REMARKS On a Late DISCOURSE OF WILLIAM LORD BISHOP OF DERRY; CONCERNING The Inventions of Men in the Worship of God.  4 Eph. 25. 
— Speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.  
By J. Boyse.  
Printed for Eliphal Dobson, Matthew Gun, and Patrick Campbel, Booksellers in Dublin. 1694.   

The PREFACE.  
I Am so averse to all Controversies in general, and particularly to those less momentanous ones, that are still continued between the Established Church and Protestant Dissenters, that 'tis not without great reluctancy and regret, that I am once more engaged in 'em by the following Remarks, on the late celebrated Discourse of the Bishop of Derry, concerning the Inventions of Men in the Worship of God. For I look on that revival of these Debates amongst us, which his Lordship's Discourse has given occasion for, as very unseasonable in this Kingdom, and particularly at this juncture. We have here so valuable a common Interest (even a conjunction of our Religious and Civil ones) that requires all our joint endeavours to promote, that we have no need to be diverted from 'em, by awakening any dormant Contests about the interest of lesser Opinions and Practices. And this seems the more improper at such a time when there was a prospect of a Parliament being called here, and of the same Bill of Indulgence for Protestant Dissenters coming before 'em, that is already past in England. A Bill that seems most necessary here to encourage the Replanting this impoverished and desolate Kingdom with Protestants, by providing that Legal Security for all of 'em, that would beget a mutual confidence in each other, facilitate a nearer Union of our Affections, and bind us all in more inviolable duty to their Majesties; under whose Indulgent Government we should all enjoy both Protection and Favour. Whereas the renewing these Disputes has too probable a tendency to put the Spirits of Men into a new ferment, in which they will be less disposed for so calm and peaceable, so charitable and healing Counsels. For 'tis rare to find these public Debates so managed, as not to widen Differences rather than compose 'em and heighten rather than allay the animosities of the contending Parties.  
But yet I humbly conceive that his Lordship has by this Discourse laid the Dissenters under an unavoidable necessity of resuming these Debates, so far as they are handled therein: And accordingly there are two Reasons, that I shall offer for the publication of these Remarks.  
1. The Protestant Dissenters could not omit this attempt to defend themselves without betraying both the Interest of Truth, and that of their own Innocence and just Reputation.  
For his Lordship's. Discourse having charged us in so many Instances with casting God's own Appointments out of his Worship, and with introducing so great a mixture of Human Inventions, has brought us under this unhappy Dilemma, That either we must seem to Own the Truth and Justice of so heavy a charge by our Silence: or if we think ourselves greatly wronged must appear, though unwillingly, and unseasonably, in our own Vindication. For as the Bishop, by his former Attempt, (without any occasion given him) to disseise us of our Spiritual Birthright, (I mean to exclude us from the Catholic Church) obliged us to assert our just claim to that invaluable privilege; So by this New Essay to represent our Worship as so miserably corrupted with Human Inventions, and disagreeable to the Directions of Scripture he has laid us under the same obligation, to assert its purity and Conformity to that sacred Rule, so far as we think it unjustly accused of deviating from it. So that I hope our moderate Conforming Brethren (towards whom we bear the most charitable disposition) will by no means be offended with us, for our modest endeavours, to clear ourselves from so invidious a charge, or to retort it on our Accuser, where his Arguments are more cogent against the practices he undertakes to defend, than those he opposes. Nay we think the Bishop himself cannot blame us for this, who has so frequently urged us to examine what he has alleged against us; demanded our proof of such Principles as he imputes to us; and hereby signified that he expects from us the Result of our serious thoughts on what he has offered to our View. So that we cannot refuse to oblige him herein, without failing of the respect we own to his Lordship as well as the Justice we own to Truth and to our Selves. And even Charity itself seems to prompt us to it; For as we would be glad to reconcile his Lordship, and all that applaud his Book, to a more favourable opinion of our Worship, then is therein suggested, so we are necessitated in order thereto, to show him those mistakes on which his prejudices against it are founded.  
2. The Bishop's manner of treating this Subject seems too disingenuous to pass without some just Animadversions upon it.  
'Tis indeed true that his Lordship has shown great dexterity of Wit in treating of this Controversy in so new a method and Tour, as to put the Dissenters on the necessity of defending themselves from the force of an Argument, in which they thought hitherto they had rather the advantage of being Assailants. And he has for the most part wrote with an Air of seriousness and gravity becoming the weight of the Subject as well as the dignity of his Character. Nor do there want some kind expressions that seem to argue, that his former censoriousness and rigour is allayed, since in this Discourse he so often treats us with the obliging apellation of his Friends and his Brothers. 'Tis true some jealous People think it doubtful, because, though he call us Friends in one place, he seems to explain it of Back-Friends, p. 169. in another and though he often style us his Brethren that may be only in the same sense as Heathens and Publicans are, since he still speaks of us as fallen off from the Church, and disbelieving the Report of the Gospel, p. 166. But I am willing rather to measure his Inclinations by those kind and charitable Words that seem to drop from his Pen, when his Thoughts are cool, then by those harsher one's that the heat of Dispute may suggest. Only his Brethren would have been greatly satisfied, to have found some more explicit declaration of his Charity by his owning us to be a part of the Catholic Church, and think he would have best consulted his own reputation by repairing the wrong done to so many excellent Churches in casting 'em so peremptorely out of it.  
But there are these following Instances of so great disingenuity in his Discourse, as deserve some just Reflections on 'em. As  
1. He has in every part of it run into many mistakes about matter of Fact, and some of 'em so gross, that a very ordinary care and diligence in his Inquiries might have prevented. Nor needed he have gone farther to have rectified many of those mistakes then (not only the Diocese, but) the City where he now resides. And yet in some of those mistakes he speaks with so great a height of assurance as is enough to possess all those Readers with the belief of the truth of what he delivers, who take these matters on the credit of his testimony and relation. But 'tis well for us, that the strongest Asseverations will not change the nature of things, nor weigh down, the evidence of sense in matters of Fact. And therefore I hope that his Lordship will not misinterpret it as a failure in the deference we own to his Character, if we call such palpable misrepresentations of our Principles or Practices, calumnies, and urge him either to prove or retract 'em. For sure he that unjustly accuses others, has no right to blame 'em for telling him that he does so; and cannot expect that those he accuses should out of excess of Civility and Compliment seem to countenance his groundless Accusations by a cold and faint denial, and forbear to manifest their own Innocence for fear of exposing thereby the Reputation of their Reverend Accuser. And therefore, if the charge of injustice and wrong done us, in his accounts of us, that so often occurs in these Remarks, may seem harsh and severe, he must thank himself for it, and has no ground to complain if the charge itself be true.  
2. He has taken occasion from such palpable mistakes in matters of Fact, to fasten upon us the most invidious, but the most unjust Reflections, though guilded over with smooth and specious language (like bitter Pills covered with Leaf Gold) to make 'em go the more easily down. And of these so many will occur under each Chapter as will supersede the necessity of mentioning 'em here.  
3. Where he mistakes our Principles and Practices, he frequently feigns a great many Reasons, as alleged by us in defence of those he groundlessly imputes to us, and spends a great part of his Book in confutation of 'em; whereby his ignorant Readers that take these matters on trust from him are tempted to imagine he is confuting us, when he is only fight with his own shadow, and answering Objections, which himself does not pretend to produce any Author for. See the Chapter of Prayer, from p. 57 to p. 67. See the Chapter of Hearing, from p. 86. to p. 101. See the Chapter of Bodily Worship, from p. 130. to p. 142.  
Now I take this method of treating such Controversies, wherein the reputation of a great body of Protestants are concerned, to be so highly disingenuous, that as such Authors deserve a gentle Reproof, so 'tis necessary out of regard to charity and peace itself to obviate the pernicious influence of such Writings. For such Writings tend to make differences between us seem greater than they are, and to exasperate rather than heal the Wounds caused by 'em. Whereas a contrary, judicious, and fair stating of Controversies tends to narrow 'em, and seldom fails to bring the contending parties to a nearer agreement of Judgement as well as Affection. And this I can truly profess to be the principal design of these Remarks. And though I am conscious of the weakness of my own abilities for such an undertaking, yet I am not, of any inclination to set Protestants at a greater distance from one another. On the contrary, I shall think my time in writing these Remarks well employed, if they contribute any thing to reconcile sober Protestants to more favourable and charitable thoughts of those different modes of worship that yet remain among 'em, and to convince 'em how little these differences should signify to abate our esteem and love for such who are agreed with us in those ●ar more important matters, wherein the Kingdom of God chief consists. For as all that in these things serve our common Master, are herein acceptable to God, so they should be (on the same score) approved and affectionately honoured by one another, 1 Rom. Ch. 14 Ver. 18. And therefore if his Lordship can show me any thing in these Papers contrary to this design, or any such misrepresentation of their Principles and Practices, as I have here charged him with in reference to ours, I shall most readily retract it, as I humbly expect the like candour from himself.  
Having truly proposed what were my inducements to publish these Remarks, I shall only add one Observation necessary to prevent mistakes, viz. That the matters treated on in this Discourse of the Bp's are by no means the main hang on which the Controversy between the Established Church and the Dissenters turns. So that his Lordship has only acted in this defence of the Established Church like the Governor of a Garrison that takes the greatest pains to maintain the best fortified parts of it, while he leaves those feeble places unguarded, against which the Strongest Batteries are placed. But none can blame his Lordship's prudence in choosing a Post which he thought himself most capable to make good. And if he not only defend that, but in a resolute sally seize some of the Enemy's Canon and turn it against themselves, It must be owned for a considerable Service. No doubt he supposes he has done so; how justly, I shall leave to the Reader's unbyast Judgement when he has perused these Remarks, in which I shall trace his Lordship's steps in the clear and accurate method he has laid down.   

Contents of the several Chapters  

Remarks on the Introduction, from p. 1. to p. 10.  
Remarks on the I Chapter concerning Praises 

On the Bishop's Account of the Directions of the holy Scripture concerning it, from p. 10 to p. 19  
On the Bp's Application of 'em to the practice of the Established Church, and that of the Dissenters, from p. 19 to p. 31.    
Remarks on the TWO Chapter concerning Prayer. 

On the Bp's Account of the Directions of the holy Scriptures concerning it, from p. 31 to p. 51.  
On the Application of 'em, etc. from p. 51 to p. 72.    
Remarks on the III Chapter concerning Hearing. 

On the Bp's Account of the Directions of the holy Scriptures concerning it, from p. 72 to p. 82.  
On the Application of 'em, etc. from p. 82. to p. 104.    
Remarks on the IV Chapter concerning Bodily Worship. 

On the Bp's Account of the Directions of the holy Scriptures concerning it, p. 105, 106.  
On the Application of 'em, etc. from p. 106 to p. 113.  
On the Bp's Arguments for kneeling at the Receiving the Lord's-Supper, from p. 113 to p. 123.— On the remainder of that Chapter, from p. 123 to p. 130.    
Remarks on the V Chapter concerning the Lord's-Supper. 

On the Bp's Account of the Directions of the holy Scripture concerning the frequency of Receiving, p. 131, 132.  
On the Application of 'em, etc. from p. 132 to p. 138.    
Remarks on the Conclusion. 

On the Bp's Advice to the Conforming Clergy of his Diocese, from p. 138. to p. 141.  
On his Advice to the Dissenting Ministers of it, from p. 142 to p. 157.  
On his Advice to the Conforming Laity of his Diocese. p. 158, 159,  
On his Advice to the Dissenting Laity of it, from p. 159 to 170.    
APPENDIX. 

1. Concerning Baptism, and the use of the Cross, and of Godfathers and Godmothers, from p. 171 to 177.  
2. Concerning sinful Human Inventions in the Discipline of the Church, p. 177.  
Requests to the Reverend Conforming Clergy in 13 particulars, from p. 177 to 191.  
Postscript, relating to the Bible— Poetry, from p. 192 to 198.      

ERRATA.  
Preface, line 2d. for momentanous, read momentous.  
PAge 13. line 1. blot out and. p. 29 l. 19 for Aventinus and Anoymus read Aventinus Annal. Boior. l. 3. p. 300 Edit. Ingolst. 1554. & Aymon. de Gestis Francorum, lih. 4. and cap. 64. and 144. p. 55. l. 15. blot out of. p. 88 l. 25. for 2 Chron. 19 ch. 23 v. read 29 ch. p. 102. l. 18. for condems, 1. condemns. p. 117. l. 30. read, For his first Answer to the Argument brought for fitting, from the example of the Apostles, when Christ administered this Sacrament, viz. p. 137. l. 15, 16. r. Not celebrating it oftener in each, etc. p. 156. last line, r. spiritual. p. 165. l. 32. blot out a. p. 169. l. 15. And for the common custom of many such Sponsors, who pretend to excuse themselves from what they have promised, by devolving the charge back on the Parents as soon as the Baptism is over, 'tis no better than a profane trifling with so sacred a thing as a publ●ck Religious Vow and Promise. The Book is wrong paged, from 168 to the end.   

Remarks upon the Introduction.  
UPon the Review of the Introduction, and comparing it with the following Chapters, I was greatly surprised to find these 3 unusual and palpable defects in it, than which, I scarce know 3 more inexcusable ones a Writer can be guilty of, that pretends to treat a controversial subject, Viz.  
1. Tho he styles his Book, A Discourse concerning the Inventions of men in the Worship of God, Yet he has not in all those 188 pages, of which it consists, so much as once stated the true notion of 'em, or told us what he means by 'em. A strange oversight in one that pretends to have so carefully examined this matter, and has said so many things relating to it, which he could not but foresee would fall under the critical examination of those on whose principles and practices he has made so many and severe Reflections; especially when he could not well be ignorant that the subject he undertakes to discourse on is very ambiguous, and capable of being taken in so different senses. But 'tis easy to guess what kind of superstructure he is like to raise, when he has forgot to lay the foundation. So that we are obliged to desire his Lordship to write another Discourse to state the Question; that we may know what the Arguments in this are leveled for, or against.  
2. But there is a worse fault this Discourse is chargeable with, viz. That as far as his Lp's meaning can be gathered from his words, he has given us 2 inconsistent Notions of human Inventions in the Worship of God, which yet he has taken no care to distinguish, and tell us fairly when he intends the one, and when the other.  
Sometimes by the Inventions of men in the Worship of God, he seems to understand some things relating either to the matter, or the manner of Religious Worship, that are unlawful and sinful. Thus in his first Paragraph, Our blessed Saviour (saith he) has taught us that there are some ways of worshipping God which have so great a mixture of human Invention in 'em, that they are vain and unacceptable to him, for which he quotes 7 Mark 7. A passage which (as I shall show anon) plainly refers to those Jewish Traditions which our Saviour there arraigns as guilty of sinful superstition. And again in his principles, p. 3. he seems to lay down his Notion of the Inventions of men in the worship of God, when he there tells us, That since God has given us a certain direction for his Worship in the H. Scriptures, It is to be supposed that all ways of Worship are displeasing to him, that are not expressly contained, or warranted by Examples of H. men mentioned therein. 'Tis true indeed, that if he intent this for a description of such human Inventions, we are not much the wiser for it, (as I shall observe afterwards). But this we may certainly infer from it, that he understands by 'em such ways of Worship as are displeasing to God, because destitute of scriptural Precept and Pattern. Now I would entreat his Lordship to acquaint us how we shall reconcile this with his owning such things to be lawful, to which this very notion of human Inventions does agree, and which he calls by that very name. To give him an Instance in his first Chapter about Pra●se. He there charges the Dissenters way of praising God by singing Psalms in metre as destitute of all Command or Precedent from the Scripture, and as a purely human Invention, p. 24. And yet in the very beginning of that Section that concerns the Dissenters manner of Praising God, he desires us to observe, for preventing mistakes, that he does not condemn the singing Psalms in Metre as unlawful. And no wonder, when he foresaw that he must otherwise have condemned what is practised in the Parish-Churches; For though he tells us this is but a voluntary entertainment of devotion in their public Assemblies, yet there were all possible reason to cast it out, if it were a sinful way of praising God according to the first Notion of human Inventions. 'Tis evident then that he sometimes understands by human Inventions some sinful ways of Worship, sometimes such innocent modes of it as are of human determination. Nay, so jumbled are his notions of this matter, that though he own Sermons to have the warrant of scriptural Example, yet he ranks 'em among the Inventions of men, p 102. And this uncertain sense of this slippery phrase breeds so miserable a confusion in his whole discourse, that when he tells us so often of our human Inventions, we are at a loss whether he speak it by way of applause or censure, whether he commend our use of Christian prudence, or arraign us as guilty of superstition. But  
3. I have a severer Reflection yet to add, viz. That his Lp. has made this strange confusion in his own Notions about human Inventions, the ground of the most uncharitable censures of the Worship of his Brethren.  
He does indeed in some cases accuse the Dissenters of laying aside the commands of God relating to his Worship (how justly, will appear hereafter). But I never find in his charge of human Inventions, that his premises amount to any more than some modes of Worship in general necessary, but in particular left to the determination of human prudence; And yet in his Conclusion he would insinuate into his unwary Readers, as if he had proved our Worship guilty of such superstitious Inventions, as our Saviour's words, 7 Mark 7. caution us against. And so many Instances of this kind will occur in the examination of the particular Chapters, as will spare me the labour of mentioning 'em here. I shall therefore here only add, That if this thin sophism imposed on his own understanding, 'tis great pity he should trouble the world with renewing a debate concerning these things, before he had better digested his thoughts about 'em; If it did not, where was his sincerity in founding so heavy an Indictment on such proof as he knew was so lame and inconsistent?  
Lest therefore these Remarks should be guilty of the same faults with his Lordship's Discourse, It will be necessary to set these matters in a clearer light, which he has so studiously wrapped up in perfect obscurity.  
I. This Phrase of the Inventions of men, as relating to the Worship of God, occurrs thrice in our Translation of the Bible, viz. 106 Ps. 29. & 39 v. and 99 Ps. 8 v. In the first place, 'tis applied to the people of Israel's joining in the sacrifices offered to Baal-peor; In the 2d, 'tis applied to their imitating the Heathenish Inhabitants in the Land of Canaan, in that horrid wickedness of sacrificing their children to Idols. In the 3d, 'tis most probable by the Context, that the expression refers to the Worship of God by the Golden Calf, as an Image or symbol of his presence. So that if we borrow our Notion of human Inventions in Religious Worship from the scriptural use of that phrase, they always imply a violation either of the first or second Command, either by setting up a wrong Object of Worship, or a forbidden and corrupt way of paying our worship to the true Object of it. And if the Bishop had proved the Worship of Dissenters guilty of such human Inventions, he had done something to the purpose.  
II. But if we derive our Notion of the Inventions of men in the Worship of God, from that passage of our Saviour which the Bishop citys from Mark 7. v. 7. In vain do ye worship me, teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men, a little care in examining it, will easily help us to state it right.  
By the Commandments of men our Saviour here plainly understands such, as enjoined the doing or forbearing certain things as instances of Piety and Holiness that recommend us to God, which he never prescribed in the law of nature, or in his supernatural Revelation. Such Commandments of men he asserts those Traditions among the Jews to be, that placed so much of holiness in washing their hands before eating, or when they came from places of public converse, as if this external cleanness could recommend 'em to the infinitely pure eyes of the great God. And many such Instances of Apocryphal sanctity occur in the lives of Popish Saints, who placed so much of it in so many unnecessary Austerities, and other trifling Fopperies. And no wonder our Saviour should condemn such human Traditions as thus tend to corrupt our apprehensions of the nature and will of God, and possess us with such a false idea of true Religion, as adulterates the simplicity of it.  
These superstitious Precepts of men receive an Additional Aggravation, when the observing 'em necessitates the violation of the Laws of God, Thus our Saviour arraigns the superstitious Tradition of the Jewish Doctors about the obligation of rash Vows, which entangled 'em in the breach of the 5th Command, 7 Mark 11. And on the same account we condemn those rash vows of Celibacy in the Roman Church, which so often involve those that make 'em in the violation of the 7th.  
Now if we apply this sense of the Commandments of Men to the Worship of God, we shall have a clear Notion of such human Inventions as this Text does condemn, As,  
1. It condemns as sinful Inventions or Commands of Men, all such as enjoin some new part of Religious Worship that has no stamp of Divine Authority. As the Romish Church is herein guilty, when she presumes to add new Sacraments of her own to those of Christ's Institution,  
And 'tis an aggravation of these sinful Inventions of men, when the observance of 'em is inconsistent with what God's own Laws prescribe relating to his Worship. Of which the Romish Church is guilty, in setting up the Worship of Images, the Invocation of Angels and Saints, the offering up Christ as a Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass, and the Adoration of the Host.  
2. Whereas every part of Worship enjoined by God, as Prayer, Pra●se, etc. is capable of being performed in various circumstantial modes, If the Law of God do expressly enjoin us any particular mode, then, to devise another of our own exclusive of that which he has chosen and determined, is to bring in a sinful human Invention into his Worship. Such sinful Inventions are prayers and praises in an unknown Tongue, the Communicating in one kind, solitary Communions, etc.  
3. Nay, if the Commands of men make such Rites and Ceremonies of their own devising, as are no way necessary, nor warranted by any general Rules of Scripture, to become the stated Appendages of any part of divine Worship, and the necessary terms of Communion in it, such Ceremonies seem to come within the compass of what our Saviour rejects as vain worship. For the imposing such Rites and Ceremonies, seems to be an Act of human presumption that tacitly arraigns those directions which God himself has given us concerning his Worship, and our Communion in it, as defective. And such superstitious Inventions of men those numberless Rites and Ceremonies seem to be, whereby the Guides of the Roman Church have corrupted the simplicity of Christian Worship, and defaced the true beauty and purity of divine Institutions with the meretricious paint of their unnecessary pomp and pageantry. And his Lp. would have done well to have cleared the Cross in Baptism from being one of these human Inventions.  
So that the Inventions of men in t●e Worship of God which this Text condemns, are always some sinful corruptions of it, as to the matter or manner of it, or some sinful Additions to it. If therefore his Lp. would manage this charge of human Inventions to any purpose against the Dissenters, he must prove either that they set up some new part of Worship which has no stamp of divine Authority; or that where God has determined any particular mode for ordering any part of his Worship, they reject that, and use one of their own devising; or that they introduce some new Rites as stated Appendages of worship no way necessary in general, and make 'em the terms of Communion in it. How little he has done of that kind, will appear in the examination of his ensuing Chapters.  
I might add here, We may justly rank among such human Inventions, all those human Orders in reference to the Government and Discipline of the Church, that set up any such new Officers in it without any warrant of Christ's Institution as put down those that he has appointed, or deprive 'em of any part of that power he has committed to 'em; Nay, all those Ecclesiastical Canons are such sinful precepts of men as are inconsistent with the great Rules for unity and concord, for mutual forbearance and charity, etc. which our Saviour has laid down And I should be very glad if his Lp. could clear the Established Church from the charge of such human Inventions as these. For 'tis these are chief the fatal Engines of our Divisions, as I may have occasion to observe in the end of these Remarks.  
III. It remains only that I subjoin in order to the clearing the state of this Controversy, That there is a very improper sense in which this phrase of human Inventions in the Worship of God may possibly be used, viz. To signify such modes and circumstances of divine Worship, as though necessary in general by Divine precept, yet are left in particular to be determined by human Prudence. For though God has commanded public Prayer, Praise, Hearing, Celebration of the Lord's Supper, etc. Yet what time or place we shall assemble in, In what order these parts of Worship shall be performed, What particular devout posture we shall use among several equally expressive of our religious Reverence, what Translation of the Bible or Version of the Psalms we shall choose, what portion of the Scriptures shall be read, explained and applied; What utensils shall be employed in the celebration of the Sacraments, and a multitude of such circumstances and modes of that kind are left to human Determination. Only therein the general Rules of Scripture must be regarded, as That all be done to Edification, and all things be done decently and in order, etc. 1 Cor. 14.26, v. 40. Now to call such modes of Worship thus justly determined by human Prudence, the Inventions of Men, even such as our Saviour refers to 7 Mark 7. is indeed common enough with such wild Sectaries, as the Quakers; but I am sorry that his Lp. should thus espouse their Quarrel, and take up their Arguments against us. And yet I hope to make it evident, That his Proof of human Inventions in the Worship of Dissenters amounts to no more than such prudential human Orders about the modes of Worship, as are undoubtedly allowable and lawful; and That the Established Church is much more liable to the same charge, many of whose Practices as well as those of Dissenters, I shall be obliged in charity to defend from this weak and blind Accusation.  
What I have here suggested will make it needless to take any farther notice of the Principles his Lp. lays down in reference to the Worship of God, then to annex these few brief Remarks on 'em.  
For the 2 first, That it belongs to God only to give Rules how he will be worshipped, and that the H. Scriptures contain the Revelation of God's Will concerning his Worship, They are no other than what will freely be granted him, unless he extend 'em to all circumstances and modes of Worship and exclude all human Prudence in the determination of 'em.  
For the 3d. which he infers from the 2 former, viz. That it concerns us to keep as close as we can to those Directions which God has been pleased to afford us in his Word, without adding to, omitting or altering any thing that he has there laid down. I hope he intends no more by it, then that so far as God has by those Directions enjoined any part of Worship, or expressly determined the manner and circumstances of it, so far we must follow such Directions; And therefore I hope he would not hereby insinuate as if those Directions were so particular, as to appoint all the fore mentioned circumstantial modes of Instituted worship. And I think this Caution the more needful to be given him, because the Reason he offers for this Principle carries a very uncertain and dangerous sound with it, viz. For since God his vouchsafed us a certain Direction for his Worship in the H. Scriptures, It is to be supposed that all ways of Worship are displeasing to him, that are not expressly contained or warranted by Examples of H. M●n therein. If his Lp. had designed our Instruction by these Principles, he should not have delivered 'em to us (like the Heathen Oracles) in so ambiguous terms, as leave us to guess in the dark what he means. For how shall we know. Whether by God's giving us a certain Direction for his Worship, he means as to all the parts of it, or all the circumstantial modes, and whether of these he intends by ways of Worship. For if he intent the latter, (as any man would imagine by the whole tenor of his following Discourse, wherein be so often applies that phrase, the ways of Worship to the modes of it) viz. That God has given us so certain a Direction for his Worship, as to all the circumstantial modes of it, that all such modes of it are displeasing to him that have not express Scripture-Precept or Pattern, This is so wild an Assertion, that I scarce think any more extravagant one ever dropped from the pen of the most weak and scrupulous Sectaries, and so very uncharitable, that if a man believed it, he would find it hard to join in any Religious Assembly that I know of in the Christian World, I am sure he must renounce all Communion with the Parish-Churches; so fatal is it to great Wits to run into extremes, that his Lp. is not content with espousing the Dissenters Principles without overdoing, and stretching 'em beyond all tolerable bounds; so that if he should ever become a Proselyte to that Party, I am afraid he'll turn one of those rigid ones that were formerly called Brownists.  
For what he calls his 4th and 5th Principle, I know of no Dispute there is about 'em.  
But I must crave leave in order to the clearing my way to the following Chapters, to subjoin 2 Principles or Postulata which his Lp. seems to have forgot, but are highly necessary to a right Judgement concerning these matters, Viz.  
1. Where God has enjoined any part of Religious Worship in general, but has not determined the particular mode and circumstances of it, There the determination of 'em belongs to human prudence, and such determinations of 'em are lawful and warrantable as are agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture given to direct us therein. And therefore there may be various modes of performing the same Religious duty, that are each allowable and lawful; though some particular circumstances may make one to some persons more expedient than the other. Ex. gr. God has commanded us to pray, but he has no where expressly determined (whatever his Lp. seems to insinuate to the contrary) whether we shall pray with or without a set Form of words; both ways of praying therefore may be lawful in general, though particular circumstances may to some render the one or the other way more convenient; nay the general Rule of doing all to Edification, may perhaps in some cases oblige men to the one, and in some to the other. I might say the same concerning singing in Prose or Metre, Reading a larger entire portion of Scripture without Exposition, or a lesser with it, etc. So that in these cases wise men are very cautious on what grounds they go, when they censure the Worship of others as unlawful, or charge it with sinful human Inventions; and confident Accusers do but usually betray their own Ignorance.  
2. We that are Christians, should chief attend to the Rules and Examples of the New Testament for our direction in the Worship of God. For those of the Old Testament no farther concern us, than as any Rules delivered there belong to the Moral Law, and the Reason of such Examples equally extends to us as it did to them. And indeed to urge the Precepts or Patterns of the Worship used under the Old Testament any farther, were to bring us again under the Mosaical Pedagogy.  
And as I hope, None will deny me these 2 reasonable Postulata, so the usefulness of 'em in these Inquiries will appear in many of the Remarks on the following Chapters, which I shall now address myself to the consideration of.   

