IN the Introduction his Lordship is pleas'd to in­sinuate, tho' he does not venture directly to assert,Admon. Octavo Edit. p. 134. That I have trea­ted the Opinions and Practices of the establisht Church in a passionate and an­gry, in a scoffing and deriding manner. But since he has given no instances or proof of it, but referr'd it to the Reader's judgment, I shall with some confidence appeal to it also, as being well assur'd of the innocence of those Papers as to this particular. Only, since he alledges a passage in his Discourse against this way of treating Controversies, I hope I may take the liberty of reciting one of my own, wherein I had taken care to obviate this Objection. 'Tis Remarks, p. 142. ‘I do fully concur with him in his Advice, Not to treat one ano­ther [Page 2] with scurrilous and unseemly Reflections; but I hope he will not account those such wherein a Man is justly reprov'd for gross mis-representations of other Men's Opinions or Practices, or a trifling Argument is not always treated with grimace, but sometimes with the slight it deserves.’ Let but the Reader make me this reasonable allowance, and I shall not be very fearful of his censure on this account.

For the Three Heads which the Bishop proposes to give an account of relating to the Remarks, I shall ex­amine 'em in their order.

I. He acquaints us with the true Motive that pre­vailed with him to publish his Book, in which these par­ticulars are suggested.

1. He tells us how much Ignorance he found among the poor People, Insomuch, as of 800 or more of the Dissenters Communion, whom he personally discourst, he found not above four persons that cou'd give any account of their Catechism, Admon. p. 135. and only two that cou'd repeat it.

Now as to this matter of fact which the Bishop pro­fesses mov'd his compassion, I shall give him the Account sent me by the Dissenting Ministers that are in his Dio­cese, and I hope that Christian Charity which he so of­ten professes, will render it very welcome to him, by assuring him that the generality of 'em are not so igno­rant as be has mistaken 'em to be.

Now if this Account of their own Ministers, who should be best acquainted with their own People, be true, the Bishop's Account is absolutely incredible, un­less he has taken some extraordinary pains to pick out the most ignorant Dissenters of his Diocese, that by them he might pretend to judge of the rest. But any one that considers the genius of that People, and their particular dissatisfaction with his Lordship, will be ea­sily inclin'd to believe this genuine Account of the Mat­ter; That he has mistaken their Silence for their Igno­rance, and concluded they could not repeat their Cate­chism, because they would not admit him to be their Catechizer.

Now as to this matter of fact, I hope the Bishop cannot take it unkindly that I endeavour to allay his grief, by offering him the following Account from the Dissenting Ministers in his Diocese.

Now if this Account be true, the Bishop's Compu­tation, and the Conclusion he draws from it, is far e­nough from being so. And that there are yet some Congregations that want Ministers, and can only have occasional supplies, is much more their grief, who are doing all they can to remedy it, than it can be supposed to be his Lordship's, who does all he can to lessen the num­ber of their Meetings, by obliging his Tenants to suffer neither Ministers nor Meeting-houses to be upon his Land.

Ans. 'Tis evident by Mr. Craghead's Reply to his Discourse, which Taxes him with the same Calumnies as the Remarks, that if those Dissenters he Convers't with, gave him that Account he pretends of these mat­ters; they were such as understood not the known Opi­nions or Practises of their own Teachers. As when they alledg so many Reasons either against the lawfulness of all Forms of Prayer, and against joyning in publick worship where they are used, or against the publick reading the Scriptures, or against all bodily worship, &c. And therefore if the Bp. had been ingenious in prosecuting what he now saith was his design, he should have told us, that he intended [Page 5] only by this Book to Correct the mistakes of a few Igno­rant People, that neither knew the Judgment of their Pastors, nor the common Practise of the Congregations they Joyned with. And that he intended not to charge the generality of the Dissenters, even not those of his own Diocess with those weak Opinions, and weaker Arguments and Objections which he endeavours to cen­sure and confute. But he has been so far from doing this, that tho in the Conclusion of his Book, he parti­cularly Addresses himself to those of his Diocess; yet in his very Entrance on his Subject, he undertakes to represent the Practise of Dissenters in general, or (in his own terms) of them that differ from the Establish't Church. Nay, Where he supposes his charge only to be true of those in the North of Ireland, he takes care to confine it to them; and therefore he gives us just ground to conclude, that where he mentions the Dissen­ters without any such Restriction, he is to be under­stood as speaking of the whole Body of them, accor­ding to the very Titles of his several Chapters, Praise, Prayer, Hearing, Bodily Worship, how practist among Dissenters. And to Convince him of the Reasonable­ness of this, I shall put a Parallel case to him. Sup­pose I should write a Book about Ecclesiastical Disci­pline, how Practised in the Establish't Church, and a­mong Dissenters; and in the Account of the Practise of the Establisht Church, should represent the sad neg­lect of all the Duties of their Function, both by Bi­shops and Priests; and accordingly should charge the Bishops with so many years Non-residence, in which there had been no Consecration of Churches, nor Con­firmation of Children, nor Ordination of Priests, and the Priests with such neglect of their Cures, as a great many in the Diocess of Down and Connor were Accus'd of: And suppose I should particularly address this Book to the late Bishop and Clergy of that Diocess, Would his Lordship in this case think me Excuseable from the guilt of Calumniating, because I had particularly ad­drest this Discourse to them, when I have not in the Body of the Book confined my Accusations to them, [Page 6] but speak all along of the faults of the Conformable Bishops and Clergy in general, without any such par­ticular limitation, or would he think me Ingenuous in producing such Arguments, as the Bishop and Clergy of the forementioned Diocess may alledge to excuse themselves, as the common Reasonings of the Con­forming Clergy: And yet, this were of the two more justifiable than the Bishop's management of this Charge against Dissenters, in which he has wronged the gene­rality; even of those to whom he now pretends that this Discourse was confined, but much more the generality of the Dissenters, against whom the grea­test part of his Book is levell'd without any Distincti­on. I confess, to have told us plainly, that he only Con­futed the weak Discourses he had met with among some few of the Dissenting Laity, would have lessened the Character of his Book, by supposing the cause of the Dissenters to be little concerned in it; and so pro­bably the main Design of it, to blast the Reputation of the whole Party had been frustrated, by such an inge­nuous Confession. But without such an ingenuous Confession, I do not see how 'tis possible to excuse his Discourse from untruth and disingenuity; either in at­tributing to Dissenters in general, what is peculiar to those in the North of Ireland (as in the Head of Fre­quent Communion) or in ascribing to a whole Party without distinction, so many Opinions, Arguments and Practises, as either none at all, or none but very Weak and Ignorant People are chargeable with; of which there are so many to be found in all Perswasions, that he who will measure the rest of their Communion by them, can never want matter enough to expose the Wisest and Soberest Body of Christians whatsoe­ver. So that should we allow the truth of all his Lord­ship here suggests, (viz. that he truly represents what the Dissenters he Convers't with alledged to him.) It appears how little this signifies to clear him from the guilt of groundless Aspersions.

II. The Bishop proposes to shew, That I have granted the principal things designed in his Book. Admon. p. 138.

As to these I assure him, That I see no reason to re­tract any of those Concessions I have really made; and if they will be of any use to reconcile sober Prote­stants to more charitable thoughts of each others Wor­ship, I shall rejoyce in it. But then I must desire him not to stretch them beyound their just Bounds, as he seems to do in the following Particulars.

Thus, Tho I have own'd Singing in Prose (as op­posed strict to Metre,) lawful in general, p. 10—yet as to the Practise of it in Cathedrals, whereby the main part of the Auditory is excluded from joyning in the publick Praises, through their incapacity to Sing them in Prose; I have censur'd it as disagreeable to the Apostle's Rule, of doing all to Edification, p. 23.

So, Tho I have granted Responses in general lawful, yet I have censured the method of them in the Parish-Churches as applied to all Psalms, as not only unscrip­tural but unreasonable and disorderly, p. 23.

As to the 4th Concession, Tho I think not those un­scriptural Practises of Singing Psalms by a Quire, and of Responses in the Parish-Churches, to fall within the compass of what our Lord Censures, 7 Mark. 7. yet I think them a very defective and disorderly way of Wor­ship; to which I judge the more Scriptural way pra­ctis't among the Dissenters far preferrable.

For the 5th Concession, Tho I grant, Praying with or without a Form in general undetermined in Scrip­ture, yet I do not think it only a matter of Conveniency: For I doubt not Praying with a Form is a Duty, to those who cannot Pray without it; and I think 'tis sin­ful to exclude necessary matters of Prayer by confining our selves to a Form, when we can Pray without one.

From Concession the 6th he draws a wrong Infe­rence, which I had particularly obviated; viz. That because God prescribed a Form of Words to the Jews, in some extraordinary parts of Worship, therefore be does in particular command Christian Pastors and their [Page 8] Flocks to Pray to him in Forms, for that must be the sense of his Lordship's Inference, if it be any thing to his purpose: For I have challeng'd him to produce any Form prescribed to the Christian Church except the Lord's Prayer, or any particular Command for the constant use of that in publick; and for its being some­times us'd as a Form, the Westminster-Assembly in their larger Catechism, declare their Judgment for it.

