism which saveth us, must 
1 Ep. 3. 21.  have the answer, or restipulation of a good Conscience towards God. But how can Infants restipulate, or what Conscience can be in them, who have not the use of reason, nor are capable of knowing what the Covenant means?  
To this Objection, I answer as formerly, That it is as strong against Infant-Circumcision, as Infant-Baptism; for the Infants of the Jews were admitted as effectually into the Covenant, and had it as really sealed unto them, and were as strongly tied to perform the Conditions of it, when they came to years of understanding, as if they had been Circumcised then, and at their Circumcision had personally, and expressly indented with God.  
Wherefore the same answer which will serve to justify Infant-Circumcision will justify Infant-Baptism, which succeeds in the place of it, and it is this: That God of his goodness towards Infant's was pleased to seal the Covenant of Grace unto Infants upon an implicit, and imputative sort of Stipulation, which at years of understanding they were bound to own by openly professing the Jewish Religion, or if they than renounced it, thereupon they became Strangers to the Covenant, which in such cases was as void, as if it had never been made. An implicit Stipulation was sufficient for the Children of Believers, though an open Profession and Stipulation was required of Grown Proselytes, which shows, that Circumcision was an institution of Latitude, and that personal, and express Restipulation was not a general pre-requisite condition to Circumcision, but only to some Persons to be Circumcised.  
In like manner Baptism being an institution of Latitude, ordained for Persons under, as well as at the years of discretion, perssonal and express Stipulation is only required of the former; and therefore St. Peter in the Text above cited likely had respect not to all Baptism, or Baptism in general, but only to the Baptism of Adult Proselytes, whom the Minister used to 
* Hence Tertullian de Baptismo calls Baptism Sponsionem Salutis. And in St. Cyprian we often read of the interrogation in Baptism.  interrogate at the time of Baptism, much after the same manner, as we interrogate Adult Proselytes now.  
Wherefore, this Objection like the rest which the Anabaptists make, runs upon this presumption, that Baptism is a strict institution, and that personal and express answering or Restipulation is a pre-requisite condition to all Baptism, whereas it is only a personal qualification required of Majors, or Adult Persons, when they come to be Baptised.  
But as for Children, Baptism may be administered unto them upon an implicit, and imputative sort of Restipulation, as Circumcision was to the Jewish, and Baptism now is to agonizing Christian Infants, or else it may be administered unto them as Baptism formerly was among the Jews to the Infants, and Minors of Proselytes upon a vicarious Restipulation by their Sponsors, which seems to have been translated together with the use of Baptism from the Jewish Church. It is certain, that 
* De Baptismo cap. 18. quid enim necesse est Sponsores etiam periculo ingeri?  Tertullian makes mention of Sponsors, or Sureties for Children at Baptism, and very probable, that the Apostles made Parents, and Major domos stipulate in the name of their 
† Praefecturae igitur juridicae quae Baptismo praeerat profitebatur Proselytus ipse Majorennis (Masculus qui annum decimum tertium, foemina quae duodecim superaverat) legem Mosaicam se servaturum. Minorum vero nomine idem ipsum profitebatur praefectura ipsa, uti in Christianismo susceptores minorennium, seu parvulorum, saltem si nec parentes adessent, qui idem praestare possent. Selden de Synedriis, Lib. 1. c. 3. And what is here said of the CONSISTORT among the Jews, concerning the Baptism of Infants, and Minors, St. Augustine saith of the Church among Christians, accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant, aliorum cor, ut credant, aliorum linguam ut fateantur.  Minors, when they Baptised them, as the Jews were wont to do; and upon this Supposition St. Peter in the Text above cited, might also probably allude to all Baptism, because Grown Proselytes to the Christian Religion did answer for their Children, as well as for themselves at Baptism, according to the Custom of the Jewish Church.  
Nay, there is little reason to doubt, but that the Jewish being the Pattern of the Christian Baptism, the Apostles, and their Assistants who were Jews, or Hellenists, did observe this Custom of Vicarious Stipulation at the Baptism of Infants, and Minors, as well as all the other Particulars, in which they resemble one another, as the Picture doth the Face, whose Picture it is.  
As for Example, the Jewish Baptism was administered to Women, as well as Men, and so is the Christian.  
Secondly, It was never reiterated nor repeated, no more is the Christian.  
Thirdly, It was called Regeneration, and a New Birth, and Baptised Persons were said to be born again and Regenerated, which also holds in Christian Baptism.  
Fourthly, Baptised Proselytes among the Jews were bound to leave their nearest Relations, if it were necessary, and adhere to the Church, and so are Baptised Christian Proselytes bound to do the same.  
Fifthly, The Infants of Proselytes were Baptised among the Jews, as well as the Proselytes themselves, and so have I proved, that Infants have been always Baptised among the Christians.  
And therefore in the last place, since the Jewish Church Baptised Infants upon Vicarious Stipulation, why should not we think it sufficient for their entrance into the Covenant, and that the Apostles did so too?  
These things, and whatsoever else is written in this little Tract, I hope will be fairly, and candidly considered by the Dissenters among us upon the account of Infant-Baptism. I say, the truth in Christ, I lie not, my Conscience also bearing me Witness in the Holy Ghost, who is the Searcher of Hearts, that I have great heaviness, and almost continual sorrow in my heart for them, and that to reconcile them to the Church. I could wish in the Apostles Sense, that I myself were an Anathema from Christ. And because it is a Disease too common among Dissenters, and more especially among those, with whom I have been a dealing, to have minds full of Prejudice, Prepossession, and sinister Suspicions against what we Speak, or Preach, or Writ, I have here subjoined a Letter of that Famous Martyr of Jesus Christ Mr. John Philpot, concerning Infant-Baptism, which I seriously recommend to their Impartial, and diligent perusal, hoping that the same Arguments, which may perhaps have less effect upon them as they come from me, may be better received, and make deeper impression upon their Souls as they come from him, who like the Primitive Martyrs, was Blessed with Heavenly Visions, and cheerfully suffered for his Redeemer, who had suffered for him, and thanked God when the time was come, that he was to seal the truth of the Protestant Religion with his Blood.   

A Letter of Mr. PHILPOT, to a Friend of his, Prisoner the same time in Newgate: Wherein is debated and discussed the matter or question of Infants to be Baptised.  
THE God of all Light and Understanding lighten 
Book of Martyrs, 3 Vol. p. 606. Col. 2. London. 1641.  your Heart with all true Knowledge of his Word, and make you perfect to the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, whereunto you are now called, through the mighty operation of his Holy Spirit, Amen.  
I received Yesternight from you, (Dear Brother S. and Fellow-Prisoner for the truth for Christ's Gospel) a Letter, wherein you gently require my Judgement, concerning the Baptism of Infants, which is the effect thereof. And before I do show you what I have learned out of God's Word, and of his true Infallible Church, touching the same, I think it not out of the matter, first to declare what Vision I had the same Night whilst musing on your Letter I fell asleep, knowing that God doth not without cause reveal to his People who have their Minds fixed on him, Special and Spiritual Revelations to their Comfort, as a taste of their Joy and Kingdom to come, which Flesh and Blood cannot comprehend.  
Being in the midst of my sweet rest, it seemed to me to see a great beautiful City all of the colour of Azure, and white, four square in a marvellous beautiful composition in the midst of the Sky, the sight whereof so inwardly comforted me, that I am not able to express the consolation I had thereof, yea, the remembrance thereof causeth my Heart as yet to leap for Joy: And as Charity is no Churl, but would have others to be Partakers of his delight, some thought I called to others (I cannot tell whom) and whilst they came and we together beheld the same, by and by to my great Grief it vaded away.  
This Dream I think not to have come of the illusion of the Senses, because it brought with it so much Spiritual Joy, and I take it to be of the working of God's Spirit for the contentation of your Request, as he wrought in Peter to satisfy Cornelius. Therefore I Interpret this Beautiful City to be the Glorious Church of Christ, and the appearance of it in the Sky, signifieth the Heavenly State thereof, whose Conversation is in Heaven, and that according to the Primitive Church, which is now in Heaven, Men ought to measure and judge the Church of Christ now in Earth; for as the Prophet David saith, The Foundations thereof be in the Holy Hills, and glorious things be spoken of the City of God And the marvellous quadrature of the same, I take to signify the universal agreement in the same, and that all the Church here Militant aught to consent to the Primitive Church throughout the four Parts of the World, as the Prophet affirmeth, saying; God maketh us to dwell after one manner in one House. And that I conceived so wonderful Joy at the Contemplation thereof, I understand the unspeakable Joy which they have that be at Unity with Christ's Primitive Church: For there is Joy in the Holy Ghost, and Peace, which passeth all Understanding, as it is written in the Psalms; As of Joyful Persons is the dwelling of all them that be in thee. And that I called others to the fruition of this Vision, and to behold this wonderful City, I construe it by the Will of God this Vision to have come upon me, musing on your Letter, to the end, that under this Figure I might have occasion to move you with many others, to behold the Primitive Church in all your Opinions concerning Faith, and to conform yourself in all points to the same, which is the Pillar and Establishment of truth, and teacheth the true use of the Sacraments, and having with a greater fullness than we have now, the first fruits of the Holy Ghost, did declare the true Interpretation of the Scriptures according to all verity, even as our Saviour promised to send them another Comforter, which should teach them all truth.  
And since all truth was taught and revealed to the Primitive Church, which is our Mother, let us all that be obedient Children of God, submit ourselves to the judgement of the Church for the better understanding of the Articles of our Faith, and of the doubtful Sentences of the Scripture. Let us not go about to show in us, by following any private Man's Interpretation upon the Word, another Spirit than they of the Primitive Church had, lest we deceive ourselves. For there is but one Faith and one Spirit, which is not contrary to himself, neither otherwise now teacheth us than he did them. Therefore let us believe as they have taught us of the Scriptures, and be at peace with them, according as the true Catholic Church is at this day: And the God of Peace assuredly will be with us, and deliver us out of all our Worldly Troubles and Miseries, and make us Partakers of their Joy and Bliss, through our Obedience to Faith with them.  
Therefore God commandeth us in Job, to ask of the Elder Generation, and to search diligently the memory of the Fathers. For we are but Yesterday Children, and be 
Job 8.  ignorant, and our days are like a Shadow, and they shall teach thee (saith the Lord) and speak to thee, and shall utter words from their Hearts. And by Solomon we are 
Prov. 6.  commanded, not to reject the direction of our Mother. The Lord grant you to direct your steps in all things after her, and to abhor contention with her. For as St. Paul writeth; If any Man be contentious, neither we, neither the 
1 Cor. 11.  Church of God hath any such custom.  
Hitherto I have showed you (good Brother S.) my Judgement generally of that you stand in doubt and descent from others, to the which I wish you as mine own Heart to be comformable, and then doubtless you cannot err, but boldly may be glad in your Troubles, and Triumph at the hour of your Death, that you shall die in the Church of God a Faithful Martyr, and receive the Crown of Eternal Glory. And thus much have I written upon the occasion of a Vision before God unfeigned. But that you may not think that I go about to satisfy you with uncertain Visions only, and not after God's Word, I will take the ground of your Letter, and specially answer to the same by the Scriptures and by infallible reasons deduced out of the same, and prove the Baptism of Infants to be lawful, commendable, and necessary, whereof you seem to stand in doubt.  
Indeed if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only, which hath corrupted God's Word by false Interpretations, and hath perverted the true use of Christ's Sacraments, you might seem to have good handfast of your Opinion against the Baptism of Infants. But forasmuch as it is of more Antiquity, and hath his beginning from God's Word, and from the use of the Primitive Church, it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected, or thought not expedient to be used in Christ's Church. Auxentius one of the Arrians Sect, with his Adherents, was one of the first that denied the Baptism of Children, and next after him Pelagius the Heretic, and some other there were in St. Bernard's time, as it doth appear by his Writings, and in our days the Anabaptists, and Inordinate kind of Men stirred up by the Devil, to the destruction of the Gospel. But the Catholic truth delivered unto us by the Scriptures, plainly determineth, that all such are to be Baptised, as whom God acknowledgeth for his People, and vouchsufeth them worthy of Sanctification or Remission of their Sins. Therefore since that Infants be in the number or scroll of God's People, and be Partakers of the Promise by their Purification in Christ, it must needs follow thereby, that they ought to be Baptised as well as those that can Profess their Faith. For we judge the People of God as well by the free and liberal Promise of God, as by the Confession of Faith. For to whomsoever God promiseth himself to be their God, and whom he acknowledgeth for his, those no Man without great Impiety may exclude from the number of the Faithful. But God promiseth, that he will not only be the God of such as do profess him, but also of Infants, promising them his Grace and Remission of Sins, as it appeareth by the words of the Covenant made unto Abraham. I will set my Covenant between thee and me (saith 
Gen. 17.  the Lord) and between thy Seed after thee in their Generations, with an everlasting Covenant, to be thy God, and the God of thy Seed after thee. To the which Covenant Circumcision was added to be a sign of Sanctification as well in Children as in Men; and no Man may think that this Promise is abrogated with Circumcision and other Ceremonial Laws. For Christ came to fulfil the Promises, and 
Matth. 5.  not to dissolve them. Therefore in the Gospel he saith of Infants, that is, of such as yet believed not; Let the little 
Matth. 10.  Ones come unto me, and forbidden them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. Again, It is not the Will of your Father which 
Matth. 19  is in Heaven, that any of these little Ones do perish. Also, He 
Matth. 18.  that receiveth one such little Child in my Name, receiveth me. Take heed therefore that ye despise not one of these Babes, for I tell you, their Angels do continually see in Heaven my Father's Face. And what may be said more plainer than this; It is not the Will of the Heavenly Father, that the Infants should perish? Whereby we may gather that he receiveth them freely unto his Grace, although as yet they confess not their Faith. Since then that the Word of the Promise, which is contained in Baptism, pertaineth as well to Children as Men, why should the sign of the Promise, which is Baptism in Water, be withdrawn from Children, when Christ himself commandeth them to be received of us, and promiseth the Reward of a Prophet to those that receive such a little Infant, as he for an Example did put before his Disciples.  
Now will I prove with manifest Arguments, that Children 
Matth. 28.  ought to be Baptised, and that the Apostles of Christ did Baptise Children. The Lord commanded his Apostles to Baptise all Nations; therefore also Children ought to be Baptised, for they are comprehended under this Word, All Nations.  
Further, whom God doth account among the faithful, they are faithful, for it was said to Peter, That thing which 
Acts 10.  God hath purified, thou shalt not say to be common or unclean: But GOD doth repute Children among the Faithful: Ergo, they be faithful, except we had rather to resist God, and seem stronger and wiser than he.  
And without all doubt the Apostles Baptised those 
1 Cor. 1.  which Christ commanded: But he commanded the Faithful to be Baptised, among the which Infants be reckoned: The Apostles than Baptised Infants.  
The Gospel is more than Baptism, for Paul said; The 
1 Cor. 1.  Lord sent me to Preach the Gospel, and not to Baptise: Not that he denied absolutely that he was sent to Baptise, but that he preferred Doctrine before Baptism, for the Lord commanded both to the Apostles: but Children be received by the Doctrine of the Gospel of God, and not refused: Therefore what Person being of reason may deny them Baptism, which is a thing lesser than the Gospel? For in the Sacraments be two things to be considered, the thing signified, and the Sign, and thing signified is greater than the Sign, and from the thing signified in Baptism, Children are not excluded; who therefore may deny them the Sign, which is Baptism in Water?  
St. Peter could not deny them to be Baptised in Water, to whom he saw the Holy Ghost given, which is the certain Sign of God's People: For he saith in the Acts, May 
Acts 10.  any body forbidden them to be Baptised in Water, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Therefore St. Peter denied not Baptism to Infants, for he knew certainly▪ both by the Doctrine of Christ, and by the Covenant which is everlasting, that the Kingdom of Heaven pertained to Infants.  
None be received into the Kingdom of Heaven, but 
Rom. 8.  such as God loveth, and which are endued with his Spirit: For whoso hath not the Spirit of God, he is none of his. But Infants be beloved of God, and therefore want not the Spirit of God: Wherefore if they have the Spirit of God as well as Men, if they be numbered among the People of God as well as we that be of Age, who (I pray you) may well withstand Children to be Baptised with Water, in the Name of the Lord.  
The Apostles in times past being yet not sufficiently instructed, did murmur against those which brought their Children unto the Lord, but the Lord rebuked them, and said; Let the Babes come unto me. Why then do not these Rebellious 
Matth. 10.  Anabaptists obey the Commandments of the Lord? For what do they now a-days else that bring their Children to Baptism, than that they did in times past, which brought their Children to the Lord, and our Lord received them, and putting his hands on them, Blessed them, and both by Words and by Gentle Behaviour towards them, declared manifestly that Children be the People of God, and entirely beloved of GOD? But some will say, Why then did not Christ Baptise them? Because it is Written, Jesus himself Baptised not, but his Disciples.  
Moreover, Circumcision in the Old Law was ministered 
John 4.  to Infants; therefore Baptism ought to be ministered in the New Law unto Children. For Baptism is come in the stead of Circumcision, as St. Paul witnesseth, saying to the Colossians; By Christ ye are Circumcised with a Circumcision which is 
Colos. 2.  without hands, when ye put off the body of sin of the Flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ, being buried together with him through Baptism. Behold, Paul calleth Baptism the Circumcision of a Christian Man, which is done without hands, not that Water may be ministered without hands, but that with hands no Man any longer aught to be Circumcised, albeit the Mystery of Circumcision do still remain in Faithful People.  
To this I may add, That the Servants of God were always ready to minister the Sacraments to them, for whom they were instituted. As for an Example, we may behold Joshua, who most diligently procured the People of Israel to 
Jos. 2.  be Circumcised before they entered into the Land of Promise; but since the Apostles were the Preachers of the Word, and the very Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ, who may hereafter doubt that they Baptised Infants, since Baptism is in place of Circumcision?  
Item, The Apostles did attemperate all their do to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament: Therefore it is certain that they did attemperate Baptism accordingly to Circumcision, and Baptised Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism; for the People of Israel passed through the Red Sea, and the bottom of the Water of Jordan, with their Children. And although the Children be not always expressed, neither the Women in the Holy Scriptures, yet they are comprehended and understood in the same.  
Also the Scripture evidently telleth us, That the Apostles baptised whole Families or Households: But the Children be comprehended in a Family or Household, as the chiefest and dearest part thereof: Therefore we may conclude, that the Apostles did Baptise Infants or Children, and not only Men of lawful age. And that the House or Household is taken for Man, Woman, and Child, it is manifest in the 17. of Genesis, and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his House, to come out of the Land of Canaan into Egypt.  
Finally, I can declare out of ancient Writers, that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours, neither that it was instituted by any Counsels, neither of the Pope, nor of other Men, but commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves. Origen upon the Declaration of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, expounding the 6. Chapter, saith, That the Church of Christ received the Baptism from the very Apostles. St. Hierome maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants, in the 3. Book against the Pelagians, and in his Epistle to Leta. St. Augustine reciteth 
Heb. 11.  for this purpose, a place out of John, Bishop of Constantinople, in his 1. Book against Julian, Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome Epist. 28. saith, That St. Cyprian not making any new Decree, but firmly observing the Faith of the Church, judged with his fellow Bishops, that as soon as one was born, he might be lawfully Baptised. The place of Cyprian is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus.  
Also St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists in the 4. Book, Chap. 23. & 24. saith, That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of Man, neither of Counsels, but from the Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles.  
Cyril upon Leviticus, Chap. 8. approveth the Baptism of Children, and condemneth the iteration of Baptism. These Authorities of Men I do allege, not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men, but to show how men's Testimonies do agree with God's Word, and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side, and that the Anabaptists have nothing but Lies for them, and new Imaginations, which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment.  
After this will I answer to the sum of your Arguments for the contrary. The first, which includeth all the rest, is, It is Written, Go ye into all the World, and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures. He that believeth and is Baptised, shall be Saved: But he that believeth not shall be Damned, etc.  
To this I answer, That nothing is added to God's Word by Baptism of Children, as you pretend, but that is done which the same Word doth require, for that Children are accounted of Christ in the Gospel among the number of such as believe, as it appeareth by these words; He that offendeth 
Matth. 18.  one of these little Babes which believe in me, it were better for him to have a Millstone tied about his Neck, and to be cast into the bottom of the Sea. Where plainly Christ calleth such as be not able to confess their Faith, Believers; because of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Believers. And this is no Wonder so to be taken, since God imputeth Faith for Righteousness unto Men that be of riper Age: For both in Men and Children, Righteousness, Acceptation, or Sanctification is of mere Grace and by Imputation, that the Glory of God's Grace might be praised.  
And that the Children of Faithful Parents are Sanctified, and among such as do believe, is apparent in the 1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 7.  7. And whereas you do gather by the order of the words in the said Commandment of Christ, that Children ought to be taught before they be Baptised, and to this end you allege many places out of the Acts, proving that such as Confessed their Faith first, were Baptised after: I answer, That if the order of words might weigh any thing to this Cause, we have the Scripture that maketh as well for us. St. Mark we read, that John did Baptise in the Desert, 
Mark 1.  Preaching the Baptism of Repentance. In the which place we see Baptising go before, and Preaching to follow after.  
And also I will declare this place of Matthew exactly considered, to make for the use of Baptism in Children, for St. Matthew hath it written in this wise; All Power is 
Matth. 28.  given me (saith the Lord) in Heaven and in Earth, therefore going forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Disciple ye, (as I may express the signification of the Word;) that is, make or gather to me Disciples of all Nations. And following, he declareth the way how they should gather to him Disciples out of all Nations, baptising them and teaching; by baptising and teaching ye shall procure a Church to me. And both these aptly and briefly severally he setteth forth, saying, Baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Now then Baptism goeth before Doctrine.  
But hereby I do not gather; that the Gentiles which never heard any thing before of God, and of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost, aught to be Baptised, neither they would permit themselves to be Baptised before they knew to what end. But this I have declared to show you upon how feeble Foundation the Anabaptists be grounded. And plainly it is not true which they imagine of this Text, that the Lord did only command such to be Baptised, whom the Apostles had first of all taught. Neither here verily is signified who only be to be Baptised, but he speaketh of such as be of perfect age, and of the first Foundations of Faith, and of the Church to be planted among the Gentiles, which were as yet rude and ignorant of Religion.  
Such as be of Age may hear, believe, and confess, that which is Preached and taught, but so cannot Infants; therefore we may justly collect, that he speaketh here nothing of Infants or Children. But for all this they be not to be excluded from Baptism.  
It is a general rule; He that doth not Labour, must not Eat. But who is so barbarous that might think hereby, that Children should be Famished?  
The Lord sent his Apostles at the beginning of the setting up his true Religion unto all Nations, unto such as were both ignorant of God, and were out of the Covenant of God; and truly such Persons it behoved not first to be taught, and after baptised. If at this day we should go to the Turks to Convert them to the Faith of Christ, verily first we ought to teach them, and afterward Baptise such as would yield to be the Servants of Christ. Likewise the Lord himself in times past did, when first he renewed the Covenant with Abraham, and ordained Circumcision to be a Seal of the Covenant after that Abraham was Circumcised. But he, when he perceived the Infants also to pertain to the Covenant, and that Circumcision was the sealing up of the Covenant, did not only Circumcise Ishmael his Son that was 13 years of Age, but all other Infants that were born in his House, among whom we reckon Isaac.  
Even so Faithful People which were Converted from Heathen Idolatry by the Preaching of the Gospel, and Confessing the Faith, were Baptised; when they understood their Children to be counted among the People of GOD, and that Baptism was the Token of the People of GOD, they procured also their Children to be baptised. Therefore as it is written; Abraham Circumcised all the Male Children of his House. Semblably we read in the Acts and Writings of the Apostles, that after the Master of the House was turned to the Faith, all the whole House was baptised. And as concerning those which of old time were compelled to Confess their Faith before they received Baptism, which were called Catechumeni, they were such as with our Forefathers came from the Gentiles to the Church, who being yet rude of Faith, they did instruct in the Principles of their Belief, and afterward they did Baptise them; but the same Ancient Fathers notwithstanding did Baptise the Children of Faithful Men, as I have already partly declared.  
And because you do require a hasty answer of your Letter of one that is but a dull Writer, I am here enforced to cease particularly to go through your Letter in answering thereto, knowing that I have fully answered every part thereof, in that I have already written, although not in such order as it had been meet, and as I purposed. But forasmuch as I understand that you will be no Contentious Man, neither in this matter, neither in any other, contrary to the judgement of Christ's Primitive Church, which is the Body and fullness of Christ, I desire you in the entire love of him, or rather Christ desireth you by me (that your joy may be perfect, whereto you are now called) to submit your Judgement to that Church, and to be at Peace and Unity with the same; that the Coat of Christ which ought to be without Seam, but now alas, most miserably is torn in pieces by many dangerous Sects and Damnable Opinions, may appear by you in no part to have been rend, neither that any giddy Head in these Dog-days, might take an ensample by you to descent from Christ's true Church: I beseech thee, Dear Brother, in the Gospel, follow the steps of the Faith of the Glorious Martyrs in the Primitive Church, and of such as at this day follow the same; decline from them neither to the Right Hand nor to the Left. Then shall Death, be it never so bitter, be more sweeter than this Life; then shall Christ with all the Heavenly Jerusalem triumphantly embrace your Spirit with unspeakable Gladness and Exaltation, who in this Earth was content to join your Spirit with their Spirits, according as it is commanded by the Word, That the Spirit of Prophets should be subject to the Prophets. One thing ask with David ere you depart, and require the same, that you may dwell with a full accord in his House, for there is Glory and Worship: And so with Simeon in the Temple embracing Christ, depart in Peace: To the which 
1 Cor. 14.  Peace Christ bring both you and me, and all our loving Brethren that love GOD in the Unity of Faith, by such ways as shall please him, to his Glory. Let the bitter Passion of Christ which he suffered for your sake, and the Horrible Torments which the Godly Martyrs of Christ have endured before us, and also the inestimable Reward of your Life to come, which is hidden yet a little while from you with Christ, strengthen, comfort, and encourage you to the end of that Glorious Race which you are in. Amen.  
Your Yoke-fellow in Captivity for the Verity of Christ's Gospel, to live and die with you in the Unity of Faith, JOHN PHILPOT.  
FINIS.    

THE CASE OF THE Cross in Baptism CONSIDERED. Wherein is showed, That there is nothing in it, as it is used in the Church of England, that can be any just Reason of Separation from it.  Galat. VI 14. God forbidden that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
LONDON, Printed for Fincham Gardiner, at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street. 1684.   

THE CASE OF THE CROSS IN Baptism, etc.  
THE Matters in Dispute betwixt Us and our Dissenting Brethren, may generally seem to the unconcerned slander by, of so slight and Inconsiderable Moment, that he must needs wonder how in the World the Controversy should come to have arisen to that Deplorable height, which in this last Age it hath done. And although the Case which will fall under our present Debate, seems to have admitted of the most specious scruples and given the best scope of reasoning, of any other thing that hath fallen under question amongst us since the Reformation; yet even here also, the Immeasurable Bias of Prejudice, and Fervency 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of Opposition, hath too apparently managed the Argument. So that the Pleas against it have not seemed so weighty as they have been numerous, as if the Objectors had an Eye to that direction in Quintilian, they would 
L. 5. c. 20. Infirmiora Argumenta Congreganda sunt, imbecilla enim naturâ, mutuo auxilio sustinentur.  be sure to amass all the weaker Arguments, which though weak in themselves, yet by standing together may lend a Mutual assistance to one another; like Articles of Impeachment, none of which singly would perhaps affect the accused Person, but all together may amount to accumulative Treason.  
My business therefore in handling this Case, shall not be to follow every nice Scruple, or trivial Objection (as where the Cross in Baptism hath been charged with the breach of every particular Precept in the Decalogue) not to concern myself in any thing, which either by long Induction of consequences hath been far fetched, or with great difficulty drawn in, to make a show of Argument, but, as briefly and plainly as may be to sum up all that hath ever seemed of any Moment in this matter, and that under this twofold Head.  
1. That the Sign of the Cross hath been so notoriously abused to the worst purposes of Superstition and Idolatry in the Church of Rome; that the retaining of it still amongst us, makes us partakers of the Superstitions and Idolatry of that Church.  
II. That it seems the introducing of a New Sacrament, which having not the warranty of our Lord and Master Christ Jesus, must needs be a very Offensive invasion of his Rights, whose Royal Prerogative alone it is to institute what Sacraments he pleaseth in his Church.  
Under these two Heads I think may be fairly comprehended all those Objections our Brethren have offered against the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, at least all those that are any thing Material. Insomuch that if the difficulty of these could be removed, we might fairly hope, none of the Sober and Conscientious Dissenters, but would think themselves obliged to submit to the use of it, rather than maintain the Separation upon this account.  
And this shall be endeavoured with all the Candour and Clearness that becomes the design of this, and the rest of those Discourses that have been Published of this kind, viz. to Convince and not Reproach or Provoke any: to Effect (if possible) the happy agreement, and consequently enlarge and strengthen the interests of good Men. And for this purpose I have thought fit not to quote the writings of particular Persons, but rather to represent the Objection, as what is in general avowed and agreed upon by the whole Party.  
And although it is not likely that any thing should be here offered, that hath not been already with great Learning and Integrity made use of, by the many assertors of our Church; yet perhaps, the bringing this under one view, without the Warmth or Salt of an Adversary may not prove altogether Vain and Ineffectual.  
I. I begin therefore, with the first Objection, viz. That the Sign of the Cross hath been so notoriously abused to the worst purposes of Superstition and Idolatry in the Church of Rome, that the retaining of it still amongst us, makes us Partakers of the Superstitions and Idolatry of that Church.  
I must readily acknowledge that the Material Figure of the Cross hath been indeed abused to very Idolatrous purposes in the Church of Rome, and even the aereal Sign of it to Purposes superstitious and ridiculous enough, and if what we do in using this Sign in Baptism, were really chargeable with Popery, it would be a sufficient reason to detest and Reject it. The Objection therefore at the first view looks plausibly enough, when it thus chargeth this Ceremony of the Cross; Paganism itself being hardly more Odious, nor in Truth (for some very good Reasons amongst wise Men,) more Ridiculous and Intolerable. There is scarce any part of Popery, properly so called, but is so plain a dpravation of Christianity itself, such a contradiction to the Rules, such a defeat to the great purposes and ends of our Holy Religion, that it deserves well enough the good Man's Justest abhorrency, which he may reasonably express, when he finds himself in any real danger of the Snare. But then, we must consider, how easy and natural a thing it is for Persons (that otherwise mean honestly enough) to humour a Just and Reasonable Offence against Popery, into groundless Suspicions upon things which have no such Tendency at all in them: And upon these first Suspicions not only to startle, and grow a little shy and nice, but to determine themselves in resolved & unmoveable Prejudices, that have had Effects ill enough. For upon this, designing Men have made their advantage upon every trifling occasion, giving out the word, and laying the charge of Popery, upon what it hath been their humour or interest to desire a change in. And this probably we shall find to have happened in this Case in hand. The accusation hath been drawn against it that it is very Popish, and the Prejudices which this Accusation hath begot in some honest Minds, are so strong that they seem invincible. How unreasonably therefore this charge is laid against our use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism may appear when we have considered these three things.  
I. That the use of this Sign was much more ancient, than the first Corruption and Depravation of the Church of Rome.  
II. That the use of it, as it is ordained and appointed in our Church, hath not the least affinity with the use of it, as it is in the Romish Rituals.  
III. Last. Although it cannot be denied but the Church of Rome hath greatly abused this Ceremony to very ill purposes of Superstition, yet doth not this make it unlawful to continue the Reformed use of it still amongst us that have professedly separated from the Corruptions of that Church.  
I. Consider we that the use of this Sign of the Cross was much more ancient than the first Corruption and Depravation of the Church of Rome. When I speak of the first Corruption and Depravation of the Church of Rome, I would be understood as to those things that have put that Church under the Imputation of what we now call Popery. For that there were some depraved Customs crept into the Church in general (and so that of Rome perhaps as well as any other) in very early days, is Evident from what St. Paul Rebukes in the Church of Corinth, and from what our Saviour himself in his Revelations to St. John, Condemns in the Seven Churches of Asia. So that, when I say the use of the Cross was more ancient than the first Corruption and Depravation of the Church of Rome, I mean, more ancient than any of those Corruptions in her by the reason of which, we have justly esteemed her an Apostatised Church, more ancient than either the Introduction of Images, their Multiplication of Sacraments, their pretensions to Supremacy and Infallibility, or any of those Superstitious Rites in Worship, by which we distinguish that Church as Popish, and brand it as false and Antichristian.  
As to this therefore, I know none of our Dissenting 
By which Phrase the Apostle in Truth meant, the Secret workings of the Heretics of that Age.  Brethren, however for a shift in Argument they may talk of the Mystery of Iniquity beginning to work betimes; and in the first Ages of the Church *, that yet do professedly charge any Signal Apostasy upon the Church of Rome, at least for the first four hundred Years after Christ: not to the Age wherein St. Austin Flourished; but that it was a Church that might be Communicated with at that time, notwithstanding that Father complained of the Superfaetation of Ceremonies even then, which (at least for the Number of them) began to be very burdensome. And yet, for an Hundred or two of Years before this, we find in the Writings of Tertullian such mention of the use of this Sign, that makes it very plain, it had been a Customary thing long before his time also, and probably, even amongst those of the Apostolical Age itself. There are those indeed that would make that Father the first that brought in the use of this Ceremony into the Church, having received it from the Montanists of whom he seems to have been particularly fond. But the frequent and familiar mention he makes of the Sign of the Cross in many of his Books renders this Conjecture very improbable. Tertullian tells us it was grown so much in use in his time, that upon every motion of theirs, at their going out and coming in, when they put on their Garments or Shoes, at the Bath, or at Meals when they lighted up their Candles, or went to Bed, whatever almost they did in any part of their Conversation, still they 
Frontem crucis signaculo terere. Tertul. de Coron. mil.  would even wear out their Foreheads with the Sign of the Cross; which though he confesseth there was no express Law of Christ that had enjoined it, yet Tradition had Introduced, Custom had Confirmed, and the Believers Faith had observed and maintained it.  
This doth not look as if it had been a thing newly invented by Montanus, and brought into the Church by Tertullian, as being himself too great a Favourer of that Sect. Although, were it thus indeed, yet this showeth that the Practice of it was received among the Faithful, some Ages before the Depravation and Apostasy of the Romish Church. But he is not our single Author in this matter: for, Origen who Flourished not much above CC 
Homil. 2. in Psalm. 38.  Years after Christ, and not XL Years after Tertullian, makes mention of those who upon their Admission into the Church by Baptism, were Signed with this Sign. And St. Basil not much above one Hundred Years after him, gives this usage the Venerable Title of an Ecclesiastical Constitution, or fixed Law of the Church, that had prevailed from the Apostles Days, that those who believed 
Basil. de Spir. Sanct. cap. 27.  in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, should be Signed with the Sign of the Cross.  
But of all the Fathers, St. Cyprian, who was before St. Basil, and very near if not contemporary with Tertullian himself, not only speaks most Familiarly of the use of this Sign, but hath some Expressions in this matter, that would seem very harsh and unwarrantable now; and yet, the Authority of that Father, hath saved him hitherto from being brought under question about it. He tells us in one place, that in front cruse signantur, qui Dominum promerentur, i. e. they are Signed in the Forehead with the Cross who are thought worthy of the Lord, and in another place, Omnia sacramenta peragit, it Completes every Sacrament, and per crucem baptisma sanctificatur, Baptism is Sanctified by the Cross. I will not stand accountable for the Justifiableness of these passages, were they to be allowed no kind of Latitude: but, as to the purpose for which they are cited they seem pertinent enough: that is, to Argue the antiquity of this usage (and that in the Sacrament of Baptism too) the Phrase so frequently occurring in the writings of those ancient Fathers, that front signati, being signed in the Forehead, seems a known and usual Periphrasis for being entered into the Faith of Christ and the Body of his Church by Baptism.  
After all which, what need I Instance in St. Cyril, St. Ambrose, or St. Austin? Who sprinkle their writings with the Common mention of this Ceremony, and oftentimes frame Arguments of the Obligation upon Christians to live as becomes them, from this very badge they wear upon their Foreheads. St. Austin wittily enough glorying in the Confidence of a Christian as to a Crucifi'd Saviour, that he willingly imprints the Sign of it upon 
Nec nos pudet Crucifixi, sed ubi pudoris signum est, crucis ejus signum habemus. August. in Galat. 6. 14.  that part of himself which is the proper seat of Blushing.  
I shall only add this remark further, that after the time wherein this Custom had been so Universally received into the Christian Church, and some of the Fathers had so liberally expressed themselves in it, we may observe that the first Christian Emperor, Constantine the Great, had his Directions probably from heaven itself to make this Sign, the great Banner in his Wars, with this Additional encouragement, that by this he should overcome. That 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  this Dream or Vision (call it which we will, for Histories mention it differently) was from Heaven, and a thing of great reality, is Evident, from the success of that Prince's Arms under it.  
The Authors of the Centuries allow a considerable Signification in that Sign as given him from Heaven, as the future Standard he should fight under, viz, that God had admonished him by that Sign of the Cross, and the Motto added to it, by this thou shalt overcome, concerning the 
Cent. 4. cap. 13.  Knowledge and Worship of the true God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in Memorial of which he took care to have it Painted on his Banner, that it might be as the Symbol of the Christian Religion.  
Now we would not suppose that our Blessed Lord would by so immediate a Revelation from Heaven, Countenance such a Rite as this, already received and made use of in the Church, giving it to Constantine both as a Symbol of his Profession, and Pledge of his future Victories, if he had resented it before as Superstitious or any way unwarrantable. This kind of Standard the Roman Emperors successively had born before them in their Wars: nay, it is recorded that Julian himself (probably from what he had made some former Observations 
Theodoret. Hist. l. 3. c. 3.  of,) could not forbear defending himself with this Sign, upon a mighty fright he was seized with, while in the use of Magic Arts he went to have consulted with the Devil. 
Orat. Cont. Julian.  This Nazianzen calls his craving aid and refuge of him whom he had Persecuted. Which, (by the way) might give us the modestly and caution of showing ourselves too petulant against what it hath pleased our Lord Jesus in a Revelation from Heaven to give the Figure of, and the Holy Spirit also to signalise sometimes by very renowned miracles, which those that consult Ecclesiastical Histories of best Authority cannot but be convinced of.  
So that, we find the use of it very ancient, and the Effects of it very Memorable, Casaubon himself (not very fond Man of Rituals) calls it Primitivae Ecclesiae 
Exercit. in Baronium.  Symbolum ejus fiduciae quam in Christo & cruse ipsius, & passione ponebant: a Symbol the Primitive Church used to denote that Confidence they had in Christ, his Cross, and Passion.  
I confess it would be a fond thing to endeavour, with some of the Romish Church, to trace up the Antiquity of the Cross, to the first Creation of Man, and so all along downward to the Actual Death of our Blessed Lord. They can spy out the Cross, in the Figure of a Man's Face, by the placing of the Nose betwixt the two Eyes, and much more in the Position of the whole Body of the Man with his Arms extended. They can discern it in the Sword in Paradise, 
See the notes of Laur. le bar upon Tertul. advers. Martion. l. 3. p. 178, 179.  and in the Cross stick that Noah's Dove brought back into the Ark, etc.  
And indeed some of the Fathers bend their Imaginations something that way, and would fancy the Figure of the Cross in Moses his stretching out his Arms whiles the Israelites were fight with Amalek, in the Paschal Lamb when the Spit went through it, etc. which, however they were conceits too much suiting that way of allegorising that some of them were fond of, yet doth it at least confirm what I am now upon, I mean the ancient Reception of this Sign into the Primitive Church. Nay, I may further add, that in some of the passages they have of this kind, the hint they take may not deserve perhaps to be absolutely exploded, as if there were no weight or moment at all in it. I will crave leave to instance particularly in one thing which some of the Fathers do a little insist upon, and that is, that Mark in Ezek. 9 4. that was to be set upon the Foreheads of the Men that sigh, etc.  
This Mark in several of the ancient Versions is supposed to be the Hebrew Tau, which St. Hierom tells us was, in the Samaritan Character, like our T, and so made the figure of the Cross, from whence he Collects that this was signum crucis quae in Christianorum frontibus pingitur, a token of that Cross that is imprinted upon the Forehead of the Christian. If St. Hierom be not mistaken in the Samaritan Character, his conjecture in the Application of it, is not very unjustifiable; because, as all the promises are in Christ Jesus, yea, and in him Amen: So, 
2 Cor. 1. 20.  all the Prophecies of old, where they concerned any signal advantages or deliverances to the Jewish Church had the assurance of them frequently confirmed by some hint or Remembrance of the Messiah, that was afterward to be revealed. Thus in that Confirmation that Isaiah was to give to Ahaz of his present deliverance from the Invasions of Ephraim and Syria, he gives him this Sign, behold 
Isai. 7. 4.  a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son. How could that great Event that was not to come to pass of so many Ages after Ahaz his Death, affect him, who stood in need of so immediate Deliverance, but that it was brought in as an instance, (not only that as God could bring about such a wonder, as the Birth of a Child from a Virgin, could as easily relieve Judah in its present straits: but further,) he that had so gracious a design toward them, as to send the Messiah amongst them, would in the Prospect he had to that, show now his particular regards for the Church at this time. In Analogy to this, might this passage in Ezekiel, look toward that mark which Christians in after Ages should wear upon their Foreheads, as a present Symbol of the escape of those that should be found sighing for the Abominations that were then done in Israel. And to this probably, may that Seal of the living God have some Reference, which was to be set upon the Foreheads of the Servants of God. Revel. 7. 2, 3. For, as they are there reckoned up by the number of twelve times twelve, to signify that they are the true and genuine offspring of the twelve Apostles; so, the Seal 
Vid. Med. in loc.  of the Living God upon their Foreheads, may point at the Figure of the Cross, to betoken them (though under the Prophetic Denomination of the Jewish Tribes) to be of the Christian Church. This I would not be supposed to lay any great stress of Argument upon, only offer the Conjecture to the Candour of the Reader.  
And thus, having shown the Antiquity of this Sign, as it was received into the Church long before the Corruptions of Popery appeared in the World; I know but of one thing can be urged to take off the strength of what hath been hitherto said; and that is, that the Primitive Christians might probably take up this Custom of thus signing themselves, because they lived wholly amongst the Enemies of the Cross of Christ, the Jews making the Cross a Stumbling-block, and the Greeks Foolishness. So that, their design of doing it, was only to bear their Testimony to the Faces of both, that is, though the Cross was scandal to the one, and scorn and laughter to the other, yet they would not be ashamed of this Cross but made it the Badge of their Profession. Whereas we live in an Age and Nation, where (thanks be to God) there seems no such occasion, because Christianity is the Religion we openly and universally profess.  
To this I answer, that this Objection being thus made, doth at least suppose the usage of the Cross not to be a thing that is in itself evil, because if so, no good end or design in using it could hollow the Action; so that the Ceremony is not Evil in its self, but that upon some weighty reasons, it might be brought into the Church, if so, than we might reasonably think, that the injunction of Authority in this Case, might Justify the Practice of it. But much more, if the reason now alleged might be a just occasion for the Church in its first Ages to take the usage up, God knows the occasion may be as urgent still upon an Equally sad account: and that is, the Profane and Atheistical Contempt that is thrown, not so much upon the Sign as the Doctrine of the Cross, by the pretended Wits of our Age. He hath a very slender concernment for the interests of Religion, that is not sensibly touched with those Blasphemous Railleries' he may every where meet with, upon the whole Scheme of Christianity, especially that which we make the great Foundation of our hopes and trust, viz. the Merits of our Saviour's Cross and Passion. That the use of this Sign, if ever it was reasonable upon such a score as this, it is so now. And St. Cyprians Caution is strong and pertinent enough at this time of the day against all the Wit and Pride of the daring and haughty Atheist, Muniatur frons, etc. Arm your Foreheads that the Seal of God may be kept 
Epist. 56. add Thiberitanoes.  safe. q. d. Remember the Badge you took upon you in Baptism, and so long as you have that upon your Foreheads, never be ashamed or laughed out of Countenance, as to the Memory of your Saviour's Love, and the Foundation of your hopes laid in his Death and Passion.  
And now, since it is so evident how Ancient a practice this hath been in the Christian Church: I would not have this part of the Argument pretended further than it was first designed, which was only to show that this Ceremony hath nothing owing in it to that which we call Popery, because it was established in the Church so long before that Mystery of Iniquity had its being. And though through the Antiquity of it (if warrantable at the first) it becomes so much the more Venerable, and might justly lay some restraints upon the modest Christian in his Censures against it; yet doth not this put it beyond the degree of an indifferent Ceremony, without which, the Sacrament of Baptism is declared by our Church as complete and perfected. Did the Antiquity of its practice make it necessary, it might prove as necessary almost in every Action of Life, as well as Baptism, because (as I have noted before) Tertullian tells us, it was once so used. No, it only gives us the warrant of doing it, because practised in the most incorrupt Ages of Christianity; and the necessity of keeping it still in use, lies not so much in that it was the Custom of some Church, or Constitution of some Council in former days, as that it is the Custom of our Church now, and the appointment of our Governors. But,  
Secondly, It is further considerable, that the use of the Cross as it is ordained and appointed in our Church, hath not the least affinity with the use of it, as it is in the Romish Rituals.  
1. We do by no means allow any visible Images of a Crucifi'd Jesus, so as to have the least concern in any part of our Worship. There is no mention of them in our Rubric; there is hardly in any writings of the Doctors of our Church one passage to be found of that latitude, that Mr. Baxter amongst his calmest thoughts hath 
Christian direct. Ecclesiastical Cases qu. 113. p. 875. Ibid. p. 876.  not adventured to say, that is, that a Crucifix well befiteth the Imagination and Mind of a Believer; nay further, that it is not unlawful to make an Image (and gives the instance particularly of a Crucifix) to be the objectum vel medium excitans ad cultum Dei, an Object or medium of our consideration, exciting our minds to Worship God. The sense of our Church is truly expressed in this matter by Mr. Hooker, who tells us that between the Cross which Superstition honoureth as Christ, and that Ceremony of the Cross which serveth only for a sign of Remembrance, there is as plain and great a difference, as between those brazen Images which Solomon made to bear up the Cistern of the Temple, and that which the Israelites in the Wilderness did adore. 
Eccles. Pol. l. 5. p. 348.  Or between those Altars which Josias destroyed, because they were Instruments of mere Idolatry, and that which the tribe of Reuben with others erected near the River Jordan to far other purposes. Ours is no other than a mere transient, or (as others express it) aerial figure of the Cross, which comes not within the widest notion of an Image; or if it were so, is so very transient, that it abides not so long as to be capable of becoming any Object or medium of Worship, any further than any words we use in Worship may do.  
2. The use even of this transient sign, bears no kind of Conformity or likeness with the use of it in the Church of Rome. They use it upon numberless occasions beside Baptism. If they enter in, or go out of Church, or a Friend's House; when they say their Prayers, or are present at any Religious Solemnity. If startled at Thunder, taken in a storm, frighted with a spectrum, or are surprised with any kind of Fear or Astonishment, they bless themselves still, and take refuge under this sign of the Cross, which they will make upon themselves. If they visit the sick, administer the extreme Unction, or indeed perform any of their other Sacraments (so called by them,) the transient sign of the Cross must begin and close all. But then, in the Sacrament of Baptism, the use of this sign is so exceedingly different, as well in the nauseous Repetitions of it before and afterward, in the Forehead, in the Mouth, and upon the Breast: as also, the Monstrous Significations according to the divers places whereon it is impressed, that nothing can be more. Beside that it is not used at the time, nor with the form of words that we use it with. So that, there is not the least agreement betwixt us and them, either in the use, or in the significancy of this Ceremony; and so no reasonable offence can be taken at it, upon any Symbolising of ours with the Church of Rome in it. All this might be further confirmed by giving a particular view of the Roman Ritual, as to what respects their office for Baptism; but this is done by a better hand upon another 
See Case about the Ch. of Engl. Symbol. with the Ch. of Rome, p. 10. 11. 12.  Case of this kind.  
Lastly, Although it cannot be denied but the Church of Rome hath greatly abused this Ceremony to very ill purposes of Superstition, yet doth not this make it unlawful to continue the reformed use of it amongst us, that have professedly separated from the Corruptions of that Church. It is a Principle that some of our Brethren imagine they are very well fortified in, from some instances in the Gld Testament, viz. that whatever hath been abused to Idolatrous or Superstitious purposes, should eo nomine be abolished. But perhaps they would find this much more a question than they have hitherto presumed, if they would consider, that if this Principle were true, it would go nigh to throw a scorn upon all or most so the Reformations that have been made from the Church of Rome, for they do not seem to have governed themselves by this Rule. Some of them in their public Confessions declaring, that they might lawfully retain such Rites or Ceremonies as are of advantage to Faith, the Worship of God, or Peace and Order in the Church, though they had 
Confess. Bohem. Art. 15.  been introduced by any Synod, or Bishop, or Pope, or any other.  
It is a Principle that would render Christianity impracticable, because no Circumstance, no Instrument, no Ministry in Worship, but may have been some way or other abused and desecrated by Pagan or Romish Idolatries. It would make every Garment of what shape, or of what colour soever, unfit for use in our Religious services: for, not only the White, but the Red, the Green, and the Black, have been used (even for the significancy of their respective colours) by the Gentile, or the Romanist to very superstitious purposes in divine Worship. It would condemn the Practice of those very Persons that would pretend this to be their Principle. For they have few of them carried it to that height as to abolish Churches, Fonts, or other Utensils, but have thought fit to make use of them in the same services of Religion as formerly, though not in those modes by which they were abused to Superstition and Idolatry. All which they should not do, if either the Principle had any real Foundation in itself, or they acted in any due consistency with the Principle they pretend.  
That which our Dissenting Brethren urge, (as they think) of the greatest force and pertinency in this matter, is the example of Hezekiah, who when he found the brazen Serpent, which God himself had directed to be set up for the Healing of those that had been stung with Fiery Serpents, abused to downright Idolatry: He would not endeavour to recover it to the first design of its preservation, that is, to keep it standing only as a memorial of God's Power and goodness, who had done such great and beneficial things amongst them by it: but without any more ado, takes it away from all further view of the People, breaks it in pieces, and calls it Nehushtan, i. e. let's the People see it was a thing of Brass and 
2 Kings XVI ●1. 4.  nothing else.  
To this I answer, First, Although it is very natural to mankind to govern themselves more by example than precept, yet, Arguments fetched from examples, generally are not the truest way of reasoning; and that partly upon this very account, namely, the proneness we have toward example, and Byass and Prejudice we may the easilier be drawn away with, upon that account. But chief, because in alleging examples, it is very rare that we can hit the Case perfectly right. It may be said of Examples, as it is of Similitudes; they seldom do Currere quatuor pedibus, they do not perfectly reach the thing intended to be proved, but are so widely different, or defective in some one or other Circumstance, that there is not that parity of Reason that ought to be; and the varying of Circumstances may much alter the Case. Which very thing apparently falls out in this very instance. For certainly, if the example be concerned in any thing with respect to our practice, it may seem to prove nothing further than the necessity of taking away (not what hath been used only to Idolatrous purposes, but) what itself hath been, and at that instant is, a mere Idol. This was the Circumstance of the brazen Serpent, it was by Custom become a real Idol; it had been so for a long time, was so at that instant, when Hezekiah broke it to pieces: to those days the Children of Israel did burn Incense unto it. So that, thus far perhaps this instance might affect us, that, were there any Crucifix, or material image of our Saviour upon the Cross, now standing, to which People for some Ages had given, and for the generality did still give divine honour; it would then indeed concern the Government, in their Reformation from the Idolatries of the Church of Rome, to take away and abolish this and all other Images of this kind. This perhaps answers the pattern pretty much, and copieth out Hezekiah's wise and good Action; and this accordingly is entirely done in our Church; there being no such Image abiding now amongst us, to which any adoration is publicly avowed, or that can be pretended to have such snare in it, as to hazard any general Idolatry. What proportion doth our Aerial sign of the Cross (toward which there is no intention, nor indeed any possibility of giving any divine Worship,) what proportion doth this bear to the material figure of the brazen Serpent, to which they had for a long time actually burnt Incense, did it to those very days, and gave such Evidence of their Inveteracy in Idolatry, that there seemed no moral likelihood of preventing it by any other course than breaking the Idol to pieces, and letting them see what a mere lump of Brass they had been Worshipping? But then,  
2. If Example were a good way of Arguing, we find by Hezekiah's practice in other things, he did not think it an indispensible Duty in him to abolish every thing that had been made use of to Idolatry, if they did not prove an immediate snare at that time; for, as to Temples which Solomon had erected for no other end but the Worship of false Gods in them, 1 Kings 11. 7. Hezekiah did not make it his business to destroy them, as being in his time forlorn and neglected things, of which no bad use was then made. Although indeed King Josiah afterward (probably upon the increase of Idolatry, and renewed use of those places) foved it expedient to lay them wholly waste. 2 Kings 23. 13.  
And thus much I have thought fit to say as to that first Head of Objection against the sign of the Cross, as it is cried out against as a Relic of Popery, and had been so depraved by the Superstitious use of it in the Church of Rome. I cannot but acknowledge this to be the weakest part of their plea against it; and probably our Brethren know it to be so too: yet, because it is most affecting amongst common People, and seems to have made the deepest impression upon those that are not so well fitted for profound and solid reasoning, I have chosen to be the larger here, that even the meanest capacities may see that the Sign of the Cross, as we use it, was not introduced by the Church of Rome, but was of a much ancienter date: That the use we make of it bears no Conformity at all with that Church in their using it: that by our different usage we keep at a sufficient distance; nay, perhaps are in less likelihood of falling into the Snare of their Communion, than if it had been utterly abolished: In a word, that that very Principle, upon which the charge of Popery is laid as an Argument against the Cross, is itself weak and fallible; nor are we bound by any Precept or Example in Holy Writ, to throw off the use of any one thing merely because the Church of Rome hath abused it. It hath proved a mighty inconvenience to the Church, that People have been thrown into so precipitant a Zeal of removing themselves to the utmost extremes from the Church of Rome, that they have been almost afraid to determine in any action or circumstance of Divine Worship, lest it should some way or other, have been Profaned and made unwarrantable by their practice. This is that gave rise to the mischievous Enthusiasms in Germany, that ended in such bloody and barbarous Practtises, as well as senseless and ridiculous Principles taken up and maintained by the Anabaptists there. I am loath to mention the horrid confusions of our own Age and Nation, which yet perhaps we were wrought up into by this very humour; I mean, a restless fondness for some additional refinements still, which our Church had not thought fit to make.  
I cannot but inwardly reverence the Judgement, as well as love the Temper, of our first Reformers, who in their first Separations from Rome, were not nice or scrupulous beyond the just reasons of things. Doubtless they were in earnest enough, as to all true Zeal against the Corruptions of that Church, when they sealed the well-grounded offence they took at them, with their warmest blood; and cheerfully underwent all the hardships that Primitive Christians signalised their Profession with, rather than they would intermix with Rome, in any usage of Worship, or Article of Faith that had the least savour of Idolatry, Superstition, or false Religion at all in it. And yet these Holy and Wise Men, when they had the Power and Opportunity of Reforming, wholly in their Hands, being equally jealous of Enthusiasm as they were of Superstition, would not give themselves up to those fantastic Antipathies as to abolish this or that Ceremony, merely because it had been in use amongst the Papists, if some other very substantial Reason did not put in its claim against it. And verily, had they not Governed themselves in these temperate and unbyast methods of Reformation, they would not so easily have justified themselves to their Adversaries, or the World; or have made it so evident (as by their wise management they did) that what was done by them was from the mere urgencies of Conscience and Reason, and not the wantonness of Change and Innovation. So that, where any mean honestly (as I doubt not but many of those do, that Dissent from us in this particular circumstance of the Cross in Baptism) they ought to have their Reason very well awake, that the mere charge of Popery upon any disputed point, may not so prejudice them in their inquiries into things as to leave no Room for debate and mature Consideration.  
Secondly, The other head of Objection against the sign of the Cross in Baptism is, that it seems the introducing of a new Sacrament, which having not the warranty of our Lord and Master Christ Jesus, must needs be a very offensive invasion of his Rights, whose Royal Prerogative alone it is, to institute what Sacraments he pleaseth in his Church.  
This Objection seems to point at a twofold argument. The one, with respect in Common to all those Circumstances in Worship, which for Decency and Order, are appointed by the Governors of the Church, but not antecedently prescribed and enjoined in the word of God. For, to do this, our Dissenting Brethren have generally affirmed it a bold and unwarrantable intrusion upon our Lord and Master, who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his House, that is, in prescribing to the Jews all their modes and usages in Worship, from which they were not to vary or deviate, to add or diminish in any one Circumstance.  
This I shall take no further notice of, than as it may necessarily intermix itself with the question particularly in hand about the Cross in Baptism, partly because I would keep as strictly as may be to this distinct Case, and especially, because this Case [of doing nothing in or about the Worship of God, but what is expressly prescribed and appointed by him in his word] hath been fewer province; so that, I shall only say, the Customs of the Jewish Church itself, (which our Brethren would make their main instance in this matter,) do make directly against it. They did unquestionably take up some usages wherein Moses had given no antecedent directions, which yet it is evident were not unlawful upon that account, because our Blessed Lord did not only not blame or accuse them of Encroachment or Superstition, but himself practised & complied with them; this, amongst many other things, hath been cleared up in the instance of their Synagogue Worship, and upon another occasion may be further insisted on by and by. Besides, it is plain, this was no Rule amongst the primitive Christians in the first ages of the Gospel, not to add, the inexpediency and unfitness of this Rule to the very Oeconomy and Dispensation of Christianity, which was to diffuse itself amongst all Nations, and all kinds of People, who did so infinitely differ from one another, both in their Customs, and in the Significations of those Customs too, that it must have been a vast and bulky digest of Laws indeed, that must have suited all Countries, were every Circumstance and Punctilio in divine Worship to have been antecedently prescribed. All this hath been with so much clearness made out by several Hands, that I am apt to think at this time of the day, our Brethren do not expect or stand in need of further Conviction in this point, and seem in some measure agreed that this Position of theirs will not hold water.  
It is the other part of the Objection therefore, that will fall more directly under our consideration at this present; and that is, that our using the sign of the Cross in Baptism, doth seem to run into the nature of a new Sacrament. And this is that they mean, when they tell us, it is an outward Visible sign of an inward invisible Grace, whereby a Person is dedicated to the Profession of, and Subjection to the Redeemer. That it is a dedicating means to consecrate us to God; that it signifies our covenanting engagement, and is as a Badge and Symbol of the Christian Religion; that it represents Christ dying on the Cross, and signifies our being listed under Christ; that it is an addition to Baptism; that it adds another Sacrament to Baptism: And that it is used as an engaging Sign, in our first and solemn covenanting with Christ, and the duties whereunto we are really obliged by Baptism, are more expressly affixed to that airy Sign than to the Holy Sacrament. With many other Expressions of this kind, which we may find interspersed in the several writings of the Nonconformists, where they take occasion to dispute this Ceremony. This of the Crosses having at least the semblance of a Sacrament, is indeed the only Objection the Presbyterian Brethren insist upon in their exceptions against some passages in the present Liturgy.  
As to this therefore, first, I must needs say, I have sometimes wondered that the word Sacrament itself, hath been so well agreed upon amongst us. The Fathers have used it so much at large in their writings that it would sometimes be difficult to understand what they mean by it: and our Brethren, upon the same reasons by which several other exceptions have been made, might have disallowed and rejected it as a word by no means Scriptural, but Pagan and Heathenish. However, since by a long reception of the word into the Church, it seems agreed on all sides, what the Sense and Acceptation of it should be; my business will be to show, 1. What we are agreed in as to the Notion of a Sacrament, and then 2. to make it plain, that as our Church never did design or intent, by the use of the cross in Baptism to make an new Sacrament of it; so, in the nature of the thing, it hath not any semblance of a Sacrament, according to the Notion of a Sacrament that both sides are agreed in.  
First, As to our being agreed in the Notion of a Sacrament, I must presume our Church in her public catechism, hath given that definition of it, which no reform Church, but approves and allows of. That is, that it is an outward and Visible Sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace given to us, Ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a Pledge to assure us thereof. It is true, the Assembly of Divines in their larger Catechism do in that question of theirs [what is a Sacrament?] put in an expression or two, that point at some Opinions, wherein they may be no more agreed amongst themselves, than they are with some of our Church. But then, in their next question [what are the parts of a Sacrament] they give us the same account with that of our Church-Catechism, only a little varied in the words, viz. The parts of a Sacrament are two, the one, an outward sensible sign used according to Christ's own appointment: the other, an inward and spiritual Grace thereby signified. by all which it is evident, we are well enough agreed in the Common acceptation of the word Sacrament. And therefore,  
Secondly, I proceed to show, that as our Church never did design or intent, by the use of the Cross in Baptism, to make any new Sacrament of it, so according to the common Notion wherein we are agreed as to the word Sacrament, there is not any semblance of a Sacrament it can justly be charged with.  
And here I might, not without some reason, insist, that as we are agreed in the Definition of a Sacrament, that both the outward Sign must signify an inward Spiritual Grace, and also must have its express institution and appointment from Christ, we, that never supposed the use of the Cross in Baptism could confer Grace, nor have ever made the least pretext to any Divine appointment for it, ought not to be charged as introducing a new Sacrament, when it hath no pretensions to any one thing that is of the Essence of a Sacrament. But I am willing to follow the Argument as they have laid it. They say therefore, that however, we do not call or account it an Holy Sacrament, yet forasmuch as we bring a Ceremony into the Church, which in the Significations of it seems tantamount to a Christian Sacrament, we do thereby usurp the Prerogative of our great Lord and Master, setting up our Posts against his Post, and our Threshold again his Threshold.  
This they say we do partly, 1. as we make the Cross a sign betokening our Faith, and Christian courage, when in applying it to the Baptised Person, we say we do it in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucifi'd, etc. And partly 2. when by an entire Representative of our Church it is determined, that by the sign of the Cross, the Baptised Person is dedicated to the service of him that died upon the Cross.  
First, they say that by making the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter, etc. we apply such Significations to it, that run it into the nature of a Sacrament, using it as an outward Visible sign of an Inward Spiritual Grace. As to this, we must ingeniously confess, that we make use of no Rite or Ceremony in our Church, but it is with this design, that it should be Significant of some thing or other. It would be an odd piece of pageantry indeed, to use this or that gesture or action in our Religious services, that should have no Signification at all in it, and to account it therefore Innocent, because it were Impertinent. It is the Significancy of it, that makes it useful or proper, and if there were nothing of that in it, it would be very disallowable. But then, though our Ceremonies are significant, and any of them used as Memorative Signs to put us in mind of any Duty or Obligation toward God, they are not therefore an outward Visible sign of an inward Spiritual Grace; that is, they are not in the nature of any seal or assurance from God of his Grace to us, but hints and remembrances of some Obligation we are under with respect to God. And that this kind of significant usages have been all along arbitrarily taken up, without any Imputation of introducing a new Sacrament, may be made out, both from the practice of the Jewish Church, notwithstanding the punctual prescriptions delivered to them by Moses. From the practice of the Christian Church, and that, both in the very first ages of it, and also in all the later Reformations that have been made.  
First, take we a view of the Jewish Church; and herein,  
1. We may observe that in their very Passover, about which, both thing and Circumstances, they had such express directions by Moses before they went out of Egypt; yet did they in some ages following considerably vary, not only in their time of keeping it, which having been originally appointed on the Tenth, they changed it to the Fourteenth day of the Month: but in the gesture too. In the first institution of it, they were to eat it with their loins girded, their shoes on their feet, and staff in their hand, and all as a token of the haste they were then in. This gesture of eating the Passover, it is not so certain how long it continued in the Jewish Church after their coming out of Egypt, as it is unquestionable it was changed into a discumbing posture (that is, a posture wherein they took their ordinary meals) long before the days of our Saviour, and that so warrantably too, that our Saviour himself used it. And yet, this very posture they had taken up (if we will believe an Expositor that was no great friend to the Ceremonies of our Church) had its Signification too; for he tells us that they did it in sign of their rest and security otherwise than 
V Ainsw. in Exod. 12. 3.  they had in Egypt.  
2. Another instance in the Jewish Church might be that of the Altar of Witness, which Phineas, after he had made a jealous enquiry upon, approved of, as a standing memorial 
Josh. 22.  that they on the other side Jordan professed the true God, had Relation to the other tribes, and a Right to the Service of God in the Tabernacle of the Congregation.  
3. But that which seems to come nearest us is what the Jewish Authors do frequently take notice of, and that is, that as to those whose Office entitled them to the Anointing (which by all that doth very evidently appear, were only Kings and Priests) although the Anointing Oil, as to its confection and ingredients, and the manner of doing it (as one would think) were particularly enough prescribed by God; yet did the Jews amongst themselves bring in the use of a Significative sign in doing it, which seems no where dissallow'd, or charged as an invasion of God's Holy Institutions: this was, to Anoint the Heads of their Kings with the figure of a Crown, and their Priests with the figure of an Hebrew] ב 
Maimon. II. Melachim.  or the Greek χ. Not to add, that the Synagogue Worship, the Rites of Marriage, the form of taking Oaths, and the like, things that had great Significations in them, had not the express Institution of God for their warranty, and yet were well enough received in the purest times of the Jewish Church, and complied with by our Saviour himself.  
Secondly, take we a view of the Christian Church, and that, both as to the first ages of it, and all the later Reformations that have been made. 1. We may observe even from the days of the Apostles themselves, the Church hath taken the Liberty of making use of one Rite or other that hath signified things of greatest weight and moment, to instance in a twofold Custom primitively used amongst Christians, that looked much more Sacramentally than our use of the Cross in Baptism, that is, the institution of them seemed Apostolical, being frequently mentioned in their Holy writings; and they were immediately annexed to the Holy Eucharist, and in their Signification bore some analogy with what that Sacrament itself was in part the token and seal of, these were the Holy Kiss, and the Agapae or Feasts of Charity.  
The Holy Kiss was performed (as the best Writers generally conceive) after all other preparations, immediately before they entered upon the Celebration of the 
Dr. Caves prim. Christ. part 1 Chap. 11. p. 346. 352.  Lord's Supper, and at the close and upshot of the whole Solemnity; from whence Tertullian gives it the term of signaculum orationis, the Seal of Prayer. This the Apostle is supposed to direct to, when he enjoins the Corinthians 
1 Cor. 16. 20.  to greet one another with an holy kiss. And this was kept 
Quae oratio cum divortio sancti osculi integra? Tert. de orat.  up with that Reverence in Tertullian's time, that he speaks as if the Service of the Public Prayers were maimed and imperfect, if it concluded not with this kiss. This was used in token of the mutual Communion and Fellowship that Christians had with one another, and the unfeigned reconciliation of their Minds, that they came with no inward heart-burnings against one another, being that great Christian Grace and Virtue, so much insisted upon in our Saviour's Gospel, and after that, by his Apostles made one great Evidence of the Professors having passed from Death to Life. And yet, that this custom had not its Foundation in any Divine Appointment, but the voluntary use the Church made of it, seems agreed to on all hands; because afterward, it is not only prohibited by some Councils, but by an universal consent in all Churches, wholly laid aside, and grown out of all use.  
Again, we may observe, as to that custom of the Agapae or Feasts of Charity, which in the Apostles days 
1 Cor. 11. 20, 21.  probably were celebrated immediately before the Lord's Supper, and in some Ages afterward, not till the Holy Communion was finished. But, whether they had them before, or after, it is certain they had great Significations in them, not only of Christians mutual Love and Communion; but also, of the equal regards that God and our Blessed Lord had, toward all sorts and conditions of Men; the poor as well as the rich, those of meaner degree and quality, as well as the high and noble, when they were all to eat freely together at one common meal. This the Apostle seems to point at, in the remarks he makes upon the disorders in the Church at Corinth, that in their Lovefeasts, every one taketh before other his own Supper, and so did despise the Church of God. And those that had Houses to Eat and Drink in, shamed those that had not. Now, though this custom was hallowed by the practice of the Apostles, and had so great Significations in it, and was from the first, so annexed to the Holy Eucharist that it always either begun or concluded it, and consequently looked much more Sacramentally, than our Sign of the Cross in Baptism can be supposed to do; yet is it plain, by the universal disuse of it, in these later ages of the Church, that itself never was esteemed any Sacrament.  
I might further instance in the Ceremony of insufflation, or breathing upon the Person that was to be Baptised, 
Aug. de nupt. & concup. lib. 2. 29.  called by one of the Fathers an ancient Tradition, which they used as a sign of expelling the Evil Spirit, and breathing into them the good Spirit; this seemed to signify more the Grace of God, than Duty of the Christian, and yet not suspected as any Sacrament. Thus, the Baptised Persons stripping of his Garment in token that he put off the Old Man which was corrupt according to his deceitful Lusts, doth it not look full as Sacramentally as our Cross in Baptism? Yet we find it anciently practised without any jealousy of invading the prerogative of Christ, in instituting Holy Sacraments. To say no more, what think we of the trine immersion once accounted a pious usage in the Church, whereby the Person being thrice dipped or put under water, at the mention of each Person of the Trinity, was supposed to be Baptised in the belief of that great Article. So Tertullian expresseth it, Nam nec semel, 
Advers. Praxeam. Again, in lib de Coron. milit,  sed ter ad singula nomina, in Personas singulas tingimur. We are dipped not once but three times, at each name, and so are Baptised into the three Persons. And besides this Signification of the three Persons by this threefold immersion, which Tertullian, and not only he, but St. Ambrose have mentioned; there are others of the Fathers that have supposed, the Death, the Burial, and the Resurrection of our Saviour, together with his being in the Grave three days, was signified by this custom. And yet, was this so far from being accounted any Sacrament of itself, or a Sacrament within that of Baptism, that the Church hath thought fit to lay Immersion aside, for the generality; and the threefold Immersion much sooner, particularly in Spain, and that upon a reason that made the single dipping as significant as the Trine had been when it was in use, viz, to distinguish themselves from the Arrians, who had taken occasion from this threefold dipping in Baptism, to assert the three distinct substances, pretending a Testimony from the Catholic Church by this usage. Much such a reason (by the way) the Reformed Churches in Poland governed themselves by, when in a general Synod they decreed against the Posture of sitting at the Lords Supper, because that Custom had been brought in first by the Arrians, who, as they irreverently treat Christ, so also his sacred appointments. Which leads to a view of the Church in all 
Synod. Petricov. An. 1578.  its later Reformations.  
2. Is it not very evident, that in none of our later Reformations, nay even in those of our Dissenting Brethren themselves, but they do in their most Religious Solemnities, some things that are very Symbolical; Actions that have great significations in them?  
1. There giving to every Baptised Infant a new Name. which both they and we do call the Christian Name; this seems to betoken our being made new Creatures, and entered into a new State or Condition of Life, which still they seem to aim more expressly at, in their general care to give the Child some Scripture Name, or some name that should signify, some excellent virtue or Grace, some Religious duty owing to God, or some memorable benefit received from him. Here we have an outward Visible sign, and this too sometimes of an inward Spiritual Grace, and yet this no more accounted a new Sacrament, or a Sacrament within that of Baptism, than we do our Sign of the Cross; and indeed there seems just as much reason for the one as for the other, and no more.  
2. Those Arguments which some of our Dissenting Brethren, have used in Plea for the posture of sitting at the Lords Supper, do show, that besides what they urge from the posture wherein our Saviour himself celebrated it, they apprehend some Significancy in the gesture, that renders it more accommodate to that ordinance than any other; for, some of them plead for the posture of sitting; as being most properly a Table-gesture and doth best of all express our fellowship with Christ, and the honour and privilege of Communion with him as Coheirs. Now in this matter let us consider; our Lord hath no where expressly Commanded us to perform this Sacrament in a sitting posture; much less hath he told us that he ordained this gesture in token of our fellowship with him; so that, we see this gesture of sitting (by the Tenor of their Argument) made an outward Visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace; and this, not from any antecedent express institution of Christ; which notwithstanding, this posture of sitting is not accounted by those that frame the Argument, any new or additional Sacrament to that of the Lords Supper.  
3. Lastly, Those of the Congregational way have a formal Covenant, which they insist upon, that whoever will be admitted into any of their Churches, must engage themselves in; this is of that importance amongst them, that they call it, the Constitutive Form of a Church, that which makes any particular Person Member of a Church. 
Apol. for Church-coven.  Yea, and (as another expresses it) that wherein the Union of such a Church doth consist. We will suppose then, this Covenant administered in some form or other, and the Person admitted by this Covenant into an Independent Church declaring his consent by some Action or other, such as holding up his Hand, or the like. Let me ask them, What must they of that Church think of this Rite, or Ceremony of holding up the hand? will they not look upon it as a token of his consent to be a Church-Member? Here then is an outward Visible sign, of What? of no less (according to their apprehension of things) than a perfect new State and Condition of Life; that is, of being embodied in Christ's Church, engaged to all the Duties and enstated in all the privileges of it. Will they say that this way of admission, either the form of words wherein their Covenant is administered, or the Ceremony of holding up the hand, by which this Covenant is taken and assented to, was originally ordained by Christ? or do they themselves esteem this of the nature of a Sacrament? or did the Presbyterian-brethrens, in all their Arguments against this way, charge them with introducing a new Sacrament? So that, from all instances imaginable, both of the Jewish and Christian Church, and that, both Primitive, and later Reformations; even from the particular practices of our Dissenting Brethren, it is very Evident, how unreasonable a thing it is, that though we sign the baptised person with the Sign of the Cross in token, that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith Christ of Crucifi▪ d, etc. We should be accused as introducing a new Sacrament, or adding the Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism.  
But then, they tell us secondly, we seem to own it ourselves, when in an entire Representative of our Church (such as we suppose a Convocation to be) it is actually determined, that by the Sign of the Cross, the Person Baptised is dedicated to the service of him that died upon the Cross; and what can be more immediate (saith one of our Brethren) than in the present dedicating act to use the sign, and express the dedicating Signification? It is confessed that the 30th. Canon doth say the Cross is an honourable badge, whereby the Infant is dedicated, etc. And the stress of the Objection in this part of it lieth in the word dedicated that is, because the Sacrament of Baptism is itself a Seal of Admission into Covenant, and Dedication to God, and the Christian Religion; therefore, by using a Symbolical Ceremony of humane institution, whereby we profess the Person Baptised, dedicated to the service of him that died upon the Cross, we have made a new Sacrament, and added to that of Baptism, to dedicate him in our own invented way as Christ hath in that which he hath instituted.  
1. To this I answer, that surely the word dedication; is of a much larger Signification, than that it should be confined merely to the Interpretation, that our Brethren would put upon it. The meaning of dedication properly is, the appropriating of any thing or Person to any peculiar service, such as a Church, or Temple for the Worship of God: any Person to the profession the true Religion, to the Ministry, or to any kind of attendance at the Holy Altars. This is the strictest sense of dedication; but then, in a larger sense we may suppose it applied to any strict or conscientious discharge of all the Duties, and answering all the ends of the first dedication. Thus, suppose a Man ordained to the Ministry, whereby he is properly dedicated to the work and service of the Gospel; he may by some solemn act of his own, dedicate himself to a zealous and faithful discharge of that Office; and this, after some time that he may have apprehended himself hitherto not so diligent in the trust that had been committed to him. This cannot be called in any sense a new ordination; but it may with reason and sense enough be styled a dedicating of a Man's self more particularly to the service of God, in the discharge of that Ministry he was ordained to. And therefore,  
2. In this sense the Convocation ought in all justice to be understood, when they, in explaining the intention of the Cross, tell us, it is an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that died upon the Cross, etc.  
And yet, I must needs say, it seems hard measure upon the Church of England, that if those in a Convocation should not have applied the word dedication, to what might be most strictly the sense of it, that this should be so severely expounded, that no other declarations of their meaning and intention must be accepted of, than what merely the strict and critical sense of that word will bear. Surely there are many expressions in the Fathers, that may seem more distant from that sense we are willing to take them in; and we should be very loath to yield them up as the Authors or Defenders of some dangerous Opinions in the Church of Rome, because some phrases of theirs in the rigour of them, may be pressed to a kind of meaning that may seem to favour them. There is a necessary allowance to be given to some schemes of Speech, and meaning of words, or else we should be in a perpetual wrangle and dispute about them.  
However, there doth not need even this sort of Charity for this word dedicated, upon which such weight of Argument hath been laid. For, as in all Authors it hath been variously used, so is it properly enough applied in this Canon, for the design for which it was used; and the declaration is plain and intelligible enough to the candid and unprejudiced mind. The word dedication (as they use it) may properly enough signify a Confirmation of our first dedication to God in Baptism, and a declaration of what the Church thinks of the Person Baptised, what she doth expect from him, and what Obligations he lieth under by his Baptism. And as a medium of this declaration, the sign of the Cross is made, being as expressive as so many words, what the Infant by his Baptism was designed to; the Apostle himself having comprehended the whole of Christianity under that term and denomination of the Cross. Now that our Church did design this declarative dedication (by the use of this sign) and none other, is very evident, in that, though the word dedicated is used in the explication of their sense in that Canon, yet, do they there refer to the words used in the Book of Common Prayer. By comparing therefore the Canon and the Office for Baptism together (the Canon directing to the Office, and the Rubric belonging to the Office directing to the Canon) we may observe what stress is to be laid upon the word Dedicated that is, how far they were from designing the same sort of immediate dedication that is made by Baptism, and yet how by the Cross, we may properly enough be said to be dedicated too.  
As to the Sacrament of Baptism, we are all agreed that by that we are dedicated to the Service of Christ, and the Profession of his Gospel; Now the Church of England, both in the Rubric and Canon do affirm and own, that the Baptism is complete, and the Child made a Member of Christ's Church, before the Sign of the Cross is made use of; or if upon occasion it should not be made use of at all. It is expressly said, We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, and upon that, do sign it with the Cross. So that the Child is declared within the Congregation of Christ's Flock, before the Sign of the Cross be applied to it. Beside, that in the Office for private Baptism, where the Sign of the Cross is to be omitted, we are directed not to doubt, but that the Child so Baptised is lawfully and sufficiently Baptised; the Canon confirming it, that the Infant Baptised is, by virtue of Baptism, before it be signed with the sign of the Cross, received into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, as a perfect Member thereof, and not by any power ascribed unto the sign of the Cross.  
If therefore, we be dedicated in Baptism, and the Baptism acknowledged complete and perfect, before or without the use of this Sign, the Church cannot be supposed ordaining so needless a repetition as this would be, to dedicate in Baptism, & then to dedicate by the Cross again, but that which they express by dedicated by the Cross, must be something very distinct from that dedication which is in Baptism; that is, the one is a sign of dedication, the other is the dedication itself, as distinct the one from the other, as the Sign of Admission is from Admission itself, and a signification of a privilege, is from an Instituted means of Grace. It seems a thing decent and seasonable enough, that when it hath pleased God to receive a person into his favour, and given him the Seal of it, that the Church should give him the right hand of fellowship, solemnly declaring and testifying he is received into her Communion, by giving him the Badge of our Common Religion. So that, this is plainly no other than a Declaration the Church makes of what the Person Baptised is admitted to, what engagement he lies under when capable of making a visible Profession. It expresseth what hath been done in Baptism, which is indeed not a sign of Dedication but Dedication itself, (as I have already said) as also the Cross is not dedication itself, but a sign of it. Which Declaration is therefore made in the name of the Church in the plural number, We Receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, etc. Whereas, in Baptism, the Minister, as the immediate agent of Christ, by whom he is Authorised and Commissionated, in the singular number (as in his Name) pronounceth it, I Baptise thee in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  
As to what is urged above, that nothing can be more immediate, than in the present dedicating act, to use the sign, and express the dedicating signification; they must know, it might have been more immediate, either to have placed this Sign before Baptism, or to have appointed some such form of words, in applying it as the Church of Rome doth; or if it had been pretended to be of divine Institution, and necessary to make the Sacrament of Baptism complete and perfect.  
And thus, I presume, I have run through the main debate betwixt us and our dissenting brethren as to this Case. Wherein, I hope, I have neither misrepresented their objections, nor let pass any material strength in them, nor in replying to them, used any one provoking or offensive word. Would they but read and weigh this and the other Discourses of this kind, with the same calmness of temper, and study of mutual agreement, wherewith (I dare say) they have been written; I cannot think there would abide upon their Spirits so vehement a desire for the removal of these things; but it might rather issue in a peaceable and happy closure in the use of what hath been made appear was so innocently taken up, and might with so much advantage, under the encouragement of serious and good Men, be still retained. I do not indeed think any of our Church so fond of this Ceremony particularly, but that, if the laying it aside might turn to as great Edification in the Church, as the serious use of it might be emprov'd to, our Governors would easily enough condescend to such an overture. Instances of this have been given in our Age; and our Presbyterian-brethrens in their Address to the Bishops do own, that divers Reverend Bishops, and Doctors, in a Paper in Print, 
Except. & Pap. of the Presbyt. p. 31.  before these unhappy Wars began, yielded to the laying aside of the Cross, and making many material alterations, etc. They have not those apprehensions of these things, that they are unalterable, and obligatory upon all Christians, as such; or that the laying them aside, for the bringing about some greater good would be offensive to God. I would to God, our Brethren, at least would but meet us thus far, as to throw off those Superstitious prejudices they may have conceived against them, and think that as the laying them aside would not be displeasing to God, so the use of them cannot be so neither. Forgive the expression of Superstitious prejudices. For I must suppose we put too high a value upon indifferent rites, when we think that either the use or rejection of them will recommend us to God, unless there be other accidents of obedience or disobedience to Authority, that will alter the Case. Otherwise the Imagination we may have of pleasing or displeasing God in any of these things, must look like what the Greeks express Superstition by, I mean, a causeless dread of God. It is a passage 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  in Calvin, that it is equally Superstitious, to condemn things indifferent as unholy, and to command them as if they were holy. It is infinitely 
In 2 Precept.  a nobler Conquest over ourselves, a proper regaining that Christian liberty to which we are redeemed, and would be of far happier consequence to the Church of God, to possess ourselves with such notions of God, and of indifferent things, as to believe we cannot recommend ourselves to him in the least measure by scrupling what he hath interposed no Command to make them either Obligatory or Unlawful.  
FINIS.   