Remarks on the 1 Chapter concerning Praises.  
ANd here I shall so far observe the same method his Lp. has laid down, as First to consider the directions of Scripture concerning this part of Divine Worship, and then the Application his Lp. makes of 'em to the manner of performing it in the Established Church, and in the Dissenters Congregations.  
First, As to the Directions of the H. Scriptures concerning this part of Divine Worship, I shall offer what follows as the Result of the most diligent Enquiry I could make, and hope 'tis a juster as well as clearer Account than that his Lp. has given.  
There are but these 2 ways of offering our public Praises to God enjoined in the New Testament, viz. either by Singing Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs; or by Thanksgiving without vocal Melody.  
I. As to Thanksgiving without vocal Melody, I would observe,  
1. We have most express command for it as one principal stated part of our public Worship. 1 Tim. 2.1, I exhort therefore, that first of all Supplications, Prayers, Intercession, and giving of thanks be made for all men, etc. And this part of Worship was usually joined with that of Prayer. Thus 4 Phil. 6. In every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God. So 4 Col. 2.— 1 Thes. 5.17, 18. And accordingly, Blessing, or Giving of Thanks is mentioned as one stated part of the Devotions of Christian Assemblies, 1 Cor. 14. v. 16. And that those Thanksgivings were different from Psalms or Songs is hence evident, both because they were to be varied according to their different occasions for 'em from the mercies they daily received, which such Psalms or Songs could not be, (For those are always supposed to be a set invariable form of words); and because they were ordinarily intermixed with public Prayer.  
2. For the matter of these Public Thanksgivings, the New Testament chief directs us to insist on those peculiar mercies of God to us thro' a Mediator, which the Gospel most clearly reveals to us, and of which there is either none, or but very obscure mention made in any Forms of Thanksgiving recorded in the Old.  
For if we go thro' all the solemn Thanksgivings that occur in the New Testament, we shall find 'em to run in a strain as much sublimer than that of those in the Old, as that clearer transcends that obscurer Revelation. How suitable to the Evangelical dispensation is that Thanksgiving of the Ap. Paul? 1 Eph. 3.4, 5, etc. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blest us with all spiritual Blessings in heavenly things in Christ, According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love, Having predestinated us to the Adoption of children by Christ to himself, etc. Or that of the same Inspired Writer, 1 Col. 12, 13. etc. Of the same strain is that of the Ap. Peter, 1 Ep. 1 Ch. 3, 4, etc. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again to a lively hope by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an Inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that never fades away, reserved in Heaven for us, etc. See 1 Rev. 5.6. unto him that loved us, and washed us from our Sins in his own Blood, and hath made us Kings and Priests to God, etc. 5 Rev. 13, 14, etc.  
These are certainly the best Patterns after which our public Thanksgivings in Christian Assemblies should be drawn. And no Thanksgivings recorded in the Old Testament do so expressly and clearly mention these inestimable blessings of the New-Covenant, or the matchless love of our God and Saviour in the manner of conferring 'em, as these recorded in the New; and consequently our praises should ordinarily, as to the very matter of 'em, greatly differ from, and go beyond those used in the Jewish Church.  
3. We read of no other part the people had in these public thanksgivings in the New Testament more than their adding their Amen to 'em. So much these words of the Ap. Paul imply, 1 Cor. 14.16. Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupies the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks. All Expositors on the place refer it to the custom of the people's saying Amen at the end of public prayers and praises▪ I might produce the testimony of Justin Martyr and other ancient Christian Writers of the 3 first Centuries to this purpose; but since the Bishop seems to allow this Exposition, p. 42. I need insist no farther on it here.  
And 'tis the more requisite to take notice of this way of praising God by Thanksgivings without vocal melody, because the Bp. seems to confound it with that other way of praising God with Psalms, and from which 'tis plainly distinguished. And this leads me to consider.  
II. The Praises the New Testament requires us to offer unto God by Singing.  
And what was to be thus sung, we may learn from those 2 passages of the Ap. Paul cited by the Bishop, 5. Eph. 19 and 3 Col. 16. viz. Psalms, Hymns and spiritual Songs, or Odes. On which passages I would make the following Remarks.  
I do fully agree with the Bishop that this Passage of the Apostles does warrant our use of the Psalms of David in our public praises, because 'tis highly probable the word Psalms refers to 'em. But then I must add, 'tis no less probable that the Apostle does by Hymns and spiritual songs intent others besides those of H. David, especially such as contain matter of praise more entirely suited to the state of the christian Church under this clearer Light of the Gospel; As there are many solemn thanksgivings in many places of the New Testament easily capable of being turned into Hymns and spiritual Odes by being adapted to this use of singing 'em. And I see no reason to doubt but this passage does as fully Warrant our composing and using such, as it does the use of the Psalms of David. So that the want of 'em seems to be one defect in this part of Worship both among Conf's and NC's, though some of the latter have of late reformed it by the frequent use of New Testament Hymns in their Congregations, especially in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. There are indeed Anthems sometimes sung in the Cathedrals, but 'tis in a way wherein the body of the People cannot join with 'em.  
2 But the New Testament recommends no other use of Psalms, etc. in the public Praises of God, besides that of sing 'em.  
The use of 'em is no where enjoined in the New Testament, but in those places forequoted 5 Eph. 19 and 3 Col. 16. and 5 James 13. and all those directions require the Singing 'em. That grace wherewith we must make Melody to the Lord in our hearts presupposes some Melody made with our Voices to which the other should correspond.  
And there seems to be this obvious Reason why Singing 'em is so expressly there enjoined, because in that Religious duty thus ordered, Nature assists grace, and our delight in vocal harmony tends to elevate our affections more easily towards their blessed Object. So that we neither comply with the Apostles precept, nor indeed with the reason of it, by barely repeating or saying such Psalms, Hymns and spiritual Songs without singing 'em (except when we only read 'em for Instruction, without using 'em as Forms of Praise). Nor has the Bp. produced any example of such Psalms and Hymns being said, as contradistinguisht from being sung. For the 118 Ps. 2. he does well not to insist on it to this purpose. For it no more proves our being required to say Psalms, as distinguished from singing 'em, than the word saying proves it, when applied to that New Song which is expressly said to be sung, 5 Rev 9 He tells us indeed that we find in Scripture several sacred Hymns, particularly of Hannah, the B. Virgin, Zacharias, & Simeon, and the Saints in Heaven, 7 Rev. 12. & 11.17. which are said to have been said by 'em respectively, and the circumstances of the story do not make it probable that they were sung. Answ. 'Tis true indeed, we commonly call these passages Hymns, because they are easily capable of being turned into Hymns. But we do so improperly, For 'tis certain the Scripture never gives 'em that Title, but appropriates it to what was sung. What Hannah spoke is called a Prayer, 1 Sam. 2. v. 1. That solemn Thanksgiving ascribed to the Virgin Mary, has no Title given, (or if it was a Song, there is as much evidence of its being sung, as of its being only said). Zacharias' thanksgiving is called prophesying, 1 Luke 67. Simeon's is called Blessing God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the word used for Thanksgiving 1 Cor. 14.16.) The 7 Rev. 12.— and 11.17. are plainly Thanksgivings. Since then the Bp. has not produced one Instance of Psalms, Hymns, or Spiritual Songs that were said, as distinguished from being sung, 'tis evident this use of 'em in the praises of God is unscriptural, and is far from having either precept or pattern in the Bible to warrant it; and if we judge of it by the Bp's own Principles, we must pronounce it unlawful: Nay, 'tis the more to be suspected, because it crosses the only direction given us about the use of 'em in this part of public Worship.  
3. Since the New Testament requires our Praising God publicly by singing Psalms, Hymns, and spiritual Songs, it does fully warrant us to adapt the Psalms of David to that use by turning 'em into metre.  
For 'tis one great general Rule of Scripture, that all things in public Worship should be done to Edification, 1 Cor. 14. v. 26. 'Tis evidently most conducive to Edification, that the whole Congregation join in the praises of God by singing Psalms (according to his Appointment in the places forementioned). But this cannot be without turning 'em into metre, because the generality of the people cannot sing 'em in prose, but must if they sing 'em, have 'em accommodated to that use by such measures as are familiar to 'em. And the addition of Rhyme is but a convenient condescension herein to the weakness of the people, to whom Verse without it is, thro' custom, become less grateful; (even as those consulted the help of our weak memories, who first divided the Bible into Chapters and Verses). So that these circumstances plainly fall under the determination of human prudence, and are accordingly determined very agreeably to that general Rule I cited before. And I may justly add, that the Psalms thus translated into Metre (provided the true sense of the Inspired Writer be delivered) are as truly the Word of God, as the Psalms translated into prose; And we are as much obliged to turn the Psalms into metre for this use of singing 'em, as to traslate 'em out of Hebrew- metre into prose for our Reading and Instruction. For they can no more serve the use of being generally sung without the one, than that of being read for Instruction without the other.  
4. 'Tis highly probable that the Psalms of David were composed in metre, quite contrary to what the Bp. so frequently suggests, p. 5.9.21.  
'Tis indeed true that we are now very unable to give an exact Account of it. And 'tis no wonder, when our knowledge of the Hebrew Language is so imperfect, and the distance of time so very great. But if we will credit those who were more capable to judge of that matter, by having the advantage of us in both these respects, we must descent from his Lp's opinion in it. For that grave Historian Josephus assures us, lib. 7. cap. 10. that the Psalms were wrote in various sorts of metre, of which he mentions two, some Trimeters, and some Pentameters. And indeed this is so plain of some of 'em, as particularly the 111th and 112th, that all Expositors take notice of the measures that plainly appear in 'em, and there can be no reasonable doubt about it. Every verse having in the beginning and middle 2 letters in order of the Hebrew Alphabet, only the 2 last have each 3 letters, though the measures are even in them alike with the others. There is no less appearance of metre in the 119th Psalm, as all Critics observe upon it. See the learned Gataker's account of the several Tunes to which the Psalms were suited, and the manner of singing 'em in his Cinnus. And if the Psalms were composed in metre, that they might be sung, 'Tis certainly most agreeable to the example of Scripture to turn 'em into metre for the same end and use.  
III. For Responses, There is no doubt that in such places of Scripture as the Bp. has alleged, (7 Rev. from the 9th to the 13th. (Tho in the paraphrasing this Text, 7 Rev. 11, 12. his Lp. commits an odd mistake in supposing the Angels and Elders to join in saying what we read, v. 12. whereas 'tis the Angels alone to whom that part belongs, though they stood about the Throne, and about the Elders, and the 4 Beasts. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.) 19 Rev. The instance of Miriam, The 24th. and 118th Ps. and especially in the Song of Solomon, which his Lp. seems to have forgot.) There is an Allusion to dramatic writings. But 'tis observable that there is some difference in the persons introduced as answering one another, and in the matter spoken, that required this alternate way of singing. But I see nothing the Bp. has produced to make it probable that this way of alternate singing was the ordinary practice of the Christian Church in the New Testament. He does indeed allege those words of the Ap. Paul to that purpose, 1 Cor. 14.31. For ye may all Prophecy one by one, etc. which (he tells us) amounts to praising God by way of Responses, because prophesying (he saith) includes Psalms, Doctrines, Tongues, Revelations and Interpretations, p. 11. But 'tis strange his Lp. should examine his criticisms no better. For if he compare the 26 v. of that Chapter with the 6th, he'll easily find that prophesying instead of including all those things mentioned v. 26. is distinguished from 'em, v. 6th; And if he'll compare this 31 v. with those that precede, and those that follow it, he cannot but see, that it imports only a direction to the Prophets to speak in their due order without interrupting one another, since that God, in whose name they spoke, was not the Author of confusion, but of peace, v. 33. And accordingly some judicious Expositors understand these words, v. 32. [The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets] of those that were inspired, being capable of refraining to speak even what they had an impulse for, till they could do it in regular order.  
iv For Instruments of Music there's no Question of their being used in the Worship of the Jewish Church. But than it must be considered, that 'tis highly probable these Instruments of Music belonged not to the Worship of their Synagogues, but only to the service of their Temple. And there was a particular Institution for 'em, as appears from Numb. 10.— 32 Levit. 23, 24. And those other Instruments of Music which David appointed, 1 Chron. 16.4, 5. he is expressly said to have done it upon the Commandment of the Lord by his Prophets, 2 Chron. 29.25. And they are on that account called God's Musical Instruments, 1 Chron. 16.22.— and 2 Chron. 7.6. as having the stamp of his Authority. Nor does the single instance of Miriam's Timbrels signify any more to prove that the use of 'em was no part of the Ceremonial Law, than the use of Sacrifices before Moses' time can prove that they were not. Besides, Miriam being there called the Prophetess, there is just reason to suppose that she used those Timbrels upon a particular impulse, as David is said to have instituted his upon such a particular command from the inspired Prophets. Since than Instrumental Music belonged to the Temple-service, which was but ceremonial and typical, it must be abolished with that service; And we can have no warrant to recall it into the Christian Church without as particular an Institution for it, as it had under the Law, any more than we have to use other abrogated rites of the Jewish Religion. Nor needs there any particular command for laying it aside, when the whole Temple-service, of which 'tis a part, is so plainly cashiered, and it was not, that we can find, used in the Worship of the Synagogues, from which alone we can pretend to draw any safe Pattern for Evangelical Worship. And 'tis certain that there's no mention of its being used in the Worship of the Christian Church. And indeed it seems more suitable to divine Worship when there was more of external pomp allowed in it. I confess his Lp. would persuade us the Apostles recommend such musical Instruments, because the Ap. James, when he exhorts those that were merry to sing Psalms, uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 5 James 13. which he tells us, signifies in the Original, singing with an Instrument, p. 13. But sure his Lp. can lay no stress on this Argument, when 'tis so apparently weak, and so often concludes wrong. Of which I shall give him a parallel instance of his own. He tells us, p. 111. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the word generally used in the New Testament for Worship) signifies in the Original, to pay homage by kissing the hand. And might he not as wisely infer from thence, that we are still obliged to pay our external homage the same way. But if he look again on that passage of the Ap. James, he will find this slender criticism too weak a foundation for Organs to stand on, because the Apostle could not reasonably suppose all those to have Instruments of Music by 'em, or to be capable of using 'em, whom he there exhorts to vent their spiritual joys, by singing of Psalms. Since than there is no warrant for Instrumental Music, from either precept or example in the New Testament, the Bp. is obliged by his own principles on that account to turn it out of the Church. And indeed for the Cathedral Music, 'tis hard to reconcile it with 1 Cor. 14.11, 15, 26. For the Apostle requires that all things be done to Edification, and consequently that no worship be offered up but what is clearly understood; since if we know not the meaning of the voice of him, that speaks, he is but a Barbarian to us; Now the generality of the people complain that the Chanters and Choristers are just such Barbarians to 'em, because their voice is not so articulate as to enable 'em to understand what they play or sing.  
Secondly, Having considered the Directions of the Scripture relating to this part of Religious Worship, Let us consider the Application thereof to the Praises of God as celebrated in the Established Church, and in the Dissenters Congregations.  
And before I enter on the Representation that his Lp. gives, I shall only briefly suggest, That 'tis evident from the foregoing scriptural Account, That the way of praising God among the Dissenters, is exactly suited to the precepts and examples of the New Testament relating to this religious duty. For they praise God both.  
1. By solemn Thanksgivings, and those suited to that glorious Revelation of the Gospel, and the peculiar Subjects of Praise it furnishes us with, not excluding what the Providence of God towards his Church or towards ourselves does suggest as matter of our grateful acknowledgements.  
And these are so stated a Part of our Worship that the Directory requires the Minister either in his Prayer before, or that after Sermon, to offer such Thanksgivings, and accordingly suggests these Heads of 'em, admirably agreeable to the strain of the Gospel.  
He is to give thanks, for the great Love of God in sending his Son Jesus Christ to us, For the Communication of his H. Spirit, for the light and liberty of the glorious Gospel, and the rich and heavenly Blessings revealed therein, as namely Election, Vocation, Adoption, Justification, Sanctification, and hope of Glory; For the admirable goodness of God in freeing the Land from Antichristian Darkness and Tyranny, and for all other National Deliverances &c. and for many temporal Blessings.  
2. By singing of Psalms, Hymns and spiritual Songs in which duty they consult the People's edification by putting such Metre versions of the Psalms of David into their hands, as adapt 'em for this use of 'em which the Scripture enjoins. And I am sure those in use among 'em, as the Scots, Barton's or Patrick's versions are incomparably better than that obsolete one which is still retained in the Parish-Churches, though for what reason is hard to imagine, unless it be from a spleen against Reformation, of which some think the least step very dangerous.  
One would think then our manner of Praising God were unexceptionable. But his Lp. it seems has very different apprehensions of this matter, of which he gives us this Summary and very strange Account.  
The Case then between our Church and you in this point, I think impartially stands thus. Our Church Praises God every Day with 5 or 6 Psalms, besides other Hymns of his own Appointment, and in his own Words and Method, and yet is deserted and condemned by you in this very point, as teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men; Whereas you who only Praise him in a piece of a Psalm of a few verses, and in a method of your own finding out, persuade yourselves that you keep the Ordinances of God pure and unmixed from human Invention.  
And this his Lp. Recommends to the serious consideration of Dissenters, as they will herein expect to bear the Trial of God's Judgement in this matter, p. 24.  
Answer: I must confess myself amazed to read these words, and am willing rather to impute 'em to his forgetfulness and inconsideration, then to arraign his judgement or sincerity. But he is so far from having summed up this matter with the impartiality he pretends to, that he has been so unfortunate as scarce to have said one true word in his Representation on either side. As will appear upon a particular Examination.  
Our Church (saith he) praises God every Day with 5 or 6 Psalms, besides other Hymns, of his own Appointment, and in his own words and method.  
What does his Lp. mean? Has God indeed appointed the Psalms of David to be the stated Forms of Thanksgiving in the Christian Church, as Thanksgivings are distinguished, from Psalms, Hymns and spiritual Songs, (as I have shown him they plainly are)? He is so far from having proved any such thing, that since his Lp. has learned us the way of challenging, I must use the freedom of demanding his Proof of it; For I take it to be a rash Assertion, and of dangerous consequence. I have shown him already that the New Testament recommends no other use of the Psalms of David in our public Praises except singing 'em; Nor indeed are they expressly mentioned at all, though we suppose 'em intended in 5 Eph. and 3. Col. But when the Ap. Paul so often commands us to to give thanks for all men, In all things to give Thanks, to join Thanksgiving with all our Prayers, he never recommends the Psalms of David as Forms of such Thanksgivings. And no wonder, For besides that we have frequent particular Occasions of public Thanksgiving, which there is nothing in the Psalms adapted to, even the Psalms themselves do not contain the principal matters of Christian Thanksgivings; For they make no express mention of the infinite love of God the Father of our Ld. J. Christ in sending his own Son, as our great Prophet, to reveal his will to us, and die for us as our Atoning Sacrifice, that he might redeem us by his precious blood; in raising him from the dead; exalting him to such glory and dignity as the Head of his Church, and Head over all things to it; and in appointing him the Author of Eternal Salvation to all that believe and obey him. Nor do they so clearly mention these great and precious promises made to us thro' this Mediator of a better Covenant, especially those that relate to our adoption, and to the heavenly glory. And yet these and the like instances of the matchless love of God discovered to us in J. Christ (that glorious mirror of divine love) are so proper matter for our express grateful acknowledgements, that they should make up the principal part of our public Thanksgivings, as they do in all those solemn ones recorded for our imitation in the New Testament; And indeed without 'em, this part of Worship in a Christian Church would be most grossly defective and unsuitable to the Gospel as the last and clearest Revelation of the will of God. I deny not but we may in our Christian Thanksgivings, make use of the expressions of H. David, when we celebrate God's works of Creation, or of his common or special Providence, because so far they contain suitable matter of Praise for a Christian as well as for a Jewish Assembly. But for celebrating the great work of Redemption, which ought to be the chief work of our Praises on that day, which is now called the Ld's day (as being consecrated to the glory of our Redeemer, as Lord of the New Creation) 'tis evident the Psalms of David cannot serve us, but we must derive the subject of those Praises entirely from the New Testament. And therefore to suppose, as the Bp. here does, that the Psalms of David are to be the chief stated part of our Christian Praises, is no better than to reduce the Christian to the imperfection of the Jewish Church. And this is so plain, that as I observed before, when the Ap. recommends the singing the Psalms of David, yet he joins Hymns and Spiritual Songs with 'em, which no doubt were to run in a strain more suited to the Evangelical dispensation. I confess the Bp. has found out a wonderful knack of turning the Psalms of David into Christian Hymns, by adding the Gloria Patri to 'em, as if that Doxology altered the matters of Praises contained in 'em.  
So when he saith, Our Church praises God with 5 or 6 Psalms and other Hymns of his own Appointment, Why does he call the Thanksgiving of Zacharias, the Virgin Mary, and Simeon, Hymns, which the Scripture calls not so? And why does he take it for granted instead of proving it, that God has appointed what they spoke on that occasion for stated forms of Thanksgivings in all Christian Assemblies, when there is so much in 'em suited to the particular case of those persons, that though they are useful for our instruction, yet they are not calculated for forms of thanksgivings to us. If we must choose forms out of the Scripture, the Apostolical ones I produced under the head of Thanksgivings, will far more exactly suit us.  
Again, when he says, Our Church praises God with 5 or 6 Psalms, etc. in his own words and method. Why does he groundlessly imagine the words of the Prose-translation of the Psalms to be more the words of God than the words of a Metre-translation, that do as truly express the sense of the Original? Nay, why does he pretend that they praise God by Psalms in his own method, when they have so plainly deviated from his method in the following Instances. As,  
1. In the Cathedrals where the Psalm is sung by the Choir, 'Tis none of God's method that the greater part of the people should be excluded from joining in his Praises thro' their incapacity to sing 'em in Prose. For (besides the probable Arguments alleged before to prove that the Psalms were composed and sung in metre by the Jews) this is plainly disagreeable to the Ap's Rule, that all things should be done to Edification.  
2. In the Parish-Churches when the Psalms are only said, not sung, they are so far from using God's method, that their practice has neither Scripture-precept nor pattern, but is one of the Bp's human Inventions. Nay, 'tis disagreeable to the precepts of the New Testament, which enjoin the singing of Psalms in our praises; and though his Lp. pretends a dispensation for saying 'em, I have shown him the invalidity of his proofs for it, so that we have only his bare word for it.  
3. The method of Responses in the Parish-Churches, as applied by them to all Psalms, even those wherein there is no variety of matter, nor different persons introduced as speaking in 'em, is unscriptural, and generally scarce agreeable to common reason, or to the rule of decency and order, that where the sense is continued thro' several verses, it should be interrupted and broken, by being tossed between the Minister and People, just as in the Litany, the Minister and People make up the Prayer between 'em. So that this is another of the Bp's sort of human Inventions.  
The Bp. adds, Our Church praises God with 5 etc. and yet is deserted by you in this very point, as teaching for doctrines the Com-Commandments of men.  
Answ. If he means that some weak people may allege such reasons for their deserting the Established Church, because they think these unscriptural practices I have last mentioned, such superstitious commands of men as our Saviour speaks of, 7 Mat. 7. 'Tis indeed possible it may be true; for who can be responsible for all that injudicious people say? But I know none of the Non-conf. Writers that have condemned 'em as unlawful, or applied that Text to prove 'em so. But I must tell his Lp, That if any should pass this harsh censure on 'em, he is the only person I know of, that has furnished 'em with an Argument ad Hominem, which I know not how he can Answer. For what if they should reason thus, That way of Worship is displeasing to God, which is neither expressly contained in, nor warranted by the Examples of H. Men in Scripture, being one of the commandments of Men condemned by our Saviour, 7 Mark 7. but the way of Praising God with Psalms and Hymns without singing 'em and of using Responses in all Psalms, is neither expressly contained in the H. Scriptures, nor warranted by the Examples of H. Men therein, and yet 'tis the general Practice of all the Parish-Churches E— The first Proposition is entirely his own; The second I have proved in these Remarks, and showed that his Instances to the contrary signify nothing to his purpose, let himself therefore look to the Conclusion.  
And as he has so palpably misrepresented matters on his own side, so he has done it much more foully on the Dissenters. Concerning whose practice his words are.  
Whereas you who only Praise him in a piece of a Psalm of a few verses, and in a method of your own finding out, persuade yourselves that you keep the ordinances of God pure and unmixed from human Invention.  
Answer. I desire his Lp. when he is pleased to examine these matters over again to give us some reason why he so confidently tells us, that the Dissenters only praise God in a piece of a Psalm. Does he not know that public Thanksgivings without vocal melody, are a Scriptural way of praising God, and most expressly enjoined for that end, as a stated part of the Worship of Christian Assemblies, 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. and mentioned as their constant Practice, 1 Cor. 14 16? And does he not know that such solemn Thanksgivings are a stated part of the Worship of Dissenters? He cannot pretend Ignorance of this, when he has so diligently Read the Directory, out of which I have quoted him, the heads of such Thanksgivings; and if he compare 'em with the patterns of Apostolical Thanksgivings I mentioned before, he'll find they are exactly drawn after their excellent Copy. Nor could he be Ignorant that the Directory enjoins such Thanksgivings to be constantly joined with the Prayer before, or after Sermon, (as the New Testament also directs us to offer 'em up together) unless he read it with so partial an eye, as to overlook its excellencies, and only spy its defects. And I must add, that the practice of Dissenters in this part of public Worship to the utmost of my observation, is very conformable to this Rule of the Directory. So that his Lp. is obliged to do us right, by rectifying this palpable mistake concerning this part of our Worship, and would do well to understand our Worship better before he undertake to represent it with so confident pretences to impartiality.  
I would here only subjoin, That such solemn Thanksgivings as these, are undoubtedly of God's appointment. For if he pretend, that they are not offered in any words that God has immediately dictated (as he tells us, their Church praises him in his own words). I answer, That cannot be justly imputed to us as a fault, unless God had been pleased to dictate such Forms of Thanksgiving to us; which if he can show us, he will make the happiest discovery that ever man yet did, and such a one as will soon end all our Debates about this matter. But I am afraid he must bring a new Bible for that purpose; for I can find no such in that we have. And indeed if God had provided such Forms of Thanksgiving for the Christian Church, What need were there of any human Liturgy for this ordinary part of our Worship? What need those few Collects of Thanksgiving (and indeed too few, and too defective) which occur in the Common-Prayer-Book? Or how could any on this supposition excuse their Arrogance in adding to the Forms God has already prescribed, or annexing those that are of human Composure to those that are of divine? But I hope he'll pretend no more to produce any such. For as to the Psalms, I have showed him before that they were never intended for such Forms of Thanksgiving to the Christian Church; whose Praises, if confined to the matter of 'em, would be extremely defective, and unanswerable to the Christian Institution, which so far transcends the Mosaical Oeconomy.  
For what his Lp. saith of the Dissenters praising God only in a piece of a Psalm of a few verses, and in a method of their own finding out, I shall only add to what I have already suggested, the following Remarks.  
1. That I think the Dissenters sing as much, and usually much more of the Psalms of David every Ld's-day, than they do in the Parish-Churches. In most they sing 'em thrice, in some four times. Nor do I know of any obligation laid upon us to sing a whole Psalm every time, especially the longer ones, and the shorter they often sing whole.  
2. That though our method of singing 'em in metre require something of human skill to adapt 'em for that use, yet 'tis no more than what those Scriptures warrant, nay plainly oblige us to, that require our singing 'em jointly in public Assemblies, and to do it in a way most conducive to Edification.  
His Lp. indeed tells us, That he takes it for granted, that he Apostles and primitive Christians praised God in prose, and that metre and rhyme are, for aught appears, of human Invention. But is it not strange that his Lp. should confound those two ways of Praising God, which the New Testament so clearly distinguishes? That they praised God with Thanksgivings in Prose, is unquestionable; but that they praised God in prose Psalms, is, as I have shown him, highly improbable. For as in some Psalms there is plain evidence of metre, so we have great reason, from the testimony of Josephus to judge the same of the rest. And therefore his conceit that the Spirit of God gave no gifts for composing Psalms in verse, in opposition to the Heathens, who wrote their Prophecies and Hymns in verse, is a mere invention of his own: For as there is so clear proof that some of the Psalms were inspired in verse, and so great probability the rest were, so many judicious Expositors do conclude the quite contrary, from 1 Cor. 14.26. where Psalmestry seems to be intended as one of those extraordinary gifts; And 'tis far more probable that the Spirit of God by enjoining the singing of Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, did intent to rescue so noble a thing as Poetry from its wretched abuse by the Heathen Priests, that it might be consecrated to the service of God in his Temple, and become an incentive and help to true Devotion. So that our way of using Psalms is far more clearly of God's Appointment, because more conformable to his particular direction for singing 'em, and to his general Rules of doing it to Edification, than theirs wherein they differ from us, as when they are among them only said not sung, or sung in prose, not in metre, and that only by the lesser part of the Congregation.  
So what upon the whole, I cannot see the least reason why the Dissenters should in this point be afraid of the Judgement of God, to the Rules of whose Gospel this part of their devotions is so exactly conformed; or why they should be ashamed to appeal herein to the judgement of all unprejudiced men. Nay, I hope they may venture to appeal to his Ep's own judgement, when he is at leisure to review this matter, and correct his own unhappy mistakes about it.  
I shall therefore conclude this Chapter with a few Remarks on some passages that occur in his 2d and 3d Section; As,  
1. I see no reason why his Lp. should think the force, vigour, and loftiness of the Psalms any more lost in a metre than in prose-translation p. 19th.  
'Tis true indeed, the metre-translation of Hopkins and Sternhold is but ill done, so is that prose-translation which the Common Prayer Book still uses. And it seems an unreasonable humour to retain both, when there is both a prose and metre-translation far more unexceptionable. The metre-version commonly called the Scots, is far better than that used in the Parish-Churches. Barton's exceeds that, and Mr. Patrick's (if he had not taken too great a liberty of paraphrasing) excels both; and I doubt not, if a judicious person would undertake the work, 'twere easily possible to have a metre-version that would exceed the prose in all these advantages; And such a one would be of extraordinary use to raise the devotion of the people in this part of divine Worship.  
2. The Bp. tells us, p. 21. that we have a command to translate the Psalms which supposes into prose (because the Original is so) but none to turn 'em into metre, etc. Now if, on the contrary, the Original was composed in metre (as I have showed to be most probable) then, by his own Argument, the command to translate 'em, supposes it must be done into metre, because the Original is so. And therefore the Bp. has in that and the following page, not only groundlessly supposed the true sense of David's Psalms, when turned into metre, to be none of God's word, but has on that account unreasonably excluded 'em from being any substantial part of God's Worship, and speaks slightly of 'em, as if they were intended for little better than a pleasing diversion and amusement. Now if he really believe what he saith, I think he should in all reason warn the People against their present Practice. For 'tis certain they do by singing 'em in time of public Worship, intent 'em as a substantial part of it, and will be surprised to find this use of 'em censured as an human Invention; whereas if on the contrary the singing 'em in Metre be most conformable to scriptural Precept and Pattern, and bare saying 'em dissonant from both, the Bp. can never excuse himself on his Principles from thus preferring one of his human Inventions to a Divine Institution.  
As to the imperfect way of singing the Psalms by reading every line, 'tis indeed a defect, but such as we must be forced to condescend to, unless we could prevail with all our People to get Psalm Books and learn to Read, or to commit 'em to memory.  
3. I wonder why his Lp. should charge the Dissenters with asserting Responses, in public Worship to be unlawful, p 23. If he allege the idle talk of some weak people to that purpose, is it Ingenuous in him to mention that as the general Opinion of Dissenters? What if we should in Retaliation pick up all the weak and foolish censures of those of his Communion and charge 'em on the Conformists in general? would he take this well? If not, why does he forget our Saviour's Rule, not to do others what he would not they should do to him, 6 Luke 31. But as it is sufficient to justify our disuse of Responses that we have neither Precept nor Example for their being used in a Christian Church, so he has the least reason to blame any weak Dissenters for censuring 'em as unlawful, since he has put the most dangerous Argument to Prove 'em so into their mouths, and if I did not know his Principle to be erroneous, I should join with 'em in that censure.  
As to Church-music, I shall only add, That what is commonly used in the Cathedrals, seems at least to be very suspicious, and hardly consistent with the Rules of the Ap. 1 Cor. 14 11, 15, 26. which I mentioned before; and this sort of Music has indeed been severely censured by many Protestant Divines at home and abroad, nay by many Papists themselves, who confess it to be unknown in the Church in its purest Ages, and but a late invention, which those that trace it the farthest, refer no higher than Pope Vitalian's time about the year 690, but others make it of a much later date; Aventinus, and Anoimus in their Histories mention Organs as a Rarity never seen in France or Germany before the 7th. Century; Nor were they in general use in Aquivas 
* Aq. Sec. 2dae Q. 91. Art. 2. ad. 4.  his time, as Cajetan observes upon his so freely declaring his judgement against 'em. Even Erasmus himself (who, though he favoured the Reformation, yet was cautious and slow enough in his advances towards it) could not forbear to complain of this in the Romish Church as an abuse, which he thought needed to be reformed, as both unsuitable to the gravity and solemnity of Christian Worship, and needlessly expensive, by introducing a crew of chargeable creatures into the Church, to no good purpose, or rather to an ill one. His words on 1 Cor. 14. are these, Operosam quandam & theatricam Musicam in sacras aedes induximus, tumultuosum diversarum vocum garritum, qualem non opinor in Graecorum aut Romanorum Theatris unquam auditum fuisse. In hunc usum magnis salariis aluntur puerorum greges, quorum aetas in perdiscendis hujusmodi gannitibus consumitur. Tantis sumptibus oneratur Ecclesia ob rem pestiferam, etc. We have brought a cumbersome & theatrical Music into our Churches, a confused noise of many voices, such as I think was never heard in the Greek or Roman theatres. For which purpose whole Troops of Boys are maintained at great charge, whose time is wasted in learning this Gabbling. Such expense is the Church burdened with for a thing that is but mischievous, etc. I would therefore advise his Lp. to be more cautious of censuring their Opinion, (who make such Music in the Worship of God unlawful) as against nature and Scripture, and on that account a dangerous superstition and encroachment on Christian liberty. For as to the Scripture, it has certainly no foundation there in any precept or example that concerns us Christians; and sure he does not imagine that the light of Nature dictates such Music in the Worship of God, for than he must make it more necessary than he himself pretends to do. And it looks more like superstition, according to his own notion of it, to introduce such Music into the Church without any scriptural ground; And he may be sure, the Dissenters are not the more fond of it for being one of Pope Vitalian's inventions, and retained among us in conformity to the practice of the Romish Church. I confess if any use of Organs be allowable, 'tis that in the Parish-Church of directing the people into the Tune of the Psalms they sing, and 'tis on that account chief that the Reverend Mr. Baxter thinks 'em lawful and allowable. But as this very use of 'em is certainly destitute of any scriptural precept or pattern obligatory to us Christians; so however others may entertain a more charitable opinion of 'em, yet the Bp, if he will be consistent with himself, must condemn 'em as a human Invention, and (to use his Countreymen's phrase) must turn the Whistles out of the Kirk.   

Remarks on the Second Chapter concerning Prayer.  
AND here according to his Lp's method we must consider,  
1. The Directions of the H. Scriptures in reference to this part Religious Worship, Of which it will be necessary to give a fuller and more exact account than his Lp. has done, and to show how far I agree with, or descent from that he has given. And here I shall trace his steps, and consider what occurs to this purpose in the Old Testament and the New.  
First, for the Old Testament.  
I. I grant him that in some particular cases God did recommend to the Jews a Form of Words in their Addresses to him.  
Such a Form that Confession he mentions seems to be, which the people were to make when they entered into the Land of Canaan, upon their offering the first-fruits, 26 Deut. 3.5. Such a Form also, was the Prayer mentioned in the same Chapter, v. 13, 14, 15. which was to be presented by him that gave the third years tyths. And by the way it may be observed, that neither of these Forms related to the public Worship celebrated on their weekly Sabbath. Such a Form of Blessing I doubt not that mentioned, 6 Numb. 23. was. And 'tis highly probable that Form of words was repeated in the several Removes of the Ark, 10 Numb. 35.  
But then I must add, that for the other passages he alleges as Instances of Forms, They are either only directions as to the matter of Prayer, or no Instances of Forms at all, but rather of free, or (as he calls 'em) extempore-prayers.  
Thus 'tis not reasonable to understand the words of Joel, 1 ch. 14. 2 ch. 17. of any more than the Prophet's suggesting to 'em suitable matter of Complaint and Supplication; For sure he cannot imagine that the Prophet intended they should repeat only those few words when they were to sanctify a Fast, and call a solemn Assembly. If indeed the Prophet had made mention of a Liturgy they had already, and had charged 'em to add these words as a new Form to it, These instances had been something to the purpose; but since there's not the least intimation of any such thing, we can no more conclude these words to be intended for a stated Form, than those words formed into Petitions which Ministers often in their Sermons suggest to the people when they instruct 'em in the duty of Prayer; And I might on the same grounds say, That all the patterns of Prayer in the Directory are prescribed Forms. The same may be said as to the passage quoted from 14 Hos. 2. On which place Dr. Comber (from whom our Author seems to have transcribed the greatest part of this Section) very boldly tells us, 
Orig. and Use of Lit. p. 3d.  but on no other warrant then his own word, that God promised to heal their backslidings on their using that Form. It is enough to make us more suspicious of Forms when men turn 'em into Charms by attributing so great Effects to the use of 'em. But 'tis strange that his Lp. should imagine those words mentioned in that large Prayer of Solomon, 1 Kings 8.47. (We have sinned, we have done perversely, we have committed wickedness) to be a Form of Confession prescribed to the Jews, merely because the same words are repeated, in a very large Psalm mixed of Confession and Thanksgiving, viz. 106 Ps. 6. and in another different Confession of Daniel's 9 ch. 5? When not only, are these very words repeated in both those places with different additions to 'em, but those 2 larger Confessions are in quite different words. And the making use of these words of Solomon in each of 'em, is so far from proving a prescribed Form, that by the same Argument he may call all extempore-prayers Forms, because there are several Confessions and Petitions in 'em put up in scriptural Expressions. And yet his Lp. lays so great stress on this Instance, as to tell us with admirable confidence, That it appears from hence that they were not left arbitrarily to choice and discretion, though other words might be joined with 'em when there was occasion to enlarge or vary the Form.  
Answ. What did not the Penman of the 106 Ps. think himself left to his choice, when he enlarges Solomon's Confession that makes up but one verse into a Psalm that consists of 48 verse? And did not Daniel think himself left to his own choice, when though this large Confession in the 106 Ps. was prepared to his hands, yet he uses another of his own quite different from this, because more suitable to the sense he had of the present condition of the Jewish Church? So that these 2 Confessions, instead of being instances of Prayer by a prescribed Form, are plain instances of occasional and free, (or, as he calls it, Extempore)- Prayer.  
The same may be applied to those words, 106 Ps. 47. quoted from 1 Chron. 16.35. For sure the use of a few words recorded in one Psalm, in the composure of another, when all the rest of the Psalm in each is quite different, is but a very lame proof of a prescribed Form, and furnishes us rather with a stronger Argument to the contrary.  
So that the Bp. had better have confined himself to Dr. Comber's proofs, than add so impertinent ones as these, which make rather against him; And I wonder he omitted that very convincing one for the Antiquity of Liturgys, which the foresaid Dr. draws from the 4 Gen. 26. Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord.  
All then that can be inferred from what is granted him, is, That God did in some few cases prescribe to the Jews a Form of words, and when he did so, they were obliged to use it. So that this mode of Praying by a set Form of words, is not in general unlawful. And if this Concession will do his Lp. any service, he is welcome to it.  
II. I see not the least Evidence in the Old Testament of a stinted Liturgy prescribed by God to the Jewish Church, even as to their ordinary public Prayers.  
And if such a Liturgy be that which the Bp. intends to assert when he tells us, p. 25. That the Scriptures direct us to offer up our Prayers in a set and prepared Form of words, I must desire his Lp. to bring us better proof of it, than what he has alleged from p. 25. to p. 29. and I have here examined. To which he adds what I would now farther consider, That the whole Book of Psalms is a collection of Prayers of all sorts. And there are few of 'em, but what are most excellent Forms of Prayer, expressed in such pathetic, significant and moving words, that we have great reason to thank God for furnishing us with 'em, and which we can never hope to equal by any of our own invention, such as are the 4, 5, etc. On this Account they were used by the Jews as the constant service and Liturgy performed in their Temple, as we may gather from what I formerly quoted.  
Answ. Why he should call the whole Book of Psalms a collection of Prayers of all sorts, when the far greatest part of 'em are undoubtedly Praises, as distinguished from Prayers, I know not. That some Psalms consist much of Petitions, and consequently may be called Prayers, I doubt not. But then he should have considered that these Prayers are composed in the strain of Songs, and most probably in metre, and were designed to be sung, as appears concerning those he mentions, viz. the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th ' 9th, 10th, 12th; all of which (except the 10th that has no Title) are directed to the chief Musician, or expressly asserted to be sung. Now 'tis certain such Psalms of Prayer as are intended to be publicly sung, must be set forms; But there is no necessity that other ordinary Prayers should be such set forms that were never composed in that manner, nor designed for that use. And therefore 'tis strange that he should think the quoting the 2 Chron. 29. v. 30. a suffi●●ent or of, that these Psalm-prayers were used by the Jews as a constant Service and Liturgy performed in their Temple, if by Liturgy he means such prose-prayers as our Liturgy consists of, and about which we are now only concerned to inquire. For that Text speaks not one word of Prayers at all, but only of Praises, and if it had mentioned or included Prayers, it could refer to no other Prayers but such as were sung, which we all agree must be set forms. And these Psalm prayers the Bp. knows the D ssenters he opposes never scrupled. For they are useful to be sung for Instruction by those, who cannot offer 'em up as properly a prayer, because their condition and circumstances are no way like the Psalmists, when he composed 'em. But the Question is concerning prayers in the proper sense, such as are not songs, but composed in prose, and in the same style as our other ordinary requests are; for such are the prayers of the English Liturgy, and 'tis for such a Liturgy the Bp. is obliged to produce us some precept or pattern in the H. Scriptures And these Instances of psalm-prayers signify nothing to this purpose. Nor indeed do we among all the instances of public prayers recorded after the time of the Psalms being penned find one of these psalm-prayers used; But on the contrary, those that do occur are plainly free and conceived prayers, such as the present occasions of presenting 'em did draw from the devout minds of the pious supplicants. Of which I shall give some instances under the next head. I shall only add, That if the Bishop think these psalm prayers of H. David better for our use than any of human composu e, why does he not lay aside all the Collects of the Common prayer-book that are certainly of human Invention, and confine himself to the Psalter as his only Liturgy for prayer as well as praise? What can excuse his using worse, when he has better? Or rather why should he imagine 'em intended for forms of prose-prayer to us at all, any farther than David's devout expressions may be used so far as they suit our case, when the New Testament so largely instructs us to offer our prayers in so different a manner from that practised in the Old, particularly with a more express reference to J. C rist as our great Mediator of Intercession, nay when the Gospel more clearly furnishes us with suitable matter of Prayer, by that ●uller Revelation it brings of the divine Will to us.  
III. God was so far from confining the Jews to any stinted Liturgy, that most of the prayers, both private and public recorded in the Old Testament, are conceived or free prayers, without any set or prescribed Forms.  
Such were most of the private Prayers mentioned in the sacred History. What prescribed form had Abraham's Servant, when he so hearty prays, (24 Gen. 12, 13) for success in the errand on which his Master had sent him, to fetch a Wife for his Son Isaac, unless it had been composed for him by a spirit of prophecy? Abraham's prayer, 20 Gen. 17. was doubtless occasional and extempore. So was Jacob's for deliverance from his Brother ●sau, 32 Gen. 9 So are many of Moses on particular occasions of God's displeasure against the people, 32 Exod. 11, 12. etc. 31, 32, etc. No doubt Hannah's Prayer for Children was of this sort, and that too after she had obtained what she desired, 1 Sam. 1.10. 2 Sam. 1, etc. Such was Hezekiahs when visited with sickness, 38 Is. 3. And such was Nehemiah's, mentioned 1 ch. 4, 5, 6, etc. It were endless to produce all the particular instances of this kind; And 'tis plain these holy men would have been at a sad loss how to address themselves to God on such occasions, if they could not have prayed without a Book, or had been tied to set forms. But they needed no Prompter, when their necessities suggested arguments and expressions, and out of the abundance of the heart their mouths spoke.  
For Public Prayers there are no less clear Instances of such as were conceived or free, even after the Psalms of David were penned, which the Bp. imagines to have been the Jewish Liturgy. Such was that Excellent Prayer of Solomon's upon the Dedication of the Temple, 1 Kings 8.22. Such was that of Asa when that vast Ethiopian Host came against him, 2 Chron. 14.11. such was that of Jehosaphat on a like occasion, 2 Chron. 20.5. etc. That of Hezekiah in reference to Rabshekah's blasphemous Threats was an Instance of either private or public free Prayer, 36 Is. 15, 16. Of the same kind was Ezra's, 9 Ezra. 5, 6, 7. The Confession in Nehemiah 9 ch. 5, 6, 7. etc. is not taken from any precedent Form, but wholly new. And yet 'tis evident that in most of these cases those Holy Men might have made up Forms of Prayer for those occasions out of H. david's ' words in some of the Psalm prayers, but they chose rather to offer up such Prayers as the serious sense of their present case did suggest to 'em, and that made 'em ready suppliants to God for Relief, without the need of seeking out a prescribed Form for their purpose.  
Now as the Bp. may safely infer from God's having recommended a Form of words in Prayer in reference to some cases, that prayer by a set Form is not in itself unlawful, so I may much more infer from these more numerous Instances of free prayers, That our prayers according to the Examples of these H. Men, should be accommodated to our several particular occasions and necessities, and therefore 'tis so far from being unlawful, to use conceived or free prayers without any prescribed Form, that to tie up ourselves to such set and prescribed Forms will not ordinarily answer the frequent Calls which we have in the Providence of God to this holy Duty, by such various Emergency's as no set Forms can Exactly suit.  
Nay whereas the Bp. can infer no more from his Instances then that when God prescribes us a Form we should use it, and he approves our doing so, we may from these Examples last produced with equal reason infer, that we may use free prayer in those occasions, in which God has not prescribed us any such Forms; and that he does approve this way of addressing ourselves to him, with such Prayers as the feeling of our own necessities and consideration of our particular case does prompt us to offer.  
I shall only add, That if there be no Evidence of such a stinted Liturgy in the Jewish we can much less expect any proof of one in the Christian Church, because such a Liturgy if necessary at all, was much more so under the Old Testament, when there was not such an abundant Effusion of the H. Spirit in his Graces and Gifts as now under the New. Nay if the Jewish Church had no stinted Liturgy prescribed by God, much less had any uninspired men any power given 'em to prescribe one, and confine all public Administrations to Forms of their own Composure. But this will lead me to consider the Directions.  