For Concession the 8th, I do not own (as his Lord­ship here alledges) that there is no reading of Scrip­ture in the North of Ireland in the Winter Quarter; for tho this Exercise is in some places forborn during the Winter Quarter, yet it is not in all, and particu­larly but in one Meeting in all his Lordship's Diocess, the rest continuing it through the whole Winter; of which I shall have occasion to take notice afterwards.

For Concession the 9th, Tho I have owned that Bo­dily Worship is commanded in Scripture; yet I have not owned, but Censured it as practis't by such as bow towards the East, or Altar, or at the Name of Jesus.

For Concession the 10th, Tho I do not condemn kneeling in the Act of Receiving as unlawful, yet I have shewed it to be disagreeable to Scripture Example, and by the strictness of the Bishop's own Rule unlaw­ful to, p. 123.

The third thing the Bishop proposes, is to shew, That whereas there are several matters of Fact which he af­firms, and I deny; the mistake lyes on my side, Admon. p, 141. notwithstanding I impute them to him with great assurance as falshoods, &c.

Answ. What I have charged him with as untruths, in reference to the Dissenters in general, it lies on me to make good; what relates to those in the North of Ireland, as I have asserted nothing but upon their In­formation, so I can produce no other vouchers than them­selves: And sure I need not produce any other, since their Testimony concerning their own Practise, must by all reasonable Men be allowed to be of greater weight and credit than his Lordship's, who cannot pre­tend [Page 9] to know so well as themselves what is done by themselves.

This premis'd I come to examine the matters of Fact, wherein the Bishop attempts to vindicate himself, tho they are but a small part of what I have charged him with Misrepresenting.

For the two first matters of Fact, I shall take the liberty to offer them in the same order, and in the ve­ry words of his Discourse, p. 83, 84. Edit. Quarto.

'Tis here obvious, That his main and positive Accu­sation is, That the Dissenters have cast the reading of the Word of God out of most of their Meetings, That set­ting aside a verse or two for a Text or Quotation at the Discretion of the Teacher, the Voice of God is in many of them never publickly heard among them: And that a Man may go to most Meetings many years, and never hear one entire Chapter read in them; and this Accusa­tion he more particularly fixes on the Meetings in the North of Ireland.

In opposition to this Accusation I had told him,Remarks, p. 92, 93. ‘'Tis the general Pra­ctice of the Dissenting Ministers in the North of Ireland, for about three [Page 10] quarters of the year, (for in the most, the Winter quarter is only excepted) to read every Morning an entire portion of Scripture, usually a whole Chapter, at least so much of one as they can go thro with in an Exposition of half an hours length.’

The very same matter of Fact; The Reverend Mr. Craghead has affirmed in his Answer, and more largely, without excepting the Winter Quarter, since in his Diocess all the Dissenting Ministers except one continue their Lecturing thro the whole year.

Now this matter of Fact all the World must allow to be directly contrary to his severe charge; so that if it prove true, His Lordship could have no pretence to complain of my Reproving him, for offering such bare­fac't untruths for undeniable matters of Fact.

Let's then enquire what he hath said to make good his Charge, and to that purpose he alledges Two Things.

1. ‘That the Reading the Scriptures should be so or­dered, That the diligent Hearers may in a competent time be acquainted with the whole Body of them;’ Whereupon he challenges me to pro­duce one Meeting in the North where this has been observed.Admon. p. 144.

Answ. As to this Allegation, 'tis evident, That it concerns not the matter of Fact in Dispute at all, which is, Whether setting aside a verse or two for a Text or Quotation at the discretion of the Teacher, the voice of God is never publickly heard among them, and a Man may attend most Meetings many years, and never hear an entire Chapter read in them. For the Allegation concerns on­ly the manner of Reading them, whereas the Accusa­tion supposes them not Read at all, except a verse or two for a Text or Quotation, &c. so that I might just­ly dismiss any farther Consideration of it; but since the Bishop gives me this occasion to compare their Pra­ctise and ours, I shall suggest to him, That tho we Read not so much of Scripture as they in such entire Porti­ons as whole Chapters, yet we Read the Scriptures more regularly then they, and a Man may sooner hear them [Page 11] Read through in a Meeting, than he can in most of the Parish-Churches. To clear this I must premise, That in the generality of the Parish-Churches through the Kingdom, there is no Divine Service Read except on Sundays; Now if we consult the Calender in the Common-Prayer-Book, we shall find, That (excepting the Psalms) there is never read from one generation to another, but about 104 Chapters of the Old Testament, and that in such order or rather disorder, as breaks the Coherence of the Sacred History: So that a Man may if he lived to 80 years, attend the Publick Worship in most Parish-Churches all his Days, and never hear the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th. Chapter of Gen. and so on. See the Lessons proper for Sundays; and how is the New Testament Read? This Sunday we have the Matt. 1. and the Rom. 1. Read; the next Sunday the 8th of each, and next 15th. Four Months hence the 3d of Matt. and the 4th of Rom. So that in the generality of the Parish-Churches, the Scriptures are Read most confusedly; so that the Hearers are incapable of observing the admira­ble Connexion of its parts; and in most Parishes, the far greater part of them is never read at all: Whereas in the Meetings, 'tis the general Practice to Read on a Book in order; and tho their Exposition hinder them from Reading so large a Portion, (for which there is abundant Compensation by their Expounding what is read from Parallel places of Scripture) yet they will in the course of some years be read all over, which they never are nor can be, in the generality of the Parish-Churches that are shut all the Week. But as this first Allegation had it been true, signifies nothing to the purpose 'tis brought for, so let us see whether the other be more considerable.

2. The Bishop Appeals to our selves, Whether any of, our Ministers ever read one Portion of Scripture, but what was either designed for a Text to a Lecture or Sermon or a Quotation. If any one pretend the contrary, he desires me to name the time and place that he may reprove those In­formers, which I affirm have so grosly imposed on him; Admon. p. 144. but till the time and place be named, his Assertion he saith is [Page 12] literally true, and in a larger sence then he expressed it.

Ans. I must desire his Lordship to review this pas­sage and tell us, Whether it be literally true, that ex­cept a verse or two for a Text or Quotation, the voice of God is never publickly heard in their Meetings, when 'tis (as Mr. Craghead informs him) their ordinary Practice to Lecture every Lord's Day, and usually to Read a whole Chapter, or divide a long one that's full of Tex­tual difficulties. Is a whole Chapter or half a long one, only a verse or two for a Text? Nay is it literally true, That a Man may go to most Meetings many years, and ne­uer Hear an entire Chapter Read, when in the generali­ty of them he shall most commonly Hear a whole one Read every Lord's Day? But what does he mean, when he challenges me to name the time and place in which any entire Portion of Scripture was Read, but what was either designed for a Text to a Lecture or a Ser­mon? What is this to the matter of Fact that he As­certed? For besides that a Text to a Lecture is a new Phrase; Is a whole Chapter or half a long one, only a verse or two? Or is a whole Chapter never Read, because 'tis always read with a design to Expound it? Nay, is this so deplorable a fault as he has suppos'd it that we never Read an entire Portion of Scripture without intending to illustrate the sense of it, by comparing parallel Scrip­tures with it? (for that's all his Lordship can mean, by making it a Text to a Lecture) Is it not rather our great commendation, That the Scripture is always Interpreted as well as Read, and rather matter of Reproach to o­thers that 'tis barely Read, without giving the People such help to understand it? And shall our extraordina­ry diligence be made our deplorable crime, and their sloth so great a virtue? And upon the whole, would it not have been more ingenuous in him to own that his Infor­mers had grosly imposed upon him, then to persist in so plain a mistake, and then colour it over with an A­pology, the weakness and unreasonableness whereof had been so largely and justly exposed in that part of the Remarks, to which he has not yet thought fit to give any Answer?

But tho' the Bishop be in the wrong, as to the Sub­stance of the Accusation, he seems very confident of what he has said to vindicate that Circumstance of it, viz. That in all the Meetings of the North, in a whole year, perhaps there is not so much Scripture read as in one day in the establisht Church. This he pretends to prove so fully, that by his Computation there appears to be four times more Scripture read in the establisht Church, than in all the Meetings of the North. ‘To this purpose he pre­tends to take my own Computation of half a Chapter read in each Meeting for three quarters of a year; and so in the nine Meetings in his Diocese he computes 175 Chapters and a half to be read in a year.’

On the other hand, ‘He computes 11 Psalms and 5 Chapters, and so in all 16 Chapters read in the 42 Parishes in his Diocese,Adm. p. 142, 143. and consequently in all 672 every Lord's-day.’

This Computation at first view looks like Demon­stration, but is indeed liable to manifold and just Ex­ceptions.