A Catalogue of the several Cases, etc.  

1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England.  
2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion.  
3. The case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God, proposed and Stated, by considering these Questions, etc.  
4. A Discourse about Edification.  
5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience, Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England?  
6. A Letter to Anonymus, in Answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship. In two Parts.  
8. The Case of mixed Communion: Whether it be Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixed Communions?  
9 An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers, and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England.  
10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved, etc. The first Part.  
11. Certain Cases of Conscience, etc. The second Part.  
12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons, and of going to hear where men think they can profit most.  
13. A serious Exhortation, with some important Advices, relating to the late Cases about Conformity, recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England.  
14. An Argument for Union; taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestant's.  
15. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved. The second Part.  
16. The Case of ●ay-Communion with the Church of England considered.  
17. A Persuasive to frequent Communion, etc.  
18. A Defence of the Resolution of this Case, viz. Whether the Church of England 's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England. In Answer to a Book entitled, A Modest Examination of that Resolution.  
19 The Case of compelling Men to the Holy Sacrament.   

1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists ask of us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther?  
2. A Discourse about Tradition, showing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be received, and what Tradition is to be rejected.  
3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England.  
4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith, etc.  
5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith, etc.  
6. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints.  
7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholic Church, maintained in the Church of England.    

A PERSUASIVE TO Frequent Communion IN THE HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE Lord's Supper. LONDON, Printed by M. Flesher, for Brabazon Aylmer, at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill, and William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet, 1684.   

A PERSUASIVE TO FREQUENT COMMUNION.  
MY design in this Argument, is from the Consideration of the Nature of this Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and of the perpetual Use of it to the end of the World, to awaken Men to a sense of their Duty, and the great Obligation which lies upon them to the more frequent receiving of it. And there is the greater need to make men sensible of their Duty in this particular, because in this last Age by the unwary Discourses of some, concerning the Nature of this Sacrament, and the danger of receiving it unworthily, such doubts and fears have been raised in the minds of Men as utterly to deter many, and in a great measure to discourage almost the generality of Christians from the use of it; to the great prejudice and danger of men's Souls, and the visible abatement of Piety by the gross neglect of so excellent a means of our growth and improvement in it; and to the mighty scandal of our Religion, by the general disuse and contempt of so plain and solemn an Institution of our blessed Lord and Saviour.  
Therefore I shall take occasion as briefly and clearly as I can to treat of these four Points.  
First, Of the Perpetuity of this Institution; this the Apostle signifies when he saith, that by eating this 
1 Cor. 11. 26.  Bread, and drinking this Cup, we do show the Lord's Death till he come.  
Secondly, Of the Obligation that lies upon all Christians to a frequent observance of this Institution; this is signified in that Expression of the Apostle, As often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup: which Expression considered and compared together with the practice of the Primitive Church, does imply an Obligation upon Christians to the frequent receiving of this Sacrament.  
Thirdly, I shall endeavour to satisfy the Objections and Scruples which have been raised in the Minds of Men, and particularly of many devout and sincere Christians, to their great discouragement from their receiving this Sacrament, at least so frequently as they ought: which Objections are chief grounded upon what the Apostle says, Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily, 
1 Cor. 11. 27.  is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord: and doth eat 
Ver. 29.  and drink damnation to himself.  
Fourthly, What Preparation of ourselves is necessary in order to our worthy receiving of this Sacrament: which will give me occasion to explain the Apostle's meaning in those Words, But let a man examine himself, 
Ver. 28.  and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup.  
I. For the Perpetuity of this Institution, employed in those Words, For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do show forth the Lord's Death till he come; or the Words may be read imperatively and by way of Precept, show ye forth the Lord's Death till he come. In the three verses immediately before, the Apostle particularly declares the Institution of this Sacrament, with the manner and circumstances of it, as he had received it not only by the hands of the Apostles, but as the Words seem rather to intimate, by immediate Revelation from our Lord himself, ver. 23. For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you: that the Lord Jesus in the same night that he was betrayed took Bread, and when he had given Thanks he broke it, and said, take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the Cup when he had supped, saying, this Cup is the New Testament in my Blood: this do as often as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me. So that the Institution is in these Words, this do in remembrance of me. In which words our Lord commands his Disciples after his Death to repeat these actions of taking and breaking and eating the Bread, and of drinking of the Cup, by way of solemn Commemoration of him. Now whether this was to be done by them once only, or oftener; and whether by the Disciples only, during their lives, or by all Christians afterwards in all successive Ages of the Church, is not so certain merely from the force of these Words, do this in remembrance of me: but what the Apostle adds puts the matter out of all doubt, that the Institution of this Sacrament was intended for all Ages of the Christian Church; For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do show the Lord's Death till he come: that is, until the time of his second coming, which will be at the end of the World. So that this Sacrament was designed to be a standing Commemoration of the Death and Passion of our Lord till he should come to Judgement; and consequently the Obligation that lies upon Christians to the observation of it is perpetual, and shall never cease to the end of the World.  
So that it is a vain conceit and more dream of the Enthusiasts concerning the seculum Spiritûs Sancti, the Age and dispensation of the Holy Ghost, when, as they suppose, all humane Teaching shall cease, and all external Ordinances and Institutions in Religion shall vanish, and there shall be no farther use of them. Whereas it is very plain from the new Testament that Prayer, and outward Teaching, and the Use of the two Sacraments, were intended to continue among Christians in all Ages. As for Prayer, (besides our natural Obligation to this duty, if there were not revealed Religion) we are by our Saviour particularly exhorted to watch and pray, with regard to the day of Judgement, and in consideration of the uncertainty of the time when it shall be: And therefore this will always be a Duty incumbent upon Christians till the day of Judgement, because it is prescribed as one of the best ways of Preparation for it. That outward Teaching likewise and Baptism were intended to be perpetual is no less plain, because Christ hath expressly promised to be with the Teachers of his Church in the use of these Ordinances to the end of the World, Matth. 28. 19, 20. Go and disciple all Nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: and lo I am with you always to the end of the World. Not only to the end of that particular Age, but to the end of the Gospel Age, and the consummation of all Ages, as the Phrase clearly imports. And it is as plain from this Text, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was intended for a perpetual Institution in the Christian Church, till the second coming of Christ, viz. his coming to Judgement: Because St. Paul tells us, that by these Sacramental Signs the Death of Christ is to be represented and commemorated till he comes. Do this in remembrance of me: For as oft as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do show the Lord's Death till he come.  
And if this be the End and Use of this Sacrament, to be a solemn remembrance of the Death and Sufferings of our Lord during his absence from us, that is, till his coming to Judgement, than this Sacrament will never be out of date till the second coming of our Lord. The consideration whereof should mightily strengthen and encourage our Faith in the hope of Eternal Life so often as we partake of this Sacrament: since our Lord hath left it to us as a memorial of himself till he come to translate his Church into Heaven, and as a sure pledge that he will come again at the end of the World and invest us in that Glory which he is now gone before to prepare for us. So that as often as we approach the Table of the Lord, we should comfort ourselves with the thoughts of that blessed time when we shall eat and drink with him in his Kingdom, and shall be admitted to the great Feast of the Lamb, and to eternal Communion with God the Judge of all, and with our blessed and glorified Redeemer and the holy Angels and the Spirits of just men made perfect.  
And the same consideration should likewise make us afraid to receive this Sacrament unworthily, without due Preparation for it, and without worthy effects of it upon our Hearts and Lives. Because of that dreadful Sentence of condemnation which at the second coming of our Lord shall be passed upon those, who by the profanation of this solemn Institution trample under foot the son of God, and contemn the blood of the Covenant; that Covenant of Grace and Mercy which God hath ratified with Mankind by the Blood of his Son. The Apostle tells us that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, and eateth and drinketh damnation to himself. This indeed is spoken of temporal Judgement (as I shall show in the latter part of this Discourse,) but the Apostle likewise supposeth, that if these temporal Judgements had not their effect to bring men to Repentance, but they still persisted in the Profanation of this holy Sacrament, they should at last be condemned with the World. For as he that partaketh worthily of this Sacrament confirms his interest in the promises of the Gospel, and his Title to eternal Life; so he that receives this Sacrament unworthily, that is without due Reverence, and without fruits meet for it; nay, on the contrary, continues to live in sin whilst he commemorates the Death of Christ, who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, this man aggravates and seals his own Damnation, because he is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, not only by the contempt of it, but by renewing in some sort the cause of his sufferings, and as it were crucifying to himself afresh the Lord of life and glory, and putting him to an open shame. And when the great Judge of the world shall appear and pass final Sentence upon men, such obstinate and impenitent wretches as could not be wrought upon by the remembrance of the dearest love of their dying Lord, nor be engaged to leave their sins by all the ties and obligations of this holy Sacrament, shall have their portion with Pilate and Judas, with the chief Priests and Soldiers, who were the betrayers and murderers of the Lord of life and glory; and shall be dealt withal as those who are in some sort guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Which severe threatening ought not to discourage men from the Sacrament, but to deter all those from their sins who think of engaging themselves to God by so solemn and holy a Covenant. It is by no means a sufficient Reason to make men to fly from the Sacrament, but certainly one of the most powerful Arguments in the world to make men forsake their sins; as I shall show more fully under the third head of this Discourse.  
II. The Obligation that lies upon all Christians to the frequent observance and practice of this Institution. For though it be not necessarily employed in these Words, as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup; yet if we compare these words of the Apostle with the usage and practice of Christians at that Time, which was to communicate in this holy Sacrament so often as they solemnly met together to worship God, they plainly suppose and recommend to us the frequent use of this Sacrament, or rather imply an obligation upon Christians to embrace all opportunities of receiving it. For the sense and meaning of any Law or Institution is best understood by the general practice which follows immediately upon it.  
And to convince men of their obligation hereunto, and to engage them to a suitable practice, I shall now endeavour with all the plainness and force of persuasion I can: And so much the more, because the neglect of it among Christians is grown so general, and a great many persons from a superstitious awe and reverence of this Sacrament are by degrees fallen into a profane neglect and contempt of it.  
I shall briefly mention a threefold Obligation lying upon all Christians to frequent Communion in this holy Sacrament; each of them sufficient of itself, but all of them together of the greatest force imaginable to engage us hereunto.  
1. We are obliged in point of indispensable duty, and in obedience to a plain precept and most solemn institution of our blessed Saviour that great Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy, as St. James calls him: He hath bid us do this. And S. Paul, who declares nothing in this matter but what he tells us he received from the Lord, admonisheth us to do it often. Now for any man that professeth himself a Christian to live in the open and continued contempt or neglect of a plain Law and Institution of Christ is utterly inconsistent with such a profession. To such our Lord may say as he did to the Jews, Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? How far the Ignorance of this institution, or the mistakes which men have been led into about it, may extenuate this neglect is another consideration. But after we know our Lord's will in this particular and have the Law plainly laid before us, there is no cloak for our sin. For nothing can excuse the wilful neglect of a plain Institution from a downright contempt of our Saviour's Authority.  
2. We are likewise obliged hereunto in point of Interest. The benefits which we expect to be derived and assured to us by this Sacrament are all the blessings of the new Covenant, the forgiveness of our sins, the grace and assistence of God's holy Spirit to enable us to perform the conditions of this Covenant required on our part; and the comforts of God's holy Spirit to encourage us in well-doing, and to support us under sufferings; and the glorious reward of eternal life. So that in neglecting this Sacrament we neglect our own interest and happiness, we forsake our own mercies, and judge ourselves unworthy of all the blessings of the Gospel, and deprive ourselves of one of the best means and advantages of confirming and conveying these blessings to us. So that if we had not a due sense of our duty, the consideration of our own interest should oblige us not to neglect so excellent and so effectual a means of promoting our own comfort and happiness.  
3. We are likewise particularly obliged in point of gratitude to the careful observance of this Institution. This was the particular thing our Lord gave in charge when he was going to lay down his life for us, do this in remembrance of me. Men use religiously to observe the charge of a dying friend, and, unless it be very difficult and unreasonable, to do what he desires: But this is the charge of our best friend (nay of the greatest friend and benefactor of all mankind) when he was preparing himself to die in our stead and to offer up himself a sacrifice for us; to undergo the most grievous pains and sufferings for our sakes, and to yield up himself to the worst of temporal deaths that he might deliver us from the bitter pains of eternal death. And can we deny him any thing he asks of us who was going to do all this for us? Can we deny him this? so little grievous and burdensome in itself, so infinitely beneficial to us? Had such a friend, and in such circumstances, bid us do some great thing would we not have done it? how much more when he hath only said, do this in remembrance of me; when he hath only commended to us one of the most natural and delightful Actions, as a fit representation and memorial of his wonderful love to us, and of his cruel sufferings for our sakes; when he hath only enjoined us, in a thankful commemoration of his goodness, to meet at his Table and to remember what he hath done for us; to look upon him whom we have pierced, and to resolve to grieve and wound him no more? Can we without the most horrible ingratitude neglect this dying charge of our Sovereign and our Saviour, the great friend and lover of souls? A command so reasonable, so easy, so full of blessings and benefits to the faithful observers of it!  
One would think it were no difficult matter to convince men of their duty in this particular, and of the necessity of observing so plain an Institution of our Lord; that it were no hard thing to persuade men to their interest, and to be willing to partake of those great and manifold blessings which all Christians believe to be promised and made good to the frequent and worthy Receivers of this Sacrament. Where then lies the difficulty? what should be the cause of all this backwardness which we see in men to so plain, so necessary, and so beneficial a duty? The truth is, men have been greatly discouraged from this Sacrament by the unwary pressing and inculcating of two great truths; the danger of the unworthy receiving of this holy Sacrament, and the necessity of a due preparation for it. Which brings me to the  
III. Third Particular I proposed, which was to endeavour to satisfy the Objections and Scruples which have been raised in the minds of men, and particularly of many devout and sincere Christians, to their great discouragement from the receiving of this Sacrament, at least so frequently as they ought. And these Objections, I told you, are chief grounded upon what the Apostle says at the 27th. verse. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. And again ver. 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself. Upon the mistake and misapplication of these Texts have been grounded two Objections, of great force to discourage men from this Sacrament, which I shall endeavour with all the tenderness and clearness I can to remove. First, That the danger of unworthy receiving being so very great, it seems the safest way not to receive at all. Secondly, That so much preparation and worthiness being required in order to our worthy Receiving, the more timorous sort of devout Christians can never think themselves duly enough qualified for so sacred an Action.  
1. That the danger of unworthy receiving being so Obj. 1 very great it seems the safest way wholly to refrain from this Sacrament and not to receive it at all. But this Objection is evidently of no force if there be (as most certainly there is) as great or a greater danger on the other hand, viz. in the neglect of this Duty: And so though the danger of unworthy receiving be avoided by not receiving, yet the danger of neglecting and contemning a plain Institution of Christ is not thereby avoided. Surely they in the Parable that refused to come to the marriage-feast of the King's Son and made light of that gracious invitation were at least as faulty as he who came without a wedding garment. And we find in the conclusion of the Parable, that as he was severely punished for his disrespect, so they were destroyed for their disobedience. Nay of the two it is the greater sign of contempt wholly to neglect the Sacrament, than to partake of it without some due qualification. The greatest indisposition that can be for this holy Sacrament is one's being a bad man, and he may be as bad, and is more likely to continue so, who wilfully neglects this Sacrament, than he that comes to it with any degree of reverence and preparation, though much less than he ought: And surely it is very hard for men to come to so solemn an Ordinance without some kind of religious awe upon their spirits, and without some good thoughts and resolutions, at least for the present. If a man that lives in any known wickedness of life do before he receive the Sacrament set himself seriously to be humbled for his sins, and to repent of them, and to beg God's grace and assistence against them; and after the receiving of it, does continue for some time in these good resolutions, though after a while he may possibly relapse into the same sins again; this is some kind of restraint to a wicked life; and these good moods and fits of repentance and reformation are much better than a constant and uninterrupted course of sin: Even this righteousness, which is but as the morning cloud and the early dew which so soon passeth away, is better than none.  
And indeed scarce any man can think of coming to the Sacrament, but he will by this consideration be excited to some good purposes, and put upon some sort of endeavour to amend and reform his life: and though he be very much under the bondage and power of evil habits, if he do with any competent degree of sincerity (and it is his own fault if he do not) make use of this excellent means and instrument for the mortifying and subduing of his lusts and for the obtaining of God's grace and assistence, it may please God by the use of these means so to abate the force and power of his lusts, and to imprint such considerations upon his mind in the receiving of this holy Sacrament and preparing himself for it, that he may at last break off his wicked course and become a good man.  
But, on the other hand, as to those who neglect this Sacrament, there is hardly any thing left to restrain them from the greatest enormities of life, and to give a check to them in their evil course: nothing but the penalty of humane Laws, which men may avoid and yet be wicked enough. Heretofore men used to be restrained from great and scandalous vices by shame and fear of disgrace, and would abstain from many sins out of regard to their honour and reputation among men: But men have hardened their faces in this degenerate Age, and those gentle restraints of modesty which governed and kept men in order heretofore signify nothing now adays. Blushing is out of fashion, and shame is ceased from among the children of men.  
But the Sacrament did always use to lay some kind of restraint upon the worst of men: and if it did not wholly reform them, it would at least have some good effect upon them for a time: If it did not make men good, yet it would make them resolve to be so, and leave some good thoughts and impressions upon their minds.  
So that I doubt not but it hath been a thing of very bad consequence, to discourage men so much from the Sacrament, as the way hath been of late years: And that many men who were under some kind of check before, since they have been driven away from the Sacrament have quite let lose the reins, and prostituted themselves to all manner of impiety and vice. And among the many ill effects of our past confusions, this is none of the least, That in many Congregations of this Kingdom Christians were generally disused and deterred from the Sacrament, upon a pretence that they were unfit for it; and being so, they must necessarily incur the danger of unworthy receiving; and therefore they had better wholly to abstain from it. By which it came to pass that in very many Places this great and solemn Institution of the Christian Religion was almost quite forgotten, as if it had been no part of it; and the remembrance of Christ's death even lost among Christians: So that many Congregations in England might justly have taken up the complaint of the Woman at our Saviour's Sepulchre, they have taken away our Lord, and we know not where they have laid him.  
But surely men did not well consider what they did, nor what the consequences of it would be, when they did so earnestly dissuade men from the Sacrament. 'Tis true indeed the danger of unworthy receiving is great; but the proper inference and conclusion from hence is not that men should upon this consideration be deterred from the Sacrament, but that they should be affrighted from their sins, and from that wicked course of life which is an habitual indisposition and unworthiness. St. Paul indeed (as I observed before) truly represents, and very much aggravates the danger of the unworthy receiving of this Sacrament; but he did not deter the Corinthians from it, because they had sometimes come to it without due reverence, but exhorts them to amend what had been amiss and to come better prepared and disposed for the future. And therefore after that terrible declaration in the Text, Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, he does not add, therefore let Christians take heed of coming to the Sacrament, but, let them come prepared and with due reverence, not as to a common meal, but to a solemn participation of the body and blood of Christ; but let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.  
For, if this be a good reason to abstain from the Sacrament, for fear of performing so sacred an action in an undue manner, it were best for a bad man to lay aside all Religion and to give over the exercise of all the duties of Piety, of prayer, of reading and hearing the Word of God; because there is a proportionable danger in the unworthy and unprofitable use of any of these. The prayer of the wicked (that is, of one that resolves to continue so) is an abomination to the Lord. And our Saviour gives us the same caution concerning hearing the Word of God; take heed how ye hear. And St. Paul tells us, that those who are not reform by the Doctrine of the Gospel, it is the savour of death, that is deadly and damnable, to such persons.  
But now will any man from hence argue, that it is best for a wicked man not to pray, not to hear or read the Word of God, lest by so doing he should endanger and aggravate his condemnation? And yet there is as much reason from this consideration to persuade men to give over praying and attending, to God's Word as to lay aside the use of the Sacrament. And it is every whit as true that he that prays unworthily and hears the Word of God unworthily, that is, without fruit and benefit, is guilty of a great contempt of God and of our blessed Saviour; and by his indevout prayers and unfruitful hearing of God's Word does further and aggravate his own damnation: I say, this is every whit as true, as that he that eats and drinks the Sacrament unworthily is guilty of a high contempt of Christ, and eats and drinks his own Judgement; so that the danger of the unworthy performing this so sacred an action is no otherwise a reason to any man to abstain from the Sacrament, than it is an Argument to him to cast off all Religion. He that unworthily useth or performs any part of Religion is in an evil and dangerous condition; but he that casts off all Religion plungeth himself into a most desperate state, and does certainly damn himself to avoid the danger of damnation: Because he that casts off all Religion throws off all the means whereby he should be reclaimed and brought into a better state. I cannot more fitly illustrate this matter than by this plain Similitude: He that eats and drinks intemperately endangers his health and his life, but he that to avoid this danger will not eat at all I need not tell you what will certainly become of him in a very short space.  
There are some conscientious persons who abstain from the Sacrament upon an apprehension that the sins which they shall commit afterwards are unpardonable. But this is a great mistake; our Saviour having so plainly declared that all manner of sin shall be forgiven men except the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; such as was that of the Pharisees, who as our Saviour tells us blasphemed the Holy Ghost in ascribing those great miracles which they saw him work, and which he really wrought by the Spirit of God, to the power of the Devil. Indeed to sin deliberately after so solemn an engagement to the contrary is a great aggravation of sin, but not such as to make it unpardonable. But the neglect of the Sacrament is not the way to prevent these sins; but, on the contrary, the constant receiving of it with the best preparation we can is one of the most effectual means to prevent sin for the future, and to obtain the assistence of God's grace to that end: And if we fall into sin afterwards, we may be renewed by repentance; for we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the propitiation for our sins; and as such, is in a very lively and affecting manner exhibited to us in this blessed Sacrament of his body broken, and his blood shed for the remission of our sins. Can we think that the primitive Christians, who so frequently received this holy Sacrament, did never after the receiving of it fall into any deliberate sin? undoubtedly many of them did; but far be it from us to think that such sins were unpardonable, and that so many good men should because of their careful and conscientious observance of our Lord's Institution unavoidably fall into condemnation.  
To draw to a conclusion: such groundless fears and jealousies as these may be a sign of a good meaning, but they are certainly a sign of an injudicious mind. For if we stand upon these Scruples, no man perhaps was ever so worthily prepared to draw near to God in any duty of Religion, but there was still some defect or other in the disposition of his mind, and the degree of his preparation. But if we prepare ourselves as well as we can, this is all God expects. And for our fears of falling into sin afterwards, there is this plain answer to be given to it; that the danger of falling into sin is not prevented by neglecting the Sacrament, but increased: because a powerful and probable means of preserving men from sin is neglected. And why should not every sincere Christian, by the receiving of this Sacrament and renewing his Covenant with God, rather hope to be confirmed in goodness, and to receive farther assistences of God's grace and holy Spirit to strengthen him against sin, and to enable him to subdue it; than trouble himself with fears which are either without ground, or if they are not, are no sufficient reason to keep any man from the Sacrament? We cannot surely entertain so unworthy a thought of God and our blessed Saviour, as to imagine that he did institute the Sacrament not for the furtherance of our Salvation, but as a snare, and an occasion of our ruin and damnation. This were to pervert the gracious design of God, and turn the cup of Salvation into a cup of deadly poison to the souls of men.  
All then that can reasonably be inferred from the danger of unworthy receiving is, that upon this consideration men should be quickened to come to the Sacrament with a due preparation of mind, and so much the more to fortify their resolutions of living suitably to that holy Covenant which they solemnly renew every time they receive this holy Sacrament. This consideration ought to convince us of the absolute necessity of a good life, but not to deter us from the use of any means which may contribute to make us good. Therefore (as a learned Divine says very well) this Sacrament can be neglected by none but those that do not understand it, but those who are unwilling to be tied to their duty and are afraid of being engaged to use their best diligence to keep the commandments of Christ: And such persons have no reason to fear being in a worse condition, since they are already in so bad a state. And thus much may suffice for answer to the first Objection concerning the great danger of unworthy receiving this holy Sacrament. I proceed to the  
2. Second Objection, which was this; That so much Obj. 2 preparation and worthiness being required to our worthy receiving, the more timorous sort of Christians can never think themselves duly enough qualified for so sacred an Action.  
For a full Answer to this Objection, I shall endeavour briefly to clear these three things. First, That every degree of Imperfection in our preparation for this Sacrament is not a sufficient reason for men to refrain from it. Secondly, That a total want of a due preparation, not only in the degree but in the main and substance of it, though it render us unfit at present to receive this Sacrament, yet it does by no means excuse our neglect of it. Thirdly, That the proper Inference and conclusion from the total want of a due preparation is not to cast off all thoughts of receiving the Sacrament, but immediately to set upon the work of preparation that so we may be fit to receive it. And if I can clearly make out these three things I hope this Objection is fully answered.  
1. That every degree of Imperfection in our preparation for this Sacrament is not a sufficient reason for men to abstain from it: For than no man should ever receive it. For who is every way worthy and in all degrees and respects duly qualified to approach the presence of God in any of the duties of his Worship and Service? Who can wash his hands in innocency, that so he may be perfectly fit to approach God's Altar? There is not a man on earth that lives and sins not. The Graces of the best men are imperfect; and every imperfection in grace and goodness is an imperfection in the disposition and preparation of our minds for this holy Sacrament: But if we do hearty repent of our sins, and sincerely resolve to obey and perform the terms of the Gospel and of that Covenant which we entered into by Baptism and are going solemnly to renew and confirm by our receiving of this Sacrament, we are at least in some degree and in the main qualified to partake of this holy Sacrament; And the way for us to be more fit is to receive this Sacrament frequently, that by this spiritual food of God's appointing, by this living bread which comes down from heaven our souls may be nourished in goodness, and new strength and virtue may be continually derived to us for the purifying of our hearts and enabling us to run the ways of God's commandments with more constancy and delight. For the way to grow in grace and to be strengthened with all might in the inner man, and to abound in all the fruits of righteousness which by Christ Jesus are to the praise and glory of God, is with care and conscience to use those means which God hath appointed for this end: And if we will neglect the use of these means it is to no purpose for us to pray to God for his grace and assistence. We may tyre ourselves with our devotions and fill heaven with vain complaints, and yet by all this importunity obtain nothing at God's hand: Like lazy beggars that are always complaining and always ask, but will not work, will do nothing to help themselves and better their condition; and therefore are never like to move the pity and compassion of others. If we expect God's grace and assistence, we must work out our own Salvation in the careful use of all those means which God hath appointed to that end. That excellent degree of goodness which men would have to fit them for the Sacrament, is not to be had but by the use of it. And therefore it is a preposterous thing for men to insist upon having the end before they will use the means that may further them in the obtaining of it.  
2. The total want of a due preparation, not only in the degree but in the main and substance of it, though it render us unfit at present to receive this Sacrament, yet does it by no means excuse our neglect of it. One fault may draw on another, but can never excuse it. It is our great fault that we are wholly unprepared, and no man can claim any benefit by his fault, or plead it in excuse or extenuation of it. A total want of preparation and an absolute unworthiness is Impenitency in an evil course, a resolution to continue a bad man, not to quit his lusts and to break off that wicked course he hath lived in: But is this any excuse for the neglect of our duty that we will not fit ourselves for the doing of it with benefit and advantage to ourselves? A father commands his son to ask him blessing every day, and is ready to give it him; but so long as he is undutiful to him in his other actions, and lives in open disobedience, forbids him to come in his sight. He excuseth himself from ask his father blessing because he is undutiful in other things, and resolves to continue so. This is just the case of neglecting the duty God requires, and the blessings he offers to us in the Sacrament, because we have made ourselves incapable of so performing the one as to receive the other; and are resolved to continue so. We will not do our duty in other things, and then plead that we are unfit and unworthy to do it in this particular of the Sacrament.  
3. The proper Inference and conclusion from a total want of due preparation for the Sacrament is not to cast off all thoughts of receiving it, but immediately to set about the work of preparation, that so we may be fit to receive it. For if this be true, that they who are absolutely unprepared ought not to receive the Sacrament, nor can do it with any benefit; nay by doing it in such a manner render their condition much worse, this is a most forcible argument to repentance and amendment of life: There is nothing reasonable in this case but immediately to resolve upon a better course that so we may be meet partakers of those holy Mysteries, and may no longer provoke God's wrath against us by the wilful neglect of so great and necessary a duty of the Christian Religion. And we do wilfully neglect it, so long as we do wilfully refuse to fit and qualify ourselves for the due and worthy performance of it. Let us view the thing in a like case; A Pardon is graciously offered to a rebel, he declines to accept it, and modestly excuseth himself because he is not worthy of it. And why is he not worthy? because he resolves to be a rebel, and then his pardon will do him no good, but be an aggravation of his crime. Very true: and it will be no less an aggravation that he refuseth it for such a reason, and under a pretence of modesty does the impudentest thing in the world. This is just the case; and in this case there is but one thing reasonable to be done, and that is, for a man to make himself capable of the benefit as soon as he can, and thankfully to accept of it: But to excuse himself from accepting of the benefit offered, because he is not worthy of it nor fit for it, nor ever intends to be so, is as if a man should desire to be excused from being happy because he is resolved to play the fool and to be miserable. So that whether our want of preparation be total, or only to some degree, it is every way unreasonable: If it be in the degree only, it ought not to hinder us from receiving the Sacrament; If it be total, it ought to put us immediately upon removing the impediment, by making such preparation as is necessary to the due and worthy receiving of it. And this brings me to the  
iv Fourth and last thing I proposed, viz. What preparation of ourselves is necessary in order to the worthy receiving of this Sacrament. Which I told you would give me occasion to explain the Apostle's meaning in the last part of the Text, But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. I think it very clear from the occasion and circumstances of the Apostle's discourse concerning the Sacrament that he does not intent the examination of our state, whether we be Christians or not, and sincerely resolved to continue so; and consequently that he does not here speak of our habitual preparation by the resolution of a good life. This he takes for granted, that they were Christians and resolved to continue and persevere in their Christian profession: But he speaks of their actual fitness and worthiness at that time when they came to receive the Lord's Supper. And for the clearing of this matter, we must consider what it was that gave occasion to this discourse. At the 20th. verse of this Chapter he sharply reproves their irreverent and unsuitable carriage at the Lord's Supper. They came to it very disorderly, one before another. It was the custom of Christians to meet at their Feast of Charity, in which they did communicate with great sobriety and temperance; and when that was ended they celebrated the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Now among the Corinthians this order was broken: The rich met and excluded the poor from this common Feast. And after an irregular feast (one before another eating his own supper as he came) they went to the Sacrament in great disorder; one was hungry having eaten nothing at all, others were drunk, having eaten intemperately, and the poor were despised and neglected. This the Apostle condemns as a great profanation of that solemn Institution of the Sacrament; at the participation whereof they behaved themselves with as little reverence as if they had been met at a common supper or feast. And this he calls not discerning the Lord's body, making no difference in their behaviour between the Sacrament and a common meal: which irreverent and contemptuous carriage of theirs he calls eating and drinking unworthily: for which he pronounceth them guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, which were represented and commemorated in their eating of that bread and drinking of that cup. By which irreverent and contemptuous usage of the body and blood of our Lord, he tells them that they did incur the judgement of God; which he calls eating and drinking their own judgement. For that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which our Transslatours render damnation, does not here signify eternal condemnation, but a temporal judgement and chastisement in order to the prevention of eternal condemnation, is evident from what follows; He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself: And then he says, For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep: That is, for this irreverence of theirs God had sent among them several diseases, of which many had died. And then he adds, For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. If we would judge ourselves; whether this be meant of the public Censures of the Church, or our private censuring of ourselves in order to our future amendment and reformation, is not certain. If of the latter, which I think most probable, then judging here is much the same with examining ourselves, ver. 28. And then the Apostle's meaning is, that if we would censure and examine ourselves, so as to be more careful for the future, we should escape the judgement of God in these temporal punishments. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. But when we are judged; that is, when by neglecting thus to judge ourselves we provoke God to judge us; we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world; that is, he inflicts these temporal judgements upon us to prevent our eternal condemnation. Which plainly shows, that the judgement here spoken of is not eternal condemnation. And then he concludes, Wherefore, my Brethren, when ye come together to eat tarry for one another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto judgement: where the Apostle plainly shows both what was the crime of unworthy receiving, and the punishment of it. Their crime was, their irreverent and disorderly participation of the Sacrament; and their punishment was, those temporal judgements which God inflicted upon them for this their contempt of the Sacrament.  
Now this being, I think, very plain; we are proportionably to understand the precept of examination of ourselves before we eat of that bread and drink of that cup. But let a man examine himself; that is, consider well with himself what a sacred Action he is going about, and what behaviour becomes him when he is celebrating this Sacrament instituted by our Lord in memorial of his body and blood, that is, of his death and passion: And if heretofore he have been guilty of any disorder and irreverence (such as the Apostle here taxeth them withal) let him censure and judge himself for it, be sensible of and sorry for his fault, and be careful to avoid it for the future; and having thus examined himself, let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. This, I think, is the plain sense of the Apostle's Discourse; and that if we attend to the scope and circumstances of it, it cannot well have any other meaning.  
But some will say, Is this all the preparation that is required to our worthy receiving of the Sacrament, that we take care not to come drunk to it, nor to be guilty of any irreverence and disorder in the celebration of it? I answer in short, this was the particular unworthiness with which the Apostle taxeth the Corinthians; and which he warns them to amend, as they desire to escape the judgements of God, such as they had already felt for this irreverent carriage of theirs, so unsuitable to the holy Sacrament: He finds no other fault with them at present in this matter, though any other sort of irreverence will proportionably expose men to the like punishment. He says nothing here of their habitual preparation, by the sincere purpose and resolution of a good life answerable to the rules of the Christian Religion: This we may suppose he took for granted. However, it concerns the Sacrament no more than it does Prayer or any other religious duty. Not but that it is very true that none but those who do hearty embrace the Christian Religion and are sincerely resolved to frame their lives according to the holy rules and precepts of it, are fit to communicate in this solemn acknowledgement and profession of it. So that it is a practice very much to be countenanced and encouraged, because it is of great use, for Christians by way of preparation for the Sacrament to examine themselves in a larger sense than in all probability the Apostle here intended: I mean, to examine our past lives and the actions of them in order to a sincere repentance of all our errors and miscarriages, and to fix us in the steady purpose and resolution of a better life: particularly, when we expect to have the forgiveness of our sins sealed to us, we should lay aside all enmity and thoughts of revenge, and hearty forgive those that have offended us, and put in practice that universal love and charity which is represented to us by this holy Communion. And to this purpose we are earnestly exhorted in the public Office of the Communion by way of due preparation and disposition for it, to repent us truly of our sins past, to amend our lives and to be in perfect charity with all men, that so we may be meet partakers of those holy mysteries.  
And because this work of examining ourselves concerning our state and condition, and of exercising repentance towards God and charity towards men is incumbent upon us as we are Christians, and can never be put in practice more seasonably and with greater advantage than when we are meditating of this Sacrament, therefore besides our habitual preparation by repentance and the constant endeavours of a holy life, it is a very pious and commendable custom in Christians before their coming to the Sacrament to set apart some particular time for this work of examination. But how much time every person should allot to this purpose, is matter of prudence; and as it need not, so neither indeed can it be precisely determined. Some have greater reason to spend more time upon this work, than others; I mean those whose accounts are heavier because they have long run upon the score and neglected themselves: And some also have more leisure and freedom for it, by reason of their easy condition and circumstances in the world; and therefore are obliged to allow a greater portion of time for the exercises of piety and devotion. In general, no man ought to do a work of so great moment and concernment slightly and perfunctorily. And in this, as in all other actions, the end is principally to be regarded. Now the end of examining ourselves is to understand our state and condition, and to reform whatever we find amiss in ourselves. And provided this end be obtained, the circumstances of the means are less considerable: whether more or less time be allowed to this work it matters not so much, as to make sure that the work be throughly done.  
And I do on purpose speak thus cautiously in this matter, because some pious persons do perhaps err on the stricter hand, and are a little superstitious on that side; insomuch that unless they can gain so much time to set apart for a solemn preparation, they will refrain from the Sacrament at that time, though otherwise they be habitually prepared. This I doubt not proceeds from a pious mind; but as the Apostle says in another case about the Sacrament, shall I praise them in this? I praise them not. For, provided there be no wilful neglect of due preparation, it is much better to come so prepared as we can, nay I think it is our duty so to do, rather than to abstain upon this punctilio. For when all is done, the best preparation for the Sacrament is the general care and endeavour of a good life: And he that is thus prepared may receive at any time when opportunity is offered, though he had no particular foresight of that opportunity. And I think in that case such a one shall do much better to receive than to refrain; because he is habitually prepared for the Sacrament, though he had no time to make such actual preparation as he desired. And if this were not allowable how could Ministers communicate with sick persons at all times, or persuade others to do it many times upon very short and sudden warning?  
And indeed we cannot imagine that the primitive Christians, who received the Sacrament so frequently that for aught appears to the contrary they judged it as essential and necessary a part of their public worship as any other part of it whatsoever, even as their Hymns and Prayers, and reading and interpreting the Word of God: I say, we cannot well conceive how they who celebrated it so constantly, could allot any more time for a solemn preparation for it, than they did for any other part of divine worship: And consequently, that the Apostle when he bids the Corinthians examine themselves could mean no more than that considering the nature and ends of this Institution they should come to it with great reverence; and reflecting upon their former miscarriages in this matter, should be careful upon this admonition to avoid them for the future and to amend what had been amiss: which to do, requires rather resolution and care than any long time of preparation.  
I speak this, that devout persons may not be entangled in an apprehension of a greater necessity than really there is of a long and solemn preparation every time they receive the Sacrament. The great necessity that lies upon men is to live as becomes Christians, and then they can never be absolutely unprepared. Nay, I think this to be a very good preparation; and I see not why men should not be very well satisfied with it, unless they intent to make the same use of the Sacrament that many of the Papists do of Confession and Absolution, which is to quit with God once or twice a year, that so they may begin to sin again upon a new score.  
But because the Examination of ourselves is a thing so very useful, and the time which men are wont to set apart for their preparation for the Sacrament is so advantageous an opportunity for the practice of it; therefore I cannot but very much commend those who take this occasion to search and try their ways, and to call themselves to a more solemn account of their actions. Because this aught to be done sometime, and I know no fit time for it than this. And perhaps some would never find time to recollect themselves and to take the condition of their souls into serious consideration, were it not upon this solemn occasion.  
The sum of what I have said is this, that supposing a person to be habitually prepared by a religious disposition of mind and the general course of a good life, this more solemn actual preparation is not always necessary: And it is better when there is an opportunity to receive without it, than not to receive at all. But the greater our actual preparation is, the better. For no man can examine himself too often, and understand the state of his soul too well, and exercise repentance, and renew the resolutions of a good life too frequently. And there is perhaps no fit opportunity for the doing of all this, than when we approach the Lord's table, there to commemorate his death and to renew our Covenant with him to live as becomes the Gospel.  
All the Reflection I shall now make upon this Discourse, shall be from the consideration of what hath been said earnestly to excite all that profess and call themselves Christians to a due preparation of themselves for this holy Sacrament, and a frequent participation of it according to the intention of our Lord and Saviour in the institution of it, and the undoubted practice of Christians in the primitive and best times, when men had more devotion and fewer scruples about their duty.  
If we do in good earnest believe that this Sacrament was instituted by our Lord in remembrance of his dying love, we cannot but have a very high value and esteem for it upon that account. Methinks so often as we read in the institution of it those words of our dear Lord, do this in remembrance of me, and consider what he who said them did for us, this dying charge of our best friend should stick with us and make a strong impression upon our minds; Especially if we add to these, those other words of his not long before his death, Greater love than this hath no man, that a man lay down his life for his friend; ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you. It is a wonderful love which he hath expressed to us, and worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance. And all that he expects from us, by way of thankful acknowledgement, is to celebrate the remembrance of it by the frequent participation of this blessed Sacrament. And shall this charge, laid upon us by him who laid down his life for us, lay no obligation upon us to the solemn remembrance of that unparallelled kindness which is the fountain of so many blessings and benefits to us? It is a sign we have no great sense of the benefit when we are so unmindful of our benefactor as to forget him days without number. The Obligation he hath laid upon us is so vastly great, not only beyond all requital but beyond all expression, that if he had commanded us some very grievous thing we ought with all the readiness and cheerfulness in the world to have done it; how much more when he hath imposed upon us so easy a commandment, a thing of no burden but of immense benefit? when he hath only said to us, Eat O friends, and drink O beloved? when he only invites us to his table, to the best and most delicious Feast that we can partake of on this side heaven?  
If we seriously believe the great blessings which are there exhibited to us and ready to be conferred upon us, we should be so far from neglecting them, that we should hearty thank God for every opportunity he offers to us of being made partakers of such benefits. When such a price is put into our hands, shall we want hearts to make use of it? Methinks we should long with David (who saw but the shadow of these blessings) to be satisfied with the good things of God's house, and to draw near his altar; and should cry out with him, O when shall I come and appear before thee! My soul longeth, ye even fainteth for the courts of the Lord, and my flesh cryeth out for the living God. And if we had a just esteem of things, we should account it the greatest infelicity and judgement in the world to be debarred of this privilege, which yet we do deliberately and frequently deprive ourselves of.  
We exclaim against the Church of Rome with great impatience, and with a very just indignation, for robbing the People of half of this blessed Sacrament, and taking from them the cup of blessing, the cup of salvation; and yet we can patiently endure for some months, nay years, to exclude ourselves wholly from it. If no such great benefits and blessings belong to it, why do we complain of them for hindering us of any part of it? But if there do, why do we by our own neglect deprive ourselves of the whole?  
In vain do we bemoan the decay of our graces and our slow progress and improvement in Christianity, whilst we wilfully despise the best means of our growth in goodness. Well do we deserve that God should send leanness into our souls, and make them to consume and pine away in perpetual doubting and trouble, if, when God himself doth spread so bountiful a Table for us and set before us the bread of life, we will not come and feed upon it with joy and thankfulness.  
THE END.   

A Catalogue of Books and Sermons, Writ by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson, Dean of Canterbury. Viz.  

1 SErmons Preached upon several Occasions, in two Volumes in Octavo.  
2. The Rule of Faith, etc.  
3. A Sermon Preached on the 5th. of November, 1678. at St. Margaret's Westminster, before the Honourable House of Commons, upon St. Luke 9 55, 56. But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of; For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.  
4. A Sermon Preached at the first General Meeting of the Gentlemen and others in and near London, who were Born within the County of York. Upon John 13. 34, 35. A new Commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, etc.  
5. A Sermon Preached before the King, at Whitehall April 4th. 1679, upon 1 John 4. 1. Beloved, believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they are of God, etc.  
6. A Sermon Preached before the King, at Whitehall April 2d. 1680, upon Joshua 24. 15. If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose ye this day whom ye will serve.  
7. The Lawfulness, and Obligation of Oaths. A Sermon Preached at the Assizes held at Kingston upon Thames, July 21. 1681, upon Heb. 6. 16. And an Oath for Confirmation is to them an end of all Strife.  
8. Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Mr. Thomas Gouge, November 4th. 1681, with an account of his Life upon Luke 20. 37, 38. Now that the Dead are raised, even Moses shown at the bush, etc.  
9 A Persuasive to Frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, Preached in two Sermons upon 1 Cor. 11. 26, 27, 28. For as oft as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do show the Lord's Death till he come, etc.  
10. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benjamin Whichcot, D. D. and Minister of St. Laurence Jewry, London May 24th. 1683, upon 2 Cor. v. 6. Wherefore we are always confident, knowing that whilst we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord.   
Sold by Brabazon Aylmer, at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill, and William Rogers, at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet.   

Advertisement of Books.  
THE Works of the Learned Dr. Isaac Barrow, late Master of Trinity College in Cambridge; Published by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson, Dean of Canterbury: in two Volumes in Folio. The First containing Thirty two Sermons, preached upon several Occasions, an Exposition of the Lord's Prayer and the Decalogue; a Learned Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy, a Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church: also some Account of the Life of the Author, with Alphabetical Tables. The Second Volume containing Sermons and Expositions upon all the Apostles Creed: with an Alphabetical Table; and to which may be also added the Life of the Author.  
Sermons preached upon several Occasions: by the Right Reverend Father in God, John Wilkins, D. D. and late Lord Bishop of Chester. Never printed before. Printed for William Rogers at the Sun against S. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet.   

THE CASE OF KNEELING AT THE Holy Sacrament STATED & RESOLVED. PART I. Wherein these QUERIES are considered:  

I. Whether Kneeling at the Sacrament be contrary to any express Command of Christ, obliging to the observance of a different Gesture?  
II. Whether Kneeling be not a Deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution?  
III. Whether Kneeling be not Unsuitable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper, as being no Table-Gesture?   
The Second EDITION.  
LONDON: Printed by J. C. and Freeman Collins, for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street. 1683.   

THE CASE.  