Secondly, Of the New Testament.  
And here I shall first consider those 2 things the Bp. insists on, and then shall propose some farther account of the directions that occur in reference to the mode of Praying in this part of the H. Scriptures.  
I. I shall consider those 2 things the Bp. insists on in favour of Praying by prescribed Forms,  
1. I think it (says he) certain that our Saviour and his Apostles prayed by a Form, for they joined in the Worship of the Temple and Synagogues, which consisted in Psalms, as I have already showed, and in some certain Forms of Prayers added to 'em, and constantly used in their daily service, as we learn from those that give an Account of the Jewish Worship at that time. Now our Saviour and his Apostles being frequently present at their service both in the Temple and Synagogues, 'tis manifest they approved their manner of addressing themselves to God by set Forms, p. 30. 31.  
Answ. That our Saviour and his Apostles prayed by a Form when they used the psalm prayers, there is no doubt, and so do all those that sing 'em. That there was a stinted Liturgy besides, or a collection of Forms of prose-prayer to which the public Administrations were confined to the exclusion of occasional free Prayer, the Bp. has no where proved; and the contrary is far more probable from many instances of such free-prayer in the Old Testament, which I have before alleged. Nay, should we, to oblige his Lp, grant him, that some forms of prose-prayer were ordinarily used in the Jewish Worship (though we must do it on the uncertain credit of Rabbinical Writers, whose testimony is of little value, and not on the testimony of the H. Scripture) yet I see not how the Bp. can make any more of this, than that our Saviour thought it not unlawful to join in such public forms of prose-prayer, but it will by no means follow, that he preferred such public forms before free-prayers, and designed by his practice to recommend the former to the Christian Church to the exclusion of the latter. (For as I shall show him anon, there are strong presumptions to the contrary) And yet unless his Lp. could draw this Inference from our Saviour's and the Apostles practice, I see little service it can do him. Nay I fear, if the Argument from our Saviour's and his Apostles practise herein be urged so far, it will prove much more than those intent who use it. For it will prove that we ought in imitation of their example, to retain and adhere to that Liturgy which these Gentlemen pretend the Jews had, (and which they tell us they can yet produce the particular parts of), to whose forms of Prayer Dr. Comber tells us, that our Saviour added his, and was herein so afraid of Innovation as to take every sentence out of the jewish Forms then in use 
* Orig. of Lis. p. 6. ; If so, why is not this jewish Liturgy still used by us? If we must have a stinted Liturgy, such a one were most unexceptionable, as we are sure our Saviour approved by joining in? Why then should ordinary Pastors presume to frame Liturgys of their own, and use that liberty in composing 'em, which our Saviour was too modest to allow himself? And why should they impose so many forms on others, when our great Master imposed but one, and such a one as he borrowed the very sentences of from the Forms then publicly used. So that these Gentlemen should, if they will be consistent with themselves, plead for laying aside our Liturgy, and using that old one which Dr. Lightfoot has so happily retrieved for us out of the Jewish Rabbins. I would therefore advise 'em to use this Argument from the practice of the Jewish Church in our Saviour's time (about which we are at the best but very uncertain) with great tenderness and caution, lest they overdo with it, and lest the jewish Liturgy instead of under propping the Common-Prayer-Book, undermine and throw it down.  
2. He tells us, p. 31. That our Saviour has put this matter out of all dispute with impartial men, by prescribing a Form to his Disciples, when they desired him to teach them to pray as John did his Disciples. For we find his way of teaching 'em was not by directing 'em to wait for the impulses of the Spirit and immediate Inspiration from God, of what they were to offer up to him; We do not find him saying, When ye pray speak what shall then come into your minds, or what shall be given you in that hour, without taking thought about what they should say, etc. But here is an express command of Christ to his Disciples to use these words when they pray.  
Answ. His Lp. has a very happy faculty of arguing matters of Dispute before he state 'em, For indeed the stating 'em might chance to spoil all the force of his Arguments; and therefore he generally thinks it more adviseable to let that alone. He tells us, Our Saviour has put this matter out of all Dispute with impartial Men by prescribing a Form to his Disciples. What matter of Dispute does his Lp. mean? Is it whether a form of Prayer be lawful? Or is it, whether our Saviour has prescribed a stinted Liturgy to the Christian Church in their public Administrations, or whether he has commissioned Ordinary Pastors to prescribe and impose such a Liturgy, and confine others to the use of it? Or whether he in general enjoins us to pray only by a Form, or not ordinarily without one? If he mean the first, (whether a Form of Prayer be lawful?) That's no matter of Dispute at all, between the Dissenters and the Established Church, for as I shall show him anon, there is never a Meeting in which they do not use one, and there are many in which this particular form of prayer is constantly used. So that if this be all he would prove he may spare his labour, though perhaps his Arguments for this are not altogether so convincing and solid as he imagines. If the Question be, (whether our Saviour has prescribed a stinted Liturgy to the Christian Church?) as one would think it should, What signifies his prescribing this single form, to the proof of it, unless the Bp thinks our Liturgy should consist only of that one prayer, or could produce more forms prescribed by our Saviour to make up a Liturgy; And if he could do that, what will become of the Service-Book, What have we to do with that human Invention, when we have a Liturgy appointed and composed by our Saviour himself? If the Quest. be, (Whether our Saviour has commissioned the ordinary Pastors of the Church to prescribe and impose public Forms?) what does all he here alleges about this single form prescribed by Christ, signify to prove any such thing, when he can produce no such commission, nor the least shadow of it in all the New Testament, nay when the Rules of it about Prayer seem rather inconsistent with any such Commission (as I shall show him anon)? If the Quest. be, (Whether our Saviour in general enjoins us to pray only by a form, or not ordinarily without one?) what does any thing his Lp. has alleged signify to the right determination of this Question? If he design to prove that Christ by prescribing this form, has enjoined in general our Praying only by a set form and never otherwise, (as one would think his following words would import, when he tells us, That our Saviour's teaching 'em was not by directing 'em to wait for the impulses of the Spirit, and immediate Inspiration from God of what they were to offer up to him; We do not find him saying, when ye pray, speak what shall come into your minds, or what shall be given you in that hour without taking thought about what they were to say), he knows well enough his Argument is no way conclusive; For he himself owns that God has not forbidden all extempore prayers, nay owns that some occasions require the use of 'em in public, and that in such cases a man may depend on the assistance of God's Spirit when he has not-time to reduce his desires into form before he offers 'em, p. 54, 55. He cannot therefore, without contradicting himself, pretend that our Saviour, by prescribing this form, intended to exclude all extempore or free prayer. Nor is there any force in the Argument to prove that our Saviour intended to oblige us ordinarily to pray by a form, because he once prescribed one as a comprehensive summary of our desires. For his general Rules (as I shall observe anon) do far more directly favour and countenance free prayer, than this one instance does the use of forms, especially of forms imposed by others, about which the main dispute lies. And what he has here offered to confirm it, signifies nothing to the purpose; or if it did, would prove too much. For our Saviour may teach men the way of free prayer, without directing 'em to wait for the Impulscs of the Spirit and immediate Inspiration from God, since none pretend to such impulses and immediate inspiration as necessary in order to it. He himself owns, that in cases of necessity we may depend on the assistance of the Spirit to pray extempore, and yet he does not, I hope, mean we may expect such immediate inspiration. Nay, our Saviour may advise us to free prayer without telling us, We must speak what comes into our minds, or shall be given us in that hour, without taking thought what we are to say, For free prayer is so far from excluding serious premeditation, that no man should use it, especially in public, without it, unless in cases of absolute necessity. Nay, if this reason signified any thing, it would prove too much, that we are never to pray extempore at all, because we have no ground even in cases of necessity to expect such immediate Inspiration. And here I would once for all, caution his Lp. against that common mistake he seems to run into, as if we imagined the assistance of the H. Spirit in Prayer to lie in immediately dictating our words to us, Whereas we no more expect that in Prayer than in Preaching. For we suppose this Gift of Prayer to be a common gift. And though we have known many private Christians, whose natural parts in all other things are but weak and low, endued by the Spirit of God with a considerable measure of this Gift, as the fruit and reward of their diligence in this duty, Yet we doubt not that many natural Endowments, as readiness of apprehension, copiousness of fancy, tenderness of affection, fluency of expression may contribute much to dispose a man for greater eminency in it; Nor do we think the assistance of the H. Spirit in this duty altars that style or way of expression that nature or custom has habituated men to. So that the H. Spirit is no more accountable for the indecent expressions of good men in Prayer than in Preaching, though we may expect his help both in our endeavours to acquire abilities and gifts for these duties, and in the exercise of 'em.  
But before I dismiss what he hath said in reference to this Prayer of our Lord, I shall subjoin the following Remarks thereon.  
1. If it shou●● b● granted that our Saviour gave this as a Form of Prayer to his Disciples, and intended it for the perpetual use of his Church, yet no more can be inferred from thence than our obligation to use that particular 〈◊〉 For if he had intended our ordinary use of other Forms, 'tis reasonable to suppose he would have prescribed 'em himself, or commissioned his Apostles to do so, or instructed them to leave some orders with other ordinary Pastors to have composed 'em.  
2. Many learned men that do allow the Lord's Prayer to have been a prescribed Form, do not think it designed for the perpetual use of the Church, but only for a temporary Form.  
To this purpose they observe that the three first Petitions [Hallowed be thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, etc.] seem to be chief calculated, both to the doctrine which Christ as well as John delivered concerning the Kingdom of God being at hand, and to the expectation the pious Jews then generally entertained of the Messiah's Kingdom being publicly set up in the world; They observe farther, that in the Petition for forgiveness of sins, There is not the least mention made of the sacrifice, the death, or blood of Christ, in virtue whereof we must now sue for pardon; whereas our Saviour after his Resurrection and Ascension is every where proposed, as our Highpriest, Mediator, Intercessor and Advocate, of which there is no notice taken in this Form. And hence they suppose that 'tis on this account that our Lord long after the delivery of this Form tells his Disciples, 16 Joh. 24. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my Name, and therefore he requires 'em now to ask the Father in his Name, and assures 'em he will grant their Petitions. And accordingly they observe that the Doxologys' mentioned in Scripture after our Saviour's Ascension, lead us directly and expressly to ascribe our Praises to God by Christ, or in his Name, of which there is not the least hint in that used in the Ld's-Prayer. Whence they conclude it to be chief suited to the state of the Disciples of Christ, while under his personal Ministry on Earth, in which the principal mysteries of the Gospel that depended on his Death, Resurrection and Ascension were not yet so clearly revealed. And the more some labour to prove these Petitions taken out of some Jewish Forms, the more do they strengthen this Opinion, That this Form was no farther intended for our ●●se than as a Pattern in respect of the things prayed for, but was ●ot so much as to be a Pattern in respect of the manner of praying. In which respect 'tis most reasonable to suppose our manner ●f praying should greatly differ from that of the Jews, particularly by being offered up in the name of Christ.  
I do not give this opinion as my own, but propose it to his Lp's. consideration, to allay that confidence wherewith he asserts so positively our obligation to the constant use of the Lords Prayer; for which I do not see any thing so Plausible and Probable produced ●y him, as the Authors of this Opinion allege in favour of it. For ●e tells us without any limitation that we are particularly Commanded whenever we pray, to use this Prayer. For which Assertion I can ●ee no show of Proof. Nor can I reconcile it to those many Instan●es of Prayer recorded in the New Testament, in none of which do we Read of this being used. Nay I do not think his Lp. or any Man else supposes himself obliged to use the Lords Prayer always; ●e pray whenever we crave a Blessing on our food, But does his Lp. always use the Lords Prayer on that occasion? So that we must be cautious of stretching our Saviour's words too far; For if we should take 'em in their most strict sense, we should never offer up any other Prayer but that at all.  
3. The compilers of the Directory seem to give the most fair and just Account of the Lords Prayer, viz. That it was chief designed as a perfect Pattern, but may also be conveniently used as a Form of Prayer.  
That 'tis a perfect Pattern his Lp-will not deny, and the admirable method and order as well as the comprehensiveness of its Petitions show it be so as to the matter of Prayer. And the words of our Lord seem to recommend it also as a fit Compendium and Summary of our Desires. Tho that it was so strictly intended for a Form as that all alteration of the words in it should be so dangerous as the Bp. suggests, I do not see. And 'tis strange he should no better ward off the common objection against this conceit, viz. That the words of the Prayer are not the same in the 2 Evangelists. For though we should allow him that trespasses and debts are the same in the Syriack, yet sure he cannot be ignorant that not only are the words different in the 4th. Petition, but what is more material, the Doxology is left out in the Evangelist Luke, where our Saviour's words seem more express for the use of this Prayer. Nay 'tis pleasant that his Lp. should, to aggravate the danger of altering the words, compare it to the danger of altering those of our Creed, p. 35. As if he did not know, that the words of it have been frequently altered, that no writer in the 3 first Centuries has the Creed (called the Apostles) in the same words that we have now, and that the Forms we meet with in Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and Gregory Neocaesar are all in different words, nay in some Forms several Articles are inserted that are not in others, Nay in the Creed as we have it, no doubt the Article of Christ's descending into Hell should be altered as to the words of it, because we do not commonly take Hell for the invisible state which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was designed to express. I confess 'tis something more formidable when he compares the danger of altering the words in the Lord's-Prayer to that of changing the word given by the General in a Battle, p. 35. Tho where the wit or sense of the comparison lies, I cannot imagine, unless his Lp. thinks the bare words of that Prayer to be as frightful to the Infernal Fiends as some crafty Priests have pretended the Name or Psalter of the Virgin Mary is, but apprehends those our spiritual enemies will resume their courage if we make the least change in 'em.  
I shall only add here, That his Lp. has not produced any other instance of a prescribed Form of Prayer in the New Testament besides this; He does indeed, p. 50. tell us, That Christ in his Agony repeated a verse of the 22d Psalms, and as some believe (says he) the whole Psalm, by which Act he recommends to us Forms of Prayer with his dying breath, as the most proper means of expressing our condition to God, and as most suitable to the divine Majesty. To which I shall only return this brief Answer, That his Lp. would have done well, first to have told us, what grounds any have to believe that our Saviour repeated the whole Psalm, and if he did not, how the repeating one verse of it so applicable to his present case, should be a proof of his using a form of Prayer at all, and much more how it should prove his recommending such forms to us with his dying breath, etc. As if a man might not in a free prayer, choose out and apply some scriptural expressions to his own case. Indeed the words he quotes are not properly a Prayer at all, and if they were, look altogether as like an instance of occasional free-prayer, so that if I would argue at this lose rate, I might with as good reason pretend that our Lord recommended extempore-prayers with his dying breath, etc.  
II. The Bp. has not produced the least evidence of Christ's enjoining or recommending to Christian Churches the use of stinted Liturgys even as to the ordinary public Prayers which they are to offer up.  
So that though the same matters of Prayer constantly occur in that duty when publicly offered especially in the celebration of Baptism and the Ld's-Supper, yet neither does our Saviour nor his Apostles prescribe any stated forms for 'em. Whereas if our Lord had judged 'em so necessary, or so highly useful as some pretend, Nothing could have been more conducive to have fixed the use of 'em, and prevented all corruptions in 'em, as well as scruple about 'em, than to have furnished the Church with a Divinely inspired Liturgy. Nay, what is more considerable, Christ and his Apostles content themselves with giving us general commands to pray, and with all prayer and supplication for all men, etc. but never gave the least order to the Pastors of the Church to compose forms of Prayer for public Worship, in those Churches that were planted and settled under the care of ordinary Teachers, who had not the same immediate Inspiration as the Apostles themselves. Does not this plainly imply that they took not such an imposed Liturgy to be necessary to the Church's Edification and Peace? but rather supposed that the ordinary occasions of public Prayer were too various and different to be confined to such set and prescribed forms? If it be pretended, there was no need of their prescribing such Forms when the Jewish Liturgy was still extant and used, I answer, That (not to repeat what has been objected against the pretensions of a stinted Liturgy among the Jews). I hope none can imagine that a Jewish Liturgy could be suitable to the Christian Oeconomy after our Saviour's Ascension, in the Christian Churches that were planted by the Apostles. So that if a Liturgy in general were necessary to the Christian Church, there was the greater reason why they should have substituted one in the room of the Jewish in the Churches they settled; Since than they no way so much as recommend such a Liturgy, but left even ordinary Pastors to the free exercise of their own abilities, in Prayer as well as in other parts of their public ministrations, We may with great probability infer that they judged it more conducive to Edification that the Pastors of Churches should use those ordinary gifts wherewith they were furnished for the performance of this duty without being tied up to any sett-forms; And accordingly those that have been most anxiously concerned to find out fixed and stinted Liturgys in the 3 first and purest Ages of Christianity, have but lost their labour, and have but trifled with us in their most confident pretences to discover such Liturgys. As appears by Mr. Clerkson's Discourse of Liturgys, and Mr. S B's Examination of Dr. Comber's Answer in his Scholastical History of the use of Liturgys.  
III. 'Tis evident, That the general Rules of Scripture cannot be duly observed by those that pray no otherwise than by a set Form of Words.  
They command us to pray with all Prayer and Supplication, and for all men, In every thing to make known our Request to God, 6 Eph. 18.— 4 Col. 6.— 1 Tim. 2.1, etc.  
Now 'tis evident there is a vast variety of occasions and emergencies in which we should apply ourselves to God by Prayer, which it cannot be expected any prescribed Forms should exactly suit. This is most obvious in our Closet-prayers. There is scarce any one day in which we have not some occasion to vary our Requests. There are some particular failings we have occasion particularly to confess, renounce, and implore divine Aid against; Or there are some particular duties which we need to beg direction and assistance for the discharge of. So that our own meditation every day must suggest to us the most proper matter of our addresses to God, and many requests suitable to our particular case must be excluded, if we confine our devotions to the set forms of others. So that such as are at present forced thro' their Ignorance, and inability to confine themselves to such Forms, are like lame People that cannot go without the help of Crutches; And for such so to sit down and satisfy themselves with their Book-prayer and prescribed Forms, as to go no farther, would be (to use the significant expressions of the excellent Bishop Wilkins) as if a Man who had once need of crutches should always afterwards make use of 'em, and so necessitate himself to a continual Impotency. Nay the Bp. himself could not but own that the use of conceived prayers is founded on that general Rule of Scripture, which Commands us to ask of God what we lack, p 56. But then he groundlessly adds the following words which 'tis most proper I should consider in this place. viz. of this Rule our own Prudence makes the Application in such extemporary occasions, but when we set up this human Application of this general Rule in opposition to that particular manner of ask Commanded by God, and Practised by H. Men, which is by set and premeditated Forms, in the ordinary Worship of God, and turn God's way out of his worship to make room for one of our own, This is to displace a particular Command of God on pretence of guiding ourselves by a general one; In which we are not only more liable to mistakes, but we fail of paying due respect to God's directions. For general Commands only take place in such Cases where God has not laid down a Particular Rule.  
Answ. His Lp. here very Prudently takes for granted what he has no where Proved, that God has given a particular Command to the Christian Church to Pray in all ordinary cases by set and premeditated Forms. But has he brought any other Proof of this than that Christ once Recommended one comprehensive Pattern or Form? And does he think this amounts to a Command that we should in all ordinary cases use Forms, when there is not one tittle to that purpose in the H. Scriptures and Particularly in the New Testament; when there are no such Forms given us by God, nor the least Direction who should compose 'em for us? If we should allow him that the Lords Prayer is prescribed as a Form that must be constantly used in Private and Public Worship (which he neither has, nor indeed can any man Prove) yet all that he could infer thence, were, That we have a particular Command to use that Form; but it will by no means follow, that we have any such particular Command to use other human prescribed Forms in all our ordinary Prayers. So that to use free prayer in our ordinary Public Worship does not displace any particular command, nor turn God's way out of his Worship to make room for our own. For God has undoubtedly by this general precept obliged us to free-prayer, and has no way confined the use of it to extraordinary cases only, having no way recommended any set form to Christians, unless we take this comprehensive pattern of Christ's to be One, and if we do, that's the only one he has enjoined. So that I may more justly hence infer, That those turn God's way out of his Worship, who confine men in their public Administrations to such human sett-forms as God has no where enjoined the use of, by either general or particular precept, and are indeed in the Bp's sense only human Inventions; whereas those more exactly observe his directions, who use the only form which there is any appearance of his having prescribed to us Christians, but as to all other Prayers, use the freedom which God allows us when he enjoins no other Forms but this.  
iv It seems highly agreeable to the Wisdom of God, that the mode of praying with or without a form should be left so far undetermined as to confine us to neither way by any particular precept.  
And therefore he has only given us general rules relating to this duty, and one comprehensive either Pattern or Form, but has left us in the particular exercises of this duty to the determination of Christian Prudence, whether we shall use a sett-form or not. For there is no doubt, but that the ignorance and weakness of some may need such crutches, as sett-forms, especially when they pray with others; and therefore such helps are allowed 'em. And yet more grown and improved Christians should by their advancement in divine knowledge, by their frequent consideration of their own necessities, and by frequent exercise in this duty, endeavour to attain those Gifts that may set 'em above the need of those helps, and enable 'em to express their own sentiments and desires in Prayer to God on all emergent occasions, without running to other men's books and composures for that end. Especially Ministers should be furnished with such a Gift. And therefore God has not thought fit to hinder the exercise of, and improvement in such an excellent Gift, by prescribing to either People or Ministers a stinted Liturgy even in reference to the most ordinary occasions of Prayer.  
V For what his Lp. adds about the people's joining with the Minister in repeating of public Prayer, p. 36, 37, 38, etc. I shall only subjoin,  
1. That 'tis not denied that the people expressed their joining in the public Prayers in Christian Assemblies by adding their Amen to 'em, as appears from 1 Cor. 14.16. And if under the Old Testament they added to their Amen, Hallelujah, as 106 Ps. 48. or He is good, for his mercy endures for ever, 2 Chron. 7.3. It makes no great difference in the matter.  
2. Yet he has brought neither precept nor example from the New Testament of the people's Repeating the Prayer together with the Minister.  
For that passage, 4 Acts 24. proves no more than a consent of their minds (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to that Prayer which was then offered up. (And the same might be said of his instance out of the Old Testament, 21 Judges 2.) And here the Bp. very gravely obtrudes upon us a wonderful conceit of that Assembly being inspired, not only to think the same thing, but to utter the same words, p. 37, for which there is no necessity from the words, nor indeed any great probability. For the instance of Paul and Silas it has less weight in it. They might pray together, though one only spoke, and yet both use their voices in singing together. And as the Bp. himself observes, It might be a Psalm they sung including both matter of prayer and praise. Nor will it follow, that because they might sing a Psalm-prayer, that they might say a prose-prayer together. And 'tis strange that his Lp. should produce the 6 Rev. 9, 10, etc. as an example of people's joining their voices in public Prayer, because we read there of the souls of the Martyrs under the Altar crying with a loud voice, How long, O Lord, holy and true, etc. For sure he does not take crying with a loud voice in a literal sense, when spoken of departed souls that have none. If indeed he could prove that those souls had aetherial vehicles, and in those vehicles were furnished with organs of speech, this might be a notable argument to his purpose. But otherwise, That argument he uses, p. 40. from the people's saying Amen at the end of the Prayer, is better of the two, though how it will prove their repeating the whole Prayer, I know not: any more than how the people's joining with the Minister in singing will prove their joining in those Prayers that require no such use of their voice. For the Angels and Elders, 7 Rev. 11. I have shown him his mistake before. So that he is far from having brought any clear proof as he pretends, p. 40. to excuse their practice herein from being one of his own sort of human Inventions. And though I am more charitable than to take this advantage to arraign it as unlawful, yet I must confess I am not very fond of it; because it seems less suitable to the gravity and solemnity of Christian Worship, and brings in a confused noise in a Christian Assembly, too like that of a Dover court, where 'tis said all speak, and none hear.  
Having considered the Directions of the H. Scriptures concerning this part of Religious Worship, I come to examine the Application his Lp. makes of 'em to the principles and practice of Conformists and Dissenters. And,  
First, for the Principles of Dissenters, I shall give a true Account of 'em, and then consider that very strange one his Lp. has offered.  
. I I shall give a true Account of their Judgement as far as it can be taken, from their most judicious Writers on this subject, or the public proposals they have made in reference to these matters.  
1. Th●y always carefully distinguish between the Gift, and the Grace or Spirit of Prayer. By the Grace or Spirit of Prayer, they understand those inward holy desires and devout affections, which the H. Spirit forms and excites in the minds of good men, and which are the life and soul of our external Prayers. By the Gift of Prayer they understand, An ability of choosing suitable matter of Prayer, and offering it up to God in expressions fit to represent our inward pious desires and affections on all emergent occasions. This Gift they have always owned to be separable from the Grace of Prayer, Many that have the one being destitute of the other. So far are they from confounding these two distinct things, as the Bp. unhappily supposes 'em to do. This Gift of Prayer they suppose the effect of the divine blessing on our diligent study and meditation, and frequent exercise in this holy duty. As all other ordinary Gifts of the Spirit of God are. For they suppose the Gift of Prayer as well as that of Preaching capable of falling under Rules for its attainment and exercise, and do accordingly highly approve of those which that Judicious Divine Bp. Wilkins has laid down in that excellent Discourse he calls his Gift of Prayer. That there is such a Gift his Lp. himself owns, p. 46. and p. 54. And I shall add under this Head, that there are very different degrees of this, as there are of all other Abilities and Gifts.  
2. They do indeed suppose that ordinarily all Ministers should be furnished with a competent measure of the gift of prayer (as well as that of Preaching) in order to their due discharge of this duty on that variety of occasions that occurs in their public ministrations and private visits. For as no prescribed Forms can possibly suit all such occasions, so to be incapable of assisting the devotion of their people in 'em, is they think a miserable defect in those whose office it is to give themselves continually unto Prayer, 6 Acts, v. 4. and who will but very lamely perform it without such abilities. And therefore Bp. Wilkins justly censures the want of it in them as their great fault and shame. 
* Gift of Prayer, p. 13.   
3. They do by no means suppose every good man to be endued with this Gift, much less with such a measure of it, as will qualify him to perform that duty in his Family without the help of Forms. And therefore they often urge such to the use of Forms in their Families as cannot without such helps keep up that duty in 'em without the hazard of exposing it to contempt. (Nor do they disallow all use of forms in secret Prayer itself; though they think it no way adviseable for Christians to confine themselves to 'em in their Closet-devotions, since they cannot do so without suppressing many desires suitable to their present condition; Nor can their want of words be a just reason for their limiting themselves to such forms, since they are not needful in secret Prayer. Our very groans and sighs are a language our heavenly Father sufficiently understands). But yet they do suppose the want of this gift to be a great defect, and judge such a degree of it ordinarily attainable by continued diligence and exercise as is necessary to the suiting our Family-Prayers to our particular necessities, and therefore do urge those under their care to endeavour after it. And they do suppose that the H. Spirit is ready to assist good men in such endeavours, not only by exciting their devout affections, but by enlightening their minds to understand their spiritual necessities, by directing 'em in the matter of their Prayers, by bringing the promises of God to their remembrance, by strengthening and elevating their natural faculties to more vigorous exercise, by quickening their indisposed minds, and helping 'em against their manifold infirmities. And so much they think included in what the Apostle declares concerning the assistance of the H. Spirit in this duty, 8 Rom. 26. And herein they assert no more than the Reverend Bp. Wilkins has done before 'em, who not only affirms, That this Gift, if seriously endeavoured after, may be attained in some measure, by any one that has common capacity, p. 13. but speaks of such Christians as satisfy themselves with their Book-prayer, and go no farther as remaining still in their Infancy, p. 11. and recommends this gift even to private Christians from the Excellency of it, from its sutableness and necessity (as being part of our spiritual Armour, which 'tis as unbecoming a Christian to be defective in, as for a Soldier to be without skill in the use of Arms), from its special advantages and fruits (as enabling a man on all occasions to relate his condition, and suit his desires and expressions according to several emergencies), and from the inconveniences a man is exposed to by the want of it, (when being surprised with any sudden exigency or straight he knows not how to relate his condition, or bespeak God's assistance without having recourse to some prescribed Form, which perhaps has no proper reference to the particular occasion), p. 22, 23, 24. And I cannot better represent our judgement concerning these 2 different modes of Praying than in his excellent words. What one saith of Counsel to be had from Books, may be fitly applied to this Prayer by Book. That 'tis commonly of itself something flat and dead, floating for the most part too much in generalities, and not particular enough for each several occasion. There is not that life and vigour in it to engage the affections, as when it proceeds immediately from the soul itself, and is the natural expression of those particulars whereof we are most sensible. And if it be a fault not to strive and labour after this gift, much more is it to jeer and despise it by the name of extempore-prayer and praying by the Spirit, which expressions (as they are frequently used by some men by way of reproach) are for the most part the sign of a profane heart, and such as are altogether strangers from the power and comfort of this duty, p. 12.  
Thus far that learned and pious Bp. whose sentiments in this matter are, I perceive, very different from his Lp's.  
4. They are far from excluding premeditation in the exercise of this Gift of Prayer.  
On the contrary, they think it ordinarily necessary as to the matter of our Prayers; Nay, they do not exclude all premeditation as to words, any farther than the tying ourselves to a Form of 'em may shut out such suitable petitions as the Spirit of God may suggest to our minds in the fervour of our Devotions, which did not occur to 'em in our previous meditation. And therefore they think the name of extempore, and much more that of unpremeditated Prayers, very unfit to express those which they offer up according to such an ability and gift; For they suppose that such as pray with others, especially in public Assemblies, should prepare themselves for it by considering beforehand the particular cases and necessities of those that join with 'em. And against such Prayers I can find nothing in that Text he alleges, When thou goest to the house of God, be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God; For God is in Heaven, and thou upon Earth, therefore let thy words be few, 5 Eccles. 1, 2. For sure his Lp. cannot think they enjoin of Prayers by a prescribed Liturgy; For if we pray so, there's no need of this caution, that we should not be rash with our mouth, and that our w●rds be but ●ew, because it will not lie in our power to enlarge or contract what we say, when we confine ourselves to the words that others dictate to us. The Text does indeed properly refer to private vows in the house of God, but may by parity of reason be supposed to forbid our Praying without due premeditation, and multiplying our expressions without any suitable affections Which caution we account very necessary in all free-prayers, even in private, and much more in public ones. So that this place affords a much stronger Argument for Free-prayers than against 'em.  
5. They do not condemn all Forms of Prayer either in private or public as unlawful in themselves.  
They recommend such Forms to those whose inability renders such helps needful. Many of their practical writings propose such Forms to the ignorant and weak. The Westminster-Assembly expressly recommend the use of the Ld's-Prayer as a Form. Nay, the N● Ministers that treated with those commissionated by K. Charles the 2d. at the Savoy proposed a Reformed Liturgy, with some allowance of liberty to Ministers for free occasional Prayer, as a ground of accommodation. Of which I shall have occasion to take more notice in what follows.  
Having premised this just Account of the Dissenters Principles, I come  
II. To examine those which his Lp. ascribes to 'em, p. 43, 44, etc. which I shall do in his own words, lest I should be thought to wrong him as notoriously as he has done his Brethren. Speaking concerning their way of Prayer.  
I shall endeavour (saith he) to represent it with all fairness and impartiality, and leave you to judge as God shall direct you, and as you'll answer it at the last day.  
1. And here I find that some of your Writers are of opinion, that the Spirit of Prayer is given to all the children of God in some measure, for enabling their hearts to conceive, and their tongues to express convenient desires to God, and that therefore Forms of Prayer are of no necessary use either in public or private, on the contrary that they stint the Spirit, and hinder men from stirring up, or using that Gift that God has given 'em.  
2. Others of you go farther, and affirm that all Forms of Prayer are unlawful to Christians, and that therefore 'tis a sin to join in a Worship where they are used, or to be present at it.  
3. That the Minister is the mouth of the Congregation, and and that he only is to speak publicly to God in behalf of the people, and that they are not to join their voices but only their hearts with him.  
Upon these Principles you forsake our Worship, etc. And First, For that position of your Directory, that the Spirit of Prayer is given to all the children of God in some measure, for enabling their hearts to conceive, and their tongues to express convenient desires to God, I entreat you to consider, what promise or foundation it has in Scripture, etc. and in the same p. 45. This Doctrine is a mere Invention of men, and the Worship built on it a vanity in the sense of our Saviour, 7 Mark 7. This Principle his Lp. largely endeavours to confute from p. 45. to p. 53. where he calls it the great Principle of the Dissenters Worship, and tells the people, Now, my friends, it lies upon your Teachers who are of this persuasion, to produce plain Scripture for your Principles, or else to confess, etc. Again, p. 62. he falls severely on this poor Principle.  
Answ. I am afraid I shall much surprise his Lp. when I tell him that I can find no such Principle, nor indeed any thing like it either in sense or sound in the whole Directory. I would therefore entreat him to read it over once more, that he may oblige me with the account of the page where it lies; And I may the more reasonably request this favour of him, because he has put me to the trouble of reading it twice or thrice over on this occasion to no purpose. And I suppose the Reverend Compilers of the Directory gave him no commission to coin principles for 'em merely that he might have the satisfaction of confuting 'em. But I'll do him the Justice he has not done them, by acquainting the Reader, that upon a strict enquiry, I suppose his Lp. has mistaken some directions of a General Assembly in Scotland concerning secret and Family Worship, etc. printed there, A. D. 1647. for the Directory of public Worship published by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, A. D. 1644. And if I be in the right in this conjecture, I must add, that I could very easily forgive him this mistake, if he had used any sincerity in representing the judgement of that grave and pious Synod. But if it appear that he has obtruded upon 'em an Opinion which they no way assert, nay which the passage from whence he draws it is rather inconsistent with, than the best Apology he can make for himself, is to own his mistake, and to make 'em some reparation for so gross an abuse. And whether this be not the true Account of the matter, I leave the Reader to judge, when he compares the words of the Assembly with the Opinion the Bp. ascribes to 'em.  
In the  directions of that Assembly concerning secret and Family-Worship, p. 9 Direct. 9 are these words,  
So many as can conceive Prayer, aught to make use of that Gift of God, Albeit these who are rude and weaker may begin at a set Form of Prayer, but so as they be not sluggish in stirring up in themselves (according to their daily necessities) the Spirit of Prayer, which is given to all the children of God in some measure; To which effect they ought to be more fervent and frequent in secret Prayer to God, for enabling their hearts to conceive, and their tongues to express convenient desires for their Family.  
Now if these be the words his Lp. refers to, I would desire him to consider a little better, how he can deduce this principle out of 'em, viz. That the Spirit of Prayer is given to all the children of God in some measure, for enabling their hearts to conceive, and their tongues to express convenient desires to God, and as his Lp. adds, p. 53. without a Form. For the Bp. hereby supposes that this Assembly thought that the Spirit of Prayer was the Gift of Prayer, and that this Gift was in some measure given to all the children of God, to enable 'em to pray without a Form. And therefore what the Assembly calls stirring up in themselves the Spirit of Prayer, he explains by stirring up the Gift, p. 44. And accordingly his arguments against 'em, all run on this supposition, that they oppose praying by the Spirit to praying by a Form, and imagine the Spirit and Gift of Prayer to be the same thing, and accordingly he makes decency of expression a part of the Spirit of Prayer, p. 46.  
Now what can be more opposite to the words and scope of that Assembly? Do they not distinguish Christians into 2 sorts such as are more judicious and strong, and such as are more rude and weak? Is it not the former whom they suppose to have the gift of conceiving Prayer? And do they not suppose the latter to be at present destitute of that gift, and (as Bp. Wilkins expresses it) to need Forms as impotent people do crutches? they do indeed say the spirit of prayer, (i. e. a devout and praying disposition) is given in some measure to all the children of God. But they do not suppose therefore that all who have the spirit of prayer have the gift also, but the quite contrary. All that their words can be reasonably extended to import, is, That whereas there are manifold daily necessities of Christian Families which prescribed Forms cannot suit, 'tis a great infelicity to be unable to express our desires to God in those cases; And therefore such as labour under that impotency, should be earnest to beg of God such an ability and gift, so far as 'tis necessary for their due discharge of this duty to the edification and comfort of their Families; that they ought in order to the attainment of it to cherish the spirit of Prayer, i. e. those devout desires and affections which the spirit of God communicates in some measure to all his children, according to their various necessities, and which cannot but be greatly hindered and dampt when our inability confines us wholly to the use of Forms, which cannot suit the particular condition of ourselves and Families. And they suppose that such an ability to pray suitably to our particular necessities, is one of the ordinary gifts of the H. Spirit, which private Christians should beg of God, and have encouragement to hope for (so far as 'tis necessary to their compliance with his general commands of making known their requests to him in every thing) in the diligent use of such helps as they are furnished with, and frequent exercising themselves in this excellent duty. Their words also do imply, that the more we grow in a devout and praying disposition, the more easily may we attain some measure of that Gift, since out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and the more we feel our own spiritual necessities, the more easily does the pinching sense of 'em supply us with expressions and arguments in pleading with God for relief of 'em. And as this is all that can be drawn from their words without offering violence to 'em, so 'tis no more than (as I have shown him) Bp. Wilkins asserts, and if his Lp. have any thing to object against any of these Assertions which are genuinely deduced from their words, I shall be very glad to hear it; But for the Position he ascribes to that Assembly as laid down and expounded by him, 'tis his own, and not theirs; And therefore 'tis he is concerned to prove it, and seems not to deal so ingenuously as he should, in insulting so scornfully over his own man of straw. For all his grave Reasonings concern no avowed Principle of the Dissenters, and his discourse (from p. 46. to p. 57) on this head, is so far from being grateful and instructive to the Readers of all sorts, (as he imagines, p. 49) that it rather nauseates all judicious Readers to find his Lp. when he pretends to explain these matters, and set 'em in so clear a light, so miserably confound those 2 things, the Spirit and Gift of Prayer, which all accurate Writers on both sides so carefully distinguish, and must necessarily do so, unless they have a mind to fight with shadows, and contend in the dark without understanding one another. And therefore because he may despise our Instructions, I would desire his Lp. before he writes any more on this subject, to read the 3 first Chapters of Bp. Wilkins Gift of Prayer, which he will find wrote with admirable judgement, and much more grateful and Instructive than those crude and indigested Notions he has here offered.  
There are several passages in what he saith on this pretended Principle of the Dissenters, which I have elsewhere taken notice of, and shall only add, that whereas, p. 45. he tells us, There is no Command in Scripture requiring us to worship or pray to God in a conceived extemporary or unpremeditated Form, or so much as an example in a settled ordinary Congregation, where it was practised, I hope I have already said enough to satisfy an unprejudiced Reader, that God's commands, in reference to Prayer, do certainly enjoin free prayer, that there is not the least command to pray in general by set Forms, that there is no command for the use of any particular Form, unless the Lord's-Prayer, which yet is but doubtful; And that there are more examples of free prayer in Scripture, than of Prayer by prescribed Forms; That there is not the least evidence of any prescribed Liturgy used in the Apostles time, or in the 2 or 3 succeeding ages, and consequently there is great reason to conclude they used free prayer, or prayed in the exercise of their abilities and gifts; so that we have far more probable grounds to conclude prescribed Liturgies of human composure destitute of scriptural precept and example; And if his Lp. will on that account censure 'em as an human Invention, and a piece of vain Worship, he may use his liberty. For I shall satisfy myself with defending our own practice without such harsh Reflections of that of others.  
P. 50. His Lp. asserts without the least proof, That Moses, David, and our Saviour used Forms of Prayer. For the Instance that relates to our Saviour, it has been already considered.  
So when, p. 52. he should prove that H. men in Scripture reduced their Prayers into Forms before they offered 'em up in the Congregation, he does not produce one instance relating to Prayer in prose, about which the only dispute lies, much less does he produce any instance of their using Forms of such Prayers composed by other men, and those uninspired persons too.  
His Lp. having examined this first Principle he charges the Dissenters with, proceeds to the  
Second, That all Forms of Prayer are unlawful to Christians, and that 'tis a sin to join in a Worship where they are used, or so much as to be present at it.  
And this Principle his Lp. takes the pains to confute, from p. 57 to p. 65. I do indeed perceive that he was better advised than to quote any Writer among the Dissenters for this strange opinion. But since in his laborious confutation of it he all along supposes some considerable part of the Dissenters to be maintainers of it, I must freely tell his Lp. that unless he can produce some one Author at least that has asserted any such Principle, I must make bold to charge the breach of the 9th Command upon him, and hope he'll either produce us some testimonies of such as avow and maintain it, or do us the justice of retracting so gross a calumny. For my own part, I never yet met with any one person amongst either their Ministers or their people, that ever entertained so wild and unreasonable an Opinion. Nor indeed can they entertain it without plainly condemning their own continual practice.  
Does he not know that the Dissenters called Congregational as well as those called Presbyterian do every meeting dismiss the people with a Form of Prayer, I mean the Apostolical Blessing, The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the Communion of the H. Spirit be with you all, Amen, 2 Cor. 13. v. 14. And can he deny this to be a Form of Prayer, when the solemn Blessing among the Jews 6 Numb. 23. which Aaron and his Sons were ordered to pronounce, is one of his Lordship's chief instances of a prescribed Form of Prayer? So that if there be any Dissenters of the Opinion his Lordship attributes to 'em, they should renounce Communion with their own Churches, and much more with the Dutch and French Churches, among whom larger Forms are frequently used, which he knows they are far from doing, whatever others may have done, who so uncharitably unchurch 'em for want of Prelatical Ordination. I have already told him that the Directory recommends the Lord's Prayer as a Form, and such Forms of Prayer were drawn up for public use by the NC Divines at the Savoy in their Proposals for Accommodation, (and indeed the most unexceptionable ones I have yet seen, as consisting almost entirely of scriptural expressions); Nay even those who are most severe in condemning stinted Liturgys, do it not, because they think Forms of Prayer unlawful, but because they look on the confining all public Prayers to such prescribed Forms, as a pernicious Engine to exclude the exercise of that Ability or Gift with which all duly qualified Ministers are endued for Prayer as well as Preaching, nay to exclude many occasional requests which such set Forms could make no particular provision for. So that the whole of what he has said from p. 57 to p. 65. does no more concern the Dissenters than himself, and 'tis easy for his Lp. to triumph when he meets with no Adversary.  
And yet there are some things in his confutation of this pretended Principle very liable to exception. As to instance in two.  
1. Since it appears by the foregoing Remarks that God has no more commanded our Praying with a Form than without one, he should, if he had been impartial, have represented the contrary Opinion of the unlawfulness of free prayer, to be of altogether as dangerous consequence as that which he confutes, and he'll find that the best arguments he brings against the latter, are altogether as valid against the former. For that former Opinion would have divided men from the Communion of the whole Church in its first and purest Ages; And the forbidding free-prayer is attended with as many pernicious effects as the forbidding of Forms, and perhaps more, so that the Devil may have altogether as subtle and dangerous designs to drive on by seducing men to the one of these mistakes as to the other, Nay this Opinion of the unlawfulness of free-prayer may as much tend to flatter men with a good opinion of themselves, as if they discharged that duty sufficiently, when, like the Papists, they have run over their Beads; As the other Opinion can tempt men to think they are partakers of the sanctifying influences of the H. Spirit, because they partake of a common Gift; And I am sure the condemning free-prayer has a far more pernicious influence to hinder secret devotion. For in free-prayer a man needs not express his desires in words at all, and therefore need not forbear praying for want of a Form, whereas if he omit free-prayer, he must rarely ever suit that part of his devotions to his particular circumstances and condition.  
2. As his Lp. has sufficiently wronged the Dissenters by falsely imputing such a Principle to 'em, so he has greatly added to the injury, by telling the world, That on this account the pious custom of training up young people to a constant course of Devotion in their morning and evening secret prayers is too universally laid aside among the Dissenters, as he has found by experience, and for the truth of the observation, he saith he dare appeal to all of the Dissenters.  
Answ. What is it that a man who is grown remarkable for his Talon of asserting boldly, dare not venture on? But sure he cannot hope by mere confidence to persuade us out of our senses. And therefore since he appeals to us in this matter, we must needs tell him, We take what he asserts to be contrary to undoubted matter of Fact; For we know of no Protestants in the world that more universally urge all in their Families to constant secret prayer than the Dissenters; And we could wish there were (proportionably to the numbers on each side) one of their Communion for five or ten of the Dissenters that maintain daily Family-prayer. I know comparisons are odious, and therefore should never have made this, if his Lp's gross partiality had not extorted it, who in this charge has seemed to lay aside all regard to truth, or indeed to any appearance and show of it. It were very desirable that some of our Convocations would take as effectual a course to promote secret, and Family-devotion as that General Assembly in Scotland, (on whose words he would have obtruded his first pretended Principle of the Dissenters) who not only advise all particular persons to prayer and meditation, but enjoin Pastors to press it on all under their charge, and the Heads of Families to have a care that both themselves and all within their charge be daily diligent therein. Directions, etc. p. 1. And I can hear of no Ministers that so frequently urge this duty on their People as theirs. Nor do I know of any among the Dissenters that scruple the teaching their children the Lord's Prayer or other short Forms, though they may perhaps take more pains than others to prevent their saying 'em by rote without understanding 'em. But I wonder much what his Lp. means when he tells us so gravely, p. 64. As for children and ignorant people among those of this persuasion, I am well assured, many of 'em never bow their knees in secret to God, and several of those that are grown up are forced to speak aloud, or cannot pray at all, which is against the nature of secret-prayer, and exposes not only the person that uses it to the censure of hypocrisy, but the duty to contempt. I shall not now inquire how he is assured of what they do, or do not in secret; Nor need he sure be told, that there are too many children and ignorant people in their Communion as well as that of the Dissenters, that after all the pains taken to persuade 'em to their duty, do yet neglect it; But sure there is some strange mystery in what he asserts of those that are grown up, if we could but find it out. Does h●s Lp. then imagine, that praying without a Form must necessarily dispose a man to speak loud, whereas if he prayed by a Form, it would oblige him to whisper his devotions softly? Or would a conforming Layman that's unaccustomed to secret Prayer, be less liable to this inconvenience of bawling out, because he has his Prayer book before him? Sure one would think there's as little danger of this in conceived prayer, in which we need not fo●m our d●sires into words, or use our voice at all. But if his Lp. in this only designed to ●ell us of the weakness that some indiscreet persons have run into, perhaps thro' their zeal and earnestness (though ill-governed), but which their opinion or practice, as Dissenters, has no influence on, Why does he trouble the world with such little impertinent stories as signify nothing to the purpose, unless it be to expose his way of arguing to be smiled at by the children and ignorant people themselves? But what trifling things may not a wise man say when he pleads the Cause of a Party instead of that of Truth.  
For his Lp's Third Principle of Dissenters, viz. That the Minister is the Mouth of the Congregation, and that the people have nothing to do but to join with him in their hearts.  
I shall only suggest concerning it, That 'tis true we think the Minister is the Mouth of the Congregation, and can find neither precept or pattern in Scripture for the Congregation's repeating a whole prayer together with the Minister, much less of their so dividing the words between 'em, as that the people rather make the Prayer, (as in most Petitions of she Litany); nor does the passage he alleges from 15 Rom. 6. prove any such thing; And therefore on his weak Principles we might condemn their practice in this point as unlawful; But we are far from being so rash and forward in our blind censures as he groundlessly insinuates, p. 66. Nor do we (as he here asserts) suppose that the people have nothing to do but to join in their hearts with the Minister, but suppose their adding their Amen a fit testimony of their assent to the public Prayers they join in, and he may in the Morning-Exerci●es of the Dissenting Ministers Printed at London find a whole Sermon on that head, urging the people to pronounce their Amen more audibly than usually they do.  
Having examined his Lp's unjust Account of their Principles, I think it requisite to add a few things relating to  
Secondly, Their general practice; Concerning which I shall only suggest  
1. Such as follow the Directory, though they are not confined to the words there proposed, yet look on 'em as the patterns to which the ordinary part of their Prayers should be conformed. And accordingly, The Directory does require Ministers to pray to that effect; Nor does it disallow the use of those very expressions, where the defectiveness of the Minister's Gifts, or his unpreparedness by meditation renders it most conducive to public edification. So that neither are such Ministers left arbitrarily to choice as to the most stated and constant matters of Prayer, nor the people left wholly at uncertainty about 'em.  
2. All Forms of Words in public Worship are not disused by 'em.  
They constantly use our Saviour's words, 2 S Matth. 19 I Baptise thee in the Name, etc. in that Ordinance. So do they retain his own words in the delivering the Bread and the Cup in the Lord's-Supper (though, by the way, our Service-Book has groundlessly altered and transformed 'em into a Prayer, for which I hope his Lp. will censure the Compilers of it, as having preferred their own Invention before Christ's Institution). So when they give the Blessing, (which is a Prayer) they do it usually in some of the Apostolical Forms mentioned in the New Testament. Several of 'em use the Lord's-Prayer as a Form, according to the advice of the Directory. And for those that disuse it, 'tis because they either think it no Form suited to the Christian Church after Christ's Resurrection and Ascension, or else think it not intended as a Form but only a Pattern, because they never read afterwards in the New Testament of its being used as a Form. Nay perhaps some may be too much led to the disuse of it, in opposition to the contrary extreme of others, who place some peculiar merit or virtue in the repeating these words. And his Lp. seems to be one that has run into this extreme, not only by supposing us obliged to use these words whenever we pray, p. 32, 33. and making the use of 'em a Badge of our Christian Profession, p. 35. but by recommending the saying these words as the way to obtain pardon for our infirmities in our other prayers, p. 34. But I wonder who those are of whom his Lp. tells us that they publicly dispute against this Form, because of that Petition in it, Forgive us our Trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us, p. 34. For I could never hear of any such public Disputation on that Subject, nor indeed of any Dissenter that ever offered such a foolish Objection; some of 'em perhaps may have censured those as hypocritical in the use of this Petition, who are so far from forgiving their enemies, as to bear an irreconcilable temper towards their Friends and their Brethren.  
3. The true Reason, why the Dissenting Ministers so generally disuse Forms of Prayer composed by others, is not, because they judge all Forms of Prayer unlawful, but because they think free-prayer gives 'em the advantage to suit this part of their Ministrations better to the Edification of their people.  
And they are very much confirmed in this Opinion, both by what they observe in the H. Scriptures, and by experience.  
As to the H. Scriptures, They not only find no such stinted Liturgys prescribed either by Christ or his Apostles, but no orders given to any Pastors of the Church to compose 'em for others, much less any warrant to enjoin the use of 'em. They think it therefore most probable, if not certain, that even ordinary Pastors in the Apostles time, and in some Ages after used free-prayer, i. e. their public Prayers as well as Sermons were the exercise of those ordinary Gifts and Abilities with which they were furnished for their ministerial Office, and not a mere repetition or reading of Forms prescribed to 'em by others. Nay, they think the confining Pastors to such prescribed Forms, renders 'em incapable of complying with the general Rules of Scripture, that require us to suit our Prayers to all particular emergent occasions, which the Bishop himself owns cannot well be done without the use of free (or as he calls 'em) extempore-prayers, p. 54. They think it therefore every way the safest to come herein as near as possible to the practice of the Christian Church in the Apostles time, and those succeeding Ages wherein it retained most of its primitive purity.  
Nor are they less strengthened in their judgement by experience, on which some stress may be justly laid when we are to determine the modes of Worship (●eft undetermined in Scripture) agreeably to the general Rules of Scripture, and especially that of doing all to Edification. Now the Dissenters observe, that where public Forms have been imposed, and the ministration of Pastors confined to 'em, It has been generally attended with ill effects both in reference to Ministers and people.  
1. In reference to Ministers. For as in those Christian Countries where Preaching has been disused, and Forms of Instruction and Exhortation (called Homilies, or Sermons) provided for the Clergy, they have by this use of 'em, sunk into general ignorance and sloth, and taken little pains to furnish themselves with abilities to instruct their people; So, where stinted Liturgys have been imposed, the Clergy, by the constant use of 'em, generally so habituate themselves to these Crutches, that they are unable to go without 'em, and find themselves at a great loss, when they should accommodate their public or private prayers to that great variety of particular occasions wherein they should be the mouth of their people in their addresses to God. Whereas the constant exercise of their abilities in public Prayer as well as Preaching greatly improves 'em, and furnishes 'em for assisting their Flocks with their prayers in all those manifold necessities, in which prescribed Forms are no more pertinent to their case, than general remedies to particular diseases.  
2. In reference to the pe●ple. For they generally observe them prone to grow more cold and unaffected under the continual use of such forms, and consequently in greater danger of turning that holy duty into a customary lifeless repetition of the words prescribed to 'em. And though this be not in itself a necessary inevitable consequence of prescribed form●, because no doubt a well prepared mind may use such with true fervour of pious affection; yet considering the common temper of mankind, there is something in the constant use of the same words, that does as naturally tend to dull our affections, as the constant use of the same Instrument and Tune is tedious to a musical Ear, whereas a suitable variety tends more to raise and elevate 'em. And though perhaps some few very devout persons may avoid this inconvenience of constant public Forms, yet it seems incurable in the generality of the people, whose case must be chief considered, when we consult their Edification in determining the particular modes of Worship.  
I will not disown that there are some inconveniencies on the other side, which I shall propose with the same freedom, and offer my thoughts of 'em.  
'Tis indeed true as the Bp. suggests, p. 41. that in a stinted Liturgy the people are more exactly acquainted beforehand with the words of the Prayer they are to join in, than when the Minister is left to the exercise of his own Abilities. But as this inconvenience relates rather to the words than the ordinary matter of our Prayers, so how little weight there is in the argument drawn thence against free-prayer, I refer the Reader to the excellent reply given to it by the  Bp. Wilkins, 
Gift of Prayer, p. 12.  Whereas (saith that pious Author) 'tis commonly objected by some, That they cannot so well join in an unknown Form (For so he calls free-prayer in respect of those that hear it) with which they are not beforehand acquainted; I answer, That's an inconsiderable Objection, and does oppose all kind of Forms that are not publicly prescribed. As a man may in his judgement assent unto any divine Truth delivered in a Sermon which he never heard before, so may he join in his affections to a holy desire in a Prayer which he never heard before. If he who is the Mouth of the rest deliver thro' imprudence what we cannot approve of, God does not look upon it as our Prayer, if our desires do not say Amen to it.  
But the main inconvenience arises from the danger of exposing the duty to contempt by unbeseeming expressions, which men of weak judgements often fall into, Of which his Lp. gives us a hint, p. 56. and (give him his due) expresses himself with great modesty and truly Christian prudence on that occasion, where the weakness and indecencies of some might perhaps have given him some real advantage to expose 'em. But as to this I shall only suggest, That I think such as are incapable of using free-prayer without apparent hazard of rendering it contemptible by their indecent manner of performing it, should no more be admitted to the Ministerial Office, than those that cannot Preach without the same danger. Or at least, that where no better can be had, such should rather (according to the direction the General Assembly in Scotland forementioned gives to Masters of Families) begin with some good Forms, till by study and exercise they are capable to do better.  
Having said thus much in reference to our practice, I shall only subjoin as to that of the Established Church,  
1. That for persons uninspired to compose Forms of Prayer, and impose the use of 'em upon others, is neither warranted by scriptural precept or pattern, and is in the Bp's sense only an human Invention. But to confine all public Prayers to such prescribed Forms, is inconsistent with the general Rules of the H. Scriptures relating to this duty.  
2. That the Reading of public Prayer, (I mean Prose not Psalm-prayers) has neither precept nor example in the Word of God, nor indeed in the practice of the Primitive Church, in which it was the common custom to pray, either with their eyes shut or lifted up towards Heaven. And indeed this practice tends so much to dull the affections of those that join in this duty, that 'tis great pity that those who for want of the gift of prayer, are obliged to use Forms, should not at least be furnished with the gift of memory to repeat 'em without Book.  
3. I think the Arguments used in the grand Debate at the Savoy against the frequent Repetitions in the Litany, and the shortness of the Collects as defects that needed being reformed have never yet been well answered.  
And now I shall conclude this Chapter, by taking a little notice of the wonderful discovery the Bishop has made of that double Artifice or Trick the Dissenters use, to make Forms of Prayer of their own pass with the people for extempore-ones; The one by composing several Forms, and committing 'em to memory, and then transposing the several parts of 'em; The other, by remembering the several ways they have tried in their secret prayers to express the same thing, p. 55, 56. As to which, I shall only observe, That the Dissenters have some reason to take it unkindly that he should expose their secrets to the world; But this is a piece of treachery that must always be expected from those that desert their own Party, and have no other way to ingratiate themselves with their new friends. Only they wonder why he should strive to make two secrets of one; For they cannot clearly discern any gre●ter difference between these two methods, than between two different ways of expressing the same thing. But to do right to his Lp's admirable Wit, what he has discovered is yet so real a secret to all I have discoursed about it, that I cannot find one of 'em was acquainted with it before, and therefore we are all obliged to return him thanks for teaching us this new and more dexterous Art of managing our Devotions.    