1. The Bishop here puts that sense on his words that was not the plain and obvious meaning of 'em.

Their obvious sense is, That there is as much Scrip­ture read in every Parish-Church in one Lord's-day, as in all the Meetings in the North in a year. And there was good reason to suppose he intended 'em in this sense, both because 'tis but the same Chapters are read in every Parish-Church thro' the Kingdom; and because, without this sense, his Lordship's words left us wholly in the dark how to judge of the truth of 'em, when he never told us, whether by the establisht Church he meant all the Parish Churches in the Kingdom, or only those in the North of Ireland, nor gave us any Account what proportion the number of the one, or the other, bore to the number of the Meetings, without which Particulars none could judge whether his Assertion were true or false; or if true, whether any matter of reproach, or no? For perhaps in the whole Kingdom the number of Meetings is not much more to that of Parish-Churches, than that of 1 to 52. But,

2. If we allow his Lordship the sense that he now puts on his Assertion, yet his Computation will appear much too Liberal on his own side, and much more too scanty on the Dissenters.

His Computation is too liberal on his own side. For,

1. He takes a day, viz. the first of April in his Com­putation, on which there were several Psalms extraordi­nary us'd. For take the Psalms one with another, about five is the proportion of what is ordinarily us'd every Lord's-day, and 'twas only casual that eleven were then us'd, the eight first Psalms, as well as the three other, being short, and not above the proportion of four or­dinary Chapters of five and twenty Verses long.

2. He brings in eleven Psalms as Chapters Read for Instruction, (about which alone the present Dispute lies) whereas he himself supposes 'em to be us'd as Forms of Thanksgiving; and so does the Common-Prayer-Book, in which these are not propos'd to be read as Lessons, but sung or said between the Minister and People. So that by a just Computation there remains only the five Chap­ters a day.

And his Computation is as much too scanty on the Dissenters side: For tho' I have drawn such a Compu­tation as he mentions, yet I have drawn it only as a Computation of what is read in an entire Portion; and indeed have drawn it much below the Truth: for there is more usually a whole Chapter read, and in the Meetings of his Diocese none but one, make any Excep­tion of the Winter Quarter. But I was so far from de­signing this, as a Computation of all that is read, that I have, in the very words following those he quotes,Remark. p. 93. told him, ‘That I look on his Charge to be so unjust, that if we take the Scriptures to be read whenever they are verbatim recited to the People, and so compute all the parallel Passages of Scripture that occur in their Expo­sitions and Sermons, (in which both the N. C. Mini­sters in general, and particularly those in the North, use not to be sparing in their Concordances.) I see little rea­son to doubt, but there is as much of Scripture read, or [Page 15] as much of the inspir'd Word of God propos'd for the Instruction of the People in each Meeting, as in each Parish-Church. And this way of reading the Scripture I have shewn to be most agreeable to the Pattern and Practice of the Apostles, and of the Christian Church in their time.’

Why then would the Bishop take no notice of this, which would have brought this Debate to a more fair and easie trial. For what is read this way among us, will amount to vastly more than what is read in an en­tire Portion. For take one Lord's-day with another, we may by a reasonable Computation allow, between the Portion read, and the parallel Texts in the Exposition, a Chapter and a half. And if we compute two Chapters more to each Sermon, there will be every Lord's-day five Chapters and a half read; and I do not here men­tion what Passages of Scripture occur in Catechizing, tho' those will amount to a very considerable Portion, if put together. And for the Psalms, he has no more rea­son to bring them into the Computation, than I have to bring in all the Scriptural Expressions that occur in our Praises and Prayers, which I have also shewn him are more agreeable to the directions of the New Testament.

But to examine the Bishop's present Computation, if we allow him his eleven Psalms that are us'd as Forms of Thanksgiving, I hope he will allow us all that's strictly read for Instruction. And that he may not scru­ple my Computation, I'le only allow one Chapter be­tween the Portion read and the Exposition of it; I'le on­ly compute two Chapters more for the two Sermons preacht every Lord's-day; and upon this Computation (which is really much less than is read) it will appear, That in nine Meetings, allowing a Chapter for the Le­cture, there is read in the three quarters of the year 351; and allowing two Chapters each Lord's-day in the year for their Sermons, there is read 936 Chapters in a year: both these joyn'd make up 1287. Whereas in 42 Parish-Churches the Bishop computes (with the 11 Psalms and all) only 672 Chapters; and if we should add 42 Chapters more for their Sermon, (for few preach more [Page 16] than once a day) this will make 714, which is a little more than half of what is read in those nine Meetings by the former Computation. But if this Computation were drawn to the utmost of Truth on the Dissenters side, (for since eight Meetings in his Diocese Lecture through­out the whole year, there are 104 Chapters to be added to the account, and as the Bishop reckons the Psalms, we should add all the Scriptural Passages that occur in our Thanksgivings) the Bishop's account would still appear the more wide from Truth. However, upon the lowest Computation he is really mistaken in this Matter of Fact, as he is apparently so in the foregoing, and has wrong'd 'em in the Circumstance as well as Substance of his Charge.

The third Matter of Fact which the Bishop under­takes to vindicate, is his Assertion, That a Man may fre­quent the Meetings of the Dissenters all his life, Disc. p. 82. and yet have no security, or hard­ly possibility, of learning from their publick Teachings all the great Mysteries of his Religion.

This I have indeed censur'd as a gross and shameless Accusation, and therefore was the more oblig'd to prove it so. To that purpose I not only told him, ‘That the peculiar Mysteries of the Christian Religion were the ordinary subject of their Sermons, but that once a year at least they constantly went through all the necessary Articles of the Christian Religion in their Publick Ca­techizing, in which the Dissenting Ministers in the North were so particular, as to Examine every particu­lar Person of whose knowledge there could be any occasion to doubt.’ Rem. p. 85, 86. And sure one would think if this be true, there can be no Modesty in such a heinous Accusation, Let's then hear what the Bishop has offer'd to Vindicate himself.

Now I would desire him to review this, and tell us whether it signifie any thing to take off the plain Evi­dence I have produc'd, of the injustice of his Accusation, viz. That their people are in publick Teachings yearly Ca­techiz'd, in which Exercise all the Mysteries of the Chri­stian Religion, and particularly those mention'd by his Lordship, are explain'd to 'em. So that 'tis impossible they should attend their Meetings one year, but they'l have the opportunity of learning 'em. Is it not strange that the Bishop should overlook so clear a Demonstration against the Truth of his Charge, under this Head, to which it properly does belong? For if this be true, there needs nothing more to prove what he has said to be so gross a Calumny as I have represented it. His Lordship has in­deed thought fit to take notice of this in another place, viz. p. 149. where he dare not downright deny it, but would gladly insinuate a strong suspicion against the Truth of it. His words are these: I leave this Matter of Fact with you, and know what you must conclude, and hope you will be so just to your selves, as to determine of what credit this Author ought to be in his Relations. I will not derogate from your Ministers labours in Catechizing their people; but notwithstanding their pains, there are some thousands of Men and Women in this Diocese that profess themselves of your Communion that were never Ca­techiz'd by 'em, &c. Now either he means there are so many Persons that were never Catechiz'd in those places where Ministers are settled, or in those where there are none. If he mean the latter, What's this to the purpose [Page 18] if it were true, as I do not find the Dissenting Ministers in his Diocese think it credible; if he mean the former, they do declare, ‘They know of none that were never Catechiz'd where there are Ministers settled; but all are ordinarily examin'd once in the year, if not oftner. So that if any such remain ignorant, 'tis not for want of their pains to instruct 'em.’ And since he leaves this Matter of Fact with 'em, to be determin'd upon their serious consideration, he may easily see how con­trary their Judgment of it is to his; and if he would yield to their Testimony concerning their own Pra­ctice, I hope he'l be convinc'd there is some Credit due to my Relations, but none to his rash and mistaken Ac­cusations.

But besides that the necessary Principles of Religi­on are yearly explain'd in the Catechism, I have told him concerning the Dissenters in general, that tho' they have no other Rule to direct 'em herein than that of the Holy Scriptures, yet they do in their Sermons most frequently insist on the particular Mysteries of the Chri­stian Religion, and can appeal to their People as wit­nesses thereof. And that this is true concerning the Dis­senting Ministers in his Diocese, he may find Mr. Craghead's Account in these words,P. 75, 76. relating to the fore-mentioned Charge. ‘I declare upon certain knowledge, that what he has asserted is a most unjust Imputation, for which he has reason to ask forgiveness of God; and I do appeal to many Thousands now living, who are ordi­narily witnesses to the contrary; and many of the Au­thor's Perswasion know the contrary. With what Peace of Conscience can any Man thus impose on Strangers, and impress future Generations with that which is so far from Truth! it being publickly known that we or­dinarily and orderly go thro' all the Heads of our Chri­stian Faith in our Publick Sermons.’ And what if this be nor particularly prescrib'd by the Directory? will it follow that 'tis not done? Or is not the Scripture a suf­ficient Directory for that purpose? And whereas the Bishop insinuates this suspicious Argument of our neglect, [Page 19] ‘That he has seen many Sermons printed by our Party, and yet does not remember above two or three on these most necessary Subjects, (viz. the great Mysteries of our Religion).’ Is it not hence evident that he speaks at ran­dom of matters that he has little or no knowledge of? For I doubt not that instead of two or three, there are above two or three hundred Sermons publisht by N.C. Ministers on the principal Mysteries of the Christian Religion, (including those that he has mention'd). What does he think of the first Collection of Sermons in the Morning Exercise on the principal Heads of Christian Doctrine? Nay, some Divines have printed a large Body of Ser­mons on the particular Heads of the Assemblies Cate­chism; 176 of Mr. Watson's are now extant. How many of those Mysteries are fully treated of in the large Vo­lumes of Dr. Mantons and Mr. Charnock's Sermons? Not to mention Mr. Baxter's, Mr. Ant. Burgesses, Dr. Bates's, and many more. So that if the Bishop have met with no more than two or three, 'tis only because he was ne­ver conversant in their Writings. But why then should he throw about such severe Reproaches in the dark, and censure with such assurance what he is so entire a stran­ger to, and what any, that ever was in the least acquaint­ed with their Writers, can shew him his ignorance and indiscretion in? And if the Conformists have printed more, 'tis no wonder, when the Press has been more o­pen to them, and they have had greater advantages for appearing in Publick.