Whether it be Lawful to receive the Holy Sacrament Kneeling?  
THe Resolution of the most weighty and considerable Doubts which may in point of Conscience arise about this matter (and do at present much influence the minds and practices of many honest and wellmeaning Dissenters) will depend upon the Resolution of these following Queries.  
1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament according to the Law of the Land, be not contrary to some express Law of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Posture?  
2. Whether Kneeling be not a deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution?  
3. Whether Kneeling be not altogether Unsuitable and Repugnant to the nature of the Sacrament, as being no Table-Gesture?  
4. Whether Kneeling Commanded in the Church of England be not contrary to the general Practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages?  
5. Whether it be Unlawful for us to receive Kneeling because this Gesture was first introduced by Idolaters, and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes.  
1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Sacrament in Obedience to the Law of the Land, be not a Transgression against some express Law of Christ which obliges us to observe another Gesture?  
For satisfaction in this Point, our only recourse must be to the Holy Scriptures contained in the Books of the New Testament, wherein the whole body of Divine Laws delivered and enacted by our Blessed Saviour, are collected and recorded by the Holy Ghost. And if there be any Command there extant concerning the use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving the Lord's Supper, we shall upon a diligent enquiry be sure to find it. But before I give in my Answer, I readily grant thus much by way of Preface. Whatsoever is enjoined and appointed by God to be prepetually used by all Christians throughout all Ages without any alteration, that can never be nullified or altered by any Earthly Power or Authority whatsoever. When once the Supreme Lawgiver and Governor of the World hath any ways signified and declared that such and such positive Laws shall be perpetually and unalterably observed, than those Laws (though in their own nature and with respect to the subject matter of them they be changeable) must remain in full Force, and can admit of no Change from the Laws of Men. It would be a piece of intolerable Pride, and the most daring Presumption, for any Earthly Prince, any Council, any Society of Men whatsoever, to oppose the known Will of the Sovereign Lord of Heaven and Earth. In this Case nothing can take off the Force and Obligation of such Laws, but the same Divine Authority which first passed them into Laws. Thus much being granted and premised, I return this Answer to the Question proposed.  
God hath been so far from establishing the unalterable use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving, that among all the Sacred Records of his Will, there is not any express Command to determine our practice one way or other. We are left perfectly at our liberty by God to use what comely Gesture we please, either Sitting, Kneeling, or Standing. And if the Law of the 
See the Case of Indifferent things.  Land did not restrain our liberty, we might use any of the forementioned Gestures, without the least violation of any Law of God. This perhaps at first sight may seem very strange and false to many of our Dissenting Brethren who have been taught to believe otherwise; and it may be (to judge Charitably) their Teachers and Pastors have in this particular been imposed on themselves, by the Writings and Assertions of other Men whose Persons they have had in great admiration. But yet I am so secure of this Truth, that I challenge all the World to produce the Chapter and Verse wherein any Command is given for the use of any particular Gesture at the Celebration of the Lord's Supper. That Popish Principle of believing as the Church believes, and swallowing all for Gospel which she affirms to be so, though very mischievous in its consequence, is not so Popish, that is, so ill, as to pin our Faith on the Sleeves of particular Men, and relying barely on the word and credit of any one Man whom we highly esteem, of what Party or Persuasion soever. For this is to create a Pope to ourselves; and make every Man whom we fancy infallible; this is to make two more than six, and the Authority of one Man outweigh the Authority of the Church, that is a Society of Men who are nothing near so liable to deception. I don't desire therefore to be trusted by any means in the matter under present consideration; and therefore I would have the Reader to observe this Rule: Trust no Man's Eyes or Judgement where you are able to use your own, but follow the example of the Bereans, so highly commended 
Acts. 17. 11.  by St. Paul upon this very account; that is, to make an ingenuous enquiry into the Truth of things, to search the Scriptures whether these things be so as I say and assert. If this course were generally followed, it would go a great way towards the composing those differences, and curing those divisions that at present are on foot amongst us, occasioned by several Tenets and Opinions about matters of Religion. By this means, a great many which pass for Divine Oracles and Doctrines, would appear to be no other than the whimsies and inventions of Men. With this cautionary advice I might fairly dismiss this Question as being fully Answered, and leave all my Readers to disprove me if they can.  
But because some may pretend they have not Leisure, and others want of Skill, and others are not enduced with Patience enough to search and examine this matter throughly as it ought, I will yield all the Charitable assistance I am able towards their relief, by doing the work to their hands. My Business then at present is this, to Collect and Present to your view all those places which relate to the Sacrament, and are most likely to inform us what our Lord by his Institution and Appointment hath obliged us to. And certainly if there be any Command which ties us up to the use of any particular Gesture, Sitting suppose or Standing, and not Kneeling, we shall find it in one or other of the Evangelists, who give us a perfect Narrative of the whole Mind and Will of Christ in all matters necessary to Faith and Salvation: Let us therefore bring them under a strict examination. St. Matthew gives this account of 
Mat. 26. 26.  the whole matter: As they were eating, Jesus took Bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the Disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my Body. And he took the 
Ver. 27.  Cup, and gave Thanks, and gave it to them▪ saying▪ Drink ye all of it. For this is my Blood of the New Testament, 
Ver. 28.  which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins. But I 
Ver. 29.  say unto you, I will not Drink henceforth of this Fruit of the Vine, until that day when I Drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom. And when they had Sung an Hymn, 
Ver. 30.  they went out into the Mount of Olives. Much to the same purpose is the account which St. Mark gives of this matter.  
And as they did eat, Jesus took Bread, and blessed, and 
Mar. 14. 22.  broke it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat; this is my Body. And he took the Cup, and when he had given 
Ver. 23.  Thanks, he gave it to them, and they all Drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my Blood of the New 
Ver. 24. Ver. 25.  Testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will Drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine, until that day that I Drink it new in the Kingdom of God. And 
Ver. 26.  when they had Sung a Hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives. And this is the sum of what Saint Mark delivers concerning the Lord's Supper. Saint Luke with very little variation thus describes the matter.  
And he took Bread, and gave Thanks, and broke it, and 
Luke 22. 19  gave unto them, saying, This is my Body which is given for you; this do in Remembrance of me. Likewise also the 
Ver. 20.  Cup after Supper saying, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, which is shed for you. This Evangelist indeed makes mention of another Cup which our Lord took, and after he had blessed it, he said to his Disciples, Take this, and divide it among yourselves; and withal told them that he would not Drink of the Fruit of the Vine until the Kingdom of God should come; which Cup plainly refers to the Passover, as will appear to any one who will consult and compare the 15, 16, 17, and 18. Verses of 
See Dr. Lightfoot on Mat. 26. 26. Horae Heb. & Talmud.  the  Chapter; and is supposed to be that Cup wherewith the Jews were wont to begin the Paschal Feast, which they Blessed or Consecrated in this Form of words: Blessed be God who Created the Fruit of the Vine. And whereas our Lord saith he will Drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine, his meaning is, that he would never Celebrate the Feast of the Passover with them any more after that time, but their next Festival Meeting should be in Heaven: and this is very consistent with our Lord's Drinking another Cup after this, which he Consecrated to another use and signification, in the Sacrament, Ver. 20. And this is all the light this Divine Writer affords us concerning the outward Rites and Ceremones which our Lord used himself at the Institution of the Sacrament, and established for the use of all Christians in all succeeding Ages.  
As for St. John, he makes no mention at all of the Institution of this Holy Feast by our Lord. All that can be collected from his Writings relates to the Passover, or, according to the Learned Dr. Lightfoot, to what passed 
John 13. from Ver. 1. to 31. vid. Hor. Heb. Tal. p. 300. and Mat. 26. 6.  between Christ and his Disciples at a common and ordinary meal in Bethany, and that for this reason, among many others judiciously urged by him, because the Disciples thought when our Lord had said to him, Ver. 27. That thou dost do quickly, that he had given order to Judas who kept the bag, to buy those things that they had need of against the Feast, viz. the Passover; and therefore all those passages, and that discourse related by St. John in the foregoing Verses of that Chapter, were transacted at an ordinary and common Supper. And indeed this seems to be the great end and design which St. John proposed to himself in writing his Gospel, and which throughout he constantly pursues, viz. To add out of his own Knowledge several remarkable passages (especially such as tend to demonstrate the Divinity of our Saviour) as had been omitted by the other Evangelists in their History of the Birth, Life, Actions and Sufferings of our Blessed Saviour. There is another passage in St. John's Gospel, which in the Judgement of 
John 5. 53.  many Learned Divines both Ancient and Modern, hath respect to the Lord's Supper, though not at that time instituted when those mysterious words were uttered by our Saviour.  
Except ye Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and Drink 
Ver. 54.  his Blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso Eateth my Flesh, and Drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my Flesh is meat indeed, and 
Ver. 55.  my Blood is drink indeed. He that Eateth my Flesh, and 
Ver. 56.  Drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Now all that can be inferred from these words, as they relate to this Holy Feast, is only thus much: that it's highly necessary for all Christians (who have an opportunity to do it) to partake of the Lord's Supper, as they would partake in the merits of his Sacrifice, and the Efficacy of his Death and his Sufferings; and that none but such as do receive the tokens and signs of his Body broken, and Blood shed for their Sins, shall be owned and rewarded by him as his Friends. These are all the places that we meet with in the Gospel; let us now see what is delivered in the Acts and other Writings of the Apostles and Divinely-inspired Authors. Among all their Writings there is but one place which gives any account of the History of the Sacrament, and Institution of it, and that is in the 1 Epist. to the Corinthians, Chap. 11. where St. Paul declares, that what he delivered to them, he received by immediate Revelation from Christ himself, viz. That the Lord Jesus the same night in which 
Ver. 23. Ver. 24.  he was betrayed, took Bread; and when he had given Thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you: this do in Remembrance of me. After the 
Ver. 25.  same manner he took the Cup when he had Supped, saying, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood: this do, as oft as ye Drink it, in Remembrance of me. For as often as 
Ver. 26.  ye eat this Bread, and Drink this Cup, ye do show (or show ye) the Lord's Death till he come. There are several other places wherein the Holy Sacrament is mentioned, 
1 Cor. 10. 16, 21. 1 Cor. 11. 20. Acts 2. 46. Acts 20. 7.  and described by several Names and Titles suitable to the nature and ends of it, which for brevity sake I omit, and desire the Reader to consult at his leisure; and I would not put him to that trouble, if they did contain any thing that made against Kneeling, or that looked like a command for the use of any other Gesture. Let us now look back a little upon the places forementioned, and see what our Lord hath ordained and appointed to be of perpetual use in his Church.  
The Apostles and Disciples of our Lord, at the Institution of the Sacrament, were the Representatives of the whole Church; and are to be considered under a double capacity. Either as Governors and Ministers entrusted by Christ with the Power of dispensing and administering the Sacrament, or as ordinary and lay Communicants.  
If we consider them as Governors and Stewards of the Mysteries, their Duty to which they are obliged by the express command of their Lord, is to take the Bread into their Hands, to bless and consecrate it to that mysterious and Divine use to which he designed it, to break it, to give it to the Communicants, as he gave it them: And so in like manner to Take the Cup, to bless it, to give it to their fellow-Christians.  
That which they were obliged to do by the command of our Lord, considered as private Men, and in common with all believers, was to take and receive the Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine, to eat and Drink, and to do all this in Commemoration of his wonderful Love in giving his Body to be broken and his Blood to be shed for the Sins of the World.  
And what the least Syllable or Shadow of a Command is there here in all this History, for the use of any Gesture in the Act of Receiving? Since then the Holy Scripture is altogether silent as to this matter, its silence is a full and clear demonstration that Kneeling is not repugnant to any express Command of our Lord, because no Gesture was ever Commanded at all: And this hath been ingenuously Confessed in writing by a 
A Manuscript of an unknown Author, cited by Mr. Paybody, p. 48.  great Enemy to Kneeling, and a great Advocate for Sitting, That the Gesture of Sitting is but a matter of Circumstance, and not expressly Commanded.  
But the Scotch Ministers Assembled at Perth, affirm Object. that when our Lord at the Institution Commanded his Disciple to do this, he did by those words Command them to use that Gesture which he used at that time, as well as to Take, Eat, Drink, etc. The Force of their Argument lies in this, if it have any force at all: Our Saviour Sat at the Passover, as the Scriptures plainly inform 
Mat. 26. 20. Mar. 14. 18. Luke 22. 14.  us; and it is to be supposed he continued in the same posture when he instituted and Administered the Sacrament, which was at the close of the Passover: therefore Do this relates to, and includes the Gesture amongst other things. But this is a miserable shift, which tends to Sink rather than Support their Cause.  
For first, If our Lord did Sat when he Administered Answ. I the Sacrament (which we will suppose at present) yet there is no reason in the World to incline us to think, that he intended by those words, Do this, to oblige us to observe his Gesture only, and not several other Circumstances which he observed at the same time. Since Christ hath not restrained and interpreted these words Do this so that they should only respect Sitting as he did, why should we not think ourselves obliged to do all that he did at the same time, as well as this? For example, If these words may be interpreted thus, Do this, that is, Sat as Christ did, why not thus also, Do this, that is, celebrate the Sacrament in an upper Room, in a private House, late at night or the Evening, after a full Supper, 
† Mat. 26. 20.  in the Company of 11 or 12 at most, 
Mar. 14. 17. Luke 22. 14.  and they only Men, with their Heads Covered according to the custom of those Countries, and with unleavened Bread? There lieth as great an Obligation upon all Christians to observe all these Circumstances in Imitation of our Lord by virtue of these words, Do this, as there doth to Sit. So that this Argument violently recoils upon those that urge it, and proves a great deal more than they are willing to have it. It concludes strongly against their own Practices, and the liberty they take in omitting some things, and pressing the necessary observance of others, upon a reason which equally obliges to all.  
But I desire our Dissenting Brethren (who may be Answ. TWO of the same Persuasion with these Scotchmen) to take this further consideration along with them; which I think will turn the Scales, and make deep impressions upon tender Consciences, and oblige them to observe most of the other Circumstances which they omit, rather than this of Sitting, which they so earnestly press and contend for. All those forementioned Circumstances (except the two Last, which too are generally allowed among Learned Men on all sides) are expressly mentioned in the Gospel, and were without dispute observed by Christ at the Institution of the Sacrament: But the particular Gesture used by him at that time, is not expressly mentioned; and what it was, is very disputable and dubious, as I shall evince by and by under the second Query.  
How then can any Man think himself obliged in Conscience, by the force of these words, Do this, to do what Christ is not where expressly said to do, and not obliged to do what the Scripture affirms he really did? Why that which is dark and dubious should be made an infallible Rule of Conscience, and that which is plainly and evidently set down in Scripture should have no force, nor be esteemed any Rule at all: These are Questions, I confess, beyond my capacity, and surpassing my skill to resolve.  
It's clear from St. Paul in the forecited place, that Answ. III those words of our Lord, Do this, do respect only the 
1 Cor. 11. 23, 4, 5, 6, 27, 28. Verses.  Bread and Wine, which signify the Body and Blood of Christ, and those other actions there specified by him, which are essential to the right and due celebration of that Holy Feast. For when it's said, Do this in Remembrance of me; and, This do ye as oft as ye Drink it in Remembrance of me; and, As oft as ye Eat this Bread, and Drink this Cup, ye do show the Lords Death till he come; it's plain that Do this must be restrained to the Sacramental Actions there mentioned, and not extended to the Gesture, of which the Apostle speaks not a word. Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament in Remembrance of his Death and Passion, and not in Remembrance of his Gesture in Administering it: And consequently, Do this is a general Command, obliging us only to such particular Actions and Rites as he had Instituted, and made necessary to be used in order to this great end, viz. to signify and represent his Death, and that Bloody Sacrifice which he offered to his Father, on the Cross, for us miserable Sinners. Upon the whole matter, I think, we may certainly conclude, that there is not a tittle of a Command in the whole New Testament to oblige us to receive the Lords Supper in any particular Posture; and if any be so scrupulous, after all, as not to receive it in any other Gesture but what is expressly Commanded, they must never receive it as long as they live: And then I leave this to their serious consideration, How they will be ever able to excuse their neglect of a known necessary duty (such as receiving the Sacrament is) before God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved us so much as to send his Son to be a propitiation for our Sins: How they will ever Answer to their Crucified Saviour their Living and Dying in the breach of an express Command of his given a little before his Passion to Do this in Remembrance of him, merely because the Gesture prescribed by Authority was cross to their private Wills and Fancies, but not to the Mind and Will of God.  
2. For the further proof and Confirmation of this Assertion, that there is no express Command in Scripture for the use of any particular Gesture in the Act of receiving the Sacrament, I will appeal to the Judgement and Practice of our Dissenting Brethren, and all the Reformed Churches in Europe.  
1. To begin with our Nonconforming Brethren. There are a great many Serious and Sincere-Hearted persons among them, who profess that (were they left to their liberty, and not tied up by the Law to Kneel at the Sacrament) they could with a safe Conscience use that Gesture as well as any other. And they further tell us, that they are willing and ready to Communicate with us, provided we would Administer the Sacrament to them either Sitting or Standing, that is, any way but that which is imposed by Law. For the Rule by which they conduct their Consciences in this matter, is this: Things in their own nature indifferent, which are not where Commanded or prohibited by God in Scripture, cannot, nor ought not to be restrained and limited by any Power or Authority of Man: And therefore all such things which God left free for us to do or not to do without Sin, become sinful to us when imposed by humane Authority. It's remote from my business to show how weak and false a Principle this is, and of what mischievous consequences to the Peace of the Church; and for that reason I will pass it by. But thus much may be inferred from this Tenent to my purpose, that they who hold and urge it as a reason why they cannot Receive Kneeling, which otherwise they could safely do, plainly own, that as to the Gesture, in the Act of receiving, it is in its own nature Indifferent, and left free by God for us to use or refuse as we think fit, and by necessary consequence that there is no express Command given by God for the use of any particular Gesture. It could not be a matter of indifferency to our Dissenting Brethren, whose Principle this is, if there were no Law of Man to Kneel at the Sacrament; and now there is such a Law, it could not be Indifferent to them whether they received Sitting or Standing, as they profess it is, if there were any Law of God obliging to the use of any one Gesture whatsoever.  
2. That there is no express Command in Scripture for any one Gesture in the Act of Receiving, may be inferred from the Judgement and Practice of all the Reformed Churches abroad: Whose Judgement and example will, I presume, sway much with those who separate from the Church of England as not being sufficiently purged from the Corruptions of the Church of Rome as other Neighbour-Churches are, and who stood once engaged in a Solemn Covenant, to reform the Churches of England and Ireland according to the Word of God and the Pattern of the best Reformed Churches.  
Let us now compare the practice of our Church with the example of the Protestant Churches abroad, and see whether she ought to reform the Gesture prescribed at the Sacrament.  
The Reformed Churches of France, and those of Geneva and Helvetia Stand; the Dutch generally Sat; but in some places (as in West-Friesland) they Stand. The Churches of the Bohemian and Augustan Confession, which spread through the large Kingdoms of Bohemia, Denmark, and Sweden, through Norway, the Dukedom of Saxony, Lithuany, and the Ducal Prussia in Poland, the Marquisate of Brandenburg in Germany, and several other places and free Cities in that Empire, do for the most part, if not all of them, retain the Gesture of Kneeling. The Bohemian Churches were reform by John hus and Jerom of Prague, who suffered Martyrdom at Constance about the year 1416. long before Luther's time; and those of the Augsburg or Augustan Confessions were founded and reform by Luther, and were the first Protestants properly so called. Both these Churches, so early reform, and of so large extent, did not only use the same Gesture that our Church enjoins at the Sacrament, but they, together with those of the Helvetick Confession, did in three general Synods unanimously condemn the Sitting Gesture (though they esteemed it in itself Lawful) 
1 At Cracow, Anno. Dom. 1573. 2 Petricow or Peterkaw, 1578. 3 Wladislaw, 1583.  as being Scandalous, for this remarkable reason, viz. because it was used by the Arrians (as their Synods call the Socinians) in contempt of our Saviour's Divinity; who therefore placed themselves as Fellows with their Lord at his Table. And thereupon they entreat and exhort all Christians of their Communion to change Sitting into Kneeling or Standing, both which Ceremonies we Indifferently leave free according as the Custom of any Church hath obtained, and we approve of their use without Scandal and Blame. Moreover they affirm, That these Socinians who deny Christ to be God, were the first that introduced Sitting at the Sacrament into their Churches, contrary to the Practice of all the Evangelical Churches in Europe. Among all these Foreign Churches of the Reformation, there is but one that I can find which useth Sitting, and forbids Kneeling, for fear of Bread-Worship: but yet in that Synod wherein they condemned Kneeling, they left it to the choice of their Churches to use Standing, Sitting, or an Ambulatory Gesture (as the French do) and at last conclude thus: 
Harmon. 4 Synods of Holl.  These Articles are settled by mutual Consent, that if the good of the Churches require it, they may and aught to be changed, augmented or diminished. What now should be the ground and reason of this variety both in Opinion and Practice touching the Gesture to be used at the Lords Supper? Is it to be supposed or imagined that an Assembly of Learned and Pious Divines, met together on purpose to consult how to Reform their Churches according to the pure Word of God, should through weakness and inadvertency overlook an express Command of Christ for the perpetual use of any particular Gesture, if any such there had been? Or shall we be so uncharitable as to think that all these eminent Churches wilfully past it by, and established what was most agreeable to their own Fancies, contrary to the known Will of God Would they have given liberty to all of their Communion to use several Gestures according to the custom of their several Churches, if our Lord had tied them to observe but one? Would they declare (as the Dutch Synod doth) that what they enjoined might be altered, if the good of the Church so required, if so be Sitting had been expressly Commanded by our Lord, to be used by all Christians to the end of the World? No undoubtedly, they would not, we cannot either in reason or Charity suppose it.  
The true Principle upon which all these Reformed Churches built, and by which they are able to reconcile all this seeming difference in this matter, is the very same with that which the Church of England goes by in her Synods and Convocations, viz. That as to Rites and Ceremonies of an indifferent nature, every National Church hath Authority to institute, change and abolish them, as they in Prudence and Charity shall think most fit, and conducive to the setting forth God's Glory, the Edification of their People, and the Decent and Reverend Administration of the Holy Sacrament. Whosoever therefore refuses 
Vid. Art. 34 observat. of the French and Dutch Divines on the Harmony of Confessions, edit. Geneva 1681. sect. 14. p. 120. In hoc etiam ritu (speaking of Kneeling at the Sacr.) suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem salvam reliquendam arbitramur.  to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Constitution of the Church of England, purely because Kneeling is contrary to the express Command of Christ, must condemn the Judgement and Practice of all the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, who all agree in this, that the Gesture in the Act of Receiving is to be reckoned among things Indifferent; and that whether we Sat, or Kneel, or Stand, or Receive Walking, we Transgress no Law of God; and consequently they prove my assertion true, that Kneeling is not contrary to any express Command, no more than any other, because they allow of all Lawful in themselves to be used; which cannot consist with an express Command for the use of any one Gesture whatsoever.   

Query II. Whether Kneeling be not a Devotion from that Example which Christ set us at the first Institution?  
FOr a full and satisfactory resolution of this doubt, I shall propound the four following particulars to the consideration of our Dissenting Brethren; which I will endeavour with all Brevity and Clearness to make good.  
1. That it can never be proved, so as that the conscience may surely build upon it, what Gesture Christ and his Apostles used at the Celebration of the Sacrament.  
2. Supposing that our Lord did Sat, yet his bare example doth not oblige all Christians to a like practice.  
3. That they who urge the example of Christ for our Rule in this case, do not follow it themselves.  
4. That they who Kneel at the Lords Supper in compliance with the Custom and Constitution of the Church, do manifestly follow the example of Christ.  
First, The particular Gesture used by Christ and his Apostles at the Institution and Celebration of the Sacrament, can never be demonstrated so as that the conscience may surely build upon it. This I shall endeavour to make good these two ways. First, we have no sure ground for it in Scripture. Secondly, the Customs observed by the Jews render it very incertain and disputable.  
1. All that can be gathered from Scripture amounts 
Mat. 26. 26. Mar. 14. 22.  to no more than this, that as they were eating, or as they did eat, as the Phrase is rendered in St. Mark, Jesus took Bread and blessed, it and broke it, and gave it to his Disciples; and he took the Cup (when he had Supped, saith St. Paul; after Supper, as St. Luke hath 
1 Cor. 11. 25. Luke 22. 20.  it) and gave Thanks; and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. Now it's very clear from this account which the Scripture gives, that our Lord did Institute and Administer the Sacrament to his Disciples, and that they did Receive it: But whether Sitting, Kneeling, or Standing, is not where mentioned, nor plainly determined. It's clear that he Instituted this Holy Feast at the close of the Paschal Feast, for he took the Bread as they were Eating, and the Cup when he had Supped; that he did Celebrate the Passover according to the usual manner of the Jews in those times, which was in a Discumbing 
Luke 22. 14. Mat. 26. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Marg.  posture, on Beds placed about the Table, much after the manner of our lying or leaning upon Couches. Yet whether, after all, the Apostles Received, or our Lord Administered the Sacrament still Sitting, after the same manner as they did at the Passover, is not expressed, nor can it be certainly concluded from the Word of God. The utmost strength of their Argument who urge Sitting in imitation of our Saviour's example, can arise to no more than this: That its probable our Lord did not alter the Gesture he used at the Passover, when he Instituted the Sacrament. But who sees not that a probability is far from a certainty! A thing may be really false, though it seem likely to be true: And that opinion which is speculatively probable, may when reduced to practise become a great Sin and a great Error. Thus to refuse to Receive the Holy Sacrament Kneeling, and thereby neglect a known necessary Duty, and not only so, but to disturb the Peace, and break the Unity of the Church, upon a bare probability that our Lord sat, which we are not, cannot be sure of, is a great fault in all who are guilty of it. For they appeal to an incertain example, against a plain certain Command, viz. to receive the Tokens and Pledges of our Saviour's dying love, and to do this in Remembrance of him. They therefore who urge the example of Christ for Sitting at the Sacrament, and as a Plea against Kneeling, would do well first to make the example appear, and prove that he did Sat, before they press a Conformity.  
2. If we consult the Records of Jewish Antiquities, and the Writings of Learned Men both Jews and Christians, concerning the Passover and the manner of the Jews Celebrating it, we shall find that they did not keep to one and the same Gesture throughout the Solemnity. For the Babylon and Jerusalem Talmud, Maimonides and Buxtorf, do certify us that they did alter their posture at the Passover, though the Lying or Leaning posture was generally and most Religiously used and observed at this Feast above any other. And the Scripture gives some hints and intimations of the Truth of what they deliver.  
1. It was the ancient custom of the Jews and of those 
Gen. 18. 4. 19 c. 2. 24. 32. Mat. 15. 2. Mar. 7. 3. Luke 7. 44.  Eastern Countries at their ordinary Feasts and Entertainments to Wash their Hands and their Feet, and especially at their Religious Feasts to Wash their Hands often. At the Passover they Washed their Hands thrice at least, according to the Talmudists and the Author's forecited Which Ceremony could not well, nor was 
Tract. Berachoth. ●esachin. Maimon. in Chametz. Uma●sah. Buxtorf. Synag. c. 13.  not in all likelihood performed during their Lying or Leaning posture on their left sides, as their manner was. For the reason of their Washing at all, and so frequently, was, that no legal Impurity or Uncleanness might cleave to them, and to signify the great care they took to keep this Solemn Feast Holy to the Lord. And as they were Nice and Curious in Purifying and Washing themselves, so in keeping the Beds, Table, Dishes, and 
Vid. Buxt Synagoga, c. 12. p 286.  all other Utensils necessary for this Feast, clean and free from all pollution too. To Wash so often more than the Law required, and the general custom of those Eastern and hot Countries warranted, was a Pharisaical Invention, and superstitiously abused by them; and, as such, it's certain our Lord did not use it; but that he did Wash sometime before he Eat the Paschal Supper, and after he had Sat down as the manner was, there is little reason to doubt: and all that I infer from hence is, that when he Washed, be it once or twice, he altered his posture, and in all probability either arose from his Bed and went 
Vid. John 2. 6.  to the place where Water and Vessels were prepared and set for such uses, or had Water brought to him in a Basin, wherein he Washed either Sitting upright, or Standing; which are both different from that Gesture which was peculiar and proper to the Passover. St. John, in Chap. 13. 2, 4, 5. Verses, will explain and Confirm this Custom we are speaking of. There he tells us how that Supper being ended (that is, in a manner or almost ended; for by comparing the 12 and 26 and 27 Verses together, we shall find plainly that they had not quite finished their Supper) Jesus riseth from Supper, and laid aside his Garments, and took a Towel and girded himself; and after that poureth Water into a Basin, and began to Wash the Disciples Feet. There are Learned Men on both sides, who think all this was 
Vid. Grot. in lo. Dr. Hamond on v. 26. Mark. 14. 12.  done at the Feast of the Passover, and that towards the close of it when he Instituted the Lord's Supper; but I shall wave this, and not infist upon it, because, as I hinted before, I believe, as the Learned Dr. Lightfoot doth, it was no more than an ordinary or common meal; and therefore I only shall conclude thus much from it, which I think is very probable: That it was usual with the Jews to Wash at their Feasts, and that in Suppertime: And that our Saviour complied with th●s custom. To Wash the Feet of the Guests was the Office of Servants, and it was altogether unusual for the Master of the Feast to do; but our Lord, to set his Disciples an example of Humility and Charitable condescension one to another, performs this servile Office himself 
Joh. 13. 14, 15.  towards them; which he might as well have done after Supper, if it had not been usual to have Washed in Suppertime. Seeing then it appears partly from Scripture, and partly from Ancient Monuments of Jewish customs, that the Jews were wont both before and at their Civil and Religious Feasts to Wash, and particularly at the Passover; then it's very probable our Lord did so too, and altered his posture as they did; nay it is very probable that our Lord, to make his Discipels understand what he was about to do, did at the Institution of this new Feast, the Holy Sacrament of his Body and Blood, Wash before it; and having changed the posture that he was in before at the Eating of the Paschal Supper, did not resume it, but used a new posture at this new Festival-Solemnity; but what that was, is not certain.  
2. At the beginning of the Paschal Feast, the Jews did put themselves into this Discumbing or Leaning posture, and used it while they Eat and Drank the two first Cups of Wine (for every Guest was obliged to 
As the Talmudist and forementioned Writers testify. Vid. Dr. Lightfoot Hor. Heb. 291.  Drink four Cups at this Feast) but at the third Cup, called the Cup of blessing in their Language, and the fourth styled the Song or Psalm-Cup when they Sung the Hymn, there was no necessity of lying along; and it's likely our Lord took an opportunity when he took the third Cup, to change the use and signification of it, and to Institute the Eucharistical Cup, called by St. Paul the Cup of blessing, 1 Cor. 10. 16.  
3. Before they Drank of the third Cup, the Master of the Feast took a piece of Unleavened Bread and broke it, and after he had Eat some himself, he offers the remainder 
See Mr. Ainsworth a Learned Nonconformist in Ex. 12. 8. 11.  to the rest of the Company, to do the like. After this he proceeds to take some of the bitter Herbs, and to dip them in a thick Sauce called by them Charoseth (which was form in the shape of a Brick, to represent the hard slavery undergone by their Forefathers in the Brick-Kilns of Egypt) and commanded all the Society to follow his example. Now this was not done in an inclining posture, as the Jewish Doctors 
Buxt. Syn. c. 13. p. 300.  teach us; and they give this reason for it, because this was to put them in mind of the Egyptian Bondage, and therefore here they stood in all probability, because to eat Standing was the manner of Slaves, whereas Lying along 
Pesachin, fol. 37. 2. Hor. Heb. 291, 292.  after a Lordly manner, was in token of that ease and rest they enjoyed in the Land of Canaan, and of their redemption from the House of Bondage. So often therefore as they Eat the bitter Herbs, so often they changed their Gesture.  
4. Though the Jews in their Solemn Feasts used Discumbing, yet in blessing and giving thanks before those Feasts they were, as Philo relateth, in a Standing Gesture, 
In vita contemplate. p. 663 Col. Allobro. edit. 1613. p. 695.  with their Eyes and Hands lifted up to Heaven. And therefore it's no way probable that Christ and his Apostles would continue in their Table-Gesture at the blessing of the Holy Supper, which is an higher Ordinance than the Passover: Because this would be very unsuitable to so great a Solemnity; Especially too, if Dr. Lightfoot's Opinion be true (and it may be so for any thing that appears to the contrary,) viz. that Christ changed the third Cup at the Passover, called the Cup of blessing, into the Sacramental Cup; because it was the custom of the Jews then, to alter their Table-Gesture that was peculiar to the Passover; and it's highly Improbable that our Lord would continue in the Table-Gesture contrary to the General and Currant Custom of the Jews. They that don't think so as I do in this particular, will receive little advantage by being cross. For if it may be supposed that our Lord Sat sometimes when the Jews were wont to Stand, it may equally be supposed that he Stood sometimes when the Jews were wont to Sat; and what becomes of their Argument for Sitting at the Sacrament after the example of Christ? because that stands built upon supposition that our Lord Sat at the Passover, as the Jews did, and continued in the same Gesture when he Instituted the Sacrament, which was before the Paschal-Solemnity was over. I will only observe this briefly by the way, and then proceed to shut up all upon this Head.  
That those Nonconformists who cry out so vehemently against the Church for Imposing, and her Members for using a Kneeling Gesture, were very unfortunate in their choice when they pitched upon Sitting, and urged it as the only necessary Gesture to receive in, in Conformity to our Saviour's Practice and Example: Because the Standing Gesture may be much better maintained and defended than Sitting, and hath more and greater probabilities attending it.  
If therefore variety of Gestures were used by the Jews at the Passover, and it not where appears from Scripture that our Lord did not comply in this matter, than we cannot know for certain what the particular Gesture was which Christ used at the Institution of the Sacrament: it might be Lying along, and it might be Sitting upright; it might be Standing in an adoring posture, with his hands and eyes lifted up to Heaven; which is much more probable than either of the former, for the reasons forementioned: we cannot certainly say which; and yet we must be certain of one, before we can build upon it as an Infallible Rule of Conscience. Let it be therefore granted to our Brethren who differ from us in this point, that our Saviour Sat at the Passover, that the Sacrament was Instituted by him before the Paschal Feast was fully ended, that the Disciples Eat the Sacramental Bread, and Drank the Sacramental Cup, in the same posture as they Eat and Drank at the Passover: What of all this? how will the necessity of a Sitting Gesture appear from these premises? Why, thus: Therefore our Lord Instituted and Administered the Holy Sacrament Sitting, say they. How doth this follow of course, I ask? Since they Eat and Drank in several postures at the Paschal Feast.  
I confess the Argument had been strong, if they could make it appear, that throughout the whole Solemnity of the Passover no other Gesture but Sitting was used by our Lord. But this I am sure can never be done, and consequently their conclusion can never be good. From the whole I conclude thus much: Since the example of our Lord cannot be certainly known in this matter, our Church cannot be charged for deviating from it: And consequently, to scruple Conformity to the practice of our Church, because she doth not Conform to the practice of Christ which no body can certify us of, is very Unjust and Unreasonable.  
2. Supposing our Lord did Sat as they will have it, yet his bare example doth not oblige all Christians to a like Practice.  
1. Because naked examples without some Rule or Note added to them to signify that it is the mind and will of God to have them constantly followed and perpetually Imitated by us, have not the force of a Law perpetually obliging the Conscience. Thus in our present Case, though our Lord did Sat at the Sacrament, yet his example alone doth not become an everlasting Rule for all Ages to observe, because he hath no where discovered his binding will and pleasure in this particular. And consequently, since he hath left us in the Dark, we may act contrary to his will and intention, when we so zealously press and follow his example, especially in this matter relating to Gesture. For even under the Law, where all other Circumstances of Time, Place, Habits, and the Ceremonies relating to Divine Worship, were with great particularity described, this of Gesture was left free and undetermined. God never obliged them to use any particular Gesture in any particular part of his Worship, but left it to their choice, whether to Kneel, or Stand, or Bow down their Heads and Bodies, or fall prostrate on the Earth; to use all, or any one of these, as Custom and their own Pious Prudence should prompt and direct them. Seeing then that the Gesture in the Worship of God was never determined under the Law: Since it was and is in its own nature a Mutable Ceremony in the Service of God, it remains so unto this day: Our Lord left it as he found it, unless it can be proved that he hath by some Command or Note of Immutability fixed and determined it to all succeeding Ages. But because no such Command or Note is to be found, therefore we are not tied in Conscience to a strict Imitation of his Example. A few instances will clear this point. Our Lord was not Baptised till 
Luke 3. 23.  he was about thirty years of Age; but this example is not esteemed by the generality of Dissenters a Law or Warrant for us to defer our Baptism so long. So he Instituted the Sacrament a little before his Death: But is there no obligation upon us to receive it but when we are near our Graves, and under a Prospect of Death? He also Instituted and Administered the Sacrament after a full Meal, in an upper Room, to Men only. Doth his bare example oblige us to observe punctually all these Circumstances, or no? If it doth, why do our Brethren of the Separation take the liberty to departed from his example in these things? if his example layeth no necessity upon us to follow it in these particulars, how doth Sitting become necessary barely upon the account of his example? I desire them therefore Seriously and impartially to examine this matter, and see if they can assign any reasons for this liberty they take of following the example of our Saviour in some things, and not in others, where there is no other Rule to guide them. I believe they will be constrained to do one of these two things; either to withdraw their Suit against Kneeling, and quit their own Principle; or condemn their own practices, as shamefully repugnant to it.  
2. The bare example of Christ is no Warrant for us to act by, because the great end and usefulness of that Glorious example he left us, consists in this, viz. that it shows the possibility, and clears up the sense of his Laws, and excites and encourages us to the Practice of them; it puts the Rule into activity, and sets it forth to the life. It is to our lives, as Exhortation is to Doctrine, it thrusts us forward to do that which we were obliged in Conscience to do before. Whatsoever our Lord hath Commanded us to do, in that only we are necessarily bound to Imitate him: But where there is no Precept, there is no Necessity. We may do it if we will, and if we can innocently (as in the case of a single Life) but we are not under Constraint, and an indispensable Obligation. He hath Commanded us to be Meek and Lowly, to be Just and Merciful, to be Patient under all our Troubles and Afflictions, to follow Peace with all Men, to be ever contented and resigned to the Will of our Heavenly Father in all States and Conditions of Life, and the life: And in all these things he became an Example to us, that we might follow his Steps. He Commands us to do what he performed himself; and that which we are concerned in, if we would walk surely, is first to look for our Rule, and then for our encouragement to look unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our Faith. It's true indeed, we are Commanded in Scripture to follow the Examples of the Apostles so far forth as they follow Christ, and the Example of our Lord is made the Touchstone to try all others by; but than if we would know what is out Duty, we must bring his Example to the Rule. For as to Preach Christ and to Preach the Gospel, to Obey Christ and Obey the 
1 Cor. 11. 1. Acts 5. 42. Acts 11. 20. Marc. 16. 15. Heb. 5. 9 2 Thess. 1. 8. Col. 2. 6.  Gospel, are Phrases of alike Import it Scripture; so in like manner, to follow Christ, is all one with following the Gospel-Rule, or doing as Christ did in obedience to his Commands. The Sum of all is this; An Example may help to Interpret a Law, but of itself it is no Law: Against a Rule no Example is a Competent Warrant; and if the Example be according to the Rule, it's not the Example but the Rule that is the Measure of our Actions.  
3. The bare Example of Christ is no Warrant for us to go by, because he was an extraordinary Person, and did many things which we cannot, and many which we must not do. He Fasted 40 Days and 40 Nights, and spent whole Nights in Prayer; he wrought many Miracles, to prove the Truth of his Doctrine and his Divine Authority by, that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, and Saviour of Mankind; he was a Prophetical Priest, by which Office he was obliged to teach us the whole mind of God in all things necessary to Faith and Salvation, and to offer up himself as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the World. Nothing (we should quickly experiment) would be more Vain and Foolish, than attempts of an Imitation in some things: And nothing more Wicked, than to think and believe we may and aught to follow his example in others. To die to Sin, and Crucify the Flesh with its Affections and Lusts, is a good way (as the Scripture Teaches and Warrants) of Imitating our Lord's Death in a Spiritual Sense. So, to Die rather than deny the Faith and Dishonour our Saviour, is great and Praiseworthy; but to Die for Sin, either our own or other Men's, to propose a Meritorious Death to ourselves, and by way of expiation, is a Sin of so deep a Stain, that the Blood of Christ will not Wash out: For this in effect is Trampling upon and Vilifying of the Precious Blood of our Saviour, and to detract from the Virtue and Merits of his Sacrifice, and thereby render it weak and insufficient to save us. Blindly therefore to follow the Example of Christ, is a certain way to run into Error and Mischief. We must then of necessity, if we would follow him safely, seek out for a plain Rule in the Word of God, or guide ourselves by the Dictates of Reason and Prudence; and either way is a sufficient Demonstration that a bare Example is not to be trusted to. Those who urge the example of Christ for Sitting, were somewhat aware of this, namely, that his example, and those of his Apostles, are not to be Imitated by us in all things; and therefore they lay down this 
Gillesp. against Cer. p. 339.  for their Maxim and Guide:  
We are bound to Imitate Christ, and the commendable example of his Apostles, in all things wherein it is not evident they had special reasons moving them thereunto, which do not concern us. But I would willingly be informed how we shall be ever able to know when they acted upon special reasons, and what they were, that we may know our Duty, if a bare Example without any Rule obliges us: And if we guide ourselves by Scripture or Reason in this matter, than they are the measures of the Example. Besides, if we are not to Imitate them in such things which they were moved to do upon special reasons which did not concern us, than we are obliged to Imitate their examples in such things as they did upon general and common reasons which concern us as well as them, or we are not obliged at all by any Example; and if so, than those reasons are our Rule, to which we are to reduce their Examples. Without we find some general or common Reason, we have no Warrant (according to their own Principle) to follow their Examples; and when such Reasons do appear, then it's not the example alone that obliges us, but Reason that approves the Example. To bring their own Rule to the case in Hand: How do they know but our Lord was moved to Sat at the Sacrament by Special reasons drawn from that Time and Place, from the Feast of the Passover to which that Gesture was peculiar? How do they know but that our Lord might have used another Gesture, if the Sacrament had been Instituted apart from the Passover?  
The necessity of the time, made the Jews Eat the Passover after one fashion in Egypt, which afterward ceasing, gave occasion to alter it in Canaan; and how do we know but that our Lord complied with the present necessity, and that his Example (if he did Sat) was only temporary, and not designed for a Standing Law perpetually obliging to a like practice? If Christ acted upon special reasons, than we are not obliged, by their own Rule; and if he did not, let them produce the reasons if they can, which make this Example of Christ of general and perpetual use, and to oblige all Christians to follow it. When ever they do this, I am sure they will expose their own Principle which they have built so much upon, to the Scorn and Contempt of the World; which is this: That the bare example of Christ and good 
Gillesp. 338. disp. against Ceremo.  Men in Scripture, are a complete Rule and Sufficient Warrant for our Actions, in such things as we have no Precept or Prohibition for in the Word of God: That a Christians Duty in a great measure flows purely from Examples Recorded in the Word of God, and not from the express Laws of God, which he hath revealed to us.  
4. It's absurd to talk of Christ's Example apart from all Law and Rule, and to make that alone a Principle of Duty distinct from the precepts of the Gospel; because Christ himself, all the while the World enjoyed the benefit of his example, governed his actions by a Law. For if we consider him as a Man, like unto us in all things (Sin only excepted) he was Born under the obligation of the Moral and Natural Law; as a Jew, under the Mosaic Law; as the Messiah, sent of God into the World to compass the great Work of our Redemption which he had freely undertaken, he still acted by Divine appointment, and was under the Gospel-Law. He came to fulfil all Righteousness, and to teach us the whole Mind and Will of God, and Exemplify to us what he taught and delivered. That which made that bitter and deadly Cup which ended his Days relish with him, was this consideration, that it was a Cup given him by 
John 18. 11.  his Father, and the Drinking it was agreeable to his will; and it was the comfort and support of his Soul a little before his Death, that he had finished the Work that his Father had given him. He frequently professed 
Joh. 17. 4. v. Mat. 11. 27. Luke 2. 49. Joh. 4. 34. Joh. 5. 30. 8 c. 28, 29. Joh. 10. 25. Joh. 14. 24, 31. Joh. 15. 10, 15.  in his life-time that he did as his Father gave him Commandment, and that it was his great business and delight to do the will of his Father; and many such expressions he used, which may be consulted at leisure. If therefore we only look to his Example, without considering the various Capacities and Relations he bore, both towards God and towards us, and the several Laws by which he stood Bound, which were the measures of his Actions, we shall miserably mistake our way, and bewilder ourselves; we shall Act like Fools, when we do such things as he did pursuant to infinite Wisdom. Thus (to give but one instance) if we should Subject ourselves to the Law of Moses as he did (for he fulfilled the Ceremonial Law, which he came to abolish) we should thereby frustrate the great Design of the Gospel, and of our Saviour's coming into the World: And yet even this we are obliged to do, if his Example alone, be a sufficient Warrant for our Actions. I have stayed the longer upon this Head, because so ill a use hath been made of Scripture-Examples, and to show how far forth we may safely steer by them, I scarce know any one Doctrine so teeming and big with Error, so Fatal to the Souls of private Persons, and the Peace of Public Societies both Civil and Ecclesiastical, as that which teaches us to Learn and Derive our Duty from, and to Judge of the Goodness and Badness of our Actions by the Examples of Christ, and good Men, over and above what we are obliged to do by the Precepts and Laws of the Gospel.  
3. They who urge the Example of Christ against Kneeling at the Sacrament, as our Rule to which we ought to Conform, do not follow it themselves. Because the posture he Instituted the Sacrament in, which they say was a Passover-Gesture, was (if so) very different from that which they so earnestly plead for and use at this day. For that was a Discumbing or Leaning Gesture on the left side, much after the manner that we lie upon Couches, with the upper part of the body almost erect. It is agreed by all Learned Men, that this was the Ancient Custom of the Jews in our Saviour's time, and is so to this day at the Passover, by which Gesture they distinguish this Festival Night from all others. Now if the same Gesture were used by Christ at the Sacrament as was at the Passover, and his example makes it necessary and obligatory to all Christians, for what Reasons and by what Authority do our Dissenting Brethren change it into Sitting upright, according to our Civil way and manner of Feasting? When they tell us this, it will be very easy to justify Kneeling by the same Authority which they shall allege for Sitting; and our changing the Gesture will be as warrantable as theirs. Unless they will say, that they alone have the Power and Privilege to recede from the Example of Christ when and how far they please, but our Church hath not, nor any other upon the face of the Earth. To say Sitting, as they do, comes nearer to the Gesture used by our Lord at the Passover, and consequently (as is supposed) at the Sacrament, than the Kneeling Gesture, according to the Custom of our Church, will do them no service: For there is no Room for this Question, Who cometh nearest to the Example, they or we? when they ought not at all to vary, if they keep to their own Rule. The Example of Christ, as it is urged by them against Kneeling, equally Concludes against all other Gestures besides what he himself used: And then the supposed Gesture which he observed binds to Lying along. For where we have nothing to go by but his Pattern, we must cut exactly by it, or else we take a liberty to do that of our own heads for which we have no allowance: That is, we leave the Pattern which we were obliged only to follow, and act at random upon our own heads; and then the Pattern cannot be alleged for our Justification. Though our Church therefore doth not strictly follow the Example of Christ (as is objected) by requiring all her Communicants to Kneel, yet they have no reason to complain and to scruple Communicating with us, who do not follow it themselves, but receive the Sacrament in their separate Congregations in a Gesture different from what our Lord used at the first Institution of it. The Presbyterians (if one may Argue from their Practices to their Principles) lay very little stress on this Argument taken from the Example of Christ. For though they generally choose to Sat, yet they do not Condemn Standing as Sinful, or Unlawful in its self; and several are willing to Receive it in that posture, in our Churches: which surely is every whit as wide from the Pattern our Lord is supposed to have set us, (whether he Lay along or Sat upright) as that which is Enjoined and Practised by the Church of England. There is too a Confessed variation allowed of and Practised by the generality of Dissenters, both Presbyterians and Independents, from the Institution and Practice of Christ and his Apostles, in the other Sacrament of Baptism. For they have changed Immersion or Dipping, into aspersion, or Sprinkling and Pouring Water on the Face. Baptism 
Mat. 3. 16. Mat. 28. 19  by Immersion or Dipping, is suitable to the Institution of our Lord, and the Practice of his Apostles, and was by them ordained and used to represent our Burial with Christ, a Death unto Sin, and a New Birth 
Rom. 6. 4. 6. 11. Col. 2. 12.  unto Righteousness, as St. Paul explains that Rite. Now it's very strange that Kneeling at the Lord's Supper (though a different Gesture from that which was used at the first Institution) should become a Stumbling-block in the way of Weak and Tender Consciences, that it's more unpassable than the Alps; and yet they can with Ease and Cheerfulness pass by as great or a greater change in the Sacrament of Baptism, and christian as we do, without the least murmur or complaint. Sitting, Kneeling, or Standing, were none of them Instituted or used to signify and represent any thing Essential to the Lord's Supper, as Dipping all over was; why cannot Kneeling then be without any wrong to the Conscience, as Safely and Innocently used as Sprinkling? How comes a Gnat (to use our Saviour's Proverb) to be harder to swallow than a Camel? Or why should not the Peace and Unity of the Church, and Charity to the Public, prevail with them to Kneel at the Lord's Supper, as much (or rather more) as Mercy and Tenderness to the Infant's Body, to Sprinkle or pour Water on the Face, contrary to the first Institution?  
4. They who Kneel at the Sacrament in compliance with the Customs and Constitutions of the Church whereof they are Members, do manifestly follow the Example of Christ.  
For our Saviour complied with that Passover-Gesture which was at that time commonly and generally observed by the Jews, but cannot be pretended to be 
Altar. Dam. 745. 747.  the same that was used at the first Institution of that Feast in Egypt. For thus the Command runs, Exod. 12. 11. And thus shall ye Eat it; with your Loins Girded, your Shoes on your Feet, and your Staff in your Hand: And you shall Eat it in haste; it is the Lord's Passover. This, say the Hebrew Doctors, was but a temporary Law, suited to the necessity of that time, and served for that Night only, and did not oblige the following Generations in the Land of Canaan. For thus they comment upon it: Four things were contained in this Law, which did not oblige but for that night at the 
Vid. Mr. Ainsworth Exod. 12. 6. 11.  Passover in Egypt. 1. Eating of the Lamb in their Houses dispersed in Egypt. 2. Taking up of the Lamb from the tenth Day. 3. Striking the Blood on their Door-Posts. 4. Eating in Haste. Here the Gesture in all probability was Standing, though it be not expressly mentioned: Howsoever, it was different from that used by the Jews in our Saviour's time, which was a Gesture denoting Ease and Rest, and their deliverance from Egyptian Bondage. And our Lord's Compliance with this Custom may teach us thus much, That we should not be scrupulous about Gestures, but conform to the Innocent and prevailing Customs of the Church wheresoever we live. To this Practice St. Paul's Rule well suits; Not 
Phil. 4. 8.  only, Whatsoever things are True, and Just, and Lovely, and Pure, and Honest, but, whatsoever things are of good report, (i. e. well spoken of, or laudable:) Not 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  only, If there be any virtue, but if there be any praise, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (if any thing be much approved of in Common esteem, or is made commendable by Custom) we are to think 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (or make account of these things,) and conform our practice to them. And if Christians in the several places of their abode did walk according to this Rule, they would greatly promote the Peace and Welfare of the Church of Christ, and in so doing procure quiet and Peace to themselves, with unspeakable Comfort and Satisfaction. Whosoever would be esteemed and rewarded as a Peacemaker, and avoid the ill reputation and 
Mat. 5. 9  guilt of a Turbulent Person, aught among other things carefully to observe this, viz. to Submit to, and Comply with the Innocent Customs of the Church whereof he is a Member. For thus the same Divine Writer (after he had Argued against women's being Uncovered in the public Assemblies) concludes all after this manner: 
1 Cor. 11. 6  If any Man seem to be Contentious, we have no such Customs, nor the Churches of God. Pray by the way let this be observed from this place, That we may Lawfully do some things in the Worship and Service of God, for which we have no Command or Example in Scripture, or else St. Paul's Argument from Custom is of no force.  
To sum up all upon this second Query: Seeing that we can never be certain of the particular Gesture used by Christ at the Institution of the Holy Sacrament: Seeing his bare Example (supposing he did Sat) doth not oblige us in Conscience to Imitate it: Seeing they who urge his Example do not follow it themselves, even in that particular they urge it for: Seeing Conformity to the Gesture prescribed by Law, is a plain Conformity to the Example and Practice of Christ, considered as to the Equity, Reason, and Spiritual Meaning and Instruction of it. I think no Man can reasonably object against Kneeling, and scruple in Conscience a Conformity to it, as being repugnant to the Example of our Lord.   