Remarks on the Chapter concerning Hearing. And First, for the Directions of the H. Scriptures about it, I shall only observe,  
I. THat I do fully agree with him in general, That the Word of God should be Read in Christian as well as in Jewish Assemblys.  
There is no doubt it was so in the Jewish Synagogues, And 'tis highly reasonable to suppose that the Writings of the New Testament were designed to be read in Christian Churches according to what the Bp. has quoted from 4 Col. 16. And there is no doubt they were so read in the Primitive Churches. Tho that other place which the Bp. citys, (wherein the Apostle Paul charges Timothy to give Attendance to Reading as well as Exhortation and Doctrine, 1 Tim. 4.13) will not afford any cogent argument to this purpose. Because Reading here as well as Meditation, v. 15. may be understood of those private subservient means which young Timothy was here advised to use for promoting his proficiency in divine knowledge, and furnishing him the better for the exercise of his Ministry in Exhortation and Doctrine. And this I take to be the more probable sense of the words.  
II. That Reading the Law, is in the Scriptures called Preaching of it, I do not find any solid proof for.  
For in the passage he alleges for this purpose, 15 Acts 21. Moses in old time has in every City them that Preach him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath-day) Preaching may be there justly understood of those Expositions of the Law, and Applications of it, which were usual, and are elsewhere observed by the Bp. from 13 Acts 14. p 75. And of such Exposition and Application 'tis most reasonable to understand that noted place 8 Neh. 8. where 'tis said, They read in the Book in the Law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused 'em to understand the Reading. And the Bp. does not expressly determine whether giving the sense must be understood of a Grammatical or a Theological Interpretation, p. 74. I hope he includes the latter; For indeed to suppose that those words melroy relate to translating the words of the Law out of the Hebrew into another Language, is to put a very jejune sense on 'em without the least necessity, and contrary to probable evidence from other places and particularly from that forementioned 13 Acts 14. To which I might add the testimony of Philo, who tells us (apud Euseb. de Prepar. Evang. lib. 8. cap. 2.) that the Priests or one of the Elders was wont to read the Law, and then distinctly explain it. But though I would not exclude a Grammatical Exposition of the words of the Law from being intended here, yet I fee no reason why the Bp. should hence recommend to us the Reading the Original sometimes in public Assemblies, as he seems here to do, p. 74. unless he could suppose two things; First, that the body of our people could as easily come to understand Hebrew and Greek, as those Jewish Exiles might recover the knowledge of their mother-tongue; and Secondly, that the generality of Readers had the same Gift of Reading those Original Languages, as some in the Primitive Church had of speaking all others, viz. by Inspiration. For I am afraid otherwise many of 'em would but go very untowardly about the performing such a Task as the Bp. would here set 'em.  
III. There is yet less ground for that peculiar sense he has assigned to Preaching in the New Testament.  
He tells us in general, It signifies to declare or proclaim the word of God as a Herald or Cryer proclaims the Laws and Orders of a King. Hence (saith he) only those that proclaimed the Gospel to such as had not heard it before, or read the Old Testament to the people, are said to Preach. Preaching is distinguished from Teaching and Exhortation; and 'tis observable that in the whole New Testament, though Reading the Scriptures is called Preaching, yet interpreting 'em ' applying 'em, or exhorting the people from 'em in a Christian Auditory, is never called by that Name. P. 71. And again, p. 72. The Original words which properly signify Preaching; are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. From all which it is manifest, that there are only two ways by which the word of God is properly Preached; The first is, when 'tis declared to those that never heard it before; The second is, when the very words of the Scripture are read publicly to the people as a Crier does a Proclamation which he does not word himself, but reads it in the words in which 'tis delivered to to him.  
Answ. His Lp. would do well to examine his Criticisms a little better before he assert 'em so confidently; For there is none of these new ones he here offers, but seem liable to very strong objections, which I should be glad to hear his solution of.  
For against his new Notion of the sense of the word Preaching in the New Testament, I would propose this obvious one; The Apostle Paul in writing his Epistle to the Romans styles those to whom he directs it, Beloved of God and called to be Saints, and Thanks God that their Faith was spoken of throughout the whole world, v. 7, 8. And yet he tells 'em that he often purposed to come to 'em, but was let hitherto, v. 13. and adds, v. 15. So much as is in me I am ready to preach the Gospel to you that are at Rome also. And here is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us then apply it to one of these two ways of Preaching, to which the Bp. has confined the sense of that word. It cannot be understood of declaring the Gospel to th●se that never heard it before, For he tells us, Their Faith had been spoken of throughout the whole World; So that the Gospel could be no new tidings to 'em. He must then (if the Bp's Criticism be true) mean no more, than that he often purposed to see 'em, because as much as in him was, he was ready to read 'em some Chapters out of the Old Testament at Rome also. Now if this were his main errand and business there, he need not have been so much concerned about the matter. The disappointment of his purpose could be no great prejudice to 'em, unless he supposed they had none among 'em able to read. Nor needed he speak of his reading a Chapter as so difficult a thing, which he was ready to do as much as in him lay. 'Tis plain than the Apostle was a stranger to the Bp's notion of Preaching; for he thought instructing those more fully in the doctrine of Christianity who had already embraced it, might be fitly called by this name.  
So when he tells us, Preaching is distinguished from Teaching, How hard is it to reconcile this with the following Texts. We read in the 28 Acts, v. 30, 31. That Paul abode two years at Rome, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord J●sus Christ. So that the Bp. is very curious to distinguish those two expressions which the Inspired Historian plainly took for synonimous ones. So the same Writer gives us an account of the Apostle Paul's Speech to the Elders at Ephesus, in which what he calls teaching 'em, 20 Acts, v. 20 he calls teaching the Gospel, and preaching the kingdom of God among 'em, v. 25. And in both these places the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, and in this latter a phrase of the same import too with the other, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But perhaps an argument drawn from interest may prevail above any other. The Apostle Paul tells us, 1 Cor. 9.14. the Lord hath ordained that those who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. This Text he knows is generally applied by Expositors to prove a maintenance due to ordinary Ministers. And Mr. Mede particularly by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, understands the reward of good tidings. But if ordinary Pastors of the Church have no other way now left of preaching the Gospel, but reading the Scriptures (as according to the Bp's notion they have not) I am afraid the people would sadly grudge 'em so large Revenues on the bare account of such Preaching. But if he'll give the Apostle leave to explain his own meaning, he'll find that preaching is the same thing with Teaching, or instructing the people in the Christian Doctrine; For 'tis so explained in those two parallel places, 6 Gal. 6. Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teaches in all good things. And 1 Tim. 5.17. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour, especially them that labour in word and doctrine. If these be parallel Texts, as Expositors have hitherto taken 'em to be; then to teach, to labour in word and doctrine, are the same thing as to preach. And by the way, if the reward of good tidings be due to those that preach the Gospel, and if Readers be now the only Preachers of it in a Christian Kingdom (as the Bp's notion supposes) how come things to be so unequally managed, and so contrary to the Apostle's direction, that they get the least share of the Reward for it? Why are these true laborious preachers put off with so stingy an allowance, while those Bishops that in his sense never preach at all, engross the double honour to themselves, both the Dignity and the Revenues which belong to such as preach the Gospel? I shall only add the following Texts; I hope the Bp. will grant that our Saviour commissioned his Apostles to preach when he sent 'em to disciple all Nations, 28 Matth. two last ver. And yet he enjoins 'em to teach 'em all things he had commanded. And the Apostle Paul accordingly in the same verse calls himself a preacher and a teacher, 2 Tim 1.11. And these expressions are plainly used as equivalent ones, 5 Acts 42. And they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. So 15 Acts, v. 35.  
Again, he tells us, That preaching is distinguished from exhortation. Now I think we have no reason to imagine the Apostle Paul understood any such distinction, when he exhorts Timothy, 2 Tim 4.2. to preach the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to be instant in season and out of season, to reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine. For these latter expressions seem to explain the former. And I hope he will allow the Apostle Peter to have preached, in the 2 Acts from the 14th to the 40th ver. And yet what he spoke is called an Exhortation, v. 40. Nay, to put the matter out of doubt, 'tis said of John the Baptist, 3 Luke 18. That many other things in his Exhortation he preached unto the people. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Again he saith, That interpreting the Scriptures, applying 'em, and exhorting the people from 'em in a Christian Auditory, is never called Preaching.  
Now either those many discourses of the Apostles recorded in the Acts are not Preaching, or else quite contrary to the Bp's notion, Preaching was interpreting the scriptures, applying 'em, and exhorting the people from 'em. For I would fain know what else he can make of the Apostle Peter's Sermon, 2 Acts, from the 14th to the 40th. 3 Acts, from the 12th to the end. 4 Acts, from the 8th to the 20th. Of Stephen's, 7 Acts. Of the Apostle Peter's, 10 Acts, from the 34th to the 44th. Of the Apostle Paul's, 13 Acts, in which single instance, the Bp. will find almost all his Notions overthrown together. For, v. 15. After the reading the Law and Prophets, the Rulers of the Synagogue send to Paul and his company this Message, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of Exhortation for the people, say on. The Apostle addresses himself to comply with their proposal. And accordingly his discourse contains an Explication of several passages out of the Old Testament relating to the promised seed of Abraham, an application of 'em to our Blessed Saviour, and an exhortation to 'em from thence to believe in him, and not despise and reject him. And this very discourse the Apostle calls declaring glad tidings, (or preaching, for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) v. 32. If the Bp. object this discourse was not in a Christian Auditory, 'tis easily answered, What can the difference of the Auditory signify to alter the nature of the discourse, As if the very same discourse in a Synagogue should be preaching, but quite another thing in a Christian Church. 'Tis plain here that the Apostle preached when he interpreted the Scriptures relating to Christ, applied 'em, and exhorted the people from 'em, so that these are the same thing. And if he still pretend that such Exposition and Application had some other name given it when used in a Christian Auditory than that of preaching; I shall, to remove this shadow of a pretence, farther add, I suppose he will not doubt, but the Apostle Paul either found, or at least planted a Christian Church at Rome, long before his two years expired, and yet he is all that time said to preach the kingdom of God among 'em. So no doubt there was a Christian Church at Ephesus; and yet Timothy residing there, is exhorted to preach the word, to be instant in season and out of season. And in the place I first alleged, the Apostle Paul was desirous to preach the Gospel to those at Rome, whose Faith was already so eminent, and so publicly known and celebrated. And indeed, though the Gospel be in the strictest sense only news to those that first hear it, yet it does not cease to be good tidings, or a joyful message for being often repeated. So that since the Bp. has so ill hap in every one of his Criticisms, I would advise him to be more sparing and deliberate in offering 'em to public view; for his talon does not seem to lie much that way.  
iv The Scriptures have left it to human prudence to determine, What portion of 'em shall be read in our public Assemblies, and in what order and method.  
To clear this, We must consider there are two ways of Reading the Scriptures in order to the people's instruction from 'em. As either  
1. When some considerable portion of 'em is read together. As some part of a Book or Epistle, a Psalm, etc. For the division of the Scriptures into chapter and verse are but a matter of late Invention.  
2. When several passages are read out of several Books, of the Old or New Testament, which are parallel to each other, and serve to explain the same Doctrine, or clear and enforce the same duty.  
And though the phrase of Reading the Scriptures be by common custom appropriated to the former, yet if we will speak strictly, It does as truly belong to the latter; and 'tis of this latter way of Reading the Scriptures for the people's instruction that we have the clearest warrant from the examples of the Apostles, and the accounts given us in the New Testament of the practice of the Christian Church. Nor do those banish either of these ways of reading (either an entire portion, or several parallel Texts) that interpose an explicatory and applicatory Paraphrase between the several parts that are read. Nor does the Bp, that I can find, so much as pretend to produce any thing from Scripture against the intermixing such a paraphrase in our reading the Scriptures. Now if he consult all the Sermons of the Apostles recorded in the Acts, he will find that they did read (or what is the same, did recite verbatim, and propose to the consideration of the people) several passages of the word of God, all tending to illustrate and prove some truth or duty of the Christian Religion. And their practice herein was conformable to that of our Blessed Saviour, who employed the first Christian Sabbath, I mean the day of his Resurrection, not in reading an entire portion of Scripture, but in expounding to the two Disciples all those passages in Moses and the Prophets that related to himself and his death, resurrection and ascension, 24 Luke, 24 Luke, from the 13th. to the 28th. Nor do I find in that account given of the Worship of Christian Churches, 1 Cor. 14 chap. any mention made of Reading the Scriptures, as a distinct thing from Doctrine and Interpretation; So that I know of no one precept or example in all the New Testament relating to the Christian Church for this way of reading, unless what may be inferred from the 4 Col. 16. And when this Epistle is read omong you, cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea. But then we must not urge the Inference from these words too far, for I know of none that think themselves obliged by it to read a whole Epistle at one time, though no doubt it was fit the Colossians should so read this Epistle then, as we should be as forward to read a much longer that came newly to us from the same inspired Pen. And yet because reading an entire portion of Scripture was so constantly practised in the Old Testament, and the reason of it seems in part to extend to us, I do think 'tis very fit that that way of Reading should be also retained in our public Assemblies; though how long an entire portion shall be ordinarily read, and in what order, must be determined by Christian prudence according to the general Rules of Scripture.  
V, 'Tis granted that the Word of God should be read with great solemnity; but there is no particular posture prescribed in our hearing of it.  
For though we read, 8 Neh. 5. that the people stood at the opening the Book of the Law, yet that posture seems there to refer to the Blessing we read of in the following verse. And though we should grant that the people stood here when the Law was read, yet they are elsewhere said to sit. Thus, 33 Ezek. 30, 31. when they came professedly to hear what was the word that came forth from the Lord, yet they are described as sitting before him as his people. And those assembled in the Synagogue on the Sabbath-day, 13 Acts, 14, 15. are represented as using the same posture, as sat down while the Law and Prophets were read.  
VI For explaining and applying the Scripture by way of Doctrine and Exhortation, It was a constant part of their Lord's-day worship in Christian Assemblies in the Apostles time.  
Doctrine is mentioned together with breaking of Bread and Prayers, as one branch of their stated devotions, 2 Acts 42. 1 Cor. 14 26. Nor do we read of one Christian Assumbly that I remember on that day without it. And it appears by the testimony of the Ancients, that it was constantly practised in the first ages of Christianity (as the Bp. himself grants, p. 76) their Sermons being usually an explication and practical improvement of that portion of Scripture which had been read. Nor does what the Bp. suggests, p. 75. render it probable that this was not constantly done in Christian Churches. For what he produces from 13 Acts 15. concerns the Jewish Synagogues, and even the argument drawn from thence is not cogent, for though there had been constant provision for Enlargement, yet the Rulers of the Synagogue knowing that the Apostle and his followers pretended to some new Doctrine, might send that message to 'em. For what he saith from 12 Rom. 6, 7, etc. That St. Paul supposes him who Teaches, and him whose office it was to exhort, distinct from him that ruled and ministered. And it does not appear that every Church was furnished with all these Officers; I shall only answer, It does not appear from this place, that these four things required four distinct Officers. We read only of two ordinary Officers in the Christian Church, viz. Elders, or Bishops and Deacons; See 1 Tim. 3. 1 Tit. 1 Phil. 1. 20 Acts 28. To the latter, ministering to the poor belonged; To the former, Teaching, Exhorting and Ruling; and as these were several branches of the same Office, so probably since there were many such Bishops or Elders constituted in every particular Church, 14 Acts 23. 1 Tit. 5. Some might have their talents and abilities more suited to one part of their work, and others to another; and accordingly they might ordinarily divide their ministrations, and each attend what he was qualified for. And accordingly the Bp. well observes, that that the Apostle Paul conjoins Doctrine & Exhortation in his charge to Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.13. And 'tis probable both are included in the Apostle Peter's Exhortation to Elders, 1 Pet. 5.1, 2, 3.  
Lastly, I do agree with him that there should be such a summary of the principal doctrines of the Gospel as our Catechisms and Confessions of Faith usually contain; Which form of sound words should be held fast; Tho that the 6 Heb. 1, 2. contains that form mentioned, 2 Tim. 1.13. is but doubtful, and 'tis much more doubtful whether that 6 Heb. 1, 2. contained six distinct principles or heads of doctrine; Of which, more afterwards.   

Having considered the Directions of H. Scriptures in reference to Hearing, I shall now examine the Application the Bp. makes of 'em to the Practice of the Established Church, and that of the Dissenters  
IN representing the practice of the Dissenters, he promises to do it with the same Candour and Sincerity that he has hitherto endeavoured to observe. What sort of Candour and Sincerity that is, the Reader has already had a sufficient taste of, and he will find the Bp. does not in this Chapter vary from the Precedents he had given in the former; For how little regard he has had to Truth, in the following Accusations, will appear upon a particular review of 'em.  
I. He charges the Dissenting Ministers with disregarding Scripture-Rules and Example, and with laying aside all those methods of Instruction the Scriptures recommend to us, except it be that of Exposition and Exhortation. Insomuch (saith he) that though a man frequent your Meetings all his life, yet he has no security, or hardly possibility, of learning from your public Teachings all the great mysteries of his Religion, or the necessary principles of his Faith. For which he alleges these two things for proof.  
1. For first, your Teachers are entirely left to their choice what place of Scripture they will explain, or what Subject they will handle; And hence it happens that hardly any one man in his life, ever goes thro' the necessary Articles of Faith, or of Practice in his public Sermons: And for the truth of this, he appeals to ourselves.  
2. You have no sumary of Principles enjoined to be either read or taught in your public Assemblies.  
Answ. There are some Accusations so gross and shameless, that 'tis hard for a man to treat 'em with decency, and to such Accusers we are often forced to apply the Archangel's language, Ep. Judas, v 9 But our Author has that peculiar infelicity, that the more notorious untruths he delivers, he is still the more confident in 'em, and nothing will serve him, but appealing to th●se for the truth of what he says, who most certainly know it to be false. For with what face can the Bp. say, That a man may frequent the Dissenters Meetings all his life-time, and yet have no security, or hardly possibility of learning from their public Teachings all the great mysteries of his Religion, or Principles of his Faith, and appeal to ourselves as witnesses, that hardly any one man in his life, ever goes thro' the necessary Articles of Faith, or of Practice in his public Sermons? Does he indeed hope to persuade the world, that the great mysteries and Principles of the Christian Religion (Fx. gr. the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, the Incarnation of Christ, his Offices as our Mediator, Faith in him, and Repentance towards God, or Regeneration and Conversion, the privileges of all Believing Penitents, their Pardon and Justification, their Adoption and Right to the heavenly Inheritance, the office of the H. Spirit as our Sanctifier and Comforter, the necessity of his supernatural Aids, the different future states of the Righteous and the Wicked, the general Resurrection and final Judgement, etc.) are seldomer taught in their Pulpits than in those of the Conformists? Or that the Dissenting Ministers less frequently urge the great duties of Godliness, Righteousness, Sobriety, and a heavenly mind and life upon their Hearers? Does he not know that the Directory requires that ordinarily the Subject of the Minister's Sermon shall be some Text of Scripture holding forth some Principle or Head of Religion? Nay, does he not know that the peculiar mysteries of the Christian Religion are so much more frequently inculcated in the Sermons of Dissenters, as occasioned some of 'em to reproach the Conformists with Preaching little but morality, and borrowing their Discourses rather from Cicero and Seneca than from the Apostolical Writings, and the Conformists to reproach them with turning all Christianity into mysteries, and Preaching morality too little? (I do not recite these criminations as approving 'em, for I abhor such general and blind censures, but as an evidence that matter of fact is in the general opinion of both sides contrary to the Bp's representation of it). Or does he think it a good argument to prove that 'tis hardly possible for our people to learn the necessary Articles of their Faith from our public Teachings, merely because we are left to our choice as to the Subject we treat on? Can he find any scriptural Rule or Example prescribing to ordinary Teachers the exact order in which they should explain the mysteries of Christian Religion to the People; and yet was it therefore hardly possible for the people in the first age to learn 'em all from their public Teachings? As if ordinary judgement and prudence were not sufficient to direct every Minister in this part of his duty. And whereas he saith, that hardly any one man in his life ever goes thro' the necessary Articles of Faith, or of Practice in his public Sermons, and appeals to ourselves herein, I must needs tell him, all the Ministers that I have discoursed with, are amazed to think what should tempt him to assert what all our Hearers know to be a groundless calumny.  
And whereas he tells us, That we have no summary of Principles enjoined to be either read or taught in our public Assemblies, I might here inquire what precept or example he can produce from Scripture, requiring our Reading or Teaching such a summary in public, distinct from the H. Scriptures. Nay, though we should grant him that the Apostle Paul intends such a summary by the form of sound words mentioned, 2 Tim. 1.13. yet how will he certainly prove that it was to be publicly read and taught from Timothy's being charged to hold it fast? The 39 Articles of Religion the Bp. no doubt takes to be such a form of sound words that is to be held fast, and yet they do not think it necessary to be publicly read and taught, any farther than the Doctrine of Ministers should be conformed to it. But if he intent hereby to accuse the Dissenters as careless of their people's being instructed in such a summary of the Principles of Religion, or (as we commonly speak) of their being catechised, I do not know any Ministers in the world whom he can less justly accuse in this matter. And perhaps the Ministers of the North of Ireland, and those in Scotland, do (speaking generally) outstrip all others that we know of in the Christian world, as to their unwearied diligence in catechising those under their charge. And indeed the Bp's accusations put me on the necessity of doing 'em justice in this point, by giving the Reader some account of their general practice. To that purpose I must premise, that they divide all the persons in their Parishes grown up to years of discretion into Communicants and examinable persons. For Communicants, they do not only strictly examine them as to their knowledge when first admitted to the Lord's Table, but also personally visit each of 'em once a year at least, and particularly examine 'em as to their progress both in the knowledge and practice of Religion. For examinable persons, they divide their Parishes into so many districts, and accordingly for every district once a year, they publicly appoint the time and place when they intent to catechise 'em, and accordingly go thro' the whole of the Catechism with 'em. Nay, they are so punctual and exact herein, that if any have been absent, they publicly appoint another day for the catechising 'em. So that there is not one of these persons in their Congregations come to years of age, who is not once every year constantly instructed in the principles of the Christian Religion, and personally examined about his knowledge of 'em. Now either the Bp. knows this matter of fact, or he does not. If he do not, Why will he pretend to censure so confidently what he is so entirely ignorant of? If he do, How can he excuse himself in asserting, that there is no security, or hardly possibility of the Dissenters learning from the public Teachings of their Ministers all the great mysteries of their Religion, or necessary Articles of their Faith, when those very Ministers among whom he resides, take so effectual a method, that there is not one soul under their care, but if he learn 'em not, 'tis grossly his own fault, and cannot be imputed to the neglect of his Minister. And if the subtlety of this charge lie in the word public Teachings, I shall only add, that these catechizings of the persons contained in these several districts are public Teachings, and such days are publicly appointed for 'em, on which the people can best convene for that end. And I could wish his Lp. could give us as satisfactory an account of the diligence of the Conforming Clergy in instructing all the particular persons under their inspection and charge. And I may add, that in the Meetings of Dissenters here, and in England, 'tis the general practice to catechise publicly on the Lords-days, and the Catechism is usually gone thro' once every Summer. And I am sure our Catechism is a far more comprehensive summary of the Doctrines and Precepts of the Christian Religion than that used in the Established Church. So little reason reason has he to accuse those that rather set others a Copy worthy their imitation. And what his Lp saith of 'em, is so contrary to truth, that if their people be as willing to learn as they are diligent to teach, 'tis scarce possible that any of 'em should be ignorant of the necessary Principles of their Faith.  
For the Assemblys Catechism he has some exceptions against it, which I shall briefly consider.  
1. It not ways (saith he) answers the design of a form of sound words, which should contain only the first and necessary Principles of the Oracles of God in such words and method as may make it easily apprehended and attained by the weak and unlearned, which make up the bulk of the people.  
Answ. How can the Bp. expect any Reply to so general a charge. I rather think the Assemblies Catechism is herein excellently suited to the various capacities of Catechumen. It has at the end, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and Ten Commandments as the summary of our Belief, desires and practice. And in those, I hope his Lp. will grant the first and necessary principles of the Oracles of God are plainly laid down. And indeed the Church-Catechism contains little more. But for those whose capacity is something more emprov'd, the Questions and Answers in that Catechism do excellently explain the three forementioned summaries of our Religion, and lay down such other Principles as are the most important and needful inferences from 'em. And why does our Author imagine that no form of sound words must comprehend more than what is to be first taught the lowest sort of Catechumen, when almost all the Reformed Churches do herein differ from him; few of whom compose Catechisms for their people that are not rather longer than the shorter one composed by the Assembly.  
And whereas he adds, Our Catechism is full of hard words, school-terms, and abstruse notions no wise necessary to be known, nor possible to be understood by children or unlearned persons, for whose Edification principally a Catechism ought to be designed; I only add, If he had expected any Answer, he should have been particular in his accusation, and not left us to guess in the dark what instances he grounds it upon.  
Again, He accuses it of being so long and intricate, that no one child in ten gets it by heart, nor one in 500 retains it, as he saith he has found by experience; To which I shall only answer, that as we have little reason to believe the Bp. has so often tried this matter as to enable him to pass so particular a judgement about it, so his experience and ours (who have better opportunity of trying it) do no way agree. For we know there is nothing in this particular computation that comes near to truth in matter of fact. And I believe if his Lp. make a more accurate trial, he will find as many of the Dissenters children that have got their Catechism by heart, as of others that have done so by the Church-Catechism, even though the former be so much larger. And if any of 'em forget it again, 'tis their own fault, not their Minister's, who more exactly examine 'em in that point, than any others that I know of. But  
2. His severest charge against this Catechism is, That notwithstanding its length, it is imperfect; some of the principles of the Apostle's Catechism being quite left out of it, I mean laying on of hands joined with Baptism, 6 Heb. 2. A great defect sure in a Catechism to leave out a fundamental of Christianity.  
Answ. Is it not strange that the Bp. should have no regard to the reputation of his own Church in such weak censures as these? Does he mean that our Catechism has laid aside the expression of of laying on of hands, or the thing signified by it. If he mean only the expression, could he not easily foresee that such an objection against the Assemblies Catechism has no weight in it? Nay, that the Church-Catechism is liable to the same objection? I would desire him to take the pains to read it over, and tell us where he can find laying on of hands mentioned in it. If he means the thing signified by laying on of hands, Why does he not tell us what it is, but leave us to blind conjectures what this fundamental Principle is which he charges our Catechism as defective for the omission of? Does he mean such laying on of hands on children as our Saviour used when he blest 'em, 19 Matth. 13? Or laying on of hands on the sick when they were healed, 7 Mark 32? Or Imposition of hands on such as the Apostles Baptised in order to the communicating the extraordinary gifts of the H. Spirit to 'em, 8 Act 17? Or imposition of hands in order to the setting persons apart to some sacred Office or Charge, 6 Acts 6? Or imposition of hands on the Sacrifice, 1 Leu. 4. 8 Numb. 12. 29 Exod. 15. 2 Chron. 19 v. 23? For Expositors mention all these various senses of the word in their comments on 6 Heb. 2. Now I would entreat him to review 'em, and tell me which of these sorts of imposition of hands is spoken of in the Church-Catechism. (For I hope he does not mistake the Rubric about Confirmation for a part of it.) If none of 'em are mentioned in it for the Instruction of Catechumen, why should he charge that as a great defect in our Catechism which is wanting in their own? But what if I should tell him, 'tis highly probable that neither Baptisms nor Imposition of hands are mentioned in that forecited summary of Principles, 6 Heb. 2. as distinct Principles at all? He knows Expositors observe that the Original may be read thus, Not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works and Faith in God, being the Doctrine of Baptisms and Imposition of hands (i. e. the Doctrine typifyed by those two rites in the Jewish Religion, their legal Washings or Purifications, and the Imposition of hands on the head of the Sacrifice). For as those legal Purifications were typical of Repentance from dead words, so that Imposition of hands on the head of the Sacrifice was typical of Faith in God thro' a Mediator and his atoning sacrifice. Or we may take both these rites as typical of Faith in God, thro' the expiatory and cleansing virtue of the Mediator's Sacrifice. And I shall suggest three things to strengthen this Exposition. First, that this Exposition is most agreeable to the scope of the Inspired Writer, who was about to treat of this Sacrifice of Christ, and its expiatory virtue, as the Antitype of the legal Purifications and Sacrifices, (as appears from the 9th ch. of that Ep). Secondly, because Baptisms in the plural number is never, that I know of in all the Scriptures, used concerning Christian Baptism, but is used in this very Ep. concerning the Jewish Washings or Purifications, 9 Heb. 10. Thirdly, because 'tis not easily conceivable how any of the other sorts of Imposition of hands should come to be made here by the Inspired Writer, a fundamental principle of the Christian Religion. For why should the Doctrine of External Baptism or that of Imposition of hands in any of the senses forementioned, be any more ranked among Fundamental Articles, than the Doctrine of the Lord's-Supper, of which there is not the least mention made here? But since the Bp. seems to insinuate here as if he took the Confirmation practised in the Established Church to be one of the Principles mentioned, 6 Heb. 2. I would very gladly, if he be of that Opinion, understand what grounds he has for it. For I am prone to suspect that the Order of the Church about Confirmation, is an Abuse that needs to be reformed. Were there nothing more in it, than a grave Bishop's praying over children, and using this common Jewish custom as our Saviour did, of laying his hands on their heads while he prayed, I should not much quarrel with it, though why the Parish-Minister's Prayers and Blessing (under whose Pastoral care they are) should not be as significant, I know not. But I understand no good reason, why the Bishop should be ordered to say in the Collect used on this occasion, That he lays hands on 'em by the example of the H. Apostles, to certify 'em by this sign, of God's favour and gracious goodness towards 'em. For I take the Arguments which the learned Daillé has produced against his Romish Adversaries, in his admirable Discourse about Confirmation, to prove, That the Apostles laid hands on the newly-baptized only to communicate the extraordinary gifts, not the ordinary sanctifying influences of the H. Spirit, to be unanswerable. How come our Bishops then to lay hands on children after their Example, when they do not pretend to any such power of communicating those extraordinary gifts as the Apostles had? Nay, what divine warrant have they to certify children by this sign, of God's favour and gracious goodness towards 'em? What promise can they produce of God's annexing his favour to this sign? If they can produce such a promise, here is a New Sacrament of divine Institution in the Christian Church besides Baptism and the Lord's-Supper. If they can produce none, here seems to be a new Human Sacrament. For according to the definition of the Church-Catechism, Here is an outward visible sign, viz. The Imposition of hands; 'Tis a sign of spiritual grace, no less than God's favour and gracious goodness; The Sign is made a means of conferring it, because those that use it, profess to do it in imitation of the holy Apostles, who did certainly by their Imposition of hands communicate the holy Spirit; And 'tis expressly made by the Collect a pledge to assure 'em of it.  
Here wants nothing then but Christ's Institution, which if it be not produced, here is in the proper sense of the word, a sinful Invention of men in the worship of God. And we shall have the greater reason to be jealous of it, if our Author advance the doctrine of it into an Essential Article of our Religion. However we may hence perceive that 'twas not in vain that the Church Catechism puts so wary an Answer into the children's mouths when that Question is proposed, How many Sacraments are there? Answ. Two only as generally necessary to Salvation, viz. Baptism and the Lord's-Supper. But if Confirmation be a Sacrament of divine Institution at all, I know not why it should not be as necessary to Salvation as either of the other; If it be not, Why is it retained? I know indeed there is a sort of Confirmation which those excellent Divines Mr. Hanmer and Mr. Baxter plead for, i. e. They would have adult persons obliged publicly to own their Consent to the Baptismal Covenant in order to their Admission to the Lord's-Supper, But then they would have this done at such years when they are capable of professing an understanding, serious and credible consent to it. But this can no way excuse the common practice of the Established Church in admitting children to it as soon as they can say the Creed, the Lord's-Prayer, and Ten Comandments, though no such understanding consent to their Baptismal Engagements can be expected from 'em. For this is no better than perverting a most useful practice (and agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture) into an empty Formality, or rather a solemn Trifling and Mockery.   