And is it not strange the Bp. should pretend that I alledge what he quotes (p. 146, 147.) as an excuse in this matter, when I expresly disclaim the alledging of it for that end, because we need no excuse, and only produce it as an ar­gument ad hominem, which he was concerned to answer on the Principles he had laid down? So that upon the whole, the Bp. is oblig'd in all reason to do us right in this point, by owning so unhappy a Mistake, and wiping off an A­spersion, which as 'tis manifestly untrue, so 'tis highly in­jurious to the Reputation of his Brethren; since if it were believ'd, no Man that has any concern for his own Soul, would trust it to their Pastoral conduct, [Page 20] who are so grosly negligent of so necessary a Duty.

The next Matter of Fact is, the Bishop had affirm'd That not One in Ten of the Dissenters Children get their Catechism by heart, Disc. p. 83. nor One in Five hundred retain it.

On the contrary I suggested, That I believ'd upon a more accurate trial, he would find that as many of the Dissenters Children have got it by heart, Rem. p. 87. as of others that have done so by the Church Catechism.

To clear himself, the Bishop here alledges, ‘That he has, besides grown People, Confirm'd near a thousand Children, all above 13 years old, who could say the Church Catechism. And on the other hand, he tells us of many trials he made in whole Schools at a time, &c. among the Dissenters, and found that the generality could not go above a leaf or two in it;Adm. p. 47, 48. and he doubts whe­ther any at all after twenty retain it.’

Now in Answer hereto, the Dissenting Ministers in his Diocese declare, That there are several Thousands of their People, both old and young, that can repeat the whole Catechism. And how many there are in other Parishes may be in part computed from that of Temple-more, in which there are 600, or more, can repeat it. So that if his Lordship had so ill success in his trial, 'tis to be im­puted either to the sullenness or the bashfulness of those he examined: For certainly their own Ministers should know this matter better than he; and since he appeals to them, they declare That they are assur'd he is mistaken in it.

I come then to the fifth and principal Matter of Fact disputed, viz. Concerning the frequency of Celebrating the Lord's Supper.

As to this the Bishop had appeal'd to the Dissenters in general without any distinction, Whether it were not a great thing among many of 'em, if once in a year or two a Communion be Celebrated in one of their Meetings; that among some, 'tis often omitted for several years together, and in some places for ten or more: and on this account se­verely [Page 21] upbraids 'em with rare or no Communion as their peculiar practice. Disc. p. 161, 162.

In opposition to this Charge, I had told him, That for those Meetings in England and the South of Ireland, where Pastors are settled, the most of 'em constantly Cele­brate the Lord's-Supper once a Month, others once in six Weeks or two Months, and a few every Lord's-Day, &c. From whence I insert'd the injustice of this Accusa­tion, since the generality of the Dissenting Ministers ce­lebrate this Ordinance much more frequently than the generality of the Parish Ministers; and their Commu­nions are ordinarily more numerous, as well as more frequent, than those in the Parish-Churches, allowing for the proportion which the Number of the Dissenters bears to that of the Conformable Laity.

And now let us consider what the Bp. replys to this.

First he says He is not much concern'd in it, Adm. p. 155. having addrest himself to those of his own Diocese. Answer, Can his Lordship with any reason pretend that he has asserted this only concerning the Dissenters of his own Dio­cese, when he does not only in the very entrance of his Book, propose to examine the several parts of Wor­ship, as they are practis'd by those that differ from the establisht Church, or (as in the same page) by Prote­stant Dissenters—See Disc. p. 8. —But gives this ve­ry Chapter the Title of, The practice of Dissenters a­bout frequency of Communicating. But of this I have said enough already to shew him the unreasonableness of this Excuse.

Secondly, He insinuates these Arguments against the probability of it: ‘If this be true, (saith he) their practice is much alter'd from what it was formerly: For when the Churches were in their hands, it was quite otherwise. St. Warburgh's was a considerable Parish in the heart of Dublin, but had not the Lord's-Supper administred in it for Twelve Years; and I have heard the like of some other Churches in Dub­lin at that time. I find the same observed concern­ing the whole University of Oxford, from the Year [Page 22] 1648 to 1660. Antiq. Oxon.’ And he adds, that he was told, ‘That the Dissenters in Waterford did not Communicate above once a year before the Troubles, if so often.’ Admon. p. 155.

Answ. For what was practis'd either in Dublin or Oxford in Oliver's time, I neither know, nor am con­cerned with. But for this Assertion of mine concern­ing the present practice of those Meetings of Dissen­ters in England, and the South of Ireland, in which Pa­stors are settled, I need no Vouchers at all. 'Tis a Matter of Fact as easily known as our Publick Assem­blies are, and what we can produce as many Vouchers for as we have ordinary Hearers, there being always publick notice given of our Communions. And if the Bishop dispute this Matter of Fact, he may next di­spute, whether our Senses may be trusted in what we daily see and hear. For what he alledges concerning the practice of Dissenters in Waterford, of which he saith he had opportunity to enquire, it will appear by the account given me by Mr. Sinclare, See his Letter in the end. who was at that time their Minister, that either his Enquiry was very slight, or his Informers very ignorant of the Matter; and that he has been as unhappily impos'd on by 'em, as I shall now shew him he has been by those on whose credit he has related what is practis'd in his whole Diocese.

'Tis evident then he has wrong'd the main Body of the Dissenters in this Charge of their rare or no Communion.

But there are some things relating to the practice of the Dissenters in the North of Ireland which I have assert­ed, and which the Bishop does very positively conclude me mistaken in.

I had told him from their Information, ‘'Tis so far from being true, that 'tis rare if once in a year or two a Communion be celebrated in their Meetings; that 'tis universally usual in every Meeting where an Or­dain'd Minister is settled, to have the Lords-Supper administred constantly once a year, and twice in the larger Towns. That when the Sacrament is ad­ministred [Page 23] in one Meeting, 'tis usual for most of the Members of neighbouring Parishes to frequent it. That the most serious People among them Communi­cate four or five times a year; and have the opportu­nity of doing so 10, 12, or 15 times, if they will take the advantage of Receiving it in Neighbouring Con­gregations, &c.’ And what I have here affirmed is the very account sent me from the Reverend Mr. Adair of Antrim, with the approbation of that Meeting: and I shall here subjoin this following Observation he makes in his own words; ‘You know also, That where the Sacrament is Administred, two parts of the Receivers are usually strangers; by which it is evident, that once Administring according to the custom usual a­mong Christians here, where they Communicate with each other in their several Congregations respectively, is equivalent to the Administring of it three or four times a year to each particular Congregation, where this way is not in use.’

Now as to this, the Bishop tells us, ‘He has as good opportunity of informing himself in these matters, as any can have, and has been as diligent in his Enqui­ries, in his Progresses through his several Parishes, and on all occasions as he could; and he has the following Account returned him from many hands, and is satis­fied there can be no great mistake in it.’

‘In these last seven years the Lord's Supper has been Celebrated among you, in Derry twice, in Clander­mot once, in Ballindret once, at Ballikelly once, at Burt twice, at Ardstra once, at Ahadowy once, in all nine times, (Admon. p. 151, 152.)’ And p. 153. he adds a significant reason why he cou'd not easily mistake in these matters, viz. ‘Because their Sacraments are Ad­ministred with such a concourse of Spectators and Hearers, that they can hardly escape Observation.’ (Tho by the way, why the Bishop should suppose this an Abuse brought in by Popery, I do not understand; for I take it to be a very proper means of exciting in the Specta­tors Pious desires of becoming Communicants: And for the Practice of the Primitive Church in dismissing all [Page 24] that were not Communicants when they entered on the Celebration of this Ordinance: I know of no other occasion for it, than their care to conceal these Myste­ries of their Religion from the Pagans; a reason that we are not concerned in.)