Query III. Whether Kneeling be not altogether Unsuitable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper, as being no Table-Gesture?  
BEfore I proceed to the Case itself, it will be requisite to premise something which may explain the true sense of it; and Discover upon what Grounds and Reasons our Dissenting Brethren build their scruples against Kneeling, as being no Table-Gesture. By a Table-Gesture we are to understand thus much; That at the Lord's Supper we ought in their Judgement to use the same Gesture as we do at our ordinary Meals and Tables, at our Civil Feasts and Entertainments: And because divers Gestures are used at Meals, according to the different Modes and Customs of several Nations, therefore we are obliged to use that at the Sacrament, which the Custom of our Country hath prescribed at our Ordinary and Civil Meals. Thus (saith the Author of Altar Damascenum, a Stout and Learned Champion for a Table-Gesture, Sitting cross-legged 
Altar. Dam. p. 762.  as the Turks do at their Meals, would be amongst them (if they were Converted) a Comely fashion of Receiving the Lord's Supper. The Sacrament is a Supper, a Feast, 
Disput. against Kneeling, p. 2. p. 56. arg. 4.  a Banquet, and therefore requires a Supper, a Feast, a Banquet-Gesture. And such a Gesture must be used as Standeth with the Custom of the Country. In no Nation was it ever held Comely to Kneel at their Banquets, or 
Abridgement p. 61. reply to Bp. Morton 3 Innoc. Cer. p. 37. set forth in K. James' Reign.  to Receive their food Kneeling. So that according to the sense of their own Writers, and great Patrons of Sitting, this is the reason why they question the Lawfulness of Kneeling: That the Gesture at the Lord's Table ought to be the same with that which we use and observe at our Ordinary Tables, according to the Custom and Fashion of our Native Country wherein we live.  
And then the full Import and meaning of the Query is this: Whether the nature of the Sacrament, considered as a Feast, doth not require and oblige us to Sat and not Kneel, because Sitting and not Kneeling is the Ordinary Table-Gesture, according to the Mode and Fashion of England.  
Here the Reader may observe, that this Argument for Sitting, drawn from the nature of this Holy Feast, quite overthrows the two former Arguments drawn from the express Command and Example of our Saviour, and renders them useless and unserviceable to their cause.  
1. For they don't say we are obliged to use the same Gesture with our Lord, but only a Table-Gesture, though never so different from that which he used, according to the Custom of our Country where we live. Various Gestures, according to the Variety of Fashions and Usages of several Nations at their Common Feasts, may be all Comely and Suitable to the Nature of this Holy Feast. According to this Argument, therefore, we are not obliged to Sat, because Christ did at the Sacrament; and then his bare Example is no Rule to us in this matter. His Example was Governed and Guided by the Nature of the Sacrament, and the Custom of the Jews.  
Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament before the Paschal Feast was over, and he continued in the same posture which he used at the Passover, say they, and that was Sitting. Suppose this, what follows? Why therefore we are bound to Sat too, after his Example. No, by no means, say I, unless it be the Custom of our Country to Sat at our Meals, and Sitting be our Common Table-Gesture: Which is the strength of this Argument drawn from the Nature of the thing, if we may believe what they say themselves.  
2. Again, if the Nature of the Sacrament require a Table-Gesture, and we are obliged to use that in particular which standeth with the Custom of our Country, and the Gestures may be different according as their Customs differ, than God hath no where Commanded the use of any particular Gesture, nor obliged all Christians in all places to observe one and the same.  
3. And then Thirdly, we may Lawfully observe some things in the Worship of God, for which we have no Command or Example in the Holy Scriptures, if this Argument of the Table-Gesture be good. And this principle, viz. that we ought not to do any thing in the Worship of God, but what we have some Command or Example for in Scripture, is the great battering Engine which hath been constantly employed against the Ceremonies enjoined by our Church; and it is a Principle wherein the Mystery of Puritanisme doth 
Preface to his Serm. last Edit. 1681.  consist, as Bishop Sanderson Notes. Therefore it behoves our Brethren not to be fond of this Table-Gesture, as they love the Life of their Cause. I am sure no greater Argument can be afforded of a routed baffled Cause in the matter of Sitting at the Sacrament, than to see the Patrons of it running up and down in Confusion, and flying for Refuge sometime to the Command of Christ, then to his Example; when driven out there, then to the Nature of the thing and Civil Customs, and about again to the Example. For thus the Authors of the  Tracts do. Thus much being premised, I proceed to Consider the Question proposed; for the Resolution whereof, I shall  
1. Inquire into the Nature of the Holy Sacrament, that so we may truly understand what Gesture is agreeable or repugnant to it.  
2. Show that the Nature of the Lord's Supper doth not absolutely require and necessarily oblige us to observe a Common Table-Gesture, in order to our worthy Receiving.  
3. That Kneeling is very Comely, and agreeable to the Nature of the Lord's Supper, though no Table-Gesture.  
4. That the Primitive Church and Ancient Fathers had no such notion of the necessity of a Table-Gesture as is maintained and urged by Dissenters.  
1. As to the Nature of the Sacrament, I shall endeavour to discover it under these following Heads.  
First, the Sacrament in the Holy Scripture is called the Lord's Table, and the Lord's Supper, and and Banquet, by the Ancient Greek Fathers, because of that Provision and Entertainment which our Lord hath made for all worthy Receivers. It is styled a Supper and a Feast, either because it was Instituted by Christ at Suppertime, at night; or because it represents a Supper and a Feast: And so it is not of the same Nature with a Civil and Ordinary Supper and Feast, though it bear the same name. There is some resemblance between this Holy Feast and Civil Feasts; and the showing wherein it lies, will in part explain its Nature. There are three things Essential and Necessary to a Feast, and included in the notion of it: Plenty, good Company, and Mirth. And upon the account of these, the Sacrament is (considered in its own Nature) properly a Banquet, a Feast; but than it is a Heavenly and Spiritual one, consisting of Spiritual Graces and benefits, Communion with Christ and with all true believers, signified by, and tendered under the outward Elements of Bread and Wine: and even in these three particulars which are Essential to it, considered as a Feast, and are necessary ingredients into all Feasts whatsoever, it very much differs from Civil and Ordinary Feasts. For though there be Plenty, yet it doth not consist of Variety of Dishes, to gratify our Palates, or satisfy our Hunger, as other Feasts do, and particularly the Passover did, where the Body was filled and Feasted as well as the mind. The provision wherewith our Lord hath Furnished out his Table, is not of an Earthly and perishing, but of an Heavenly and Immortal Nature, even the Body and Blood of Christ, which we Spiritually Feast upon.  
Alas, if we only fix our Eyes and Thoughts upon what is placed on the Table, and those small portions of Bread and Wine allotted us to Eat and Drink, without lifting up our Hearts (as 
* So St. Cypr. St. Chrysost. and St. Aug. expound this Exhort. of the Minister at the Communion. Cyp. de orat. Dom. Chrys. Hom. de Encaeniis, Aug. de ver. Relig. c. 3.  our Church exhorts us to do, by the Minister, in her Communion-Office) to those Heavenly and Invisible good things, couched under, and signified by the outward Elements of Bread and Wine, what is there in all that we see that deserves the name of a Feast, or can by the help of any figure (but an Irony) be called by that name? Did ever any Man esteem that a Feast, where there was not Meat enough to fill his Mouth, nor Drink enough to quench his thirst? It is upon the account therefore of those Invisible and Spiritual good things, wherewith the Souls, not the Bodies of worthy Communicants are Strengthened and Refreshed (of which the Bread and Wine are but the Types and Shadows) that the Sacrament is, and may truly be called a Feast or Banquet. And for this reason 
† St. Chrys. in Ps. 90. Greg. Naz. orat. 40. Athanasius, St. Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. and others.  the Greek Fathers called it a Spiritual Feast, and the Table a Mystical Table; and the Cup, the Cup of Mysteries: and the Sacrament, take it all together, was by them Styled the Mystical Supper, the Mystery, and Mysteries, as Presenting one thing to the Eye, and another to the Mind.  
2. As Plenty is one necessary ingredient into the Nature of a Feast, so also is Choice and Select Company. Feasts are made in expectation of Friends and Acquaintance. A Man may Dine alone, but in Proper and Ordinary Speech, no Man is said to Feast alone. Now though the Sacrament doth resemble our Common Feasts in this Particular (and therefore hath obtained the name of Communion, and the Guests Communicants, which Phrases do naturally import Number or Society:) yet if we consider what the persons are that constitute this Society, and with whom Communion is held, the Nature of this Spiritual Feast will further appear.  
And truly our Communion is with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the three Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity; though principally our Lord Jesus, the Master of this Feast, in and through whom we all have 
Eph. 2. 18.  access by one Spirit to the Father, as St. Paul speaks. This high and inestimable privilege and Honour of being admitted into the Presence of God, and holding a friendly Correspondence and Converse with him at his Table, is founded on the Blood of Christ, which we thankfully Commemorate at this Solemnity, by which we who were afar off are made nigh, as the same 
Eph. 2. 13.  Divine Writer hath it. Moreoever, by Eating and Drinking at the Lord's Table, we are United to, and hold Communion with all Faithful Christians and worthy Communicants, the Members of his Mystical Body the Church, whom he hath redeemed and cleansed by his most precious Blood. And that which qualifies a Man for such Communion, doth not Consist in External Garbs or Ornaments of the Body, but in Holy and Virtuous Dispositions of Soul, in a Penitent, Humble, Charitable, Thankful, and Obedient Heart.  
3. Another thing necessary to a Feast is Mirth and Joy, (which implies also good discourse) and in this too the Sacrament resembles our Common Feasts. But then the Joy is of a Spiritual Nature, and flows from different Causes.  
Not from what we Taste and See, not from our Appetites and Fancies pleased and tickled with the richness and Variety of Dishes which adorn the Table, nor from our Blood and Spirits raised and fermented by generous Wines; but from Divine and Heavenly Considerations. From the Boundless and Unaccountable Love of God in sending his only Begotten and Beloved Son into the World, to lay down his Life and shed his Blood as a propitiation for our Sins; from the wonderful Condescension of our Dear Lord and Master, in undertaking this hard Task, in appearing Clothed with our Flesh in the form of a Servant, and at last Humbling himself to the Death of the Cross for our Sakes; from the Victory he hath gained for us over Death and Hell, and all the Spirits of Darkness; from the miraculous Redemption he hath wrought, and the Right and Title to Eternal Life, which he hath purchased for us Sinful Dust and Ashes, by his own most Precious Blood. This is the secret Language and Discourse of every Devout Christian at this Holy Feast, and with these kind of Meditations he refreshes and delights himself. So that from the whole we may conclude, that the Lord's Supper is in its own Nature truly and properly a Feast, though vastly different from Common and Ordinary Feasts throughout, even in those things wherein it seems to be like them. As to the several Names and Phrases by which the Nature of it is described, they are figurative, and borrowed from Civil Entertainments: but although it hath received the same names, and is represented by Phrases that properly suit to Ordinary Feasts, yet the Lord's Supper differs in its Nature from Civil Banquets, as much as Heaven and Earth, Body and Spirit, differ in theirs. As to the Bread and Wine which we see and taste, they are only Signs and Types of the true Spiritual Feast, and serve to raise our minds to, and whet the Appetites of our Souls after Celestial and Heavenly Enjoyments.  
Thus much may suffice to inform us what the Nature of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is, considered barely as a Feast.  
2. For a further Discovery of its Nature, we are to be minded that it is a Feast upon a Sacrifice for Sin, wherein we are particularly to Commemorate the 
1 Cor. 11. 26.  Death of Christ by way of expiation for the Sins of the World.  
3. It was Instituted in Honour of our Lord, our great Benefactor and Redeemer; where we meet to preserve an Eternal memory of his Wondrous Works, to bless and praise him, and speak good of his Name. And thus partaking of the Lord's Supper is a proper Act of Christian Worship performed to our Saviour. It's the Worship of God manifested in our Flesh, and of our Crucified Lord, who submitted himself to a Vile and Tormenting Death for the sake of us Vile and Miserable Sinners.  
4. The Lord's Supper is a Mysterious Rite of Religious Worship, which as it respects God the Father, hath the Virtue and Efficacy of a Thanksgiving and a Prayer, as the Sacrifices under the Law had. For our desires and affections may be signified by Actions as well as Words, and by Ceremonies as well as Speech: And with respect to this Notion and End of the Lord's Supper, it was Anciently Styled the Liturgy and the Eucharist; which last name, as it was given to it in the most 
Ignat. Ep. ad Ephes. Justin. Mar. in Dial. eum Tryph.  early Ages of the Church, so it still retains the same among all the Christian Churches to this day.  
5. The Lord's Supper was Instituted to be a Foederal or Covenanting Rite between God and all worthy Communicants: Where, by permitting us to Eat and 
Luk. 22. 19 1 Cor. 11. 24.  Drink at his Table, he signifies that we are in a State of Peace and Friendship, and in a Covenant-relation with him; and we by coming to his Table, and Eating and Drinking in his presence, do own him to be our God and Saviour, and in effect plight our troth to him, and Swear Fidelity and Allegiance to him: we take the Sacrament upon it (as we ordinarily say) that we will not henceforth live unto ourselves, but to him alone that Died for us, and gave himself for us an Offering and a Sacrifice to God, for a Sweet Smelling Savour.  
6. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was Instituted for this further end, viz. to be a means to Convey and Apply to us the Merits of that Sacrifice which Christ offered for Sinners on the Cross; and as a Pledge to assure us thereof.  
7. It was instituted to be a Sacred Bond of Unity and Concord among all Christians, to engage and dispose us to Love one another, as our Lord Loved us, who thought not his Life too dear, nor his Blood too much to part with, for our Sakes.  
This is a short, and, so far as it serves my present design, a full account of the Nature of the Lord's Supper. If the Reader desire to see these things (which I have but touched upon) more largely proved and explained, let him for his satisfaction consult those two excellent Discourses (among many others) that pass under these names, viz. 1. The Christian Sacrifice. 2. Discourse of Religious 
Set forth by 1. Dr. Patri● 2. Dr. Sherlock.  Assemblies.  
Howsoever, by what hath been said it appears, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is of a complicated Nature, and Instituted for various ends; that it is vastly different both in its nature and ends from Civil and Ordinary Feasts: And therefore I conclude that we are not at this Religious Feast to guide ourselves by the Rules of Common Table-Fellowship, but by more Religious and Spiritual Considerations. Which leads me to the second thing proposed for the Resolution of the present Case.  
2. That the Nature of the Lord's Supper doth not absolutely require and necessarily oblige us to observe a Table-Gesture, in order to a right and worthy Receiving of it. The Reasons that I shall offer for the Proof of this, are these:  
1. If the Nature of the Sacrament considered as a Feast necessarily requires a Table-Gesture, than the Nature of the Sacrament considered as a Feast equally concludes for all other Formalities which are either Essential to all Civil Feasts whatsoever, or to all Feasts as they obtain among us. For if Sitting be necessary, purely because the Nature of a Feast requires it, than all other Circumstances which the Nature of a Feast requires, will be equally necessary too. But our Dissenting Brethren will by no means allow of this, nor think themselves obliged to observe all other formalities, though equally suitable and agreeable to the Nature of a Feast as Sitting is: Though for what good reason, I am perfectly in the dark.  
For 1. As they omit many things at the Sacrament that are as agreeable to the Nature of a Feast as the Table-Gesture is; So they observe several Modes and Circumstances which are not agreeable to the nature of a Feast, as the Custom of our Country standeth. For instance, at our Common and Ordinary Feasts it's very suitable and agreeable to Laugh, to Talk, and Discourse together; to Congratulate one another's welfare, to inquire of the State of absent Friends and Acquaintance, to Sat with the Head Covered, to Eat plentifully and Drink Frequently, to Carve and Drink to one another. It is further necessary and convenient, that at such Feasts the Guests should be well attended with Servants and Waiters, who are not allowed to Sat down at the Table with ●hose who are Invited. It's agreeable that the Guests should, if they please, help themselves and their Friends where they like. And yet these (and many other things of this Nature) though very suitable to, and commonly practised at our Ordinary Feasts, are not allowed of, nor practised by, nor urged as necessary to be observed at the Sacrament by our Dissenting Brethren. But why they should plead for and urge the necessity of a Common Table-Gesture as being agreeable to the Nature of a Feast or a Banquet, and at the same time think there lies no necessity at all upon them to observe other Formalities equally agreeable to the Nature of Civil Feasts, and warranted by custom as much as Sitting, is the great knot of the Question, and that which puzzles me, I confess, to untie.  
2. They observe several Modes and Circumstances at the Sacrament, which are not agreeable to the Nature of a Feast or Supper, nor to the customary way of Feasting among us. For example: The Sacrament (say they) is a Feast, a Supper, and requires a Feast, a Supper-Gesture; and then too (say I) it requires a Suppertime. It is called in Scripture the Lord's Supper, and it was Instituted the same night in which he was betrayed; and it's clear that our Lord Administered it at Even, and that late, at the close of the Paschal Feast. Now the Nature of a Supper, according to Common use and acception, requires the Evening or Night, as the proper and peculiar season for it; and yet our Dissenting Brethren make no scruple of Communicating at Noon.  
It's not agreeable to the Nature of a Feast, that one of the Guests, and the Principal one too, should fill out the Wine, and break the Bread, and distribute it to the rest of the Society; but this the Dissenters generally allow of and practice at the Holy Communion. It's not agreeable to the Nature of a Feast, to Sat from the Table, dispersed up and down the Room. In all public Feasts there are several Tables provided, when one is not big enough to receive the Guests; and yet the Dissenters generally receive in their Pews, scattered up and down the Church; and think one Table is sufficient, though not capable of receiving the twentieth part of the Communicants, in some large Parishes and numerous Assemblies: And where they are few in number, that they may come up to and Sat at the Table, they generally are against it (especially the Presbyterians) and think they are not obliged to observe that formality, though constantly practised at Common and Civil Entertainments. It's by no means agreeable to the nature of a Feast to be Sorrowful. To Mourn and Grieve at a Feast, is as Indecent and Unsuitable, as to Laugh at a Funeral. But sure our Dissenting Brethren will not say, that to come to the Sacrament with a Penitent and a broken Spirit, to come with a hearty Sorrow for all our Sins, which caused much Pain and Torment to our Dearest and Greatest Friend, our ever-Blessed Redeemer: To reflect upon the Agonies of his Soul in the Garden, the Bitterness of his deadly Cup, the Torture he endured on the Cross, with a deep Sympathy and Trouble for the occasion, they will not surely, I say, affirm that such a disposition of Heart and Mind is improper and unsuitable to the Nature of this Holy Feast which we Solemnize in Commemoration of his Death for our sakes. I make no doubt but all Pious Dissenters bring along with them to the Sacrament such a temper; but this they ought not to do, if their Rule hold good, viz. That at this Feast we ought to be guided by the Rules of Common Table-Fellowship.  
2. The Nature of the Lord's Supper doth not necessarily require a Common Table-Gesture, because it's not of the same Nature with Common and Ordinary Feasts. It is very ill Logic, as well as ill Divinity to argue from Natural and Civil things to Spiritual; to conclude that because they agree in their names, they are of the same Nature, For example: When any Man, who hath led a lose, sensual, wicked Life, is awakened and excited by the Grace of God to consider and take up, to mind Heavenly things, and to breath after God, and Christ, and Eternity; to alter his mind and his manners, and lead quite another Life from what he did before, this Person is in Scripture-Phrase said to be Regenerate and Born again. But if we would go about to judge of the true Nature of Regeneration and the new Birth purely by the Correspondency it holds with the Natural Birth, and argue from the Natural to the Spiritual, we should Entertain very gross and silly Conceptions of Regeneration, and greatly mistake the Nature of it. How ridiculous would it be to prescribe the same Rules to be observed by a New Convert, or a Newborn Babe in a Spiritual Sense, in Order to his Spiritual nourishment and growth in Grace, as are prescribed and practised towards Infants and Newborn Babes in a Natural Sense for the maintenance and preservation of their Natural Life, and Strength; as, that they should be Swathed, and enter into a Milk-Dyet! And yet this is every way as reasonable, as to prescribe Sitting as necessary to the worthy Receiving of the Sacrament, which is a Spiritual Feast, because it's agreeable to the Nature of Civil Feasts: Or (which amounts to the same thing) because it's called a Feast, therefore it's of the same Nature with Ordinary and Common Feasts; and Consequently, such a Gesture and Behaviour as is necessary and requisite to these, is also requisite and necessary to the Lord's Supper.  
3. The Nature of the Lord's Supper, considered as a Feast, doth not necessarily require and oblige us to use a Common Tale-Gesture, in order to right and worthy Receiving, because, in the Judgement and Practice of numerous Dissenters, it may be worthily Received Standing. Thus the Presbyterians (and all their Writers who have engaged against Kneeling) do not condemn Standing as Sinful and Unlawful, nor esteem such as use it unworthy Receivers on that account; and yet Standing is no Common Table-Gesture.  
If any should yet urge the necessity of Sitting as the Object. only agreeable Gesture to the Nature of the Sacrament considered as a Feast, and that to use any other Gesture would Profane the Ordinance;  
I offer this to be considered as a good Answer, That Answer. the Passover was called a Feast by God himself who 
Exod. 12. 14.  Instituted it, and yet he Commanded the Children of Israel to Celebrate it in Egypt after this manner; with 
Ver. 11.  their Loins Girt, their Shoes on their Feet, and their Staff in their Hands: All Signs of haste indeed, but no Feast or Table-Gestures either among the Jews or the Egyptians. To say that God enjoined Gestures unsuitable to the Nature of that Ordinance, is to call in Question the Wisdom, and the Knowledge, and the Truth of God, as not Acting upon a right understanding of, and in Conformity to the true Nature of things: it's all one as to suppose, that God, after he had Created a reasonable Creature, would enjoin him to do something that was disagreeable to his Nature and Reason. On the other hand, to say that the Feast of the Passover did in its Nature admit of several Gestures, is to yield all that I desire; for then the Sacrament, considered as a Feast, will admit of several too, and Consequently doth not oblige us to observe only a Feast-Gesture for the due Celebration of it.  
3. Kneeling is very Comely, and Agreeable to the Nature of the Lord's Supper, though no Table-Gesture. Which I hope will be made evident to every Honest and  Mind (which Impartially seeks after Truth) by these following considerations:  
1. Kneeling is allowed on all Hands to be a very fit and suitable Gesture for Prayer and Praise, and very apt to express our Reverence, Humility, and Gratitude by, and Consequently very fit to be used at the Holy Sacrament, and agreeable to its Nature. This will appear, if we reflect upon what hath been delivered concerning the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper. For at the Sacrament we express that by Actions (as I hinted before) which at other times we do by Words; and the Lord's Supper is a Solemn Rite of Christian Worship, which implies Prayer and Praise. It includes all the Parts of Prayer. By partaking of the Signs of his Body broken, and Blood shed for our Sins, we do Commemorate, Represent, and Show forth to God the Father, the Sacrifice which his Dear Beloved Son made upon the Cross; we Feast upon the memorial of the great Sin-Offering: And in so doing, we make an open Confession and Acknowledgement of our Gild and Unworthiness to God, and we plead with him in the Virtue of his Son's Blood which was shed for us, for the Pardon and Remission of all our Sins. We further Humbly entreat him to be Propitious and Favourable to us, and to bestow upon us all those benefits which our Lord purchased with his most Precious Blood.  
We Intercede with him too at the Communion for the whole Church, that all our Fellow-Christians and true Members of his Body may Receive Remission of their Sins, and all other benefits of his Passion. And as Eating and Drinking at his Table, is a Visible and Powerful Prayer in the sight of God; so it is a Visible Act of Praise and Thanksgiving, whereby we let our Heavenly Father see that we retain a deep and lively sense of his Unexpressible Love, in sending his only begotten Son into the World to Die for us that we might Live through him. And that which enlivens our Faith, and emboldens our hopes of finding Favour and Acceptance at his Hands at this time above others, is this, viz. Our Prayers and Praises are not only put up in the Name of Christ, but presented, and as it were Writ in his Blood, and offered to God over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice. All this our Actions signify and speak, when we Eat the Consecrated Bread, and Drink the Cup of Blessing at the Lord's Table. If therefore these things be True (and I think no body who understands what he doth when he partakes of the Lord's Supper will gainsay it) then Kneeling must be judged as fitting and convenient to be used at such a time, when we signify our desires and affections by external Rites and Ceremonies of God's appointment, as when we do it by Words, that is, when we say our Prayers.  
2. Our Dissenting Brethren (and all good Christians) will Grant, that our Blessed Saviour ought to be Worshipped and Adored by all worthy Communicants, inwardly in their Hearts and Souls, when they Receive the Tokens and Pledges of his tender and exceeding great Love in laying down his Life for the Sins of the whole World. And if so, than whatsoever is very apt and meet to express the inward esteem and veneration of our minds by, can't be thought Unsuitable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper: Because that is a Religious Feast Instituted in Honour of our Lord, and is a Solemn Act of Christian Worship performed to our Crucified Saviour. Our meeting together at th●s Holy Feast in Obedience to his Commands, to Commemorate his Death, and tell of all his wondrous Works; perpetuate the fame of our great Benefactor (as much as in us lies) throughout all Ages, is an External mark of the Honour and respect we bear towards him in our minds, and is, properly speaking, that which we call Public Worship. Since to Bow our Knees then, is allowed to be a proper mode of public Worship, and an External Sign of Reverence; why should an adoring posture be thought Unmeet and Unsuitable to the Sacrament, which in its nature imports Worship and Adoration?  
3. No good Christian, of what Party or Persuasion soever, will deny, but that to lift our Hands and Eyes to Heaven, and to Employ our Tongues in Uttering the Praises of our Blessed Redeemer, even in the Act of Receiving, is very agreeable to the Nature of the Sacrament; why then should Kneeling be thought Unsuitable, which is no more but only Glorifying God and our Blessed Saviour with another part of our Body? Why should the Gesture be scrupled at more than the Voice, or the Bowing of my Knees be esteemed incongruous and unfitting, any more than moving my Tongue, or raising my Hands and Eyes to Heaven? Especially if we consider, that the high degree of Honour and Glory to which our Lord is advanced in the Heavens by God the Father, as the reward of his Humble and Submissive Obedience here on Earth, challenges from us all manner of Respect and Reverence both of Soul and Body, He Humbled himself, and became Obedient unto Death, even the Death of the Cross▪ Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a Name which is above every Name, that at the Name of Jesus 
Phil. 2. 8, 9, 10, 11.  every Knee should Bow, etc. and that every Tongue should Confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father.  
4. The Holy Sacrament was Instituted in Remembrance of our Blessed Saviour's Death and Sufferings: And therefore I request all our Dissenting Brethren to Consult one place of Scripture concerning our Saviour's Bodily Gesture or Deportment in the Heat and Extremity of his Passion, wherein he presented himself before his Father in his Agony and Bloody Sweat in the Garden. Being in an Agony, he offered up this Prayer to his Father: If thou be willing, remove this Cup from 
Luke 22. 42, 44.  me: Nevertheless, not my Will, but thine be done. But after what manner, or in what Gesture of Body did his perplexed Soul utter these earnest Supplications? Why, Kneeling, or fixing his Knees upon the Earth. Now though 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ver. 41.  we may remember and meditate on our Saviour's Sufferings in the Garden, when his Soul was so exceeding Sorrowful, when he was reduced to such a Weak and low Estate as to stand in need of Comfort and Support from an Angel; though, I say, this may be done Sitting, 
Ver. 43.  yet sure no Sober and Considering Mind will say, that to Celebrate the Memory of these Sufferings with bended Knees (as his were) on the Earth, is an Improper and Unsuitable behaviour to be used at the Sacrament, where our proper work is to Commemorate the Death and Sufferings of our Saviour, and particularly these among the rest.  
5. The Sacrament was Instituted to be a means of Receiving the benefits of his Death and Passion, and a Pledge to assure us thereof. If we do but Consider what invaluable Blessings we expect to receive by our worthy partaking of the Consecrated Bread and Wine at the Table of our Lord, (such as the forgiveness of all our Sins, the plentiful Communications of his Grace and Spirit, and a Right and Title to Eternal Life) we can't think Kneeling an Unmeet and Unbecoming Gesture in the Act of Receiving the Outward Signs and Pledges of this Inward and Invisible Grace. If a Graceful Hearty sense of God's infinite mercy through the Merits and Sufferings of his Son, and of the manifold rich benefits which our Lord hath purchased with his most Precious Blood; if a mind deeply Humbled under the sense of our own Gild, and Unworthiness to Receive any mercy at all from the Hands of our Creator and Sovereign Lord, whom we have by numberless and Heinous Crimes so highly provoked and incensed against us; If such an inward temper and disposition of Soul becomes us at this Holy Feast, (which I think no Man will deny) then surely the most Humble and reverential Gesture of our Body will become us too. Why should not a Submissive Lowly deportment of Body suit with this Solemnity, as well as a Humble Lowly Mind? And this is that which our Church Declares 
See the Declaration at the end of the Communion-Service, in the Book of Common Prayer.  to be the end and design of her Injunction, in requiring all her Communicants to Kneel, viz. for a Signification of an Humble and Grateful acknowledgement of the Benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers.  
6. They who urge Sitting as necessary, and the only agreeable Gesture to the Nature of the Lord's Supper, because it's the Common Table-Gesture, must make the Sacrament either the same with an Ordinary and Common Feast, or only like it in some respects, and unlike it in others; as every like is not the same. To make it the same, is directly to unhallow and profane the Ordinance; it is to Eat and Drink unworthily, not discerning 
1 Cor 11, 29.  the Lord's Body, as St. Paul charges the Corinthians. For it's clear from that Discourse of the Apostle, that their not distinguishing between the Lord's Supper, and a Common Meal or Supper, was their great fault; which he sharply reproves them for, as that which rendered them unworthy Communicants. Which will appear to any that will take the pains to examine 
Vid. 20, 21, 22. and compare them with 33, 34.  the matter.  
If the Lord's Supper be not the same with an Ordinary Feast, how comes it to pass that the same Gesture must be necessarily used at both? If they differ in their whole nature, then that which is agreeable to the nature of the one, must be Repugnant to the nature of the other. If they agree in some respects only, and differ in others, but not in their whole nature, then Kneeling may be as proper and suitable in some respects, as Sitting is in others. For though the Civil Custom of a Table-Gesture be allowed to strike some stroke in a Spiritual Ordinance, where there is Eating and Drinking; yet other respects in the Lord's Supper have a stroke too, and that the greatest, if we duly weigh and consider the ends of its Institution, which I have already described. And if upon such Examination it appear, that Kneeling, or an adoring Gesture, holds fitting Correspondence with the principal respects and ends of the Lord's Supper, than the Banqueting Gesture, though Lawful and Suitable in some less respects, must and aught in reason to give place; at least, it ought not to be Insisted on as the only agreeable and necessary Gesture, without which we cannot worthily Communicate.  
Whatsoever Gesture answers the principal respects and ends of this Holy Feast, best Suits to its Nature, and consequently aught in reason to be best esteemed of, and sway more with us than any other, if we will wholly guide ourselves by the Nature of the thing. And that Kneeling or an adoring posture doth best answer the Nature and Ends of the Sacrament, I think is clear and undeniable, if the account I have given of the Sacrament be good. I am sure, howsoever, that there is no reason why Sitting should justle out Kneeling as Sinful, and Unsuitable to the Nature of this Holy Ordinance. Let Mr. Cartwright, a Learned Advocate 
Annot. in Luk. 22. 14.  for Nonconformists, be heard in this matter, and determine it: A Man must not (saith he) refuse to Receive the Sacrament Kneeling, when he cannot have it otherwise.  
4. The Primitive Church and Ancient Fathers had no such notion of the necessity of a Table-Gesture, as is maintained and urged by Dissenters at present; which will appear from those Names and Titles they gave to this Holy Feast. And First, I observe from the Learned Mr. Mede, that for the space of 200 years after Christ, there is not the least mention made of the name Table in any of their Writings. They call the place on which 
Can. Apost. 2. St. Ignat. in 3 Epistles and Philad. Trallen. Eph. Justin Mart. Irenaeus.  the Consecrated Elements stood, the Altar; and the Eucharist, An Oblation and a Sacrifice, because at this Solemnity they did Commemorate and Represent that Sacrifice which Christ once offered on the Cross for the Sins of the World. Now the Eucharist conceived under the Notion of a Sacrifice, and the place on which it was offered of an Altar, doth not necessarily require a Table-Gesture; there is not that strict Connexion and Relation between an Altar or a Sacrifice, and a Common Table-Gesture, as is conceived to be between a Feast or Table, and a Feast or Table-Gesture.  
2. The Primitive Christians and Ancient Fathers of the Church did not entertain any such conceits about the necessity of a Common Table-Gesture, as our Dissenters do. As, that Kneeling or an adoring Gesture is against 
Dispute against Kneeling, Arg. 1. p. 6. p. 26, 27, 28, 31, 37.  the Dignity of Guests, and Debars us the Privileges and Prerogatives of the Lord's Table, such as Social admittance and Social Entertainment; that it is against the purpose of Christ, whose intention was to Dignify us by Setting us at his Table; and much more of this Nature, and to this effect. Now the Primitive Church little dreamt of this Dignity and Privilege of Communicants, of this purpose of Christ, and of this kind of Fellowship and Familiarity with him; as the Phrases they use, and the August and Venerable Titles they give the Holy Sacrament, even when they consider it as a Feast and Supper, and speak of the Table on which it was Celebrated, plainly demonstrate. They call it, as St. Paul doth, the Lord's Supper, the Kingly, Royal, and most Divine Supper; which Import Deference, Distance, and Respect, on our Parts; the Dreadful Sacrifice, the Venerable and Unbloody Sacrifice, the Wonderful and Terrible Mysteries; the Royal, Spiritual, Holy, Formidable, Tremendous Table. The Bread and Wine after Consecration, are in their Language called the most Mysterious, most Holy Food and Nutriment, the most Holy things; and the place where the Table stood, the most Holy part of the Temple, in allusion to that of the Jewish Temple, to which the Jews paid the highest Reverence. The Bread in particular they Styled the Bread of God; the Cup, the Holy and Mysterious, the Royal and Dreadful Cup.  
The Primitive Bishops and Holy Fathers advise the Communicants to Reverence these Holy Mysteries, to come with Fear and Trembling, with Sorrow and Shame, with silence and downcast Eyes, to keep their Joy within, and to approach the Table with all the Signs and Expressions of Reverence and Humility imaginable. How can these Speeches consist with that Social, Familiar carriage at the Sacrament, which the Patrons of the Table-Gesture contend for, as the Privilege of Guests and the Prerogative of the Lord's Table? For a conclusion of this whole matter, I desire our Nonconforming Brethren seriously to consider two or three Questions which I shall propound to them, and endeavour to frame an Honest and Impartial Answer, as in the Presence of God, who searches our Hearts, and tryeth our Reins. They are not of a Captious Nature, started to puzzle the Cause, or for the sake of Contention (God knows my Heart, I have no such designs through this whole Discourse) but they are plain, and easy to be resolved almost at first sight.  
Qu. I. Whether of two or three Gestures which are all agreeable to the Nature of the Sacrament, any one is not to be chosen and used by us, when we can't use another without breaking the Peace and Unity of that Church wherein we live?  
Qu. II. Whether it can consist with Piety or Prudence, to Expose yourselves and Families to Danger, and the lash of the Law, when nothing is Commanded but what is consistent with the Law of God, and agreeable to the Nature of the Sacrament, though not to your Fancies and desires?  
Qu. III. Whether we are not, as Christians, obliged by the Law of God, and the example of our Saviour, to deny ourselves many things, that are otherwise Lawful for us 
Rom. 15. 2. 3, 8.  to do and use, and are highly pleasing and grateful to us, for the Good and Edification of our Neighbour? If so, How much more, when the public good and welfare of both Church and State depends upon such self-denial?  
Qu. IU. Whether it be Piously done of you to choose never to Receive the Sacrament and so deprieve yourselves of the Spiritual Benefit of that Heavenly Feast, rather than part with a Civil Circumstance, such as a Table-Gesture is?  
It is the Custom of our Country to Sat at Feasts; but few men are so mad as to refuse to Eat Standing, and go Hungry away when they have no room to Sat down. Why should we not be as Prudent at this Spiritual Feast, in the Concerns of our Souls, as we are in those of our Bodies.  
Put the case we were strictly prohibited by the Law of the Land the use of a Table or a Tablecloth at this Holy Feast, and we could not receive with that Convenience as now we may; would you end your days in a continual refusal, and never receive the Sacrament? I don't know how far Passion and Prejudice, and the heat of Disputation may blind and transport Men; but if they will calmly consider this matter, and hearken to Reason, they will find nothing to justify the total neglect of this Ordinance by. I am very apt to think they will be of my mind: for I declare to all the World, rather than not Receive at all the Comfortable Sacrament of our Blessed Saviour's Body and Blood, I will Receive it on a Tombstone, on the ground, in a Church, or in a Field, if all other things that are Essential to it be rightly observed and performed. If any of our Dissenting Brethren shall upon this Question think as I do, viz. that there is no absolute necessity of a Table in this case, which the Custom of our Country requires at Ordinary Feasts; He will also at the same time see there is no absolute necessity of a Table-Gesture, and that we may Receive worthily without either the one or the other.   
FINIS.   

BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER.  

1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England.  
2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion.  
3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God, proposed and Stated, by considering these Questions, etc.  
4. A Discourse about Edification.  
5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience, Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England?  
6. A Letter to Anonymus, in answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship. In two Parts.  
8. The Case of mixed Communion: Whether it be Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixed Communions?  
9 An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers, and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England.  
10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved, etc. In two Parts.  
11. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons, and of going to hear where men think they can profit most.  
12. A serious Exhortation, with some important Advices, relating to the late Cases about Conformity, recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England.  
13. An Argument for Union; taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestant's.  
14. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal, or giving Offence to Weak Brethren.  
15. The Case of Infant-Baptism, in Five Questions, etc.  
16. The Charge of Scandal, and giving Offence by Conformity, Refelled, and Reflected back upon Separation, etc.   

1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists ask of us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther?  
2. A Discourse about Tradition, showing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be received and what Tradition is to be rejected.  
3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England.  
4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith, etc.   
Some Seasonable Reflections on the Discovery of the late Plot, being a Sermon preached on that occasion, by W. Sherlock, D. D. Rector of St. George Buttolph-lane, London.  
King David's Deliverance: or, the Conspiracy of Absalon and Achitophel defeated, in a Sermon Preached on the day of Thanksgiving appointed for the Discovery of the late Fanatical Plot. By Thomas Long, B. D. one of the Prebendaries of Exon.   

THE CASE OF KNEELING AT THE Holy Sacrament STATED & RESOLVED. PART II. Wherein these QUERIES are considered.  

iv Whether Kneeling commanded in the Church of England be not contrary to the general Practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages?  
V Whether it be unlawful for us to Receive Kneeling, because this Gesture was first introduced by Idolaters, and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes.   
LONDON: Printed for T. Basset, at the George in Fleetstreet; and B. Took, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1685.   


Query IU. Whether Kneeling, commanded in the Church of England, be not contrary to the general Practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages?  
THe only way for any man to give or receive satisfaction in this point, is diligently to consult the Records of ancient Times, and from them make a faithful report of the Customs and Usages of the ancient Catholic Church: For when once these are made manifest, it will be very easy, by comparing things together, to discern whether they are consistent, or contrary one to another: Whether the Practice of the Church of England (as to Kneeling at the Sacrament) be agreeable or repugnant to that of the Primitive Christians. In Answer therefore to this Question, my business is to give a plain Historical Account of the practice of the Church in those early Ages of Christianity; from whence it may evidently appear, that the Church of England, by obliging her Communicants to Kneel, doth not oblige them to practise any thing but what is agreeable to the Customs and Practice of pure Antiquity. And this I will endeavour to do under these Two general Heads.  

(1.) It's highly probable that the Primitive Church used to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament, as our Custom at present is.  
(2.) It's most certain they used an Adoring Posture.   
But before I enter upon this undertaking, I will crave leave to premise somewhat concerning this Query in general, and somewhat for explication of a Term contained in it, viz. What we are to understand by The first and purest Ages.  
As to the Case itself in general, it is of such a nature, and requires such an Answer, that not one among Twenty thousand of the ordinary and common sort of people is duly qualified to understand it, and pass a true judgement upon it: the merits of the Cause are quite out of their reach; and whether we are in the right or the wrong they know not, but believe as they are taught, and upon the credit of others who they suppose are able to inform them about such matters. For in order to estimate the present Case aright and as it ought, it is necessary that a man have some competent knowledge of and insight into the Customs and Constitutions of the ancient Church, the Decrees of Councils, the Works of the Fathers, and the Original Languages wherein they wrote; which, I am sure, few or none of the Vulgar have attained to.  
And truly upon this very consideration I should have passed this Query by without taking the least notice of it, had I not in my converse with several Dissenting Laymen, heard it started and pleaded in justification of their Nonconformity to the Custom and Constitution of the Church of England.  
I confess, I did a little wonder to find men make that a Rule of Conscience, (and boldly rely and practise upon it) which they do not at all understand; to find this Weapon put into the hands of ordinary and illiterate persons, not only to defend themselves against the Commands of their lawful Superiors, and those who are set over them by God to be their Rulers and Guides, (in all such cases especially where they are not able to guide and direct themselves) but also to wound and murder the Reputation of the National Church, as degenerate from all Antiquity, as introducing and imposing novel Customs and Ceremonies repugnant to the Principles and Practices of the first and purest Ages.  
Whether it be well done in Nonconforming Ministers to furnish the common people with such kind of Arguments as these, so much out of their way, and above their pitch and capacity, I leave the honest part of the world to judge.  
The (2) thing I would premise is this: Supposing Kneeling at the Sacrament was never used by the ancient Church, yet such an Objection is a wretched Plea in the mouth of a Dissenter to justify his Nonconformity by as to this particular Gesture.  
For if Kneeling be a crime and unlawful because it was not used in Primitive times, Sitting at the Sacrament is a much greater; for that was condemned as an irreverend Posture, as will appear by and by. Besides, they themselves have a very little value for Antiquity, and in all things almost run counter to it.  
And one would think that they should be very willing to receive Kneeling, for that very reason which they produce against it; that is, because it is contrary to the currant practice of all Antiquity, as they would make their Party to believe. This might be expected from them, because they will not be persuaded by any means or entreaties to comply with such Customs and Ceremonies of our Church as were undoubtedly used by the ancient Christians: (such as Godfathers and Godmothers, the Cross in Baptism, the Ring in Marriage, the Feasts or holidays of Christmas, Easter, etc.) but instead of Conformity to these things, they raise an Hue and Cry upon the Church as Popish and Anti-christian for enjoining such Ceremonies, and pretend they had much rather endure any extremity, than submit their Necks to such an intolerable Yoke. But how hard is the Government put to it to please such humoursome persons! When our Governors tread in the very steps of the Primitive Bishops and blessed Martyrs, than they are Popish and Antichristian, and the Consciences of our dissenting Brethren will not suffer them to conform; and at other times they cannot conform, because they require them to do what was never required nor practised in the Church of Christ throughout all preceding Generations, till Transubstantiation was established in the World. So that to follow Antiquity is a great Objection against Conformity at some times, and not to follow it, as great at others: When ever they please to make it so, it is so, say or do what one can to the contrary. Thus much concerning the Case in general: Let us now see the meaning of that Phrase, The first and purest Ages.  
This, I think, may be easily made out, from the Writings of those men who have stoutly defended Sitting, or a common Table-Gesture; who have delivered their minds with as much clearness, and as roundly as one would wish, concerning this matter. For thus the Author of a Book formerly cited affirms, That Antiquity is wholly against us, and the Primitive Churches never 
Dispute upon Quest. of Kneel. etc. to the Reader. id. p. 67.  so much as heard of Kneeling, and the Churches succeeding excluded it out of their Congregations, and gave it no Entertainment for the space of 1200 years. That Kneeling to receive the Sacrament, was not used at the Institution of the Lords Supper, nor after in any Age of the Church, before the time of Honorius the Third, about the year 1220. So also another great Champion for sitting writes. Didoclavius maintaineth (saith he) that which none of our opposites 
Gillesp. Disp. against Eng. Pop. Cer. p. 191. Altar. Damascen. 784. lib. 1. c. 1.  are able to infringe, viz. That no Testimony can be produced which may evince that ever Kneeling was used before the time of Honorius the Third. He further observes from the History of the Waldenses, That bowing of the Knees before the Host was then only enjoined, when the opinion of Transubstantiation got place. By the Practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages, I conceive they mean thus much: That from the Age wherein the holy Apostles lived, down to that wherein Transubstantiation was set on foot, or that wherein Honorius the Third enjoined the Adoration of the Host, Kneeling in the act of Receiving the Lords Supper was never heard of nor used; or as one Author expressly asserts it, till the year 1220. Howsoever, for sureness sake, and in order to the clearing of this matter under our present Consideration, I think it will be requisite to fix the time wherein Transubstantiation was first broached, as well as when it was established, or imposed as an Article of Faith; and so too wherein the Adoration of the Host was enjoined: whereby the just bounds and limits will be known, beyond which we are not to pass to fetch in Evidence; and consequently all extravagancy will be prevented on our part, and all cavilling (if possible) on theirs.  
As for the Time then, which we inquire after, I think we may safely rely on the judgement of a very Learned Prelate of our own, which he delivers after this manner. The word Transubstantiation 
Histori. Transub. Papal. Josian. Ep. Dunelm. Edit. 1675. p. 53, 54.  is so far from being found in the sacred Scriptures, or the Writings of the ancient Fathers, that the great Patrons of it do themselves acknowledge, it was not so much as heard of before the twelfth Century. Nay, that the Thing itself without the Word, that the Doctrine without the Expression cannot be proved from Scripture, is ingenuously acknowledged by the most Learned Schoolmen, who endeavour by other Arguments 
Scotus, Durandus, Biel, Cameracen, Cajetan, etc.  therefore to defend it, and allow it to be brought in by the Authority of the Pope, and not received in the Church of Rome till 1200 years after Christ. The first Authors who mention this new-coined word Transubstantiation, are Petrus Blesensis, who lived under Pope Alexander the Third, (about the year 1159) and Stephanus Eduensis, a Bishop whose Age and Writings are very doubtful. The Pope who first established this 
An. Dom. 1215. An. Dom. 1217, or thereabouts.  monstrous Doctrine by his own Arbitrary power, as an Article of Faith, was Innocent the Third. And his Successor Honorius was the man who decreed Adoration to the Host. The first Council which took notice and approved of the Papal Decree for Transubstantiation, was that assembled at Constance, which condemned 
A: D. 1415.  Wiclif for an Heretic, because among other truths he had asserted this: That the substance of the Bread and Wine remains materially in the Sacrament of the Altar; and that in the same Sacrament no accidents of Bread an't Wine remain without a Substance: and for this Opinion they ordered his Body to be taken out of his Grave, and burnt to ashes. Thus things stood till the year 1551. when the Council of Trent published it to the world for an infallible Truth, and imposed the belief of it upon all, under the pain of an Anathema.  
As for the Doctrine of Consubstantiation, and the Corporal presence of Christ at, with, and in the Sacrament, it was started long before that of Transubstantiation, and was much disputed among learned men. He who first broached it in the East, was John Damascen, in the days of Gregory the Third. And about 
About the year 740.  an hundred years afterwards it was set afoot in the West, by the means of Paschasius Radbertus a Monk of Corbie, and one Amalarius a 
Who wrote de Ecclesias. Officiis de ord. Antiphon, etc. contemporary with Amalarius Fortunatus Ar. bp. of Triers, who wrote the Sac. Baptis. ad Carol. M.  Deacon of Metz. The former taught that Christ was Consubstantiated, or rather enclosed in the Bread, and Corporally united to it in the Sacrament; for as yet there was no thoughts of the Transubstantiation of Bread. The latter gives 
Amalar. de Ecclesi. Offic. lib. 3. c. 24. vid. lib. 3. c. 35.  it as part of his Belief, That the simple nature of the Bread and Wine mixed, is turned into a reasonable nature, viz. of the Body and Blood of Christ. Moreover, he in another place confesseth, that it was past his skill to determine what became of his Body after it was eaten. When the Body of Christ is taken with a good intention, it is not for me to dispute (saith he) whether it 
Amalar. Epist. ad Guitardum MS in Biblioth. Coll. S. Benedic. Cantabri. Cod. 55. cited by A. Bp. Usher, Ans. Jesuits Chall. p. 75. Rabanus Maurus, John Erigena Wala. Strabo, Ratramus or Bertramus.  be invisibly taken up into Heaven, or kept in our Body until the day of our burial, or exhaled into the Air, or whether it go out of the Body with the Blood, or be sent out by the mouth, etc. For this, and another Foolery of the three parts or kinds of Christ's Body, he was censured by a Synod held at Cressy, wherein it was declared by the Bishops of France, That the Bread and Wine are spiritually made the Body of Christ; which being a meat of the Mind, and not of the Belly, is not corrupted, but remaineth unto everlasting life. From whence we may learn (as also from the Writings of several Learned men of that Age who opposed these Dotages of the Corporal presence) that the Western Church had not then adulterated the Doctrine of the Sacrament, but followed the pure and sound sense of the Ancient Fathers, and condemned these Whimsies and gross conceits of the carnal or Oral eating of Christ in the Sacrament. Nay, in the year 1079. when Hildebrand called Gregory the 7th came to the Papal Chair, the Bishops and Doctors were divided in their Opinions concerning the Corporal Presence; some maintaining Berengarius his opinion who denied it, and some following that of Paschasius, as appears from the Acts of that Council (writ by those of the Pope's Faction) which was called on purpose to condemn Berengarius. Moreover, it's recorded that Hildebrand himself doubted whether what we receive at the Lords Table be indeed the Body of Christ by a substantial conversion. For three months' space was granted to Berengarius to consider in; and a Fast appointed to the Cardinals, That God would show by some sign from Heaven who was in the right, the Pope or Berengarius. It seems the Doctrine of the Pope's 
B●nno Card. in vita Hild. Epis. Dunelm. Hist. Trans. p. 135.  Infallibility was not known to that Age; and that of the Corporal presence much doubted. But however, thus much we may conclude upon, That from the dark and mysterious Writings of those men, Paschasius and Amalarius, did that monstrous Error of Transubstantiation spring, which afterwards came to be established as an Article of Faith in the Church of Rome.  
As to the time then wherein we are to contain this Discourse, it shall be the first 700 years after Christ; and to Authors only that lived within that compass, I will appeal for evidence in the matter under dispute: and surely our Dissenting Brethren will allow that they lived in the first and purest Ages, because they were dead before the Doctrines either of Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation were hatched, much less received or established in the World.  
If I would take all the advantage that our Adversaries give us, I need not confine myself within so narrow a compass. For they challenge us to produce one instance for Kneeling before the days of Honorius the Third, who lived 1220 or thereabouts; and confidently affirm Kneeling was never heard of nor used for 1200 years after Christ. I hope therefore they will not complain of foul dealing, or that I strain the point, since I give away 500 years, wherein the pure ancient Catholic Faith touching the Holy Sacrament began to decline, and was by various arts and tricks at last foully corrupted. Which piece of liberality I need not have exercised, but that I design purely to convince, not to contend. Let us therefore bring this matter under examination, and see what the practice of the Church was within the compass of 700 years after Christ; or, which is all one, in the first and purest Ages. And what I shall produce out of Antiquity, may be conveniently placed under these two general Heads, according to the method proposed in the beginning of this Discourse.  
(1) That notwithstanding several Nonconformists, well esteemed of for Learning, have in their Writings boldly asserted Kneeling to be contrary to all Antiquity; it is highly probable the Primitive Christians did Kneel in the act of Receiving, as the Custom is in the Church of England.  
(2) It's certain they used an Adoring posture.  
As to the first, I hope I shall be able to make it good by this following Account which I shall give with all possible plainness and sincerity. And I declare beforehand to all the World, that I will offer nothing for satisfaction to others, which I do not think in my Conscience to be true; and that I would not use a Fallacy to serve the Cause, though I were sure it could never be detected by any of our Separating Brethren. In the first place, for the first Century or 100 years wherein our Lord and his Apostles lived, the Scripture hath left us in the dark, and under great uncertainty what the particular Gesture was which they used at the Institution and Celebration of the Holy Sacrament; which I think I have sufficiently evinced in my Answers 
Part 1. p. 17.  to the first and second Query.  
In the next place, I desire those who urge a common Table-gesture, and particularly Sitting (which was a usual posture at Meals among those Eastern Nations as well as among us now) to observe, that Sitting was esteemed a very irreverend Posture to be used in the Worship and Service of God by the Primitive Church; of which I shall give a few instances. The ancient Loadicean 
Which met under Pope Sylvester 1. between the Neocaesarian Synod and the first general Council of Nice; that is, between the years 314 and 325, as some learned men think; or Anno Dom. 365. after the first general Nicaene Council, as others.  Synod finding great inconveniencies to arise from the Lovefeasts which were kept at the same time with the Lords Supper, prohibited absolutely the said Feasts, and the lying upon Couches in the Church; as their manner was of Solemnising those Feasts. The words of the Canon are these: The Feasts of Charity ought 
Can. 28.  not to be kept in the Lord's House or in the Church, neither may ye eat or make Couches in the House of God. This was afterward forbidden by the Council of Carthage; and the Decrees of both these Provincial or National Councils were ratified by the 6th Trullan Council, and that under the pain of Excommunication: 
Can. 74.  upon which in some time the Custom dwindled to nothing.  
Now the Reasons which induced these holy Bishops and ancient Fathers to prohibit these Feasts of Charity, and the use of a discumbing posture upon Beds or Couches in the House of God, (which was too, an ordinary Table-gesture according to the custom of those times) were in all probability taken from the Disorder and Irreverence, the Animosities and Excess that accompanied these Feasts, and which both poor and rich were guilty of: They did not distinguish between their spiritual and corporal Food, between the Lord's Supper and an ordinary Meal; they did not discern the Lords Body, as St. Paul speaks: and I am apt to think that the same abuses which had crept in so early into the Church of Corinth, and which St. Paul took notice of and reproved, continued and spread till the Church by her Censures and Decrees opposed the growing evil, and rooted up the causes of such mischievous effects.  
To these Canons of Councils, if we add the Testimony of particular Bishops, who lived in those first Ages, and who speak not their own private sense and Opinions, but Customs and Usages of the Church in their time; we shall plainly discern that Sitting was accounted an irreverent posture in the Worship of God, while they were engaged in Prayer or Praise, or receiving the Holy Sacrament.  
Justin Martyr, who lived in the second Century, which immediately 
Flor. Ann. D. 155.  succeeded that of the Apostles, seems to hint that the people sat at the Sermon, and while the Lessons were reading, when he informs us concerning the Christian Assemblies in his 
Apol. 2.  time, and the place where he lived: After the reading of the Lessons and the exhortatory Sermon of the Bishop, we rise up (saith he) all together, and send up our Prayers. He doth not indeed signify what the particular Gesture was which they used at their Prayers, but it's clear enough they did not Sat; and they might Kneel, for any thing he saith to the contrary. For it's customary among us to sit at the Sermon, and during the reading of the Lessons; and after they are ended, we may be truly said to rise up all together, and send up our Prayers: But if any one should hence infer that we stood and not kneeled, he would conclude against the Law of the Land, and the common practice of the Church: Rising up doth not necessarily imply that a man stands or knelt afterwards, but somewhat previous to both; for we generally rise before we do either. But however sitting at the Sermon and Lessons was usual in those Assemblies which this holy Father and Martyr frequented; yet in most other places the people were not permitted to sit at all, not so much as at the Lessons, or in Sermon-time; as appears partly from what Philostorgius an ancient Ecclesiastical Historian observes 
Hist. Eccles. l. 3. n. 5. p. 29. Flor. A. D. 425  of Theophilus an Indian Bishop; That among several irregularities which he corrected in those Churches, he particularly reform this, that the people were wont to sit when the Lessons out of the Gospel were read unto them: And partly from Sozomens History, wherein he notes it as a very unusual thing in the Bishop of Alexandria, that he did not rise up when the Gospels were read.  
But the fullest evidence Optatus Bishop of Milevis affords us, 
Eccles. Hist. l. 7. c. 19 p. 734. Flor. A. D. 440  by what he writes against Parmenianus the Donatist. For after he had taxed him with Pride and Innovation, with a censorious uncharitable spirit which animated all his Tractates or Sermons to the people, he citys a passage out of the Psalms, and applies it home to him, after this manner: Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother, etc. in which place God reproves him 
Psal. 49. in our Transl. 50. 20. Lib. 4. de Schis. Donat. p. 78. Par. Edit. An. D. 365. Vid. Albasp. not. in 4 lib. O●tat.  who fits and defames his Brother: and therefore such evil Teachers as you (says he) are more particularly pointed at in this Text; For the people are not licenced to sit in the Church. This Text chief respects the Bishops and Presbyters, who had only a right and privilege to sit in the Public and Religious Assemblies; but doth not concern the people, who stood all the time. Now if it had not been a general and prevailing custom among the Christians of those times, as well Heretical as Orthodox, to stand the whole time of Divine Service, and particularly at the Lessons and Sermons, Parmenianus might have easily retorted this Argument upon Optatus, as being weak, and concluding nothing against him in particular, but what might be charged in common upon all private Christians who sat in the Church as well as he.  
Again, that Sitting was esteemed irreverent in the Worship 
Floruit An. D. 198. Tertul. de Orat. c. 12. Tom. 2. p. 130. edit. Collon. Agrip. 1617. item quod adsignata oratione assidendi mos, est quibusdam, etc.  of God, will further be manifested from a passage or two in Tertullian, who lived in the same Century with Justin Martyr before cited: and I think nothing can be spoken more plain and home to the purpose than what he delivers concerning this Gesture, which is so much contended for by our Dissenting Brethren. For among other vanities and ill customs taken notice of and reproved by this ancient Father, this was one, That they were wont (some of them) to fit at Prayer. A little further in the same Chapter, Tertullian hath these words: Add hereunto the sin of 
Eo apponitur & irreverentiae crimen etiam ipsis nationibus si quid saperent intelligendum. Si quidem irreverens est assidere sub conspectu contraque conspectum ejus quem cum maxime reverearis ac venereris; quanto magis sub conspectu Dei vivi, Angelo adhuc orationis adstante, factum illud irreligiosissimum est? nisi exprobramus Deo quod oratio fatigaverit. Tertull. de Oratione, c. 12.  Irreverence, which the very Heathen, if they did perceive well and understand what we did, would take notice of. For if it be irreverent to sit in the presence of, and to confront one whom you have a high respect and veneration for, How much more irreligious is this Gesture in the sight of the living God, the Angel of Prayer yet standing by! unless we think fit to upbraid God that Prayer hath tired us. Add to all this that saying of Constantine the great, 
Euseb. de vit. Const. mag. lib. 4 p. 400. Col. Allob. 1612.  recorded by Eusebius as an indication of the Piety of that Christian Emperor, with which I will conclude this point. It was upon occasion of a Panegyric concerning the Sepulchre of our Saviour, delivered by Eusebius, not in the Church, but in the Palace of the Emperor; and the Historian observes, to the praise of this excellent Prince, that though it was a long and tedious Oration, and though the Emperor was earnestly solicited to fit down on his Throne which was hard by, yet he refused, and stood attentively all the time, as the rest of the Auditory did; affirming it to be unfit to attend upon any Discourse concerning God with ease and softness; and that it was very consonant to Piety and Religion, that Discourses about Divine things should be heard standing.  
Thus much may suffice for satisfaction, that the ancient Church did by no means approve of Sitting, or a common Table-gesture, as fitting to be used in time of Divine Service, except at the reading of the Lessons, and hearing of the Sermon; which too was only practised in some places; for in others the people were not allowed to sit at all in their religious Assemblies. Which Custom is still observed in most, if not all the Eastern Churches at this day, wherein there are no Seats erected or allowed for the use of the people.  
Now upon what hath been said, I shall only make this brief Reflection, and so proceed. If the Apostles of our Lord had (in pursuance of their Commission to teach all Nations) in their Travels throughout the World, every where taught and established sitting or discumbing, (which were the common Table-gestures according to the customs of those Eastern Countries) not only as convenient, but as necessary to be used in order to worthy receiving the Lords Supper; it is a most strange and unaccountable thing how there should be (1) Such an early and universal Revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and the Constitutions of the holy Apostles; and then (2) Considering what a high value and esteem the Primitive Christians had for the Apostles, the first founders of their Faith, and for all that passed under their names, it seems to me not only highly improbable, but morally impossible, that so many Churches, together with their respective Bishops and Pastors dwelling in remote and distant Countries, (not biased by Faction, nor swayed by a superior Authority, being perfectly free and independent one upon another) should unanimously consent and conspire together to introduce a novel Custom into the Church of Christ, contrary to Apostolical Practice and Order; and not only so, but (3) to Censure the practice and injunctions of divinely-inspired men, as indecent and unfit to be followed and observed in the public Worship of God: and all this without the least notice taken by, without any complaint or opposition from any particular person either in the then present or succeeding generation.  
(3) The Primitive Church esteemed the Holy Sacrament to be the most solemn part of Christian Worship, as that which deservedly challenged from them the utmost pitch of Devotion, and the highest degree of Reverence that they could possibly pay and express either with their Souls or Bodies. This is clear, partly from those Honorary Titles they bestowed upon this Ordinance and adorned it with, which import the greatest deference and the most awful regard imaginable; partly from that tedious 
See part 1. p. 58.  and severe Discipline which she exercised the Catechumen and Penitents with, before she admitted them into the Communion of the Faithful, and approved of them as fit to partake of the Holy Mysteries. To be admitted to the Sacrament so only as to behold it, and to be present at those Prayers which were put up by worthy Communicants over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice, was heretofore accounted a high honour and privilege: But to make one at this heavenly Feast, and to receive the pledges of our Lords love, was esteemed the top and perfection of Christianity, and the extremity of honour and happiness that a Christian is capable of in this life. Heretofore (with shame and reproach be it spoken to our stupidly wicked and degenerate Age) to be excluded from the Holy Communion, was looked upon as the greatest curse and punishment that could be inflicted: and on the other hand, to be a Communicant, to have a freedom of access to the Lords Table, as the greatest blessing and most ample reward that could be propounded; the sum of a Christians hopes, the centre of all his wishes during his abode here.  
(4.) For standing in time of Divine Service, both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament, there are so many and so clear testimonies extant in pure Antiquity, that a man must take a great deal of pains not to see this truth, who is never so little conversant in the Records of those times: and in such a man it must be height of folly or impudence to deny it. The bare asserting of it shall be sufficient; because to insist upon the proof of it by an enumeration of particulars, would swell this Discourse beyond measure; and besides, it would be a needless labour, since the great Patrons of sitting, or the common Table-gesture, 
Gillesp. Disp. against En. Po. Cer. point. 1660. p. 190, 191.  do frankly own and acknowledge that Standing was a posture generally used by the ancient Church in her religious Assemblies, both at their ordinary Prayers, and at the Communion-service. Howsoever, I shall be forced to say something concerning this matter under the following particular.  
(5) Which is this: That the Primitive Christians (though on the Lords days, and for the space of 50 days between Easter and Whitsunday they observed Standing, yet at other times) used the gesture of Kneeling at their public Devotions. Which will appear from a Decree passed in the first general Council assembled at Nice, in words to this effect: Because there are some 
Can 20 about the year 325.  which Kneel on the Lord's day, and in the days of Pentecost, (that is, between Easter and Whitsunday) it is therefore ordained by this holy Synod, that when we pay our Vows unto the Lord in Prayer, we observe a Standing gesture, to the end that a uniform and agreeable Custom may be maintained or secured through all Churches. By which Canon provision was made against Kneeling, not as if it were an inconvenient and unbecoming gesture to be used at all in the public Worship of God, but only as being an irregular and unfit posture to be used at such particular times and occasions as is there specified, viz. on the Lords days, and the Feast of Pentecost; when for any Christian to stand, was to cross the general Custom and Practice of the Church at that time: For this Council did not (you must note) introduce and establish any new thing in the Church, but only endeavoured by its authority to keep alive and in credit an ancient Custom, which they saw began to be neglected by some Christians. And from that clause in the Canon, Because there are some which Kneel on the Lord's day and in the days of Pentecost, etc. we may with good reason infer, that Kneeling was the posture that was generally used at other times in their religious Assemblies. For if Standing had been generally observed by all Churches in time of Divine Service at all other times as well as those mentioned in the Decree, what occasion or necessity had there been for such an Injunction, whereby all Christians were obliged to do that which they constantly and universally did before? There is a passage in the Author of the Questions and Answers in Justin Martyr, which will put this matter out of doubt, and give us the reason why they altered their posture on the Lord's day: It is 
Respons. ad quest. 115. p. 468.  (saith he) that by this means we may be put in mind both of our Fall by Sin, and our Resurrection and Restitution by the Grace of Christ: that for six days we pray upon our Knees, is in token of our Fall by Sin; but that on the Lord's day we do not bow the Knee, doth symbolically represent our Resurrection, etc. This he there tells us was a Custom derived from the very times of the Apostles; for which he citys Irenaeus in his Book concerning Easter. That it was ancient, appears from Tertullian, who lived in the same Age with Irenaeus, and speaks of it as if it had been established 
An. Dom. 198.  by Apostolical Authority, or at least by Custom had obtained the force of a Law; for these are his words: We esteem 
Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare. Tert. de Cor. mil. c. 3. 206. Col. Agrip. edit. 1617. Epiph. exposit. Fid. Cathol. p. 1105. edit. Par. Flor. An. Dom. 390. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. St. Hieronym. prolog. Comment. in Ep. ad Ephes.  it a great act of wickedness or villainy, either to Fast or Kneel on the Lord's day. Which intimates too, that Fasting and Kneeling in their public Worship, were both lawful and customary at other times. To whose Testimony if we join that of another Father who lived some time after the first general Nicene Council, we need not produce any more witnesses to clear the matter. It is that of Epiphanius in his Exposition of the Catholic Faith; where he certifies, that the weekly stated Fasts (of Wednesday and Friday) were diligently kept by the Catholic Church the whole year round, excepting the fifty days of Pentecost, on which they do not Kneel, nor is there any Fast appointed. The reason of which Custom was (as both St. Jerome and St. Augustin attest) because all that space between Easter and Whitsunday was a time of joy and triumph, viz. over Death and the Grave; and therefore on these days we neither Fast nor bend our Knees, nor incline and bow down our Bodies, but with our Lord are lifted up to Heaven. We pray standing (all that time) which is a sign of the Resurrection. 
St. August. Ep. 119. ad Jan. c. 15.  By which posture, that is, we signify our belief of that Article. From whence we may conclude, that as the Christians of those first Ages did at other times certainly Fast, so they did also certainly Kneel at their Prayers in their public and religious Assemblies.  
(6) Another thing I would have observed in order to my present design, is this; That the Primitive Christians were wont to receive the Holy Sacrament every day, as oft as they came together for public Worship: which Custom as it was introduced 
Acts 2. 42, 46. Acts 20. 7. compared with 1 Cor. 10. 16.  and practised by the Apostles themselves (according to the judgement of very Learned men, and that not without good grounds from the Holy Scripture) so it continued a considerable time in the Church, even down to  
St. Austin, who flourished in the beginning 
Ann. Dom. 410. St. Aug: Epist. 118. ad Januarium, c. 2, 3. p. 556. 7. Basil. edit. a Froben. 1541. St. Ambr. cap. ult. lib. 5. c. 4. de Sacram. p. 449. Paris. St. Hier. adver. Jovinian. p 37. Paris. id. in Epist. ad Lucinium Baeticum, p. 71. edit.  of the fifth Century; and seems clearly to intimate to us in his Writings, that it was customary in his days as St. Ambrose and St. Hierome had hinted before him concerning the Churches of Milan and Rome in their times. From St. Cyprian we are fully 
Vid. Dr. Cave, Prim. Christ. p. 339. St. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Oxon. edit. 1682. Can. 9 Apost. & Antiochen. Concil. Can. 2. Basil Ep. 289. ad Caesariam Patriciam, To. 3. p. 279.  assured that it was so in his days, viz. about the year 250. For in his explication of that Petition in the Lord's Prayer, Give us this day our daily bread, he expressly tells us, that they did receive the Eucharist every day, as the food that nourished them to Salvation. St. Basil Bishop of Caesaria, who lived about 370 years after Christ, affirms, that in his Church they communicated four times a Week; on the Lord's day, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; two of which were station-days, or set days of Fasting which were punctually observed by the generality of Christians in those times. And this I the rather note, because in all probability, since they did receive the Sacrament on these days, they did not alter the Posture of the day, but received Kneeling: For if Kneeling was adjudged by the Catholic Church an unsuitable and improper posture for times of mirth and joy, such as the Lords days and those of Pentecost were; and if they were thought guilty of a great irregularity, who used that posture on those Festivals; then we may reasonably conclude, that Standing, which was the Festival Posture, was not used by the Catholic Church on days of Fasting and Humiliation; and that they who stood at their public Devotions on Fasting days, were as irregular as they who kneeled on a Festival. And that this was really so, may, I think, be clearly collected from a passage in Tertullian to this purpose; 
Tertull. de Orat. c. 3. p. 206. Edit. Col. Agrip. 1617.  We judge it an unlawful and impious thing (says he) either to Fast or Kneel at our Devotions on the Lord's day. We rejoice in the same freedom or immunity from Easter to Whitsuntide. To be freed and exempted from Fasting and Kneeling, not only on the Lord's day, but all the days of Pentecost, was esteemed a great privilege, and matter of much joy to this Holy Father, and the Christians who lived in his days. And from hence I infer, that at other times, when they met together for public Worship, (especially on days of Fasting) they generally used Kneeling, and that at the Lords Supper, which was administered every day in the African 
So St. Cyprian before cited.  Church, whereof Tertullian was a Presbyter. For if they had generally stood at all other times of the year in their religious Assemblies, as well at their Prayers as at the Lords Supper, where is the privilege and immunity they boasted so much of, and rejoiced in, viz. that they were freed from Kneeling on such days and at such certain times? Not to Fast on the Lord's day was a Privilege, because they did Fast on the Weekdays; and so say I of Standing: To Stand on the Lords days, and all the time between Easter and Whitsunday, could not be thought a special act of favour and the Prerogative of those seasons, if Kneeling had not been the ordinary and common Gesture at all other times throughout the year. And if Kneeling was the 
Didoclavius his own argument retorted. Si stabant inter orandum (viz. Die Dominico & toto temporis intervallo inter Pascha & Pentecosten) non est probabile de geniculis adorasse cum perciperent Eucharistiam, sed potius contrarium, nempe stetisse. Altar. Damasc. p. 784.  Gesture which the Christians did then commonly use at their Prayers on the Weekdays; then in all probability, when they received the Sacrament on those days, they received in the ordinary posture.  
The (7th) and last particular which I would observe relating to this business, is this: That the Primitive Christians received the Holy Sacrament Praying. The whole Communion Service was performed with Prayer and Praise. It was begun with a general Prayer, wherein the Minister and the whole Congregation jointly prayed for the Universal 
Tert. Apol. c. 39 p. 47. St. Aug. Ep. 118. Const. Apost. l. 2. c. 57 p. 881. St. Chrys. Hom. 1. in 2. cap. Epist. 1. Tim.  Peace and Welfare of the Church, for the Tranquillity and the quietness of the World, for the Prosperity of the Age, for wholesome Wether and fruitful Seasons, for Kings and Emperors, and all in Authority, etc. The Elements were sanctified by a solemn Benediction, the form whereof is set down by St. Ambrose; and 
De Sacr. lib. 4. c 5. p. 439. See Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity c. 11. p. 347.  the whole action was concluded with Prayer and Thanksgiving. But that which more particularly affects the matter in hand, is, that the Minister used a Prayer at the delivery of the Sacrament to each Communicant, to which every one at their receiving said Amen.  
The Apostolical Constitutions, though in some things much corrupted and adulterated, yet in many things are very sound, and in this particular seem to express the most Ancient Practice of the Church. For there we find this Account.  
The Apostolical Constitutions (confessed by all hands to be very 
Mr. Daillé sets them at the latter end of the 5 Century. Const. Apost. lib. 8. c. 13. p. 483.  Ancient, though not altogether so much as is pretended in some things) give us this plain account in these words: Let the Bishop give the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Sacrifice (by which name the Holy Sacrament was called in Primitive times) saying, The Body of Christ: and let him that receives say Amen. Then let the Deacon take the Cup, and at the delivery say, The Blood of Christ, the Cup of Life; and let him that drinketh say Amen.  
Now although it cannot be denied but that these Constitutions are in many things adulterated, yet it is allowed on the other hand, that in many things they are very sincere, and convey to us the pure Practice of the most ancient times. That they give a true and sound account in this matter relating to the Sacrament, we may rest fully satisfied, from the concuring Evidence of other ancient Writers who lived in the fourth Century: For both St. Ambrose and St. Cyril of Jerusalem 
Ambr. de Sacr. lib 4. c. 5. p. 440. To. 4. St. Cyril Hiero. Catech. Mystag. 5. Universa Ecclesia accepto Christi Sanguine dicit Amen. Resp. ad Orosi. quest. 49. To. 4. p. 691. Basil. 1541.  make express mention of the people's saying Amen when the Minister said The Body of Christ. So also St. Austin speaks of it as universally practised by the Church of Christ when the Cup was delivered. And there is a very remarkable passage recorded by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, which being very apposite to our purpose, I will set down for the close of all.  
Novatius a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, having renounced the Communion of the Church and the Authority of his rightful Bishop Cornelius, set up for himself, and became the head 
Epist. Cornel. ad Fab. apud Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. 6. c. 35. de Novato.  of an unreasonable and unnatural Schism; and the better to secure to him the Proselytes he had gained, he altered the usual form of Prayer at the Sacrament, and in the room thereof, substituted a new-fangled Oath which he obliged every Communicant to take at the time of their receiving; which (among other wicked actions) is particulary taken notice of and charged upon him by Cornelius, as the worst of all, and the most villainous Innovation. When he 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  came (says he) to offer Sacrafices (i. e. to celebrate the Lords Supper) and to distribute to every one his part, at the delivery of it he constrained those persons who unhappily sided with him to take an Oath, instead of offering up Prayers and Praises according to custom; and instead of saying Amen, he forced every Communicant when he received the Bread, to say, I will never return to Cornelius as long as I live.  
From these plain instances we may see how closely our Church follows the steps of pure antiquity in the Form of Prayer appointed to be used by the Minister at the giving of the Bread and the Cup to the people; which runs thus: The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life, etc. which last Clause was added by latter times, by way of explication, to that short Form which the Primitive Church used: and surely it's every Christians interest, as well as his duty, to join with the Minister in such a Prayer, and return a hearty Amen to it.  
I will now briefly sum up the Evidence that hath been produced out of Antiquity in justification of Kneeling at the Holy Communion, according to the custom and practice of our Church; and observe where it directs us to fix, and what to resolve upon. And in this order it lies: Sitting was adjudged by the ancient Catholic Church a very unfit and irreverent posture to be used in time of Divine Service, when they were solemnly engaged in the Worship of God; the Holy Sacrament was esteemed the most solemn Act or Branch of Christian Worship; The Primitive Christians generally used standing at their public Devotions, only on the Lords days, and all that space of time that falls between Easter and Whitsunday; At all other times in their religious Assemblies Kneeling was their Worshipping posture; and they were wont to meet and receive the Lords Supper every day, and particularly on their stated Weekly Fasts, which they kept every Wednesday and Friday, when to stand was thought as great an irregularity, as to kneel was on the Lord's day: And lastly, the Holy Sacrament was delivered and received with a Form of Prayer, and that on those days when they constantly prayed Kneeling. All these things therefore being considered, I think the least that can be concluded from them, is what I asserted and designed, viz. that in all likelihood the Primitive Christians did kneel at the Holy Communion, as the Custom is in the Church of England: For sitting was generally condemned as an indecent and irreverent Gesture by the Primitive Church; and no man in his wits will say that prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever used in the act of receiving, or ever fit to be so: it must be therefore one of these two; either Standing or Kneeling.  
As for Standing all the time of public Worship which was used only on the Lord's day and in Pentecost, the reason thereof was drawn not from the Sacrament, but from the day and festival season, when they did more particularly Communicate the Resurrection of our blessed Saviour, openly testified their belief of that great Article; at such times therefore they chose standing, as being a gesture suitable to the present occasion, and as an Emblem and sign of the Resurrection.  
And from hence I gather, that on their common and ordinary days (when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to stand at the Sacrament) in all likelihood they used Kneeling, that is, the ordinary posture. They used one and the same posture (viz. Standing) both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lord's day, and for fifty days after Easter, contrary to what was usual at other times; and why then should any man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times? viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers, so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament, which was given and received in a Prayer.  
From the strength of these Premises, I may howsoever promise myself thus much success: That whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind, shall find himself much more inclined to believe the Primitive Church used at some times to Kneel (as we do) at the Holy Communion, than that they never did Kneel at all, or that such a posture was never used nor heard of, but excluded from their Congregations, as some great advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaimed it to the World.  
(2.) But secondly, Suppose they never did Kneel as we do, yet this is most certain, that they received the Lords Supper in an adoring posture; which is the same thing, and will sufficiently justify the present practice of our Church, as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity. For the proof of this, numerous testimonies both of Greek and Latin Fathers might be alleged, but I will content myself (and I hope the Reader too) with a few of each sort, which are so plain and express, that he who will except against them, will also with the same face and assurance except against the Whiteness of Snow, and the Light of the Sun at Noonday.  
And first for the Greek Fathers, let the testimony of St. Cyril 
St. Cyril, Hierosol. Mystag. Catech. 5. versus finem. Paris. edit. p. 244.  be heard, than which nothing can be more plain and express to our purpose: This holy Father in a place before cited, gives instructions to Communicants how to behave themselves when they approach the Lords Table, and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine. At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus: Approach (says he) not rudely stretching forth thy 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 245. A.  hands, but bowing thyself, and in a posture of Worship and Adoration, saying Amen. To the same purpose St. chrysostom speaks in his 14th Homily on the first Epistle to the Corinthians; Where he provokes and excites the Christians of his time, to an awful and reverential deportment at the Holy Communion, by the example of the Wise men who adored our Saviour in his Infancy, after 
Matth. 2. 1, 11.  this manner: This Body the Wise men reverenced even when it lay in the Manger, and approaching thereunto, worshipped it with fear and great trembling. Let 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 24 Hom. Ep. ad. Cor. p. 538. To. 9 Paris.  us therefore who are Citizens of Heaven, imitate at least these Barbarians. But thou seest this Body, not in a Manger, but on the Altar; not held by a Woman, but by the Priest, etc. Let us therefore stir up ourselves, and be horribly afraid, and manifest a much greater Reverence than those Barbarians, lest coming lightly and at a venture, we heap fire on our heads. In another place the same Father expressly bids them to fall down and communicate, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. St. Chrys. Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes. in moral. p. 1151.  when the Table was prepared, and the King himself present: and in order to beget in their minds great and awful thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast, he further advises them, that when they saw the Chancel doors opened, than they should suppose Heaven itself was unfolded from above, and that the Angels descended, to be spectators I suppose he means of their carriage and behaviour at the Lords Table, and by giving their attendance to grace the solemnity. With the Testimony of these ancient Writers Theodoret concurs, who in a Dialogue between an Orthodox 
Flor. A. D. 440.  Christian and an Heretic, introduces Orthodoxus thus discoursing concerning the Lords Supper. The mysterious Symbols or signs in the Sacrament (viz. Bread and Wine) depart not from their proper nature, for they abide in their former Essence, & retain their former shape and form; and approve themselves both to our sight and touch to be what they were before: but they are considered 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dialog. 2. To. 4. p. 85. Paris. edit.  for such as they are made, (that is, with respect to their Spiritual signification, and that Divine use to which they were consecrated) and are believed and adored as those very things which they are believed to be. Which words clearly import thus much, that the consecrated Elements were received with a Gesture of Adoration, and withal assure us, that such a carriage at the Sacrament was not built upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. For there is not a clearer instance in all Antiquity against that absurd Doctrine which the Church of Rome so obstinately believes at this day, than what Theodoret furnisheth us with in the words above mentioned. Lastly, (to produce no more out of the Greek Fathers) that story which Gregory Nazianzen 
Gregor. Naz. Orat. in laud. Gorg. p. 187. Paris. edit. Gregor. Flor. Ann. Dom. 370.  relates concerning his Sister Gorgonia, will serve to corroborate what hath been said, viz. That being sick, and having made use of several Remedies to no purpose, at last she resolved upon this course: In the stillness of the night she repaired to the public Church, and being provided with some of the consecrated Elements which she had reserved at home, she fell down on her Knees before the Altar, and with a loud voice supplicated him whom she adored, and in conclusion was made hole. I am not much concerned whether the Reader shall think fit to believe or censure the Miracle; but it's certain, that this famous Bishop hath put it upon Record, and applauds his Sister for the method she used for her recovery, and which speaks home to my purpose; it's clearly intimated that this pious Woman did Kneel, or use an adoring posture at least when she eat the Sacramental Bread. And there is no doubt to be made but Gorgonia in Communicating observed the same posture that others generally did in public: She did that in her sickness, which all others were wont to do in their health when they came to the Lords Table; i. e. fall down and Kneel. For it is not to be imagined that at such a time as this, when she came to beg so great a Blessing at God's hands in the public Church at the Altar, styled by the Ancients the Place of Prayer, she would be guilty of any irregularity, and used a singular Posture different from what was generally used by Christians when they came to the same place to Communicate and Pray over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice; which they esteemed the most powerful and effectual way of Praying, the most likely to render God propitious, and to prevail with him above all other Prayers which they offered at any other time, or in any other place. So much for the testimonies of the Greek Fathers, who were men famous for Learning and Piety in their generations, and great Lights and Ornaments in the Ancient Church. With these the Latin Fathers perfectly agree in their judgements concerning our present subject. And of these I will only mention two (though more might be produced) for brevity sake, and they very eminent and illustrious persons, held in great esteem by the then present Age wherein they flourished, and by all succeeding Generations. The first is St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan, in a 
Flor. A. D. 370. Psal. 98. Ps. 99 5. in our Translation. Ambros. de Sp. Sto. l. 3. c. 12.  Book he wrote concerning the Holy Spirit, where enquiring after the meaning of the Psalmist when he exhorts men to exalt the Lord and to worship his Footstool, he gives us the sense in these words: That it seems to belong unto the mystery of our Lord's Incarnation; and then proceeds to show for what reason it may be accommodated to that Mystery: and at last concludes thus: By the Footstool therefore is the earth 
Itaque per Scabellum terra intelligitur, per terram autem caro Christi, quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus, & quam Apostoli in Dom. Jesus adorarunt.  to be understood, and by the earth the Body of Christ, which at this day too we adore in the Sacrament, and which the Apostles worshipped in the Lord Jesus, etc. On the very same words St. Austin (Bishop of Hippo) comments, and to the same purpose. For thus he resolves that Question, how or in what sense the earth his Footstool may be worshipped without Impiety? Because he took earth of the earth, for flesh is of the earth; and he took flesh of the flesh of Mary. And because he conversed here in the flesh, and gave us his very flesh to eat unto Salvation. Now there is none who eateth that 
Nemo carnem illam manducat, nisi prius adoraverit.  flesh, but first worshippeth. We have found then how this Footstool may be adored; so that we are so far from sinning by adoring, that we really sin if we do not Adore. In the judgement therefore of these Primitive Bishops, we may lawfully adore at the Mysteries, though not the Mysteries themselves; at the Sacraments, not the Sacraments themselves; the Creator in the Creature which is sanctified, not the Creature itself: as a late Protestant Writer of 
Phil. Mornay du Plessis de Missa, l 4. c. 7. p. 732.  prime Quality and Learning among the French, distinguishes upon the forecited words of St. Ambrose.  
From these few Instances I think it appears evident, that the Primitive Christians used an adoring posture at the Sacrament in the act of receiving. It were easy to heap together many other Witnesses, if it were necessary so to do, either to prove or clear the Cause in hand: but since there is no need, to pester the Discourse with numerous references and appeals to Antiquity, would but puzzle and obscure the Argument, and tend in all likelihood rather to confound and disgust, than convince and gratify the Reader.  
By what hath been alleged, the practice of our Church in Kneeling at the Sacrament is sufficiently justified, as agreeable to the Customs and Practice of pure Antiquity. For if the Ancients did at the Sacrament use a posture of Worship and Adoration, (which that they did, is very plain) then Kneeling is not repugnant to the practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages; no, though we should suppose that Kneeling was never practised among them: which will appear, if we cast our eyes a little upon that heavy Charge which some of the fiercest but less prudent Adversaries of Kneeling have drawn up against it. They object against Kneeling, as being an Adoring gesture; For they affirm, That to kneel in the act of Receiving, before the consecrated 
Gillesp. p. 166. 172 Altar Damas'. p. 801. Rutherf. Divine Right of Ch. Gou. c. 1. Qu. 5. Sec. 1. 3.  Bread and Wine, is formal Idolatry. So also to kneel before any Creature as a memorative object of God, though there be no intention of giving divine Adoration to that Creature, is Idolatry. Now if the Primitive Christians may be supposed to prostrate themselves before the Altar upon their first approach thither in order to receive, or immediately after they had received the Bread and the Cup from the hand of the Minister; or if they bowed their Heads and Bodies after a lowly manner, in the act of Receiving; or if they received standing upright, and eat and drank at the Lords Table with their Hands and Eyes lifted up to Heaven; then they were guilty of Idolatry, as well as we who kneel at the Sacrament, in the judgement of those Scotch Casuists; and consequently, Kneeling at the Holy Communion, according to the Custom of our Church, is not contrary to the practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages. For all those postures before mentioned were postures of Worship and Adoration, and used as such by the Primitive Christians: especially standing, which is allowed by 
Gillesp. Disp. against E. Po. Cer. p. 191. Disp. of kneel. p. 93.  the Patrons of Sitting to be anciently and most generally used in time of Divine Worship, and particularly in the act of Receiving.  
I will conclude all with an Instance in their own Case about a common Table-gesture. Suppose the Primitive Christians did in some places receive the Holy Sacrament Sitting, or lying along upon Beds, as the ancient Custom was in those Eastern Countries, at their common and ordinary Tables: Put the Case that in other places they sat crosslegged on Carpets at the Lords Supper, as the Turks and Persians eat at this day; or that they received Standing in other places, according to the common mode of Feasting; which we will suppose only at present. Can any man now reasonably object against the lawfulness of Sitting upright at the Sacrament upon a Form or Chair (according to the Custom of England) as being contrary to the practice of all Antiquity, who never sat at all? Certainly no. For though they differ from the Ancients as to the Site of their Bodies, and the particular mode of Receiving, yet they all agree in this, that they receive in a common Table-gesture: They all use the same Gesture at the Sacrament, that they constantly used at their civil Feasts and ordinary Entertainments in the several places of their abode. And so say I in the present Case; What though the Primitive Christians stood upright some of them at the Sacrament, and others bowed their Heads and Bodies in the Act of Receiving, and none of them ever used Kneeling? Yet they and we do very well agree for all that, because we all receive in an Adoring or Worshipping Posture. It is one and the same thing variously expressed, according to the modes of different Countries.   