Having dispatched the First, I come to consider the Bp's  
TWO CHarge against the practice of Dissenters which I shall deliver in his own words, But the most sad and deplorable defect of your performance of this duty, is your casting out the Reading of the Word of God from most of your public Assemblies directly contrary to God's Institution and Ordinance for the Instruction of his Church; Insomuch that in many of your Meetings, setting aside a verse or two for a Text or Quotation at the discretion of the Teacher, the voice of God is never publicly heard among 'em. This is matter of fact, and undeniable. And in all the Meetings of the North of Ireland in a whole year, perhaps there is not so much Scripture read as in one day in our Church, by the strictest enquiry I could make, etc. Sure 'tis a sad thing that a man may go to most Meetings many years, and never hear one entire Chapter read in 'em.  
Answ: 'tis really deplorable, that some men, when they writ for a Party make so little conscience of Truth, as to offer the most barefaced untruths for undeniable matters of fact. And I am sorry that the Bp. should be so unfortunate in his Enquiries, as to meet with no better Informers than such as have so grossly imposed upon his credulity in the accounts they have given him of the practice of Dissenters. And therefore to ease him of these sad thoughts that he seems possessed with on this occasion, I must relate matters of fact more truly to him, viz. That 'tis the general practice of the Ministers in the North of Ireland, for about three quarters of the year (For in most Meetings the Winter quarter is only excepted) to read every morning an entire portion of Scripture (usually a whole Chapter, or at least so much of one as they can go thro' with in an Exposition of half an hours length). And upon the best enenquiry I can make, he will find very few Meetings, if any at all, that vary from this practice, What Apology then can he make not only for his charging 'em with casting-out the Reading of the Scriptures, but for his telling us, that perhaps there is not so much Scripture read in all the Meetings in the North of Ireland in a year, as in one day in the Established Church. Let us suppose there are 40 Meetings in the North of Ireland, and let us suppose in each Meeting half a Chapter read every Ld's-day for three quarters of the year; (And this is the least that is really read, for they more commonly read a whole Chapter) yet by this computation there will be near 800 Chapters read in those Meetings in a year; And will his Lordship persuade us that there is as much read in one day in the Church? If he mean that there is as much read in one day in all the Parish-Churches in the North, there's nothing like Truth in his Assertion. If he mean there is as much read every day in each Parish-Church (as his words seem to import) what he asserts is so ridiculous, that one would think, if he had no regard to truth, yet he should have some to common sense, in his accusations. Nay, I must add, that I look upon his Lordship's charge as so unjust, that if we take the Scriptures to be read  they are verbatim recited to the People, and compute all the parallel passages of Scripture that occur in their Expositions, and in their Sermons (in both which the N. C. Ministers in general, and particularly those in the North of Ireland, never used to be sparing in the use of their Concordances) I see little reason to doubt but there is as much of the Scriptures read, or as much of the inspired word of God proposed for the Instruction of the people in each Meeting, as there is in each Parish-Church. And in the former 'tis always read with this advantage, that whatever is read, is expounded too, in order to the people's being more fully instructed in it. And if this be a just account of matter of fact, I hope his Lordship will think himself obliged in honour and conscience to disabuse his Readers by retracting so gross a flander as this, of our casting out the reading of the Scriptures, and justling the word of God out of our solemn Meetings, so that his voice is seldom publicly heard in 'em.  
For if there be any difference between us and the Established Church in this point, It lies in this, Whether the Reading a larger entire Portion without any explication (or, as he speaks, without cover or gloss) or a shorter entire portion of it, with an explication chief drawn from parallel passages of Scripture, that give light to that which is read, be more conducive to the Instruction and Edification of the People? And here the Dissenters are ready to join issue with him. For as to this debate, we may justly appeal to all sober and unprejudiced person's. 'Tis certain their way of Reading the Scriptures without any Exposition of 'em, is far the easiest; and he need not take any great pains to recommend it to the Clergy, who are not likely to be fond of this human Invention of lecturing on 'em. But if the other way of reading 'em (viz. with a brief explication) be not more instructive and edifying to the People, 'tis because the Scriptures are best understood by the People without any help from their Teachers. And if so, why did our Saviour appoint any public Teachers in his Church at all? If there be such a plainness in the Scriptures as needs little explication to ordinary Hearers, If they apply themselves better than any man can do (as his Lp. insinuates when he seems to touch on this debate, p 94.) Why should such Teachers undertake so needless a task? Why should they spoil the plainness and efficacy of the Scriptures with their useless endeavours to explain 'em to the understandings, and urge 'em on the Consciences of their people? Nay, if the bare Reading the Scriptures be most edifying, mere Readers are far preferable to the best Teachers, and a good pair of eyes and lungs will enable the most ignorant Curate to contribute as much to the Instruction and Salvation of the People by the exercise of those natural Talents, as the most judieious Divine can by his laborious endeavours to explain and apply the Scripture, and by the exercise of those gifts which are the product of the Divine Blessing on his unwearied study of those sacred Writings. And if his Lp. can persuade us of the truth of this, we shall save a great deal of our money that we lay out in buying, and our pains in reading such useless things as Commentaries on the Bible. But sure when our Protestant Divines assert the Scriptures to be plain in all things necessary to Salvation, (as he tells us, p. 94.) they do not mean so plain, as to exclude our diligence in comparing one part of Scripture with anothor, or the help of Teachers to direct and assist us therein. Much less do they suppose their help unnecessary to our growing in divine knowledge, and going on to perfection in it.  
'Tis indeed true that there are some few Meetings (though perhaps not five in this whole Kingdom) in which there is rarely any entire portion of Scripture read. And yet even these the Bp. does unjustly charge with banishing the Reading of the word of God, since they retain that most useful way of Reading it, (viz. the Reading many parallel Texts that illustrate the same Truth or duty) of which we have the most frequent Examples in the New-Testament. And indeed there are few Sermons of Dissenters in which there is not as much of the Scriputres recited to the People, as if put together, would make up two or three Chapters. But I confess I take the omission of this other way of Reading (viz. an entire por●ion at once) to be a defect which I wish reformed in those few. Nay, when the shortness of the days in the Winter-quarter leaves no room for Exposition, I could wish the reading an entire portion were still more generally continued, as 'tis done in some Congregations; In that to which I belong, both are continued throughout the whole year. The Bp. may indeed justly charge us with falling short of reading so much as the Directory recommends, but he will find it hard to prove that we fall short of what any command of God to the Christian Church obliges us to. And I do impartially think there are no Christian Assemblies whatever, wherein more of the voice of God in his Word is heard by the People, and more unwearied diligence used to bring 'em to the understanding of what he has there revealed.  
Since than I have rectified his Lp's mistake in matter of fact, I hope he may easily see how little we are concerned in the reasons he brings to condemn what he so falsely accuses us of, viz. our general casting out the reading of the Scriptures, or in the Answers he gives to such Excuses as he pretends are alleged to justify it.  
He tells us indeed, that he has found such pretences to justify it, but he was wiser than to produce his Authors for 'em. As if the public were concerned in all the follies he can pick up in his conversation with ignorant people. And no wonder when he meets with so weak Opponents, that he can easily triumph over 'em, or rather that he can answer the Arguments he frames to himself. For as I have showed him, the generality of the Dissenters need no apology for not reading the Scripture; whatever others may do for laying aside the Exposition of what is read, to whose consideration I would recommend the excellent words of St. Austin on 1 Joh. where speaking of the Scripture, he saith, Quare legitur si sil●bitur? aut quare auditur, si non exponitur? and those of St. Bernard, Temp. 55. Non tradit mater parvulo nucem integram sed frangit eam et nucleum porrigit. But yet there are several passages in his discourse on this Head, from p. 84 to p. 103. too gross to pass without some remark on 'em.  
P. 85. He bids us, Remember of whom 'tis said, 7 Mark 6. This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. While you thus justle out the word of God out of your solemn Meeting to make room for your own Sermons, I beseech you to consider whether this be not laying aside the Commandments of God for men's Inventions, unless you'll call your Sermons (as some Quakers are said to do) as much the word of God as the Bible.  
Answ. Does his Lp. indeed imagine, that a sermon which chief consists of several parallel passages of the word of God compared togther, and recited in that order as may illustrate or apply each other, justles out the word of God? Or does a Lecture, which is an entire portion of Scripture, read and explained, justle it out? Is the word of God excluded by being explained and applied when 'tis read? Or do those less honour the Word of God in their hearts, who desire to hear it expounded and applied, than those that are content to have it read without any such additional help to understand it and profit by it? May we not as wisely tell our Author that he has just led out this Text by paraphrasing it, especially when he has done it so untowardly, and so little agreeably to the design of our Blessed Saviour? Nay how comes he here to call Sermons the Inventions of Men? Does he think that God has not as expressly enjoined Teaching and Exhortation, as Reading the Scriptures to Christian Pastors? Nay of the two more expressly, there being far more numerous and plain passages for the former then for the latter, as distinguished from the former? How comes he then to make that a human Invention which he owns has scriptural Example to warrant it, p. 75. nay for which I have produced him plain precepts too? Nay how comes he to assign us so wonderful a Reason, why we must own Sermons to be men's Inventions, viz. that otherwise we must call 'em (as some Quakers are said to do) as much the word of God as the Bible? Does he indeed espouse that sottish Opinion of the Quakers who account every thing in the Worship of God a human Invention that is performed in the exercise of our own rational Faculties, and requires our Study and Meditation in the composure of it? If he do, I am afraid he must abandon the Reading of the Scriptures as an human Invention too, because that requires the use of our Eyes, and some small use of our Understandings too to read right? Nay he must on the same account call all the Collects in the Liturgy human Inventions (as the Quakers do) because he cannot pretend 'em to be as much divinely inspired as the Prayers recorded in the Bible. And does he expect that we should regard such uncharitable censures as are founded on such wild and confused Notions as these are, any more than we do the senseless clamours of the Quakers themselves, who at least in this matter speak more consistently with themselves then his Lp. does when he talks of human Inventions?  
His Lp tells us, p. 88 Many of our common People are strangers to the History of the Bible, and the first Principles of Christianity.  
Answ. Either he means they are more so, in proportion to those that are members of the Established Church, or he does not, If not to what purpose does he upbraid the Dissenters with it. If he does, I would desire him to consult his credit a little better than by obtruding so notorious untruths upon the world. 'Tis impossible to make exact Computations of this kind; But I doubt not, that if he takes a thousand Families of each Communion, he will find that for one of the Conforming Laity that reads the Scripture daily in their Families there are ten or more of the Dissenters. I am credibly informed by such as live in the North, that most Families of Dissenters read the Scriptures daily, and especially on the Lord's day, both before they come to the public worship and after; And 'tis partly on that account that the Ministers lay down their Expository Lectures in the depth of Winter. Whereas since comparatively so few Conforming Families have the Scriptures read in 'em, there may be perhaps the greater necessity for the reading a larger entire portion of 'em in the Parish Churches. I may say the same as to the other branch of the Accusation, For the account given before of the care of their Ministers to catechise every particular person in their Parishes renders it absolutely incredible that their People should be greater strangers to the first Principles of Christianity than others on whom no such particular pains are bestowed.  
The Bp. tells us, p. 95. Reading a Verse or two, and trusting to the Minister's Application, without the Peopl's being acquainted with the whole Body of Scripture, does put Christians too much in the power of their Teachers, etc. This is the very Artifice whereby the Romish Priests keep their People in Ignorance; And your Teachers using the same method seems too like a design on their Hearers, and tempts the World to suspect that they are afraid of the naked simplicity of the Scriptures, since they dare not trust the People with hearing 'em publicly read, except they add their own glosses on 'em.  
Answ. Has his Lp. any just ground for this invidious Comparison? Do the Romish Priests when they Preach put Bibles into their people's hands? Do they read it to 'em in their Mother Tongue? Do they urge their people to bring Bibles with them, and like the Noble Beraeans, to examine all they deliver, and not to take things on trust from their Teachers, without trying what they hear by that infallible Test? And yet he knows this is the Dissenters practice, to whose Meetings most of their people bring Bibles, whereas few comparatively bring 'em to the public Churches, unless it be that small part of 'em which the Common-Prayer-Book contains. Nay, do not those rather imitate the Romish Priests, who though they lock not up the Scriptures in an unknown Tongue, yet never open 'em when they read 'em by a judicious Exposition? Or does he think bare reading the Scriptures, without ever comparing 'em, will best acquaint the People with the body of 'em? Or does he think the People are in greatest danger of being seduced, when the Scriptures are explained as well as read to 'em, and that they are then likest to take up the right sense of 'em when they have no Interpreter to guide 'em? Were the Apostles afraid of the naked simplicity of the Scriptures because they took so much pains to add their own glosses on 'em? Or does he think that mere Readers have done more to recover Christianity to its primitive simplicity and purity, and to reclaim the world from the delusions of Popery than the most laborious Expositors? Why then do we not throw away all our Commentaries on the Bible? Why dare not his Lp. in this Discourse trust us with the naked simplicity of the Scriptures he quotes in it without adding his own glosses on 'em? Or will he own this for a just temptation to suspect that he has some design upon his Readers?  
For the 5th. Excuse, p. 96. viz. That the Word of God, that dead Letter, is a dull formal thing, without spirit or life, where it is not applied, etc. I wonder what Dissenter suggested it to his Lordship; For 'tis a very dull pretence, and yet I do not see that the main thing he insists on in his Answer does vary much from the nature of the Objection. For not to insist on his still calling that a human Invention, which is undoubtedly of Divine Appointment, (and by his own Confession has the warrant of Scriptural Example, p. 75,) If there be any thing to the purpose against the Dissenters practice in his 3d. and 4th. Consideration, it must be founded on this supposition, That 'tis a great character of a Spiritual Man to love to hear the Scriptures read without any Exposition or Application, but of a Carnal Man, to delight more in Scripture read and expounded too, then in the Scripture barely read. For so he applies that noted passage of the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 2.13. And thence He reproaches the Dissenters as (notwithstanding all their pretences to a more than ordinary spiritualness and reformation) little advanced above the natural man that neither receives nor relishes the things of God, at least not as they ought.  
Answ. If any thing could put us out of conceit with Expositions of the Scripture, it would be such scurvy and abusive ones as this, which his Lp. here offers. And I do not believe there is any Dissenter but would delight in the perusal of those excellent words of the Apostle, while he nauseates such an insipid gloss on 'em. For must it not argue a strange Confusion in a man's Notions of things to suppose those things so opposite and inconsistent that so admirably accord together? Does the Bishop think the style of the Scriptures is as familiar to ordinary Readers now, as it was to those to whom the several parts of it were first immediately directed, or that there is no difficulty in the ordinary parts of it that renders a brief Interpretation highly useful to the Church? And do those love or relish the Word of God less than others, who are not contented with the bare reading of it without desiring all the help their Teachers can give 'em for their right understanding and applying it? Was it an Argument of a carnal mind in the Queen of Candace's Treasurer that he was not satisfied with reading God's Word by the Prophet Isaiah, without desiring Philip to expound it, 8. Acts 27? Is it so carnal a practice in Ministers to read Commentators on the Bible, or in the People to desire to enjoy this fruit of their studies and labours? Is it a carnal temper to be most affected with the Scriptures when we most clearly discern the true sense of 'em; but on the contrary, a spiritual disposition to delight in 'em most when we understand 'em least? Or rather, does not such discourse as this look too like a shrewd design to gratify the carnal and lazy humour of the Clergy, by excusing 'em from the pains they should take in studying the Scriptures in order to the edifying their People by a judicious interpretation of 'em? As if our Author would have 'em all transformed into such as the 49th. Canon of the Church of England refers to, who, though Beneficed yet being unlicens't to Preach, are not to take on them to Expound in their own Cure or elsewhere any Scripture or matter of Doctrine, and have no higher privilege allowed 'em, then that they study to read aptly and plainly (without glozing or adding) the Homilies already set forth, etc. (And by the way, I perceive the Compilers of those Canons were great Strangers to our Author's Notion of Preaching)  
But after he has examined the pretences he feigns the Dissenters to make, (for 'tis evident they never brought any for not Reading the Scriptures) he ventures to give us what he himself takes to be the true Reason of their supposed Neglect of it, which he draws from 2 Tim. 4.3. of which he gives us an admirable Interpretation. The Apostles words are, For the time will come when they will not endure sound Doctrine, but after their own Lusts shall heap up to themselves Teachers having itching Ears. Now an itching Ear (saith the Bp.) is one that loves novelty and variety. Because therefore our Church gives the People little that is new in her prayers or reading the Scriptures, but retains a Form of sound words in the one and the plain word of God in the other: Hence it is that some People cannot endure our service, but heap up to themselves Teachers that instead of Prayers and Praises of God's immediate Appointment will gratify 'em every meeting with a new Prayer without troubling 'em with such Prayers and Sermons as they think old which are incomparably better; Only the itching Ears of the People, as the Apostle foretold are pleased with the novelty and variety of the one, and disgust the repetition of the other, as the Israelites did that of Angel's Food, 78 Ps. 25.21 Num. 5.  
Answ. If we be so fond of Novelty and Variety as the Bp. supposes, he has been very studious to gratify our humour in this new Paraphrase, of which I dare say no Expositor before him ever dreamed. For whereas the Apostle is plainly speaking of such as could not endure sound Doctrine, and therefore sought out Teachers that would gratify 'em with some new Doctrines, more grateful to their Lusts or Fancies, and entertain their itching Ears (as the Apostle explains himself in the next verse:) with Fables instead of Truth. The Bp. does with profound judgement apply it to those that desire to have the Scriptures clearly explained to their Understandings, and impartially applied to their Consciences. As if the Apostle had here quarrelled with the People for desiring Sermons, when he had in the very verse before urged Timothy to preach the word, To be instant in season and out of season, To reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and Doctrine. And if we should grant the Bp. for once (though as I have showed him before there is no reason for it) that the Apostle by preaching the word understood Reading it, yet according to himself, Rebuking, reproving and exhorting with all long suffering and doctrine must imply an Exposition and Application of what was read. So that the Bp. has unhappily expounded and applied this passage of the Apostle in direct opposition to the very scope of it, which was to urg Timothy to constant preaching in our and the common sense of the word, as the most effectual means to cure people of that itching desire after such new Doctrines and Fables as would please their wanton fancies or vicious Inclinations. Whereas the Bp. imagines that the Apostle here condems the People's fondness for such Sermons as the very fault they were to be cured of, and so strangely mistakes the Remedy for the Disease. I confess how much soever our Ears may itch after Novelty and Variety, yet he could not reasonably expect they would be charmed with contradictions, which instead of tickling 'em grate upon 'em. And truly if our Author gives us no better Exposition and Application of Scripture than this, we'll be much rather satisfied he should only read it to us, For then there would be less danger of misunderstanding it. But I wonder why his Lp. should tell us of Prayers and Praises of God's appointment? Does he not know the Collects of the Liturgy are as much of human Composure as our free prayers? Why then should they be any more compared to Angel's Food than ours, which are rather more agreeable to scriptural precept and Pattern? Nay, if the Scriptures read be Sermons of Gods Appointment, they are not the less so, but the more for being explained and applied, as appears from this very direction of the Apostle to Timothy, to preach the word to be instant in season, etc. to rebuke, etc.  
I shall conclude what relates to our practice with the concluding words of this chapter of the Bp's.  
But as Aaron to please the Israelites made the Golden Calf, so some Ministers though contrary to their own principles have changed God's Institution to please their People, and left out the constant regular Reading God's word because their People grew weary of it. But let all men judge who behave themselves most like the faithful Ministers of Christ, We who keep to the reading God's word according to his own Institution, whether the People will hear or forbear, or they that comply with 'em and lay aside God's command to oblige and please 'em.  
Answ. I have already considered the injustice of this charge, And only add, That those more fully comply with God's command, who read and expound then those that only read. And I am sure as the Dissenters practise herein costs 'em more labour, so, if their People be not more edified by it, It must be their own fault. With what justice then or indeed with what sense does his Lp. compare the Dissenters practise herein to Aaron's making a Golden Calf to please the People? Are indeed Lectures and Sermons such dangerous Idols, Or is Hearing the Scriptures expounded when read so pernicious a piece of Idolatry? Is not the Interpretation of Scripture as truly a divine Ordinance as the Reading of it? And will any man that considers what he saith set the one in opposition to the other? Or rather would not the confining Ministers to the Reading the Scriptures only, tend to debase 'em into such a sort of Priests as Jeroboam made of the meanest of the People when he set up the Worship of the Golden Calves. 1 Kings 12.31. I mean such Priests as need little other furniture for their public Ministrations than their book and their eyes, and are under no obligation to study the Scriptures because they are under no necessity of interpreting 'em to the People? And what a sort of Clergy are to be found in Russia, Muscovy, and other parts of the Christian World, where they are turned into mere Readers, we have so sad accounts from History, that if his Lp. intent to turn his Clergy into such, by thus discouraging Sermons as an human Invention, I should not blame the dissenting ministers for being loath to come under his conduct and regulation.  
I shall conclude this Chapter with observing in reference to the practice of the Established Church.  
1. That I suppose the Bp. will not pretend any Warrant from precept or Example in the Holy Scriptures, for the reading such un-inspired Books as those of the Apocrypha together with the Canonical Writings of the Old and New Testament in the time of public Worship: And therefore I hope he'll censure this himself for one of his human Inventions. Especially since himself owns there is a tenth part of the old Testament left out of the Church's order for the Reading it, sure to exclude that and introduce in the stead of it, the story of Bell and the Dragon, Tobit and his Dog, etc. looks very like the preferring mere human Composures (some of which contain foolish and incredible Relations) before that part of God's living Oracles. Not to mention how little care is taken to distinguish 'em when read from the Canonical Scriptures, and prevent the common people's mistaking 'em for such. But however his Lp's prudence is commendable in taking no notice of this matter, because those Accusations are best passed over in silence, against which there is no defence.  
2. That the common practice of the Conforming Clergy in the Country, of having only one Sermon on the Lord's day, nay in the far greatest number of Parishes of having no public Worship at all one part of the day, is a defect that needs some effectual Reformation.  
3. That the Dissenters seem to have better reason to blame the Conforming Clergy for casting out the Exposition of the Scripture when read (as that Exercise is now distinguished from Sermons) than the Bishop to reproach them for not reading the Scripture.   

Remarks on the Chapter concerning Bodily Worship. And here First, As to the Directions of the holy Scriptures concerning it.  
1. I Do readily agree with the Bp, That Bodily Worship is Commanded in the Scriptures.  
Not that I suppose it (as his Lp. does) to be a distinct part of Worship from Prayer, Praise, etc. but only a suitable Adjunct of it, (of which more afterwards).  
2. I do agree with him also, that the most common postures of Bodily Worship mentioned in Scripture, as used in Thanksgivings and Prayers were prostration, kneeling or standing. As to this last of standing, the Bp. takes notice of it as used in Thanksgivings, and p. 143. owns it to have been a Scripture-posture in Prayer too. But since he gives no instances of it, as used in Prayer, I shall take leave to subjoin a few, and the rather because this is the posture the Dissenters most generally use in this duty when publicly performed.  
Of this posture in Prayer, the best Expositors understand Abraham's standing before the Lord, 18 Gen. 22. Thus the Levites stood up in that Confession and Prayer they made, 9 Neh. 4. etc. So to cry to God, and stand up, are used as synonimous expressions, 30 Job 20. And 15 Jer. 1. Moses and Samuel's standing before God is put for praying to him. So also, 18 Jer. 20. And accordingly it was (as Grotius observes, on 6 Matt. 5.) the most universally-received custom among the Jews to pray standing. Thus, 18 Luke, 10, 11. Two men went up to the Temple to pray, and standing is the religious posture used by each of 'em. So 11 Mark. 25. When ye stand praying, forgive, etc. Hence Prayers were not only called Stations by the Jews (among whom it was a celebrated saying, That without stations the world could not subsist) but also by some of the most ancient Christian Writers. For the Christians not only imitated the Jews in this religious posture, but because they accounted their Lords-days their joyful Festivals, they forbade kneeling on 'em, and required standing.  
3. As Prayer and Thanksgiving are such Acts of Worship wherein we immediately address ourselves to God, so hearing seems rather to be a mediate act of Worship, and therefore the same posture of devotion seems not necessary therein, as in our direct Addresses to him. And hence we read of sitting, as the posture used in this part of Divine Worship, 33 Ezek. v. 31— And this is practised both in their Congregations and ours.  
Being thus easily agreed as to the Directions of Scripture, It remains that we consider  
Secondly, the Application of 'em, In which the Bp. undertakes to represent the Principles and Practice of the Dissenters.  
I. As to our Principles, He saith, You do not allow Bodily Adoration to be any part of God's Worship.  
Answ. If he mean that the Dissenters do not suppose that God is to be worshipped with our body as well as spirit, and that we are not obliged to use such external postures and behaviour as may most fitly express our inward reverence of God and subjection to him, nothing can be more groundless than to affirm this concerning 'em. But if his Lp mean, that they do not allow bodily postures of devotion to be in the same sense a part of religious worship, as Prayer, Praise, Hearing, etc. are, It is true; And they think he has made a very unaccurate enumeration of the parts of Worship, when he has omitted Baptism, which is one undoubted part of it, and made those devout postures a part, which are more properly an Adjunct of it. For they are not a distinct Duty from Prayer and Praise, etc. but relate to the manner of performing 'em, which should be fit to represent our profound veneration for that glorious Majesty whom we adore. And in vain does he refer us to what he had said, p. 105, 106. etc. for the proof of these devout bodily postures being in this sense a part of Worship. For we find nothing more there, then that God requires these external marks of our inward Reverence, when we offer up our Prayers or Thanksgivings, and has forbidden our paying 'em to any graven Image, that accordingly it was the practice of holy men, both in the Old and New Testament, to offer these parts of worship to God in such devout postures; And that the Scriptures frequently call these external postures of devotion by the name of Worship, on the account of their being the outward expressions, or the visible marks and signs of it. All which we readily grant; But if he had said any thing to the purpose, he should have proved, that mere bowing the knee, or prostration, etc. when there was no other part of worship offered, neither vocal nor mental, is yet made in Scripture a part of Worship; which as he has not yet done, so I presume he will not in haste do it. He does indeed tell us, p. 110. that bodily worship is the most proper external Act of Adoration, that Praying, Praising, etc. are not in Scripture termed Worship, and that these are not immediate direct Worship properly so called, because they do not, as bending or bowing the body, directly signify the subjection of our minds to God, in which inward Worship properly consists, and accordingly he tells us, the words used for Worship in the Old and New Testament signify properly and originally some bodily Action.  
Answ. That those bodily actions, which are external marks of reverence towards God, and subjection to him, are called in Scripture Worship, has been already granted; But the reason why they are called Worship in general, rather than Prayer and Praise, etc. is not because these latter are not immediate direct Worship properly so called, but because these bodily actions are the external expressions of religious reverence and homage common to all these several parts of direct and immediate Worship. For there is a more direct signification of our subjection to God in our prayers, when we expressly declare therein our humiliation for our sins, implore the pardon of 'em, acknowledge the rightful Authority of God over us, and renew our vows of Obedience to him, than can be supposed in any external postures whatsoever. The signification of our homage by words being more distinct, clear, and full, than by gestures. I might say the same of those praises, one great part whereof consists in celebrating the sovereign authority and dominion of God, as well as the perfections of his nature. So that these duties do more directly express the devotion of our minds, though postures of bodily reverence must be annexed, because God must be glorified with our bodies as well as spirits  
But he tells us, The Directory not only leaves out, but excludes bodily Worship, by requiring all to take their seats, or places, without Adoration, or bowing themselves towards one place or other.  
And this the Bp. severely decries, as a Rule directly opposite to natural Reason, as well as to the Commands of God, and the examples of his Saints.  
Answ. If the Bishop had duly considered the true occasion of this Caution in the Directory, he would not have put us under a necessity of reviving the memory of those faults that seemed buried with their Authors, by straining those expressions of the Directory beyond the true intent of 'em. For 'tis well known this Caution was leveled against the manifold bowings and cringings which AB Laud had endeavoured to introduce into the Church; who upon the vain conceit of some peculiar presence of Christ at the Altar, zealously propagated the custom of bowing towards it; And he having a great influence on the disposal of Church-preferments, on the account of his eminent station, and his great Interest at Court, All the aspiring Clergy were ready to strive who should outdo each other in that sort of bowing, which was then the surest way to rise. The Parliament was greatly offended with these and the like Innovations, and especially at the rigour wherewith he had endeavoured to impose 'em on the Inferior Clergy. Now the Westminster-Assembly (composed almost entirely of such as were Conformists) being called to reform such Abuses, do in order to the effectual banishing these Innovations, give this Rule, by which they intent no more, than that no such external Adoration or bowing should be used by the people as they entered into the Church, because they supposed such external Adoration should only be used when some part of public worship was performed. But that they did by no means intent to forbid such external Adoration when any part of public worship was offered, that required such marks of our religious Reverence and Homage, is hence evident, viz. from their requiring such as come in after public Worship is begun, reverently to compose themselves to join with the Assembly in that Ordinance of God that is then in hand, which can import no less than the putting themselves into a bodily posture most suitable to that Ordinance, and expressive of due veneration towards God in it. 'Tis true indeed, as to the particular posture, they leave the people to that liberty the Scripture has done, which though it recommend several, yet does not confine us to any one to the exclusion of the rest. So that his Lp. has palpably misrepresented this Rule of the Directory (on that occasion too needful and justifiable) that he might have some pretence to find fault with it. For as I have here explained it to him, he may easily see, 'tis neither contrary to reason nor Scripture, but only to a superstitious custom, of A. B. Laud's Invention, or at least to one authorised and imposed by him.  
II. Since then the Bp. has no just quarrel with the Principles, let's consider what he has to say against the practice of Dissenters. And here he tells us,  
1. At your Thanksgivings and Praises you neither bow nor stand up.  
Answ. If he mean this of our singing of Psalms, He knows our posture is the same herein with that used in the Parish Churches, and liable to no other objections, than theirs. If he intends it of those Thanksgivings we offer up together with our Prayers, what he here asserts, if he speak of the Dissenters in general, is notoriously untrue, and contrary to plain matter of fact, as I shall have occasion to observe farther in his charge that refers to our Prayers.  
2. He charges us with casting out of our Worship the Confessions of Faith themselves, which he tells us are a material part of the service of God, for which he citys, 10 Rom. 9, 10. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, p. 129.  
Answ. Why does his Lp. think the bare citation of that Text a sufficient proof of what he here infers from it, when he knows well enough, that these words are by the stream of all judicious Commentators understood concerning the external profession of the Christian Religion in general, (which we especially make in our attendance on all the public Institutions of our Lord) but by none that I can meet with besides himself concerning the repetition of a summary of the Christian Faith in our public Assemblies. If they were to be understood of the latter, 'tis but a very short summary we are here required to repeat, and such a one as we never perform any part of Divine Worship without repeating much more. But for the repeating that particular summary commonly called the Apostle's Creed, or any other later one of human composure, there's not one word in this place, nor indeed any precept or example in Scripture. So that the Rehearsal of such a Confession of Faith, is, according to the Bp's notion, a mere human Invention. And yet I am far from condemning the practice of the Established Church in rehearsing the Apostle's Creed; and have known it retained in some Meetings of Dissenters. Only I see no reason why those that use it, should censure those that do not, when there is no clear warrant for it. And the Bp. should, of all men, be least forward to do it.  
3. He accuses the Dissenters of sitting generally at their public Prayers.  
Answ. If he speak here of the generality of Dissenters in England, and in this part of Ireland, what he saith is notoriously untrue. I know few or none that do it, except such as pretend bodily infirmity, in which case I suppose the Bp. himself will allow it as much as to a sick man to pray in his bed. If he design this charge only in refernce to the Dissenters in the North of Ireland, where alone there seems to be any ground given for it, I shall first represent to him what account the Ministers there give of this matter, and then add my own thoughts in reference to it. Now they not only affirm, that the better sort of their Hearers do generally stand, but that they frequently in their Discourses to 'em recommend that, or kneeling, as the fittest posture, where bodily imfirmity does not hinder it. But they dare not be too peremptory in their censuring those that pretend such infirmity, since many of their people travel 3 or 4 miles to their Meetings, and may therefore be reasonably supposed to be incapable of long standing without danger of discomposing their minds for the Worship of God. And for kneeling, the places where they meet are usually too much crowded to admit of their using that posture. And there are some of 'em think their sitting in such cases warranted by Scriptural pattern, particularly the instance of David's sitting before the Lord, 2 Sam. 7, 8. As to this account, I shall only briefly subjoin, that I am truly sorry there are so many that by sitting in public Prayer, have given some occasion for this censure of the Bp's. For though I doubt not, real infirmity is a just excuse for not standing; yet 'tis too probable, that too many under that notion too far consult their ease; for standing is generally used by Dissenters in Englund, even in those places where many of the people go as far to their Meetings. And for that passage alleged, 2 Sam. 7, 8. I do truly think there is some weight in what the Bp. has offered, to render it probable that the word should be translated, David stayed, or abode and certainly so many plainer and more numerous examples of kneeling or standing are to be rather imitated by us than this doubtful one of sitting. So that for such as use this slothful posture without real necessity, to endulge their ease, I cannot excuse 'em from irreverence in it. And hope they will not persist in a practice so offensive to their brethren elsewhere, and disliked by their Pastors. And methinks they should be sensible of the indecency of it, if they consider, that they themselves universally kneel or stand in Closet and Family-prayer, and 'tis unaccountable why they should not as universally do it in public prayer, where their bodily strength will permit. But then I must add, as to his Lordship, that as he has no reason to reproach the Dissenters in general with this unseemly practice, so, since the Ministers in the North have so faithfully declared to their people their dislike of it, they can no more justly be upbraided with it, than the Conforming Clergy with all that toying and trifling, and that more open irreverence that is too common in many Parish-Churches, and much more in the Cathedrals.  
4. His next Charge is, At the Sacrament you sit, not only whilst you receive, but at the Thanksgiving and Blessing before. And this posture (he saith) the Directory imposes on the Communicants, the contrary to scripture, in respect of that part which concerns the Prayer and Thanksgiving, and without any command, or so much as example from Scripture, in respect of the sitting at the time of receiving.  
Ans. That the Dissenters generally sit at the thanksgiving or blessing before Receiving (or at the thanksgiving after it) is again notoriously contrary to matter of fact. If this be practised by some in the North of Ireland, they are singular in it, nor shall I undertake to excuse 'em in it. For though they allege for it not only the example of the multitude's sitting at a common meal when our Saviour gave thanks, 14 Matth. 19 but that there's no evidence of the Apostles discontinuing their Table-gesture, when Christ passed from the Celebration of the Passover to the Celebration of his holy Supper (For the Text saith, As they were eating, Jesus took the bread, and blest it, etc. without any mention of a change of their posture); yet because this is but a doubtful matter, I think it far safer to use the postures of Reverence more generally recommended to us in our Thanksgivings and Prayers by the Scripture, than to venture to omit them on so uncertain a ground.  
But I wonder why the Bp. should so positively assert that the Directory imposes on Communicants this posture of sitting at the Thanksgiving and Prayer before Receiving. For I can see no ground for it from their own words, which I perceive his Lp. was too wise to quote, and I shall therefore cite for him, and leave the judgement to every indifferent Reader.  
After this Exhortation, Warning and Invitation, The Table being before decently covered, and so conveniently placed that the Communicants may orderly sit about it, or at it, The Minister is to begin the Action with sanctifying and blessing the elements of Bread and Wine set before him; The Bread in comely and convenient Vessels, etc. Now 'tis plain, that these words about ordering the Table come in as a parenthesis, and can import no more than that the Table must be so placed, that the Communicants may sit at or about it; but that they must actually sit during the Blessing, or Thanksgiving, is no way affirmed, much less imposed; and I am sure the quite contrary is generally practised.  
But for sitting during the time of Receiving the elements, that indeed is supposed, though not enjoined by the Directory, and is generally practised by Diss nters.  
I hope his Lp. does not think our practice herein unlawful, since he declares, p. 118. 'Tis not his intention to assert that the Scriptures require kneeling at the Lord's Supper, p. 118. If then the debate be, whether our posture, or theirs, comes nearer to the practice of the Apostles, and is more suitable to the nature of the Institution itself, I think the Dissenters will have the advantage. And since his Lp. has stated the controversy thus, I shall carefully examine what he has here offered in favour of their practice, as preferable to ours.  
He tells us, p. 118, 119. That the Altar was of old the Lord's-Table, from whence his Attendants were fed, from 1 Mal. 7. That on this account the Israelites came to the Altar, and worshipped before it, as being God's Table, on which the sacrifice was presented as his meat, of which they were permitted to partake. From 2 Chron. 6.12, 13. and in 1 Kings 8.54. 2 Kings 18.22. That the Communion-Table is called the Lord's-Table, 1 Cor. 10.21. That the Israelites partaking of the Altar, is proposed as an example for our partaking of the Lord's Table, 1 Cor. 10.16, 18. That in 22 Ps. 29. there is an allusion to this religious eating with bodily worship, That we must receive the Eucharist in remembrance of Christ's death, whom we are commanded to worship, 45 Ps. v. 11. See p. 118, 119, and 120.  
Answ. His Lp. has so ill hap in his Criticisms, that he has directed us here to one of the strongest arguments that I know of against himself. And to make this good, I must set this account of the Jewish Sacrifices in a clearer light, which he has treated so confusedly.  
The Learned Dr. Cudworth in his excellent Treatise on the Lord's-Supper as a Feast upon a Sacrifice, divides the Jewish sacrifices into three sorts.  
1. Such as were wholly offered up to God, and burnt on the Altar, and these were called Burnt-Offerings.  
2. Such wherein besides something offered to God on the Altar, the Priests had also a part of, and these he subdivides into the Sin and Trespass-Offering.  
3. Such wherein, besides something offered to God, and a portion bestowed on the Priests, the Owners themselves had a share, and these were called Peace-Offerings.  
Now in all Sacrifices there was a Feast upon 'em. For the first sort of sacrifices, viz. Burnt-offerings had always Peace-offerings annexed. In the 2d sort, though the Owners did not eat of it themselves, as not being perfectly reconciled, because of some legal uncleanness, yet the Priests did eat of it as their proxies. But in Peace-offerings, the Owners are supposed fully reconciled, and were admitted to eat of the Sacrifice themselves, as a foederal rite of amity and peace between God and them; For God entertained 'em as his Guests at his Table, and feasted 'em with his provisions, according to the custom of those Oriental Nations of confirming Covenants by eating and drinking together. Now Christ's offering himself a sacrifice on the Cross, was most directly typifyed by the Burnt-offering, and the Lord's-Supper is a mystical Feast upon the memorial of that Sacrifice, in allusion to these religious Feasts upon Sacrifices under the Law of Moses.  
From hence it plainly follows, that if the practice of the Jews in reference to their Feasts upon the legal Sacrifices be the fittest pattern for ours in our Feast on the memorial of the Sacrifice of Christ in the Lord's-Supper, (as the Bp. does with very good reason assert; when from 1 Cor. 10, 16. he tells us, That the Israelites partaking of the Altar, is proposed as an example of our partaking of the Lord's-Table, p. 119.) then we must use the same posture in our receiving the Lord's-Supper, which they used in those Religious Feasts upon Sacrifices, of which the Lord's-Supper is the Antitype. If then the Jews celebrated those Feasts in a Table-gesture, we should use the same gesture in our celebration of the Lords-supper. The Bp. would indeed persuade us that the Jews did not, because we read of acts of external Worship paid to God at the offering up of sacrifices. But 'tis plain this argument has no force in it, unless he could prove they continued in that worshipping posture during the time of their eating or feasting on the things that had been offered. But of this he has not brought us the least shadow of proof, as he may see, if he review his own discourse on this head. Nay, we do in our celebration of the Lord's-Supper first offer up acts of Worship to God (I mean solemn thanksgivings and prayers, in which we celebrate his infinite mercy, in giving his Son to die, as the great propitiation for our sins, and by Faith as it were present that sacrifice to the Father, and implore his pardon in virtue of it) before we sit down to feast upon the memorial of Christ's sacrifice. And though I might here content myself with showing the invalidity of his argument, yet for once to do a work of supererogation, I shall prove that the Jews did celebrate these religious Feasts upon sacrifices, not in a worshipping-posture, but in a Table-gesture, not kneeling, etc. but sitting.  