But now, If after all this diligent Enquiry, the Bi­shop's Informers have grosly impos'd on him in almost every particular of this Account: Nay, if the Account where it is true signify nothing to the purpose for which 'tis alledged, and appear highly disingenious, then I hope he will think himself under some Obligation to distrust those Informers for the future, and will be more cauti­ous of asserting any thing on their Credit, to the Re­proach of his Brethren.

And here I would premise, That there is an instance of Disingenuity in the Bishop's Method of comparing the Practise of the Dissenters with that of the Establish­ed Church, too obvious and palpable to be over-look'd. In his accounts how oft the Sacrament has been Admi­nistred in the Establish'd Church, he goes no farther back then the time of his own Advancement to the See of Derry, which was soon after the Troubles; but in his Accounts how oft it has been Administred by the Dis­senters, he takes in seven years, tho he knows well e­nough that for two of the seven at least, both the Mi­nisters and People were scattered, and had no oppor­tunity for Celebrating that Institution; and yet he is so imprudent as to make this a great aggravation of their neglect; That some of those sevon years being times of af­flictions, required a more frequent Celebration of this com­fortable Sacrament then ordinary; (See his Errata that refers to p. 27. l. 2.) as if he were ignorant, that some of their Ministers were fled to Scotland, others shut up in the Walls of Derry, and their People so dispers't, that they could not for any considerable time after the Raising that Siege make up any distinct Congregations again. And if the Bishop alledge, that at least the Dissenters in Derry during the Siege should have had it Administred, I would desire him if he blame them on this Account, yet to be so impartial as to give the Con­formists [Page 25] there a share in his Reproof; for those I have desi­red to enquire upon the place, cou'd not learn that they Administred it any more than the other: So that those 2 years of publick Troubles and Confusion, ought in all reason to be shut out of his Account. And how unfortu­nate he has been in his particular and exact Account he now pretends to give, will appear by the following one that the Dissenting Ministers of his Diocess have after a very particular enquiry given of the year 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94.

‘In the year 87, 88. The Sacrament was Admini­stred in Derry twice, in Donaghedee twice, in Drumrah twice, in Ardsta twice, in Ʋrney twice, in Donagh­more twice, in Lifford once, in Glendermot once, in all fourteen times.’

‘In the four last years since the troubles, the Sacra­ment was Administred.’

‘In Derry four times, in Burt thrice, in Ahadowy twice, in Ardstra twice, in Ballindret or Lifford once, in Mahara once, in Ballikelly once, in Donaghmore once, in Strabane once, in all sixteen times.’ So that for the last Six years, in which there can be any pre­tence for requiring the Administration of the Sacra­ment from 'em, it has instead of nine times been Ad­ministred 30. Nay, Tho we reckon the two years of the Troubles in which they had no opportunity, yet the year 88 falling within the compass of the seven men­tioned by the Bishop, they had it 22 or 23 times.

But I have a more just and severe Challenge against the Sincerity and Candour of this Account, which the Bishop's Informers have given him, viz. That they were not so honest as to acquaint him, that besides the two years of Troubles, in a great part of the other years, several of those Congregations had no Ministers at all, whom yet he makes accountable for the Sacrament du­ring 7 years together; whereas that Ascertion of mine which the Bishop here undertakes to disprove, concerns only such Congregations where Ministers are settled. (For it were ridiculous to expect Sacraments where there are no Ministers to Celebrate them.) Now besides the two years of seven that are to be taken off from each Con­gregation, [Page 26] (for even Derry itself had no Ministers from the year 88 till after the Troubles) the following Con­gregations had no Ministers for the years hereafter men­tioned.

‘Glendermot or Clondermot had none at all since the Troubles, so that there has been a Minister there on­ly one year of the seven, Ardstra had a Minister only two years since the Troubles, and in them two Sacra­ments, but had no Minister at all till after the Trou­bles. For Ballindret two Communions were appoin­ted, but both prevented by their Ministers being visi­ted with Sickness, and 'tis a year since he died, so that only one Sacrament could be Celebrated since the Troubles. For Ballikelly, their Minister besides long Sickness after the Siege of Derry, has been much in Scotland and elsewhere. For Strabane the Minister has not yet been two years there, and the true reason why the Sacrament was but seldom Administred there be­fore, was (besides the Bodily Infirmities of their Mi­nister) chiefly the violence of Persecution, which for­ced him out of that Parish.’ And yet such Blame the neglect, whose unchristian severity was the cause of it. For the other places which the Bishop has overlook't in his Account and I have added to mine, I must also add, That Mahara had but one Sacrament since the Troubles, because they have had a Minister but one year; and the same must be said of Donoghmore. For Donaghedee, Drumra and Urny, which had constant yearly Communi­ons before the Troubles, they have none of them had any Minister since. Now by this Account it appears, that according to what was practised where Ministers have been settled, there would have been about 70 Commu­nions Celebrated in the last seven years in the 10 Meet­ings now mentioned, if either the want of Ministers in places, or their Sickness, or the two years of Confu­sion and Troubles, or the like extraordinary Accidents had not prevented. So that for the Bishop not only to mistake nine times for about twenty three or thirty, but to charge these rare Communions on their Negli­gence in Administring this Ordinance, when they were [Page 27] wholly owing to these extraordinary occasions fore­mention'd, is so highly disingenuous and unjust, that he ought not to suffer those that have so unhappily abus'd him in these matters, to pass without a severe Reproof. For since the Dissenting Ministers in the North, on the account of the extraordinary pains they take to prepare their People for the Sacrament, celebrate it so seldom in each Congregation as once a year, there was the greater reason they should not be wrong'd in the Ac­counts given of their Practice. So that in this Matter of Fact, I hope the Bishop will own and retract his mi­stake.

For what I asserted concerning the Sacraments being twice a year administred in the larger Towns in the North, was intended, and is true of Belfast, Carickfer­gus, and Antrim.

For what I have asserted concerning their Members Communicating four or five times a year, is true of the most devout and serious of them; and so is it, That they may have the opportunity of Communicating ten, or twelve, or fifteen times a year, within some miles of their respective Habitations.

This indeed the Bishop concludes to be a great mi­stake. ‘Because on this Supposition he thinks it will clearly follow, that not much above a hundred distinct Persons have Communicated in the Diocese these last seven years. For four times 7 makes 28; and 3600 (which his Lordship computes to be the full number of their Communicants in seven years) divided by 28, gives about 128; but this can by no means be true: Therefore (saith the Bishop) he is certainly mis­informed in this particular.’ Admon. p. 153.

Answ. The whole of this Computation depends on his two Suppositions, That the Sacrament has been Ad­ministred but nine times in seven years, and that one with another, only 400 have received at one time, and so 3600 in all. How great a mistake the former Supposition is, I have already shewn; and how much greater the latter is, will appear from this one Passage, That in the Pa­rish of Temple-more alone, (aliàs Derry) including the [Page 28] two Meetings of Derry and Burt, there have Communi­cated since the Troubles above 5000, which is above 1400 more than he supposes to have Communicated in all the Diocese in seven years. Nay, whereas he supposes, ‘That near as many have received in the Cathedral, in three years past, as have Communicated with the Dissenters in his whole Diocese in twice that time.’ It appears that near 2000 more of the Dissenters have Receiv'd in the same Parish, in about the same time, than have Receiv'd at the Cathedral, notwithstanding the Sacrament being Administred there every Month (tho' by the way, the Dissenters of Derry think he has stretch't the number of his Monthly Communicants be­yond all just bounds, of which they can give very shrew'd Evidence.) Since then his Computation of the number of Communicants among the Dissenters is so vastly wide from Truth, his Inference from it falls of course.

For what I asserted concerning their having the op­portunity of Communicating ten, or twelve, or fifteen times a year, within some miles of their respective Ha­bitations, the Bishop concludes it to be a mistake; ‘Be­cause there being but nine Meetings in his Diocese, tho' each Member should communicate at each Meet­ing, he could but communicate nine times a year, and must sometimes travel forty miles for a Sacrament.’ Admon. p. 154, 155.

Answ. I might here justly enquire, Why the Bishop should think the Dissenters of his Diocese so confin'd to it, that those that live near Meetings in another Dio­cese, may not take the opportunity of Communicating there. Does he think their Communion limited within the bounds of his Jurisdiction? But I must here ac­quaint him, That this Assertion of mine respects the generality of Meetings in the North; and therefore the truth of it is to be estimated from those parts where the main Body of the Dissenters are to be found. Now he cannot be ignorant that they are most numerous in the Counties of Antrim and Down. And therefore since he is pleased to arraign the Truth of the Assertion, I shall [Page 29] give him the following Demonstration of it, in refe­rence to the Congregations that belong to the Meeting of Antrim, sent me by the Reverend M. W. Adair Mi­nister of the Town of Antrim.

So that this Matter of Fact is true beyond all Ex­ception, as I have asserted it, concerning the generality of their Meetings. And I am no way oblig'd to prove it, concerning every particular one in the remotest parts of the Province of Ʋlster.