Query V Whether it be unlawful to Receive Kneeling, because this Gesture was first introduced by Idolaters, and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to idolatrous ends and purposes.  
ALl that is needful to be said for satisfaction in this Case, may be comprised under these two Propositions, which I will endeavour to make good.  

(1) It can never be proved that Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was first brought in by Idolaters, as is pretended and supposed in the Question.  
(2) That it is not sinful to use such Things and Rites as either have been or are notoriously abused to Idolatry.   
As to the first of these Propositions, I have in my Answer to the fourth Query made it (I think) appear very probable, That the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages did Kneel, as we do at this day, in the Act of Receiving. And if this be allowed, than they who oppose Kneeling will be unavoidably driven upon one of these two things: Either they must pronounce the Primitive Christians guilty of Idolatry, or not guilty. If they say they were Idolaters, than the former Objection against Kneeling contained in the fourth Query is void of all sense, and falls to the ground; viz. That Kneeling is contrary to the general practice of pure Antiquity. If they were clear from Idolatry, than the present Objection comes to nothing; viz. That Kneeling is unlawful, as being first introduced by Idolaters.  
But secondly, to come close to the Question, let us try if we can find the time when, and the idolatrous persons by whom Kneeling was first brought into practice. And surely there are none so likely to inform us, as they who raise the Objection; for if they do not make out these particulars, they talk at random, and say nothing to the purpose. And what are the clear and undeniable Proofs (for such I am sure they ought to be in this case) which they produce to make good this Charge against Kneeling? No other than these, that I can find by my best search into the Writings of the most learned Advocates for Sitting: Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Eucharist was not known to the 
Altar. Damascen. p. 542. c. 9 de Adiaph.  Church for a thousand years, etc. It was never known to the Church and Fathers before that monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation sprung up and grew strong in the world. It was instituted by Antichrist, and that in honour of the Breaden God, and to confirm the 
Id. c. 10. p. 780. 782.  Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the carnal presence. Nay the same Author affirms, that this Gesture was never used before the time of Honorius; and challenges all the world to produce one Testimony before that Age for the use of it; and withal acknowledges at the same time, that Honorius did not institute Kneeling in the Act of Receiving. 
784.   
This is Didoclave alias Calderwood his Account; which is so blind and confused, and inconsistent with itself, that it proves nothing, but that the Author had a great mind to say somewhat to the purpose, but knew not what or how. It was unknown, he saith, to the Church for a thousand years; and again, not known till Transubstantiation sprung up and grew to Maturity; and again, never used till the time of Pope Honorius, who lived about the beginning of the Thirteenth Century, and came to the Papacy in the year 1216. Now it's strange to me how Kneeling at the Sacrament should be known about a thousand years after Christ, and yet never used till the year 1216, or thereabouts: This is all one with saying, Playing upon Organs was never heard of nor known till the Reign of King Henry the Seventh, but then Organs were never played upon till King James came to the Crown. And then again, though Kneeling was brought in by Antichrist, it was not brought in by Honorius, but in his time only. All the light therefore that this Author (who hath taken as much pains, and shown as much Learning as any man whatsoever in defence of Sitting) affords us, is only this: That Kneeling was brought in at some time or other, but he could not well tell when; and by somebody or other, what do ye call him; but it's uncivil to name names.  
The other Adversaries of Kneeling are very bold in their general Charge as any men can be, but very  of coming 
Disp. against Kneel. p. 99 Abridg. p. 30, 31. Disp. p. 99  to Particulars. The man of sin was the Author and (to make all sure) the Mother of it, says one. It grew first from the persuasion of the real presence, and this when Antichrist was at his full height, says another. And in the grossest time of Idolatry that 
p. 94.  the eye of the Christian World hath seen. If when Honorius (as the Disputer proceeds) made his Decree for Adoring the Sacrament, Kneeling were not in use, what follows from hence? Why then in all probability Kneeling at the Communion was not received into practice in any Age preceding the days of Honorius. But when Honorius made his Decree for Adoring the Sacrament, Keeling was not in use: that is, If Kneeling were not in use when Honorius made his Decree, than it never was in use before. What shifts are men put to, when they undertake to defend an ill Cause! Who is there so ignorant, as not to know that things may grow out of fashion and use? What for some ages was a general and prevailing Custom, may in tract of time wear off, and dwindle to nothing. I need say no more to expose the weakness of this Argument, than to put it thus: Sitting was not in use in the time of Honorius, therefore in all probability it was never in use in any preceding Age.  
After all too, it's strange that Kneeling at the Sacrament should spring (as these Writers affirm) from that monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation and a Conceit of the corporal presence of Christ, and not be in use in the days of Honorius when he made the Decree of Adoration. Because that Doctrine had been disputed many years before among learned men, and was established by Papal authority in the year 1215, before Honorius was elected Pope. But to pass by this, it appears from the Writings of these men, that they unanimously agree in this: Kneeling was brought in by the man of sin, by Antichrist, after Transubstantiation sprung up, and in the time of Honorius the Third. They all agree too, in talking confidently and at large concerning this matter, without all Reason or Proof to make out their Assertion, but It is so, and It must needs be so, right or wrong: and the common People swallow all for Gospel, and have got Honorius his name by the end, and so the matter is determined.  
However, thus much I think is gained in favour of Kneeling, from what these our great Adversaries say against it; That it was not introduced by any Pope of Rome. For when they say the man of sin was the Mother of Kneeling, and Antichrist brought it in; if they mean by those Phrases (as they generally in their other Writings do) the Pope or the Bishop of Rome, than the matter is out of doubt, they themselves being Judges. Because they expressly affirm, that Kneeling was never practised before Pope Honorius 
Disp. p. 81.  his time; and even then it was not instituted by him, but by somebody else. But if by the man of sin and Antichrist, they mean any number or Society of men, as the Conclave of Cardinals, 
Altar. Dam. p. 784. c. 10.  suppose, or some prevailing Faction in a Provincial or General Council, spurred on by Avarice and Ambition to enlarge and support the Pope's Authority; then it's very strange, and unaccountable, that their Constitutions and Decrees for Kneeling should nowhere be found, nor the least mention made in any Records or Histories concerning such a matter. That there are none such to be met with any where, I will appeal to Mr. Prynne, as good a Terrier as ever lived, and no Friend to Kneeling. There is not one Canon to be found (says he) made by any General, National, Provincial Council or 
Mr. Prynne Apol. for lib. to tender Con. p. 75. printed 1662.  Synod, from Christ's institution of the Lords Supper, till above 1460 years after his Ascension: Nor any one Rubric in all the Liturgies, Writings of the Fathers, or Missals, Breviaries, Offices, Pontificals, Ceremonials of the Church of Rome itself, that I could either find upon my best search, or any other yet produced, enjoining Communicants to Kneel in the Act of Receiving. Thus that inquisitive Gentleman assure us; and in the same place backs his Report with the authority of the Reverend Dr. Burgess, whom he styles the best and eminentest Champion for this Gesture of Bneeling of all others. The sum of what Dr. Burgess delivers concerning this matter, is 
Dr. Burg. Ans. rejoy. to the Reply to Dr. Mort. gen. Defence, p. 478, 478  this: That Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome, nor is at this day. For this he citys Bellarmine and Durantus, who make no mention of Kneeling in the Act of Receiving; though they treat particularly of the Mass, and the Ceremonies of the Roman Church. Instead of this, Durantus affirms, That the Sacrament ought to be taken Standing; and proves it also. And so doth the Pope himself receive it, 
Missal. Rom. in the Rubr. set out by Pius V.  when he celebrates; and every Priest by order of the Mass-book, is to partake standing reverently at the Altar, and not Kneeling there. The people which receive not, as well as they that do receive, are reverently to bow themselves to the Sacrament, not when they receive it, but when the Priest doth elevate the Patin or Chalice for Adoration, or when the Host is carried to any sick person, or in Procession. And this is that Adoration which was first brought in by Pope Honorius the Third, and not any Kneeling or Adoration in the Act of Receiving. For these are the very words of the Decree: That the Priests should frequently instruct their People to bow themselves reverently at the Elevation of the Host, when Mass was Celebrated, and 
Ut Sacerdotes frequenter doceant Plebem suam, ut cum Elevatur Hostia Salutaris, quisque se reverenter inclinet. Idem faciens quum eam deferat Praesbyter ad infirmum. Decret. Greg. l. 3. tit. 41. c. 10.  in like manner when the Priest carried it abroad to the sick. At the last the Doctor thus resolves upon the Question: That Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome, nor ever used, when it was used by them, for Adoration to the Sacrament, as is falsely believed and talked of by many. And with him a learned Papist agrees, who in a Book purposely written for the Adoration of the Sacrament, declareth, 
Espencaeus de Adorat. Euch. lib. 2. c. 16.  That it is not much material in what Gesture it is performed, whether Sitting, Standing, Lying, or Kneeling: And in the same place further informs us, That the Kneeling Gesture had not obtained in the Church of Lions in the year 1555; and when some endeavoured to obtrude it upon that Metropolis, a stop was put to their proceeding by the Royal Authority.  
Nothing needs more be said to give satisfaction in this matter, and fix us, when we have added what a very great man of our own Church now living hath delivered in writing, viz. Although 
Dean of St. Paul's Unreasonableness of Separation, p. 15.  Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly required by the Roman Church, yet in the Act of Receiving it is not; as manifestly appears by the Pope's manner of Receiving, which is not Kneeling, but either Sitting, as it was in Bonaventure 's time; or after the fashion of sitting, or a little leaning upon his Throne, as he doth ot this day.  
And now the matter is brought to a fine pass! How outrageous have the Adversaries of Kneeling been in their Clamours against the Church of England for appointing a Gesture that was first introduced and used by Antichrist and Idolaters; and when the matter comes to be sifted, not the least proof is produced to make good the Accusation; but, on the other side, it appears that those two Postures which are so earnestly contended for by our Dissenting Brethren, are the very Postures which the man of sin uses at this day himself in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament! When he celebrates Mass himself, and upon some other 
Vid. Dr. Falk. lib. Ecles. p. 484, 485.  particular and solemn occasions, he stands; but generally and ordinarily he receives sitting, or in a posture very like it. And this 
Dr. Burg. lawful of Kneel. p. 67.  I desire may be remembered, against we come to discourse on the second Head, viz. that Kneeling is not therefore sinful, because it is used by Idolaters.  
If any should after all put the Question thus to me: When is it, say you, that Kneeling first commenced in the World; by whose means, and upon what reasons? my plain Answer is, I cannot cerntainly tell; nor can I find any account thereof among the ancient Records. But this is no Argument against, but rather for the ancient and universal use of this Gesture: Novel Customs are easily traced to their Originals, but generally the most ancient Usages of every Country are without Father and Mother; and we cannot tell from what source they are derived.  
(2.) I am so far from thinking (as our Dissenting Brethren do) that Kneeling owes its birth to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that I verily believe the contrary: viz. Kneeling, or an adoring posture used by the ancient Christians in the Act of Receiving, did very much (among other things) conduce to beget and nurse up in the minds of Superstitious and Phanciful men, a Conceit, that Christ was really and corporally present at the Sacrament; which Notion, by subtle and inquisitive heads, was in a little time improved and explained after this manner: That after the Elements of Bread and Wine were consecrated, they were thereby changed into the substance of Christ's natural Body and Blood. This I am sure of, that the Patrons of Transubstantiation did very early make use of this very Argument, to prove that they taught and believed no more than what the Primitive Bishops and Christians did. For what else could they intent or mean (say they) by that extraordinary Reverence and Devotion which they manifested when they received the dreadful Mysteries (as they called the Bread and Wine) if they were bare and empty signs only, and not changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ? which is in effect the very Argument used by 
Cassa enim videtur tot hominum huic Sacramento ministrantium vel adorantium veneranda sedulitas, nisi ipsius Sacramenti long major crederetur, quam videretur veritas & utilitas; cum ergo exterius, quasi nulla sint quibus tanta impenduntur venerationis obsequia, aut insensati sumus, aut ad intima mittimus magna salutis mysteria. Alger. de Sacramentis, lib. 2. c. 3.  
* A Monk of Corbie, who wrote against Berengar, and lived about the year 1074.  Algerus, a stout Champion for Transubstantiation. And 
† Coster. Enchirid p. 353. edit. 1590.  Coster, another Popish Writer, is so far from saying the Pope introduced it, and that after Transubstantiation took place, that he resolves it into an ancient Custom continued from the Apostles times.  
Seeing then upon the whole matter it appears by the confession of some who oppose Kneeling that Honorius did not institute or ordain that Gesture in the Act of Receiving; seeing the Decree which he made, and which others appeal to, doth not at all relate to this matter, but only to the Adoration of the Host at the Priest's elevation of it; seeing no other Pope is alleged as the Author of this Custom; seeing Kneeling was never any instituted Ceremony in the Church of Rome, nor is there any Canon or Decree or Rubric extant which requires the use of that Gesture; seeing the Pope himself, and the Priests who celebrate, use another Gesture in the Act of Receiving; seeing their own Writers look on it as an ancient Usage derived to them from the first and purest Ages: it follows, that what is pretended and supposed in the Question, is without all Warrant and Proof, viz. that Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was first brought in by Idolaters.  
And now to close up all, I will appeal to any man of sense and understanding, whether this be not a very silly and extravagant way of Arguing? Kneeling in the Act of Receiving is sinful, because it was first introduced by Antichrist and the man of sin, and that after the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was started and took place in the world; and yet after all (when you come up close to them, and inquire into particulars) they are not able to date the original of it, nor name the Authors who first invented it and set it up. At this rate of talking, it were the easiest matter imaginable to evince that Sitting and Standing were equally unlawful with Kneeling. For it is but affirming boldly that they were first brought in and used by Idolaters, and then the work is done effectually. And if such slender Objections must drive us away from the Lords Supper, we shall never communicate as long as we live.  
But besides the folly of such Arguments, I think it's a very wicked thing for men to invent and urge them, as the Case stands with us at present: For what is there more desired and wished for by all good Christians, than Brotherly Love and Concord? than that we may all meet together with one accord, in one place, and with one mind and one mouth glorify God in the public Churches? What more talked of now adays then Peace and Union? Whosoever therefore shall any ways obstruct so blessed and desirable a Work, must be concluded every ill man. And such a one (most certainly) is he (whatsoever we may think of it) who withdraws himself from the Holy Communion upon groundless jealousies and unreasonable fears of incurring the divine displeasure, if he receive Kneeling; and shall go about by the Bugbear-words of Idolaters, Antichrist, the man of sin, to scare weak and honest men from Receiving the Holy Sacrament in our Churches. Because the Lord's Supper was instituted for this peculiar end, among others, viz. to be an uniting Ordinance, to bind Christians together in the strictest bonds of Love and Friendship, to dispose and engage them to put on Bowels of Mercy, to exercise the most kind and tender affections, and the most fervent Charity one towards another that is possible for men to do. Those Nonconforming Ministers therefore who possess the people with these Arguments (which they themselves know, unless they be grossly ignorant, to be false and senseless) to render them averse from the Lords Supper as it is administered in our Churches, are in plain English the Authors and Fomenters of our Divisions, and the Disturbers of our Peace.  
In the second place (to proceed) it is not unlawful to use such Things and Rites as either have been or are notoriously abused to Idolatry.  
Before I produce my Reasons for the proof of this Proposition, I think it will not be amiss to inform the Reader with those Arguments which Dissenters use to overthrow it: and they are these two in general.  
(1.) All Things and Rites which have been notoriously abused to 
Gillesp. Eng. Pop. Cer. c. 2. par. 3. p. 130.  Idolatry, if they were such as were devised by man, and not by God and Nature made to be of necessary use, should be utterly abolished, and purged away from divine Worship. But Kneeling in the Act of Receiving is one of these Rites: therefore it should utterly be 
Abridgement of Linc. Min. p. 17. Vid. Mr. Hook. Eccles. Pol. lib. 4. p. 160.  abolished.  
(2.) To imitate, and agree with Idolaters, by using such Rites and Ceremonies as they do, though in themselves indifferent, and though they contain nothing which is not agreeable to the Word of God, is sinful. So that not to abolish utterly whatsoever we know to have been abused heretofore to Idolatry; to take up any old Heathenish and Idolatrous Customs and Rites, though at present disused by Idolaters, is sinful: and then to use the same Rites 
Gillesp. p. 141. c. 3.  with Idolaters at present, to sort ourselves and communicate with them in their Rites, is to partake of their sins, and to become 
Altar. Dam. p. 536, 549.  guilty of Idolatry too.  
With these Arguments they make a great noise, and endeavour to confirm them by Scripture and Reason. I shall not offer at a Confutation of these Proofs, which stand built upon a weak and sandy Foundation, upon trifling and sorry Reasons, upon Scripture-Precepts whose sense is horribly wrested, and Scripture-Examples falsely applied and nothing to the purpose. There is a Case of Conscience lately published, wherein the Author hath done this Work to my hands: For he clearly shows, That a 
Vid Case resolved; whether the Ch. of Eng. Symbolising, etc. p. 24. to p. 47. p. 38.  Churches agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome, is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing: and particularly instanceth in our Church's agreement with the Church of Rome by Kneeling at the Sacrament. There you will find the most considerable Texts and Examples which they drag from Scripture and urge for themselves, rendered utterly unserviceable to their Cause, and rescued from their Tortures.  
All that I shall do therefore at present, is only this, briefly to propound my Reasons for the proof of my Assertion; by which I hope to make it evidently appear, that our Dissenting Brethren lie under a great error and mistake, by thinking that all those Rites and Ceremonies which are in themselves indifferent, and of man's devising, aught to be utterly abolished; and become sinful for us to use, purely because they either have been, or are notoriously abused to Idolatry. But here a few things must be premised, to prevent Cavils and Mistakes.  
(1.) I take it for granted, that indifferent things may be lawfully 
See the Case of Indifferent Things.  used in the Worship of God. This is supposed in the present Question; for otherwise it would be sinful in us to Kneel, whether that Gesture had been ever used or abused by Idolaters or no.  
(2.) I grant that the Worship of God is to be preserved pure 
See Dr. Fal. lib. Eccles. p. 443.  from all sinful Mixtures and Defilements whatsoever, whether of Idolatry or Superstition; and that things otherwise indifferent, which either in the design of them that use them, or in their own present tendency, do directly promote or propagate such Corruptions, do in that case become things unlawful. To follow Idolaters in what they think or do amiss, to follow them generally in what they do, without other reason than only the liking we have to the Pattern of their Example, which liking doth intimate a more universal approbation than is allowable; in these cases I think, with the Reverend Mr. Hooker, Conformity 
Hook. Ecles. Pol. l. 4. p. 165.  with Idolaters is evil, and blame-worthy in any Christian Church.  
But excepting these Cases, it is not sinful or blame-worthy in any Society of Christians to agree with Idolaters in Opinion or Practice, and to use the same Rites which they abuse. And consequently, our Church is not to be blamed or charged with Idolatry, for her Agreement with the Church of Rome in using the same Ceremonies, unless it can be proved that the Church of England doth abuse the said Ceremonies to sinful ends; or that the Ceremonies used and appointed by our Church, naturally tend to promote the Corruptions practised in the Church of Rome, and were ill designed; or that she did not follow the general Rules of God's Word, the Directions of the Holy Ghost in appointing and enjoining the use of Ceremonies, as being godly, comely, profitable; but overlooking all this, had an eye purely to the Example of Idolatrous Papists in what they did amiss.  
Now this I am sure can never be made good against our Church, who hath sufficiently vindicated herself, by the open declarations she hath printed to the World, from all accusations of this nature. Let but any man consult the Articles of Religion, 
Art. 20. Art. 34. Canon. 18.  the Preface to the Book of Common-Prayer just after the Act of Uniformity, the two excellent Discourses that follow it concening the Service of the Church and Ceremonies, and the Reasons she hath published at the end of the Communion-service for enjoining her Communicants to receive Kneeling; I say, let any man peruse these, and he will receive ample satisfaction, that our Governors in Church and State in appointing the use of Ceremonies did not steer by the Example of Idolaters, nor enjoin them out of any ill design, or to any ill ends; but were conducted by the light of God's Word, the Rules of Prudence and Charity, the Example of the holy Apostles, and the Practice of pure Antiquity.  
These things being premised, I proceed to prove this Assertion: That it is not sinful to use such Things and Rites as either have been or are notoriously abused to Idolatry: Or, which is all one, That to Kneel in the Act of Receiving according to the custom of the Church of England, is not therefore sinful, because it hath been and is notoriously abused to Idolatry, for these Reasons.  
(1.) In general: No abuse of any Gesture, though it be in the most manifest Idolatry, doth render that Gesture simply evil, and for ever after unlawful to be used in the Worship of God upon that account. For the abuse of a thing supposes the lawful use of it; and if any thing otherwise lawful becomes sinful by an abuse of it, then it's plain that it is not in its own nature sinful, but by accident, and with respect to somewhat else. This is clear from Scripture: for if Rites and Ceremonies, after they have been abused by Idolaters, become absolutely evil, and unlawful to be used at all, than the Jews sinned in offering Sacrifice, erecting Altars, burning Incense to the God of Heaven, bowing down themselves before him, wearing a Linen Garment in the time of Divine Worship, and observing other Things and Rites which the Heathens observed in the Worship of their false Gods.  
No (say the Dissenters) we except all such Rites as were commanded or approved of by God, and such are all those . But, say I, it's a silly Exception, and avails nothing. For if the abuse of a thing to Idolatry makes it absolutely sinful, and unlawful to be used at all, then it's impossible to destroy that Relation; and what hath been once abused, must ever remain so: that is, an infinite power can't undo what hath been done, and clear it from ever having been abused. And therefore I conclude from the Command and Approbation of God, that a bare Conformity with Idolaters in using those Rites in the Worship of the true God, which they practice in the Worship of Idols, is not simply sinful, or formal Idolatry; for if it had, God had obliged the Children of Israel by his express Command to commit sin, and to do what he strictly and severely prohibited in other places. In truth, such a Position would plainly make God the Author of sin.  
(2.) This Position, That the Idolatrous abuse of any thing, renders the use of it sinful to all that know it, is attended with very mischievous consequences and effects.  
First, It intrenches greatly upon Christian liberty, as dear to our Dissenting Brethren as the Apple of their Eyes: and I wonder they are not sensible of it. At other times they affirm that no earthly power can rightly restrain the use of those things which God hath left free and indifferent; and that those things which otherwise are lawful, become sinful when imposed and enjoined by lawful Authority: and yet these very men give that power to Strangers, both Heathens and Papists, which they take away from their own rightful Princes and lawful Superiors. An Idolater may yoke them, when a Protestant Prince must not touch them. And what more heavy and intolerable Yoke can be clapped on our necks than this, That another man's abuse of any thing to Idolatry, though in its own nature indifferent, and left free by God, renders the use of it sinful? Whether this be not a violation of Christian Liberty, let St. Paul determine; who tells us, that to the pure all things are pure; and affirms it lawful to eat of such things as had been offered to Idols, and to eat whatsoever was 
1 Cor. 10. 25, 27, 28, 29.  sold in the shambles. And what reason is there why a Gesture should be more defiled by Idolaters, than Meat which they had offered up in Sacrifice to Idols? and why should one be sinful and idolatrous to use, and not the other? Certainly St. Paul would never have granted them such a privilege, if he judged it idolatrous to use what Idolaters had abused; especially considering that he in the same Chapter exhorts them earnestly to flee from Idolatry. 
Vers. 14.   
Secondly, This Position subjects the minds of Christians to infinite Scruples and Perplexities, and naturally tends to reduce us to such a state and condition in which both the Jews and Gentiles were, before the glorious light of the Gospel broke out upon the World: that is, it tends to beget and propagate a base servile temper and disposition towards God, and to fill us with fears & tremble when we are engaged in his Worship and Service. Whereas the true and great design of the Gospel, is to breed in men a filial cheerful frame of heart, the spirit of Love, and of a sound or quiet 
Rom. 8. 15. 2 Tim. 1. 7.  mind; to give us a free, easy, comfortable access to God as to our Father, and to encourage every good man to a diligent, constant, frequent attendance upon the duties of his Worship, by the pleasure and delight that follows them. But now if nothing may be used by us without highly offending God, that either hath been or is abused to Idolatry; who sees not what trouble and distraction will arise in our minds hereupon, when we meet together to worship God? It's well known that most of our Churches were erected by Idolatrous Papists, and as much defiled by Idolatry as any Gesture can be; they are dedicated to several Saints and Angels, whose Images were once set up and adored. Our Bells, Pews, Fonts, Desks, Churchyards, have been consecrated after a superstitious manner; many Cups, Flagons, Dishes, Communion-Tables, have been given and used by Idolaters. What now is to be done? If Kneeling at the Sacrament be sinful, because it hath been abused by Idolaters notoriously; so also it is sinful to use any other Thing or Rite that hath, if it be of man's divising, as the  Writers limit the Question. If Sitting were allowed by Authority, we could not come to the public Churches, nor to the Sacrament, nor christian our Children for all that, if we know the Font and other Utensils of the Church were once abused to Idolatry by Papists: We must first make a diligent search, and if certain information cannot be had, we can't Worship God in public without panic fears and great disquiet of mind.  
But Thirdly, Such a Position as this will destroy all Public Worship. For if nothing must be used which hath been or is abused by Idolaters, it will be in the power of Idolaters, by engrossing all the outward marks and signs of that inward veneration and esteem which we own to God, to smother our Devotions, so as they shall never appear in the World; and by that means frustrate the very end and design of Religious Assemblies. And truly this work is already, by the strength of this Principle, very well effected. For Kneeling at Prayers, and Standing and Sitting, and lifting up the hands and eyes to Heaven, and bowing of the body, together with Prayer and Praise, and Singing, have been all notoriously abused to Idolatry, and are so at this day.  
I know how it will be replied, that they except such things as Object. are necessary to be used in the Service of God; it's absolutely necessary that we worship God, and do him public Honour; and whatsoever is necessary in order to this, may lawfully be used by us without sin, though the same gestures and signs of Adoration are used and abused by Idolaters.  
To this I answer, That this is cunningly, but not honestly and Answ. truly said. For the Reasons they give to prove that it is sinful to use the same Rites and Ceremonies with Idolaters at any time, prove it so at all times, and make it for ever so. So long as the Reasons hold to make any thing sinful, so long it is so. If the use or abuse of any thing by Idolaters make it simply evil, than it must for ever remain so; and no necessity whatsoever can take it off, and make it lawful and innocent. If such Things and 
See Gillesp. p. 128.  Ceremonies which are or have been abused to Idolatry, become sinful in these by respects, and for these reasons, viz. Because they 
1. Reductive, 2. Participative:  put us in mind of Idolatry, and preserve the memory of Idols: and secondly, Because they move us to turn back to Idolatry, and sort us with Idolaters: than it will be ever sinful for us to use them. 
Quia Monent, Quia Movent. 134. 149.  For these Reasons will hold good in things that are of necessary use in the Church, as well as in things that are not necessary: that is, nothing can hinder and destroy these effects; they will ever mind us of, and move us to Idolatry. And from hence I conclude that this Principle is a very false one, and aught to be laid aside. For it is attended with this absurdity: It obliges us utterly to abolish, and forbids the use of all such Rites as have been notoriously abused to Idolatry in some cases, for reasons which eternally hold in all. So that at last it drives us into such straits, that we must sin one way or other. For either we must not worship God in public, or we must be guilty of Idolatry 
Gillesp. c. 3. p. 149.  if we do: And though of two Evils or Calamities the least is to be chosen, yet of two Sins neither is. Christian Religion flows from infinite Wisdom; and the Laws of God do not cross one another, but are even and consistent. We are never cast by God under a necessity of sinning, of transgressing one Law by the observance of another; but thus it must be, if we take up and stick to this Principle.  
(3.) Our Dissenting Brethren condemn themselves in what they allow and practise, by the same Rule by which they condemn Kneeling at the Sacrament, and other Rites of our Church. For they themselves did use, without Scruple, such Places and Things and Postures as had been defiled and abused by Idolaters. They were wont to be bareheaded in time of Divine Worship, at Prayer, and at the Sacrament: and so do Idolatrous Papists: they never affirmed that it was sinful to Kneel at our Prayers both public and private; yet this Gesture the Papists use in their Prayers to the Virgin Mary, to the Cross, to Saints and Angels. They used our Churches, Churchyards, and Bells, and never thought they sinned against God by so doing, though they knew 
Direct. of the day and place of Worship.  they had been abused. Nay, the Directory declares, That such places are not subject to any such Pollution by any Superstition formerly used and now laid aside, as may render them unlawful and inconvenient. 
Rutherf. of Scandal, Q. 5, 6.  Mr. Rutherford saith of Bells grossly abused in time of Popery, That it is unreasonable and groundless, that thereupon they should be disused. Upon which the Reverend Dr. Faulkner hath this judicious Remark: The pretence of their convenient usefulness would be no better Excuse on their behalf, than was that Plea for sparing the best of the Antalekites  that they might be a Sacrifice, when God had devoted them to Destruction. For if God (as they say) hath commanded that all such Things and Rites should be utterly abolished as were of man's devising, and had been abused to Idolatry; then the convenient usefulness of such Places and Things will never bear them out.  
(4) If it be sinful to Kneel at the Sacrament because that Cesture hath been and is notoriously abused by Papists to idolatrous ends, so also is Sitting, which is contended for with so much show of Zeal. For the Pope himself sits in the Act of Receiving, as was before noted; and (if any credit be to be given to a Doctor of the Church of Rome) for the same reason which our Dissenters urge for Sitting, viz. because the Apostles sat at the first Institution and Celebration of the Sacrament. If any inquire why the 
Si quaeratur quare Dominus Papa Sedendo Communicate, potest dici, quod hoc sit in recordationem, quod Beatus Petrus & alii Apostoli sedendo Corpus Domini in Coena ultima acceperunt. Alex. Hales, Tract. de Missa, par. 2. Quest. 10. par. 4.  Pope Receives Sitting, it may be rereplied, that he useth that Gesture in remembrance of St. Peter and the oother Apostles, who Received the Body of our Lord at the last Supper Sitting.  
To conclude; If Kneeling be unlawful because it hath been abused to Idolatry, than we must never Receive the Holy Sacrament. For we must Receive in some convenient Posture, such as Kneeling, Sitting, Discumbing, Standing; and yet every one of these either have been or is notoriously abused by Heathens and Papists to Idolatrous ends.  
I have now finished what I undertook; and endeavoured, all that in me lies, to satisfy all honest and peaceable Dissenters that they may lawfully and innocently Kneel in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament. What Success this Discourse will have, I know not; but this I am sure of, it is well meant; and if it be read with the same Charity as it was written, with an honest teachable mind, a mind not pleased with its Scruples, I hope by God's blessing it will do some good in the World. And really if any of our Dissenting Brethren shall Receive thus much satisfaction from what I have written, That by Kneeling in the Act of Receiving, they transgress no known Law of God, nor act contrary to our blessed Saviour's Example; That they do nothing but what becomes them, and is very suitable to the nature of the Lords Supper, nothing but what is agreeable to the practice of the universal Church in the first and purest Ages; I don't see what other Scruples about Kneeling should block up their way to the Lords Table, and hinder them from communicating with us. There are a sort of men, I confess, who separate from our Church, upon whom I despair of doing good by any attempts of this nature; and they are such whose Scruples arise from a vicious Principle, not from the weakness of their understandings, but the obstinacy of their wills; not from a great fear of offending God which keeps pace with all their actions (for such I have as tender a compassion as any man) but from Humour, Self-Conceit, Affectation of popular Applause and the being thought the wiser and better men, for finding fault with every thing enjoined by lawful Authority, and every thing that is written in defence of it: Nor upon men whose Scruples against Government by Bishops, the Liturgy and Rites of the Church, arise, not from their Consciences but their Stomaches from Pride and Ambition, from private piques & disappointments in the State, from Hypocrisy and Interest, when the more they rail and except against Ceremonies, the better Trade they drive in the World. From such as these I expect nothing but Contempt and Derision, and that the Medicine will be turned into Poison. For as a great man observes on Prov. 14. 6. He 
Lord Bacon Advan. of Learn. fol. p 230.  that comes to seek after Knowledge with a mind to scorn and censure, shall be sure to find matter enough for his Humour, but no matter for his Instruction.   
FINIS.   
For Kneeling, I never yet heard any thing yet to prove it unlawful. If there be any thing, it must be either some Word of God, or the nature of the Ordinance which is supposed to be contradicted. But (1) there is no Word of God for any Gesture, nor against any. Christ's Example can never be proved to oblige us more in this than in many other circumstances, that are confessed not obligatory. As, that he delivered but to Ministers, and but to a Family, to Twelve, and after Supper, and on a Thursday-night, and in an upper Room, etc. and his Gesture was not such a Sitting as ours. And (2) for the nature of the Ordinance, it is mixed: and if it be lawful to take a Pardon from the King upon our Knees, I know not what can make it unlawful to take a sealed Pardon from Christ (by his Ambassador) upon our Knees. Mr. Baxter 's Christian Directory, par. 2. p. 111. Quest. 3. §. 40.  

A DISCOURSE ABOUT Edification: IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION, Whether it is Lawful for any Man to forsake the Communion of the Church of England, and go to the Separate Meetings, because he can better Edify there? The Second EDITION.  
LONDON: Printed by J. C. and Freeman Collins, for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street. 1684.   

A DISCOURSE About EDIFICATION: In Answer to a Question,  
WHether it is lawful for any Man to forsake the Communion of the Church of England, and go to the separate Meetings, because he can better Edify there?  
Answer, It is Unlawful.  
To make this plain, two things must be considered:  
First, What sort of Person this is, who asks this Question.  
Secondly, What he means by Edification.  
As to the Person, he is supposed to be one, that is fully satisfied, that he may lawfully Communicate with the Church of England; That there are no Terms of Communion put upon him, but which he can comply withal with a good Conscience; That there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God, natural Reason, or plain Consequences fetched from both or either. And therefore he who thinks, that there are some things unlawful in the Communion of the Church of England, is not concerned in the Question; for he separates upon the Account of Unlawfulness, and not Edification only, as is supposed in the Question.  
Secondly, By Edification is meant, an Improvement of his Spiritual Condition in the full latitude, whereinsoever it may truly consist; whether in the Articles of his Faith, which in the separate Congregations are better taught, more clearly proved, more fitly applied to his practice, and to support his hopes of Heaven; or whether in the Rules of Life, which are there more exactly laid down, and more strongly enforced upon his Mind; or in Prayers, which among them are better composed, and more fervently sent up unto God; and in all other parts of Devotion, which there are better framed and ordered to affect his Soul, and make a truly Christian man.  
These two things being explained, and premised, the Answer to the Question will be found true, if we consider these following Reasons:  
1. That the Ground upon which the Question stands is false, viz. There is not better Edification to be had in the Separate Meetings, than in the Communion of the Church of England.  
This will appear, if we consider,  

1. How apt and fit the whole Constitution of the Church of England is to Edify men's Souls.  
2. That this Constitution is well used and managed, by the Pastors of our Church, for Edification.   
The first will be manifest by Induction, if we consider the several parts of her Constitution, reducible to these following Heads:  
1. Her Creeds or Articles of Faith are those which our Dissenters themselves allow; which are full and plain, containing all Necessaries and Fundamentals in Religion; nothing defective in Vitals or Integrals, to make up the Body of a true Christian Church. Christ that founded his Church, best knew what was absolutely necessary to her being; and there is nothing that he hath declared to be so, but is contained in her Creeds. Whatever is fundamental for us to know of the Nature of God, is to be found there, or by easy Consequences deduced from them. Would we know what we ought to believe of the Nature of Christ or his Offices, the Designs of his coming upon Earth, the Constitution of his Reign and Government, the Rewards and Punishments of his Laws, the Times of Account and Retribution, the mighty Miracles and extraordinary Acts of Providence to confirm these; we may read them at large in Holy Writ, and find wisely summed up in our Creeds. Whose Articles, to help the Memories of Men, are short and few; and to assist the dulness of their Understandings, are manifest and plain; they containing no more, than what was some way or other, either supposed before, or included in, or following from that brief Creed, the Character of a true Christian, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. 
1 John 4. 15. 5. 5.  Whatever is any way revealed by God as necessary, is an Article of our Faith: nothing that is nice and obscure, fit only for dispute and wrangling, is brought into our Creed; all whose Articles are Primitive, and of Divine right; none of them purely speculative or curious, but plain and useful in order to practice, naturally leading to an Holy Life, the end of all Religion. We love every thing that is truly ancient and Apostolical, but we cannot call that an eternal truth, which was but yesterday; and we are ready to embrace all truth, but we cannot call that the Highpriest, which is but the Fringe of his Garment. We believe all that the early Christians in the first 300 Years thought sufficient for them to know (and they were very secure that this would save them.) And if any truth be disguised or defaced by the iniquity of the descending Ages, we are ready to receive it, whenever it is made clear, and restored to its former shape and complexion; we casting out obstinacy and perverseness out of our Practice, as well as niceness out of our Creed. That Creed that Christ and his Apostles taught, the Saints, Martyrs, and Confessors, the Wise and Good Men in the first and purest days of Christianity believed, and were secure of Heaven by it, and therefore added no more; that Faith this Church maintains, which will sufficiently and effectually Edify the Souls of Men.  
2. The Necessity she lays upon a Good Life and Works. For this is the solemn intention of all Religion, our Creed, our Prayers, our Sacraments, and Discipline, and all Devotion. Her Creed is such, that all its Articles so directly, or by natural consequence, lead unto Virtue and Holiness, that no man can firmly believe them, but they must ordinarily influence his Manners, and better his Conversation; and if by virtue of his Creed his Life is not mended, he either ignorantly and grossly mistakes their Consequences, or is wilfully desperate. Our Church publicly declares, that without preparatory Virtues, no Acts of Devotion, however set off with Zeal and Passion, are pleasing unto God; and if obedience be wanting afterwards, are but scene and show. Such a Faith she lays down as fundamental to salvation, which rests not in the brain and story, in magnifying and praising, in sighing and repeating, but in the production of Mercy, Charity, and Justice, and such excellent Virtues. She makes no debates between Faith and Good Works, nor argues nicely about the preference, nor disputes critically the Mode how jointly they become the condition of Salvation; but plainly determines, that without Faith and Good Works, no Man shall see God. She not only keeps to a Form of sound Words, but to a Conversation of equal Firmness and Solidity. Her Festivals are to commemorate the Virtues of Excellent Men, and to recommend them as Precedents for imitation. Her Ceremonies, which were principally designed for Decency, may also remind us of those Virtues which become the Worshippers of God. Her Collects and Petitions are for Grace to subdue our Follies, and to fortify our resolutions for Holiness. Her discipline is to lash the sturdy into Sobriety and Goodness: And her Homilies are plainly and smartly to declare against the gross Acts of Impiety, and to persuade a true Christian Deportment in Word and Deed; and her whole Constitution aims at the Design of the Gospel, to teach Men to live Soberly, Righteously, and Godly. She flatters and lulls no man asleep in Vice, but tells all secure sinners plainly, that they do not pray nor receive aright, that they are not absolved, that their persons are not justified, nor can have any true hopes of Heaven, except they purify themselves, and be really just and good. She neither useth nor allows any nice distinctions in plain Duties, to baffle our Obedience; nor suffers a cunning head to serve the designs of a wicked heart, and teach Men learnedly to sin; but urgeth plain Virtues laid down distinctly in Holy Writ, and taught by Natural Reason and Conscience (without calling them mean Duties, or ordinary Morality) to be the great Ornament of our Religion, and the Soul of our Faith. She sets no abstruse and fantastic Characters, nor any Marks, whose truth must be fetched in by long deductions and consequences, for Men to judge by, whether they shall be saved or no; but Faith and good Works, which the Philosopher and meanest Christian can easily judge of. The civil interest of a Nation is Edified by such a Church, pressing the necessity of good Works; not only thereby enforcing Peace and Justice, Pity and Tenderness, Humility and Kindness, one towards another; but she makes Kings safer, and Subjects more secure, condemning both Tyranny and Disobedience; Parents more obeyed, and Subjects more loved, commanding equally Bowels and Affections, and Duty and Honour; Masters and Servants, Husbands and Wives, and all Relations, are kept in their just Bounds and Privileges. With other Churches, we make good Works necessary to Salvation, but think ourselves more modest and secure in taking away Arrogance and Merit, and advancing the Grace of Christ: With other Men, we cry up Faith, but not an hungry and a starved one, but what is fruitful of good Works; and so have all that others contend for, with greater modesty and security.  
3. How fitly this Church is constituted to excite true Devotion. When we make our Addresses unto God, we ought to have worthy and reverend Conceptions of his Nature, a true sense and plain knowledge of the Duty, and of the Wants and Necessities for which we pray to be supplied. All which our Church, to help our Devotion, plainly sets down, describing God by all his Attributes of just, wise, and laying forth the Vices and Infirmities of Humane Nature, and that none else but God can cure our needs. When her Sons are to pray, the matter of her Petitions are not nice and controverted, trivial, or words of a Party; but plain and substantial, wherein all agree. Her Words in Prayer are neither rustic nor gay, the whole Composure neither too tedious nor too short; decently ordered to help our Memories and wand'ring Thoughts. Responsals and short Collects in Public Devotion are so far from being her fault, that they are her beauty and prudence. There are few Cases and Conditions of Humane Life, whether of a Civil or Spiritual Nature, which have not their proper Prayers and particular Petitions for them, at least as is proper for public Devotions. When we return our Thanks, we have proper Offices to inflame our Passions, to quicken our Resentment, to excite our Love, and to confirm our future Obedience, the best instance of gratitude. When we Commemorate the Passion of Christ, we have a Service fit to move our Affections, to assist our Faith, to enlarge our Charity, to show forth and exhibit Christ and all his bloody Sufferings, every way to qualify us to discharge that great Duty. She hath indeed nothing to kindle an Enthusiastic heat, nor any thing that savours of Raptures and Ecstasies, which commonly flow from temper or fraud; but that which makes us manly devout, our Judgement still guiding our Affections. When we enter first into Religion, and go out of the World, we have two proper Offices, Baptism, and Burial, full of Devotion, to attend those purposes. So that if any doth not pray, and give thanks, communicate, and live like a Christian, 'tis not because the Services to promote these are too plain, and hungry, beggarly and mean, but their own mind is not fitly qualified before they use them: bring but an honest mind to these parts of Devotion, a true sense of God, sober and good purposes, and affections well disposed, that which is plain will prove Seraphical, improve our Judgement, heighten our Passions, and make the Church a Choir of Angels. Without which good disposition, our Devotion is but Constitution, or melancholy Peevishness, Sullenness, or Devotion to a Party, a Sacrifice that God will not accept.  
4. Her Order and Discipline. Such are the Capacities and Manners of Men, not to be taught only by naked Virtue, a natural Judgement, or an immediate Teaching of God; but by Ministry and Discipline, decent Ceremonies and Constitutions, and other external Methods: these are the outward Pales and Guards, the Supplies and Helps for the Weakness of Humane Nature. Our Church hath fitted and ordered these so well, as neither to want or to abound; not to make Religion too gay, nor leave her slovingly; neither rude nor fantastic, but is clothed in Dresses proper to a manly Religion; not to please or gratify our senses, so as to fix there, but to serve the reason and judgement of our Mind. There are none of our Ceremonies, which good Men, and wise Men, have not judged decent, and serviceable to the great ends of Religion; and none of them but derive themselves from a very ancient Family, being used in most Ages, and most of the Churches of God; and have decency, antiquity, and usefulness, to plead for them; to help our Memories, to excite our Affections, to render our Services orderly and comely. Were we indeed all Soul, and such Seraphical Saints, and grown Men, as we make ourselves, we might then plead against such external helps; but when we have Natures of weakness and passion, these outward helps may be called very convenient, if not generally necessary: and as our Nature is mixed of Soul and Body, so must always our Devotion be here; and such God expects, and is pleased with. Our Church is neither defective in Power and Discipline (had she her just deuce; and others would do well to join with her in her wishes, that they might be restored) which would turn all into Confusion; nor yet tyrannical, want of Authority breeding as many, if not more Miseries than Tyranny, or too much Power; both of them severe Curses of a Nation. But her Government, like her Clime, is so well tempered together, that the Members of this Christian Society may not be dissolute or rude with her, nor her Rulers insolent; being constituted in the Church with their different Names and Titles, not for lustre and greatness, and Secular purposes, but for suppression of Vice, the maintaining of Faith, Peace, Order, and all Virtues, the true Edification of men's Souls. And if those Vices are not reproved and chastised, which fall under her Cognizance, 'tis not the fault of her Power, but because by other ways ill restrained; unnecessary Divisions from her, hindering her Discipline upon Offenders, and so they hinder that Edification which thy contend for. This Government is not Modern, Particular, or purely Humane, but Apostolical, Primitive, and Universal, to time as well as place: till some private Persons, for Number, Learning, or Piety, not to be equalled to the good Men of old, who defended it, and obeyed it, and suffered for it, out of some mistakes of Humane frailty and passion, or born down with the iniquities of the times, began to change it, and declaim against it, though so very fit and proper to promote Christianity in the World. This is a general account of that Edification that is to be had in that Church in which we live; a more particular one would be too long for this Discourse: but thus much must be said, that examine all her particular Parts, and Offices, you will find none of them light, or superstitious, novel, or too numerous, ill disposed, or uncouth, improper or burdensome, no just cause for any to revolt from her Communion: but considering the present circumstances of Christianity, and Men, the best constituted Church in the World. If therefore Edification be going on to Perfection, 
Heb. 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 18. Rom. 15. 2. 1 Cor. 14. 3.  or growing in Grace; if it is doing good to the Souls of Men; if it be to make plain the great things in Religion to the understandings of Men; or whatever the import of it is, in relation to Faith or Virtue, which is the condition of our Salvation, it is to be found in this Church; whose Constitution is apt and fit to do all this: And St. Judas seems to tell us, that true Edification was a stranger to those who separated from the common building; but those who kept to the 
Vers. 19  Communion of the Church, built up themselves in their most holy Faith, and prayed in the Holy Ghost. And the honest Christian, with greater assurance, may expect the Grace and Blessings of Christ, and the Divine Spirit, whose Promises are made to them, who continue in the Communion of the Church, and not to them who divide from the Body, and have greater hopes of Edification from their Teacher, than the Grace of God, from Apollo's, that waters, than from Christ, the chief Husbandman, who gives the increase.  
2. This Constitution is used and managed in the best way, by the Pastors of our Church, to Edify the Souls of Men. This will appear, if we consider these two things:  
1. That there are strict Commands under great Penalties laid upon the Pastors of our Church to do this; who are not left to their own freedom, and private judgement, or the force only of common Christianity upon them, thus to improve men's Souls committed to their charge; but have Temporal Mulcts and Ecclesiastical Censures held over them, to keep them to their Duty. That when they do inform or direct their Flocks about their Belief, they should keep to the Analogy of Faith, or Form of sound Words. Or when they persuade to practice, their Rules and Propositions must be according to Godliness. That whenever they Exhort or Rebuke, Preach or Pray; whenever they Direct, or Answer the Scruples of men's Minds, in the whole Exercise and Compass of their Ministry, they are to have an Eye to the Creed; to regard Mercy and Justice, the Standard of good Manners; in short, to preserve Faith and a good Conscience with substantial Devotion; which will to the purpose Edify men's Souls, and effectually save them.  
2. That these Commands are obeyed by the Pastors of our Church, and they do all things in it to Edification. For the truth of this, we appeal to good Men, and wise Men, in the Communion of our Church, who have Honesty and Judgement to confess this truth, and with gratitude acknowledge, that the Pastors of the Church of England have led them into the ways of Truth and Righteousness, cured their Ignorance, and reformed their Lives, and upon good grounds given them an assurance of Heaven. To say such as these are prejudiced, and want sincerity and knowledge to pass a judgement, is only to prove, what we justly suspect, that they want true Edification among themselves, and should be better taught the Doctrine of Charity. Our Protestant Neighbours, impartial Judges, will give their Testimony to this Truth, who have owned and commended the Government of this Church, condemned the Separation, magnified the Prudence, Piety, and Works of her Governors and Pastors, and wished, that they and their charge were under such a Discipline; and translated many of their Pious and Learned Works, to Edify and Save their People. Our 
The Unreasonableness of Separation, p. 117.  dissenting Brethren themselves (at least in the good Mood, and out of the heat of Dispute) give their consent to this, that the Instructions and Discourses of our Pastors from their Pulpits, are Solid, Learned, Affectionate, and Pious; and their only Crime was, that sometimes they were too well studied, and too good. If in the great number of the English Clergy, some few may be lazy, one particular person may cloth his Doctrine in too gay a dress, another talks Scholastically above the capacity of his hearers, a third too dully, a fourth too nicely, and opinionatively, and here and there a Pastor answers not the true design of Preaching, to inform men's Minds, to guide their Consciences, and move their Affections; what is this to the general Charge, That no Edification so good is to be had, as in the separate Meetings, the pretended Cause of their Separation? For 'tis no more a true Cause, than want of Accommodation or Room in Churches, for some to separate, where good Edification and Conveniency too may be easily had. And since they compel our Pastors to speak well of themselves, by their detraction and speaking ill of them, they must gladly suffer them as fools, boldly to say, 
2 Cor. 11. 19  That since the Reformation, and many hundred years before, there hath not been a Clergy, so Learned and Pious, so Prudent and Painful, and every way industrious to Edify and save the Souls of Men, as now is in the English Church.  
The Second Argument to confirm the Answer, is, That those that usually make this pretence for Separation, do commonly mistake better Edification. We have proved already, that good and sufficient Edification, to save the Souls of Men, is to be had in the English Church. For if teaching plainly the Articles of Faith, and laying down clearly Rules of Manners, using well-composed Prayers, and proper Administration of Sacraments, be not good, and sufficient Edification, I know not what Edification means: it may be heating of fancy, stirring up of humours, this, or that; and Men may as well define the thing they call Wit, as what Edification means. And therefore to desert the plain and great Duty of our Church-Communion, for disputable, doubtful, or truly mistaken Edification, is to be guilty of the sin of Schism. In most cases, to judge what is better or best, is very hard, and requires a sincere and considering head; and so it is in the business of better Edification, which is so easily mistaken, especially by the generality of the People, who are usually ignorant of such nice things, and prejudiced by their Parties and Affections, and are mutable and various, according to their fancies. For better Edification, purer Administrations and Churches, and things that are more excellent, absolute Perfection, and a less defective Way of Worship, are hard to understand, perplex men's minds, and fill them with innumerable doubts and scruples, and put them upon refining and purging so long, till they weaken and destroy the Spirit of Religion. And so they run themselves into a known sin, for dark and disp●●able advantages; which indeed are only mistakes, and principally are these three that follow:  
1. In taking nice and speculative Notions, for great and Edifying Truths. When Doctrines have been raised, only to please the temper of the curious and inquisitive; yet have made many think, their hearts were warmed, when their heads and fancies were gratified. And dark and obscure Discourses about Angels, the state of separated Souls, and things of the like nature, have made 
Colos. 2. 18  some call the Preacher high and mysterious; while others, teaching the way of Salvation plainly, by Faith and a good Conversation, have been lessened, with the character of dull, honest, and moral Men, fit only for Catechists, and Christians of the lowest Form. Tickle but their imaginations with conjectural Discourses about the Situation of Paradise of old, or Hell now, and you are a sounder Divine, than he, that only draws wholesome Conclusions from Adam's prevarication, to caution you against sin of the like nature, or how to avoid those dismal flames where ever they are. And others have been silly and fantastic in admiring those who have prattled about the length of the Sword that guarded Paradise, or how the Spirits above pass Eternity away, and scorned him, who in plain methods chalked them out the way that will lead them to Heaven. The ancient Gnostics, because they 
1 Tim. 1. 4.  made a mixture of the Jewish Fables and Genealogies, of their Lilith and Behemoth, and fetched in the Stories of the Gods, out of Orpheus and Philistion, (two great Divines in the Pagan Religion) into plain Christianity, thought themselves the most knowing Men, of the Secrets of God and Heaven; and wondered how only Faith upon Jesus, and keeping of the Commands, could be knowing of God, or Wisdom from above. The wranglings of the Schools, with their fine distinctions and barbarous terms, fit for Magic than Christianity, by their Disciples have been prized for great and precious Truths. And Enthusiastic Raptures, and slights, making once the Brain to swim, have snatched the hearers beyond themselves, and then thought them the Dictates of the Spirit, and the Teachings of God; and the more dark and obscure the Doctrine hath been, the greater illumination it was esteemed, and called a noonday Thought, which was a midnight Dream. Such things as these pass with too many, for saving Truths; a great part of Mankind, being ignorant in their Heads, and corrupt in their Practice, espoused to Parties and Interests, having Constitutions and Passions fit for these, they readily swallow them down. The Apostle confirms the truth of this, telling 
2 Tim. 4. 3.  us, the time will come, when they will not endure sound Doctrine, but after their own lusts, shall they heap to themselves Teachers, having itching Ears, caused by some disease of Vice within, which is not to be cured by good Physic, but only scratched and gratified; and if the Food, though wholesome and good, be not to their Palate and Fancy, they complain of hunger and starving. These and many more are the Instances of a weak and sickly nature, craving only nice and curious things for Spiritual Meat, and kecking at the sincere Milk of the Word, plain and substantial Truths, that it may grow thereby. To give therefore a liberty to every Man to run from an established Church, upon the account of better Edification, which is so often and easily mistaken, is to direct Men into temptation and a snare, and is dangerous and sinful; and when once the gap is open, where will, especially the Vulgar, stop? May we not add, that this pretence of better Edification is very fit to disguise and colour other Vices? When Controversies have unhappily risen, from an unjust denial of the Ministers Rights and Deuce, or the accidents of civil conversation, they make the Ministry, that was spiritual and good before, to be called dull and mean, and better must be sought elsewhere; while only Revenge or Covetousness is at the bottom. Wand'ring Reports, or their own lavish Tongue, and censorious Temper, have called some Pastors, Covetous, or Intemperate, or branded them with other Vices, and then cry out, they cannot Edify in such a Church; and so make one fault help out another, and Defamation must excuse their Schism.  
2. In taking the Opinions of Parties for undoubted Truths essential to salvation. When men have once wedded a Party, and the Opinions peculiar to it, they magnify and propagate them, grow furious for their defence, and call them the best part of Religion: and if these be not abetted and cried up by the Pastors of our Church, or they differ from them in explications and distinctions of them, the way of salvation is not taught, they do not improve their Spiritual condition, and therefore is a just cause of their Separation. Because the Notion or Explication of Faith, and Spirit, Church, and Grace, Justification, Regeneration, Conversion, Adoption, and other things of the like nature, are generally different in our Church from those of the Separation, they therefore cry we destroy the saving Truths of the Gospel; and instead of being Edified, they find themselves weakened in their Christian Faith. Though 'tis plain to all impartial judgements, that their sense and interpretation of them, by natural consequences lessen the Grace of the Gospel, and give security to lazy Sinners; a strange sort of Edification! For though our Charity is not so narrow, as to think every man a vicious person, who is thus mistaken in his conclusions; yet however, this altars not the nature of these Opinions, and their consequences; and who knows how far men of ill Principles do improve them? Such is the perverse and angry temper of many about their own Opinions, no way necessary to salvation, wherein wise men and good men may differ, which are not stated by Authority, and may not be determined till Elias come; yet if these be not insisted on, and pressed with vehemency, the great things of the Gospel are omitted, and truths are wanting to their perfection. And if once the People are possessed with Opinions and Notions, they grow fierce about them, and call them salvation-truths, and run headlong into a Sea of disorder; and tumult, for their defence. The Disciples of the fifth Monarchy, the Pretenders to the Spirit, the Enemies of children's Baptism, think themselves wronged, and the Gospel hidden, if casually they hear you making Interpretations of the Kingdom of Jesus, the Operations of the Spirit, and that divine Institution, different from their lewd sense. And many Questions, when determined, after a great deal of labour, and passion, and expense of time, may improve our Knowledge, but not Faith and a good Life, the only Edification. The early and best Christians thought themselves mighty Saints, and secure of Heaven, if they only knew Jesus and the Resurrection in their full extent; and the World being such ill Judges about any other Edification, it would be well if they returned to this good old way, and rest satisfied there, lest they take the Inventions of Men, Rhetoric or subtlety, secular interest, or conjectures, for the Pillars of the Temple, to support their Faith; and so upon the score of Edification, break the Peace and Unity of the Church, and Obedience to our Governors, the great things of Religion.  
3. In taking sudden heats and warmth for true Edification. When melting tones, affectionate expressions, solemn looks and behaviour, passion and vehemency, and other Arts, have played upon the fancy, and put their constitutions into different motions, some have though themselves so strangely Edified, as though it was the impulse and powerful acting of the Divine Spirit; which many times is no more than a bright or a lowering day can do, acting upon the Animal Spirits; and a Dose of Physic will do the same. And if they carry the men no further, improve no virtue in them, they are nothing else but downright flesh and blood. And they are hot and cold, high and low, very changeable and uncertain, according as the humours flow, and as is the bodily temper of the men. Upon this account some are melted into Tears, and others are fired into Rage and Zeal; their Spirits, like Tinder, easily catching the flame: and these have happened in the worst of Men, serving only the Designs of Fury and Hypocrisy; and can no more be called Edification, than the Fire from the Altar, that may consume the Temple, Zeal. Yet such mistakes as these have been too common; Anger and Revenge have been called Zeal for God; Trade and Interest have been Baptised Christianity; Fury and Fumes of the Stomach have been thought the Divine Spirit; ridiculous Looks and unmanly Postures have been fancied true Acts of Devotion; and when they themselves were pleased, and in the good humour, God was reconciled; and when they were dull and heavy, the Spirit was withdrawn: and according as these heats and bodily passions were stirred, so the Ministry was Edifying or unprofitable; pale Cheeks and hollow Looks have been 
Matth. 6. 16.  counted signs of Grace, and the Diseases of their body passed for the Virtue of their mind. And when a Doctrine hath been so insinuated, as to hit and favour these, they were strangely improved, and had obtained a good degree in Religion. Many of these may be beginnings, or occasions, leading unto Religion, and may serve some good purposes in men that can manage them well; but to cry up these for Edification, and going on unto perfection, is to betray their People into the power of every Cheat and Impostor, who hath the knack to raise these heats, which pass for reason and conviction of mind; and most commonly are great hindrances to solid and sound reasoning, plain discourses, the true way to Edification, to make firm and lasting impressions upon the mind; while the silly and the weak, who are most subject to these heats and colds, the uncertain motions of their Spirits, are fickle and inconstant, turning round in all Religions; such men being all Sail, are more easily tossed about with every wind of Doctrine.  
3. Argument to confirm the Answer, is; That pretence of better Edification will cause endless Divisions in the Church. This Question doth suppose, that every man must judge; and so great a part of the World being ignorant and vicious, partial and prejudiced, false and insincere to themselves and others, they may run from Teacher to Teacher, from Presbyterian to Independent, from Independent to Anabaptist, or Quaker, and never stop till they come at their Grave, to find out better Edification; ever learning, and never coming to the knowledge of the truth; ever seeking, and 
2 Tim. 3. 7.  never satisfied, till they find the Pattern upon the Mount, or the new Jerusalem be come down from above; till they meet with such a perfect Church, as perhaps will never be here upon earth, till her great Master comes. The ignorant will easily mistake, and who can know the heart and intention of the false and the Hypocrite? And the Governor hath nothing to do here to retrench this liberty, which, as they pretend, is either born with them, or given them by God. At this rate, may not every single person be a Church, leaving all other Christian Societies, fancying that he can better Edify at home with the workings of his own mind, and some pretended infusions of the Spirit, that he shall better meet with in his privacies and retirements, than in an external and carnal Ministry and Crowd? When once they have torn the Unity of the Church in pieces, and set up their more Edifying Meetings, in comes whole shoals of Vices; Envy and Detraction, Strife and Emulation, Murmur and Complain, Fierceness and Wrath, and a great number of things more, prejudicial to the State of the Kingdom, the interest of Families, the good of Friendship and all civil Conversation; a wonderful Edification, destroying the very Soul of Christianity! The same Principles that divide them from this Church, will crumble them into endless Parties; and every little Chip may call itself a Building, and so destroy all good Government and Discipline, so necessary to propagate and preserve Christianity in the World. And should I live to see that fatal day, when the Government in our Church should be dissolved, and liberty given to every man, upon pretence of better Edification, to choose his Pastor and his Church; so many Mischiefs and Confusions would follow from it, that if there was any regard to common Christianity, or sense of temporal happiness left within their Breast, they would too late repent their Schism, (as once in a great degree many of them did) and beg upon their Knees, that the Pale of this Government in Church might be set up again, and they would receive it with all its pretended load of Impositions. This will certainly follow from dividing from the Church; to the laughter of Rome, and joy of all the Enemies of our Christian Religion. All this would be avoided, if men were sensible of the heinous nature of Schism, which the Apostles and all the ancient Christians have painted forth in such black colours, though others think our Divisions in the Church are no more, than variety of Companies and Liveries in a City.  
4. What great discouragement this is to an honest and truly Christian Ministry. When a Pastor of our Church shall diligently and faithfully, plainly and devoutly unfold the Articles of Faith, and lay down Rules for Practice, which will certainly bring him to Heaven; yet his Flock or Charge, one after another, upon pretence of greener Pastures, greater Knowledge, better Elocution, Delivery, Tone, or the like, to be had elsewhere, shall run from him; will it not cool his Zeal, check his Labours, and affront his Person and Office? This may be done to the painful, as well as idle; to the judicious and learned, as well as imprudent and Ignorant Pastor, where the People shall have liberty of Separation for the sake of Edification. The ill effects of this, have turned upon their own Ministers, and new Government; and the most judicious among them have sadly complained of it. Formerly they Petitioned, for a painful and preaching Ministry, but this pretence of better Edification gives denial to their own request; such Discouragements as these happening severely sometimes to the best of Pastors, as well as the worst. And they have no cure for this, having put a power into the People's hands which they cannot recall; for neither King, Parliament, Bishop, or Pastor, can tell them what is Edification so well as themselves. And are the Pastors of the Church to be so treated and trifled with, who derive their Offices and Authority from God to Command and Persuade, to Rebuke and Exhort, and have the Charge of Souls committed to them, for fancies, peevishness and humour, to be scorned and discountenanced, and have their Ministry rendered useless, and the Sheep to govern the Shepherd? But what if our Pastor be idle or remiss in his Duty, or corrupt in his Faith, and teacheth Error instead of sound Doctrine, and we have no means of Edification? what must we do? must we take in Poison for Food? or not be fed at all? To be sure, you must not run into Schismatical Separation; 'tis more tolerable to go to other Congregations of our Communion; that may be irregular, but 'tis not Schismatical: but thanks be to God, we have a Government, which upon a just and modest Complaint, will quicken the lazy and negligent, correct the Heretical Pastor, and restore to you true Edification.  
That this Discourse may prevail upon such who make this Question, I desire to recommend these two following things, which are very reasonable, to their consideration.  
1. That if they fancy any Defects in our Government, they should not hence conclude, that they have not sufficient Edification in the Church to save their Souls. If upon a nice search and critical enquiry, they think they have found some little Flaws and Defects, improper Phrases, doubtful Senses, and some small Omissions in the matter of our Prayers and Discipline, yet let them not conclude, that these can weigh in the balance against the black sin of Schism and Separation, and all its sad Consequences, which is excused by nothing else but terms of Communion plainly sinful. Have not Divine Services been accepted, which were less perfect, and came not up to their rule? as is plain in Hezekiah's Passover, which was not to the Purification of the Sanctuary, yet the good King's 
2 Chron. 30. 18, 19, 20.  Prayer, and the necessity of the time, prevailed with God to heal the People, that is, to repute them clean and well prepared, and their Sacrifice and Devotion good. Is there no Reverence to be paid to the Pious Authors of our Service and Reformation, but to tell them, they must divide from them, were they now living? for they cannot Edify under that Religion and Government for which they died. Is there, or will there ever be any Government in the Church, so well framed and built, but some curious Surveyor can spy out some disproportion or ill shape, especially if assisted by ill Nature, Emulation, the Spirit of Pride and Contention, which is ever quicksighted abroad, and blind at home? the difficulty of knowing what is utmost perfection, and absolute purity of Administrations, (which, till attained, these Men think they are not to rest in any Church) should make them judge candidly, interpret fairly, and comply with every thing, that is not sinful, to preserve Peace and Love. When Men in the English Church are plainly taught to believe well, to live well, and to die well, and have good and proper Offices to serve these great purposes, in order to their Salvation, what can they desire more? To be better, or more saved, we know not what it means. To leave such a Communion, upon such an account, proceeds from peevishness, uncharitableness, or some ill Principle; and is downright Schism, if ever there was Schism in the World. Bring but an honest, sincere and teachable mind, and it will find improvement and advantage in Offices and Administrations fuller of spots and blemishes far than they can pretend to find in the English Church; but if the mind be biased by a Party, or corrupted by Designs, if its Palate be vitiated, the best Food is corpse and insipid to it.  
2. Let Edification be placed in the substantial things of Religion. Some revolt from our Church for things wherein the Pastor is solely concerned, and others for things of decency, and indifferency; but these things do not concern the Case of Edification. That a right Faith, and an honest Conversation, are not taught in our Church, is only a scandal cast upon her, to plead for their unjust Separation. For after she hath plainly and distinctly taught the Articles of Faith, (as was proved before) with the same Spirit and Zeal she commands and presses Justice, Humility, Mercy, and every Virtue that is necessary to a true Christian Life, and both under the Penalty of Eternal Damnation: these, and these alone, do truly Edify the Souls of Men; as is plain, if we consider, that our Prayers and Sacraments, our Church's Ceremonies and Discipline, and all other parts in Religion, are in order to, and minister unto Faith their head, that works by love: and the nearer these approach unto, and the greater service they do to this design, the greater degree they have in Religion, and more value is set upon them. This is that Religion which our first Parent was of in his Paradise and innocency; Noah and his Posterity in their Precepts; and Pious Men in different Countries before the Law of Moses thus served God. And the scope and aim of the Jewish Law, with its Temple and Utensils, its Figures and Ceremonies, was to discipline and teach Men thus to be good, with allowance to the Nature of that People, and the Times they lived in. And the best and most knowing Pagans thought such a Religion as this would most please God; who therefore in some measure did accept it, and reward it with greater Discoveries, as is plain 
Acts 8. 27. Acts 10. 4.  in Cornelius, the Queen of Candaces' Treasurer, and others, who having not the Law, were a Law unto themselves. In such things as these, the Kingdom of our Messiah was to consist; not in Meat 
Rom. 14. 17.  and Drink, but Righteousness and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost. Such a Religion as this, Edifies in so great a degree, that 'tis the only Condition and Qualification for the upper World; where (though other great Parts of Religion shall die with us) Righteousness, Gratitude, Love of God, and glorified Being's, and such like Virtues, are of an Eternal Nature, shall be Ingredients of our Happiness, and shall live with us for ever. What can be justly required in Religion, to improve men's Souls, that is not found in this? Is it to recover the Nature of Man now defaced? Righteousness and Goodness, proceeding from Faith, their root, will make us truly good. Is it to give us a clearer Knowledge and worthy Conceptions of God? such a practical Religion as this, best prepares for greater knowledge, and in Scripture-sence is knowing of him. Is it Religion 
1 Joh. 2. 4.  to love God? the love of God consists in obedience to his Precepts, submission to his Will, and resignation to his Providence; otherwise 'tis flattery and fondness. Is it the design of Religion to bless Mankind here, and edify them in their different relations? such a Religion as this in our Church will do all that, and make the World a Paradise once more. This will give us the best character to judge by, whether we shall be saved or no, being the perfection of all other marks and signs of our assurance of Life and Glory. When we are so Edified and Religious, we are certain, that we are justified and adopted, accepted and treated like the Sons of God; that we are in Christ, and have our wedding-Garments on, our proper qualifications for the state of Heaven. Such an honest Principle as this, makes our Prayers to be heard, our Devotions to be regarded, our Hopes to be strengthened. This is the great intention of Christianity, the Holy of Holys of our Temple, and all Religion. Such a Religion as this being so strongly enjoined and zealously taught in our Church, no ways disguised by a dress of Phrases, or corrupted into soft and luscious senses, we need not complain for want of the means of Grace and Edification; we need not cross the Seas, or run into private corners for it; 'tis nigh us, even at our Doors, in the established Government of the Church of England. Some use to say, that brown Bread and the Gospel was very good Fare; but now they are grown as nice and delicate about Religion and Edification, as about Sauces and Dresses. Thanks be to God, 'tis a knowing Age, I wish it was as good. The Corruption of it doth not arise for want of Knowledge and Information; if it doth, the Cure is near, let them value that Church and Government that hath all things in it sufficient to men's Salvation. Let them not think so light of Schism, and speaking evil of the Rule and Discipline in our Church, so fit and necessary to the preservation of Christianity; let them not cry up other Paul's and Apollos'; any other Teachers making Divisions among us, than this Church hath allowed for their Edification; which is so far from Spiritual Edification, that it calls such Men Carnal. For the desire 
1 Cor. 3. 4.  of any other Nourishment, beside such plain Food, is Spiritual Pride and Wantonness; and they pamper their Fancies, while they starve their Judgements. Let us therefore stick to such a manly Religion, one great part of which is, to preserve Obedience, Peace, and Order; and say of our Church, that teacheth it, as the Disciples of its Author; Thou art he, and we seek for no other: whither shall we go? thou hast the Words of Eternal Life. She hath all things in her that are necessary for the perfecting of 
Ephes. 4. 12, 13.  the Saints, for the Work of the Ministry, for the Edifying of the Body; till we all come in the Unity of the Faith, and of the Knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. That such a Religion as this in our Church is pleasing both to God and Man, we have the Testimony of an Apostle: He that 
Rom. 14. 18.  in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and approved of Men.  
FINIS.   

BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER.  
A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Job, etc.  
Considerations of present use, considering the Danger resulting from the change of our Church-Government.  

1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England.  
2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion.  
3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God, proposed and Stated, by considering these Questions, etc.  
4. A Discourse about Edification.  
5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience, Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England?  
6. A Letter to Anonymus, in answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship. In two Parts.  
8. The Case of mixed Communion: Whether it be Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixed Communions?  
9 An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers, and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England.  
10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved, etc. The first Part.  
11. Certain Cases of Conscience, etc. The second Part.  
12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons, and of going to hear where men think they can profit most.  
13. A serious Exhortation, with some important Advices, relating to the late Cases about Conformity, recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England.  
14. An Argument for Union; taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestant's.  
15. The Case of Kneeling, etc. The Second Part.  
16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal, or giving Offence to Weak Brethren.  
17. The Case of Infant-Baptism, in Five Questions, etc.   

1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists ask of us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther?  
2. A Discourse about Tradition, showing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be received, and what Tradition is to be rejected.  
3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England.  
4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith, etc.    

A Discourse OF PROFITING BY SERMONS, AND Of going to HEAR, where men think they can PROFIT most.  
LONDON, Printed for T. Basset, at the George in Fleetstreet, B. Tooke, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard, & F. Gardiner, at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street. 1684.   

A Discourse Of PROFITING by SERMONS.  
AS there is nothing that all good Men more desire, nothing that they more hearty seek and endeavour, than a Happy reunion of all those with us, who have Rend themselves from us (which we should reckon to be one of the highest blessings that God can now bestow upon us) so there is little hope of seeing those desires and endeavours satisfied, while the smallest Scruples seem a sufficient cause to hinder many People from joining with us.  
But among all the Reasons that I have heard alleged for leaving our Churches, this seems to me to be the weakest and most ungrounded, That our Ministers are unedifying Preachers; for they cannot profit by their Sermons. Which, I am informed, is so commonly objected, and some lay such weight upon it, and it carries with it such a show of Piety (it being a very commendable thing to desire to be the better for every Sermon one hears) that it is thought to be worth some body's pains, to try to remove this unjust Prejudice which too many have entertained against the most instructive and useful Sermons, that, perhaps, are preached any where in the Christian World,  
This may seem too high a commendation; but it is the Judgement of more indifferent persons than we are, on either side; of strangers I mean, who have seen the World; and having learned our language and heard and read the Sermons that are commonly preached and printed in this great City, affirm there are not the like to be found in any Church whatsoever. God grant we be not deprived of such singular helps by our contempt of them; and that our Candlestick be not removed out of its place, because we withdraw ourselves from the light which it holds forth to us.  
Of which we are in very great danger, if not knowing what it is truly to profit by Sermons, we make no progress at all in the state of Christianity: but deceive our own Souls in a vain opinion of our acquaintance with God, and our blessed Saviour, and the Mysteries of the Gospel, which have little or no effect upon our hearts and lives.  
I do not pronounce this to be the case of those who object to us, that we have an unprofitable Ministry: but I doubt not to demonstrate, that the Sermons which are generally preached by the Ministry in this City (to whose Inhabitants I principally writ) are such that they may profit by them, if it be not their own fault: and then leave them to Judge of themselves as they see cause.  
I suppose we are all agreed, or may easily agree, what it is to profit by Sermons: for we agree that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to our Salvation; and therefore when they are rightly opened, and duly applied in a Sermon, so that the Hearers improve either in Christian knowledge, or in Faith, or in well-doing, than they profit by that Sermon. Now if any Man do not improve in these, by the help of the Sermons, which he may hear in our Churches, and the Fault lie in the Sermon; it must be either in the matter of it, or in the manner: for none, I presume, will be so bold as to affirm, that God's Spirit doth not accompany a Sermon, which wants nothing belonging to either of these, the Preacher also being duly qualified. And, thanks be to God, there are none that dare now complain of an Idle, Scandalous, Insufficient Ministry about this City: but instead of that, they, that were wont to have those words in their mouths, have taken up the complaint of an Unedifying. Whereby we have gained this great Point, That they have no colour to pretend the Person who preaches is unsanctified, and therefore God doth not bless his Ministry: but the fault must lie (if there be any) in the Sermon itself; and that in the matter of which it consists, or in the manner of its delivery.  

I.  
And as for the former of these, I can scarce think that any Dissenter, when he seriously considers, will except against our Sermons upon that account; they being taken out of the Holy Scriptures (which are the foundation of our Religion) and with such care to find out their true sense and proper meaning, that perhaps they were never more clearly opened, and rightly applied, than they are now adays in our Churches. I am sure, All that heavenly Truth which was delivered to our first Parents, when they were about to be expelled out of Paradise; which God repeated in his Promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; which he shadowed and confirmed in the Law of Moses; illustrated by the Oracles of the Prophets; and finally fulfilled in the Incarnation, Birth, Life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Son of God; and diffused by the Preaching of the Apostles and the Power of the Holy Ghost, all over the World; is there so fully and distinctly taught, that we may safely say, the whole Counsel of God's Will is at one time or other faithfully declared among us.  
And as that is declared completely, so little else is meddled withal: matters of controversy being as rarely handled in our Pulpits, I believe, as in any place of the World: unless it be those which the present State of things, sometimes makes absolutely Necessary, to fortify the People against Popery, and against Separation: yet even these are not so often treated of, as matters of general concernment to all Parties of Christians whatsoever. For the great drift of our Preachers seems to be, to instruct the People in the Truth, and to make them good (particularly to give them right notions of God, which are the very bottom of all Religion) knowing that Errors and Superstitions will fall of themselves, without a particular confutation. For they are supported by nothing but ignorance and naughty affections; which will uphold them against all the Arguments whereby they can be assaulted, unless men's minds be informed and possessed with such a right sense of things, as altars their Wills and Affections, and turns them to an unfeigned love of God and Goodness.  
Which seems to me to be the aim and scope of the Sermons which are generally preached by our Ministers: and which is so well performed, that we need not fear to affirm, there is nothing necessary either to make men truly knowing in the things of God; or to work belief in them; or to confirm them in the Faith; or to direct them in their practice of what they know and believe; or to excite them to follow those directions, and to live according to the Laws of the Gospel; or to satisfy material Scruples; to resolve doubts and cases of Conscience; to comfort disconsolate penitents, and awaken drowsy sinners, or any thing of like Nature: but may be met withal in our Churches, so fully, solidly, and judiciously handled, that men need go no whither else for Edification; if that be the thing they truly desire, and sincerely seek and endeavour.  
For what truth can they learn any where else, which is not to be learned, if they will attend upon God's service there, in our Churches? what Motives to believe, or what Arguments to convince men of their Duty, which are not there represented, and pressed? What Vice is there, which doth not there receive just Correction? What Virtue that is not there most strongly recommended? which of the promises are not there applied to the Hearts of the faithful? and where can men have better means of knowing the terror of the Lord, as the Apostle speaks, against all the impenitent and disobedient? And if men cannot profit where such things as these are constantly managed, to as much advantage, as the skill of the Preacher will enable him, I am sure the fault must lie somewhere else, than in the matter of the Sermons.   

II.  
Yes, will some say, we allow the matter of them to be good enough: but the manner of them is such, that we cannot reap the like benefit by them, that we do by other men's preaching, who cannot conform to the Church of England. Which if it be a just Exception, the fault must lie either in the Composition of them; or in their delivery after they are composed.  
1. Now if the composition of them be faulty, it is because their Method is not clear and perspicuous; or the Language not plain enough to convey the Sense of them to the mind of the Hearers. Neither of which, I am confident can be truly charged upon them. For never did men more endeavour orderly discourse, and aim at plain, unaffected Speech, than they do now in the Church of England: where good Sense, in the most easy and familiar Words, is now looked upon as the principal Commendation of Sermons.  
Some indeed, I have heard, find fault with our Sermons for not keeping the old method (as they call it) of Doctrine, Reason, and Use: which is altogether unjust as well as frivolous. For there is no man that baulks that Method when it is natural; but rather chooses it, because it hath been common, and is easy and useful. As for example, if any man among us, were to preach upon this text, Corinth. XIII. 13. And now abideth Faith, Hope and Charity; these three; but the greatest of these is Charity; He would, without doubt, not only observe among other Doctrines, the pre-eminence of Charity: but also give the best Reasons, he could think of, why it ought to be highest in our Esteem, and our Affections too; because it is the very end of Faith and Hope; and because it makes us like unto God, which Faith and Hope do not. And after such like things, he would likewise make that Use of this Doctrine, which the Apostle himself doth Immediately in the very next words (Verse 1. Chapter XIV.) pressing every one to follow after the Love of God, and of their Neighbour: to follow it earnestly and vigorously, and never cease their pursuit till they feel their Hearts possessed with it: not contenting themselves merely with believing, but being so affected with it, that they attain the end of their Faith, which ought to work by Love. Nay, he would wish them to examine and prove their Faith by this, whether it be likely to save them or no. For if it leave them short of this Charity, it will leave them short of Heaven: for it is Charity alone that hath any place there. And who would forbear most pathetical entreaties here, to be very serious in this search: there being so much Pretence to Faith in the World, and so little Charity to be found there. To one sort of Faith especially, which is the apprehension of Christ's Merits, and application of them to themselves, which every Body makes bold withal, whilst very few have any thing of that Charity which St. Paul describes in the Chapter before named, of that long suffering and kind Charity; which envieth not, which vaunteth not itself, (or is not rash) is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no Evil; (but taketh things in the best Sense, and puts the fairest Construction upon them;) in one Word, makes a Man inoffensive not only towards God but towards Men of all sorts, high and low, rich and poor; that is, to the whole Church of God.  
The like I might say of all other Subjects of the same nature, which lead him that handles them into this Method. But sometime the matter to be treated of is such, that there is no other Reason to be given of it but only the divine Revelation, upon whose Testimony we receive it; as we do, that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God, begotten of his Father before all Worlds. The Uses of which I never heard any Preacher amougst us fail to make, both for the begetting Reverence towards him, Faith in him, and Obedience unto him.  
But what need is there of so many Words about this method of Sermons, when the ancient Doctors of Religion, it is manifest, did not mind it, nor any other? But spoke to the Business before them, without observing any constant Rule at all in their Discourses: and then it is apparent People profited by Sermons much more than they do now, when they are most artificially contrived. And it would be an inexcusable Sin in those that should leave our Church, did the Ministers of it only open the Sense of the Epistle or the Gospel for the day (or any other portion of Holy Scripture, as St. Chrysostom was wont to do) without making particular Observations, or concluding all with distinct Uses (as the manner now is) but only with a general Application, pressing what they thought most material, or what the necessities of their People most required.  
By which way of preaching if Men can receive no profit, they must lay the Blame somewhere else than upon the Composition of the Sermon, or the manner of its Delivery either, which is the next thing to be considered.  
2. Now here two things are found fault withal: first, That our Preachers are not vehement enough in the Delivery of their Sermons; secondly, That they read them.  
For the former of these, it is not true: where the matter in hand is of great concernment, and requires more than ordinary earnestness. Which ought in reason, to be reserved for some certain Occasions, and not be spent upon all things alike: for than it loses its effect at that time, when it would be most seasonably and usefully employed.  
But there is a great mistake in that which men call vehemence: which ofttimes consists only in the strength of the voice: which neither all your Preachers, nor all ours are endowed withal. And if they were, would be but noise; without good Sense, which will move attentive minds as much as a loud sound affects men's Ears.  
Add to this, that there is a natural heat also in some men's tempers, which makes them speak vehemently; with such a warmth as hath the appearance of much Zeal: when they are nothing near so deeply affected with what they say, as some Men of more sedate and cool tempers are, whose Judgement operates more strongly than their Passions. And these Men surely may be very serviceable for Illumination of the Mind; with such force of Argument as will certainly move the affections vehemently by the help of serious Consideration: without which if any affections be raised, they are little worth; and will not last, but vanish as soon as that blast is over which stirred them up.  
And this difference of temper is observable in your Men, as well as in ours: and therefore this can be no hindrance to Edification among us, no more than among you.  
As for reading of Sermons, it is not universally used: but there are those among us whom God hath blessed with such strength of Memory or readiness of Conception that they need not the help of any Notes at all in the Pulpit. And others do not tie themselves to them, so as never to look off the Book; but only assist their Memory by them sometimes. Whereby the Auditory is assured that they hear nothing but what hath been beforehand considered and digested: and the Preacher himself also is secured that he shall not forget any thing of Moment which he hath prepared; & that no Expression slip from him on a sudden which may prove indecent or imprudent. As for those whose weakness of Memory, or their great Modesty and Fear of being out (as we speak) compels them to keep their Eye constantly upon their Notes; as they and others have the forenamed advantages by it, so no Man can be in the least prejudiced by it, who will but turn his Eyes another way and not look upon the Preacher. Then the Sermon will sound as well as if it were all pronounced without Book: or if this make it unprofitable, by the same reason the Holy Scriptures become unprofitable, when they are read out of the Bible; and they also must be got without Book, to make them edifying. Nay, this exception will lie also against some of your own Preachers of great note, who read every word. I am sure they did so heretofore, and this was then thought no hindrance to your profiting by them: or if it were, you heard them when you could not profit by them, so as you could by those that did not read. And so you may do now by our Preachers of this kind, nay so you ought to do: when you have nothing to say against them, but what they are equally chargeable withal whom you highly commend.   

III.  
But after all, I have some reason to fear that when men complain they cannot profit by our Sermons, they mean nothing by profiting, but that their affections are not moved in the hearing of them, so as they are by the Sermons of Nonconformists. Unto which I have many things to say if this Paper would contain them: but it will be sufficient to touch only upon these three.  
1. That Men have several Talents, both among you and among us: which are all very profitable. Some for informing the Judgement; others for moving the Affections; and others (which is most desirable) for both: you are not able to say that all yours move you so as some do: and yet you make such account of all, that it hath ever been looked upon as a very disorderly thing among yourselves (and worse than that I shall prove by and by) for People to run from their own Minister to hear some other (though of the same way) merely to have the affections more moved. Because,  
2. This alone is so far from profiting by Sermons, that it is very great unprofitableness, to be moved by a Sermon, and do nothing thereupon, but only commend it. That is, to be tickled and pleased a while, but not altered nor changed a whit: or to be warmed perhaps a little for the present, and then left as cold as a stone, without any spiritual life, or endeavour to be the better.  
3. But the great thing of all is this, that affections raised merely by the earnestness of the Preacher, at present in the hearing of a Sermon (and it is well if the affections which some People speak of, be not Motions which they feel merely from the tone of the voice, as from a taking phrase, a similitude or some such trifle) are nothing comparable to those, which we raise by God's blessing upon our own serious consideration, when we reflect upon what we have heard, which sort of most excellent affections, the Sermons that are preached in our Churches, cannot fail to produce, if you please but to attend to the matter of them and press them upon your Hearts: Nay, your Judgements being well informed, it would not be hard for you (if you would but take a little pains with yourselves) to excite such affections unto that which you know to be your Duty as would abide and remain; when the others that were excited in the hearing of a Sermon, are gone, and quite vanished, and can never be recalled, but by your own serious Meditation upon those Divine Truths, which entered into your Mind, and would have touched, nay pierced your Hearts, if you would have brought them thither, and held them close to your Consciences.  
Which ought to be every Christians care more than I doubt it is, in order to their profiting by Sermons; and that they may not be barren and unfruitful in the Knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.   

iv  
And now it is time for all those who are concerned in what hath been said, to apply it to the present case, and going down into themselves to inquire where the fault must necessarily lie, if the Sermons preached by our Ministers have proved unprofitable to them; which supposeth, that they who object this against coming to Church, have come heretofore, at least to the Sermon; but went away, and came no more, because they reaped no benefit thereby. Else, how can they pretend that our Sermons are unprofitable if they never heard them? Now I have demonstrated, that the blame cannot be justly cast upon the Sermons, which in themselves are every way fitted to do Men good: and therefore we must seek for the cause of this Unprofitableness some where else; and where are we so likely to find it as in those that heard the Sermons? Whom I beseech, in the fear of God, by whose Word we must one day be all judged, to consider with themselves impartially, and to ask their Consciences such Questions as these.  
1. Quest. Had you not some Prejudice in your Mind against the Person of the Minister whom you came to hear, either upon the score of his Conformity, or of his strictness in it, or some other account? If you had, and carried it along with you, there is great Reason to think this made his Pains unprofitable to you; because you could not hear him with that indifference which you would have heard another man withal. But looking upon him perhaps as a , (as the Language of some hath been) a Formalist, or one who you presumed beforehand had little or nothing of the Spirit in him, you minded not so much what was said, as who said it; and disliked those things which out of another Mouth you would have accepted. For if such Prejudices as these be not laid aside, they bar the Heart so strongly against the most excellent Instructions, that though an Angel from Heaven should deliver to us the most Important Truths, yet, we taking him for a Minister of Satan, it would stop our Ears against him, and make his Message ineffectual.  
2. Quest. Or might not this be the reason of your reaping no benefit, that you came to Church but once or twice, and concluded too hastily there was no Good to be got there; being willing also perhaps, to have this excuse for absenting yourself wholly from it: whereas if you had constantly attended our Ministry, you might have found yourselves so much improved thereby, as never to have thought of leaving the Church upon this account, that you could not profit in it. Make a Trial now (for it is not too late, I hope, if you can shake off all Prejudices) and for some time continue diligent Auditors of the Minister of your Parish; and that which at first may seem to you dull, or hard, or obscure, will, after you are used to it, be clear, easy, and awakening: when you are acquainted, that is, with his Method, his Style, his way of Reasoning and Discourse, (as well as accustomed to his Voice) which you cannot be in an instant, or at the first hearing. For the Scriptures themselves are obscure and difficult, to the best of us, in abundance of places, till by Conversation with them, we grow acquainted with their Phrase, manner of Speaking, Arguing and Connexion. And if God's Word had been generally used, as some among us have treated his Ministers (rejecting them, I mean, because they did not presently apprehend them) it had been thrown out of all men's hands long ago as an unprofitable piece.  
3. Quest. I desire such further, to examine seriously and recollect themselves, Whether the thing that made them first forsake our Ministry, as unprofitable, was not, That when they came to Church the Preacher happened to treat on some Subject cross to their Opinion? Which hasty Persons (who consider not what different Apprehensions men may have in many matters, and yet agree well enough together) cannot brook; but presently fling away from those that contradict them, as if they contradicted God himself. Whereas, if they would have had Patience, they might have profited even by such Discourses; either by being convinced of their Error, or more confirmed in that which they took for truth; being able to answer the Arguments brought against it.  
4. Quest. But (that which is worse than this) the Minister was perhaps upon some distasteful Subject when you chanced to go to Church, and happened to treat of such matters as you love not to hear of, though more necessary, it may be, than many others, for this very Reason, that because of their Ungratefulness they are seldom handled. Will you not be angry nor lay aside this Paper and read no further, if I give an Instance or two? Which I mentioned for no other Reason, but because I know some have taken offence (as they call it at such Doctrines, and aught, if it be possible, to be better taught. Was he not preaching, I mean, about Schism, or Disobedience to Governors? It is certain there are such Sins, which are very heinous and dangerous every way; and therefore, no faithful Servant of Jesus Christ, can, with a good Conscience, balk the treating of them some time or other. And suppose he that treated of them when you was at Church extended the Duties of Unity and of Obedience further than you desire, might not you, for all that, have profited very much by what was said upon those Subjects?  
I believe sober Men among you have heard some of your own Ministers speak harder Words of Conformity and Conformists than you would have had them, and yet you did not for that Reason leave them, but still fancied you could profit by them; even by what they said on that Subject of Conformity. And therefore you would do well to search and try what account you can give of taking such distaste at the established Ministry, as to forsake it upon their pressing some things, which are most certainly Christian Duties, with greater strictness than agreed with your present Inclinations.  
And I the rather beseech you to consider such things as these; because it is a common thing to hear Men and Women of your way to complain of their unprofitableness under Ordinances, of the Deadness of their Heart in Duty, and their Barrenness under the most powerful means of Grace: which arises perhaps in those minds that are well inclined merely from a natural Dullness or Indisposition, which makes them unable to attend, or to remember, and keep in mind, as they desire, what they have heard; and therefore moral Indispositions (such as Prejudice, Passion, Disaffection to the way of Worship, or to any Christian Doctrine) will much more make men unapt to receive any Impressions from what is said to them; though in itself never so good, and fitted powerfully to affect the Heart, were it but entertained with an honest Mind.  
So that if you complain of Deadness and Unprofitableness under the Ministry of our Church, it is no more than a great many of you do of the like Barrenness under your own; but proceeding, it is to be feared, from a worse Cause; of which in Reason you should suspect yourselves to be guilty, rather than conclude so suddenly as you do, our Ministry to be unedifying.   

V  
The very same may be said to those who fancy, that though they can profit something by our Ministry, yet they can profit more by others. They ought in Conscience to examine whence this Conceit ariseth; whether it do not proceed from Prejudice, from Disaffection, from Disgust at some Doctrine which they love not should be touched, from their seldom attendance upon the established Ministry, from their careless hearing when they were there, or from the hasty Sentence they pronounced against it before a sufficient Trial. And withal, they should consider what they mean by profiting; whether really and truly they are not more earnestly pressed in our Congregations to be thoroughly good and virtuous, to take a strict care to please God in Thought, Word, and Dred, than they are in those where they imagine they profit more; because they are entertained there, perchance, with more pleasing Subjects, than this of their whole Christian Duty.  
I only suggest this as a thing to be most deeply pondered, and do not accuse you to be guilty of such Falseness to your own Souls: but this I must say, That if you do not grow more holy, harmless, and unreprovable in your common Conversation, if your Passions be not better governed, if your Tongues be not more strictly bridled, if you grow not more humble, less conceited of yourselves, less confident of your own Understandings, more fearful to offend God by censuring, rash Judging, disrespectful Behaviour to your Betters and Superiors, and such like things, you do but deceive yourselves with an Opinion of profiting more by the Nonconforming Ministry than by ours. Upon which if you would attend with a Mind to improve in these great things, I am well assured your profiting might appear to all men as well as to yourselves; who might be convinced, in a little time, there is no need to go any whither else for such Edification. And if you go for any other, there will be no end of seeking still for better entertainment of your Fancies, and Itching Ears; which will desire to be gratified with infinite variety.  
The mischief of which, they of your own way have felt and complained of as much as we; and the better any of them have been, the more careful have they appeared in giving Cautions against this wanton humour, though pretending never so much to Religion, and to growth in Grace, or Soulsaving knowledge. In the days of your Forefathers, I am sure, they who could not in all things conform to the Church of England, looked upon this as a dangerous principle, that men must go where they can profit most. And because it is likely that the Opinion of a grave and serious person, highly esteemed by all your Party formerly, may prevail with you more than any of ours, give me leave to mind you what Mr. Hildersham hath resolved in several cases like to ours, particularly about this, of men's leaving their own Pastors to hear others.   

VI  
1. And first, he resolves this, That it is the Ordinance of God every Pastor should have his own Flock to attend, and every one of God's People should have a Pastor of his own to depend upon. From whence he concludes, that none of those People may ordinarily and usually leave that Pastor, because than he doth not depend upon his Ministry; which he proves every one of them is bound to do.  
2. And that you may not imagine he means any other Pastor than such as ours, his second Resolution is this, that they who dwell next together should be of the same Congregation: whence the name of Paroichia, and Parish, first came.  
3. Now thirdly, if it happen that he who is the settled Pastor of the place where you dwell is a man whose Gifts are far inferior to some others; his Resolution in this case is, That (he being a Man whose Gift is approved by God's Church, and who is conscionable in his Place, and of an unblameable Life) you ought not to leave him at any time, with contempt of his Ministry. And then you contemn his Ministry, when you speak, or think thus in your heart. Alas! he is no Body; a good honest Man, but he hath no Gifts; I cannot profit by him. (Mind I beseech you these Words, which are none of mine, but Mr. Hildersham's, and I doubt too common Language now among you) and mark the Reasons he gives (which I shall contract) why you may not do this. First, A Man may be a true Minister though his Gifts be far inferior to many others: and consequently, secondly, You are bound to love him, and reverence him, and thank God for him: and thirdly, Doubtless you may profit by him, if the Fault be not in yourselves. The best Christian that is may profit by the meanest of Christ's Servants. And I am persuaded, saith he, There is never a Minister that is of the most excellent Gifts, (if he have a godly Heart) but he can truly say he never heard any faithful Minister in his Life that was so mean, but he could discern some Gift in him that was wanting in himself, and could receive some profit by him.  
Which is a thing worthy your consideration now; for there is none of your Ministers dare say, that they cannot profit by the Sermons that are commonly preached in our Churches; and therefore so may you, if you please to be impartial, how meanly soever you may think of any of our Ministers; especially if you observe this fourth thing, which the same Mr. Hildersham judiciously adds, That.  
4. The Fruit and Profit which is to be received from the Ministry, depends not only nor chiefly upon the Gifts of the Man that preaches, but upon the Blessing that God is pleased to give unto his own Ordinance, To which he applies those Words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 3. 5, 6, 7, 8. Who is Paul? and who is Apollo? but Ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every Man. I have planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the Increase. So then, neither is he that planted any thing, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the Increase, etc. And God doth oft give a greater Blessing to weak than to stronger means: and therefoer consider, saith he, the Fault may be rather in thyself than in the Preacher, that thou canst not profit. And indeed, how shouldst thou profit by his Ministry, if thou come with Prejudice, without any Reverence or Delight unto it, and dost scarce acknowledge God's Ordinance in it, nor ever seek to God for his Blessing upon it; but look wholly at the Man who preaches?  
To conclude this, he observes the great want of Judgement that appears in this sort of Christians, in the choice they make of their Teachers, and the applause they give unto them; which shows how necessary it is they should be confined commonly to their own. For as some admire and follow another rather than their own Pastor, because he can make more ostentation of Eloquence, Reading, Learning, and such like humane Gifts than their own Pastor doth, (upon which account the Corinthians preferred sundry Teachers before St. Paul himself) so there are those who leave their own Pastor and go to others, only for Varieties sake. Though their own have never such excellent Gifts, yet can they not like any one Man long; but having itching Ears, must have an heap of Teachers. And some also prefer others before their own Pastor, only because they show more Zeal (mark this) in their Voice and Gesture, and Phrase of Speech, and manner of Delivery; though happily the Doctrine itself be nothing so wholesome, or powerful, or fit to edify their Consciences, as the Doctrine of their own Pastor is. Any though these be the best of the three sorts now mentioned, and pretend much Love and Zeal, yet we may wish them more Knowledge and Judgement.  
I omit other things upon this Subject, which you may find in his 58th. Lecture upon the 4th. of St. John. Where he admits indeed that a man may some time go from his own Parish Church to hear another whose gifts he more admires: But then (like a judicious Divine) adds this notable observation, to correct and regulate this liberty; that it may not prove an evil Humour; viz. He only makes right use of the benefit of hearing such as have more excellent Gifts than his own Pastor, as learns thereby to like his own Pastor the better, and to profit more by him.  
Mark it, I most earnestly entreat you, together with his Illustration of it, by this Example; The excellent Gifts God hath bestowed on others, in this case may be fitly resembled unto Physic: which they use well, whose appetite is thereby amended; and are made able to relish and like their ordinary food the better. If after men have heard one of excellent Gifts, they begin to distaste the Ministry of their ordinary Pastors, and can like of none, profit by none, unless they have rare Gifts: they become at length like to those, who by accustoming themselves to drink hot and strong Waters, bring their Stomaches to that pass, that they can find no Relish or Virtue in any Drink or Water, be it never so hot or strong. Believe it; they receive no true profit from the most admired Preacher, who learn not by hearing him, to profit by any one that delivers to them the wholesome Words of our Lord Jesus, and the Doctrine that is according unto Godliness: though in the plainest manner imaginable, both for Method and Language.  
This I have chosen to write in his Words, because, there are some, I fear, that would scarce endure such Doctrine from us: which may, at least, be more reverently received, and duly considered (proceeding from a Person of such note heretofore among Nonconformists) and beget so much Sobriety in you all, as to make you think what manner of Spirit you are now of? How you come to differ so much, from the best of your own way in former days? This is worth your serious study, that you may not offend, as many hearers do, in a partial and factious estimation they have the Ministers of the Gospel in.  
They are his Words again, in another place. Lecture LXVI. Where he observes this partiality arises from two Grounds. First, the respect they have to difference of Judgement, that is among us, in smaller matters, which makes them affect such only as are of their own Mind in every thing; with the dislike of all others that are of a contrary persuasion. And secondly, from the respect they have to the difference of Gifts which is among Preachers (of which I spoke before) which moves them to admire some, whom they judge to be of excellent gifts (though alas, their judgement is very small) but to despise and contemn all others. And he hath there these two remarkable reflections upon this Humour which I beg of you to observe and remember.  
First, that this factious Disposition of the Hearers of God's Word, hath in all ages been the cause of much Confusion in the Church of God and greatly hindered the fruit of the Gospel of Christ.  
Note here. This way which you are in is not the means of profiting in Religion, but of hindering the growth and increase of it.  
The second is, that whereas they in whom this humour reigneth are wont to glory as if they had more Judgement, and could discern better of Gifts than other men (saying, alas! poor People who esteem so highly of such a man's Gifts; If they had any Judgement or understanding, they would count him no body) The Apostle tells us, it is quite contrary, and that this argues rather they have very little Judgement or Grace in them: yea, this makes them uncapable of profiting by the Word. 1 Cor. 3. 1.  
O that there were an Heart in you, to ponder such Profitable Instructions as these! which were said on purpose to check that evil Disposition which began then to appear among People inclinable to Nonconformity; and is since grown the prevailing humour: insomuch, that some can settle no where, but ramble from one Preacher to another, as their uncertain Fancy guides them, without becoming one whit the better for any.  
Yes, will some say; We might be persuaded to come and hear your Preachers, and hear them constantly, but we ought not to be compelled to it; that's a thing you can never justify. To which so much hath been answered by others, that I shall only tell you what that good Man before named saith to it, in one of those Lectures which was preached in Parliament-time, May 8. 1610. where he takes occasion to stir up the People to pray earnestly for the States of the Realm then assembled; that their principal care might be to take order about two things; first, That an able and conscionable Ministry may be placed every where; and secondly, that ALL People may be compelled to hear. For it is certain (saith he upon this second head) that where there is a good Ministry established, the Magistrate may and aught to compel ALL Subjects to come and hear; notwithstanding all pretence of their Consciences to the contrary.   

VII.  
To sum up all then that hath been said in this Business. Be pleased to consider, What makes a Sermon profitable; and, What must be done by the People to profit by the Sermon.  
A Sermon is then profitable when it informs the Mind and Judgement aright in Divine Truth; when it instructs you in any part of the Christian Duty; when it tends to strengthen or awaken your Faith, that you may more steadfastly adhere, and earnestly apply yourselves to what you know and believe certainly to be God's Mind and Will; when it works upon the Will and the Affections to submit entirely to Gods Will, that you may bring forth the fruit of a holy Life; when it corrects any of your Errors; stirs up your Sloth; incourages you to Diligence, Cheerfulness, and Perseverance, and such like things.  
But the best contrived Sermon in the World for all these ends, though it were indicted by the Spirit of God itself; would have no efficacy at all in it, if they that heard it, did not attend to it; and attend without Prejudice, without Passion, without Partiality, without rash and hasty Judgement, without Pride and conceit of themselves, and their own Knowledge and Righteousness: that is, unless they consider and weigh what is delivered, though contrary to their present sense, unless they will impartially give every thing that is offered to their mind a due regard; and allot some time for its further Consideration, when it is not to their liking, etc. For want of which, multitudes did not Profit by our Saviour's Sermons, but were rather more exasperated by them: and at last finally hardened against him, and against the Holy Ghost, when it came down from Heaven to convince them.  
I doubt not they were ready enough then to lay the blame upon his Sermons, which pressed them to many things, unto which they had no mind; being against their Interest, or against some Opinion, or Affection, to which they were deeply engaged: so that they did not Profit by them. But for all this, you believe the fault was wholly in themselves, who ought to have come better prepared; with honest and good Hearts to hear his Word. And therefore have reason to consider in your present case, that since the most Profitable Sermons that ever were made, can do no good, unless Men be disposed to Profit by them: whether the unprofitableness you complain of under our Ministry, do not arise rather for want of what you ought to do to make the most excellent Sermon profitable, then from any defect in their Ministry.  
Judge now I say, upon the whole: if you cannot profit by the public Ministry; where is it most reasonable to think the cause of this unprofitableness lies? whether to suspect the cause may lie in yourselves; or to impute it to their Sermons, and conclude them to be unedyfying. Pronounce, I beseech you, righteous Judgement, after you have well weighed the matter: and give such things as I have here laid before you, a just and deliberate Consideration: so as hereafter to resolve to lay aside all prejudice, and to be perfectly free to hear with Patience and Candour, what can be said by any body; though against your present persuasion. Let not your Passions rise at it; or if they do, immediately suppress them, and require them not to meddle in this matter: but to sumbit unto what shall appear to be reason, after you have weighed the matter impartially.  
If you cannot do this, you ought to think that you have not profited much, by all the Sermons you have heard: and consequently suspect, you are in a wrong way of growing wiser and better. And after you have brought yourself to much liberty, I doubt not you will find that you are in a wrong way; and therefore resolve to alter it, and come into the way of the Church. Where if you do not meet presently with such advantages for your Spiritual growth, as you are told you may receive, you have reason to conclude, as the forenamed Mr. Hildersham doth to those, that said they could not find such Lights, such Power, such Comfort in the Word, as was spoken of. First, either you have not sought it aright, not with earnestness, or not with a good Heart: or secondly, if you have and do not find it at first; yet you shall hereafter, if you seek it here with an honest heart.   

VIII.  
And the preaching of God's holy Word among us, would be of greater efficacy upon your Hearts; if when you come to partake of it, you would remember and observe some Rules (delivered by the same Author in another place, Lecture XXVI.) about the Public Worship of God, which now, alas, are generally neglected; and therefore had need to be pressed, for the disposing all men's Hearts to profit by their attendance on it.  
1. One is, that at your coming into the Congregation, and during the whole time of your abode there, you would behave yourselves reverently. For we may not come into the place of God's Worship, as we would into a dancing-School, or Playhouse, laughing or toying, etc. neither may we go out of it, as we would out of such a one: but in our very coming in, and going out, and whole outward carriage there, we ought to give some signification of the reverence that we bear to this Place; and that we do indeed account it the House of God.  
Which serious temper of Mind, and awful sense of God's Presence, possessing the Mind, would, no doubt, be an excellent preparation to receive benefit by the whole Service of God as well as by the Sermon. For which end,  
2. Another Rule is, that we must all come to the beginning of God's public worship, and carry till all be done. Yea, it is the Duty of God's People, saith he, to be in God's House before the beginning: For it becomes them to wait for the Minister of God, and not to let him wait for them. The Reasons he gives for this are two. First, there is Nothing done in our Assemblies, but all may receive profit by it. For example, by the confession of Sins (and Absolution, I may add) and all other Prayers used in the Congregation, a man may receive more profit and comfort, than by any other. Which is the reason why the Apostles (even after Christ's Ascension, when the typical Honour of the Temple was abolished, etc.) were so delighted to go to the Temple to pray, at the times of public Prayer. 1. Act. 3. etc.  
And so he goes on to show how by hearing the Word read all may profit: and by hearing it preached, even by the meanest Minister of Christ, if the fault be not in themselves. How the singing of Psalms also furthers the fruit of the Word in the Hearts of Believers: and much more benefit may the faithful receive by the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Nay, by being present at the Administration of Baptism, all may receive profit: being put in mind there-by of the Covenant God made with them in Baptism, etc. Lastly, by the blessing pronounced by God's Minister all may receive good; and therefore none ought to absent himself from any part of the public Service of God.  
For which his second Reason is very remarkable, that though we could receive no profit by the Exercises used in our Assemblies, yet we must be present at them all, to do our homage unto God; and show the reverend respect we have to his Ordinances. For there is nothing done in Gods public Worship among us (observe this) but it is done by the Instruction and Ordinance and Commandment of the Lord. As he shows particularly, that it is his ordinance there should be all sorts and kinds of Prayers used; yea, this is the chief duty to be performed in our assemblies, 1 K. 11. 1, 2. that in our public assemblies the Word of God should be read as well as preached, the Holy Communion administered, etc. that is, all things should be done as they are now in our Common-Prayer, to which it is plain he hath respect. And this he repeats again, Lecture XXVIII.  
If thou wast sure thou couldst not profit, yet must thou come to do thy Homage to God, and to show thy reverence to his Ordinance.  
3. Another of his general Rules is, that when we are present we ought to join with the Congregation in all the parts of God's Worship, and do as the Congregation doth. For it makes much for the come liness and reverence of God's Worship, that all things be done in good order, without confusion. And it is a principle part of this good order that should be in the Congregation; when they all come together, and go together, pray together, sing together, kneel together: in a word, when every part of God's Worship is to be performed by the Congregation, as if the whole Congregation were but one Man.  
And in several places he reproves with a great deal of Zeal, men's great carelessness in this; particularly their neglect of kneeling in the Prayers: having observed that men who will kneel at their own private prayers can never be seen to kneel at the common and public Prayer.  
His last general Rule is, that we ought to teach our Children and Servants to show Reverence to the Sanctuary and public Worship of God. For God cannot endure profaneness and contempt of Religion, no not in Children. And it stands us all upon to use the utmost Authority we have to maintain the Reverence of God's Sanctuary: for the open contempt done by any, may bring God's curse on us all. And certainly, saith he, among other causes of the Plague, and other Judgements of God upon the Land, this is not the least, that God's public Worship is performed among us with so little Reverence and Devotion as it is.  
I am tempted to transcribe a great deal more of these Lectures: because by them you may see that if I had moved all that hath been said about our Sermons, I might (according to the Judgement of this devout and learned man) have maintained that there wants not sufficient means of profiting in our Congregations, if there were none: as long as the word of God is there read, by which (together with the other holy duties) all may receive the greatest profit and comfort, if they please. For it is of far greater excellence, authority and certainty, than the Sermons of any Preacher in the World. First, because it comes more immediately from God: and though it be translated by men, yet is there in it far less mixture of humane Ignorance and Infirmity than in Sermons. While the Word is read we are sure we hear God speaking to us, and that it is the truth that we hear, but not always so, when men preach: for the best man is subject to Error. (which by the way shows the great ignorance and profaneness of this Age; wherein men make nothing of the reading of God's Word, but take the liberty to discourse and chat all the time while the first and second Lessons are read to them.)  
And secondly, the Word that is read, is the Foundation of all Sermons; and the very touchstone whereby they are to be tried. To that which we hear read simple and absolute Obedience is due, without any question made of the truth and certainty of it: but so it is not to that which we hear preached, farther than we find it agreeable to the written Word; for they of Beraea were commended for examining by this even that which the Apostles themselves did preach.   

IX.  
But I say no more of this: and shall only crave leave, with some earnestness, to desire two things of every one who saith he cannot profit by our Sermons.  
1. The First is, that he would examine himself strictly upon this Question; whether he thinks he could profit by such a Sermon as this; did he hear it preached by one of your Ministers? Search to the very bottom of your Hearts and be not satisfied till you feel how they stand affected, and how they would receive a discourse upon these Subjects; should you come occasionally (as you now speak) into one of our Churches, and there find the Preacher pressing these things upon the People's Consciences? Especially if you heard him add to these Rules, that for the reverence of God's public worship, care should be taken that the place where the Congregation assembleth, may be decent and comely. And he should call this place, a Temple; and affirm that Gods public worship, is not where so well performed as in this Temple: and that it is a foul sin and contempt done to God's worship, that Parishioners either will not be at the chrage to maintain such as may keep the Church decently, or are altogether careless to see it done: and that the true cause why now adays Men will be at no cost with God's House, is, because they have no delight in it; and that this is a piece of irreligiousness, which is a just cause of grief to every godly man, etc. Reflect, I say, upon yourselves, and resolve, what you really think you would judge of such a Sermon? How would it be accepted by you?  
Would be apt to look upon it as altogether unprofitable? or at least, as needless discourse; which might as well, nay better, be spared, than preached to the People?  
If this be your mind, then consider with yourselves, why such things out of one man's mouth should relish well enough, or go down without disgust; which coming out of another's you presently dislike? Is it not manifest that you are partial and disaffected; and that this is the reason you cannot profit by our Sermons? Or if you could not like such discourses, either from Nonconformists, or from our Ministers; then consider, whether you have not reason to think you are very much mistaken in this business of profitable Sermons: when you imagine such discourses as these to be unprofitable and superfluous, which in the judgement of sober men of all sides, are not only very useful, but so necessary to be taught the People; that for want of a sense of such things, they are in danger to lose their Religion? For, as that good man said long ago (and I doubt we are much improved in such impiety since that time, as Superstition made the Papists too careful, and too bountiful: so Profaneness and Atheism hath made us too void of all care, in beautifying the House of God.  
2. But if you think that you should count such a Sermon profitable, than I desire you, Secondly, to examine yourselves and consider; whether you have learned so much out of the Holy Scriptures, as to observe all the foregoing Rules duly and carefully? or so much, as to make them your study, and to think how to bring your Heart into conformity with them? Do you, for instance, reverence God's Sanctuary? and when you come into it, and while you are there, give open significations of it? Do you come at the beginning of Divine Service, or only to some part of it, at the latter end, or the Sermon only? Do you stand up, and do you kneel when the rest of the Congregation doth? etc.  
If you cannot say that you are so well acquainted with these, and the rest of the foregoing Rules, as to endeavour to live by them; then in reason, you ought to conclude, that the fault is some where else, and not in our Sermons, if you cannot profit by them: For you do not profit by the Holy Scriptures themselves.  
Where these things are so plainly taught, that a Man ought to think very meanly of himself, and to look upon himself as a poor proficient in Religion; who is not advanced thus far in his regard to the Duties, and the Solemnities of God's Worship and Service.  
And, if being admonished of these things, he do not humble himself; nay, become vile in his own Eyes, for having thus long entertained an high opinion of himself, though so deficient in the very rudiments and beginnings of Religion; he is not likely to be much the better for any Sermon whatsoever: because he will relish none but those only, which feed his vain conceit of himself; and of his high attainments, and intimate acquaintance with God, and communion with him in his Ordinances; while he hath not a due esteem of them, nor makes a right improvement by them.   

X.  
But I hope these short Admonitions may put better inclinations, into those men's minds; who will seriously think of them: and particularly beget in them a greater regard, than is usually given to the Holy Word of God, read in our Churches. Which will dispose ever one to profit better by all Sermons (which are but the Interpretation and Application of that Word) especially, if, with due devotion of heart, they will join in the whole Service foregoing. By which they may profit (I have shown) as much, if not more, as by Sermons; if they be religiously disposed, and will come at the beginning of the Prayers, and with all humble reverence attend upon every part of God's Worship.  
For as he that is away from any part of the Sermon (says the same Person again) shall profit the less by that which he doth hear; so he that is away from any part of the Divine Service, gets the less good by that at which he is present. For there is no part of God's Service (not the Confession, not the Prayers, not the Psalms, not the Blessing) but it concerns every one; and every one may receive edification by it; and will lose much of the Benefit he might have had, if he absent himself from it. A thing in which it seems, many of them, who had most knowledge and were the forwardest Professors in those days, did offend: which moved him to set out the sins of those Men in several Respects and Considerations. Which it would be too long for me to mention; nor is it needful, if this that I have discoursed already be laid to Heart. And if Men will lay nothing close to their Consciences; all that can be said, or wrote, or preached, will do them no good: but they will be only hearers, or readers, not doers of the Word, deceiving their own Souls.  
Wherefore laying aside (as St. Peter speaks, I. II. 1. 2.) all malice, and all guile (or deceit) and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as new born babes, desire the sincere milk of the Word (or that rational sincere milk; the pure food of your mind and understanding, and not of your fancy) that you may grow thereby. As certainly you will, when you become of the same disposition, with little Children: void of hatred, of guile, of wraths of dissimulation, and such like evil affections: and are of an humble, teachable, and submissive Spirit. For if every one had but such an increase of grace, as to hear meekly God's Word, and to receive it with pure affection, they could not easily fail, to bring forth the fruit of the Spirit.  
So we pray in our Litany. And may it please God, as it there follows; to bring into the way of truth, all such as have erred, and are deceived: for Jesus Christ his sake.  
Amen.   
FINIS.   

AN ARGUMENT FOR UNION, Taken from the True Interest OF THOSE DISSENTERS in ENGLAND, Who Profess, and call themselves PROTESTANT'S.  
LONDON, Printed for Tho. Basset, at the George in Fleetstreet; Benj. took, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard; and F. Gardiner, at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street, 1683.   


THE CONTENTS.  
Dissensions are dangerous to the Church. Page 1.  
If the Church should be dissettled by such means, our Dissenters would not obtain their Ends. p. 2.  
Their First, or Subordinate End, is the Establishing of themselves. p. 3.  
The first Branch of it is the Establishing themselves as a National Church, which cannot be hoped for, either, First by all of them; p. 4.  
Or, Secondly, by the Prevalent Party amongst them. p. 5.  
This is proved First, from several Reasons. p. 5, 6.  
Secondly, from the History of our late Revolutions. p. 6. to 10.  
After which it is showed, That if they could not then gain their point, they can, much less, do it now. p. 10 etc.  
The second Branch of their Subordinate End, is the settling of themselves by mutual Sufferance. p. 12.  
This is proved still more improbable. p. 12, 13.  
Also, it is showed that Parties tolerate each other no longer than one gets Power to suppress the rest, with public safety. p. 14. to 18.  
The Second End of the Dissenters is more Principal, and the first part of it is the keeping out of Popery. p. 18.  
That this End cannot be obtained by Dissenting from our Church, is showed  
From Reason. p. 18. to p. 25.  
From the History of the late Times. p. 25, etc.  
From the Judgement and Methods of the Papists themselves. p. 28, 29.  
The second part of the more Principal End of the Dissenters, is the advancing of Pure Religion. p. 30.  
But, there are Reasons to persuade us that upon the Dissettlement of this Church, Religion would not be advanced, but embased. p. 30, 34. to 37.  
And the History of the late Troubles showeth this to have been so in Fact. p. 33, 34, 38, 39  
By virtue of the Premises, Dissenters are persuaded to consider seriously the state of things in this time of Prosecution, and to hold constant Communion with our Church, with which the wisest and best of them hold occasional Communion; that the blessed Ends of Truth, Holiness, and Peace, may be obtained. p. 40, 41, 42, 43.    