●ee Dr. ●●llingft. ●. of his ●. of Imagery, p. 2, etc.  His Lp. knows that all our Protestant Divines plead against the Papists, that the golden Calf was worshipped by the Israelites no otherwise than as a visible symbol of the true God, and with the accustomed rites which they used in the worship of him. Of which rites we have this plain account, 32 Exod. 5, 6. And when Aaron saw it (i. e. the golden Calf, concerning which they said, These are thy Gods, O Israel, that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, v. 4.) he built an Altar before it, and made proclamation, saying, To morrow is a Feast to the Lord, or to Jehovah. And it follows, And they risen up early in the morning and offered Burnt-offerings, and brought Peace offerings, and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and risen up to play. Where their sitting down to eat and drink was their celebrating this religious Feast upon the sacrifice, the Peace-offerings being the provisions they fed on. And accordingly when the Apostle Paul has occasion to mention this Instance of their Idolatry, he recites no more than their sitting down to eat and drink, etc. that being a sufficient evidence of their joining in the Sacrifices, on which this was the Religious Feast. Of such a feast upon a sacrifice we have a remarkable instance given us, 1 Sam. 9.12, 13. compared with the 22 v. v. 12, 13. And they answered 'em and said, He is, behold, he is before you, make haste now, for he came to day to the City, for there is a Sacrifice of the people to day in the high-place. Assoon as ye come into the City ye shall straightway find him, before he go up to the high-place to eat, for the people will not eat till he come, because he does bless the Sacrifice, and afterwards they eat that be bidden; and v. 22. we read that Samuel took Saul and his Servant and brought 'em into a Parlour, and made 'em sit in the chiefest place among them that were bidden, which were about 30 persons. So that sitting was evidently their posture in this Religious Feast upon the Sacrifice. Such a religious Feast was that mentioned, 1 Sam. 16.6. etc. and sitting was again their posture in the celebration of it. See 57 Is. 7 23 Ezek. 41. in both which places sitting was the accustomed rite in all those Feasts upon Sacrifices among other Nations as well as the Jews. So, 2 Amos 8. And of such Feasts on Sacrifices, see more 34 Exod. 15. 18 Exod. 12. 106 Ps. 28.  
And from hence we may not only infer (according to the Bp's own argument) that sitting at this mystical Feast on the memorial of Christ's Sacrifice is hereby warranted as lawful, but that 'tis most agreeable to the nature of the Institution itself, as the Lord's-supper is, Epulum ex oblatis. Nay this posture seems hereby recommended to us, as most fit to signify our partaking of the precious virtue and fruits of the sacrifice of Christ, and the honour the blessed God puts upon us when he admits us to sit down as Guests at his holy Table, in token of our being received into a state of amity and peace with him. And we are not (as the Bishop groundlessly supposes, p. 120.) required to offer immediate Worship to Christ, or to the Father in the act of Receiving at all. We are indeed then required to eat and drink in remembrance of our blessed Saviour; but this rather argues that meditation is then our proper business, and not prayer or praise; any farther than some ejaculatory desires or thanksgivings may be intermixed in our meditations. But for solemn Worship we have proper occasion for it, both before and after this mystical Feast, and in that we do use a worshipping posture. And as none that know our principles can question our paying divine honour to Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word, or God manifested in the flesh, so none can reasonably imagine our celebrating this Feast upon his sacrifice in the posture most suitable to such Religious Feasts, to be a denial of his Divinity; And therefore we are little concerned in the order of the Protestant Churches of Poland, in opposition to the Socinians; If they thought this rite of sitting to be of ill signification and original, it appears from what has been said that they were mistaken; but as kneeling is of a far more suspicious original, so we are sure it has been abused to the vilest Idolatry.  
For his first Answer, That we are not required, nor is it convenient to imitate all that Christ did, And that the Apostle Paul mentions not this posture as any part of what he had received from Christ concerning this Sacrament, I need only Reply, That 'tis certainly safest to imitate the example of the Apostles in such a posture as is evidently most agreeable to the nature of the Institution. And though the Apostle Paul does not expressly mention it as received from Christ, yet he sufficiently intimates so much to us, when in the foregoing Chapter he compares this Feast on Christ's sacrifice with the Religious Feasts on the Jewish one's, 1 Cor. 10.16, 17, 18, etc. in which this posture was so universally received, that there was no need of expressing it.  
For his second Answer, That he has proved religious eating was accompanied with bodily Worship, and therefore if it were granted that we were obliged to Receive this Sacrament in a Table posture, from the example of our Saviour, yet it would not follow that we should not receive it kneeling, etc. p. 123, 124.  
Repl. It appears sufficiently from what has been already alleged, that the Bp. confounds the Worship paid when the Sacrifice was offered with the posture used when they came to feast upon it. And I have already produced him undeniable evidence, that they celebrated their Religious Feasts upon Sacrifices sitting, or in the same posture as their other meals, and never kneeling, or in a worshipping posture; And consequently it will follow, that if we should receive it in a Table-gesture, we must receive it sitting, and not kneeling.  
For his third Answer, That our Saviour was not at a common Supper when he instituted this Sacrament, but at the Passover, which was a sacramental eating, and had a peculiar posture prescribed for it, 12 Exod. 11. and though some think (but without warrant from Scripture) that the Jews did not observe this, yet 'tis owned they observed another, which differed from the common posture of eating, and was accounted Religious; however 'tis spoken that our Saviour performed this eating with several religious Ceremonies that were not in the first Institution. And he here instances in the Cup mentioned, 22 Luke 17. and therefore (he adds) if we would imitate Christ, we ought to eat the Lord's-Supper in a way peculiar to itself, and different from our common meals.  
Repl. That our Saviour was celebrating the Passover when he instituted his Supper is undoubted, and that the Passover was no common Supper, is also true. For (as Dr. Cudworth has in the discourse I mentioned before evidently proved) it was a Religious Feast upon a Sacrifice; But all this plainly concludes against his Lp, because in every one of the three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark & Luke, there is express mention of their sitting down when they celebrated this Religious Feast. 26 Matt. 20. 14 Mark 18. 22 Luke 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the posture prescribed, 12 Exod. 11. there is no express mention either of their sitting or standing, and I do not see any clear ground those few Expositors go upon, that conclude the Israelites were then to eat the Passover standing, because they were to have their shoes on; And even those Expositors suppose this posture of standing to have been only used at that time, to signify their haste in fleeing from Egypt to be so great, that they had not time to eat otherwise, but to have been disused afterwards, and the common posture of other Religious Feasts upon Sacrifices resumed in the celebration of this, viz. sitting. And whereas he tell us, That 'tis owned the Jews observed a posture in the Passover different from the common posture of eating, and accounted Religious, I must add, that his Lp. is still unhappy in using arguments that make against himself. I perceive he was so prudent as not to tell us wherein this posture used in eating the Passover differed from that used in their common eating. For all that I can find concerning it in the best Expositors, is only this. All agree that they did eat the Passover sitting, but whereas in sitting at Table, in their common meals, they sometimes sat with their bodies more erect and strait, and sometimes in a more easy posture, leaning on one side, Grotius, Baxtorf, and Dr. Lightfoot tell us, the Jews did usually in their eating the Passover rather choose this more easy posture, and (as the last adds) to signify the more fully their freedom from that servitude to which their Ancestors were subjected in Egypt. So that of the two, this posture had less of external reverence, than that sometimes used in their common eating, and not more; For it was also used in their common eating, when they kept state, and endulged most their own ease and pleasure. So that if the Bp. can hence draw any argument against us, 'tis that our posture of sitting upright has rather too much of reverence in it then too little. For the Cup mentioned 22 Luke 17. I know not what it can signify to his purpose, whether we suppose with Grotius, that 'twas usual to conclude the Passover with drinking round, or with others, admit of a Transposition of the words. 'Tis evident our Saviour observed the common posture of Religious Feasts, viz. sitting, which posture they used also in their common meals, only in their religious ones they always used (as Grotius speaks) sessione solitâ molliori et honoratiori, the more soft and honourable way of sitting at meat.  
But his 4th. and full Answer is, That this argument drawn from the practice of Christ and his Apostles goes on a false supposition that our Saviour instituted this Sacrament in the common posture of eating, which no wise appears in Scripture, neither can it be inferred from any thing said or intimated by the Evangelists, or St. Paul, but rather the contrary. And to render the contrary more probable, he alleges, that our Saviour and his disciples must be supposed to be in a worshipping posture when he gave thanks, and blessed the bread, and therefore that 'tis probable that he risen to bless and distribute the holy Sacrament, as he did to wash his Disciples feet, 13 John 4. tho there be no mention made in the three other Evangelists of his rising to do the former, any more than of his rising to do the latter.  
Repl. This is, I confess, a bold stroke, to call that so peremptorily a false supposition, which used to be allowed us by those whose practice herein differs from ours, as most probable at least. But 'tis no unusual thing for some persons to supply the defect of an argument with an air of assurance in proposing it, And that the Bp's argument here has no force in it. I hope to convince him, if he will examine this matter without prejudice. I have shown him before, that all the Evangelists agree that they sat in eating the Passover. He himself owns there is no mention made of their changing their posture when Christ instituted this Sacrament. All the strength of his argument then lies on the probability of his blessing the elements in another posture, and consequently distributing 'em so. Now since the Lord's-Supper was an Antitype of the Jewish Religious feasts upon Sacrifices, If it appear, that that there were solemn Thanksgivings used in those Jewish Feasts, and yet notwithstanding those that eaten of 'em sat while they eaten, than this solemn Blessing or Thanksgiving used by Christ, gives us no ground to conclude that his Apostles did not sit in their celebrating this mystical Feast on his Sacrifice, but we have just reason to conclude the contrary; Now all Writers do agree, that in the Passover-Feast there was solemn Thanksgiving used, and yet all grant that Christ and his Apostles did eat it sitting. And the same may be observed in other Religious Feasts upon Sacrifices, in that mentioned, 1 Sam. 9.13. we read expressly of the Sacrifice being first blest by Samuel, and yet we read as expressly of their sitting down when they came to feast upon it. So that the Bp's argument has no weight in it, since if applied to that rite in the Jewish Religion that's parallel to this in the Christian, it concludes false, and against plain matter of fact.  
For his last Answer, That the Apostle Paul severely reproves the Corinthians for their irreverence in receiving this Sacrament, and threatens 'em with damnation for not discerning the Lord's-body, that is, for receiving it as their common food, without distinguishing between 'em by a reverend and religious Receiving it. And that 'tis but a due distinction between it and our common food, to approach to the Lord's-Table with as much reverence as the Jews did to their Altar, at which they never sat down.  
Repl. What that Irreverence was which the Apostle reproves, he tells us, That every one took before others his own Supper, and one was hungry, and another drunk, 1 Cor. 11.21, 22. And this indeed was very gross irreverence, and such as showed they did not duly consider the nature and design of this Institution, as it was a common feast upon Christ's Sacrifice, wherein they were to commemorate his death, and spiritually partake of his body and blood, i. e. of all the precious fruits of his death and Sacrifice. But he does by no means charge 'em with irreverence for receiving the Bread and Wine in the same posture they did their common food, though the relation here given of their practice renders it highly probable they did receive it so. His Reproof either relates to the inward exercise of their minds, that they did not approach that ordinance with that knowledge of, and Faith in a crucified Saviour, or with those devout affections towards him, which became those that received such memorial of his body and blood; Or to their external deportment, that their manner of eating was confussed, disorderly, uncharitable, and intemperate, but not one word about their not eating in a posture of Worship. The solemn Thanksgivings that precede and succeed our Receiving, as well as the quality of what we eat and drink, and its consecration to this holy use are sufficient to distinguish this religious Feast from our common meals. And though the Jews might kneel at their Altar when with the Sacrifice they offered up their Prayers, yet I hope he is by this time convinced they were far from kneeling at their Religious Feasts, since they rather used the most easy way of sitting in 'em.  
If then it appear that sitting was the posture used by the disciples of Christ when he administered this sacrament, If this posture be most agreeable to the nature of the Institution, as 'tis a Feast on the Sacrifice of Christ, If the posture seem to carry something in it most fit to signify the honour God admits us to in virtue of that Sacrifice, (viz. to be treated by him as his reconciled children and friends, by being Guests at his Table), Then for any man to censure this posture as irreverent (as the Bishop seems to do, p. 144.) is little better than to reproach the Apostles of Christ, and their blessed Master to; and to refuse this posture on pretence of humility, is to refuse an endearing mark of God's peculiar favour and condescension to us; And though I am so charitable notwithstanding all this, that I dare not positively condemn kneeling as unlawful, yet how the Bp. will defend it from the stroke of his own Principles, I cannot tell. For if this be the true account of the matter, kneeling is a way of celebrating this part of divine Worship, which is neither expressly commanded in Scripture, nor warranted by any examples there, nay set up to the exclusion of that way which we have plain example for, and which is most suitable to the nature of the Institution; let him then try how he will defend the lawfulness of it without contradicting himself.  
And thus much for the posture used in the celebration of the Lord's-supper. But before I come to consider that Institution itself, I must add a few Remarks on some remaining passages in his 3d. Section of this Chapter about Bodily Worship.  
His 5th Charge is, Too many of your Persuasion condemn us who conform to God's Word in these particulars, as guilty of Superstition, and endeavour to render our Conformity ridiculous, etc.  
Answ. If he mean that many of the Dissenters condemn and ridicule them for using the forementioned scriptural postures of Devotion, I cannot imagine what ground he has for what he asserts. I have conversed with 'em much more than his Lordship, and I never could hear any such thing from 'em. I confess many Dissenters may condemn such practices among 'em as bowing towards the East, (or as the Laudians towards the Altar), bowing at the Name of Jesus rather than that of Christ, or the name of the Father, or of the holy Spirit, or the name of God, or Jehovah, (as if there were some peculiar reverence due to those five Letters). The Reading in the Cathedrals one part of their Service in the body of the place, and the other at the Altar, when there's no Communion to be celebrated, the standing up at the Reading one part of the Scriptures more than another, when all have the same stamp of Divine Authority; And the Bishop himself has put a very good argument into their mouths against 'em; For these are ways of Worship that have neither scriptural precept or pattern, and therefore according to his Principle must be supposed to be human Inventions displeasing to God.  
To these particular Accusations he adds this general one,  
In short, I entreat you to consider that you have not one visible act of Adoration among you in your Assemblies, except we reckon in this number that your men uncover their heads at Prayer, and yet even this is not required by your Directory.  
Answ. If he speak of Dissenters in general, Is it not strange he should so confidently outface the Truth in matters of fact; when 'tis so notorious, That standing, which is a visible and a scriptural posture of Adoration is so generally used by Dissenters in all their Thanksgivings and Prayers? If some in the North of Ireland are too negligent herein, 'tis the fault of those particular persons, and no more justly chargeable on the body of Dissenters, than the far grosser irreverence of too many of her Members is chargeable on the Established Church. For the Directory, It does in general require external Reverence, but leaves the particular expressions and marks of it, as the Scripture has done to the people's liberty; And accordingly, as some that have convenience for it use kneeling, so the generality use standing, because there are few of our Meetings, but either the straitness of the Seats, or the number of those that meet, renders kneeling less practicable to the main part of the Congregation. And standing is as undoubtedly a scriptural posture of Devotion as kneeling.  
Having thus cleared matters of fact, I must add, That for the pretences he here produces for the neglect of Bodily Worship, 'tis evident the Body of Dissenters are no way concerned in 'em. For I could never yet meet with one of 'em that ever pretended that bodily Worship might be neglected. For even those that sit at Prayer (and weakly allege the sorecited example of David for it) yet are uncovered, and intent that as an expression of their reverence in all acts of immediate worship. And much less did I ever hear any D ssenter allege such trifling reasons as these, for which his Lp. has not thought fit to produce any Author, and therefore I know none we can father 'em on but himself. And if he framed these arguments, he does well to answer 'em; Or if he have met with some in his conversation of so sottish an Opinion, that have no better pleas for it, 'tis but just he should endeavour to show 'em their mistakes; But why he cannot confute such weak people, without gross slanders against those that are no way concerned in their errors, I know not; And I desire his Lp. to consider what else he can make of the following passages.  
P. 137. Speaking of these external postures of Reverence, he saith, In cases of necessity we think they may lawfully be omitted; But you are taught that in no cases they may be lawfully practised; You are taught rather to stay at home, than to conform in their outward gestures or circumstances. You are advised rather to abstain all your lives from the Lord's-Supper, than receive it kneeling. Now if you think God hates 'em so much, etc. and accounts 'em a polluting his Ordinance, etc.  
Answ. If his Lp. cannot produce so much as one among the Dissenting Ministers that ever taught their people, That such postures of bodily Worship may in no cases be lawfully practised, than I hope he will own himself guilty here of a very immoral practice. And if he can produce any such person, I dare undertake that he shall be publicly censured by his Brethren for teaching so senseless and ridiculous doctrine. But to make this a general charge against us, is the most inexcusable aspersion that he could possibly cast upon us, and such as we must demand from him, that he either prove, or ingenuously retract. I might say the same concerning our people's being taught rather to stay at home than to conform in their outward gestures, if he understand this of scriptural gestures used in the Established Church. For what he adds as to kneeling at the Lord's-Supper, he cannot be ignorant that some of the most considerable Writers for the NC's Cause in England have defended the lawfulness of it, though his Lp. cannot do it without contradicting himself. There are others indeed that do think it unlawful, because they think it not only unsuitable to the nature and design of the Institution, but a needless symbolising with the Romish Church in a posture abused to the most pernicious Idolatry, by which they are the more confirmed in that Idolatry, notwithstanding the public protestation of the Established Church against that abuse. I shall therefore only add, That if any refuse to receive the Sacrament kneeling, his Lp. has the least reason to blame 'em, who by the Rubric and Canons is obliged to give it to none in the Church but such as kneel; For sure 'tis a lesser fault to be too rigid and scrupulous as to our own practice, than to impose it on others too, and to deny them the privileges of Christian Communion for want of conformity to an unscriptural gesture. If the former run into an extreme, moderate persons may have some right to reprove 'em, but those have none who run much farther into the other.  
Again, What excuse can the Bp. have for that passage, p. 138, 139.  
But in your Meetings there is no obligation on any one to signify his concurrence with the Congregation in any ordinary act of worship either by word or gesture, and therefore this end of public Assemblies, (viz. to signify our sense and belief of the Being, etc. of God, and to stir up the same in others) is utterly defeated by you. The Directory does not require or allow the people so much as to signify their assent by adding their Amen to the Prayers or Thanksgivings there offered. But on the contrary, you ridicule those that practice it, pursuant to the directions and examples in Scripture. And as to gestures, such as kneeling, standing, or bowing the body, you condemn 'em all as Relics of Idolatry and Superstition. There remains therefore in your Assemblies nothing whereby the people may testify their belief or assent to what they hear, which was one design of the Meeting. Thus, by turning all bodily Worship out of your Assemblies, you have made void this great end of 'em, and left no visible distinction whereby any one may signify whether he assents to the Worship offered, or dissents from it. The whole assembly being to one another, mere Spectators and Hearers, not Joint-Worshipers.  
Answ. His Lp. was I suppose weary of retailing his aspersions, and therefore here gives 'em to us by wholesale. For 'tis not true that there is no obligation on any in our Meetings to signify his concurrence with the Congregation in any ordinary act of Worship by gesture. For the Directory requires that such as come into the Congregation should reverently compose themselves to join with the Congregation in that Ordinance that is then in hand. Which implys their joining in such devout gestures as the nature of that particular Ordinance does require. And their constant attendance on the several parts of public Worship, with their reverend behaviour therein, is a public declaration of their joining in it. 'Tis again untrue, that the Directory does not allow the people to signify their assent to the public Prayers and Thanksgivings by saying Amen. For the very Catechism composed by 'em in explication of the Conclusion of the Lord's-Prayer implys the contrary, that we should in Testimony of our desire and assurance, to be heard say Amen. I confess I know not what sort of modesty has made it too usual among us not to repeat our Amen so loudly as is generally done in the Parish-Churches; And in this particular I am of the same judgement with the Reverend Author of that Sermon in the morning lectures on 1 Cor. 14. v. 16. who advises the pronouncing it more aiudibly. Nor do I know of any Dissenters that ridicule any Conformists for doing so. But, to charge us (as he here does) with condemning kneeling, standing, or bowing down, as Relics of Idolatry and Superstition, is so gross a calumny, and so unbecoming a man that pretends to sincerity & candour, that he is obliged in common justice to repair the wrong he has here done us. For kneeling and standing are postures so universally used by the Dissenters, and so frequently recommended and urged in their Printed Discourses and Sermons, that they cannot, without the most stupid self contradiction, condemn 'em as Relics o● Idolatry and Superstition; Nor did I ever hear of one person that ever scrupled the use of 'em. Some may indeed have censured Kneeling at the Sacrament, bowing towards the East or the Altar, etc. as such Relics of Idolatry and Superstition; but what's this to the use of those postures in Religious Worship in general, of which the Bp. here speaks?  
For those weak people of whom he tells us, p. 141. That they object against kneeling and standing in the Congregation, that 'tis troublesome to 'em, They do indeed offer a very lazy excuse; and if the Bp. has met with any such, he does well to shame 'em out of it. But I can by no means be of the Bp's opinion, that any leave them on this score, because they find a way of Worship among the Dissenters easier than theirs; Nor do I find that a man can sleep more securely and quietly in the Meetings than in the Parish-Churches. I am sure I have oftener heard such slothful people awakened by severe reproofs in the Dissenters Assemblies than in theirs. So that I suspect those will fail of their design, who come to our Meetings in hopes to take a more undisturbed Nap there  
The Bishop seems, p 143. to assert, That kneeling in public Prayer is a duty which we are bound to provide conveniency for. But as he wisely takes it for granted, instead of proving it, so he groundlessly imagines the Dissenters to have some aversion to it, whereas I know of no posture more universally used by 'em in that duty in their Closets or Families where they have conveniency for it. And I have seen it frequently used in those larger Seats in their Meetings that were wide enough to allow room for it. So that I perceive his Lordship is as great a stranger to our judgement and practice, as if he lived in some remote part of the world, and yet pretends to give an account of it with as much confidence as if he had continually frequented our Assemblies. I think I may pretend to know 'em better, and therefore must in justice to 'em add, that in those Meetings I have frequented, I have observed as great an appearance of external Reverence and Devotion, of seriousness and gravity as in any other Protestant Churches whatsoever either at home or abroad.  
The Bishop concludes this Chapter with this Observation, But the truth of the matter, as it seems to me, is, That your neglecting to kneel at the most solemn of all Christian Ordinances, the Lord's-Supper, does harden you against Reverence in the other parts of Divine Worship: And it is no wonder it should do so; for if Reverence be not thought necessary in that duty, it may well seem unnecessary in any other.  
On which words I shall only add, That if by Reverence in that Ordinance of the Lord's-Supper, he means kneeling while we eat the Bread, and drink the Cup, I have showed him that the Apostles used no such Reverence, and he may with the same justice reproach them as he does us. But it will by no means follow, that we must not use a worshipping-posture when acts of immediate Worship are offered, because we use it not, when no such acts are required; as none are, during our eating and drinking in remembrance of Christ in that Institution. So that I may more justly observe, That his Lordship's neglecting so long to reason solidly, and to speak Truth concerning the Dissenters, has so hardened him in the contrary practice, that he seems resolved to go on in it to the end of the Chapter.  
For the practice of the Established Church in reference to Bodily Worship. I need add nothing to what has been already observed, (p. 123, 124) concerning bowing at the name of Jesus, standing up at the Reading some part of the Scriptures rather than others, Reading in the Cathedrals one part of their Service at the Communion-Table, where few of the people can hear it, etc. For which practices the Bp. must either bring us express scriptural precept or pattern, or must censure 'em for his sort of human Inventions; and truly some of 'em look too like superstitious ones; For they are either used and retained for no reason at all, but mere arbitrary pleasure, or for such reasons as include some superstitious conceit in 'em, as if some peculiar honour and homage were due to that name of our Saviour above others, And greater veneration were due to some part of Scripture above the rest; And as if there were either some peculiar sanctity in the prayers, or in the place, when they are read at the Communion-Table, or there were no better way of instructing the people in their obligation to Communicate, than by this dumb sign of reading some part of the Communion-Service there.   

Remarks on the Fifth Chapter concerning the Lord's-Supper.  
And here  
I. FOr the Account he gives us of what the Scriptures prescribe concerning the frequency of Celebrating this Institution, I shall very easily agree with his Lp.  
For though I think his Reasoning from the time of Celebrating the Passover, and from the general Topic of our doing it as often as we have conveniency for it, is not very cogent to prove any obligation upon us to celebrate this Sacrament every Lord's-day, Yet I do think his other arguments from Scripture are of great weight to prove, that in the Apostles time this Ordinance was made one constant part of their Lords-days Worship, and I think it past doubt that this was the universal practice of Christian Churches for several succeeding Ages. So that in this respect I fear that the Reformed Churches themselves have not yet come up to the practice of the truly primitive and Apostolical ones, as I truly think were highly desirable. Many learned Authors, both Conf's and N C's have freely delivered their judgements to the same purpose, and I know of none that have disputed the matter of fact on which their arguments for reviving this practice are founded. I know there are other judicious persons that do not think the arguments drawn thence to be demonstrative, and do still conceive the words, As oft as ye eat this bread, etc. and do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me, to leave the frequency of performing this duty to the determination of human prudence. And though their exceptions do not so far weigh with me as to alter my judgement, yet I dare not be harsh in censuring such whose apprehensions herein are different from my own.  
All the Debate then remaining between the Bp. and me, will be concerning  
II. The Practice of the Established Church and that of the Dissenters.  
For the practice of the Established Church, I wonder why he should pretend their Church has provided for those that desire to Receive every Lord's-day, merely because of her ordering some part of the Communion-Service to be read every Lord's-day, when 'tis so publicly known that there is no Bread and Wine provided for such as may be disposed to Communicate; And why should the people be taught their duty only by such dumb signs as that? or part of the Communion-Service be read when there's no Communion intended? He does indeed very justly observe that the Canons require no more of every Parishioner, than that he Receivee thrice a year; But why he should lay the blame of their people's Receiving no oftener, on the ill example of the Dissenters, I cannot imagine. For if it appear that the Dissenters generally Receive far oftener than their Canons require, It will be very unaccountable how their example should encourage that negligence of the Conforming Laity, which it rather reproves. I confess, for the method of driving men to the Sacrament by punishment, (if he intent this of the severe penalties that follow upon a Writ de Excommunicato Capiendo) we do not much admire it. To be admitted to the Lord's-Table, we esteem so great a Privilege and Honour, that we think none should partake of it, but such as do very earnestly desire and seek it, and are in the judgement of human charity well fitted and prepared for it, by competent knowledge, and an inoffensive conversation.  
But we do by no means think those deserve to be admitted at all whom nothing else can prevail with to come to this Sacrament, but the fear of a Prison; and who are haled to that Holy Table, merely to escape the Jaylor's Clutches. Nor is it reasonable to put Men under so strong Temptation to dissemble with God in so solemn Vows, for the preservation of their Secular Interest. And for those Dissenters that scruple Kneeling, Nothing could be more Unchristian than to deny 'em the Lord's Supper without their compliance with that posture, and yet punish 'em for not receiving it in their Parish Churches; which was no better than to punish 'em for their being afraid of sinning. And if this be the Discipline which his Lp. complains of being weakened, I know of few moderate and wise Men that will be much troubled at it.  
For the Practice of Dissenters,  
1. He very groundlessly infers, That because the Directory leaves it to the Ministers, etc. to determine how often this Institution shall be celebrated, that they exclude it by this Rule, from being an ordinary constant part of God's Service. For no more can be justly drawn from those words, than that they left the matter to the liberty of those that had the over sight and care of particular Congregations. So that if any Ministers thought the constant celebration of this Sacrament every Lord's Day, most convenient for the comfort and edification of their People, this Rule does by no means forbid, but rather enforce their doing it. But those indeed that think otherwise, are no farther imposed on by this Rule, than to be obliged to do it frequently, which the Directory (as the Bp. owns) expressly requires; and I doubt not they intended by frequently, oftener than thrice a year. Nor can I imagine why he should any more compare our practice with the Papists than their own: For do the Parish-Ministers every Lord's-day offer the Sacrament to the People, or invite 'em to it, or afford 'em opportunities for it, any more than the Dissenters? Or rather do not the Dissenters generally afford 'em opportunities much oftener? Why should he then so severely condemn the Dissenters for what they are less guilty of than themselves? If he pretend that the Sacrament is offered, because part of the Communion-Service is read; Does he not know that if the People take that for an Invitation, they'll find themselves disappointed? And sure 'tis better to make no offer of it than a delusory one.  
2. He very confidently asserts, That the Dissenters rarely press the People to Communion; They have few Sermons or Discourses to that purpose; And many of 'em condemn our Zeal for endeavouring to restore the constant Communion precedented in Scripture.  
'Tis strange that his Lp. should continually put us on so ungrateful a Task, as the denying the Truth of what he saith, by advancing such groundless Accusations; I am sure the generality of 'em administer this Sacrament far oftener than the generality of the Conforming Clergy; and 'tis seldom or never administered without their taking occasion to press People to it. Nor do I find any of their Printed Discourses on that subject, that omit their doing it: Nay, I am inclined to believe there are as many N. C. Writers as Conformists, that have preached and wrote for restoring the constant Communion precedented in Scripture. And one would think that Experience should be sufficient to convince him that the Dissenting Ministers press it more. For of those that attend the Parish-Churches and the Meetings, I think 'tis evident, that if we make allowance for the Numbers in general of those of each Persuasion the Communions of the Dissenters will be found much more numerous as well as more frequent. I confess, if his Lp. only mean, That we do not promiscuously urge all People to come to this Ordinance, how ignorant or wicked soever, 'tis true; and I hope he will not blame us for that, unless he think we may turn the Church into a common sink and receptacle of profligate Sinners, and invite Swine to that H. Table. (For such are all notoriously vicious persons in the Language of the Scripture.) On the contrary, we have too great reason to complain, that too many such are admitted in the Parish-Churches, notwithstanding the ineffectual Provision of the Rubric and Canons, against this Abuse; of which no Reformation can be expected to any purpose, till particular Pastors be restored to the due Exercise of their Pastoral Power. But for those that have competent Knowledge, and are of unblameable Deportment, they are frequently urged to attend this Institution; and particularly in the North of Ireland, the Minister in visiting the several Districts, inquires of the Elders concerning such, that besides the general Invitation from the Pulpit, he may particularly urge 'em to their Duty.  
3. For the Practice of Dissenters, he saith, 'Tis worse than their Principles; and concerning it he adds these remarkable words:  
I appeal to you, Whether it is not reckoned a great thing among many of you, if once in a year or two, a Communion be celebrated in one of your Meetings? Nay, among some of you 'tis often omitted for several years together, and in some places for ten or more. I fear I may say, Your People generally have too little sense of the Obligation of Receiving it at all; and your Ministers indulge 'em so far in this Corruption, that a man may live comfortably among you, and with the Reputation of a Professor, to Thirty or Forty years of Age, and never Receive at all. And by the best Enquiry I could make, I could not compute that above One in Ten that go to your Meetings, ever Receive through the whole Course of their Lives, notwithstanding Christ's positive Command to do it in remembrance of him. So unhappily are Men overseen in laying aside the Commands of God for their own Inventions. I should be glad to find that I were mistaken in this Computation. In the mean time you must give me leave to tell you plainly, That this practice of rare or no Communion, is so peculiarly your own, that I think you are altogether singular in it; and are so far from having any Precedent for it in Scripture, that I doubt whether any Precedent can be found for you even among the most degenerate and barbarous People that ever called themselves Christians.  
Answ. In order to our passing a right Judgement on this Accusation of the Bp's, I must give a brief Account of matter of Fact. For those Meetings in England, and the South of Ireland, where Pastors are settled, the most of 'em constantly celebrate the Lord's Supper once a Month, others once in six Weeks, or two Months, and a few once every Lord's Day. I do not believe there are Six that have it so seldom as once a Quarter. So that if the Bp. speak here of the generality of Dissenters, (as we have reason to suppose, because he does not here (as elsewhere) confine his Charge to any part of 'em) To reproach them as guilty of rare or no Communion not to be precedented among the most degenerate and barbarous People that were ever called Christians, is a Calumny of such a heinous nature, that I shall in mere Civility and respect to his Character, forbear to treat it as it deserves; and shall only desire him to bring the Parish-Churches to that frequency of Communion so generally practised among the Dissenters, before he treat us any more with such rude Language, as we might with so much advantage retort. If his Lordship pretend that he designed to confine this to the North of Ireland, tho' he has expressed no such thing; yet how little ground he had for this heavy Charge, will appear upon a due Examination of matter of Fact: Of which I have this Account given by those that know it much better than he can pretend to do.  
'Tis so far from being true, that 'tis rare if once in a year or two a Communion be celebrated in their Meetings, that it's universally usual in every Meeting where an ordained Minister is settled, to have the Lord's Supper administered constantly Once a year, and Twice in the larger Towns. And what is more considerable, wherever 'tis administered, 'tis usual for Two Thirds of the Congregation to be Strangers. For 'tis their Custom in the North to have very large and numerous Communions, so that when the Sacrament is administered in one Meeting, 'tis usual for most of the Members of Neighbouring Parishes to frequent it: To which purpose they bring Certificates (or Communicatory Letters) from their own Ministers. So that the generality of 'em (as I am assured) do communicate four or five times in a year; many of them do it much oftener; and all of 'em have the opportunity of doing it ten, twelve, or fifteen times a year, if they will take the Advantage of receiving it as often as 'tis administered within a few miles of their respective Habitations. And they allege these two or three Reasons that have induced 'em to this Method, 1. That hereby the vast Number of Communicants tends to increase the Solemnity of the Institution, and represents in a more affecting manner the Communion of Saints. 2. That every Parish having usually but one Minister, 'tis requisite the Ministers of Neighbouring Parishes should assist 'em on that occasion; and consequently they usually bring their People along with 'em. 3. That the Ministers of particular Congregations prepare their own people for it, by visiting 'em round, examining every particular Member anew, about their spiritual Estate, and making due Enquiry about their Conversation; all which takes up a considerable time. This being a just account of their practice, tho' I must freely profess I do prefer the general practice of Dissenters elsewhere, of administering the Lord's Supper in each Congregation once a Month, and could hearty wish it were made a constant part of the Lord's-day Worship; yet I see not with what tolerable Justice the Bp. could upbraid 'em with their rare or no Communion, when the Members of their Meetings do generally communicate much oftener than the Members of the Parish-Churches: Nay, when their Ministers not celebrating it in each particular Meeting, is occasioned by so extraordinary care taken to prepare their People for it: Whereas there can be no other Account given why the Parish-Ministers who take no such pains with their People, administer it so seldom, but either their own Laziness, or the People's Indevotion. And whereas he saith, A man may live among 'em with the reputation of a Professor, to Thirty or Forty Years, and never receive at all; If he mean by a Professor, a Person accounted truly Religious, they declare they know not of one Instance of that kind. And whereas he saith, Not one in ten that go to their Meetings receive through the whole course of their Lives, they do profess, that by the best computation they can make, there is not one in ten, or rather in 20 or 30, that do not receive, except such as are withheld for want of competent Knowledge, or on the account of Scandal; and those that communicate once, do it ordinarily on all following occasions.  
So that upon the whole, the Bp. is much more concerned to find a Precedent for the generality of the Members of Parish-Churches in their rare or no Communion, than the Dissenters are for the Members of their Congregations. And much more is he concerned to find a Precedent for himself in his so rarely speaking truth concerning the Dissenters; and I fear that he will hardly find any (if I may return him his civil expressions) except among the most degenerate and barbarous Writers that were ever called Christians, I mean those Romish Priests, who in their writing against Protestants have acquired a peculiar dexterity in the practice of that Unchristian Maxim, Calumniare fortiter, aliquid adhaerebit, Throw dirt enough, and some of it will stick.   

REMARKS on the CONCLUSION.  
1. FOr that part of it which contains his Lp's Advice to those of his own Clergy, I shall take no farther notice of it than as it concerns the Dissenters.  
P. 166. He tells 'em, They are never to despair whilst they have God's Truth on their side, tho' whole Provinces should fall off from the Church, as all they in Asia did from St. Paul, 2 Tim. 1.15. Tho' none should believe our report, as it happened to our Saviour himself.  
Answ. This looks too like his former Language, when he so uncharitably excluded us from the Catholic Church: For does he indeed think that Men's going to the Dissenters Meetings is a defection from Christianity, and turning Infidels to the Doctrine of the Gospel, as the expressions he alludes to import? Since we agree in the Articles of Religion professed by the Established Church (to which, by the way, the Dissenters of the two more strictly adhere); since (as himself owns, p, 4.) we agree about the inward part of Divine Worship; Nay, since we agree in the same external parts of it, Praise, Prayer, Hearing and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and only disagree about the mode of ordering those external Duties: Is it not most unreasonable, and contrary to Christian Charity, and I might add to common sense, to speak of such as in these Circumstantial Modes differ from him, as fallen off from the Church, and dis-believing the Report of the Gospel? What is this but to turn the Circumstantial Modes of Worship into Fundamentals, and thereby to turn the Reformed Church in this Kingdom into a Sect and Party, i. e. to incur the grossest sort of Schism, and most opposite to Christian Love? I hope I have in these Papers shown our manner of performing these Duties, to be more agreeable to Scriptural Precept and Pattern, and yet I would sooner suffer my Right Hand to be cut off, than that any such Expression should drop from my Pen, that should thus confine the Church of Christ to the Dissenters, and censure others as fallen off from it. For I honour the Parish Churches as a very excellent part of the Catholic Church, and such as compared with the Roman, Greek, Abissine, etc. Churches, has attained to an excellent degree of Reformation.  
P. 167, 168. He suggests to his Clergy, That they cannot be supposed to be zealous in their Office out of any private Interest, or prospect of particular profit, because their Maintenance and Preferments are ascertained by Law, and depend not on the voluntary Contribution of the People; and he insinuates on the other hand, That the Dissenters are more liable to be acted by other Motives, since they must attain to Honour or Support by making or gaining a Party.  
Answ. If the Dissenting Ministers be acted in their Nonconformity by a Regard to Temporal Interest, they deserve to be begged for Fools. Does he think that upon their Conforming, they might not aspire to Ecclesiastical Dignities and Preferments as well as others, if their Judgements could comply with all the Declarations and Subscriptions that are required? How many could I name him, no way inferior to his Lp. in any Ministerial Abilities, who never had so much as 100 l. a year from their People, while he enjoys, by common Report, a Bishopric worth 2000? Not that they envy him his Wealth, but they think it unreasonable he should upbraid them with their Poverty, as if it laid 'em under Temptations to counter act their Judgements, to serve their Interest, when if they could have done so, they never needed to expose themselves to those Necessities. For it's plain that, quite contrary to what he suggests, the Temptation of Interest lies chief on the other side. What Interest can influence those Dissenting Ministers to make or gain a Party, who are sure to be Losers by their adhering to it, and have all possible prospect of bettering their Condition by forsaking it? And how much greater danger are those in of being influenced by it, whose excessive Preferments depend on their turning the Church into a Party, by keeping up narrow uncharitable terms of Ministerial Communion? And why should he think the Inferior Clergy may not be moved to be zealous in their Office, from a prospect of Interest and Profit? Does he think himself and his Brethren Immortal? May they never expect a Fall of Church-Preferments? Or are those Preferments so corruptly distributed, that no diligence of an inferior Clergyman in his Office will signify any thing to recommend him to 'em? Does Favour or Bribes so entirely prevail as to exclude all consideration of Merit? Either he reasons very weakly here, or else he insinuates what is very little to the credit of the Church.  
P. 88 He does well to remind 'em, that they are Ministers of the Gospel, not of a Party. Answ. But why then does he speak of all that descent from 'em, as fallen from the Church, and become Infidels?  
He also in the same page justly speaks of our differences as of little concern, comparatively with the common Interest of Holiness and Religion: But when he tells us of these differences being insisted on only as the occasions & Badges of those People who being resolved to separate themselves, are obliged to take up little differences for a distinction: I would gladly know who are most chargeable with taking up little Differences to make 'em the Distinguishing Badges of a Party; They that arbitrarily impose such Unnecessary Terms of Ministerial and Christian Communion, as our Common Lord never required, and so make their own dividing Hedge and Enclosure in his sacred Vineyard, or they that only scruple compliance with these suspected Terms, and desire that the Common Rule of Christianity, may be the only Rule of Conformity? They that on the account of these Differences cry up themselves alone as the Church, or they that plead only to be a part of it, or at most a more uncorrupted part? One would think the former look more like persons resolved to separate themselves, especially when they contrive such Racks for men's Judgements and Consciences as the Act of Uniformity contains. And the latter cannot reasonably be supposed so obstinate, unless he imagine 'em fond of Poverty and Misery, and in love with Separation for its own sake.  
P. 169. He suggests, That while they have been defending their Common Christianity against Papists, Deists and Socinians, the Dissenters have taken that advantage to undermine 'em with their People, nay that some of 'em have even joined with those Enemies to pull down their Constitution.  
Answ. I think it is apparent that the Dissenters have rarely wrote in defence of their own Cause, without being assaulted first. It was he first started the Controversy in this Kingdom, by excluding 'em from the Catholic Church. It is he has again renewed it by a fresh Charge of our Worship having little of God's immediate Appointment, but abundance of Humane Inventions. Now if we be guilty, 'tis indeed reasonable we should be silent; But if innocent, does he think our Reputation too inconsiderable to be worthy of a Defence against the most severe, and yet the most unrighteous Accusations? And if he did formerly with the same Sword attempt to stab his Popish Adversaries and his Dissenting Brethren, can he blame them for warding it off themselves, especially when at the same time they warded it off from the generality of the Reformed Churches, (whose Reputation he must have wounded through our sides) and directed the point of it more fully against the Papists.  
But I would gladly know, who those Dissenters are that joined with the Papists, Deists, and Socinians, in a Confederacy to pull down their Constitution. For I cannot imagine what ground he has for this Charge, unless he refers to the attempts made in the late King James' time towards the Repeal of the Penal Laws and Test. And if he intent that, does he not know, That there were far more of their Clergy, even the Dignitaries of their Church, that joined in that design with the Court, then of Dissenting Ministers, of whom I could never hear of above One or Two concerned, and even they had been both exasperated by the barbarous Execution of those Laws upon themselves. And was it more criminal in them to attempt to burn the Rod that had so unmercifully lashed 'em, then in those to join in that design who had no other temptation then hope of Court-Favour and Preferment? Nay does he not know that the Body of the Dissenting Ministers and People generously refused to concur in that design when earnestly solicited to it; merely because they valued the general Interest of the Reformed Religion, before any separate Interest of their own. And would not a man of candour and ingenuity, have rather commended the carriage of the main body of 'em, then reproached 'em with the faults of so few, (in which he knows they might recriminate with so much advantage) especially when such as reproach 'em were so accessary to those faults by unchristian rigour and cruelty? And by the way, If by their Constitution he means our frame of Diocesan Episcopacy and Government, why does he suggest our concurrence with Papists to pull it down, when he knows well enough, if the Papists were in power, they would continue and uphold the same Constitution, and only change the Persons.  