Again, whereas the Bishop had affirm'd in his Dis­course, ‘That he could not compute that one in ten that go to their Meetings, ever Receive thro' the whole course of their Lives; and blames me for asserting the contrary, That there is not one in ten but do Com­municate, except such as are with-held for want of competent knowledge, or on the account of Scandal, (or I might here add, thro' their own Scruples about their preparation for it) as if this were a great Reflection upon 'em;Admon. p. 154. as if 19 [Page 30] in 20 were ignorant or scandalous.’ This will appear to be a very mistaken Account of this Matter, if we compare the number of Hearers in the two Meetings of Derry and Burt, with the number of Communicants. For their ordinary Hearers are about 2400. (Of which some part are suppos'd to be left at home every Lord's-day.) And yet in some of the Communions there since the Troubles, there have Communicated 984 Persons in one of those Meetings. So that we may compute a­bout 1600 Communicants in both. Now tho' we allow a considerable deduction out of this number of Com­municants, for the Strangers that may be suppos'd to have Receiv'd, yet the number of Communicants be­longing to those two Congregations, compar'd with that part of their Hearers that are of Age to Receive, will sufficiently demonstrate that the Bishop's Computation, That not one in ten Receive, must be very wide from Truth.

For the generality of the Dissenting Ministers admini­string this Sacrament far oftner than the generality of the Conforming Clergy, I did not, as the Bishop here groundlesly supposes,Admon. p. 151. as­sert it concerning the Dissenting Mini­sters in the North of Ireland, but of those in England and the South of Ireland, (which make up the generality of 'em) concerning whom 'tis too apparently true to ad­mit of being disputed.

And for their pressing their People as much or more to it, if we may judge thereof by the success of their Exhor­tations, I think it past doubt, that take an equal number of Meetings and Parish-Churches, and according to the pro­portion of Hearers in the one and the other, the Commu­nicants are far more Numerous in the Meetings than the Parish-Churches, even tho' the former are far more strict in their Admissions; and in the latter few are ever refus'd that desire to come. Of which, if the Bishop please, I shall produce him manifold Instances. ‘And for what his Lordship affirms of their Sermons tending rather to deter poor weak Creatures from Receiving, than encourage 'em, by magnifying the difficulty and dan­ger [Page 31] of the undertaking.’ I know no ground he has for this Assertion, unless it be, that they endeavour to de­ter all that are grosly ignorant or scandalous from pro­faning that Holy Institution; and dare not encourage any to approach to it, but such as in some measure un­derstand the nature of it, and do not by a scandalous Life contradict those solemn Vows of Obedience which they there come to renew upon the memorials of a Cru­cified Saviour.

As for this last Matter of Fact, in reference to this Head about a reputed Elder, (or as in his Errata he cor­rects it) Professor of thirty or forty years of Age that never Receiv'd, but disputes against it. Admon. p. 158. If the Bi­shop had pleas'd to name him, the truth of what he asserts might have been examin'd. But till we know who he is, we must let this matter lie undecided, unless we dispute in the dark.

So that in the whole of this Debate which relates to the Sacrament, the mistake lies on the Bishop's side, even in reference to the North of Ireland; tho' he was oblig'd to make his Charge in his Discourse good con­cerning the Dissenters in general, without any such limi­tation.

For the Bishop's being offended at my saying, That too many profligate sinners are admitted to the Communion in the Parish Churches, and his charging me on that account with being uncharita­ble and unjust, Admon. p. 156. and challenging me to in­stance in some of his Diocese. I shall only reply, That I never yet met with any Person, before his Lordship, that doubted this Matter of Fact, and would not rather lament than dispute it. For 'tis no more than has been frequently own'd by the best of their own Writers, and imputed to the present corruption or weakness of their Discipline. And tho' for naming particular instances I must beg the Bishop's pardon, yet I will alledge what is equivalent to it. Does his Lordship think there are no profligate sinners in Military and Civil Employments in England? and yet the Sacrament-Test obliges 'em all to receive the Sacrament, and he knows they are not [Page 32] scrupled when they come. Nay, were not the com­mon Soldiers since the Restoration in Dublin forc't to receive, and driven to it by their Officers with Oaths and Curses, when nothing but the consciousness of their own wickedness deterr'd 'em? But as to this matter, I shall freely appeal to the common judgment of all so­ber Persons of his own Party, and fear not their Cen­sure on this score; it being rather to be wish't, for the honour of the Reformed Religion, that the evidence of this Truth were less notorious. Nay, to the judgment of the same Persons I would refer it, what ground there is for that Observation which the Bishop tells us some have made, That Enmity to the establish'd Religion and Immoralities are gotten on one side in too many instances, of it be meant of the Dissenters. For besides that, the Dissenters have no Enmity at all to the establish'd Reli­gion, having Subscrib'd in England all the Doctrinal Ar­ticles of it: That the Members of their Communion, compar'd with those of the establish'd Church are more generally guilty of Immoralities, is an Observation that I suppose will hardly pass current with any but such as have a faith to believe whatever their Interest or their Affection to a Party dictates to 'em.

And since in reference to these Matters of Fact his Lordship requires me to produce my Vouchers, and char­ges me as writing upon none, or very partial Information, I shall so far comply with his Demand, as to produce the following Testimonial of the Truth of what I have said, in reference to the practice of the Dissenters in his Diocese, about whom our present Debate lies, from these three under-named Ministers in his Diocese, who have diligently examined these Matters of Fact, and whose Informations communicated to me, relating to 'em, were, together with these Papers, review'd and approv'd by the whole Presbytery.

And for his Lordship's farther satisfaction, Whereas one of the most remarkable differences between his ac­count and theirs, relates to the frequency of Celebra­ting the Lord's-Supper (his account supposing them guil­ty of very scandalous negligence) the Reverend Mr. Crag­head has now in his hands, and is ready to produce when­ever his Lordship desires it, particular Testimonials of this Account now given under the Hands of the Elders, and other Communicants of each Meeting. Nay, since the difference is most remarkable in reference to Derry it self, which he affirms has had the Sacrament but twice these seven years, whereas they assert it has been admi­nistred five times, (tho' for two of the seven years they had no Minister of their own;) and since the Bishop's Friends pretends to undeniable Evidence for the truth of this Matter of Fact, I shall (to shame, if possible, his Informers out of their Confidence) trouble the Rea­der with the following Certificate, as a Specimen of what shall be produc't, if requir'd, from the other Con­gregations.

And sure if the Bishop's Enquiries be so strangely unsuccessful in the very place where be resides, we may justly infer how little regard is due to those he made in other places. And upon the whole the unbiast Rea­der may judge, what ground his Lordship had to say, in reference to all these Matters of Fact, That concern­ing the Truth of what he had said, he need do no more than appeal to the Consciences of Dissenters. And that he must tell 'em, that what he wrote was from Sight, Expe­rience, or certain Information; whereas he saith I had my Accounts of things only at second hand, and produce no Vouchers. Admon. p. 142. If he will stand to their Judgment to whose Consciences he has appeal'd, he may easily foresee his doom; for their Sight and Experience are quite contrary to his. And since he obliges me to produce Vouchers for what I have said, I hope hee'l either yield this Point, or produce as credible ones as these.

But before I dismiss this Head, it will be requisite to take some notice of those remarkable words wherewith the Bishop closes it, To conclude, (saith he) it were as easie to shew, That Mr. B. is mistaken in every Matter of Fact, wherein he has charg'd me with falshood, as in these; but the designed shortness of this Admonition will not give me leave to pursue 'em.