AN ARGUMENT FOR UNION, etc.  
I Take it for granted (seeing a Truth so very plain 
The Introduction.  needs no formal Proof) that the ready way to overthrow a Church, is, first to divide it. It is, also, too manifest, that our Dissensions are Divisions, properly so called, or Public Ruptures. It is true, notwithstanding these Ruptures, the Church still lives, and, in some good measure, prospers: But how Mortal these Breaches may, at last, prove, through their Continuance and Increase, a Man, who has but a Competency of Judgement, may easily fortel. It is, therefore, the business of every Good Man, as far as in him lies, to dissuade, with Prudent Zeal, from these Divisions; which are, in their Nature so uncharitable, and so perilous in their Consequence.  
Now, one way of moving Men to desist from their Undertake, is, the showing of them, with calmness of Temper, and plainness of Reasoning, that their Ends are not likely to be obtained: As also, that by the Means they use, they will bring upon themselves those very Evils which they fear, and of the removal of which they have Expectation.  
Wherefore, I have chosen an Argument of this Nature, in order to the persuading of Dissenters to join in the Exercise of Constant Communion with the Church of England. And I have here endeavoured to make it evident to them; that, in attempting to pull down this Established Church, they, unwarily, turn their own force against themselves, and prepare Materials for the Tombs of their own Parties.  
This Argument is here offered to them in the Spirit of Christian Charity, and without any design of exposing or exasperating any person who differs, in his Notions, from the sense of the Writer. For he had rather lie at the Feet of the meanest Man who is overtaken with an error, than spurn insolently against him.  
Now, in the managing of this Argument, it is necessary 
The Argument itself. It's Partition and Method.  to show two things.  
First, What those Ends are which are proposed by the Dissenters? I mean, those which seem, with any tolerable colour of Reason, fit to be proposed; and which are designed by the better and wiser of that number.  
Secondly, What Reasons may make it manifest, that the Ends which they propose, can never be procured by the Dissettlement of the Church of England.  
These things being showed, there shall follow such a Conclusion, as is suitable to the Premises.  
First, For the Ends proposed by the more Prudent 
The Ends of the Dissenters.  Dissenters, they are of two kinds.  
The First End is Subordinate.  
The Second is Principal: Or the End to which the former serveth in the quality of the Means.  
The Subordinate End is, the Establishing of themselves. And it hath two Branches.  
Either, the settling themselves (First) as a National Church:  
Or, (Secondly) as several distinct Churches, giving undisturbed Toleration to one another.  
For I am not willing to believe all of them to be given up to such a degree of Infatuation, as to be intent only upon beating down, without considering what is fit to be set up. That is the way of Tempests, and not of Builders.  
The Principal is, the further Advancement of the Reformed Religion. This also, hath two parts.  

1. The Removal of Popery.  
2. The Introduction of the Protestant Religion in greater Purity and Perfection, than the Church of England is (in their Opinion) as yet, arrived at, or can probably attain to by virtue of its present Constitution.   
If there be amongst them, Men disturbed in their Understandings, by the heat of Enthusiasm; if there be amongst them, any Men whose Wisdom is sensual and worldly; who presumptuously make Heaven stoop to Earth, and conceal their private and secular Designs under the venerable name of Pure Religion; I do not concern myself with them in this Persuasive to Union. The former cannot, and the later will not be convinced: For there is no Ear so deaf, as that which Interest hath stopped. And there is a great deal of earnest Truth suggested in the Jocular Speech of James the fifth of Scotland; who, when his Treasurer desired liberty to be plain with him, 
* Melvil 's Memoirs p. 2.  drew out his Sword, and said merrily to him, I shall slay thee, if thou speak against my profit.  
The First Branch of the first, or Subordinate End of 
The first Branch of the first End of the Dissenters: viz. Union in a National Church.  the Dissenters is, the Establishing of themselves as a National Church.  
This is either designed by All of them, or by a Party which believeth itself to be most sober, and must numerous, and most likely to prevail over the rest; so far at least as to become the State-Party.  
For All of them to expect to be united in one Uniform Body, is to hope, not only against the Grounds of Hope, but of Possibility.  
For the Parties are very many, and very differing, (or rather very contrary) and they cannot frame amongst them, any common Scheme in which their Assents can be united.  
What Communion (for Example sake) can the Presbyterians have with Arians, Socinians, Anabaptists, Fifth-Monarchy-Men, Sensual Millenaries, Behmenists, Familists, Seekers, Antinomians, Ranters, Sabbatarians, Quakers, Muggletonians, Sweet-Singers. These may associate in a Caravan, but cannot join in the Communion of a Church. Such a Church would be like the Family of Error and her Daughters, described in Mr. Spencer's Fairy-Queen, of which none were alike, unless in this, that they were all deformed: And how shall the Christians of this present Church be disposed of to their just satisfaction? They will never Incorporate with such a Medley of Religions; and they are such, both for their Quality and their number, as not to be beneath a very serious Consideration.  
For the Prevalent Party, there seemeth to be both Reason, and Experience, against their hopes of Establishing themselves as a National Church.  
These Reasons, amongst others, have moved me to entertain this Persuasion concerning them.  
First, Such a Party not maintaining Episcopal Government, which hath obtained here from the Times of the Britain's (who in the Apostolical Age, received the Christian Religion) and which is so agreeable to the Scheme of the Monarchy; It is not probable that they shall easily procure an exchange of it for a newer Model, by the general consent of Church or State. I may add, the Body of the People of England, whose Genius renders them tenacious of their Ancient Customs.  
Again, All the Parties amongst us, have of late declared, for Mutual Forbearance. They cannot, therefore, be consistent with themselves, if they frame such a National Constitution, by which any Man, who Dissents from it, shall be otherwise dealt with, than by personal Conference; which, also, he must have liberty not to admit, if he be persuaded it is not fit or safe for him. And such a Body without any other nerves for its strength and motion; for the Encouragement of those who are Members of it, and the Discouragement of those who refuse its Communion, will not long hold together: Nor hath it means in it, sufficient for the Ends to which it is designed. And indeed by this means, the Spiritual Power of Excommunication will be rendered of none Effect. For, what Punishment, what Shame, what Check, will it be to Cross and Perverse Men, if being shut out of the National Church, they may with open Arms and with Applause due to real Converts, be received into this or the other particular Congregation, as it best suiteth with their good liking?  
Furthermore, it is commonly said, that since the Presbyterians have gathered Churches out of Churches, there are not many true and proper Disciplinarians in England.  
If it be so, then Independency is amongst Dissenters, the prevalent side; and I know not how a National Church can be made up of Separate Independent Churches; for each Congregation is a Church by itself, and hath, besides the general Covenant of Baptism, a particular Church-Covenant; and therefore, it is difficult to imagine how all of them can be, by any Coherence of the Parts, united into one entire Society.  
But, be it supposed, that the Disciplinarians are of all Parties, the most numerous and prevalent; yet Experience showeth how hard a Work it is for all of them to form themselves into a Church of England, In the late times of Public disquiet, they had great Power; they had in humane appearance, fair and promising Opportunities; and yet there grew up at their Roots another Party, which in conclusion, over-dropped them, and brought their Interest into a sensible decay; it being the nature of every Faction, upon Victory obtained over their Common Adversary, to subdivide. In the Year 1640, 
* July 17. 1640. Whitelock's Memorials p. 45.  The Commons had a debate about a new form of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: And they agreed that every Shire should be a several Diocese. That there should be constituted, in each Shire, a Presbytery of Twelve Divines, with a Precedent as a Bishop over them. That this Precedent with the Assistance of some of the Presbyters, should Ordain, Suspend, Deprive, Degrade, Excommunicate. That there should be a Diocesan Synod once a Year; and each third Year, a National Synod. A while after, 
* A. 1644. Id. ibid. p. 117.  it was voted by them, that, to have a Presbytery in the Church, was according to the Word of God.  
Many other Steps were made in favour of the Discipline. The Common-Prayer-Book was removed; an Assembly of Divines was Established: Their Directory was introduced; they were united in the Bond of a solemn League and Covenant. There was sent up 
* I● Sept. 15. 1646. Diurnal. p. 1313.  from the County of Lancaster, a Petition signed with 12000 Hands for the settling of Classes in those parts. A Petition of the like importance was framed by divers of the Common-Council of London. They seemed 
Whitlock's Memoirs. p. 187.  nigh the gaining of their Point; yet they widely miss of it. There was in the Assembly itself, a ferment of Dissension. Mr. Sympson, and some others, favoured an Independent; Mr. Selden and some of his Admirers, an Erastian Interest. There was a Party in the Nation who were then called Dissenting Brethren; and to these the Directory was as offensive, as the Canons and Liturgy had been to those of the Discipline. They drew up Reasons 
* Id. ib. p. 116. A. 44.  against the Directory of Church Government by Presbyters.  
They afterwards Printed an open Remonstrance against Presbytery, of which the Assembly complained to 
Ib. A. 45. p. 189.  the House, as of a Scandalous Libel. And there were those who Reproached the Presbyterians, in the same Phrases in which they had given vent to their displeasure against the Liturgy of the Church of England. The Ministers of Lancashire 
* Harm. Consent. p. 20.  complained concerning them, That they had compared the Covenant to the Alcoran of the Turks, and Mass of the Papists, and Service-book of the Prelates. As likewise, that they said, it was a Brazen-Serpent fit to be broken in pieces and ground to Powder, rather than that Men should fall down and Worship it.  
Amongst the Disciplinarians, some were confident of Success. One of them 
* Mr. S. Symp. in Serm. of Reform. A. 1643. p. 29.  (for he was not then gone over to the Part of the Independents) expressed his assurance in these most unbecoming Words, before the Commons. It will (said he) bring such a Blot on God as He shall never wipe out, if your poor Prayers should be turned into your own bosoms; that Prayer for Reformation. A Speech not fit to have been repeated, if it were not necessary to learn Sobriety of Wisdom from the Remembrances of Extravagance in former Times.  
Others accknowledged their hopes, but did not dissemble their Fears. Six years ago (said a person eminent 
* D. John Arr. in Ser. called, The Great Wonder, etc. before the Commons. A. 1646. p. 36.  amongst them) after this Parliament had sat a while, it was generally believed that [the Woman, the Church] was fallen into her Travel— but she continues still in pain. Insomuch, as they begin to think she hath not gone her full time, and earnestly desire she may; because they fear nothing more than an abortive Reformation.  
Others did openly confess that their hopes were not answered, and that the State of Religion was much declined. The Ministers of the Province of London 
* Testim. to Truth of Jesus Christ subscribed Dec. 14. 1647. p 31. , used upon this occasion, these passionate words. Instead of a Reformation, we may say with Sighs, what our Enemies said of us heretofore with scorn, we have a Deformation in Religion.  
Those Independents who adhered to that part of the House which joined with the Army, prevailed for a Season, but they also were disturbed by those who went under the Names of Lilburnists, Levellers, Agitators. 
* See Hist. of Indep. 2 part. p 168.  Then likewise, Gerard Wynstanly 
* In Mystof Godlin, etc. Anno. 1649. Wynst. in Saint's Paradise C. 5. p. 54. etc.  published the Principles of Quakerism, discoursing (or rather, repeating the Dreams of his Imagination) in such Expressions as these. If you look for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, you must know that the Spirit within the Flesh is the Jesus Christ. — Every Man hath the light of the Father within himself, which is, the Mighty Man Christ Jesus. Then Enthusiasm, excited in part by the common pretence of an extraordinary Light, revealed (as of a sudden) in those days in England, broke forth into open distraction. Then Joseph Salmon, a present Member of the Army, published his Blasphemies, and defended his Immoralities. He justified himself, and those of his way, saying 
* Whitl. Memoirs. A 1649. p. 430.  That it was God who did Swear in them, and that it was their Liberty to keep Company with Women for their Lust. Wyke, his Disciple 
* Id. ibid.  kissed a Soldier three times, and said, I breathe the Spirit of God into thee. Salmon himself printed a Pamphlet called, a Rout, in which he set forth his villainous self as the Christ of God, saying, 
* Salmon 's Rout. in Pref. and p. 10, 11, etc.  I am willing to become Sin for you, though the Lord in me knows no Sin. We love to sweat drops of Blood under all men's offences.— We shall see of the Travel of our Souls. Enthusiasm, tho' not in this rankness of it, was now openly favoured by Cromwell himself; who, together with six Soldiers, prayed and preached at Whitehal. 
* On Sund. after East. day. Ann. 1649. H. of Indep. part 2. p. 153.  His own temper was warmed with fits of Enthusiasm 
* See View of the late Troubles. p. 366. . And he confessed it to a Person of Condition 
† E. M. I. C.  (from whom I received it, as did others, yet living) that he prayed according to extraordinary Impulse. And that, not feeling such Impulse (which he called Supernatural) he did forbear to pray, oftentimes, for several days together.  
In Process of time, his House of Commons and he himself were publicly disturbed by that wild Spirit, in the rasing of which they had been so unhappily instrumental. A Quaker came to the door of the House 
* Whitl. Memoirs. A. 1654.▪ p. 592. , and drew his Sword, and cut those nigh him, and said, He was inspired by the Holy Spirit to kill every Man who sat in that Convention. And he himself was not only conspired against by those who called themselves, the Free and Well-affected People of England 
* See their Declar. in A. 1655. in Whilt. Me. p. 606. , but openly bespattered by the Ink of the Quakers in several Pamphlets, 
* See Ed. Burroughs Trumpet of the Lord sounded. p. 2. A. 56.  and by their Clamours, affronted in his own Chapel; where before his face, they gave bold interruption to his Preachers. 
† Whilt. Memoirs. p. 62. 4.   
Other Historical Memorials might be here produced, relating to the hopeful Rise, and mighty Progress, and equal Declension of the Disciplinarian Party. But, in such cases, I choose rather to take off my Pen than to lean too heard upon it. Yet the nature of my Argument did necessarily lead me to the former Remarks; and if useful Truth smarts, let Gild suffer a Cure, and not kick against the Charitable Reporter.  
In Sum, the longer the Church of England was dissettled, the greater daily grew the confusion; and the division of Sects was multiplied, not unlike to that of Winds in the Mariner's Compass, in which Artists have increased the Partitions, from four to two and thirty. Insomuch, that the very Distractions which were among us did in some measure, prepare the way for the return of the King, and the Restitution of the Church: men finding no other common Bottom on which the Interests of Religion and civil Peace might be established.  
Now, if the Dissenters could not then, when so fair Opportunities were in their hands, carry on their cause to any tolerable Settlement; much less may they now hope to do it. For there are now many hindrances which did not then lie cross their way.  
First, The Platform of Discipline, so highly applauded, so earnestly contended for, during the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James, hath now been in part tried; and the presence of it (to omit other Reasons) hath abated the Reverence some had for it.  
Secondly, There is not at this time, such an Union amongst Dissenters, as appeared at the beginning of our late Troubles. The number of those Dissenters who were not for the Discipline, was then very inconsiderable. But in a few years, they broke, as it were, into Fractions of Fractions. Insomuch, that the Ministers of the Province of London, expressed the Estate of things in the Year 47, on this manner. 
* Testim. to the Truth of J. Chr. p. 30.  Instead of Unity and Uniformity, in Matters of Religion, we are torn in pieces with Distractions, Schisms, Separations, Divisions, ano Subdivisions.  
Thirdly, Those who then favoured the Discipline, are much departed from their former Scheme of Government, inclining to Independency, which they once denied to be God's Ordinance 
* Mr. Herl. etc. , and pleading for Toleration, which they once called, The last and strongest hold of Satan. 
* The Title of Mr. Edward's is book 1647. See Testim. of Min. p. 20.   
Fourthly, At the beginning of our Disturbances, many Men of Quality, and such who had a Zeal of God, favoured the Settlement of the Discipline in the simplicity of their hearts. They had not then seen any Revolutions; they had not discovered the secret Springs of public Motions; nor the vile Interests of many men which lay concealed under the disguise of Pure Religion. They saw (what all Men may see in all times) abuses in Church and State; and the very name of Reformation was sweet to them.  
Now, notwithstanding the sincere zeal and the power of these Men, the Discipline could not long be carried on; much less could it be perfected by them.  
There is therefore at this time, a much greater Improbability of Success in the like design. For many consiberable men, Piously inclined, have seen their error; and will not be a second time engaged: And they will not say of our late changes, as the Protector did, 
* Oliver 's Speech in the Painted Chamber. Jan. 22. 54 at the Dissolve. of the Parl. p. 29. 33.  That they were the Revolutions of God, and not humane designs; That they were the Revolutions of Christ upon whose Shoulders the Government was stayed. They are not of the same mind with him who told the Commons, 
* Mr. Caryl in Ep. Ded. bef. Ser. called the Arraign, of Unbelief. A. 45.  That if they acted Faith, than the Records of those Times on their side, should bear thus to all Posterity, the Book of the Wars and Counsels of God.  
Also, since those days, through the luxation of Discipline during the licence of the War, the discovery of great and black Hypocrisies, the multiplication of Parties and Opinions, the publishing of many lewd and irreligious books from Unlicens'd Presses, Atheism hath made very formidable Advances. And they say, that some undisguised Sceptics and Atheists have, some times since the King's Return, been much used in the Cause of our Dissenters. Now, if well meaning zeal could not establish the Discipline, it is not likely to be promoted, much less settled, by the help of such hands of which the outsides are not washed by so much as an External form of Godliness.  
The Second Branch of the first End of Dissenters, 
The second Branch of the 1st End of the Dissenters. viz. Union by mutual forbearance.  seems more improbable than the first, viz. The settling themselves as several distinct Parties, giving undisturbed Toleration to each other.  
This seems not probable upon many accounts.  
First, Some Dissenters believe some of the Parties to be incapable of Forbearance, as maintaining Principles destructive of Christian Faith and Piety. This Opinion they still have (for instance sake) of Antinomians, Quakers, and Muggletonians.  
And they formerly declamed against the Toleration of divers others. They published here (by Authority so called) an Act of the Assembly at Edinburgh, 
* A 1647. Act of Assemb. p. 2.  Against Erastians', Independents, and Liberty of Conscience, bearing (as they speak) their public Testimony against them, not only as contrary to sound Doctrine, but as more special Letts and Hindrances, as well to the Scottish received Doctrine, Discipline, and Government, as to the Work of Reformation and Uniformity in England and Ireland.  
The Ministers of the Province within the County Palatine of Lancaster, in their Harmonions Consent 
* Harmon. Consent. A. 1648. p. 12.  with the Ministers of the Province of London, published their Judgements in these zealous Words. A Toleration would be a putting of a Sword into a Mad man's hand— An appointing a City of Refuge in men's Consciences, for the Devil to fly to — A proclaiming Liberty to the Wolves to come into Christ's Fold to pray upon his Lambs — A Toleration of Soul-murther (the greatest murder of all others) and for the establishing whereof, damned Souls in Hell would accurse Men on Earth. Neither would it be to provide for tender Consciences, but to take away all Conscience. — If error be not forcibily kept under, it will be Superior.  
It seems, they were not then of the later Persuasion of the Protector, who said, 
* Protect. Speech. Jan. 22. 54. p. 28.  concerning the People of several Judgements in this Land, That they were All the Flock of Christ, and the Lambs of Christ, though perhaps under many unruly Passions and Troubles of Spirit, whereby they gave disquiet to themselves and others: And that they were not so to God as to us.  
Again, There is no firmness or social influence in the nature of this Union. It is the Union of a multitude who meet and disperse at pleasure. And he who proposeth this way as the means to knit Men into Christian Communion, is like a Projecter who should design the keeping of the stones together in the strength of a firm and lasting House, by forbearing the use of Cement. The Union that lasteth, is that of the Concord of Members in an Uniform Body.  
Moreover, It is to be considered, that there are no Parties in this or any other Nation, so exactly poised, that they have equal Numbers and Interests. There is always one of them which over-ballanceth the rest. And one of the several ways must always be favoured as the Religion of the State. And it is natural for the strongest side to attempt the subduing of the weaker. And though this be not soon effected; yet till one side getteth the mastery, the Parties remain, not as distinct Bodies settled in peace within themselves, and towards each other, but as Convulsions in the common body of the State.  
Some think this Inclination to the swallowing up of all other Parties to be found almost only in the Romish Church.  
But here is something of it to be discerned (I will not say in all Churches, seeing I well understand the good Being of our own) which suffered Bonner himself to live, yet in all Factions and Parties; though the inequality of Power makes it not seem to be alike in all of them.  
The Cat hath the same inward Parts with the Lion, though they differ much in size: And some such likewise they will find who dissect humane nature, and Bodies civil.  
There is this Disposition in Men, whether they be the politic, or the Conscientious.  
The External practice of all Parties is answerable to this inward Disposition.  
There is this inward Disposition in men who espouse any Faction, whether their Ends be designs of State, or of Religion.  
Parties who are not (otherwise than in show) concerned for Religion, will perpetually covet Power after Power. And Parties who are serious and Conscientious in their way, whatsoever it is; will not remain in an indifference of terms towards those who tread in contrary Paths, and with whom they do not maintain Communion. For therefore they withdraw from them, because they believe Communion with them to be unlawful. Otherwise they have no Judgement in the price of Peace and Unity, if they willingly part with it, when they may, without sin, enjoy it: and if they esteem their way sinful, and believe those persons who remain without their pale, to be so gone astray, as without Repentance, to be eternally lost; Charity itself will urge them to use all means probable towards the reducing of them. And they will be apt to think, that the suffering of them in their Wander, declares them to be contented with their condition.  
External Practice of all Parties does show plainly what is their inward Disposition.  
All would do what is good in their own eyes; but I do not perceive that any are willing to let others do so. Where there is Power, their is little Forbearance: And the same men as their Conditions alter, speak of Mercy or Justice.  
Amongst those of the Party of Donatus whose Schism opened so dangerous a Wound in the Churches of Africa; all pleaded earnestly for Forbearance, whilst their Power was in its Minority. Yet, S. Austin remindeth one of them 
* Petil. ap. S. Aug. count Petil. l. 2. Absit, Absit à nostra Conscientia ut ad nostram fidem aliquem compellamus, etc.  of a Practice contrary to their Profession, whilst they turned against the Maximianists, the edge of the Theodosian Laws; and abused the Power which they had gotten under Julian, in oppressing as far as in them lay the Catholic Christians.  
Amongst those of the Protestant Persuasion; the Heads of the Discipline, were plainly unwilling that any should have leave to make a separation from their body. And one of them 
* Mr. Calamy in Ser. called, The great danger of Covenant refusing. A. 46. p 3. , with a mixture of Grief and Expostulation, thus discoursed before the Commons.  
The Famous City of London is become an Amsterdam; Separation from Our Churches is countenanced; Toleration is cried up; Authority lieth asleep. Every one would have Power to rouse up itself, and maintain his Cause. And indeed it is, and has been too often in Religion, as it is and was in Philosophy, Where the divers Sects do not contend merely for the enlarging the bounds of Philosophical Arts in a sincere and solid inquiry, 
* Lord Bacon's Pref. to Adu. of Learn.  but for the Translating the Empire of Opinion, and settling it upon themselves. The same men who pleaded for Forbearance in this Church, and removed themselves into New-England (as by themselves was said) for the Liberty of their Conscience or Persuasion; when once they arrived there, and made a figure in that Government, they refused Indulgence to the Anabaptists and Quakers, and used them (as to this day they do) with great severity. Those Commons who in the Year 47 
* Whitlock's Memoires. p. 276. , made an Order, For the giving of Indulgence to tender Consciences; did at the same time make another Order, That this Indulgence should not extend to tolerate such who used the Common-Prayer.  
Some who do not well understand the Policy of the Dutch, do believe it to be otherwise in those Netherlands. But, by their Constitution, none have liberty to speak against any public Error or Corruption, on which the States shall stamp their Authority. And Episcopius 
* Episc. Exam. Thes. Cap. Op. vol. 1. par. 2. p. 185.  complained that the Calvinists would tolerate none whom they had power to punish. There are now great numbers of his own Remonstrant Party, who, when any juncture of Affairs gives them encouragement, are apt to contend for Superiority. The Parties in their Sermons and Writings, speak with bitter Zeal against each other: And where the ordinary Conversation of Men of different Judgements is peaceable amongst them; divers who mind Traffic more than Religion, seem rather to be an Heterogeneous body frozen together by a cold indifference, than a Society united by Christian Love.  
In the Church of Rome, the several Orders, who at present mortally hate one another, if they were not restrained by the force of the common Polity, they would soon devour one another. We are not without a remarkable Instance in this kind, published by a Dominican Bishop, and a Capuchin Friar. Certain Dominicans 
* See Lettres Sinceres. Trois party. Sixieme Lettre. p. 111.  had seated themselves nigh the River of Plate in Paraguay, where there are Gold Mines in the Earth, and Gold Sands in the Rivers. Of this the Jesuits, who have long ears, had good intelligence. They desired to go thither in order to the further instruction of the American-people, and the education of Youth. They obtained leave, procured Letters of Credence, were furnished with Money for the Voyage. After having gotten sure footing, they soon removed the Dominicans and Spanish Laity, and established themselves.  
Among the Socinians, the great Asserters of Liberty in Religion, both in thinking and speaking; though they cannot impose, because they have not yet been anywhere (that I know of) the prevailing Party; yet they show sometimes what Spirit they are of.  
Gittichius was, beyond all good manners, troublesome to a Socinian of better temper (I mean Ruarus *) because 
Ruari. Epist. par. 1. p 415, 416.  he had chosen to fast one day in a week, and had taken Friday for the day, though without any fixed purpose.  
Among the Quakers themselves, whose Principle seems to be the Guidance of each man by his personal persuasion, there want not signs of that fierce heat with which their Light is accompanied. When some had formed them into a Society, and gotten the Governance into their hands, they Excommunicated others; they suffered them not to Marry or Bury in their manner who would not be guided by what they called the Light of the Body, and the Light of Ancient Friends. 
* See Spirit of the Hart. p. 12, 13, etc.  George Fox declared he had Power to bind and lose whom he pleased, 
† p ●7.  and said in a great Assembly 
* p. 41.  that he never liked the Word Liberty of Conscience, and would have no Liberty given to Presbyterians, Papists, Independents, and Baptists.  
From the Subordinate End of the Dissenters, I pass 
The Principal End of the Dissenters the first part of it.  to the Principal; and begin with the first part of it, the removal of Popery. A very good and commendable end. And I hearty pray to God to prosper all Christians who pursue it by fit and lawful ways.  
But the Methods of Dissenters do not so well lead to it as those of the established Church.  
Bare Reason maketh this manifest. It may be also proved to us by Historical Inference.  
This likewise, is the Judgement of the Papists themselves, who take their measures from this Principle, that they shall enter in through the Breaches of the Church of England.  
First, Common Reason showeth, that the Interruption which, may by Dissension, be given to this Church, will rather weaken, than improve the Protestants Interest, both at home and abroad.  
Abroad, the Protestant Interest will suffer much, in the overthrow of this Church. For, by such means, a principal Wheel is taken out of the Frame of the Reformation. Nay, Signior Diodati 
* Florentissima An●lia Ocellus ille Ecclesiarum Peculium Christi singular, etc.  was wont to praise it in a more excellent Metaphor, and to call it the Eye of the Reformed Churches; and it is plain to considering Men, that the Church of England, which had greater regard to the Primitive Pattern than some others of the Reformation, can give a more full and unperplexed answer to all the Objections of the Romanists, than some other Churches, who are cramped in a few points unwarily admitted. If therefore Dissensions put out this eye of the Protestant Churches, the dark Doctrines and Traditions of Popery will the sooner spread themselves over Reformed Christendom.  
At Home, the Dissettlement of the Church of England will sooner introduce than root out Popery. I am constrained thus to judge by the following Considerations.  
First, the design of keeping out Popery by the Ruin of this Church, is like the preposterous way, of securing the Vineyard by pulling up of the Fence; or of keeping out the Enemy by the removal of our Bulwark. Under that name this Church is commonly spoken of, and they do not flatter it who give it that Title. ●ts Constitution is Christian, and it is strong in its Nature; and if such a Church hath not ability (with God's assistance) to resist the assaults of Romish Power, much less have they who descent from it. And it is Fanaticism properly so called, or Religious Frenzy, to lay aside a more probable means, and to trust that God will give, to means which are much less probable, supernatural aid and success.  
God supporteth a good Cause by weak means (if they are the only means he hath put into our power) against a bad Cause, though externally potent. But he, who in cases of emergence assisteth honest Impotence and Infirmity, will never work Miracles in favour of men's Presumptions and Indiscretions.  
The Romanists are a mighty body of Men; and, though there are Intestine Feuds betwixt the Secular and Regular Clergy, as likewise betwixt the several Orders, yet they are all united into one common Polity, and grafted, into that one stock of the Papal Headship. They are favoured in many places by great Men; they have variety of Learning; they pretend to great Antiquity, to Miracles, to Martyrs without number, to extraordinary Charity and Mortification; they have the Nerves of worldly Power, that is, banks of Money, and a large Revenue: They have a Scheme of Policy always in readiness; there are great numbers of Emissaries posted in all places for the conveying of Intelligence, and the gaining of Proselytes; they take upon them all shapes, and are bred to all the worldly Arts of Insinuation. There is given to their way, in the Jargon of Mr. Coleman 
* Coll. of Lett. p. 8. etc. , a very fit name of Trade, Traffic, Merchandise.  
Against all this Craft and Strength, what (under God) can Protestants oppose which is equal to the Power of the Church of England? A Church Primitive, learned, pure, and nor embased with the mixtures of Enthusiasm or Superstition.  
A Church, which is able to detect the Forgeries and Impostures of Rome; which hath not given advantage to her by running from her into any extreme; which is a National Body already form; a Body both Christian and Legal; a Body which commendeth itself to the Civil Powers by the Loyalty of its Constitution; a body which hath in it great numbers of People judiciously devout, and who are judged only to be few 
* See L. de Moulin's Advances, etc. p. 26. , because they are not noysie, but prudent, though truly exemplary, in their Religion.  
And, there is in the Church of England, something more considerable than number; for Union is stronger than Multitude. Take the Character of this Church from Monsieur Daille 
* De Confess Advers H. Hammond. c. 1. p. 97. 98. , a Man whose Circumstances where not likely to lead him, in this matter, into any partiality of judgement; and who, at that time, was engaged in a learned. Controversy with one of our Divines. The Character is this. As to the Church of England, purged from Foreign wicked Superstitious Worships and Errors, either Impious or dangerous, by the Rule of the Divine Scriptures; approved by so many and such illustrious Martyrs; abounding with Piety towards God, and Charity towards Men, and with most frequent examples of good works; flourishing with an increase of most learned and wise men from the beginning of the Reformation to this time; I have always had it in just esteem, and till I die, I shall continue in the same due Veneration of it. And indeed it is to me a matter of astonishment, that any men who have been beyond the Seas, and made Observations upon other Churches and States, should be displeased at Ours which so much excel them.  
Now, is it probable that such a Church as this is, should have less strength in it for the resisting of Popery, than an inferior number of divided Parties, of which the most Sober and most Accomplished, is neither so Primitive, nor so learned, nor so united, nor so numerous, nor so legal: And against which it will be objected by the Romans, that it is of Yesterday?  
Amongst these Parties, there are some who have not fully declared themselves. And who knows whether they have not a Reserve for the Romish Religion, against a favourable Opportunity, though sometimes they speak of Rome as of Babylon? I mean those People who are called Quakers, who speak in general of their Light; and in such doubtful manner, that Inquisitive Men cannot yet understand from what quarter of the Heavens it shineth. The Men of design amongst them may embrace any Religion, and the melancholy will make a tolerable Order amongst the Romans; and the Priests will find for them a second St. Bruno.  
Again, There are some who though they have declared themselves against Popery, yet they have scarce any form way of keeping it out. For what hindereth a crafty Jesuit from gathering a particular Congregation out of many others, and modelling of it by degrees according to his pleasure? and what a gap do they leave open for Seducers, who take out of the way all Legal Tests, and admit Men who are Strangers to them to officiate amongst them upon bare pretence of Spiritual Illumination?  
Furthermore, the Romanists have more powerful ways of drawing Men from the Parties of the Dissenters, than they have of enticing them from the Church of England; for such Men (too frequently) go out from us through weakness of imagination, for which the Church of Rome hath variety of Gratifications.  
They will offer, to the Severe, such strictnesses as are not consistent with the general Laws of a National Church, which being framed for Men of such various Conditions, must have some Scope and Latitude, though no licence in it; and many of those who now join themselves to the Dissenting Parties, would then choose to be admitted as Members of this or the other Superstitious Fraternity: And it is (at least) my private Conjecture, that if the Revenue of the Religious Houses which were dissolved, had been judiciously applied to the service of Men, either weak in mind, or indisposed by temper, or singular in their Inclinations, amongst the Reformed; there might have been a Diversity here (I mean such as there is in our present Colleges) without a Schism.  
Likewise, they have Mental Prayer, and (as they call them) Spiritual Eructations, for those who contemn or scruple forms. 
* See Rational Discourse of Prayer chief of Mystic Contemplation. chap. 14. pag. 74.   
They have mystical Phrases for such who think they have a new Notion when they darken understanding with Words. And accordingly, the third part of the Rule of Perfection, (a very mystical Book, written by Father Benet a Capuchin) was in the Year 46, reprinted in London 
* A Bright Star centring in Christ our perfection. Printed for H. Overton in Popes-Head Alley 1646. , with a new Title, and without the Name of the Author; and it passed, amongst some of the Parties, for a Book containing very sublime Evangelical Truths. And it pleased some Enthusiasts when they read in it, That Christ's Passion was to be practised and beheld as it was in ourselves, rather than that which is considered at Jerusalem. 
* Ch. 18. p. 189.   
Also, they use much gesture, and great show of Zeal in preaching, and have singular ways of moving the zealous temper of the English, from whence some of them, in Rome itself, had the Name of Knock-breasts, 
* Picchia-Petti Inglesi. S. R. C. P●sth. p. 125.  given to them. A Romish Preacher comes forth out of an obscure Cloister into the Pulpit, and appears all heavenly in the Exercise: And having excited a warmth in their affection, he retires again, and does not mix with Conversation, and is not observed (as other Ministers) by many eyes; and the People never seeing him but in this Divine Figure, look upon him as an Angel coming to them out of Heaven, and then ascending thither again.  
It may be observed, also, that the Romanists have greater shows of self-denial for the moving of English Piety, than the Dissenters. They have rough Cords mean Garments, bare Feet, Disciplines, Whips, Pretences of not touching Money, or enjoying Property; though some of these are often no other than Arts used by ordinary Beggars.  
Again, they have ways, not only of humouring the infirmity, but even the Foppishness of Humane Nature. Processions and other Rites of the Romish Religion are so ordered as to be Games for Diversion; and the Mass with Scenes pleaseth, though it be not understood.  
Dissenters do now think, that Popery may be very easily subdued by their Arms: But if Recluses were once crept out of their dark Cells (as Serpents from under the deadly nightshade) they would have cause to alter their Opinions, and not to think too highly of themselves, after a wilful removal of the Church of England which is sufficient (under God) for this Encounter. This Church designs to make Men good by making them first Judicious, as far as means can do it. But some others desire to bring them to their side by catching of their Imaginations; and by that way they can neither reform nor fix them. Some new Device shall, in time, bring them over to a new Party.  
Dissension itself amongst Protestants weakeneth their Interest; and that which weakens one side, strengthens another.  
And many men, entangled in Controversy, and wearied with endless wrangling, are too apt, for mere ease and quiet sake, to cast themselves, in servile manner, into the Arms of pretended Infallibility.  
Our Dissensions have already introduced too much of that which is the very spirit of Jesuitism, the doing of Evil that pretended Good may come of it; the serving of a Cause by any means, whether they be just or unjust.  
Some Dissenters do accidentally prepare the way for Romish Religion by running into an other extreme upon pretence of avoiding Popery; by decrying the Church of England as Antichristian and Popish; and by condemning that as Popish which is Christian and decent. [As Episcopacy, Liturgy, Observations of the Nativity of Christ, and other Festivals, Reverence of bodily Gesture, particularly in receiving the Holy Communion, Preservation of places and things set apart for Holy uses, with reverend care.] By this means they bring Popery into Reputation. Men will be apt to say, if such a Body as the Church of England be Popish, it is sit we sit down and consider of it; for surely they are not so inclined without weighty Reasons. If the Clergy of it be inclined to that Religion, the Introduction of which, together with great numbers of the Popish-Clergy, will diminish their preferment; it must be the Power of the Truth which moveth them against their worldly Interest. They will continue their Argument and say further; If such good things as these abovementioned be Romish, and it be lawful to judge of the whole by the parts of it which are before us, surely that which is Popish is also Primitive and Evangelical. That which we have examined is good, and that which we have not, may probably be of the same kind,  
Secondly, the History of our late Revolutions showeth that Popery will not be smothered in the Ruins of the Church of England, but rather be advanced upon them.  
It made great Progress in the late Times; insomuch, that the Dissenters do remove the Odium of the late King's execrable Murder from themselves, and lay it upon the Jesuits; thereby tacitly acknowledging that they had so great a power over some of them, as to make them to become their Instruments for the cutting off the Lords Anointed. For if they will not allow Cromwell and Ireton and some others of that Order, to have been Dissenters, properly so called; yet certainly they must not deny that Name to Mr. Peter's, Mr. John Goodwin and many like to them, who appeared publicly in that very black and insolent wickedness. How far it is true that the Jesuits influenced those Counsels, I do not now examine, nor does my Talon lie in Mysteries of State. But that in the late Revolutions, Popery was not routed out, no Man can remain ignorant who is of competent Age, and had not perfectly lost the use of his memory, though he has made the most negligent Observations.  
Robert Mentit de Salmonet 
* Hist. des tro●bles de lafoy grand Bret. a Par●● 1661. lib. 3. p. 165 See sport view of the late Troubls. p. 564.  a Scotchman, and a Secular Priest in actual exercise of Communion with the Church of Rome, hath publicly taken notice of the many Priests slain at Edge-Hill, and of two Companies of Walloons and other Catholics (as he is pleased to style them) in the Service of the States.  
It hath been commonly said 
* Arbitr. Government p. 28.  that Gifford the Jesuit appeared openly in the Year 47 amongst the Agitators, and that his Pen was used in the Paper drawn up at a Committee in the Army, and called the Agreement of the People. 
* See Whitl. Memoirs. p. 279, 280 282.  K. Charles the Martyr speaketh of such things as notorious, in one of his printed Declarations 
* Exact Col. p. 647. , All Men know (said he) the great number of Papists which serve in their Army, Commanders, and others.  
In the Year 49, 
* Id. ibid. p. 405.  Those in the House were acquainted with divers Papers, taken in a French Man's Trunk at Rye, discovering a Popish Design to be set on foot in England, with Commissions from the Bishop of Chalcedon, by Authority of the Church of Rome, to Popish Priests and others, for settling the Discipline of the Romish Church in England and Scotland.  
Mr. Edward's 
* Gangrena p. 1●. p. r. 2  reports, from Mr. Mills a Common-Council-man, who was so informed by a knowing Papist, that the Romanists did generally shelter themselves under the Vizor of Independency. It is certain, that a College of Jesuits was established at Come 
* Narr. sent up to the Lords from the Bishop of He●eford p. 7.  in the Year 52. And in a Paper found there, mention was made of 155 reconciled that year to the Church of Rome. Oliver himself used these words in a Declaration published by the Advice of his Council. 
* Prot. Declaration Octob. 31. 1655.  It is not only Commonly observed, but there remains with Us, somewhat of Proof, that Jesuits have been found among some discontented Parties in this Nation, who are observed to quarrel and fall out with every Form or Administration in the Church or State. Dr. Bayly 
* In the Life of Bish. Fisher. p. 260, 161.  the Romanist openly courted Oliver as the present hopes of Rome, and with a Flattery as gross as the Jingle was ridiculous, called him Oliva Vera: And one of his Physicians 
* V Elench Mot. par. 2. p. 341.  hath said of him, that he was once negotiating with the Romanists for Toleration, but broke off the Bargain, partly because they came not up to his price, and partly because he feared it would b● offensive to the People. It is also publicly told us, 
* H. Indep. part 2. p. 245, etc.  that an Agreement was made in 49, even with Owen o Neal, that bloody Romanist; and that he, in pursuance of the Interest of the State, so called, raised the Siege of .  
A great door was opened to Romish Emissaries when the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were, by public Order, taken away: For they were Tests of Romamism. Likewise, the Doctrine of the unlawfulness of an Oath, revived in those days, by Roger Williams, 
* See Mr. Cotton's Lr. Exam. A. 44. p. 4, 5 Simplicit. defence. A. 1646. p. 22. Min. of Prov. of Lond. Testim. p. 18.  Samuel Gorton, and others, helped equivocating Papists to an evasion, as (I fear) it may do, at this day, among the Quakers. So we may be induced to believe, by comparing present with former Transactions. For we are informed that in the Reign of King James, 
* Gee's Foot out of the Snare. p. 58, 59 A. 1621.  Thomas Newton, pretended to have had a Vision of the Virgin Mary, who said to him, Newton, See thou do not take the Oath of Allegiance: And being of this publicly examined at the Commission-Table, and asked, how he knew it to be the Virgin Mary which appeared? He answered, I know it was she, for she appeared unto me in the form of her Assumption.  
It was the Church of England, which, in our late Troubles, principally fortified and entrenched the true Protestant Religion against the Assaults of Rome.  
This Church was still in being, though in Adversity. She had strong Vitals and did not die, notwithstanding there was some Distemper in her Estate. There was still a Constitution where Primitive order and decency might be found, and in which Men of Sobriety might be fixed. And great numbers of the Churchmen, by their constant adherence to their Principles, under public contempt and heavy pressure, gained daily on the People, and convinced the World that they were not so Popish and Earthly-minded as popular clamour had represented them. Also, their learned Books and Conferences reduced some, and established many, and we own a part of the stablity of Men in those times to God's blessing on the Writings of Archbishop Laud, Mr. Chillingworth, Dr. Bromhall, Dr. Cousins, Dr. Hammond, and others.  
Last of all, It is the Opinion of the Papists themselves, that their Cause is promoted by our Dissensions; and, according to these measures of Judgement, they govern their Councils.  
This was the Opinion of the Jesuit Campanella in his Discourse touching the Spanish Monarchy, written about the Year 1600; and, in 54, published at London in our Language. 
* Campan. Disc. of Span. Mon. c. 25. p. 157  Concerning the weakening of the English (says that Jesuit) there can no better way possibly be found out, than by causing Divisions and Dissensions among themselves.— And as for their Religion,— it cannot be so easily extinguished and rooted out here, unless there were some certain Schools set up in Flanders, — by means of which there should be scattered abroad the Seeds of Schism, etc.  
And whether these kinds of Seeds have not come from hence to us, as well as those better ones of the Brabant Husbandry, remaineth not now any longer a question.  
It was the Advice of the Jesuit Contzens, 
* Contz. Polit. l. 2. chap. 18. Sect. 9  To make as much use of the Divisions of Enemies, as of the agreement of Friends.  
After this manner it is that they manage themselves; they endeavour to widen the Breach, in order to the introducing of Popery into a divided Nation. They will have hopes, as long as we have Divisions. They will believe, whilst they see the humours are in conflict, that the Body will be at last dissolved. If they will hope for Resettlement, as they declare they do, upon such inconsiderable grounds, as the Printing of a Monasticon 
* Journal des Scavans de l' Ann. 1665. p. 140.  or the Provincial 
* Journ. &c de l' An. 1666. p. 2●0, 233. etc.  of Lynwood amongst us, though in the Quality of History rather than of Title or Law; what will they not expect from our un christian Distempers, and from our forbearing of Communion with the established Church, as if it were the Synagogue of Satan?  
By this Artifice it is that they gain Proselytes. They expose the Protestants as a disunited People. They demand of injudicious Men how they can, in Prudence, join with those who are at variance among themselves? Though at this time, in the Church of England itself, there is much more agreement than in the Church of Rome, in which (they say) there are great numbers of more private Deists, 
* V Polit. of France.  and Socinians, and some (we are certain) who publish it to the World 
* Moyens Surs. etc. pour la conversian dtous les Heretics.  that the Primacy is Antichristian; in which there are Solemn and Public Assemblies who declare openly against one another in the great point of the Papal Supremacy; and show, by so doing, that (in their Opinion) their common head cannot certainly tell the nature of his Head-ship.  
There remaineth to be considered, the second more 
The second part of the second or more Principal End of the Dissenters.  principal End, the advancing Christian Religion, in these Kingdoms, to greater Purity and Perfection.  
But neither in this is their expectation likely to be answered.  
For First, The means towards the settling of themselves is the Dissettlement of that which is well fixed. And this is the way, not to a greater purity in Religion, but to the corruption of it.  
For, it removeth Charity which is the Spirit of the Chirstian Religion. It letteth lose great numbers who cannot govern themselves; it moveth men to live Atheists and Idolaters, to pour Contempt upon the Church of Christ; and confirmeth them in their evil course. It exposeth the Church as a Prey to the Common Enemy. Thus the Divisions in Africa gave encouragement to the Arms of the barbarous Nations; and those, in the Egyptian Churches, made way for the Saracens. And the Proposal of the maintenance of Charity and pure Religion by the overthrow of a tolerable Ecclesiastical Constitution, is as improbable a Project as that of Flammock; who, in Henry the 7th's time, 
* L. Bac. H. 7. p 164.  proposed a Rebellion without a breach of the Peace.  
And it is here to be considered, that those who descent from a National Church, do generally make use of such Junctures, as are apt to debase, than refine Religion. They often move for Alterations in the Church when there is a great heat and ferment in the State: And in such Seasons, the Form of a Church may be pulled in sunder, but there is not temper enough and coolness of unbyass'd consideration to set it together to advantage. Such times are the Junctures of State Dissenters, and amongst them Revolutions generally begin, though without the pretence of reforming Religion, they are not carried on amongst the People. For it will not serve their purpose to say plainly, they are against the Government, because the Government is against their Interests. Now, when well meaning Dissenters are in the hands of such worldly Power, they will not be able to establish what they think is surest, but that which pleaseth their secular Leaders. A change in the Church naturally produceth some change in the State; and in such changes who can secure the Event for the better? The words of Bishop Andrews 
* Ser. 6. on Nou. 5. 1614 , about the midst of the Reign of K. James, touch this Point, and they doubtless are worth our observation. When (said he) they have made the State present naught, no Remedy; we must have a better for it, and so a change needs: What change? Why! Religion, or the Church-Government, or somewhat (they know not what well) stand a while, ye shall change your Religion (said they of this day [the Gun-powder-Traytors]) and have one for it wherein, to your comfort, you shall not understand a word (not you of the People) what you either sing or pray; and for variety, you shall change a whole Communion for an half. Now, a blessed exchange, were it not? What say some others? You shall change for a fine new Church-Government; a Presbytery would do this better for you than an Hierarchy, and (perhaps) not long after, a Government of States, than a Monarchy. Meddle not with these Changers.  
Now when a State is either disturbed or dissolved, men cannot foresee all the ill Consequences of it. When the Vessel is stirred, the Lees come up, which lay before undiscerned in the Mass of the Liquor; and so it is in Religion; it is not fined, but rather rendered less pure, by motions in the Body Spiritual or Civil. Then Politicians use conscientious Instruments no further than they serve a present purpose, and for new Purposes they find new Instruments. One of the Assembly of Divines 
* D. J. L. on Psal. 4▪ 4. Feb. 24. A. 1647.  discoursed, on this manner, at a public Fast. Have not these Trumpets and these poor Pitchers had their share, and a good share too, in bringing down the Walls of Jericho, and the Camp of Midian? and have not they (like the Story in Ezekiel) if I may so express it, Prophesied you up an Army? The Witness of these things is in the whole Kingdom, and a Witness of them is in your own Bosoms. Yet the Preacher was very sensible at the same time, that those whom they had helped to Power, were turning it against them, and breaking them to pieces by dashing Independency against them. Aspiring Men make fair Promises, till they have gained their point; but when that is once secured, they take other Measures. They say 
* Melvil's Mem. p. 33.  that Maximilian, for the gaining of Votes in order to the Empire, used secret Preach to please the Protestant Princes [the Elector Palatine, the Dukes of Saxony and Brandenburg]; and went openly to Mass to please the Popish Bishops of Mentzs, Triers, and colein. Also, the claims of the worldly increase with their Power: And (for illustration-sake) when the House, being garbelled had much less right but more force (the Army as yet agreeing with them and the good King being in their hands) than they gave to the Declarations of their Pleasure the Title, not as before of Ordinances, but of Acts of Parliament. 
* while. Memoirs. p. 363.   
Oliver, likewise declared plainly, That there was as much need to keep the Cause by Power, as to get it. And being potent, he entered the House, and mocked at his Masters, and commanded, with insolent disdain, that That Bauble 
* Speech at the Dissol. of the House. Jan. 22. 1654. p. 22  (meaning the Mace of the Speaker) should be taken away. Men may intent well, but using the help of the illegal secular Arm, they can never secure 
* Id. ibid. ● 529.  what they propose, but frequently render that which was well settled, much worse by their unhinging of it.  
But such means it comes to pass, that the Civil State is embroiled, and Religion sensibly decays, in stead of growing towards perfection, where public order is interrupted, and Men gain a Liberty which they know not how to use.  
Secondly, It appeareth, by the History of our late Revolutions, which began with pretence of a more pure Religion, that our Dissensions occasioned great Corruptions both in Faith and manners.  
Then the War was Preached up as the Christian Cause. And one of the City-Soldiers, mortally wounded at Newberry-fight, was applauded (in an Epistle 
* Hill 's Ser. called Temple work. A. 1644.  to the Houses) as one whose Voice was more than humane when he cried out, O that I had another Life to lose for Jesus Christ. Then this Doctrine (so very immoral and unchristian) was by some 
* D. Crisp in Ser. called. Our sins are already laid on Christ. p 274, 275.  Preached, and by great numbers embraced. The Lord hath no more to lay to the charge of an Elect Person, yet in the height of Iniquity and the excess of Riot, and committing all the Abominations that can be committed— than he hath to lay to the charge of a Saint Triumphant in Glory. Then certain Soldiers 
* H. of Indep. part. 2. p 152, 153.  entered a Church with five Lights, as Emblems of five things thought fit to be extinguished, viz. The Lord's-day, Tithes, Ministers, Magistrates, the Bible. Then by a public Intelligencer, who called himself Mercurius Britanicus 
** Merc. Brit. N 13. Nou. A. 43 p. 97. , the Lord Primate Usher himself was reproached as an Old Doting Apostating Bishop. Instances are endless; but, what need have we of further Witnesses than the Lords and Commons, and the Ministers of the Province of London, whose Complaints and Acknowledgements are here subjoined.  
The Lords and Commons, in one of their Ordinances 
* Die Jov●z. Febr. 4 1646. , use these words. We— have thought fit (lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their Plagues) to set forth this our deep sense of the great dishonour of God, and perilous condition that this Kingdom is in, through the abominable Blasphemies, and damnable Heresies vented and spread abroad therein, tending to the Subversion of the Faith, contempt of the Ministry and Ordinance of Jesus Christ.  
The Ministers made a like acknowledgement, saying, Instead 
** Testim. to Truth of J. Chr. p. 31.  of extirpating Heresy, Schism, Profaneness; we have such an impudent and general inundation of all these evils, that Multitudes are not ashamed, to press and plead for public, formal, and universal Toleration.  
And again, We the Ministers of Jesus Christ, do hereby testify to all our Flocks, to all the Kingdom, and to all the Reformed Churches, as our great dislike of Pilacy, Erastianism, Brownism, and Independency; so our utter abhorrence of Anti-Scripturism, Popery, Arianism, Socinianism, Arminianism, Antimonianism, Anabaptism, Libertinism, and Familism; with all such like, now too rife among us.  
Thirdly, some Dissenters, by the Purity of Religion, mean agreeableness of Doctrine, Discipline, and Life, to the dispensation of the New Testament, and a removal of humane Inventions: and thus far the Notion is true; but, with reference to our Church, it is an unwarrantable Reflection. For it hath but one Principal Rule, and that is the Holy Scripture, and Subordinate rules in pursuance of the general Canons, in Holy Writ, are not to be called in our Church, any more than in the pure and Primitive Christian Church, whose Pattern it follows, humane Imaginations, but rules of Ecclesiastical Wisdom and Discretion.  
But there are others among the Dissenters, who, by the Purity of Religion, mean a simplicity as opposed to composition, and not to such mixtures as corrupt the Circumstances, or parts of Worship which in themselves are pure. Quakers and some others believe their way the purer, because they have taken out of it Sacraments and External Forms of Worship, and endeavoured (as they phrase it 
* G. Fox in. J. Perrot's Hidden things brought to light. p. 11. ) to bring the People's minds out of all Visibles. By equal reason the Papists may say their Eucharist is more pure than that of the Protestants, because they have taken the Cup from it. But that which maketh a pure Church, is like that which maketh a pure Medicine; not the fewness of the Ingredients, but the good quality of them how many soever they be; and the aptness of their Nature for the procuring of Health.  
Men, who have this false Notion of the purity of Religion, distil it till it evaporates; and all that is left is a dead and corrupt Sediment. And here I have judged the following words of Sir Walter Raleigh not unfit to be by me transcribed, and considered by all. 
* Hist. of the World: l. 2. 1. part c. 5. p. 249.  The Reverend Care which Moses had in all that belonged even to the outward and least parts of the Tabernacle, Ark, and Sanctury— is now so forgotten and cast away in this Superfine Age, by those of the Family, by the Anabaptist, Brownist, and other Sectaries, as all cost and care bestowed and had of the Church, wherein God is to be served and worshipped, is accounted a kind of Popery, and as proceeding from an Idolatrous Disposition: Insomuch, as time would soon bring to pass (if it were not resisted) that God would be turned out of Churches into Barns, and from thence again into the Fields and Mountains, and under the Hedges; and the Officers of the Ministry (rob of all Dignity and Respect) be as contemptible as these places; all Order, Discipline, and Church-Government left to newness of Opinion, and Men's Fancies: Yea, and soon after, as many kinds of Religions would spring up as there are Parish Churches within England: Every Contentious and ignorant person clothing his Fancy with the Spirit of God, and his Imagination with the gift of Revelation; insomuch, as when the truth, which is but One, shall appear to the simple multitude, no less variable than contrary to itself, the Faith of Men will soon after die away by degrees, and all Religion be held inscorn and contempt  
Fourthly, If several contrary Parties be established by way of sufferance; no progress is likely to be made towards the perfecting of Religion. For the suffering of divers Errors is not the way to the reforming of them. One Principle only can be true; and the blending of such as are contrary with it, createth the greatest of Impurities; a mixture of that which is profane, with that which is sacred.  
Fifthly, Many Dissenters are not likely to erect a Model by which Christianity may be improved amongst us, because they lay aside Rules of discretion, and rely not on God's assistance in the use of good means, but depend wholly upon immediate illumination, without the aids of Prudence: And some of the more sober amongst them, have inclined too much towards this extreme.  
In Reformation (said one 
* Mr. S. Sympson in A. 1643. Reform. Preservat. p. 126, 27.  in his Sermon before the Commons) do not make reason your Rule nor Line you go by. It is the line of all the Papists. — The second Covenant doth forbid, not only Reason, but all Divine Reason that is not contained by Institution in the Worship of God.— God's Worship hath no ground in any reason but God's Will.  
Sixthly, There are already provided in this Church, more probable means for the promoting of pure Religion, than those which have been proposed by all, or any of the Dissenting Parties. It is true, each Church is capable of improvement, by the change of obsolete Words, Phrases, and Customs; by the addition of Forms upon new Occasions; by adjusting discreetly some Circumstantials of External Order. But, to change the Present Model for any other that has yet been offered to public consideration, is to make a very injudicious bargain. There are in it, all the necessaries to Faith and Godliness; there is preserved Primitive Discipline, Decency, and Order: And, under the means of it, there are great numbers grown up into such an improvement of Judicious Knowledge and useful, prudent, serious Piety; that it requireth a Laborious Scrutiny to find Parallels to them in any Nations under the Heavens.  
I do not take pleasure in distasteful Comparisons. Yet I ought not (sure) to pass by with unthankful negligence, that excellent Spirit which God hath raised up among the Writers and Preachers of this Church; their labours being so instrumental towards the right information of the Judgement, and the amendment of the Lives of unprejudiced Hearers.  
It must be confessed, that there is some trifling on all sides: And it will be so whilst Men are Men. But there is now (blessed be God) as little of it in the Church of England as in any Age. And the very few who do it, appear plainly to be what they are, phantastics, and Actors, rather than Preachers. But, amongst the Parties, the folly and weakness puts on a more venerable pretence, and they give vent to it with studied shows of mighty seriousness, and deliver it solemnly as the immediate dictate of God's Holy Spirit. And I cannot but call to mind one Minister in this Church, who would (for instance sake) have deliberately used these words of Mr. Rutherford, in a solemn audience, 
* Ruth. on Dan. 6. 26. p. 8. A. 1643. bef. the Commons.  and after this manner. God permits Sins, and such solemn Sins, that there may be room in the Play for pardoning Grace.  
It seemeth also, not unfit for me to take notice, that the Changes formerly made in Church-matters in England by Dissenters, were not so conducive in their nature, to the edifying of the Body of Christ, as the things illegally removed. The Doctrine of God's Secret decrees taught in their Catechisms, was a stronger and more improper kind of meat than that with which the Church of England had fed her Children. Ordination by a Bishop, accompanied with Presbyters, was more certain and satisfactory than that by Presbyters without a Bishop.  
There was not that sobriety in many of the present and unstudied Effusions, which appeared in every of those public Forms which were considered and fixed. And it sounded more decently (for example sake) to pray in the Church's words, and say, from Fornication Good Lord deliver us, than to use those of an eminent Dissenter, 
* Prayers at the end of Farewell Sermons. Mr, U's Prayer bef. Serm. p. 31.  Lord un-lust us. Nor did the long continued Prayers help Men so much against Distraction as those shorter ones, with breaks and Pauses in the Liturgy, and the great and continued length of them introduced, by consent, sitting at Prayer.  
Neither did it tend less to edification, to repeat the Creed standing, than to leave it quite out of the Directory for public Worship. Neither was it an advantage to Christian Piety to change the gesture of kneeling in the Eucharist when the Sacred Elements were given together with Prayer, for that less reverend one of sitting: Of sitting especially with the Ha●t on, as the most uncomely practice of some was; the People being taught to cover the Head, 
* Edward's Gangrena. part 1 Error 112. p. 25.  whilst the Minister was to remain bare amongst them. Nor was the civil Pledge of the Ring in Marriage, bettered by the invention of some Pastors, who (as is storied of them) took a Ring 
* See Edw. Grangr. 2 part p. 13.  of some Women-converts, upon their admittance into their Church.  
Neither was the Alteration of the Form of giving the Holy Elements, an amendment. For the Minister was directed to the use of these words. 
* Directory for public Worship. p. 27.  Taken ye, eat ye; this is the Body of Christ which is broken for you.— This Cup is the New Testament in the blood of Christ, which is shed for the Remission of the Sins of many.— The words denoting Christ's present Crucifix, and (either actually or in the future certainty of it) give countenance to the Romish Sacrifice of the Mass; though I verily believe they were not so intended.  
Nor did the forbidding the Observation of Christ's Nativity and other holidays, add one Hairs breadth to the Piety of the Nation; but, on the other hand, it took away, at least from the common People, one ready means of fixing in their Memories the most useful History of the Christian Religion.  
It is easy enough, even for Men who are Dwarves in the Politics, in such sort to alter a constitution as to make it more pleasing for a time to themselves during their Passion, and the novelty of the Model in their Fancy not yet disturbed by some unforeseen Mischief or inconveniency; but 'tis extreme difficult upon the whole matter, to make a true and lasting Improvement, there being so many parts in the frame to be mutually fitted, and such variety of Cases in Humane Affairs.  
I pray from my Heart for the bettering, but I dread the tinkering of Government.  

The Conclusion.  
IF then, Dissenters are not likely to obtain their Ends, of Establishing themselves, of rooting out of Popery, and promoting pure Religion, by overthrowing the Church of England; the Inference is natural, they ought, both in Prudence and Christianity, to endeavour after Union with it.  
They will (it may be) say to me, Can Men be persuaded two contrary ways? Can they both Assent and Dissent? And whilst they secretly Dissent, would you force them into an Hypocritical Compliance? I Answer thus.  
First, Though a Man cannot at the same time wholly Assent and Dissent; yet there are means for the rectifying of a false persuasion; and he may, upon good Grounds, change his Mind.  
Secondly, No Man's Mind can beforced; for it is beyond the reach of Humane Power.  
Thirdly, Good Governors do not use Severity to force Men to dissemble their Minds, and to make them Hypocrites, but to move them, after a Trial of fair means, to greater consideration.  
I am not concerned in the Emblem of the Persian Dervi 
* Tavern. Pers. Trau. l. 4. c. 6. p. 155, 156.  who, whilst they go about their Office of teaching the Law to the People, carry a great Club in their hands. But neither do I think that the best way to remove pernicious error from Men, is never to give them any disturbance in it.  
I have two things only to recommend, first to the consideration, and then to the practice of such as Dissent.  
First, This is a time of Prosecution; and a time of Adversity is a proper time for Consideration, and Consideration is a means to make us hold fast that which is good, and reject that which is evil. I beseech you, make such advantage of this Juncture. Sat down, and think once more of the Nature of this Church. Confer with the Guides of the National Religion; read without prejudice, the Books commended by them to you. Peruse seriously the Books which Authority hath set forth. Some who have spoken against them, have by their own confession, never read them. Examine, and Judge. Many of your Scruples have arisen from what you have heard, and read; they would not have otherwise been engendered in your Minds. Hear and Read for your Information, as well as your entanglement.  
Secondly, Do as much as you can do. Do as much as the Dissenters, who are most eminent for Learning, Piety, Preaching, Writing, Experience, and Fame; sometimes actually do. They have owned our Communion to be lawful. 
* See Lawf. of hearing the public Ministry, etc. by Mr. Nye, Mr. Robinson, etc. and Mr. Corbet's Non-Conformists Plea for Lay-Communion.  They have received the Communion kneeling. They have bred up Children to the Ministry of this Church. They have joined in the Liturgy. They have been Married according to the Form of it. Nay, one who assisted in making the Directory, would have his own Daughter (in those times) be Married in the way of the Book of Common-Prayer. 
* Mr. Marshal in Hist of Indep. 1 part p. 80.  Do as the ancient Non-conformists did, who would not separate, though they feared to Subscribe: Who wrote with such Zeal against those of the Separation, that Mr. Hildersham was called, 
* See Dr. Willit's Epistle Dedicatory before his Harm. on 1 Sam. Schismaticorum (Qui vulgo Brownistae) malleum  The Maul of the Brownists.  
Do more for the Peace of God's Church, than for a Vote, or Office, or Fear of Legal Penalty. Come as Christians to the Sacrament, and not as Politicians. Those who have so done, yet break the unity of the Church, are said to use the Arts of Jesuits, and to be without all excuse, by a Dissenter 
* Vox. Clam. Sect. 6. p. 49, 50, etc.  who writes with commendable temper.  
Do constantly what you do upon occasion. No Preaching, or Praying, which is better liked, can balance the evil of Separation from a Church, which imposeth no terms of Communion which are sinful.  
For Peace sake, let that be more constant, in which your Conscience alloweth occasional exercise. A Member who joins himself to any established Church, and also to any Churches which are set up, not as legal Supplements of it, but as Forts against it, seems to be a kind of Wooden Leg; if I may represent so grave a matter by so light a Similitude. He is tied on, and taken off, at pleasure; he is not as, by natural Ligaments and Nerves, knit to such Ecclesiasticrl Bodies. If all would do constantly what they can in Conscience do sometimes, they would create a better Opinion of themselves, in the Governors, and move them to all due favour, and hinder all the destructive breaches amongst us. For the remain of other Dissenters would be so inconsiderable, as to abide in the Body of the Nation, as ill humours thrown off the extreme parts, from which there may arise some little pain, but no mortal danger.  
Now, the God of Peace grant Peace to us always, by all fit means.   
The END.   

A SERIOUS EXHORTATION, With some Important Advices, Relating to the late Cases about CONFORMITY, Recommended to the Present Dissenters From the CHURCH of ENGLAND.  
LONDON, Printed for T. Basset, at the George in Fleetstreet; B. took, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard; and F. Gardiner, at the White Horse in Ludgate-street, 1684.   

Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER.  
A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's. Unreasonableness of Separation, in Answer to Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Job, etc.  
Considerations of present use, considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government.  