II. For that part of the Conclusion which is addressed to the Dissenting Ministers of Derry.  
FIrst, I do fully concur with him in his Advice; Not to treat one another with scurrilous, and unseemly Reflections. But I hope he will not account those such, wherein a Man is justly reproved for gross Misrepresentations of other Men's Opinions and Practices, when he might easily have informed himself better; or a trifling Argument not always treated with grimace, but sometimes with the slight it deserves.  
Secondly, I do also hearty concur with him in his request to 'em, That they will not make the difference between us seem greater than really it is.  
And I hope he will find it punctually observed in these Remarks, in which I have so often disclaimed the Advantage given me by his own Principles to censure several practices in the Established Church as unlawful. And therefore I hope I may, without offence, humbly request his Lp. to take his own Advice; And truly if he had done so sooner, he had spared me the ungrateful labour of these Remarks on his late Discourse, which I hope may convince him, That the tendency of his whole Book is to make the difference between us seem greater than it is; partly by misreporting our Principles and Practices, and partly by an unreasonable charge of human Inventions in the worship of God, that has no other foundation, then either those misreports, or that necessary use of Christian Prudence in determining some circumstantial modes of Worship, which they make as well as we, and must be made in order to the Execution of God's own Commands relating to his Worship. Nay it seems to be the main purpose of his Discourse to represent the Worship of Dissenters, as so corrupted by human Inventions; that 'tis become vain and unacceptable to God; Which is a Censure that Charity forbids me to pass on the Worship of the Established Church, though I think I have proved that of the Dissenters much more conformable to Evangelical Precept and Pattern. For I doubt not a gracious God makes merciful allowance for manifold culpable Imperfections, where the Worship is in the main agreeable to his Word, and those that offer it thro' weakness discern 'em not. But I perceive 'tis far easier to give good Advice then to take it.  
And for the particular Requests which his Lp. does here in so friendly a manner, address to the Dissenting Ministers of his Diocese, I shall take the liberty to interpose my single Opinion. As.  
1. I can freely concur with him in recommending that use of the Lord's-Prayer, which as he justly observes, the Directory approves, because I take it to be a very comprehensive summary of the matter of Prayer delivered in the most accurate method and order. But then I must add, that as this use of it, in our public Assemblies, is not with any certainty determined in Scripture, so 'tis a matter wherein good men may well exercise their mutual forbearance and charity.  
2. I do as freely concur with him in desiring 'em to endeavour the reforming that Irreverent practice, which too many of their Hearers seem to endulge themselves too far in; viz. Of Sitting in the time of public Prayer. 'Tis contrary to the general practice of their Brothers elsewhere, and I think of all the Reformed Churches, and what is more considerable very disagreeable to the Precepts and Examples proposed in the Holy Scriptures. And I hope his Lp. will think the more open Irreverence, and Levity, too common in many Parish Churches to need as effectual Reformation.  
3. I do also concur with him in desiring 'em to adhere more strictly to the Advice of the Directory, by more frequent celebration of the Lord's Supper in each particular Congregation.  
For though I am fully satisfied by their Accounts of matter of Fact, that their Members do ordinarily Communicate more frequently than those of the Parish Churches; and that n●ne has the name of a Professor among 'em that lives in the neglect of this duty, quite contrary to the Bp's supposition; yet I look on the practice of their Brethren in England, as in this particular, more conformable to the rule of the Scriptures, among whom 'tis administered much oftener in each Congregation. For I think it highly probable, that it was in the Apostles time one constant part of the Lord's day's Worship. I know this is not so practicable among 'em, while they take so extraordinary pains with the People every time they administer this Ordinance to 'em. But I do not see any absolute necessity of that: they may continue their stated particular Visitations, without making 'em necessary to every Communion. And perhaps there may be too great a difference put between this and other parts of Divine Worship, by imagining that the frequent Celebration of it would tend to lessen the Reverence due to it. To all that are serious, the frequent Renewal of their Vows on the Memorials of a Crucified Saviour is the most likely and effectual means to keep their Souls under the constant awe of 'em. But the treating this Subject, as it deserves, would require a large Discourse. I shall therefore only fubjoin, That I hope his Lp. will take his own Advice, by endeavouring to have the Sacrament more frequently administered in the Parish Churches, and especially that he will put his Clergy on imitating the Zeal and Diligence of the Dissenting Ministers, in their care to prepare their People for so solemn an Institution, and to keep those from it, whose open and notorious wickedness tends to infect others by the contagion of their Example, and to prostitute the honour of Religion to the contempt of an Atheistical and Profane Age.  
4. For this Advice about Reading the Scriptures, I shall so far concur with him; that I wish the Rule of the Directory for reading One entire Chapter out of each Testament may be observed, when the shortness of the days will not leave room for Exposition, without excluding that other way of reading parallel Texts, that occurs in what we call Preaching. But I must beg his Lp's pardon for preferring the Reading One Chapter with a clear Exposition of it from parallel Texts to the bare Reading two, or three, or more, without it; notwithstanding his so confidently obtruding upon us his former groundless Conceit, as if it were an undoubted Truth, That 'tis a carnal and sinful humour in the People to be fonder of Sermons and Lectures of human Composure, then of the pure Word of God in its naked simplicity. For if he mean by it, That 'tis a carnal and sinful humour to be fonder of having the word of God read, explained, and applied, then barely read, (as certainly he must if he speak any thing here to the purpose.) This is (as I have already shown him) no wiser a conceit, then if he should tell us, 'Tis a carnal and sinful humour to be more affected with the word of God when we clearly understand it, then when we do not. And if so, why should this sinful humour of the People be indulged by preaching at all? Why should any pains be taken to inform their Judgements by leading 'em into the true sense of it? Or rather; why should the Bp. so weakly oppose the purity and simplicity of the naked Word of God to a clear Exposition of it? which used to be opposed only to the mixture of other doctrines that are either contrary to, or at least not delivered in those inspired Writings. For though Sermons and Lectures be in part of human Composure, yet such as truly answer that Character, are nothing else but the naked and pure Word of God explained and enforced upon the Consciences of the People, without any mixture of foreign, or corrupt doctrines. For even in their Sermons themselves, a great part of the time is spent by the People in consulting and comparing various parts of the word of God. And if such human Composures adulterate the simplicity of the Word of God, Why should they not be excluded altogether, and the Clergy be turned into mere Readers? Or rather, may we not in such confused and deceitful Reasonings as these, suspect a carnal humour in men's crying up the bare Reading the Word of God, to shift off the  Labour of Expounding it. And therefore I should rather recommend the practice of the Dissenters in their constant Expounding as well as Reading, to the imitation of the Conforming Clergy; And I would particularly advise his Lp. not to speak so slightly on all occasions concerning Sermons, because Preaching has hitherto been accounted the most valuable Talon that he is master of.  
5. For his 5th. Advice. 'Tis indeed true that many learned and sober Non Conformists have judged occasional Communion with the Parish-Churches in the ordinary Lords day worship lawful, and have advised their People to practise it where they could have no other opportunities of Public Worship. Nay many of 'em have vindicated and practised such occasional Communion with 'em in the Lord's Supper (though I question whether any of 'em fully approve it in reference to Baptism.) And though I have no pretence to the first of the characters he gives such Non Conformists yet he will find the same charitable temper and practise recommended in the Reflections on his Answer to Dean Manby, p. 64. But methinks his Lp. should, when he considers the truly christian moderation of such Nonconformists, reflect with some concern on his own uncharitable Principles towards 'em, in that Discourse which he has never yet disowned. And it would seem very unreasonable in him to be too peremptory in demanding this from the Dissenters, unless he would express equal charity on his part, and declare the lawfulness of Communion with their Churches. And since he cannot deny but that he has so fair Examples of Catholic Charity set before him, I hope he will follow 'em; For otherwise this Request will appear on his side very partial and unreasonable. And I hope this discourse may convince him that we have no sinful human Inventions among us to affright him from Communion with us; Much less do we make such Inventions the Conditions of our Communion in any part of Gods instituted Worship. Nay since he so earnestly urges our occasional Communion with them, I would desire him to render it more practicable by removing that unhappy Bar to it which the 5th. Canon of the Church of Ireland lays in our way. For by that Canon All are denounced Excommunicated, who shall affirm and maintain that there are within this Realm other Meetings, Assemblies or Congregations, than such as by the Laws of this Land are held & allowed, which may rightly challenge to themselves the name of true and lawful Churches, and 'tis ordered that such be not restored till they repent and revoke their Error. Now he knows we all affirm and maintain our Churches to be true and lawful ones, and therefore are by the Canon Excommunicated. Nor can we be without a plain violation of this Canon readmitted without retracting what we are so far from accounting an Error, that we think the contrary Opinion a very uncharitable one. So that to invite us to Communion with 'em while this Canon stands in force against us, is but to tantalise us, and offer us with one hand what they withhold with the other. And there are but two ways to remove this obstacle to our Communion with 'em, viz. either to discard that rigid and sour Canon, or to procure an Act of Indulgence, and then our Assemblies being allowed by the Law will not come within the reach of it.  
6. For his Advice to the Dissenting Ministers of Derry, to warn their People against such Books as maintain principles contrary both to theirs and those of the Established Church, since he is pleased to name one of my own, I am more particularly concerned to consider what dangerous principles it contains.  
Now of the principles laid down in those Books, and the principles common to him with the Presbyt. Ministers in the North, to which they are contrary, his Lp. gives this Account; You are sensible that among those Protestants that Dissent from our Church, some are Congregational and others Presbyterians, You of this Diocese where I am concerned, profess to be of this latter sort, and agree with us in owning, that by Christ's Appointment, the particular Churches in convenient Districts ought, according to Scripture precedents to associate under one Government, and these again to unite themselves into greater combinations of Provincial and N●tional Churches; The difference between you and us, is concerning these particular Districts; Namely, Whether the Government of 'em ought to be in a Presbytery with a Bishop, as Precedent and Governor by Christ's Appointment, or in a College of Presbyters absolutely equal. So then we both own National and Provincial Churches as well as single Worshipping Congregations; But the Congregational Dissenters deny, that Christ instituted any other Church besides a single Congregation, and affirm that all other Churches, such as Classical, Provincial, or National, are human Inventions, and that every single Congregation is independent, and may indeed keep a fair Correspondence with its neighbouring Congregations, but it is not under any common Government with 'em. These last are the Avowed Principles of Mr. Baxter, Dr. Owen, Mr. Job, Mr. Humphrys, Mr. Boyse, Mr. Alsop, Mr. Clerkson, and generally of all the late Defenders of the Dissenters Cause in England and Ireland that I have met with  
Answ. I must own myself greatly obliged to his Lp. for giving me a place among so many excellent Persons, for whom I have so great a Veneration. But I must beg his pardon if I think him a very unfit person to represent the Principles of others, who so seldom does right to their Judgement when he goes about it. For I know none of those Reverend Authors he has named, that would take this for either an accurate or just Account of their Sentiments in this matter; I am sure neither Mr. Baxter nor Mr. Humphreys would: And 'tis no way ingenuous in the Bp. to give us this confused stuff as Mr. Baxters' Principles who has delivered his thoughts on this Subject so often and so largely, and with so admirable accuracy & clearness; So that I shall rather choose to refer the Reader to his many excellent Writings relating to this Subject of Church-Goverment, then to attempt to give any Abstract of his Judgement from 'em. But for my own Principles, I know none I have yet avowed but what are contained in the Reflections upon the Bp's. Answer to Dean Manby, having no where else delivered my Sentiments in reference to Church Government; And for those I appeal to the Reader whether the Bp. have done me any justice in his Representation of 'em. And to that purpose I must beg the Readers pardon for transcribing those Two passages in the Reflections which are the only places that relate to this purpose.  
P: 17 Particular Churches are the chief integrating parts of the Church-Catholick. These Churches consists of one or more Pastors, and a Christian Flock associated under his or their oversight for personal Communion in Faith, Worship, and Holy Living. These Churches are obliged by the very dictates of the Light of Nature, and general Rules of the H. Scripture, to endeavour the preservation of all necessary Unity by the amicable consultations of their associated Pastors. The judgement of such associated Pastors should be submitted to by the People under their care, when 'tis not repugnant to the Word of God, and contrary to the Interest of Religion. But the people do not owe 'em a blind obedience, nor have such Pastors any power but for Edification. Much less can such Bishops pretend to a higher power, whose very office Christ never instituted, and whose pretended Relation to their Diocese is not founded on the Peopl's consent to it. And if such Bishops should claim the sole power of Church-Government in a Nation, etc.  
So p. 57, 58. Having there objected against the Bp's. Assertion, That the supreme Government of our Church has always been in a National Council, or Convocation, That Dr. Stillingfleet (now Bp of Worcester) durst not own such an Ecclesiastical Governing Head of the Church of England, And that neither the Light of Nature, nor general Laws of Scripture, would suggest such an Assembly (i. e. one so chosen and constituted) as the Governing Head of the Church of England, I then add, A duly elected Synod of Pastors in a Nation, to endeavour the nearest unity and Concord of the particular Churches (as far as 'tis to be expected on Earth) by their amicable Consultations, we grant to be most desirable and eligible wherever it may be had. And the Judgement of such a Synod should be complied with in all things not repugnant to the word of God. But we cannot say so of an Assembly chief composed of Men, whose Office is not only an Usurpation, but such as renders true Church Government impossible, and whose Interest and grandeur inclines 'em to keep up the Divisions and Corruptions which they have made. And so such a Convocations being entrusted by Christ, with the National Church Government which Mr. K. is pleased to assert, I oppose the judgement of the truly learned Archbp. Usher which he often professed to Mr. Baxter, That Church Councils are not for Government, but for Unity, Not as being in order of Government over the several Bishops, but that by Consultation they may know their Duty more clearly, and by agreement maintain Unity, and to that end they were anciently celebrated.  
Since then this is all I have asserted in this matter, How comes the Bp. to say, 'Tis my avowed Principle, That Christ instituted no other Church besides a single Congregation, and, that all other Churches, such as Classical, Provincial▪ or National, are human Inventions and that every single Congregation is independent and may indeed keep a fair Correspondence with its neighbouring Congregations, but it is not under any common Government with 'em, when there is not one of these Propositions in the Reflections; nay, when I am so far from avowing 'em that there is not one of 'em that I can assent to as here laid down by his Lp. And what Authority can he pretend to declare for me what my avowed Principles are? If he had any thing to say against the Reflections, he should in common justice have quoted my Words, and given me leave to speak my own Thoughts; (as I have done by him in these Remarks) At least he should not have obtruded upon me what I never said or thought. 'Tis none of my Principle, That Christ instituted no other Church besides particular Congregations. For I believe he instituted both the Catholic Church, and such National or Kingdom Churches (as that great Light of his Age, Mr. Baxter pleads for in his late Discourse on that Subject) i. e. a Society constituted of a Christian Sovereign Magistrate, and of Christian Subjects worshipping God ordinarily in true particular pastoral Churches, over which the foresaid Magistrate exercises a coercive Government by the Sword, as Pastors exercise a Ministerial one by the Word. I do also judge Classical, Provincial, and National Synods to be, so far from being an human Invention in the common sense of the Word, i. e. a sinful or superstitious Invention of Men, that I think 'em highly agreeable to the Light of Nature and the general Rules of Scripture, and have in the Reflections positively asserted that particular Churches are obliged to endeavour the preservation of Unity and Concord, by the amicable consultations of their associated Pastors. I do not therefore think any particular Church to be so independent, as to be under no obligation to enter into such associations but the contrary. And to give him the true Account of this matter what I have asserted in those Reflections, is but the common Principles wherein both the Presbyterian and Congregational Divines are agreed, as he may see if he compare those Passages I have quoted, with the Heads of Agreement between 'em since drawn up. For in the 6th. Head, there are these Three particulars laid down.  
1. That in order to concord, and in any other weighty and difficult Cases, it is needful, and according to the mind of Christ, that the Ministers of several Churches be consulted and advised with about such matters.  
2. That such Meetings may consist of smaller or greater Numbers, as the matter shall require.  
3. That particular Churches, their respective Elders and Members, aught to have a Reverential regard to their Judgement so given, and not descent therefrom without apparent grounds from the Word of God.  
These are Propositions of the same import with those in the Reflections, and they are so far from being inconsistent with any Principle of those called Presbyterians, that the most eminent of those at London, have subscribed 'em. 'Tis true indeed, the Presbyterians do assert more than this, and the Assembly of Divines in their humble Advice concerning Church Government have some Assertions, to which the Congregational Divines do not fully assent: But as to these Differences, as I have not in the forementioned Book declared my own Judgement, so I know no right the Bishop has to declare it for me, when he does not know it. I have indeed quoted the Judgement of Archbishop Usher concerning the Ancient Councils, which he thought were not for Government but Unity, etc. And if he will on this account rank that Venerable Primate among the Congregational Divines, they will no doubt think themselves greatly honoured with his company. But for my own Thoughts, I shall freely subjoin, that I am greatly inclined to think, That the difference between those that make Synods, only Consultative Meetings, and those that call 'em Church Judicatories, and ascribe a Governing Power to 'em, is in a great measure rather verbal then real. For those that make 'em Church-Judicatories, assign 'em only a Ministerial and Declarative Power, and never imagined that the People owed a blind obedience to their determinations. And those that make 'em only Consultative Meetings for preservation of Concord, yet assert such a deference due to their Judgement, That it should be complied with, both by particular Pastors, and their Flocks, in all things not repugnant to the Word of God: Nor do they deny that such Synods may disown such particular Pastors and their Flocks, as walk disorderly, by rejecting their just and necessary Determinations, as no Members of their Association, or that they may entirely disclaim Christian Communion with those particular Churches that persist impenitently in maintaining such corruptions in Doctrine and Worship, as directly strike at the very Vitals and Essentials of the Christian Religion. And I see not what those can justly attribute to such Synods more than this, who make 'em Governing Assemblies, or Ecclesiastical Judicatories. Nor do I know any great difficulty there is in moderate and wise men's joining in all the real use of such Synods, in order to the preservation of the Church's peace; notwithstanding these different Names or Notions they affix to such Ecclesiastical Assemblies and their Determinations: Of which more may occur when I consider what his Lp. objects against the Principles he ascribes to me.  
On the other hand, The Bishop has not truly stated the difference between the Presbyterians and Prelatists, when he tells us; 'Tis concerning these particular Districts; namely, Whether the government over 'em aught to be in a Presbytery, with a Bishop as Precedent and Governor, by Christ's appointment, or in a College of Presbyters absolutely equal?  
Answ. Does not his Lordship know, that our Modern Prelates not only pretend to a distinct and superior Office, (and not merely a higher degree in the same Office) but assume all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to themselves? Do they not plainly exclude all Presbyters from any share in it? Are not all Church Censures passed by the Chancellor, solely in the Bishop's name, without any concurrence of the Presbyters of the Diocese, who have no voice in 'em, nor are so much as called or required to be present in the Spiritual Court? Nay If this be all that our Prelates pretend to, viz. To be Precedents in a Diocesan Synod, in which the Presbyters of the Diocese share in the Government, How came they to reject Archbp. usher's model of Episcopacy, that allows such a stated Presidency to Bishops, when this was offered by the Divines called Presbyterians, at the memorable Savoy Conference, as the ground of Accommodation? For though those Divines did not think such a stated Presidency of one Person of immediate Divine Appointment, yet they thought it such a prudential human Constitution as they could for peace sake submit to. But he knows the Bishops rejected that Offer with scorn, nay would not stand to the King's Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs, that gave 'em much more of power than Archbp. Ushers model. So that his Lp. seems not to understand the Principles of his Brothers, and I am beginning to hope is of more moderate Sentiments in this point then those Commissioners at that Treaty were.  
It remains only under this Head, that I consider what he has to object against those Principles of mine, as they are now truly cited from the Reflections. For I hope he does not think me obliged to defend Positions that are none of my own.  
Now it is manifest (saith he) That these Principles of theirs-are much more different from your Principles then ours are: And the difference is much greater and more material. For it's possible on your Principles and ours to preserve Unity, and keep up some value for Excommunication, since he who is censured in one Church, cannot be received in another, neither with you, nor us, Whereas in the Congregational way, he that is Excommunicated in one Congregation may remove to another, or set up one for himself, if he pleases; At the worst if he should, it would be counted but an irregularity. These Principles are destructive to the Peace and Unity of the Church, as well as to our common Cause.  
Answ. For the Congregational Divines I see no difficulty in clearing their Principles from these invidious consequences he draws from 'em; for all of 'em assert that he who is justly Excommunicated in one Church ought to be received by no other whatever. But for my own, which I am only here concerned to defend, I would desire his Lp. to review his Arguments and tell me where the force of 'em lies, What Unity of the Church are those Principles laid down in the Reflections destructive of? Is it destructive to the Church's Unity to assert, That the Light of Nature and general Rules of Scripture oblige the Pastors of the Church to associate for its preservation by their mutual Consultations; And that the Judgement of such associated Pastors should be submitted to whenever 'tis not repugnant to the Word of God? Nor do I disallow, but approve of Associations in those lesser or larger Districts, and the regular Subordination of the lesser to the greater. What then can he find in my Principles destructive of the Church's Unity, unless he imagines it to be so, That I assert, That the People do not owe a blind Obedience to such Synods, and that such associated Pastors have their power for Edification and not Destruction. And dare he pretend the contrary? Does not the Church of England declare, That all Councils may err, and will he assign an absolute Authority in the Church to those that are but fallible? Nay is not the pretence of the People's being absolutely obliged to receive and submit to the Decisions of General Synods, the very foundation of Popery, and the chief source of all those monstrous corruptions in Doctrine and Worship which have been established in it by the pretended decisive Authority of such Councils? Have not all those Councils that have claimed such unlimited Authority been the fatal Engines of Tearing and corrupting the Christian Church instead of preserving its Purity or Peace? As he may see proved with uncontrollable Evidence in Mr. Baxters' History of Bp's and their Councils and in the defence of it.  
Again, How do these Principles of mine hinder the keeping up a just value for Excommunication or any other censures of the Church? For it no way follows from 'em That he who is censured in one Church may remove to another, or set up one for himself if he pleases. For he that is justly censured in one Church, should not be received by any other whatsoever; And where the Pastors of particular Churches are associated, as I suppose they ought to be, this is always one necessary Rule for the preservation of Unity. 'Tis true, If the person Excommunicated complain of wrong done him, he may refer his Case to the Judgement of the Classical or Provincial Synod for redress of it. But, if it appear that he is justly Excommunicated; For any other Pastor to receive him, 'tis such an irregular practice, as if persisted in may justify his Brethren in excluding him from being a Member of their Association. And for a justly Excommunicated Person to set up a Congregation for himself, is so heinous an Addition to the crime for which he was Excommunicated, that such associated Pastors may justly warn the People against the danger of encouraging him in so impudent an Usurpation of Authority in the Church, when he is not fit to be so much as a Member in it. Nor would this Usurpation of the sacred Office by such a justly Excommunicated Person be only an irregularity (if he means by that a disorder that's culpable indeed, but yet tolerable, and inconsiderable.) For he is incapable of the Sacred Office, because destitute of the qualifications necessary thereto, 1 Tim. 3.  
So that upon the whole the Bishop is grossly mistaken in supposing that any Principles of mine are more different from those of the Presbyterians then those of the Prelatists are. For I have asserted none but what any Presbyterian will grant; though they may assert more than my Subject then led me to: Whereas the Principles of those Prelatists, that approve our present Constitution, are not only very different from theirs, but truly lessen the value of Excommunication, and render Church Discipline impracticable. For what can more effectually pour Contempt on the Censures of the Church, then to have the most solemn of 'em, I mean Excommunication, decreed by a Lay-Chancellor, and what is worse decreed usually upon so frivolous causes, in so rash and precipitant a manner, and made merely an engine to squeeze the purses of men, rather than reform their manners. And what can more effectually render true Church Discipline impracticable then for one man to engross the whole exercise of it in a large Diocese, containing many score or hundred Churches, (whereas every Pastor finds it a work hard enough to perform it aright in his single Congregation) and to exclude those particular Pastors entirely from it, to whose office it does belong and without whose concurrence it can never be rightly administered.  
I shall only add, That what any Conforming Divines have wrote, in answer to any Principles of mine, I know not. And for such Books as Mr. Baxter has wrote in defence of the Non Conformist's Cause, such as his Nonconformity stated and argued, and his Treatise of Episcopacy. If he think 'em carefully answered, I wish he would direct us to the Answerers: For I know of no such Answerers, unless he take railing or nibbling at Books to be answering 'em. But if he refers to the Debates between Mr. Baxter and Dr. Stillingfleet, and to the vindication of the latter against M. Humfrey's and Mr. Baxter, he may easily see how little that vindication signifies in the first part of Mr. Baxter's Catholic Communion, which is a survey of the Vindication. And by the way, that judicious Divine was so far from entertaining Principles so destructive to those of the Northern Presbyterians, (as the Bishop here groundlessly imagines) that he commends those in Scotland for their National Church-confederacy, and the happy concord produced by it. Nation. Church's p. 5.  
6. For his last Request to the Presbyterian Ministers of his Diocese, That they would concur with him in beating down such Vices and Immoralities as are opposite to our common Christianity; such as Adultery, Fornication, Blasphemy, Profanatian of the Lord's day, etc. I doubt not he'll find their most ready compliance, and have both their hearts and hands to concur with him in so necessary a work. And I may I think venture to assure him, they will receive no Persons Excommunicated for such Vices into their Congregations, nor give 'em the least countenance. But I hope his Lordship will not reckon those guilty of Fornication who are Married by Non-Conformist-Ministers upon due publication of the Banes of Matrimony, nor expect that they should reject their own Members, when the Spiritul Courts for want of other prey, on that score draw 'em into their Churches, and bring 'em under their Lash, Nay as they have very little hope of any great Reformation of manners, from either the Persons that compose those Courts, or their manner of proceeding in 'em, both which they think greatly need to be reformed, so I hope his Lordship does not expect that they should turn Informers to bring Grist to their Mill.  
And if complying thus far with his Lordship's  requests will contribute so much to his living more easily with the Dissenters, and to the taking off that uncharitableness which the differences that remain are apt to cause, I hope those of his Diocese will herein give him all the reasonable Satisfaction he can desire, And then I hope his Lordship will not continue the feud on his part, by putting such uncharitable Sour Covenants into his new Leases, as plainly imply his Intentions and endeavours to expel them, and suppress their meetings wherever his power and Interest can reach. For otherwise he will give 'em too great occasion to apply to these obliging expressions when compared with his Actions, that unhappy Remark, The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands (those rough and hairy ones) are the hands of Esau.   

III. For his Lordship's Advice to the Conforming Laity of Derry.  
I Shall take no farther notice of it, then to express my great satisfaction,  
1. In his recommending to 'em the Worship of God in their Families. The general neglect of this has been one great source of the deplorable degeneracy and corruption of our Youth. And I hearty wish the Clergy were herein more exemplary to the Laity, by making their Houses lesser Churches and fruitful Seminaries of Religion. I hope the Dissenters of that Diocese, as well as in other parts of the Kingdom, set 'em herein a Pattern worthy their imitation. But why his Lordship should in their Family-Prayers seem to confine 'em to the words of the Church, I see no reason; unless he supposes those Forms such a Catholicon in Devotion, as some boast their Recipes to be in Physic, that will suit all particular Diseases.  
2. In his exhorting 'em not only to Innocency of life but to Christian moderation too.  
For certainly when our Zeal, instead of being laid out to promote the great and important Interests of our common Christianity, is chief spent about lesser matters disputable among truly good men, It turns into a preternatural and feavourish heat that preys on the Vitals of Religion. But I must add, That I understand not, Why Innocency of Life and moderation in the Conforming Laity, should any more convince the Non Conformists of the unreasonableness of separation from them, than the like Innocency and moderation of the Non Conformists should convince their Conforming brethren of the unreasonableness of separation from them. And no doubt but all good men on both sides enjoy that Communion of Saints which our Creed speaks of; And where their difference of Judgement about some modes of Worship avoidable occasions that difference of Practice (which some improperly call difference of Communion) yet there is no reason it should disunite their Affections. They retain Communion in the Essentials of Belief, Worship and Holiness and are cemented by those common bands of Christian Unity mentioned, 4. Eph. 4, 5, 6. (One Body, one Spirit, one Hope of their Calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father); And so far as they are acted by the genuine Spirit of Christianity they will endeavour to preserve this Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, by mutual Forbearance as to that diversity of external Rites and Modes, about which it cannot be Expected but that the different apprehensions of pious men will occasion diversity in their practice, especially where any unnecessary or suspected Rites are imposed.   

iv For his Advice to the Dissenting Laity of Derry.  
I Shall only offer the following Remarks,  
1. His Lp. does well to refer 'em to their Bibles as I have also done in this Discourse, and I hope they will herein imitate those noble Beraeans by examining what is said according to that unerring Standard and Test of Divine Truth.  
2. That Men are more fond of their own Inventions then of God's Commands is a Truth that Experience puts out of all doubt.  
But that all those Popish Corruptions of Image Worship, Prayers for the dead, Purgatory, the Intercession of Saints, Half Comunion, and Worshipping the Host, were merely, introduced by the violent fondness of the People for 'em, against the will of the Church Governors who generally opposed and condemned 'em, is an Observation that I can see little ground for in Church-History. As to some of 'em, I think it far more probable that they had their rise either from the imprudent Zeal, or the politic Contrivance of the Clergy who found 'em Serviceable to squeeze the Purses as well as enslave the Consciences of the People. 'Tis certain that when those corruptions were once entertained, the Clergy were generally the most violent defenders of 'em, and the most cruel persecutors of all that made any Attempts towards Reformation.  
But the Bp. applies this Observation to Extemporary Prayers, which as he supposes to be an human Invention, so he tells us. The People have brought 'em into practice against the Opinion and Constitution of the Church Covernours, and of the first Reformers, who all did settle Liturgys in the Churches which they reformed; This Knox did in Scotland, whose Liturgy we have ready to produce to the Conviction of those who pretend to be his Successors, and yet condemn Forms of Prayer as unlawful. This Luther did for Germany, and Calvin for Geneva, and for the French-Church, whose Liturgys are still used by 'em.  
Answ. I hope I have already sufficiently proved, That Praying without Forms is as much of Divine Institution as Praying with 'em, and consequently the Bishop has no more reason to call the one a Human Invention than the other. Nay, since there is not the least evidence of any stinted Liturgy prescribed or recommended to the Christian Church by Christ or his Apostles, but so strong presumption to the contrary; that in the Apostolical, and I may add in the two or three following Ages, even ordinary Pastors used free-prayer, or prayed in the exercise of their own Abilities; There is much more reason to rank such stinted Liturgies among the Bishop's sort of Human Inventions. For they have certainly neither precept nor pattern for 'em in the New Testament, as used in the Christian Church, and we do in the use of 'em vary from Apostolical pattern. And I take this account he has given us of the Original of what he calls Extempore-Prayers to be a very lame and untrue one. For if free-prayer, unconfined to a stinted Liturgy was the practice of the three first Centuries, (and Dr. Comber's proofs to the contrary are I think invalidated by his modest and learned Examinator to the full satisfaction of an unprejudiced Reader.) Then the Bp. is first concerned to acquaint us how such stinted Liturgies were brought into general use; And if he will take the Opinion of the learned Capellus in this matter, (even in that very Disputation in which he so severely censures the Compilers of the Directory) prescribed Liturgies were unknown to the Apostolical and succeeding Ages, and were not introduced till those Persecutions ceased which kept alive the Zeal of the Primitive Christians, and till through the favour of Christian Emperors, the Number of Christians Increased, but the Fervour of true Piety and Devotion was Allayed. And then they were gradually introduced for the use of simple and unlearned Ministers; who through their Sloth were unfurnished with Gifts, and through their Ignorance in danger of venting such unsound Notions as subtle Heretics might instill into 'em. 
† See Thes. Sal. p. 657.   
But it was much later before stinted Liturgies came into general use, even in those Ages (the Fifth, Sixth, etc.) in which the Clergy gradually degenerated into Laziness and Ignorance, as well as Worldliness and Pride, and true Devotion sunk into Formality and Superstition. And hereby the ruling part of the Clergy had the easier opportunity to propagate all their gainful Errors and Superstitions among the People, by infusing the poison of 'em into the Public Offices of Devotion. For such prescribed Liturgies were first set up in Patriarchal and Metropolitan Churches, such as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, etc. And there was very great diversity of 'em in the Western, as well as Eastern Churches, for some Ages, till by the Artifices and Tyranny of the Popes, all or most of the Western Churches were reduced to a Conformity herein to that of Rome, whose Public Offices had frequent Additions to 'em, and Changes in 'em.  
And therefore 'tis no wonder that when our first Reformers began to oppose the Corruptions of Popery, they should yet retain the use of Liturgies. For the Clergy were at that time so generally overspread with deplorable Ignorance, that it was not to be expected that those of 'em that embraced the Reformation should be immediately qualified to pray without Forms, to which they had never been accustomed. They were so far from being capable of that, that they were judged generally unfit to instruct the People, and therefore Homilies were composed for their use as well as Liturgies. But as when by the Revival and Increase of Learning, the Clergy generally acquired better Abilities, and so Homilies were gradually laid aside, (the strong having no more need of such Crutches) so the same might have been expected in reference to Prayer as well as Preaching. And accordingly the Dissenters in England, and the Presbyterians in Scotland, did gradually revive the practice of praying without a stinted Liturgy. And those in France and Holland that retain some few short Forms, yet leave their 2Ministers at liberty to exercise their Gifts in free-occasional-Prayer, and look on such stinted Liturgies as exclude this Exercise of the Ministers Abilities as too great an Encouragement to Sloth and Ignorance in 'em. Insomuch as the foresaid Capellus, when upon the like mistake with our Author, he so sharply chides the N. C's in England, for condemning Forms of Prayer as Unlawful, yet does he warmly censure the rigour of such as under pretence of certain and prescribed Forms of Liturgies, study to banish out of the Church all use of Prayers conceived by particular Ministers Themselves, and disowns this from being his Design.  
So that the main Reason why our first Reformers retained Liturgies, does not extend to such a state of the Church wherein the Learning and Abilities of Ministers are or should be so improved as to set 'em as much above the need of stinted Forms of Prayer, as of Preaching. And accordingly, those Churches whose Reformation was carried to the greatest height, did not by any Forms of Prayer they retained (to express their Concord in that Duty) exclude the use of free-Prayer. Nor do any Dissenters condemn all public use of Forms, but only such as tempts Ministers to a neglect of the Gift of Prayer, and hinders 'em from suiting all the Exigencies and Occasions of their Flocks in that part of their Public Devotions.  
For the Bishop's Reason why the generality of the People are better pleased with Extemporary Prayers, than with such Forms, viz. Because the Novelty of the one gratifies more Men's carnal and itching Ears with a kind of sensual delight, and requires less pains to strain up their Minds to true Devotion, p. 184, 185.— 'Tis a very confused one, wherein there is something of Truth, mixed with weak and censorious Mistakes. 'Tis true indeed, that considering the general temper of Mankind, the Variety of Matter, as well as of Expression in free Prayer, tends more to raise men's Devotion, than the constant Repetition of the same Forms. Nor can the People so readily believe that a Minister prays from his heart, when he reads a prescribed Form, as when he delivers a free Prayer, that is the result of his previous meditation. So that in this respect free Prayer has much the Advantage above Forms, that 'tis a greater Help to inward Devotion; which is sufficient to recommend this mode of praying, as in general, far preferable to the other. There is something of Truth in those Expressions of Sir W. C. 
* Character of a Whig and Tory, p. 20.  (tho' perhaps there is too much of the Air of a Gentleman in 'em) When a Man qualified endued with Learning too, and adorned with a good Life, breaks out into a warm and well-delivered Prayer before a Sermon, it has the appearance of a Divine Rapture; He raises and leads the Hearts of the Assembly in another manner than the most composed and best studied Forms can do. And the Pray-we's would look like so many Statues, or Men of Straw in the Pulpit, compared with those who speak with so powerful Zeal, that men are tempted to believe Heaven itself has directed their Words to 'em. But why the Bp. should make it a carnal temper in the People to desire the best Helps that can be given 'em to excite their Devotions in Prayer, and cure their natural indisposition to that Duty, I cannot conceive. It looks rather like a carnal temper in the Clergy to deny 'em this excellent Help, to indulge their own Sloth and Ease. Nor do I see why the People must be accused of itching Ears, because they are prone to be more dull under the constant Repetition of the same Forms, than under the Variety of Matter and Expression that occurs in free Prayer. He might as well upbraid 'em with itching Ears because they would be more dull in singing, if the same Psalm and Tune were constantly used, than when Variety of both is allowed 'em; or because they would be more dull if the same Homilies were constantly read, than under that more grateful variety of Instructions that Sermons contain.  
But I wonder most why his Lordship should in this respect compare free Prayer to Images, and Relics, and Mediatory Saints, p. 185. unless he fancies that the use of Images, Relics, and Mediatory Saints, does as much more contribute to raise true Devotion in the Worship of God, than the simplicity of his own Uncorrupted Institutions; as the use of free Prayer contributes more to it than stinted Forms. And if he truly think so, the Papists are greatly obliged to his Lordship, for this favourable Character of the tendency and effects of these Superstitions. But if his Lordship had duly considered, that while free-Prayer continued in the Church, these Superstitions were unknown in it, and that they were gradually introduced in the same Ages in which stinted Liturgies gradually came into general use, it might have prevented this invidious but groundless comparison between the influence of free Prayer, and that of those gross Corruptions. I am sure such stinted Forms, when read out of a Book, look more like lifeless Images of Devotion, than those Prayers that are the result of the serious Meditations and Affections of him that delivers 'em.  
And if the fondness of Ill People for any way of Devotion, be an Argument that 'tis not of God, (as the Bishop farther insinuates, p. 185.) I am apt to think it will make much more against stinted Liturgies, than against free Prayer. For he will hardly be able to persuade us that the Debauchees of the Age dote on Extempore Prayers (as he calls 'em) and that the most serious and religious have the same violent passion for prescribed Forms.  
3. We must beg his Lordship's pardon, if we cannot easily believe, 'tis only Conscience that makes the Conforming Clergy so generally decline Extemporary Prayers. For if by Extempore Prayers, he means such as are free and unconfined to any prescribed Forms, he seems himself to own, p. 54. That there are some occasions that require it even in public, p. 54. and I see no ground to doubt but that they are ordinarily more convenient than set Forms, if those Prayers be most convenient that tend most to raise true Devotion in the minds of the People.  
But we must much more beg his Lp's pardon for not believing what he adds for Confirmation of this account of their disusing free Prayer. For it seems a very surprising Discovery that he has made to us, when he tells us, p. 186. 'Tis manifest that Extemporary Prayers would be much more easy to most of us, and less burdensome than the service we use. You may think otherwise, but assure yourselves that you are mistaken. And I dare appeal to those that have tried both, whether is most easy. There are such, both amongst you and us, that have made the experiment. And I dare refer it to 'em to declare on their Consciences which of the two Services they look on to be the greater burden to him that performs 'em. Whatever you may think if we would indulg ourselves, It were no hard matter for the meanest of us to pass an Extemporary Prayer on our Auditory, or turn the heads of our Sermon into one.  
Ans. We pay a great deference to his Lp's Judgement, but we cannot, without offering great violence to our own understandings, bring 'em to assent to so incredible a Paradox, merely because 'tis delivered with so extraordinary an Air of assurance; much less can we entertain that as a manifest Truth, which to us seems so contrary to common sense. For we cannot imagine what unsupportable burden it should be for a man to read the Service of the Church when he has the Book before him; unless when he is pained with sore eyes; or terribly hoarse with a great Cold; For than it may possibly be some considerable Trouble to him. But for a Minister to deliver a free Prayer in a Public Assembly (And the Bp. knows the Dissenters are seldom accused for theirs being too short) requires both serious Meditation before hand to suit it to the occasion, and to the state of his People, and the Laborious Exercise of his Judgement, his Invention and Memory, which is a real burden and difficulty to those that are not by deep Study and frequent Exercise habituated to it. Nay though the Dissenters should Pray in that new way his Lp. has contrived for 'em, by patching together several pieces of old Forms to make a new dress of it, yet this would require some Exercise of their Judgement and Memory, to tack 'em right together, and to repeat 'em without hesitation. And this sure is not so easy a matter as what he cannot deny every Schoolboy to be capable of, viz. to turn over the leaves and Read what is usually in a fair and large Print. His Lp. may if he please, appeal from common sense to Experience; but by all that I have yet conversed with on this Subject, his assertion seems as strange to them as it does to us. Nor can I meet with any of these Vertuoso's in Devotion, that pretend upon any Experiments they have made, to give their suffrage to his new Observation. We do not indeed doubt of his Lp's Abilities, but he must allow us to doubt of those of the body of the inferior Clergy, who I fear would think it a severe imposition upon 'em, if their Diocesans should oblige 'em to the frequent Exercise of their Talents this way. For I have heard several Clergymen of no mean parts, complain of the unhappy inability for free Prayer, that general disuse had brought upon 'em, and I believe I might herein with much better reason appeal to Experience. But since his Lp's hand is in for Paradoxes, I think he should have added one more, viz. That 'tis manifest that 'tis a far greater burden for the Clergy to Read the Homilies of the Church, or other men's Sermons, than to Preach Sermons of their own; and I doubt not he may with as much reason appeal to the Experience of those that have tried both, to attest the Truth of it. And if he can make good the Truth of these two Paradoxes, the N.C. Ministers will hence forward pass for lazy Drones, while the poor Readers of the Church are accounted the truest Labourers. But to give the latter their due, the most of 'em take too much pains for that sorry hire that's allowed 'em by such of their Brethren as are laborious enough to engross Churchliving, but too far consult their ease to make the Duties of their Function any burden to 'em.  
Lastly, For his Request to the Dissenting Laiety, That they would believe he hearty desires and studies the good of their Souls, I hope they are willing to gratify him herein as far as rational Charity can allow. Only it would greatly facilitate their Belief of it, if they found him more tender of their good Name and just Reputation; And they are sorry to find that notwithstanding all his professions of goodwill, he should show so little regard to that, not only in a continued Series of unjust Accusations through his whole Book, but especially in the following words, in which he has drawn up a comprehensive Summary charge, sufficient to render 'em odious if it be believed, but they are confident too apparently groundless to gain credit with any that will pass a Righteous and Impartial Judgement on these matters.  
His Lp's words are. For how is it possible that any Man that has a Zeal for the Purity of God's worship, should not have his Spirit moved within him, to see a well meaning People so strangely misled, as to content themselves to meet together perhaps for some years with a design to worship God, and yet hardly ever see any thing of God's Immediate Appointment in their Meetings? Now to my thoughts this is manifestly the case of many of you, since a Man may frequent some Meetings among you for some years, and never hear a Prayer, a Psalm or Chapter, which has been immediately dictated by God, and never be called on to bow his knee to God, or see either Minister or People Address themselves to him in that humble posture; Lastly, never see any body offer to Administer, or desire to Receive the Food of Life in the Lord's Supper. These are melancholy Reflections to me, who believe that God has required these in his Worship; And therefore I hope you will take it in good part that I Endeavour to Restore them to you.  
Ans. If the Case of the Dissenters be truly such as the Bp. Represents it, His Zeal to recover the Purity of Divine Worship among 'em, is highly commendable; and would deserve their thankful acknowledgements. But if the whole of this heavy Charge be so far from being manifestly true, that 'tis rather apparently groundless and unjust; There will be some occasion to suspect, that his Lordship's Zeal has more of heat then light in it, and is but the Zeal of a Party, that often transports Men beyond all bounds of Truth, when 'tis their design to render those odious whom they account their Adversaries. And whether this charge be not so apparently groundless and unjust will appear upon the Review of it.  
For do the Dissenters content themselves to meet together for some years, and yet hardly ever see any thing of God's immediate Appointment among 'em, when they have every Lordsday Prayer, Praise, Reading, and Expounding, and Applying the Word of God, and frequently Baptism and the Lords-Supper, which are all Duties of God's immediate Appointment? Or can he tell us of any other parts of Divine Worship besides these, that are instituted by God? But his Lordship perhaps does not speak so much of these parts of Divine worship themselves, as of the manner of performing 'em. For when he comes to make good his charge, he tells us, A Man may frequent your Meeting some years, and never hear a Prayer, a Psalm, or a Chapter which has been immediately dictated by God etc. But why does he charge the Dissenters for never using a Prayer immediately dictated by God? If he speak of Psalm Prayers, what he saith is notoriously untrue.  
If he speak of Prose-Prayers, why does he make it our Crime to use no such Prayers immediately dictated by God, when he cannot produce any shadow of proof of any such Prayers immediately dictated by God, for the use of the Christian Church, unless the Lords Prayer? Nor is there any clear Evidence of its being dictated as a Form to be used in our Public Assemblies: Or does he think their Collects any more immediately dictated by God, than our free Prayers are? I hope he may from the foregoing Discourse find, that the latter are more agreeable to the Precepts of the New Testament, and much more to the Pattern of the Apostolic Church, than stinted Liturgies.  
Again why does he tell us, that the Dissenters may in several years never hear a Psalm immediately dictated by God? When Psalms are constantly sung in their Meetings much more than in the Parish-Churches. And can he find any other use of 'em prescribed to the Christian Church? (except that of their being read for instruction, as they are among us equally with other parts of the Old Testament). Or is he so weak as to imagine that a Prose Version of the Psalms is immediately dictated by God, but a Metre-version is not; when God has immediately dictated neither, and when the true sense of the original is as much the word of God, when in metre as when in prose? Again, why should he tell us of our not hearing a Chapter immedialy dictated by God, when he never immediately dictated any such division of the Scriptures into Chapters at all, nay when an entire portion of Scripture, and usually a whole Chapter, and sometimes more, is so constantly read and expounded, besides the reading so many parallel Texts to explain and urge some doctrine or precept of the Christian Religion? (i. e. when the Scriptures are read all the several ways we have any pattern for in the Christian Church?) Again, why does he make it a Crime that we do not bow our knees to God, when we either use that posture, or that other of standing, which is as much a scriptural posture, and equally expressive of our religious reverence in all our immediate addresses to God? Again why should he accuse those as never seeing one offering to administer, or desiring to receive the food of life in the Lord's-Supper, who (though they communicate seldomer than other Dissenters, yet) ordinarily do it oftener than the Conforming Laity in most parts of the Kingdom? One would think his Lp. might have spared 'em the labour of so obvious and easy an Apology, by forbearing such accusations as have not so much as an appearance of Truth or Justice. But if he cannot perceive things that are so clear and plain, the Dissenters will, in requital of his prayer for 'em, bag of G●d, that he may open the eyes of his understanding; And they hope when those scales are fallen off, (I mean those unhappy prejudices that hinder him from discerning these things in their true light,) then these melancholy reflections will quickly vanish, with which his mind has been so much disturbed on this occasion. For now, if he please, he may clearly see the Dissenters enjoy already all those divine Appointments which he is so solicitous to restore to 'em, and (whatever others do) free from any mixture of sinful human Inventions.  
And as they thank him for his endeavour to instruct 'em, so they humbly request he would calmly and impartially consider what is here offered for their necessary vindication; Which if he do, they do not despair, but it may recover him to a more favourable opinion of his Brethren, and a more charitable temper towards 'em; and may oblige him, as an evidence thereof, not only to retract his former uncharitable exclusion of 'em from the Catholic Church, but this superadded injury, in charging their Worship with human Inventions, and so frequently misrepresenting their opinions and practices contrary to plain evidence, in order to the countenancing that groundless Accusation. For such Justice and Charity towards our Fellow-Christians, is most becoming those that profess to expect that great day when the universal Shepherd will appear, and call both Pastors and their Flocks to a strict account at that general and final Visitation.    