Answ. I hope the Bishop will at length be convinc'd, That instead of vindicating his former Mistakes, he has only run into new ones, which are somewhat the less ex­cusable, because he had so much time and leisure, as well as advice to correct 'em. And since most of them are ve­ry injurious to the good Name of his Brethren, common Justice should have oblig'd him, instead of Reprinting, to have Retracted 'em. But as he has had so little suc­cess in his endeavours to clear himself in the foregoing Particulars, so I something wonder that he should, with all this assurance, pretend that I have in all the other Instances groundlesly charg'd him with falshood or mi­stakes. What! will his Lordship still go about to perswade us,Disc. p. 24. That we have no other way of praising God, but by singing [Page 36] a verse or two of a Psalm? Or that the first Principle he ascribes to us about Prayer, is asserted in the Directory, when he himself tacitly corrects the mistake in this Se­cond Edition of his Discourse? Or that he has truly re­presented the Judgment and Sense of the General Assem­bly in Scotland in their Directions concerning Family Wor­ship? p. 44, 45, Will he still perswade us, That a con­siderable Body of Dissenters teach all Forms of Prayer to be unlawful, and affirm it sinful to joyn where any are us'd? p. 57. Or, that on the account of this Principle, the pious custom of Training up young People to a constant course of Devotion in their Morning and Evening secret Prayer, is too universally laid aside among the Dissenters; concerning the truth whereof, he confidently appeals to all of 'em? p. 64. Will he still affirm, That the Dire­ctory excludes all Bodily Worship? p. 128. Or, That the Dissenters in general do not stand up at their Thanksgi­vings, and generally sit at their Publick Prayers? p. 129. And that they have not one visible Act of Adoration in their Assemblies, except the Mens uncovering their Heads in Prayer? p. 130. Nay, will he still persist in it, That the Dissenters are taught' that External Postures of Bodily Worship may in no case be practis'd? p. 137. That the Directory does not allow the People to signifie their Consent by saying Amen to their Publick Thanksgivings? p. 138. That as to Gestures, such as Kneeling, Standing, Bowing the Head, the Dissenters condemn 'em all as Relicks of I­dolatry and Superstition? That by turning all Bodily Wor­ship out of their Assemblies, they are meer Spectators, not Joynt-worshippers? p. 138, 139. Or, That neglecting to kneel at the Sacrament has hardned them against all Reverence in other parts of Worship? p. 144. And to add no more, Will he still justifie all as true concerning the Dissenters in general, which he has affirmed of 'em, with­out any distinction in reference to the Lord's Supper? p. 161, 162: Will the Bishop still think to perswade us that in all these Matters of Fact he has justly accus'd us, and we have no reason to complain of being Misrepre­sented and Abus'd? Does he think his bare word suffi­cient to bear down the Reputation of so considerable a [Page 37] Body of Protestants? Or would he have us silently bear the odium of so many grievous Reflections cast up­on us, which we are sure of the injustice of, as we are that we know our own Opinions or Practices. His Lord­ship must therefore give us leave to be free with him on this occasion, and to demand once more, That he either make good his Charge against us in these Particulars, or honestly confess his being mistaken or misinform'd about 'em. Which if he would once do, he will find us very ready, not only to forgive the wrong done us, but to entertain more favourable thoughts of his veracity and charity, than 'tis almost possible for us to do, while these mistakes in his Book and in his Admonition, stand unretracted.

There are but Two things more which I think my self oblig'd to take notice of, before I come to consider the Exceptions he produces against some particular passages in the Remarks.

The first is, That the Bishop tells me, ‘I have no­thing to do with him, and the Dissenters of his Dio­cese; and blames me for interposing my self without any Call or Reason, as well as Writing upon little or no Information.’ Admon. p. 158.

To which I shall only offer a few Things in my own defence.

1. I have already had occasion to shew, That the Bishop's Discourse was in all just construction levell'd a­gainst the Dissenters in general. Nay, he usually falls upon the Directory. which is a Book the generality of Dissenters have a great and just value for, (the Compi­lers of it having us'd great modesty and tenderness in its Composure, without following the imposing temper of those that requir'd so peremptory a Declaration of Assent and Consent to all things contain'd in and pre­scrib'd by the Book of Common Prayer, and the Form of Ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons) So that since his Discourse is directed against what himself sup­poses to be the common Opinions and Practices of Dis­senters, every Man among 'em had a just right to de­fend the Common Cause, and the Bishop has no just [Page 38] ground to complain of any ones interposing in it Nay,

2. I had a very just Call to it; and that from the Dissenting Ministers of his own Diocese; who urg'd this Reason for it: That as the Bishop's Discourse might possess those that were strangers to the Dissenters, with ill apprehensions of 'em, if his Mistakes were not dis­cover'd; so few would read an Answer to it, if it came not out while the Matter was fresh in their minds; and they had less of leisure for such an undertaking at that time. And as I did not interpose without their desire, so neither did I write without particular Informations from 'em, to which I have exactly adher'd, and from which I have yet seen no reason to recede.

3. I had yet a more particular concern in the Bishop's Book; for tho' he would not vouchsafe an Answer to some former Papers of mine (shewing the unreasona­bleness of his excluding us from the Catholick Church) yet he took the liberty to misrepresent the Principles laid down in 'em, and charg'd em as inconsistent with the Ʋnity and Peace of the Church. So that I lay under a particular obligation to vindicate my Self, as well as under a common one to justifie the common Opinions and Practices of Dissenters, which the Bishop had either mis­represented or argued against upon weak and insuffici­ent grounds.

The second the Bishop complains of, is, That I give him hard words, and speak hard things of him. Admon. p. 141, 142, 145, &c.

Answ. I may, I think, in this Matter appeal to any equal Judges of things, Whether the Dissenters have not juster reason to complain of him, for saying so many hard and reproachful things of them without any just ground, than he to complain of me, only for telling him how greatly he has wrong'd us, and how little regard he has had to Truth in such a multitude of Particulars wherein he has unreasonably accused us. And indeed some of those Accusations tended so apparently to de­fame and render us odious, that it would have look'd like a tacit confession of Guilt, to have expres'd no [Page 39] distast at such disingenuous Treament. Nor do I un­derstand that the Bishop had any great reason to expect the same deference to be paid to him, that would have been due to any other of his character, that had given any evidence of his Moderation and Charity. 'Tis true indeed, both his Discourse and Admonition (bating the many severe, but groundless Aspersions in 'em) have an air of mildness and temper in the style of 'em, and we often meet with friendly Appellations in 'em. But I take mens declared Opinions, and especially their Actions, to be a surer Indication of their Temper than the common Civilities that occur in their way of writing. Joab had very obliging Language towards Amasa in his mouth, Art thou in health my Brother? but he carried a sharp Tool in his hand, and he had no friendly design. We can lay little stress on any seeming expressions of a man's charity, who will not recall that virtual Sentence of Damnation he has publickly past upon us, by denying us to be a part of the Catholick Church. We like not the gentle language of Writs de Excom. Cap. And we can perceive no extraordinary mildness and friendship in such Covenants inserted in Leases, as the following one: ‘[And the said A. B. his Executors, &c. does by these Presents covenant to and with the said William Lord Bishop of Derry and his Successors, &c. for the time being, that neither he the said A. B. his Execu­tors, &c. nor any of 'em, &c. shall or will Set, Let, or Demise the Premises, or any part thereof, to any Mass or Popish Priest, &c. or to any Minister or Teacher dissenting from the Church of Ireland. Nei­ther shall wittingly or willingly suffer 'em to dwell or reside on any part, parcel or member thereof, but him or them shall endeavour to expel and keep from the same, so far as by the Laws of this Realm they shall be enabled.]’ So that if the Bishop have been re­prov'd somewhat sharply for his unfair Dealing in this new Dispute, he has but furnish'd us with too just an Apology for it. And yet I know of no words given him so hard (how deserved soever) as those he has given the whole Body of Dissenters which have been wholly [Page 40] undeserved. And I am sure he will not find in the Re­marks any such uncharitable Sentiments exprest con­cerning the establisht Church, as occur frequently in his Discourse concerning the Dissenters. And for what Touches himself only, he seems to have little reason of complaint, unless he can clear himself a little better in Matters of Fact than he has done in this Admoni­tion.

I come now to consider the Bishops few Exceptions a­gainst the Argumentative part of the Remarks.

In his Entrance on which he alledges, That 'tis the design of the Remarks to hinder the Dis­senters from joyning with the establisht Church in their ordinary Lord's-Day Worship. Admon. p, 159. Now I know no reason why his Lordship should pretend that to be my design, which I no where propos'd as such: For all I profest to attempt was, the Vindication of our own worship from the weak charge of hu­man Inventions, and the retorting his Arguments, where they were stronger against the Worship of the establisht Church than against ours. But if the Bishop here speak of occasional Communion with the establisht Church in her ordinary Lord's-Days Worship, 'tis strange that he should suppose it my design to hinder the Dissenters from it, when I expresly declare my own opinion for the lawfulness of it, Remarks p. 146. and urg'd him to express the same Charity towards us, which I perceive he cannot be so easily perswaded to.

He farther premises, ‘That it was incumbent on one that answer'd his Book, to justifie our way of Wor­ship, by shewing that the manner of performing it, in the several parts of it, as distinguish't from theirs, is warranted by Scripture Precept or President, or by di­rect consequence from thence, &c. But (he saith) in­stead of undertaking this Task, Mr. B. argues against and condemns the Rule; whereas, as strict as it appears, he has justified all the particular ways of Worship in the establisht Church by it; and if I could have done the same for ours, I need not have declin'd it.’ Admon. p. 159, 160.

Answ. If his Lordship had answer'd the Remarks, he would have had perhaps some pretence to have said this. But he has none now, when he himself is forc'd (as I shall shew) to alter his own Rule, when I had so largely prov'd that our Worship, in most particular parts of it, was more agreeable to Scripture-Precept or Ex­ample than theirs; and also shewn him that his Rule, as laid down by himself, would condemn all Churches in the World in which there were some circumstantial modes, and those very lawful, that neither express Scrip­tural Precept nor Pattern could be produc'd for, nor in­deed could reasonably be expected. And therefore since the Bishop lays so great stress on this Matter, I shall carefully examine the Three Heads he suggests in refe­rence to it.

1. He saith, I give another Rule for the ordering God's Service.

2. He saith, I endeavour to perswade the Dissenters that the greatest Exception they have against joyning with the establisht Church is not matter of Worship.