1. A Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England.  
2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience, which respect Church-Communion.  
3. The Case of Indifferent things, used in the Worship of God, Proposed and Stated, by considering these Questions, etc.  
4. A Discourse about Edification.  
5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience, Whether the Church of England's Symbolising so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England?  
6. A Letter to Anonymus, in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship. In two Parts.  
8. The Case of mixed Communion. Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations, and Mixed Communions?  
9 An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers, and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England.  
10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament, Stated and Resolved, etc. The first Part.  
11. Certain Cases of Conscience, etc. The Second Part.  
12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons, and of going to hear where Men think they can profit most.  
13. A serious Exhortation, with some Important Advices, Relating to the late Cases about Conformity, Recommended to the Present Dissenters from the Church of England.   

1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists ask of us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther?  
2. A Discourse about Tradition, showing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be Received, and what Tradition is to be Rejected.    

A Serious EXHORTATION, With some Important Advices, etc. Recommended to the Dissenters from the Church of England.  
THE offering friendly Advice and Counsel, especially in great and important Cases, is, though often, a Thankless, yet a very Charitable Office: a thing agreeable to the best Inclinations of Humane Nature, and highly conducive to the Necessities of Men, and consequently needs no Apology to introduce it. We live, 'tis true, in an illnatured and Censorious Age, wherein 'tis rare to find any one, who will not take with the Lefthand, what's offered to them with the Right. But I am not discouraged from this Attempt, by the Peevishness and Frowardness of many that differ from us, Remembering that all Honest Undertake (and such I am sure this is) are under the more peculiar Conduct and Blessing of the Divine Providence, which can and will succeed and prosper them to an happy Issue, if men's own Obstinacy and Perverseness do not put a Bar in the way to hinder it. I do therefore beseech our Dissenting Brethren, with all the earnestness that becomes a matter of so much Importance, and with all the Kindness and Tenderness that becomes a Christian, that they would suffer the Word of Exhortation, and duly weigh and consider the Requests and Advices that are here plainly laid before them, which I hope will be found such, as carry their own Light and Evidence along with them.  

I.  
And First, We beg of them to believe, That they may be mistaken about those matters, which are alleged as the Causes of their Separation. This, one would think, were as needless, as 'tis a modest and reasonable Request. For did ever any Man (the Bishop of Rome excepted) lay claim to Infallibility? Do not the woeful Infirmities of Humane Nature, the Weakness and Short-sightedness of our Understandings, the daily Experience of ourselves, and the lamentable Failures we observe in others, sufficiently convince us, how prone we are to Error and Mistake? But though this be granted and owned on all hands, yet in Practice, we frequently find Men acting by other Measures. For, how many are there, that in the most Controverted Cases bear up themselves with as much Confidence and Assurance, censure others with as Magisterial a Boldness, condemn the things enjoined by our Church, with as positive and peremptory a Determination, as if they were infallibly sure, that they are in the Right, and all others in the Wrong that differ from them. The early Prepossession of a contrary Opinion, the powerful Prejudices of Education, an implicit and unexamined Belief of what their Guides and Leaders teach them, have a strange force upon the Minds of Men, so that in effect, they no more doubt of the Truth and Goodness of the Cause they are engaged in, than they question the Articles of their Creed. Wherefore, I do once and again entreat them, that laying aside all Pride, Partiality, and Self-conceit, they would not think more highly of themselves, and of their own way, than they ought to think; especially remembering, that the Matters contended about are confessedly Disputable, and that they cannot be ignorant, that the Case seems otherwise to others, who may at least be allowed to be as wise Men, and as competent Judges as themselves. Truth makes the easiest Entrance into modest and humble Minds; The Meek will he guide in Judgement, the Meek will he teach his way; The Spirit of God never rests upon a Proud Man.   

II.  
Secondly, We beg of them, that they would seriously and impartially weigh and consider, as well what is said on the one side, as on the other. This is a piece of Justice that every one owes to Truth, and which indeed every Man owes to himself, that is not willing to be deceived. To take up with Prejudices, which Education or long Custom have instilled into him, or wherein any other Arts or Methods have engaged him, without strictly enquiring whether those Prejudices stand upon a firm Foundation, is to see only on one side: to bind up ones self in the Judgement or Opinion of any Man, that is not Divinely-inspired and Infallible, or pertinaciously to adhere to any Party of Men; how plausible and specious soever their Pretences may be, without examining their Grounds, and endeavouring to know what is said against them, is to choose a Persuasion at a peradventure; and 'tis great odds whether such a one be in the right. In all Inquiries after Truth, we ought to keep an Ear open for one side of the Controversy, as well as the other, and not to think we have done enough, till without Favour or Prejudice, and to the best of our Understandings, we have heard, tried, and judged, the Reasons brought, as well for, as against it. And till this be done, I see not with what pretence of Reason, Men can talk so much of their Scruples, or plead for Favour on the account of their Dissatisfactions. Consciences truly tender, are willing and desirous to embrace all opportunities of Resolution, & are ready to kiss the Hand that would bring them better information, and are not wont to neglect, much less thrust from them the means that might ease them of their Doubts and Scruples. We justly blame it in them of the Church of Rome, that in a manner they resign up their Understandings to their Guides and Confessors, and are not suffered to be truly acquained with the Protestant Principles, and the Grounds and Reasons of the Reformation; nor to Read any of the Books, that are written for their Conviction, without a special and peculiar Licence. Whether our Brethren of the Separation be under any such Spiritual Discipline, I know not; sure I am it looks very oddly, that so many of them are no more concerned to understand the true State of the Church of England, and the Nature and Reasons of her Constitutions, that so few of them care to Confer with those that are able to Instruct them, but Cry out, They are satisfied already; nay, some of them, to my knowledge, when desired to propose their Scruples, in order to the giving them satisfaction, have plainly and absolutely refused to do it. Little reason there is to believe, that such Persons have ever Read and Examined what the Church of England has to say for herself. Are there not many, that not only Scruple, but Rail at the Book of Common-Prayer, that yet never heard it, nor perhaps, ever read it, in all their Lives? And if this be not to speak Evil of what they know not, I cannot tell what is. How many incomparable Books have been heretofore written in defence of our Church, her Rites and Usages, that yet generally lie by the Walls, little known, and less read, by those that so much Cry out against her. And at this time how many excellent Discourses have been Published, for the satisfaction of Dissenters, written with the greatest Temper and Moderation; with the utmost plainness and perspicuity, with all imaginable evidence and strength of Reasoning; so short, as not to require any considerable portion, either of Time or Cost, so suited to present Circumstances, as to obviate every material Objection, that is made against Communion with us; and yet there is just cause to fear, that the far greatest part of our Dissenters are mere strangers to them, and are not so just to themselves, or us, as to give them the reading: And that those few that do look into them, do it rather out of a design to pick quarrels against them, and to expose them in scurrilous or cavilling Pamphlets, than to receive satisfaction by them. I do hearty, and from my Soul, wish an end of these Contentions, and that there were no further occasion for them; but if our Dissenting Brethren will still proceed in this way, we desire, (and hope 'tis but what is reasonable) that the things in difference may be debated in the most quiet, peaceable, and amicable manner, that they may be gravely and substantially managed, and only the Merits of the Cause attended to, and that the Controversy may not be turned off to mean and trifling Persons, whose highest Attainment perhaps it is, to write an idle and senseless Pamphlet, and which can serve no other use, but only that the People may be borne in hand, that such and such Books are Answered. Which is so unmanly and disingenuous a way, and so like the shifting Artifices of them of the Church of Rome, that I am apt to persuade myself, the wiser Heads of the Dissenting Party cannot but be ashamed of it. If they be not, 'tis plain to all the World, they are willing to serve an ill Design by the most unwarrantable Means. But however that be, we think we have great Reason to expect from them, that they should hear our Church before they condemn Her, and consider what has been said for the removing of their Doubts, before they tell us any more of Scruples, Tender-Consciences, and the hard measure that they meet withal. I confess, could I meet with a Person that had brought himself to some kind of Unbyas'dness and indifferency of Temper, and that designed nothing more than to seek and find the right way of Serving God, without respect to the Intrigues and Interests of this or that particular Party; and in order thereunto, had with a sincere and honest Mind read whatever might probably conduce to his Satisfaction, fairly proposed his Scruples, and modestly consulted with those that were most proper to advise him, and humbly begged the Guidance and Direction of the Divine Grace and Blessing; and yet after all, should still labour under his old Dissatisfactions; I should hearty pity and pray for such a Man, and think myself obliged to improve all my Interest for Favour and Forbearance towards him. But such Persons as these, I am afraid, are but thin sowed; and, without Breach of Charity, it may be supposed, there is not One of a Thousand.   

III.  
Thirdly, We desire, that before they go on to accuse our Church with driving them into Separation, they would directly charge her with imposing sinful terms of Communion. And unless they do this, and when they have done it, make it good, (for barely to accuse, I hope, is not sufficient,) I see not which way they can possibly justify their Separation from us. 'Tis upon this account that the whole Protestant Reformation defends their Departure from the Church of Rome. They found the Doctrine of that Church infinitely corrupt in several of the main Principles of Religion, New Articles of Faith introduced, and bound upon the Consciences of Men under pain of Damnation, its Worship overgrown with very gross Idolatry and Superstition; its Rites and Ceremonies not only over-numerous, but many of them advanced into proper and direct Acts of Worship, and the use of them made necessary to Salvation; and besides, its Members required to join and communicate in these Corruptions and Depravations, nay, and all Proposals and Attempts towards a Reformation obstinately rejected and thrown out; in which Case, they did with great Reason and Justice departed from her: which we may be confident they would not have done, had no more been required of them, than instead of Worshipping Images, to use the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, or instead of the Adoration of the Host, to kneel at the Receiving of the Sacrament. A Learned 
Amyrald. de Secess. ab Eccles. Rom. pag. 233.  Protestant Divine, of great Name and Note, has expressly told us; That had there been no other Faults in the Church of Rome, besides their useless Ceremonies in Baptism, and some other things that are beyond the measure and genius of the Christian Religion, they had still continued in the Communion of that Church. Indeed did the Church of England command any thing which Christ has prohibited, or prohibit any thing which Christ has commanded, then come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, were good Warrant and Authority. But where do we meet with these prohibitions? not in the word of God, not in the nature and reason of the things themselves? nor indeed do we find our Dissenting Brethren of late very forward to fasten this charge, and much less to prove it; whatever unwary say may fall from any of them in the heat and warmth of Disputation, or be suggested by indirect consequences, and artificial insinuations. And if our Church commands nothing that renders her Communion sinful, then certainly Separation from her must be unlawful, because the Peace and Unity of the Church, and obedience to the commands of lawful Authority, are express and indispensable duties; and a few private suspicions of the unlawfulness of the thing are not sufficient to sway against plain, public, and necessary Duties: nor can it be safe to reject Communicating with those, with whom Christ himself does not refuse Communion. This I am sure was once thought good Doctrine by the chiefest of our Dissenters, who when time was, reasoned thus against those that subdivided from them; If we be a Church of Christ, and Christ hold Communion with 
A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government. 1649. p. 130.  us, why do you Separate from us? If we be the Body of Christ, do not they that Separate from the Body, Separate from the Head also? we are loath to speak any thing that may offend you, yet we entreat you to consider, that if the Apostle call those Divisions of the Church of Corinth (wherein Christians did not separate into divers form Congregations in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper,) Schisms, (1 Cor. 1. 10.) may not your Secession from us, and professing you cannot join with us as Members, and setting up Congregations of another Communion, be more properly called Schism?— You gather Churches out of your Churches, and set up Churches in an opposite way to our Churches, and all this you do voluntarily and unwarrantably, not having any sufficient cause for it.  
And in the same Book they tell us of a Twofold Schism, Negative and Positive; Negative, when Men do peaceably and quietly withdraw from Communion with a Church, not making a Head against that Church, from which they are departed: the other is, when Persons so withdrawing do consociate and withdraw themselves into a distinct and opposite Body, setting up a Church against a Church, which (say they) Camero calls a Schism by way of Eminency; and further tells us, There are Four Causes, that make a Separation from a Church lawful; 1. When they that Separate are grievously and intolerably Persecuted; 2. When the Church they Separate from is Heretical; 3. When it is Idolatrous; 4. When it is the Seat of Antichrist. And where none of these four are found, there the Separation is insufficient, and Schism. Now we are fully assured, that none of these Four Causes can be justly charged upon our Congregations; therefore you must not be displeased with us, but with yourselves, if we blame you as guilty of positive Schism. All which is as true now, as it was then, and as applicable to us and them as it was to them and their Dissenters.  
Admit then, there were some things in our Constitution that might be contrived to better purposes, and that needed Amendment and Alteration; yet I hope every Defect, or supposed Corruption in a Church, is not a sufficient ground for Separation, or warrant enough to rend and tear the Church in pieces. Let Mr. Calvin judge between us in this matter, 
Institut. lib. 4. Sect. 10, 11, 12. fol. 349.  who says, That wherever the Word of God is duly Preached, and reverently attended to, and the true use of the Sacraments kept up, there is the plain Appearance of a true Church, whose Authority no Man may safely despise, or reject its Admonitions, or resist its Counsels, or set at nought its Discipline, much less Separate from it, and Violate its Unity; for that our Lord has so great regard to the Communion of his Church, that he accounts him an Apostate from his Religion who obstinately Separates from any Christian Society, which keeps up the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments: that such a Separation is a denial of God and Christ, and that it is a dangerous and pernicious Temptation, so much as to think of Separating from such a Church; the Communion whereof is never to be rejected, so long as it continues in the true use of the Word and Sacraments, though otherwise it be overrun with many Blemishes and Corrupons. Which is as plain and full a Determination of the Case, as if he had particularly designed it against the Doctrine and Practice of the Modern Dissenters from our Church.   

iv  
Fourthly, We entreat them to Consider, Whether it be pure Conscience, and mere Zeal for the Honour of Religion, and not very often Discontent, or Trade and Interest, that has the main stroke in keeping them from Communion with our Church. Far be it from me to judge the Secrets of men's Hearts, or to fasten such a Charge on the whole Body of Dissenters, yea, I accuse not any particular Person; but only desire, they would lay their Hand upon their Hearts, and deal impartially with themselves, and say, whether they stand clear before God in this matter. And there is the more Reason to put Men upon this Enquiry, not only because Secular Ends are very apt to mix with, and shelter themselves under the shadow of Religion; but because this has been an old Artifice, made use of to promote Separation. Thus the Donatists in the Primitive Times upheld their Separation from the Catholic Church, and kept their Party fast together, by Trading only within themselves, by employing none to Till their Grounds, or be their Stewards, but those that would be of their side; nay, and sometimes hiring Persons by large Sums of Money to be Baptised into their Party, as Crispin did the People of Mappalia. And how evident the same Policy is among our Modern 
Vid. Aug. Epist. 173. (add Crisp.)  Quakers, is too notorious to need either Proof or Observation. Time was, when it was made an Argument to prove Independency to be a Faction, and not 
Edward's further Discovery. p. 185.  matter of Conscience, because Needy, broken decayed Men, who knew not how to live, and hoped to get something, turned Independents, and became Sticklers for it; that some who had businesses, Causes, and Matters depending, struck in with them, and pleaded for them, that so they might find Friends, be sooner dispatched, and far better in their Causes; that Ambitious, Proud, Covetous Men, who had a mind to Offices, places of profit about the Army, Excise, etc. turned about to the Independents, and were great Zealots for them. Thus it was then, and whether the same Leaven do not still spread and ferment, and perhaps as much as ever, there is just cause to suspect? Whoever looks into the Trading part of this City, and indeed of the whole Nation, must needs be a very heedless and indiligent Observer, if he do not take notice, how Interests are form, and by what Methods Parties and Factions are kept up, how many Thousands of the Poorer sort of Dissenters depend on this or that Man for their Work, and consequently for their Livelihood and Subsistence; how many depend upon others for their Trade and Custom, whom accordingly these Men can readily Command, and do produce to give Votes, and increase Parties on all Public Occasions; and what little Encouragement any Man finds from them, that once deserts them, and comes over to the Church of England. There is another thing that contributes not a little to this Jealousy and Suspicion, that many of the Chiefest, and most Stiff and Zealous of the Dissenting Party, are they, at least the immediate Descendants of those, who in the late Evil-Times, by Rapine and Violence shared among themselves the Revenues of the Church, and the Patrimony of the Crown, and are said still privately to keep on foot their Titles to them. And if so, what wonder if such Men look on themselves, as obliged in point of Interest, to widen Breaches, foment Differences, increase Factions; and all this to Subvert and over-turn the Church of England; being well assured, they can never hope, but over the Ruins of this Church, to make way to their once sweet Possessions? Let Men therefore impartially examine themselves, and search, whether a Worldly Spirit be not at the bottom of their Zeal and Stiffness. These I confess are Designs too Base and Sordid, to be owned above Board: but be not Deceived, God is not Mocked; Man looks to the outward Appearance, but God looks to the Heart.   

V  
Fifthly, We desire them to Consider, Whether it be not a Just Prejudice to their Cause, and that which ought to prevail with Men Modest and Peaceable, that in those things, wherein they differ from us, they are Condemned by the Practice of the whole Catholic Church for Fifteen Hundred Years together. This, were I minded, might afford a large Field for Discourse, but I shall instance only, and that very briefly, in a few Particulars.  
And First, We desire them to produce any settled part of the Christian Church, that ever was without Episcopal Government, till the time of Calvin: it being then as hard to find any part of the Christian World without a Church, as to find a Church without a Bishop. This is so evident in the most early Antiquities of the Church, that I believe our Dissenters begin to grow sick of the Controversy. And if blondel, Salmasius and Daille, (whose great Parts, Learning, and indefatigable Industry, could, if any thing, have made out the contrary) have been forced to grant, That Episcopacy obtained in the Church within a few Years after the Apostolic Age; We are sure we can carry it higher, even up to the Apostles themselves. There are but two passages, that I know of, in all Antiquity, of any Note, and both of them not till the latter end of the Fourth Century, that may seem to question Episcopal Authority: The One, That famous and well known passage of St. Jerom, which yet when improved to the 
Idem Presbyter, qui Episcopus, & antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent, etc. Hier. in Epist. ad Tit. c. 1.  utmost that it is capable of, only intimates Episcopacy not to be of Apostolical Institution. And very clear it is to those that are acquainted with St. Jeroms Writings, that he often Wrote in haste, and did not always weigh things at the Beam, and forgot at one time, what he had said at another; that many expressions fell from him in the heat of Disputation, according to the warmth and the eagerness of his Temper, & that he was particularly chased into this Assertion by the fierce opposition of the Deacons at Rome, who began to Usurp upon, and over-top the Presbyters, which tempted him to Magnify and Extol their Place and Dignity, as anciently equal to the Episcopal Office, and as containing in it the common Rights and Privileges of Priesthood. For at other times, when he Wrote with cooler Thoughts about him, he does plainly and frequently enough assert the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters, and did himself constantly live in Communion with, and Subjection to Bishops. The other passage is that of Aerius, who held indeed that a Bishop and a Presbyter differed nothing in Order, Dignity, or Power. But he was led into this Error merely through Envy and Emulation, being vexed to see that his Companion Eustathius had gotten the Bishopric of Sebastia, which himself had aimed at. This made him start aside, and talk extravagantly; but the Church immediately branded him for an Heretic, and drove him and his followers out of all Churches, and from all Cities and Villages. And Epiphanius, 
Cont. Aer. haeret. 75.  who was his Contemporary, represents him as very little better than a Madman; and adds, that all Heresies that ever were from the beginning of the World, had been hatched either by Pride, or Vain Glory, or Covetousness, or Emulation, or some such Evil Inclination. But his Heresy, it seems, was not long-lived, for we hear no more concerning this matter, till the Reformation at Geneva.  
Secondly, We desire them to show any Christian Church that did not constantly use Liturgies, and Forms of Prayer, in their Public Offices and Administrations of Divine Worship: I take it for granted, that there were Forms of Public Prayer in the Jewish Church; and I make no doubt, but that the use of such Forms, was, together with many other Synagogue-rites and Usages, transferred into the Practice of the Christian Church, and did actually obtain, in the most early Ages in all Churches, where there were not Miraculous Gifts, and every where as soon as those Miraculous Gifts ceased, it being very fit and proper, and agreeable to Order and Decency, that the People's Devotions should be thus Conducted and Governed in their Public Ministrations. Not to insist upon the Carmen, or Hymn, which even the Proconsul Pliny, says, the Christians upon a set Day were wont, one among another, to say to Christ, as to their God; Apparent footsteps of some Passages of their Ancient Liturgies, are yet extant in the Writings of Origen and St. Cyprian: And when Eusebius gives us an account, how Religiously Constantine 
Devit. Constant. lib. 4. c. 17.  the Great ordered his Court, That he was wont to take the Holy Bible into his Hands, and carefully to Meditate upon it, and afterwards to offer up Set or Composed Prayers, together with his whole Royal Family; he adds, He did this after the manner, or in imitation of the Church of God. Nazianzen tells us of St. Basil, That he composed Orders and Forms of 
In Sanctum Basilium Orat. 20. Bas. Ep. 63.  Prayer, and appointed decent Ornaments for the Altar. And St. Basil himself reciting the manner of the Public Service, that was used in the Monastical Oratories of his Institution; says, That nothing was done therein but what was Consonant and Agreeable to all the Churches of God. And the Council of Laodicea, holden much about the Year 365, expressly provides, that the same Liturgy, or Form of Prayers, 
Can. 18. conf. Conc. Milev. can. 12. Conc. Carth. 3. c. 23.  should be always used both Morning and Evening: That so it might not be lawful for every one that would, to compose Prayers of his own Head, and to repeat them in the Public Assemblies; as both Zonaras and Balsamon give the reason of that Canon. Further than this we need not go, the Case being henceforward evident beyond all Contradiction.  
Thirdly, Let them show us any Church, that did not always set apart and observe Festival Commemorations of the Saints: besides the more solemn times for Celebrating the great Blessings of our Redeemer, his Birthday and Epiphany, Easter in Memory of his Resurrection, Pentecost or Witsuntide for the Mission of the Holy Ghost, they had Annual days for solemnising the Memories of the Blessed Apostles; they had their Memoriae and Natalitia Martyrum, whereon they assembled every year, to offer up to God their Praises and Common Devotions, and by Public Panegyrics to do honour to the memory of those Saints and Martyrs who had suffered for, or Sealed Religion with their Blood. Not to mention their Lent Fast and their Stationary Fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays, which Epiphanius more than once expressly 
S●rm compend de Expos. fid. p. 466. ●dv. Aer. Haeres. 75.  says, were a Constitution of the Apostles. But the less need be said on this head, because few that have any Reverence for Antiquity, will have the hardiness to oppose it.  
Fourthly, We desire them to produce any Church since the Apostles Times, that had not its Rites and Ceremonies, as many (if not more) in number, and as liable to exception, as those that are used in our Church at this Day; nay, there are few things, if any at all, required by our Constitution, which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity. This, were it my design, I might demonstrate by an Induction of particulars, but it is fully done by other Hands. I shall therefore, only as a Specimen, instance in One, and the rather, because 'tis so much boggled at, (viz.) The Sign of the Cross in Baptism, which we are sure was a Common and Customary Rite in the time of Tertullian and St. Cyprian, the latter whereof says oft enough, that being Regenerated, 
Cypr. adv. Demetr. p. 203. de Vnit. Eccl. p. 185. vid. de Laps. p. 169. Bas. de Spir. S. c. 27. Tert. de Coron. mil. c. 3.  that is, Baptised, they were Signed with the Sign of Christ; that they were Signed on their Foreheads, who were thought worthy to be admitted into the fellowship of our Lord's Religion. And St. Basil plainly puts it amongst those Ancient Customs of the Church, which had been derived from the Apostles: Nay, Tertullian assures us, that they used it in the most common Actions of Life; that upon every motion, at their going out, and coming in, at their going to Bath, or to Bed, or to Meals, or whatever their Occasions called them to, they were wont to make the Sign of the Cross on their Foreheads; and therefore 'tis no wonder, that they should never omit it in the most Solemn Act of their being initiated into the Christian Faith. And now let our Dissenting-brethrens seriously reflect, whether the Constant and Uniform Practice of the Church in all times, be not a mighty Testimony against their Separating from us, upon the account of those things, which were used in the wisest, best and happiest Ages of the Gospel; and when their Separation upon this account, can in point of Example, pretend not to much more than a Hundred Years Countenance and Authority to Support and Shelter it. And yet it has not that neither; for I could easily show, that most, if not all, the Usages of our Church, are either practised in Foreign 
See Durels view of the Government and public worship of God, 1662.  Churches, or at least, allowed of by the most Learned and Eminent Divines of the Reformation, whose Testimonies, to this purpose, are particularly enumerated, and ranked under their proper Heads, by Mr. Sprint, in his 
* p. 123, 124, etc.  Cassander Anglicanus, which they that are curious may Consult.   

VI  
Sixthly, We beg that those, who by their Conformity have declared, that they can close with our Communion, would still continue in the Communion of our Church. This is a Request so reasonable, that I hope it cannot fairly be denied. Whatever Dissa●tsfactions others may allege, to keep them at a distance from us, these Men can have nothing to pretend, having actually showed that they can do it For I am not willing to think, that herein such Men acted against their Consciences, or did it merely to secure a gainful Office, or a place of Trust, or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law. These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid, so Horrible a prostitution of the Holy Sacrament, the most Venerable Mystery of our Religion, so deliberate a way of Sinning, even in the most Solemn Acts of Worship, that I can hardly suspect any should be guilty of it, but Men of Profl●gate and Atheistical Mind●, who have put off all Sense of God, and Banished all Reverence of Religion. I would fain bel●eve, that when any of our Brethren receive the Sacrament with us, they are fully persuaded of the lawfulness of it, and that the Principle that brings them thither, is the Conscience of their Duty. But then I know not how to Answer it, why the same Principle that brings them thither at one time, should not bring them also at another, and that we should never have their company at that Solemn and Sacred Ordinance, but when the fear of some Temporal Punishment, or the prospect of some Secular Advantage prompts them to it. 'Tis commonly blamed in those of the Romish Church, that they can dispense with Oaths, and receive Sacraments to serve a turn, and to advance the Interest of their Cause: But God forbidden, that so heavy a Charge should ever lie at the Doors of Protestants, and especially those, who would be thought most to abhor Popish Practices, and who would take it ill to be accounted not to make as much, if not more, Conscience of their ways than other Men. Now I beseech our Dissenting, or rather Inconstant Brethren, to reason a little; if our Communion be sinful, why did they enter into it? if it be lawful, why do they forsake it? is it not that, which the Commands of Authority have tied upon us, and whose Commands we are bound to submit to, not only for Wrath, but for Conscience sake? Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church, things, that ought greatly to sway with all Sober, Humble, and Considering Christians? Does not the Apostle say, that if it be possible, and as mu●● as in us lies, we are to live Peaceably with all Men? And shall Peace be broken only in the Church, where it ought to be kept most entire? And that by those, who acknowledge it to be possible, and within their power? Are they satisfied in their Consciences, to join in Communion with us, and will they not do it for the sake of the Church of God? Or will they refuse to do what is lawful, and as the Case stands necessary, in order to Peace, only because Authority Commands it, and has made it their Duty? Oh Sirs, I beseech you by all that's Dear and Sacred, to assist and help us, and not strengthen the Hands of those, who by a Causeless and Unjustifiable Separation, endeavour to rend and destroy the best Church in the whole Christian World.   

VII.  
Seventhly, We beg of them that they would Consider, what Sad and Deplorable Mischiefs have ensued, upon bearing down the Constitution of the Church of England. This is matter of Fact, and whereof many yet alive were made sensible by Woeful Experience. Omitting what may seem of a little more remote Consideration, the Blood and Treasure, the Spoils and Ravages of the late War, the Enslaving and Oppressing all Ranks of Men, and what is above all, the Murder of an excellent and incomparable Prince; I shall instance in a few particulars, which were the more immediate Effects of it,  
And First, No sooner was the Church of England thrown down, but what Monstrous Swarms of Errors and Heresies broke in upon us, both for Number, and Impiety, beyond whatever had been heard ●f in the Church of God: And here I need go no further, than the sad account, which Mr. Edward's has given us in the several parts of his Gangraena. He was an eminent Minister of the Presbyterian Party, 
Epist. Dedicat. to Gangraen. print. 1646.  One, who as he tells the Parliament, had out of Choice and Judgement, from the very beginning, Embarked himself, with Wife, Children and Estate, and all that was dear to him, in the same Ship with them, to sink and perish, or to come safe to Land with them, and that in the most doubtful and difficult Times, not only in the beginning of the War and Troubles, in a Malignant place among Courtiers, where he had Pleaded their Cause, justified their Wars, and Satisfied many that Scrupled, but when their Affairs were at lowest, had been most Zealous for them, Preaching, Praying, stirring up the People to stand for them, and had both gone out in Person, and lent Money to them: He held Correspondence with considerable Persons in all parts of the Nation, and was careful to have the best Intelligence from all Quarters, and professes to lay down the Opinion and Errors which he mentions in terminis, and in their own Words and Phrases, Syllabically, and as near as might be. Now amongst infinite other things, he tells us 
Catal. and discov. of Errors. p. 15, etc. vid. 2 d. Part. p. 5. 22. 24, 27. 105. 110. fresh discov. p. 115. 16●. & alibi passim.  'twas then commonly maintained, That the Scriptures cannot be said to be the Word of God, and are no more to be Credited, than the Writings of men, being not a divine, but Humane Tradition; that God has a Hand in, and is the Author of the Sinfulness of his People, not of the Actions alone, but of the very Pravity which is in them; that all Lies come forth out of his Mouth, that the Prince of the Air that Rules in the Children of Disobedience is God; that in the Unity of the Godhead there is not a Trinity of Persons, but that it is a Popish Tradition; that the Doctrine of Repentance is a Soul-destroying Doctrine, and that Children are not bound to Obey their Parents at all, if they be Ungodly; that the Soul of Man is Mortal, as the Soul of a Beast; that there is no Resurrection at all of the Bodies of Men, nor Heaven nor Hell after this Life. I instance only in these as a Taste, not that they are all, or the Hundred part, no nor the worst, there being other Blasphemies and Impieties, which my Pen trembles to Relate.  
Secondly, The Liturgy of our Church being discharged and thrown out, and every one left to his own liberty, 'tis scarce possible to believe, what wild and prodigious Extravagancies were upon all occasions used in holy things, not in Preaching only, but especially in Prayer, the most immediate Act of Worship and Address to God: It is an affront to the Majesty of Religious Worship, that there should be any thing in it Childish and Trivial, Absurd and Frivolous, that its Sacred Mysteries should be exposed to Contempt and Scandal by that Levity and distraction, that heat and Boldness, those weaknesses and Indiscretions, those Lose, Raw, and Incongruous Effusions, which in most Congregations of those Times, did too commonly attend it: But the things I intent to Instance in, are of a far worse colour and complexion; for whose Ears would it not make to tingle, to hear men in the Pulpit telling God, That if he did not finish the good Work which he had begun 
View of the late troubles in Eng. cap. 43. p. 567, etc. See also Edward's Gang 3 d. Part, a little before.  in the Reformation of the Church, he would show himself to be the God of Confusion, and such a One, as by cunning Stratagems had contrived the Destruction of his own Children; That God would bless the King, and Mollify his hard Heart, that delights in Blood, for that he was fallen from Faith in God, and become an Enemy to his Church; let thine Hand, we pray thee, O Lord, our God, be upon him, and upon his Father's 
p. 17.  House, but not upon thy people, that they should be Plagued: O God, O God, many are the Hands lift up against us, but there is one God; it is thou thyself, O Father, who dost us more Mischief, than they all: We know, O Lord, that Abraham made a Covenant, Moses and David made a Covenant, and our Saviour made a Covenant, but thy Parliaments Covenant is the greatest of all Covenants. I presume, the Devout and Serious Reader desires no more of such intolerable Profane and Lewd Stuff as this is; They that are curious of more, may find it, besides others, in The short view of the late Troubles in England, where Times, Places and Persons, are Particularly named.  
Thirdly The Fences of Order and Discipline in the Church of England being broken down, what a horrid Inundation of all manner of Vice and Wickedness did immediately overflow the Land? The Assembly at Westminster Petitioned the Parliament, That 
July 19 1644.  some Severe Course might be taken against Fornication, Adultery and Incest, which, sry they, do greatly abound, especially of late, by reason of Impunity 
Further discov. p. 187. 3 d. Part p. 185, etc.  And Mr. Edward's speaking of the whole Tribe of Sectaries, tells us, He was confident, that for this many Hundred Years, there had not been a Party that hath pretended to so much Holiness, Strictness, power of Godliness, tenderness of Conscience, above all other Men, as this Party hath ●lone, that hath been guilty of so great Sins, horrible wickedness, provoking Abominations, as they are; with much more, both there and elsewhere, to the same purpose, and the Charge very often made good by particular Instances. So that indeed Hell seemed to have broke lose, and to have Invaded all Quarters, in despite of their Covenant, and all the little Schemes of their so much Magnified Reformation: The Covenant Cries (God grant not against you) for Reformation of the Kingdom, the Extirpation of Heresies, Schisms, Profaneness, etc. and these Impieties abound, as if we had taken a Covenant to maintain them; and since it was taken these Sins which we have Covenanted against, have more abounded, than in the space of Ten Times so many Years before, as Mr. Jenkin tells the Lords in Parliament. And that all 
East Sermon, Jan. 27. 1646. p. 29.  that I have mentioned (which yet is infinitely short of what might be said) was the effect of the Ruin of the Church of England, and let in by the Method they took for Reformation, we have from their own confessions. We, says Mr. Edward's, in these Four 
Cat. and discov. p. 73, 74, 76.  last Years, have over-passed the Deeds of the Prelates, and justified the Bishops, in whose time never so many, nor so great Errors were heard of, much less such Blasphemies or Confusions; we have worse things among us, than ever were in all the Bishop's Days; more corrupt Doctrines and unheard of Practices, than in Eighty Years before.— I am persuaded, if Seven Years ago, the Bishops and their Chaplains had but Preached Printed, Licenced, dispersed up and down in City and Country openly, a Quarter of these Errors, Heresies, Blasphemies, which have been all these ways vented by the Sectaries, the People would have risen up, and stoned them, and pulled down their Houses, and forced them to forbear such Doctrines: O how is the Scene changed within these few Years! and not long after, he tells us, that These are Risen, Increased, Reign and Prevail, so far under a Parliament Sitting, not under the Bishops, Corrupt-Clergy, Court-party, but under a Parliament. And in his Epistle to the Lords and Commons, before the first part of his Gangraena, he tells them, That the Errors, Heresies, Blasphemies and Practices, of the Sectaries of this Time, had been Broached and Acted within these Four last Years in England, and that in Your Quarters, and in the places under your Government and power, for which I tremble to think, lest the whole Kingdom should be in God's Black Bill; that together with their Reformation, come in a Deformation, and worse things were come upon them, than ever they had before: they had put down the Book of Common-Prayer, but there were many amongst them, that had put down the Scriptures, slighting, yea, Blaspheming them: he tells them, they had cast out the Bishops, and their Officers, and they had many that had cast down to the ground all Ministers in all the Reformed Churches; they had cast out Ceremonies in the Sacraments, and they had many that had cast out the Sacraments themselves; with many more sad complaints which he there makes. To sum up all in the words of my Author; 
Vbi supra. p. 73.  In this Catalogue the Reader may see great Errors, and yet may turn himself again and behold greater, namely damnable Heresies, and yet turn himself again and read Horrid Blasphemies; and a third time, and read Horrible Disorders, Confusions, strange and unheard of Practices, not only against the Light of Scripture, but Nature, as in Woman's Preaching, in Stealing away Men's Wives and Children from Husbands and Parents, in Baptising Women Naked, in the Presence and Sight of Men, etc. And thus we see by what means it was, that the Nation came to be Pestered with Opinions and Practices, Impious beyond the Example of former Ages, and such as were not once named among the Gentiles, to the 
A Letter from a Noble Venetian to Card Barbarino, translated and Printed 1648. p. 19  Infinite Prejudice and dishonour both of our Religion and our Nation. It being the Observation which an Ingenious Foreigner, who resided at London in those times, made upon this occasion; one of the Fruits, says He, of this Blessed Parliament, and of these two Sectaries (Presbyterians and Independents) is, that they have made more Jews and Atheists, than I think there is in all Europe besides.  
I doubt not but that the greatest part of our Dissenters do from their Souls detest the Heresies, Blasphemies, and Wickednesses that have been mentioned; but then the Consideration ought to oblige them to double their diligence to prevent the like dismal Effects for the time to come, and not to open the Gap again, at which they must necessarily flow in upon us. By what has been done they may see, what a Blessed Reformation they may expect by the Ruin of this Church; for the thing that hath been, is that which shall be; the same causes set on foot by the same Principles will Eternally produce the same Effects; and though Men at first may mean never so well, yet Temptations will insensibly grow upon them, and Accidents happen, which in the Progress will carry them infinitely beyond the Line of their first Intentions, and engage them in Courses, out of which, when they come to discern their Error, it may be too late for them to Retire. In the beginning of the long Parliament, I make no question, but the far greatest part of them met together with very honest and good Intentions, and designed no more than to Correct some little Irregularities, which they apprehended to be in Church or State: But we see how these very Persons where cariied from one passage to another; and in time transported to those very things which at first they had so vehemently protested and declared against, till at length Horrid Enormities came to be acted by and under them, which no age can Parallel: which ought to be a Sufficient Caution to all, how they shake the least Stone, that belongs to the Foundation, lest by picking out one after another, the whole House tumble about their Ears, when it is beyond their own Power to support it. I shall shut up this Head with a brief Recapitulation of some of those Inferencs, which Mr. Edward's makes from the State of those Lose and Licentious times, we have been speaking of, and then leave the Reader to judge, whether they be not as Applicable to present Circumstances, under which we are: He infers thus, First, we may hence see how dangerous it is to 
Cat. and Discov. Part 3 d. p. 52, 53, 57, 70. Further Discov. p. 195, 203.  despise and let alone a small Party. Secondly, That it is more than time fully and Effectually to settle the Government and Discipline of the Church; Thirdly, What the Mischief, Evil, and Danger of a Toleration, and pretended Liberty of Conscience would be to this Kingdom, and what it would Prove and Produce. Fourthly, That it sufficiently Justifies in the Sight of the World, those Ministers and People who are Zealous for settling Religion, and cry out for Government, who Preach, Petition, speak often one to another of these things. Fifthly, what a great Evil and Sin Separation is from the Communion of the Reformed Churches, and how highly displeasing to God for Men to make a Rent and Schism in the Church of God. Sixthly, That all such who have been deceived and drawn away, under pretence of greater Purity, Holiness, etc. and have any Fear and Awe of God and his Word, be Exhorted to leave and forsake them, and return to the Public Assemblies and Communion of this and other Reformed Churches. And God grant we may hearken to this Counsel, and may seriously lay these things to heart.   

VIII.  
Eighthly, We desire it may be considered, what plain and apparent Advantages Separation gives to the Common Enemy of the Protestant Religion in these Nations: The Church of England is notoriously known to have been the most strong and standing Bulwark of Protestancy, ever since the Reformation; for being Founded on Scripture-grounds, and the Practice of True, Genuine, Primitive Antiquity, and having been reform, by the most wise, regular, and justifiable Methods; it stands like a Rock impregnable against all the Assaults, which the Church of Rome makes upon it. This has engaged them to Plant all their Batteries to beat it down, as being the only Church considerable enough to stand in their way: and when not able to effect it by any other Arts, they have betaken themselves to the old Artifice of Ruining us, by dividing us. In Order hereunto they have upon all occasions strenuously promoted the Separation, mixed themselves with our Dissenters, put on every shape, that they might the better follow the Common outcry against our Church, as Popish and Antichristian, spurring on the people to call for a more pure and spiritual way of worship, and to Clamour for liberty and Toleration, as wherein they well knew they themselves were like to have the greatest share; and that having subverted all Order, and beaten people out of all sober Principles, they foresaw they must be necessitated at last to centre in the Communion of the Romish Church. This was a Trade they began betimes, almost in the very Infancy of the Reformation. Witness the Story of Faithful Commin, a Dominican Friar, who passed under the notion of a Zealous Puritan, and was much admired and followed by the People for his seeming Piety, spiritual Gifts, and Zeal against Popery. But being apprehended, Anno 1567. and accused for an Impostor, was examined at large before the Queen and her Council, and put under Bail: when finding the Climate was like to be too hot for him, and having by a cheat brought off his Bail, and told his deluded followers, that he was acquitted by her Majesty and the Council, and warned of God to go beyond the Seas, to instruct the Protestants there, and that he would come again; and having assured them that Spiritual Prayer was the chief Testimony of a true Protestant, and that the set Form of Prayer in England was but the Mass Translated, and having, with abundance of extempore-Prayers and Tears squeezed out of them a Collection of a Hundred and Thirty Pounds for his Journey, besides private Gifts; away he goes for Rome, and acquaints Pope Pius Quintus with what he had done, and by what Methods, and how odious he had made the Church of England to the Puritans, and that it would be a stumbling-block to that Church while it was a Church. Upon which the Pope commended and rewarded him with Two Thousand Ducats for his good Service. All which particulars are 
Foxes and Fire-brand●, Print. 1680. p. 7. etc.  more fully made out from Secretary Cecil's Papers, whose Memorials were lately brought to light. Witness also that other passage concerning Thomas Heath a Jesuit, who much about the same time was sent over into England to Act the same Part, which he did, not only by Preaching, but by crying up Spiritual Prayers, and running down all set Forms, as being without any warrant from Scripture, by Labouring to refine the Protestants, as he called it, and to take off all smacks of Ceremonies, that in the least tended to the Romish Faith. For all which he was mightily flocked after, and admired every day more and more. But Anno. 1568. he was discovered by a Letter, that casually dropped out of his Pocket as he was Preaching in the Pulpit at Rochester, importing, that the Council of their Fraternity had sent him Collections, and Instructions for carrying on the Work, and that this way of dividing Protestants was the only way for the recalling Men back again to the Mother Church. Hereupon he was examined by the Bishop of Rochester, and did not much deny the main of the charge, and upon the searching of his Lodgings, there were found several Books fitted for his purpose, as against Infant Baptism, etc. and in one of his Boots, a Licence from the Fraternity of the Jesuits, and a Bull of Pius Quintus, giving him leave to preach what Doctrine that Society pleased, for the dividing of the English Protestants, or as he called them, Heretics; The issue was, that Heath was close Imprisoned, set in the Pillory at the High Cross; his Ears cut off, his Nose slit, his Forehead branded, and he condemned to perpetual Imprisonment, but soon after he died suddenly, being suspected to have poisoned himself: The whole account hereof being published from the Authentic Register of the Church of Rochester.  
The same Course we need not doubt, the Papists held on in the succeeding times, these being some of the main Directions, which Contzen the Jesuit gives 
Polit. l. 2. c. 18. Sect. 6.  for the reducing Popery into a Country, that it be done under pretence of ease to tender Consciences, and that Liberty be granted to that end, and that as much use be made of the division of Enemies, as of the agreement of Friends. What a stroke they had in fomenting the differences and distractions, that brought on the late Civil Wars, and how active they were both in the Counsels and Proceed of the Parliament Party, the World needs not to be told at this time of day; great numbers of them, both Commanders and others, serving in their Armies, great industry was used to corrupt the Loyalty and Affection of those of that Religion, and private promises and undertake were made to them, that if they would assist them against the King, all the Laws made in 
Octob. 23. 1642. vid. Collect. of the King's Works. Part. 2. fol. 213. L' History des troubles, etc. p. 165. see the short view of the late troubles in England, c. 43. p. 564.  their prejudice should be Repealed; as the late King of blessed Memory tells the World in one of his public Declarations, after the Victory at Edgehil; Adding, that though some few of Eminent Abilities for Command and Conduct, and of moderate and unfactious dispositions were employed in his Service; yet, we are confident, that a far greater number of that Religion, is in the Army of the Rebels, than in our own. And the King it seems had good reason to say so. For as the Salmonet, a Secular Priest, who wrote in French a History of our late Civil Wars, informs us, in that very Fight at Edge-hill, besides two Companies of Walloons, and other roman-catholics that served there, that (says he) which did most surprise every Body was, that several Popish Priests were found amongst the Dead that were slain on the Parliament side. So plain is it, that they served in their Armies, were present at their Councils, and upon all occasions mixed with their Parties, that they might widen the Breach beyond all recovery. Thus was it then. And about the 
See Dr. Stillingfleet's Preface to the unreasonableness of Separation. p. 20. etc.  time of the King's coming in, a Letter of Advice was written by Signior Ballarini concerning the best way of Managing the Popish Interest in England, upon his majesty's Restauration; wherein it was advised, especially to obstruct the Settlement of the Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom, to set up the prosperous way of Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops, to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England, and to represent its Doctrine and Worship as coming too near to the Church of Rome, to second the Factious in promoting an Indulgence, and to endeavour, that the Trade and Treasure of the Nation might be engrossed between themselves, and other discontented Parties. And Mr. Coleman himself owned it at his Condemnation, that perhaps he thought, 
Colemans' Trial, p. 101. Def. of his Answ. to the Admonit. p. 349.  that Popery might come in, if Liberty of Conscience had been granted. And this is that, which wise Archbishop Whitgift long ago foresaw would come to pass, when he told the Dissenters of those Days, I am persuaded that Antichrist worketh effectually at this Day, by our Stirs and Contentions, whereby he hath, and will more prevail against this Church of England, then by any other means whatsoever. And now upon the whole matter, I desire our Dissenting Brethren to consider, whether the orderly and truly Primitive Constitution of the Church of England, or Innovation, Schism and Separation, be the likelier way to keep out Popery; and do therefore Conjure them, by all the Kindness which they pretend for the Protestant Religion, hearty to join in Communion with us, as which I believe, humanely speaking, to be, if not the only, at least the only safe and durable means of shutting Popery for ever out of Doors.   

IX.  
Ninthly, We desire of them, that if neither these nor any other Advices and Considerations can prevail with them, they would at least cease to Reproach the Government, for Reviving the Execution of the Laws, about these matters? I know it is very natural to Men to complain, when any thing pinches them, but then they ought to be so just, as to consider, whose fault it is that has brought it upon them. The Laws in this case were framed with great Advice, and upon dear bought Experience, and every Nation in the World thinks itself obliged, when no other ways will do it, by Penalties to secure the Public Peace, Safety, and Tranquillity of the State, though it may sometimes press hard in some particular Cases, when Men through Fancy, Humour, Mistake or Design, (especially about little, and as themselves confess, indifferent matters,) shall endanger the Public Welfare, and by an ill Example expose the Reverence and Majesty of the Laws. And yet notwithstanding all this, and a great deal more that might be said, we find them at every turn charging the Government, for using them Cruelly, and with the hardest Measure, censuring their Superiors, and speaking Evil of Dignities; and this not only the Cry of the mean and common Sort, but of their chiefest Leaders, even to this Hour: It being no hard matter (but that I love not to exasperate) to instance in several things, that are no very good Arguments of that Obedient Patience, which some of them so much pretend to. It is far from my Temper to delight in Cruelty, much more to plead for Severity to be used towards Dissenting Brethren, and therefore should have said nothing in this Argument, were it not necessary to Vindicate the Government, which upon these occasions, I have so often heard Blamed and Censured. I would these Persons who complain so much, would consider a while, how their Predecessors were dealt with in the times of the good Queen Elizabeth; which will appear, either from the Laws then made, or from the Proceed then had against them. The Laws then made against them, were chief these; In the First of the Queen, An Act for the Uniformity of Common-Prayer, etc. wherein, among other Clauses and Penalties, it is provided, That if any Person, shall in any Plays, Songs, Rhimes, or by other open Words, declare or speak any thing in the derogation, depraving, or despising the Book of Common-Prayer, or any thing therein contained, being thereof lawfully convicted, he shall forfeit for the first Offence an hundred, for the second four hundred Marks, for the Third, all his Goods and Chattels, and shall suffer Imprisonment during Life. A Clause, which had it been kept up in its due Life and Power, our Liturgy and Divine Offices, had been Treated with much more Respect and Reverence, than I am sure they have met with, especially of late. In Her Fifth Year, an Act was passed for the due Execution of the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo; amongst others, particularly leveled against such as refuse to receive the Holy Communion, or to come to Divine Service, as now commonly used in the Church of England, with severe Penalties upon those, that shall not yield up themselves to the same Writ. Anno. 13. passed an Act of general Pardon, but it was with an Exception of all those, that had committed any Offence against the Act for the Uniformity of Common-Prayer, or were Publishers of Seditious Books, or Disturbers of Divine Service. Anno 23. By an Act to retain the Queen's Majesty's Subjects in their due Obedience it is provided, That every Person above the Age of Sixteen Years, which shall not repair to some Church or usual place of Common-Prayer, but forbear the same by the space of a Month; shall for every such Moth forfeit Twenty Pounds: Which Act was again Confirmed and Ratified by another in the 29th. Year of Her Reign, with many Clauses and Provisions for the better Execution of it. And by the Act of the 35th of Her Reign, If any Person so forbearing, shall willingly join in, or be present at any Assemblies, Conventicles and Meetings, under colour or pretence of any Exercise of Religion, contrary to the Laws of the Realm, such Person being lawfully Convicted, shall be Imprisoned without Bail or Mainprize, until he Conform, and if he do not that within Three Months, he shall be obliged to Abjure the Realm, and if refusing to Abjure, or returning without Licence, he shall be Adjudged a Felon, and suffer as in case of Felony, without benefit of Clergy.  
Such were Her Laws, and such also were Her Proceed, against those who faultered in their Conformity, or began to Innovate in the Discipline of the Church; and these Proceed as quick and smart, as any can be said to be against the Dissenters of this time. Do they complain of their Ministers being Silenced now? so they were then, being deprived of their Benefices and Church-Preferments, for their Inconformity. Thus Samson was turned out of his Deanery o● Christ-Church, for refusing to Conform to the Orders and Ceremonies of the Church. Cartwright, the very Head of them, Expelled the College, and deprived of the Lady Margaret's Lecture. Travers, turned out from Preaching at the Temple; with many more, Suspended from the Ministry by the Queen's Authority, and the Approbation of the Bishops; for not Subscribing to some new Rites and Ceremonies imposed upon them, as appears from Beza's Letter to 
Bez. Epist. 8.  Bishop Grindal, Anno 1566. Are any in Prison? so they were then, Benson, Button, Hallingham, Cartwright, Knewstubbs, and many others; some in the marshalsea, others in the White-Lion; some in the Gatehouse, others in the Counter, or in the Clink, or in Bridewell, or in Newgate: Poor Men miserably handled with Revile, Deprivations, Imprisonments, Banishments; if we may believe what themselves tell us, both in the First and Second Admonition. And what is yet far beyond any thing, which God be thanked, our Dissenters can pretend to complain of, several of them lost their Lives; Barrow and Greenwood were Executed for their Scandalous and Seditious Writings; Penry and Vdal Indicted and Arraigned, for Defaming the Queen's Government in a Scandalous Book, Written against the supposed Governors, as they called them, of the Church of England; for which they were both Cast and Condemned, to be Executed as Felons, but Archbishop Whitgift interposing, they were Reprieved, and Vdal suffered to Die, as he did soon after, in his Bed. The truth is, the wise and wary Queen beheld Schism growing on apace, and needed not to be told what ill Influence it was like to have, both upon Church, and State, and therefore Resolved to carry a Straight Hand, as well over Puritanism on the one side, as Popery on the other; and in order hereunto, She charged Archbishop Whitg●ft 
Sir G. Paul, Life of A. B. Whitgift, Numb. 53. p. 29.  to be Vigilant and Careful, to Reduce Ministers by their Subscription and Conformity to the settled Orders and Government, Adding, That She would have the Discipline of the Church of England formerly Established, of all Men duly to be Observed, without alteration of the least Ceremony. But nothing more fully discovers her Judgement and Resolution in this matter, than what She gave in Command to the Lord-Keeper-Puckering, to tell the Parliament: part of his 
Dr. Pierce New Discov. against Mr. Baxt. 1659. Ch. 5. Sect. 12. p. 109.  Speech (Transcribed and Published some Years since, from the Original Copy, under his own Hand Writing, by an Eminent Divine of this Church,) was as followeth,— And especially, you are Commanded by Her Majesty to take heed, that no Ear be given, or Time afforded, to the wearisome Solicitations of those that commonly be called Puritans, wherewithal the late Parliaments have been exceedingly Importuned. Which sort of Men, whilst in the Giddiness of their Spirits, they labour and strive to advance a new Eldership, they do nothing else but disturb the good Repose of the Church and Commonwealth: which is as well grounded for the Body of Religion itself, and as well guided for the Discipline, as any Realm that professeth the Truth. And the same thing is already made good to the World, by many of the Writings of Learned and Godly Men, neither Answered, nor Answerable, by any of these new fangled Refiners. And as the present Case standeth, it may be doubted, Whethey they, or the Jesuits, do offer more Danger, or be more speedily to be repressed. For albeit the Jesuits do impoison the Hearts of Her Majesty's Subjects, under a Pretext of Conscience, to withdraw them from their Obedience due to her Majesty, yet do the same but closely, and only in privy Corners, but these Men do both Publish in their Printed Books, and Teach in all their Conventicles sundry Opinions, not only dangerous to the well-setled Estate and Policy of the Realm, but also much derogatory to Her Sacred Majesty, and Her Crown, as well by, etc. In all which Things (however in many other Points, they pretend to be at War with the Popish Jesuits, yet by the Separation of themselves from the Unity of their Fellow-Subjects, and by abusing the Sacred Authority and Majesty of their Prince, they do both join and concur with the Jesuits in opening the Door, and preparing the way to the Spanish Invasion, that is Threatened against the Realm. Thus far he, by her Majesty's most Royal Pleasure, and Wise Direction, as he there speaks. To which let me add, That the Speech took such effect, that the Parliament passed the Act of 35th of Eliz. the Severest Act against Dissenters in the whole Body of our Laws. And indeed, so Jealous was the Queen of the least appearances of Innovation, that Archbishop Grindall, only for giving too much encouragement to Prophesyings (which were beheld as likely to prove Nurseries of Schism and Faction, as indeed they did) fell under Her Displeasure, and was Sequestered from his Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction, and though great intercession was made in his behalf, yet could he never be restored to his Dying Day.  
This was the State of things then, and yet these were the Proceed of those Days, which our Dissenters at another time, are wont so much to Magnify and Extol; nothing of late having been so much in their Mouth, as the Wisdom and Prudence, the Care and Diligence, the Zeal and Piety of Good Queen Elizabeth. I speak not this to cast any reflection upon the Memory of that incomparable Princess, whom we have all the reason in the World to own to have been the Glorious Instrument of Perfecting and Settling the Reformation in this Kingdom; and whose Memory will be dear and precious, as long as the Protestant Name has a Being in England. But I only take notice, how extremely partial People are, and how apt to be prejudiced against the present Government under which they live, and to be always Crying out, That the former Days were better than these? whereas, supposing their Circumstances were really harder than they are, and harder than those of the Puritans in former times, yet they have no reason to accuse the Government of Rigour and Severity towards them, if three Things be farther taken into Consideration.  
First, That the Dissenters of old, especially the first Race of them, were generally much more Modest and Peaceable than those of latter times, more Conformable to the Laws, less Turbulent and Offensive to the Government: when they could not Conform as Ministers, they yet did as private Christians, and quietly acquiesced in their Suspension, or Deprivation, and as one truly says of them, When they could not be Active without Sinning, [as they judged] they could be passive without Murmuring. They meddled not with things without their Line, nor mixed themselves with matters of State; Declared, that Kings have 
See a Book called, The Protestation of the King's Supremacy. 1605. Numb. 8, 9 11.  power by the Law of God, to make such Ecclesiastical Laws as tend to the good Ordering of the Churches in their Dominions, that the Churches ought not to be Disobedient to any of their Laws, that if any thing were Commanded contrary to the Word, they ought not to resist the King therein, but peaceably to forbear Disobedience, and sue to him for Grace and Mercy, and where that cannot be obtained, meekly to submit themselves to the punishment. They generally came to Church, and did not run into Separate Congregations, nay, writ stoutly and smartly against those who began then to attempt a Separation. But whether our Modern Dissenters have observed the same Course, and be of this Spirit and Temper, let the World judge, yea, let themselves be Judges in the Case.  
Secondly, Sad Experience of the Evil Consequences of Schism and Separation, have made it necessary for the Government to take all just and lawful ways for preventing the like for the time to come. Men first began to be dissatisfied with the Rites and Orders of the Church, then discontented that they were not presently gratified with an Alteration, Discontent brought on Sedition, Sedition Rebellion, and Rebellion the Ruin of Church and State. And what wonder, if the Laws bear a little hard there, where there are the same Appearances, and where there seem to be the same Tendencies and Inclinations to the same Dismal State of Things? Whoever considers by what Ways the most flourishing Kingdom in the World, and the best Church that ever was since the Primitive Times, were miserably Harrassed and Destroyed, cannot think, that those who sit at the Helm should be content to have them Ruined again by the same means; especially, after the King, for several Years together, has in vain tried, by all the Methods of Favour and Indulgence, to win upon them.  
Thirdly, Let those who now complain so much, consider, How little Favour themselves showed to others when they were in Power; How the Loyal and Episcopal Party were Plundered, Sequestered, Decimated, Dungeoned, Starved, and often stunk to Death: What Oaths and Covenants were Rigorously Imposed upon them; what Restraints laid upon their Liberties, both Civil and Ecclesiastical; though all this while they had Law and Right standing for 
An Ordinance for putting in Execution the Directory, August 11. 1645.  them. In the Year 1645, an Ordinance of Parliament was published, That if any Person hereafter shall at any Time use, or cause to be used, the Book of Common-prayer in any Church or public place of Worship, or in any private Place or Family within the Kingdom; every Person so offending, should for the first Offence pay the Sum of Five, for the second ten Pounds, and for the third, should suffer one whole Years Imprisonment, without Bail or Mainprize. This one would think was very hard, but there is something harder yet behind; For Cromwell being got into the Throne, Published a Declaration, 
24 November, 1655.  at that time Equivalent to a Law, That no Person who had been sequestered for delinquency, or had been in Arms against the Parliament, or adhered unto, or had abetted or assisted the Forces raised against them, should keep in their Houses or Families, as Chaplains or Schoolmasters for the Education of their Children, any sequestered or ejected Minister, Fellow of a College or Schoolmaster, nor permit any of their Children to be taught by such, upon pain of being proceeded against as was directed, and that no Person who had been sequestered or ejected for delinquency or scandal, shall hereafter keep any School, either public or private, nor preach in any public place, or at any private Meeting of any other Persons than those of his own Family, nor Administer Baptism, or the Lord's Supper, or marry any Persons, or use the Book of Common-Prayer, or the Forms of Prayer therein contained, upon Pain that every Person so Offending in any of the Premises, shall be proceeded against as by the said Order is provided and directed. There needs no Comment upon these Proceed, they do not only Whisper, but speak aloud to the present Generation of Dissenters, to tell them how little reason they have to complain.   

X.  
Lastly, We beg of them, that before they pull down any further Trouble or Suffering upon themselves, they would Consider, Whether the Cause they engage in, be such, as will bear them out with Comfort before God another Day. 'tis not Suffering or refusing to comply with the External Circumstances of our Religion, that can be said to be a Persecution for Righteousness sake, it not being the Suffering, but the Cause that makes the Martyr. Then I suffer as a Christian, when the Honour of Christ, or something that offers Violence to my Religion, and Christianity is concerned in it, when I suffer for that which I cannot avoid, without disowning myself to be a Christian, and making Shipwreck of Faith and a good Conscience. But where the Case is not evidently this, a Man may draw Miseries upon himself, and yet not suffer as a Christian, because it may proceed from Humour, or Interest, or the Conduct of a misinformed Judgement, mistaking things for what they are not: Men very often place Religion in doing, or not doing, what is no part of it, and then think they may safely Suffer upon that account, when there is more, it may be, of Passion or Prejudice, of Fancy or Opinion, of Humour or Mistake, then of the real Concerns of Piety or Religion. I am very sure, neither the Ancient Christians, would have passed through the Fiery-Tryal every Day, nor the Holy Martyrs in Queen Mary's Days, have thought themselves obliged to Forfeit their Estates, much less their Lives, had no more been required of them then there is of us, to come to Khurch, or to Kneel at the Sacrament; but would rather have Blessed God, and thankfully owned the Favour of the Governors, under which they lived, might they have enjoyed both upon the same Terms as we do. In Cases that only concern indifferent things, and mere Circumstances of Worship, stiffly and obstinately to stand out, is, rather for a Man to be a Martyr to his own Humour and Opinion, then to the Cause of Christ. Whether this be not the Case of our Dissenting-brethrens, they themselves might quickly see, would they but lay aside the unreasonableness of their Prejudices, and lay no more stress upon things than they 
Obed. Patience p. 79.  ought to bear. Let us hear what Mr. Baxter, in a late Book, says to this matter, I am One that have been first in all the Storms that have befallen the Ministry, these Twenty Years past, (to look no farther back,) and yet my Conscience commandeth me to say, as I have oft done, that many through mistake, I am persuaded, now Suffer as Evil-doers for a Cause that is not Good and Justifiable. I shall leave with them the Wise and Excellent 
R. Bernard's Christian Advert. & Counsels of Peace. 1608.  Counsel which was given by one in the time of the Elder Puritans, Fellow true Antiquity, and the general Practice of the Church of God in all Ages, where they have not Erred from the evident Truth of God. If thou Sufferest, let it be for known Truth, and against known Wickedness; for which thou hast Example in God's Word, or of the Holy Martyrs in Church-Story. But beware of farfetched Consequences, or for Suffering for new Devices, and for things, formerly, unto all Ages unknown, seem they never so Holy and Just unto Man.  
All that now remains, is, to call upon our Dissenting-brethrens, by all the Considerations of Love and Kindness to themselves, of Tenderness for the Honour of Religion, the Edification of their Brethren, and the Peace, Security, and Welfare of the Church and State wherein they live, that they would duly and impartially Weigh and Consider things, put a stop to the Separation wherein they are engaged, return to, and hold Communion with us, and keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace.  
Let them bethink themselves what a mighty Evil Schism is, and will be so found before God at the last Day, and whether any thing can be meet to be put in the Balance with the Peace and Unity of the Church, and those vastly-important Consequences, that depend upon it. Let us consider a little, what a deep Sense the best and most pious Christians that ever were, had of it: It's better to Suffer any thing, than that the Church of God should be Rend asunder; it is every whit as Glorious, and, in my Opinion, a far greater Martyrdom, to die for not Dividing the Church, than for refusing to Sacrifice to Idols, says Dionysius, the good Bishop of Alexandria, in his Letter to Novatian. 
Ap. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 45. Epist. 52. (add Antonian.) de Vnit. Eccles. fol. 181, 184. etc.  And St. Cyprian speaks very severe things to this purpose, That a Person going from the Church to Schismatics, though in that Capacity he should die for Christ, yet can he not receive the Crown of Martyrdom. And how oft elsewhere doth he tell us, That such a one has no part in the Law of God, or the Faith of Christ, or in Life and Salvation; that without this Unity and Charity, a Man cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; and that although he should deliver up himself to the Flames, or cast his Body to wild Beasts, yet this would not be the Crown of his Faith, but the Punishment of his Falsehood, not the Glorious Exit of a Religious Courage, but the Issue of Despair; such a One may be Killed, but he cannot be Crowned. He rends the Unity of the Church, destroys the Faith, disturbs the Peace, dissolves Charity, and Profanes the Holy Sacrament. And were it necessary, I could show, that the Ancient Fathers generally say the same thing. And can we now be such degenerate Christians, (if we can be said to be Christians at all) as to make nothing at all of Schism and Separation? Are not the Glory of God, the Peace of the Church, and the Good of Souls, things as considerable, as necessary, and indispensable now, as they were of old? I beseech you, Brethren, return from whence you are fallen, and let us all with one Shoulder set ourselves to Support that Church, with whose Ruin we are all likely to sink and fall. Let us lay aside Envying and Strife, Confusion and every Evil Work, and let us follow after the things which make for Peace, and things wherewith one may Edify another.   
FINIS.