APPENDIX.  
To the Remarks I have already made on the Bishop's Discourse, I think it necessary to subjoin these two Additional one's.  
I. THat his Lordship has omitted one material part of Divine Worship, about the manner of performing which, the Contest between the Established Church and the Dissenters does most directly concern this charge of human Inventions in the Worship of God.  
For of those two Sacraments which are the two parts of positive instituted Worship peculiar to the Christian Religion, he has only considered that of the Lord's-Supper, but has said nothing concerning the other, which is as undoubted a part of Divine Worship, and the very Sacrament of our initiation into the Christian Church, viz. Baptism. I confess his prudence and foresight seems very commendable in this wary silence and omission. (For 'tis easier to answer such objections as he himself makes for the Dissenters, than those they make for themselves). But I cannot so much commend his candour and ingenuity in it. For he could not be ignorant that here the Dissenters particularly used to fix their charge of human Inventions in the Worship of God, which the Bp. has been so far from endeavouring to clear their way of administering this Ordinance from, that he has rather furnished us with an invincible argument ad hominem to make it good. There are two things which the Dissenters object against the way of celebrating this part of Divine Worship in the Established Church; The one is the use of the Cross as a dedicating sign; The other is, the making Godfathers and Godmothers Sponsors for the religious Education of those children whose Parents are living, to the exclusion of the Parents themselves.  
Now let us examine each of these Practices by the Bp's own Principle. Those ways of Worship (saith he, p. 3) are displeasing to God which are not expressly contained in the holy Scriptures, or warranted by the examples of holy men therein. But neither of these ways of celebrating Baptism can plead any such express command, or so much as example in the holy Scriptures; none that I know of, having so much as pretended to produce either for 'em. So that unless the Bp. retract his own Principle, he must discard both these practices as sinful human Inventions. But as I lay no great stress on an argument founded on so ambiguous a Principle, so I shall add, That I fear these two things will prove human Inventions, according to the juster notion of 'em given in the Remarks on the Introduction.  
For the Cross in Baptism, I see not how it can be cleared from being a New human Sacrament. For there wants nothing but Divine Institution to make it as much a Sacrament as Baptism itself. For what more can be required to the nature of such a Sacrament of the New Covenant, in reference to both the parts of it, than to be a visible sign, whereby God's promise of the blessings of that Covenant is confirmed to us, and we brought under solemn obligation to the duties of it. For if such an external sign be appointed by God for these ends, 'tis a Divine Sacrament; If by Men, 'tis a Human Sacrament, or a part of positive Worship of human Invention. Now that the Established Church has appointed this visible sign of the Cross for both these purposes I mentioned before, is, I think, sufficiently evident from her own express declaration concerning it. For these are her words in the 30th Canon of the Church of England.  
The Holy Ghost by the mouth of the Apostle did honour the name of the Cross so far, that under it he comprehended not only Christ crucified, but the force, effect and merit of his death and passion, with all the comforts, fruits and promises which we receive or expect thereby.— And afterwards,— the Church of England hath retained still the sign of it in Baptism, following therein the Primitive and Apostolical Churches, and accounting it a lawful outward Ceremony, and honourable Badge, whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that died on the Cross, as by the words of the Common-prayer-book may appear. The words in the Service-book, to which the Canons refer, are also these; We receive this child into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, and do sign him with the Sign of the Cross, in token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against Sin, the World, and the Devil, and to continue Christ's faithful Soldier and Servant to his lives end.  
Here is the Sign of the Cross set up to represent Christ crucified, and all the comforts, fruits and promises which we receive or expect as the force, effect and merit of his death and passion. And sure Baptism can represent no more to be either received or expected by us. 'Tis also advanced as an honourable Badge, by which the person Baptised is dedicated to the service of him that died on the Cross, and consequently brought under solemn obligation to all the duties of the New Covenant, to confess the Faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against Sin, the World, and the Devil, and to continue Christ's faithful Soldier and Servant to his live's end; And what more peculiar duties of the Covenant of Grace can Baptism oblige us to?  
Nay, as those Sacraments of Divine Institution are intended by their signification to excite us to our duty by way of moral causality, or influence, so the same is ascribed to this Ceremony a-among the rest appointed by the Established Church, that 'tis apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by such a notable and spiritual signification, whereby he may be edified. See Pref. to the Cerem.  
So that Crossing in Baptism is as much a Sacrament as any thing can be that is not divinely instituted, i. e. 'Tis a Sacrament which men have presumed to Institute to the like purpose, and use as our Blessed Saviour has Instituted Baptism itself.  
Nor do any of those Excuses I have yet met with, signify any thing to take off this charge.  
We are sometimes told, That Baptism is perfect without it. See the 30th Canon.  
Answ. Not to insist on what might be justly said, that the Canon enjoins the use of it in Baptism; And that a great part of the Office of Baptism is continued after the crossing is over, which seem to imply the quite contrary to what the excuse insinuates; I do not see that this signifies any thing to remove our Objection. For Baptism is perfect without the Lord's-Supper, and yet that's a distinct Sacrament, and so will crossing prove no less a human Sacrament, though it were administered in public worship at a different time from that of Baptism. Only it looks the more presumptuous to join it with Baptism, as if we would supyly our Lord's defects in that Institution which he has made the initiating symbol and badge of our Christian Profession.  
We are also told, That the Minister Baptises in the name of Christ, but Signs with the Sign of the Cross in the name of the Church, who by that Rite receives the Infant into the number of her particular members.  
Answ. I might content myself with replying, That there is no such thing suggested in the Office of Baptism, nor in the Canon that relates to the Cross. The words used by the Minister when he crosses the child, rather relate to its being received into the universal Church, For that's the Congregation of Christ's Flock; nor is there the least syllable in the words following, of the person Baptised being signed with the sign of the Cross, in token of his being received into this National Church. But I add, 'Tis no way true that the Cross is only used as a rite, by which the Established Church admits the Baptised into the number of her members; For the 36th Canon expressly asserts it to be an honourable badge, whereby the person Baptised is dedicated to the service of him that died on the Cross, and refers to the words of the Common-Prayer-Book, which are plain to that purpose. And therefore the difficulty still remains, By what Authority the Church can appoint Ministers in her name to dedicate men to the service of a crucified Saviour, by a Rite or Ceremony of their own, when Christ has already appointed one of his own choosing for that end and purpose? For if she could, why do we quarrel with the Roman Church for adding so many new Sacraments to those two which Christ has Instituted already? Nay, why do we blame the Romish Church for their additional rites, of oil, and salt, and spittle, and annexing such spiritual signification and use to 'em?  
And 'tis yet more inexcusable to make such a human Invention a necessary condition of Christian Communion in this part of the Worship of God. For that is to deny men the benefit of God's Institution, to which all credible Professors of the Christian Religion, and their posterity, have a right, by the charter of our common Lord, because they dare not comply with a mere human Invention, for which there is as little (if not less) to be said, than for any of those other rites practised by the Roman Church in the celebration of this Ordinance. And for the custom of Crossing themselves in common conversation, practised by the Primitive Christians, to distinguish themselves from Infidels, we see not what pretence it can afford, for this Religious use of the Cross, as a dedicating sign in the public worship of God, especially as conjoined with his own, viz. Baptism.  
For the use of Godfathers and Godmothers, as exclusive of the Parents public promise of the religious Education of their children, there are these two objections lie against it.  
1. When the 6th Canon of the Church of Ireland ordains, that no Parent shall be urged to be present, nor admitted to stand as Godfather for his own Child, it plainly discharges the Parents from any public engagement to a duty which God has most expressly enjoined 'em, 6 Deut. 6, 7.6 Eph. 4. And can any thing be more unreasonable, than to forbid them to bind themselves by a solemn public promise's to a duty, which God has so strictly bound 'em to by his own Authority, when one great design of Baptism, wherein we dedicate ourselves, or our offspring to God, is to bring us and them under such external public bonds to the duties of God's Covenant.  
2. Godfathers and Godmothers absolutely undertake a work that does not belong to 'em, unless upon supposition of the Parents dying, and their adopting the child. And what is far worse, hereby the generality of such Sponsors are commonly involved in the guilt of heinous perjury, by undertaking positively to do that themselves, which not one of many ever performs. For besides their Vowing in the child's name, to renounce the Devil and all his works, etc. To believe the Articles of the Christian Faith, and obediently to keep God's holy Commands. (As if such actual Faith and Repentance were requisite to the claim of Infants, to the promises of God's Covenant, and the Seal of 'em). They are also told by the Priest, what is their part and duty in pursuance of their promise, viz. To see that the Infant be taught, so soon as he shall be able to learn, what solemn vow, promise and profession he has made by them; they are to call upon him to hear Sermons, and chief to provide that he may learn the Creed, the Lord's-Prayer and ten Commandments in the vulgar Tongue, and all other things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his soul's health; and that the child may be virtuously brought up to lead a godly and a christian life, etc. Now we may safely herein appeal to common experience, how few make any more of this than a matter of mere Ceremony and Form. And alas, how few that seriously consider how hard it is to discharge these duties aright for their own children, would willingly entangle themselves in such solemn engagements, to do all this for other men's. And yet Parents must have their children excluded from Baptism, if they cannot prevail with others to enter into such unreasonable and rash Vows, in which, the most only trifle with the Almighty God, and dissemble with men in so awful a transaction.  
If indeed either these Sponsors were only engaged conditionally to take care of the child's holy education in case of the Parent's dying, or were only made witnesses of the credibility of the Parent's profession of Christianity, as some would pretend to salve the matter, There were something to be said as an excuse for this practice. But 'tis evident from what I have already quoted, that they enter into a solemn promise of all the duties .  
I might have objected farther, that the 14th Canon of the Church of Ireland forbids the Minister to refuse or delay to christian any child brought to him on Sundays or holidays, without any exception, whereas he should in all reason inquire, whether the Parent be a Professed Christian, unless it be supposed that the children of professed Infidels have a right to this mark of God's Covenant.  
II. The Bishop has taken no notice of human Inventions in the Discipline of the Church, about which he knows the Contest between the Established Church and the Dissenters chief lies.  
I speak not here of any lawful determinations of human prudence that relate to the exercise of that sacred discipline that Christ has instituted, but of sinful corruptions of it, by instituting such new Officers in the Church without any warrant, as deprive his undoubted Officers of part of that Pastoral power he has invested 'em with, and render true Church-government impracticable; and by variety of Canons and Constitutions, not only unknown to the Scripture, but contrary to the Rules there laid down for the preservation of order, unity and peace in the Church. But since his Lp's discourse does not lead me to enter on the particular examination of this subject, and he may find these matters largely treated, in Mr. Baxter's Treatise of Episcopacy, the Terms of Christian Concord, the Search for the English Schismatic, and the Case of Non conformity stated and argued. I shall not, without greater occasion, engage myself in a Controversy I have so little fondness for, and expect so little good from any polemical debates about. Only, since his Lp. is pleased to request several things from the Dissenting Ministers of Derry, relating to their Discipline as well as Worship, in order to the facilitating an Accommodation, and begetting a more amicable correspondence; I hope his Lp. cannot take it amiss, if we use the like freedom, in offering, with all humility, the following Requests to our Reverend Conforming Brethren, especially those whose Authority renders 'em most capable to promote the Reformation desired in 'em.  
1. Since, as we humbly conceive, it was the most generally received Opinion of the first Reformers in England, in K. Henry the 8th's, K. Edward the 6th's, and of the Conforming Divines in Q. Elizabeth's Reigns, that a Bishop and Presbyter differ only in degree, not in Order or Office, (as Mr. Humphreys has largely proved in a late Book called the Healing Attempt). We would humbly desire 'em to use their interest, that that unhappy Clause may be razed out of the Preface to the present Book of Ordination, in which 'tis so peremptorily asserted, [That 'tis evident to all men diligently reading the H. Scriptures, and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time there have been these three Orders in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.] That by three Orders they mean three Offices, is plain from the very following words, which Offices were evermore had in such Reverend Estimation, etc. Now it seems to us very unreasonable that all Ministers should be by the Act of Uniformity obliged to profess their Assent to this proposition, when 'tis so contrary to the current judgement of the generality of the most Eminent Protestant Conforming Divines in those 3 forementioned Reigns, (to whom we might add several very learned ones in the Reign of K. James the first, and K. Charles the first and 2d), but especially when 'tis a Proposition at best disputable, both among learned Protestants and Papists; and, as far as we can judge, rather evidently contrary to the holy Scriptures, and to the first and purest ages of Christianity. So that we fear that few Ministers can sincerely profess their Assent to this Assertion, who have taken the pains to make any impartial enquiry into this matter. And we are the more desirous of having this Clause razed out, because this new Opinion of Episcopacy being a distinct Order and Office from Presbytery, is the ground of that uncharitable practice of the Established Church, in requiring Reordination in all such at home, as have been ordained by Presbyters, (i. e. true Scriptural Bishops and Pastors) as a necessary condition of being admitted to the exercise of their Ministerial Function, nay in urging Reordination too on all the Ministers of Reformed Churches abroad, who never had Diocesan Bishops among 'em. As if all the administrations of those Eminent Ministers in France, who are now so honourable Confessors in the cause of Reformed Christianity, were mere Nullities till Prelatical Hands were laid upon 'em.  
2. Since the Archbishops and Bishops claim the Government of the Church as their Province, we humbly wish they would endeavour to recover the spiritual part of their Authority out of their Chancellor's hands, who have so long usurped the keys of sacred Discipline, and have hitherto so scandalously managed 'em, as to bring the solemn censures of the Church into general contempt. And no wonder, when they are prostituted to so vile a purpose as that of filthy lucre, and thereby the Temple of God is turned into a House of Merchandise. We do not speak this against the power of the Spiritual Courts in those Civil Causes, or in those Ecclesiastical ones which their Majesties in pursuance of their just power circa sacra, may authorise 'em to determine; but only their assuming the cognizance of all cases of scandal, so far as they subject men to the censures of the Church, and being entrusted with the infliction of those censures even in reference to all the numerous causes that come before 'em, so few of which properly belong to an Ecclesiastical Judicatory. For besides that, we think, That the power of inflicting those censures belongs to Pastors, and cannot be delegated by 'em to a Layman, it seems a certain and unavoidable, though pernicious consequence of such Spiritual Courts being entrusted with the sentence of Excommunication, to enforce all their Decrees, that the most awful judgement on earth is like (to use my Ld Bacon's expressions) to be made an ordinary process to lackey up and down for fees 
* Consider: for the better establishing the Ch. of Engl. . We doubt not their Lp's have read Bp Bedel's Life wrote by the present Bp. of Sarum, wherein there is so loud and just a complaint of the gross abuses of this kind, and so noble an example set 'em of zeal for the Reformation of 'em. And no doubt, if they would concur in their imitation of it, they might do it with rational prospect of greater success; and be happily instrumental to wipe off some part of that stain brought on the Church by her tolerating these corruptions, which (as the foremention'd Bp of Sarum relates) pious Archbishop Usher so greatly lamented, and apprehended it would bring a curse and ruin upon the whole Constitution. See Bp. Bedel's Life, p. 86, 87,  
3. We could hearty wish that when their Lp's have recovered their own Authority out of their Chancellor's hands, they would exercise it in concurrence with the Presbyters of their several Dioceses.  
And herein also the forementioned Bp. Bedel set 'em an excellent pattern, Ib. p. 90. And we hope the Bp of Derry will urge 'em to an imitation thereof, since he has laid it down as their common Opinion and Judgement, p 175. That the Government of the Church in such districts as those of our Dioceses, aught to be in a Presbytery with a Bishop, as Precedent and Governor by Christ's Appointment.  
4. We would also humbly desire 'em to restore that Godly discipline which the Common-prayer-book tells us was in the primitive Church, for bringing such as were convicted of notorious sin, to public profession of their Repentance. For since the Church in the Office of Commination, yearly declares, that the Restoration of the said Discipline is much to be wished, It will look like a mocking of Heaven, yearly to repeat such lazy wishes of it, when there are no serious attempts made towards it; And we can see no reason why the Curses peculiar to the Mosaical Dispensation, should be substituted instead of it.  
5. We could wish that part of the Office for Visiting the Sick might be reviewed, which concerns Absolution.  
For since there is no other Absolution owned in the Reformed Churches, but either publishing the conditional offers of pardon in the Gospel, or a ministerial releasing those from the Censures of the Church, on whom they had been inflicted before. We think it does too much countenance the judicial power of Absolution claimed by the Romish Priests, for the Minister to absolve the uncensured in so peremptory terms; I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, etc. For they seem to make the Minister pass a more positive judgement of the sick man's Repentance, than he is capable to do.  
6. In order to the more effectual exercise of that godly discipline , We would earnestly request that the Parish-Ministers may be restored to that Pastoral power which Archbishop Usher in his model of Episcopacy shows that they were invested in according to the former Book of Ordination; but of which they seem now deprived, by the many changes made in the new. 
See the Healing Attempt, p. 57, 58, 59, etc.  'Tis certain they are most capable of a personal inspection of the lives of their Flock, and consequently of enquiring into any scandalous miscarriages among 'em, and suiting their admonitions to the case of such Offenders, and judging whether there be, or be not, a credible profession of Repentance made by 'em. Nor can there be any danger of their abusing that sacred censure of Excommunication, by being too rash in it; for that danger is fully obviated by the method proposed in the forementioned model of AB Usher, which refers the decreeing that sentence to the monthly Synod of the Ministers in that Precinct, or part of the Diocese, of which the Suffragan or Chorepiscopus is the Moderator. In the mean time, we could wish that Parish-Ministers were more effectually urged to observe the 20th Canon, which charges 'em not to admit to the holy Cammunion any of their Cure or Flock, which ●e openly known to live in notorious sin without Repentance, though we can expect no very considerable effects of such a temporary suspension, when it obliges the Minister to turn Informer against such Offenders in the Spiritual Court, where they are sure to be put to great charges; by which method he is but like to alienate their hearts from him, and frustrate the success of all those admonitions, by which he should endeavour to recover 'em to Repentance.  
7. They would farther humbly desire, that some more effectual care may be taken for the trial of those that are to be admitted into Holy Orders.  
For the 32d Canon enjoins the Bishop to examine 'em in the presence of those Ministers that shall assist at the Imposition of hands, or at least take care that those Ministers shall examine them; yet we understand this is too often put off to an Archdeacon, or one of his Chaplains, and at best but too superficially performed. And we humbly conceive the Canon itself is very defective, in not recommending such particular Trials as are fit for such Candidates of the Ministerial Function to undergo in order to their giving a sufficient specimen of their proficiency in the study of Divinity, and in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures. And herein we would humbly recommend to 'em the excellent method proposed by the Westminster-Assembly in their Propositions relating to Church-Government and Ordination, viz. That such Candidates be examined touching their skill in The Original Languages, by Reading the Hebrew and Greek Testaments, and rendering some portion of 'em into Latin. They are to be examined also, what Authors in Divinity they have read, and trial shall be made of their knowledge of the grounds of Religion, and ability to defend the Orthodox Doctrine in 'em against all unsound and erroneous Opinions, especially those of the present Age; of their skill and sense in the meaning of such places of Scripture as shall be proposed to 'em, in cases of Conscience, and in the chronology of the Scripture, and in the Ecclesiastical History. They are to expound some difficult place of Scripture; they are to frame a discourse in Latin upon some common-place or controversy in Divinity, and maintain a Dispute upon it; and they are to Preach a practical Sermon before the people, those concerned in their Ordination being present.  
This method is so exactly followed among the Dissenters, that those they ordain commonly pass twice thro' these Trials, both when they are first allowed to Preach as Candidates, and at their Ordination. And as 'tis the most effectual that can be proposed for preventing an ignorant and insufficient Ministry, so 'tis the more requisite that the like care should be taken in the Established Church, where so many are tempted to crowd into the Sacred Office by the lure of secular interest; and so many Parents, from the prospect of preferment thrust those of their Children upon the service of the Church, whom they are at a loss how to dispose otherwise of.  
8. We could hearty desire some more effectual course were taken for the Reformation of such of the Clergy, whose scandalous lives slain the honour of their profession.  
For the infectious examples of such Clergymen are far more powerful to spread the contagion of wickedness and vice among their Flock, than their doctrine to propagate piety and holiness. And 'tis no wonder, that either the offerings of the Lord are abhorred by the people, when they see 'em presented by so unhallowed hands, or that they run without restraint into all excess of Riot, when they do but herein follow their spiritual Guides. 'Tis great pity therefore that the 42d Canon which threatens such scandalous Clergymen with Ecclesiastical censures, is not more faithfully executed. And it seems unaccountable, why it should not as expressly order the suspension and deposition of such as are found incorrigible, as other Canons of the Church of England, order their suspension and deposition for no greater faults, than Omitting the use of any form of Prayer, or any other Rite or Ceremony prescribed by the Service-Book, or appointing or keeping Fasts either in public or in private houses without the Bp's leave. For this is to lay greater stress on the Church's Injunctions, than on God's commands; and to punish nonconformity to the former, more strictly than disobedience to the latter. We shall only add, that if the Law of Moses so carefully provided that its Priests should have no blemish or deformity on their bodies, sure much greater care should be taken, that those who serve at the Christian Altar, should not be persons of deformed souls, and of a tainted conversation. And we are hearty glad, that their Majesties, by their Royal Commission, have begun so necessary a work in this Kingdom, as the purging the Church from such scandalous Clergymen, as have too long been the blemishes of their holy profession, and hope it may extend to all other parts where there is the like necessity for it, as there appears to have been in the Diocese of Down and Connor.  
9 They would also earnestly desire that so gross a corruption as that of Pluralitys and Nonresidence so universally complained of, may be at last effectually reformed.  
In order whereto, they desire it may be seriously considered, whether our Canons themselves do not rather confirm than reform these Abuses. For by the 36th Canon every Master of Arts, that is a public and sufficient Preacher, is capable of Pluralitys. The Time which he that enjoys 'em is to reside in each of his Benefices, is not determined. And by the 41 Canon of the Church of England, I find no other bounds set to the number of Benefices, than that they must not be more than thirty miles asunder. And though every such Bluralist be required to have under him in the Benefices where he does not reside, a lawful and sufficient Preacher; yet it is both unreasonable in itself, that such a sufficient Preacher should sacrifice his painful labours to pamper the avarice and ease of another; And 'tis too notorious, that such Pluralists, for the most part, give so despicable and stingy allowance to their poor Curates, that it cannot reasonably be expected, any man of tolerable abilities should be contented with it; and so to feed the covetous humour of such mercenary Pastors (as the Council of Trent itself calls Pluralists) their Flocks must be betrayed, by being committed to the care of such, whom their ignorance renders the Reproach of their profession, and who indeed are fit for no other sort of Preaching, than this new one the Bp. of Derry has found out, viz. The Reading a Chapter out of the Bible. Nor do we think the Canons about the Clergy's Residence less exceptionable. For the 37th Canon supposes some persons to be Beneficed that are not allowed to be Preachers (though, contrary to the soresaid Bp's notion, they are allowed by the English Canons, to read plainly and aptly, without glozing, or adding, both the Scripture and Homilies). And of these Incumbents that are unlicenst to Preach, no more is required, than that they procure Sermons to be Preached once a month in their Cures, and that too, if the Living will bear it. And the same Canon only requires every Beneficed man that is licensed, to provide for the Benefice he resides not on, a Preaching Curate, on the same condition that the worth of the Benefice will bear it. As if the souls of the people were of so little value, that they must rather perish for lack of knowledge and instruction, than such a Pluralist's avarice be crossed by resigning the Benefice to one that will take care of the people's souls, provided he may enjoy the Stipend the Law has assigned for the encouragement and subsistence of such a one.  
10. They would humbly desire that the Bp's would use their interest and endeavours, that the rigour of the Act of Uniformity may be abated, in its requiring so express a Declaration from every Minister of his Assent and Consent to all things contained in, and prescribed by the Book of common-Prayer, and the form and manner of making and ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons. For as far we can judge, there are many things in those Books, which the more judicious and charitable of our Conforming Brethren do not hearty assent and consent to, but wish the alteration of; And therefore such cannot make the said Declaration without doing it in in foe lax a sense as too much countenances Equivocation in such important matters as these are.  
11. They would also earnestly entreat their Conforming Brethren to use their endeavours to restore to their people that right of choosing their own Ministers, which the Canons of so many Councils celebrated in the purest ages of Christianity have so fully and frequently confirmed to 'em; At least, we would desire that some effectual provision may be made against Pastors being imposed on 'em without their own consent. For we would not in this request entrench on the power of Patrons any farther, than to desire it may be rendered consistent with this undoubted privilege and right of the people, which no human Laws can justly deprive 'em of. For since the people have souls, whose welfare so greatly depends on the helps and advantages that a judicious and serious Ministry does furnish 'em with to promote it, 'tis most reasonable that their Votes and Suffrage should be allowed in the choice of the person, to whose Pastoral care they entrust the conduct of 'em. If it would be a very unjust thing to impose Physicians, Lawyers or Tutors on others, where far lesser interests are concerned, how much more unjust were it for the people to have their Salvation so far put into the Patron's hands, as to be obliged to acquiesce in whomsoever they present, though the choice be never so apparently prejudicial to their eternal interest. A negative voice is the least that can in this case be allowed to the people, unless the Patron that presents were to be responsible for their souls at the day of Judgement, or could secure 'em from all the pernicious effects that an ill choice is attended with to their irreparable loss and detriment.  
12. We would also humbly request, that that incapacity for Communion with the Established Church may be taken off, which their own Canons lay the Dissenters under.  
There has been occasion given already in this Discourse, to take notice of one of 'em, viz. the 5th. which excommunicates ipso facto all that shall affirm, or maintain, that there are within this Realm, other Meetings, Assemblies, or Congregations, than such as by the Laws of this Land are held and allowed, which may rightly challenge to themselves the name of true and lawful Churches. And sure they cannot expect we should forbear to vindicate our own Innocence, to escape this unjust censure; or that we should voluntarily condemn so many Excellent Churches to avoid the Condemnation of this uncharitable Canon. But our Incapacity for communion with 'em is increased by the 3d Canon, which also Excommunicates ipso facto not only all that shall preach, but all that shall by other open words declare or speak any thing in derogation, or despising of the Service Book, or any thing contained therein. For we cannot possibly give to our Brethren any account of our dissent from 'em either in writing or private conversation, without speaking open words in derogation from some thing contained in the Service-book. We cannot complain of the use of the Cross, or of that sort of Sponsors in Baptism which the Service book requires; nor blame those uncharitable Rubrics that debar the most serious Christians from those Sacraments that do but scruple crossing, sponsors, and kneeling; we cannot mention any of those numerous defects in the Liturgy contained in the Exceptions given in at the Savoy-conference, without coming under the terrible sentence of this Canon. In a word, we must either never speak our judgement concerning that Book, though our own necessary Vindication never so apparently require it; Or if we do, we are as far as the power of that unmerciful Canon can reach, Excommunicated, i. e. in the language of the Established Church, in her form of Excommunication, cut off, as dead members, from the body of Christ. Again, we are Excommunicated, if we affirm any of the 39 Articles to be in any part such as we cannot with a good Conscience subscribe to, though 'tis known we cannot subscribe to the Disciplinary ones, though in England they have already done it to the Doctrinal ones. And that our business may be yet more effectually done, We are again excommunicated by the 4th Canon, if we affirm, that those who are consecrated according to the Rites of the Ordination-Book, are not lawfully made, nor aught to be accounted either, Bishops, or Deacons; (i. e. If this Canon speak of Scriptural Bishops or Deacons) For 'tis sufficiently known, we neither account the Office of a modern Diocesan Bishop, nor that of a Deacon in the sense of the Established Church, to be either of 'em of Divine Institution.  
Now we think it most reasonable, that those who so often urge us to their Communion, should remove such insuperable Obstacles out of our way. And we humbly conceive there is that apparent absurdity and uncharitableness in these Canons, that will justify our desire of their being discarded.  
1. They are in our judgement guilty of an apparent Absurdity; For we are Excommunicated by 'em without any other Admonition of our fault, than what the Canons themselves give us. Whereas 'tis not merely the committing an Offence, that justly subjects men to that terrible censure, but persisting impenitently in it, according to our Blessed Saviour's known Rule, 18 Matth. 15, 16, etc. So that the Church in these Canon's uses greater severity than our Lord himself, who in his judgement will not condemn men merely for their sins, but for final obstinacy in 'em. And indeed, if these Canons be just, we are bound in conscience, as knowing ourselves Excommunicate, to abstain from the Communion of the Established Church, till we have revoked these Errors, as the Canon calls our Opinion and Judgement in these matters. Now we think it very hard for men to be thus peremptorily cut off from Christ without any personal warning, that might give 'em opportunity to prevent so terrible a doom; For this makes these spiritual Canons more formidable things than those warlike Engines, that at least give some notice by their flash before they do execution.  
2. They are in our judgement as apparently guilty of gross uncharitableness.  
For the Assertions for which we are Excommunicated by these Canons, relate to matters that are disputable among such as are truly Orthodox and Pious, nay among Divines of eminent Learning and Judgement. And consequently to excommunicate men for declaring their Opinion one way or other in these matters, is so far from being consistent with Christian Charity, that 'tis the worst sort of Schism, and plainly tends to confine that Reformed Christianity among us to a narrow Sect and Party, to which all sober Protestants may justly lay their claim, as their common Interest. Nay, we think this sort of rigour, in enforcing all contained in these three Books of human composure, (viz. The Book of Articles (inclusive of that of Homilies, Art. 35.) that of Ordination, and that of Common-Prayer) with so peremptory Excommunication of all that declare their dissent from any thing in 'em, more inexcusable in one respect, than the rigour of the Council of Trent in their anathemas, viz. that our convocations pretend to no such Infallibility in their decisions, as the Romish Councils; And therefore more of Christian forbearance and charity might reasonably have been expected from men conscious of the common infirmity of human nature, which could no more secure themselves then us, from mistakes in so dubious matters as these are.  
As to all these Requests to our Reverend Brethren, we shall only add, that we hope they will either show us our Error in judging these things to be coruptions, which we here beg the Reformation of, or else, that they will not account it criminal in us to reform 'em amongst ourselves, nor urge us to receive 'em again after we have cast 'em out. For we may well be forgiven, that we are as unwilling to go backwards, as some seem to be to go forwards in the desirable work of just and necessary Reformation.  
Lastly, There is only one Request more we would offer to our Reverend Brethren, wherein we hope we may more confidently assure ourselves of their compliance with us, viz. That we may all of us unite our endeavours with greater zeal and earnestness for reviving that power of practical Christianity and Holiness that is so visibly declining among us; particularly, by labouring to promote more of Closet and Family-Religion in those under our care, and to preserve or reclaim 'em from those heinous sins, (such as swearing, profanation of the Lord's-day, Intemperance, uncleanness, Pride, Luxury, etc.) that have again overspread this Land, and the Protestant Inhabitants of it, notwithstanding all the calamities they have so lately brought upon us. And we would farther desire, That as they have greater advantages of access to our Magistrates than we have, they would use all their interest and influence to engage 'em to a more vigorous prosecution of that necessary work, the reformation of manners, by a more strict Execution of the Laws against open irreligion and wickedness. And we only crave leave to add these two reasons that urge us to this request; The one is, that our hearty concurrence in advancing these undoubted and important interests of our common Lord, wherein we profess to be agreed, will be the most successful means to cement our affections; And when our Zeal is warmly laid out this way, we shall find less of Inclination, as well as leisure, to prosecute our lesser differences: The other is, that there seems to be an extraordinary necessity of our utmost efforts to save a perishing People from that ruin that hangs over our heads. For as the heinous sins that yet appear so barefaced and uncontrolled among us, are greatly aggravated, both by the former terrible judgements under which we have so deeply smarted, and by the surprising Deliverance that should have obliged us to other returns to its blessed Author; so the many late indications of divine anger in our public losses, and in the ill aspect of our affairs, plainly tell us, that the Great God is yet pursuing a Controversy against us, because we have not answered his just expectations by returning to him. And as these renewed monitary Judgements, if they still prove ineffectual, presage a stroke of destructive vengeance, so we see nothing short of a National Repentance and Reformation likely to prevent it, and there appears no probability of that, till both Magistrates and Ministers in their several stations do resolutely engage in the design of promoting it, from a deep conviction of its absolute necessity to prevent our Ruin.   

POSTSCRIPT  
UPon the Review of these Remarks, I thought it necessary here to deliver my thoughts more distinctly and fully in reference to the following Passage then was proper for me to do, in the body of a Plain Discourse.  
P. 15, 16. I have asserted, That 'tis probable that the Psalms of David were composed in Metre, and produced to that purpose the Testimony of Josephus, to which I might that of Philo, Origen, Eusebius, St. Hierom & Isidore Hispalensis, †  
But I would here add in explication of that passage, that I do not take metre or verse in the strict sense of the words, as if there were the same kind of measures and verse in the Psalms of David, that were afterwards in use among the Polite Greeks and Latins; For though I know Gomarus in his Lyra Davidica has attempted to prove that the Psalms were composed in metre even in this strict sense, and his performance was at first greatly applauded by the Elder Buxtorf, Heinsius L. de Dieu, L'Empereur, Hottinger, and others, yet Lud. Capellus has so far blasted the Credit of it in his Animadversions on it, that the Attempt seems given up as by other Learned Men, so by Buxtorf (the Son) himself. But for such metre or measures in the Hebrew Psalms as did accommodate 'em to Vocal and Instrumental Music, and thereby gave 'em the denomination of verse as distinguished from mere prose, I see no reason to doubt of it; And this sort of metre the Bp. has groundlessly confounded with mere prose, in the passage the Remarks refer to (Disc. p. 8,) from which I shall now show it ought to be carefully distinguished.  
And to clear this I shall lay down the following Particulars.  
1. Poetry in general was in its first rise vastly different from what it was afterwards. 
‡ Praef, ad chron. Euseb. St. Hierom praefat. in Job Threnos Isaiam & libror. Regum Euseb. prop. Evang. l. 1. c. 11. Orig. l. c. 18.   
'Tis so in all other Arts and Inventions, and no doubt was so in this. See what Vossius observes to this purpose, de Art. Poet. naturâ p. 76. when speaking of the Versus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by Aristotle, he adds, Interim erant hi versus rudes & impoliti Mox aliqua cura accessit, & tamen tum quoque solo constabant Rythmo— hinc & aliqua metri ratio coepit haberi sed rudior plane & imperfecta, Tandem & metrica Iex certa fuit & perpetua. See also ib. p. 81, 82. To the same purpose, Quintilian Instit. l. 9 c. 4. Poema nemo dubitaverit imperito quodam initio fusum, & aurium mensurâ, & similiter de: currentium spatiorum observatione esse generatum, mox in eo repertos pedes.  
2. The Bible Poetry differs vastly from that of the more polite Greeks and Latins (such as Homer's Virgi'ls &c.) and of the modern Europeans and Asians, nay from the modern Jewishones,  
And the difference lies chief, 1. As to feet of a long or short quantity artificially disposed.  
2. As to a Stated and constantly equal number of Syllables.  
As to both these Ingredients of strict metre and verse, the most learned Rabbis do indeed tell us they are not to be generally found in the Bible Poetry. See to this purpose Cosri, part 2 p. 133. 136, 137. Dissert. Rabbinicae, at the end of Cozri p. 408. p. 424. See also Pfeiffer's Dub. vex. p. 545, 546, and 536.  
And indeed though many learned Authors greatly applaud the observation of Feet and of (Rhythmus or) a stated number of Syllables. Artificially disposed, as a thing of admirable use to excite or allay the Passions, and herein think the later Poetry has the advantage of the Ancient, (See Is. Voss. de Poem. Cantu & Viribus Rythmi, p. 11, 12, 13.) yet on the other hand, the observation of 'em does often hamper and cramp the Poet, that he cannot so freely vent himself. And though this inconvenience may be tolerably avoided in more Copious Languages, It must have been great in so narrow a one as the Hebrew Tongue undoubtedly is.  
3. As to Rhimes (I speak not here of what the Latins call Rhythmus, but take the word in the modern sense for the ending of the Verse in syllables of the like found)  
Of these there are but few in the Bible Poetry, and 'tis doubtful whether designed or by chance. And the general use of these is certainly of a much later date then of the two former.  
3. Yet there are in the Bible Poetry, besides the different Style and Manner of expression, some measures observed in order to the accommodating the words to Vocal and Instrumental Music, on the account of which composure they were Verse, as distinguished from Prose.  
The most learned Writers on this Subject of Poetry give us the same Account of the Aneient Poetry of other Nations. See Ger. Voss. de Art. Poet. not & constit. p. 11. 81, 82. So Is. Voss. de Poem. Cantu etc. p. 1, 2. Illud quidem certum omnem Poesin olim Cantatam fuisse— si itaque primitivam vocabuli acceptionem spectemus, Poesis vel Poema nil aliud fuerit, quam qualiscunquae compsitio cantui apta, etc.  
And the most learnen Rabbi's give us the same Account of the Bible Poetry.  
Thus Abarbinel, Dissert. Rabbin. at the end of Cozri, p. 409 Authores carminum priscorum necesse habuerunt accommodare numerum literarum ad rationem melodiae quam composuerunt ad canendum, & ordinem collocationis earum ad formam sonorum, & hoc ordine unicè respexerunt ad proprietates & requisita melodiae. Again ib. p. 410. speaking of the Song of Deborah, David's Psalms, etc. he saith Omnes hi carminum Authores proposuerunt sibi tale aliqod genus, numerando literas ut aequaliter respondeant proportioni melodiae ipsorum, & pro variatione melodiae variant quoque numeri literarum. Non est autem dubium quin habuerint melodias certas quoe longitudine temporis & captivitatum in oblivionem venerunt. Again, ib. p. 411. Enquiring what sort of Verse the Song in Exod. 15. was he saith, Certum est non fúisse ex primo genere (i. e. those verses which had modern feet and rhyme) sed ex secundo (i e. those that had only such measures as were requisite to accommodate 'em to singing as he had explained the distinction p. 408) Constat enim ex octonis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quorum duo sunt valde brevia, & duo alia valde longa, quatuor mediocria. And again, ib. p. 412. Vides in isto Cantica quandoque contrahi literas quandoque extendi & protrahi, per additionem quarundam literarum ad justam faciendam mensuram & modulationem, prout aliquando etiam una & altera hujus rei causâ deficit, of which he gives several Instances and then adds, Non enim existimandum principem prophetarum errâsse circa accuratam literarum rationem, & ordinem scriptionis illarum, verùm carminis ratio & melodioe necessitas sic postularunt. See also the judgement of R. Azarias and R. Sam. Arcuvolt; ib. p. 428, 429.  
And therefore though Pfeiffer in his accurate Enquiry into this matter denies the Psalms to be composed in Metre, taking Metre in the strict sense, yet he owns such measures or Metre as I here assert, and therefore tells us, Dub. vex. p. 537. Poesis veterum Hebroeorum in selectâ Vocum, & quodammodo proportionatâ ad Musicam accommodatione constitisse videtur. And accordingly he compares David's Psalms to the Magnificat in Latin, quod metrice conceptum non facile dixeris, At ob talem styli conformationem non minus apte cantillari potest quam Psalmi Davidici: (Of the same sort is the Te Deum ascribed to St. Ambrose, and yet Dr. Comber, Orig. of Lit. p. 179, tells us that St. Ambrose speaks of that Hymn, when he owns that he made Hymns in verse and taught 'em to the People, Comment. in Luc. c. 15. Tom. 3. p. 169.) And again, Concedimus Cantica & Carmina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accepta, cantui ve accommodata. In quibus itaque non est metrica, neque tamen mere soluta oratio, sed Syllabarum atque vocum certo numero, seu proportione quadam saltem rhetorica ad melodiam adstricta. Where 'tis evident he takes Metre in the strict sense, but asserts such Measures as are distinct from mere Prose. And indeed some such Measures they must have had to conform their Sentences to Music. In some of 'em (as particularly those Psalms I have quoted in the Remarks) those Measures are more obvious and are like the Measures observed in many of the Hymns used in the Romish Church, such as that.  

Aeterna Coeli Gloria,  
Beata spes Mortalium  
Summi Tonantis unice  
Castae que proles Virgins etc.   
Or that  

Ave maris Stella.  
Dei mater Alma  
Atque semper virgo  
Felix Coeli porta  
Sumens illud Ave  
Gabrielis o'er etc.   
But others of 'em we are more at a loss to understand, because we have utterly lost the Ancient Hebrew Music, even as to Instruments as well as Tunes: yea the Ancient Music of other Nations is lost. See Is Voss. de Poem. Cantu, etc. p. 21. & 48.  
Upon the whole then, sinee the Psalms were wrote in such sort of Metre and Verse as was then used; since the knowledge of their particular Musical Tunes and Instruments is quite lost, we cannot be obliged to an exact imitation of 'em; for that were to suppose us obliged to Impossibilities. The Commands therefore that enjoin Christian Churches to sing Psalms, necessarily oblige us to turn 'em into such sort of Metre and Verse, as will accommodate 'em best to be sung by the People. Whereas to put 'em into no other Metre than the Pointed Psalter in the Common-Prayer-Book, is to exclude the generality of the People from any capacity of complying with God's own Command for sing 'em. And as the Tunes of those pointed Psalms are quite different from the Hebrew one's, so they are as much a human Invention as the Tunes of the common Metre-Versions. And therefore to set up that pointed Psalter in the Service-Book, whose Tunes the body of the People cannot follow, to the Exclusion of those Metre-versions, according to which they can join in singing the Psalms (as the Bp. seems to design) is in his Language to set up a human Invention to the violation of a Divine Command, by rendering the People's observance of it impracticable.  
And whereas the Bp. adds, p. 8. That we cannot find that our Saviour and his Apostles in their time, or those in the Age immediately following, sung any thing in verse; but we are sure they sung Hymns in Prose.  
I shall only subjoin, That I cannot imagine whence the Bp. should be sure, That Christ and his Apostles Sung Hymns in Prose. For by the account already given, 'Tis no way probable since the Hebrew-Psalms (though composed when Poetry was but in its first rise and as it were unfledged and unformed) were in Verse as distinguished from Prose. Nay that in the Apostles time, and in the following Ages they Sung in Metre and Verse, seems more probable, from the Relation that Eusebius gives us from Philo concerning the Therapeutae or Worshippers in Egypt. Philo flourished in the middle of the Apostolical Age, of whose Commentary Eusebius tells us, Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 16: That it contained manifestly the Canons or Rules hitherto conserved in the Church; and that insomuch as he (i. e. Philo) has curiously described unto us the lives of our Asseticks or Religious Men, he plainly shows that he not only understood, but also greatly admired and approved those Apostolical Men; who probably descending from the Hebrews, did therefore observe the ancient Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews. Now among other customs of those Therapeutae, Philo relates Eccl. Hist. l. 2 c. 17. That they made Songs and Hymns to God in grave and sacred Rhymes (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of every kind of Metre and Verse. 'Tis true indeed that Scaliger de Emend. Temp. l. 6. falls foul on Eusebius for making these Therapeutoe or Worshippers to be Christians, and Valesius, Annot. in Euseb: p: 34. 35. falls in with him in that, though he descent from him that these Therapeutoe were Essenes' and pretends to prove the contrary. But the Arguments of Scaliger and Valesius on both these heads, are well answered in Bruno's Dissertatio de Therapeutis, Printed at the end of Colomes' Edition of the Epistle of Clement ad Corinthios. But however that be, 'Tis evident that Eusebius not only asserts such Divine Hymns composed in Metre and Verse to be in use among Christians in his Age, but to have been a custom derived to 'em from the Apostolical Age, and continually preserved in the Church, as Philo supposes such Hymns to have been usual among the Jews. So that we have better ground to conclude that Christ and his Apostles and the following Ages sung Hymns in Metre and Verse, than the Bp. has produced for their Singing Hymns in Prose.  
And for the Alternate singing of the Psalms of David, Dr. Comber acknowledges the truth of what Theodoret asserts, l. 2. c. 24. That this custom was first brought into the Church of Antioch by Flavianus and Diodorus. and from thence universally spread, of Lit. p. 87, 88 And Dr. Hammond saith, That St. Basil in the description of a Clergy man officiating. Ad Clerum Caesar. Ep. 63, saith, they go to the House of Prayer, and after the Confession they prepare for the singing of Psalms, speaking of the first Apostolical times, For now, saith he, we sing the Psalms in parts or by turns, it seems they had not done so before, but altogether, View of the New Direct. Ed. fol. p. 138 In other Hymns, 'tis true we read of Alternate singing more early practised. And indeed since the Scripture only requires Singing Psalms, Hymns, etc. in general, without prescribing the particular mode of it, Christian Charity should make us cautious of censuring such different modes of others as sinful human Inventions, except when such an inconvenient mode is chosen as excludes the main part of the Congregation from joining in this Religious Duty.  
FINIS.