3. He saith, I alledge that he has omitted to handle that part of Worship against which the Dissenters have the greatest Exception, and that because he could not defend it.

1. He saith, I give another Rule for the ordering God's Service. And to that purpose he thus pretends to cite my own Expressions. ‘As to his new Rule of Worship, you will find it in p. 7. in these words. Modes and Circumstances of Divine Worship, —tho' necessa­ry in general by Divine Precept, yet are left in par­ticular to be determin'd by Human Prudence. For tho' God has commanded Publick Prayer, &c. yet what time or place we shall assemble in, in what or­der these parts of Worship shall be perform'd, &c. are left to Human Determination, only therein the general Rules of Scripture must be regarded. From whence his Lordship concludes, That 'tis my Rule or Principle. That all Modes of Worship whatever are left to Human Prudence, and particularly the determination of Time, Place, Order, Circumstances, Postures, and U­tensils [Page 42] in all Cases. Against which he argues, That God has not only given us general Rules to praise him, pray to him, hear his Word, &c. but he has likewise given us many particular Rules and Exam­ples concerning each of these, to which if we dili­gently attend, and mind the consequences of 'em, and apply 'em to the like cases, we may have suffici­ent Directions from Scripture to order our Worship, without having recourse to Human Prudence.’

Answ. If the Bishop please to review the Marks, he will find that he has plainly mistaken and misrepresent­ed what they assert in reference to this matter, that he might have some pretence to find fault with it. For in the place he cites I am laying down no Rule at all, but only mentioning an improper sense of Human In­ventions, as the Reader would have evidently perceiv'd if the Bishop had not, by mis-citing my words, maim'd 'em, and perverted the plain sense of 'em: For they run thus in the Remarks, p. 7. ‘It remains only that I subjoyn, in order to the clearing the state of this Con­troversie, That there is a very improper sense, in which this phrase of Human Inventions in the Worship of God may possibly be us'd, viz. To signifie such Modes and Circumstances of Divine Worship, as tho' neces­sary in general by Divine Precept, yet are left in par­ticular to be determin'd by Human Prudence, &c.’ Of which kind of Circumstantial Modes, I there produce several Instances relating to Time, Place, Orders, U­tensils, &c. and would gladly know whether his Lord­ship can produce any particular Determination of 'em in Scripture for every particular Church, viz. What time of the Lord's-Day their Publick Worship shall be­gin, what Place they shall assemble in, what Translati­on of the Bible they shall use; whether they shall be­gin with Prayer or Praise, or what Vessels they shall use in the Celebration of the Sacraments. But I do by no means suppose, ‘That God has given no particular Directions at all in reference to the Modes of Worship, but the quite contrary; for 'tis one Instance I produce of Human Inventions.’ p. 55. ‘That whereas every part [Page 43] of Worship enjoyn'd by God as Prayer, Praise, &c. is capable of being perform'd in various Circumstan­tial Modes, if the Law of God expresly enjoyn us a­ny particular Mode, than to devise another of our own, exclusive of that which he has chosen and de­termin'd, is to bring in a sinful Human Invention in­to his Worship. As I instance there in Prayers in an unknown Tongue, Communicating without the Cup, Solitary Communions, &c.’ Such Modes then as God has determin'd by the particular Directions of his Word, I plainly exclude from the Determination of Human Prudence. Nay, so far am I from supposing that Hu­man Prudence may Arbitrarily appoint any Modes of Worship that Men think fit, that I rank among sinful Inventions, p. 6. ‘All such Rites and Ceremonies of Mens own devising, as are no way warranted by any general Rules of Scripture, and yet made stated Ap­pendages of any part of Divine Worship, and terms of Communion in it.’ All therefore that I assert is, That all those Circumstantial Modes of Worship, that are in general necessary by Divine Precept (because God's own Commands about his Worship cannot be executed without the determination of 'em) and yet are not in particular determin'd in Scripture, must be determin'd by Human Prudence; and that to call such Circum­stantial Modes, when determined agreeable to the ge­neral Rules of Scripture, Human Inventions, is a very im­proper sense of the word, and to make 'em sinful, is a Principle fit only for the wildest Sectaries since it would condemn a great many prudential orders practis'd both by them and us, and indeed by all Churches in the World. And if the Bishop pretend to disprove this As­sertion, he must produce us particular Precept or Pat­tern from Scripture, for his beginning Publick Worship at nine or ten in the forenoon, rather than twelve, for his meeting at the Cathedral, rather then in ano­ther place; for his using the old Translation of the Psalms, and the new one of the rest of the Bi­ble; for his using at the Sacrament Loaves rather than Cakes, and using one sort of Wine rather then another, [Page 44] and employing Peuter or Silver Vessels rather than Wooden or Golden ones. So that what I assert, is not only very innocent, and free from any such dangerous consequences as the Bishop suggests, but indeed too ob­vious and plain for any Man of sense to doubt of it; and his Lordship could never have begun any new Di­spute about it, if he had not rais'd a mist by misunder­standing the sense of as clear Expressions as could well be us'd on this Subject. Since then he has so plainly mistaken in ascribing such a Rule to me as I no where laid down, but have so fully disclaim'd, all the conse­quences he draws from it, either to his own Advantage, or our Prejudice, fall of course, and I am no way con­cern'd in 'em as consequences drawn from any Opinion of mine: For 'tis plain, the Rules laid down in the Re­marks do not justifie all the Modes of Worship practis'd in the establisht Church, neither that way of singing the Prose Psalms that excludes the generality of the Peo­ple, nor the Cathedral Musick, nor the confining all Publick Prayers to stinted Forms, nor reading the A­pocripha, nor bowing towards the East or Altar, or at the Name of Jesus, nor Reading one part of the Pray­ers where many of the People cannot hear 'em, nor the use of the Cross, or our sort of Sponsors in Baptism, nor so much as kneeling in the Act of Receiving. These and many more particular Modes are not defensible by any Rule I have laid down, tho' I have shewn him that our own Practices are. Nay, no Rule I have laid down will defend all sort of Holy-days, nor any Determina­tions relating to Habits, Place or Utensils that are con­trary to Edification, or to Order and Decency.

But whereas the Bishop pretends, That [...] those par­ticular Rules and Directions he had produc'd from Scripture,Adm. p. 43, 44. relating to the several parts of Worship, ‘The Letter of Scripture is clearly on his side, and I have not op­pos'd Scripture to Scripture, but have declin'd the li­teral sense in many cases without reason, and have preferr'd the determinations of Human Prudence in o­thers, as being more for Edification than the Scripture [Page 45] Examples, and particularly in the singing of Psalms.’ I must needs on this occasion acquaint him, that I think the quite contrary to what he Asserts, will appear to any that impartially compare the Remarks and his Discourse together, at least I hope his Lordship does not expect we should take his peremptory Assertion for a proof of it: but since he supposes this Observation to be manifest in reference to that particular Mode of Praising God by singing of Psalms, I should add, that I think it not so in­genious in the Bishop to Assert this with such assurance, when I have in the Remarks taken such particular pains to shew, That our ways of singing Psalms is most con­formable to the only Precept in Scripture, that relates to the use of 'em in our Praises, 5 Eph. 19. 3 Col. 16. to which he has yet vouchsaf'd no Answer. He has been told, ‘That the Precept enjoyns vocal singing, which bare saying 'em no way Answers, p. 13, 14. That since the Psalms of David were wrote in such sort of Metre and Verse as was then us'd, and since the knowledge of their Musical Tunes and Instru­ments is quite lost, to suppose us oblig'd to an exact imitation of 'em, were to suppose us oblig'd to im­possibilities. That therefore the Command which ob­liges Christian Churches to sing Psalms, necessarily ob­liges us to turn 'em into such sort of Metre and Verse, as will best accommodate 'em to be sung by the Peo­ple. Whereas to put 'em into no other Metre than the pointed Psalter in the Common-Prayer-Book, is to ex­clude the generality of the People from any capacity of complying with God's own Command for singing 'em. And as the Tunes of those pointed Psalms are quite different from Hebrew ones, so they are as much a Human Invention as the Tunes of the Common Metro-Versions, and therefore do set up that pointed Psalter in the Service-Book, whose Tunes the Body of the Peo­ple cannot follow to the Exclusion of those Metre-Versions according to which they can joyn in singing Psalms, (as the Bishop seems to design) is in his lan­guage to set up an Human Invention to the violation of a Divine Command, by rendring the Peoples obser­vance [Page 44] [...] [Page 45] [...] [Page 46] of it impracticable,’ p. 189, 190. And should not his Lordship in all equity and reason have attempt­ed a clear refutation of this Argument, before he had ventur'd to say, That in this particular of singing Psalms, the Scripture is on his side, and that I prefer the determi­nations of Human Prudence before Scripture Examples; when I have so plainly shewn him, That the Example or Pattern of Jewish singing is unimitable by us, be­cause unknown to us, but that the Precepts of Scripture plainly obliges us to this way of singing, because 'tis most generally practicable among us. To what pur­pose is it to reason in these matters, if the Bishop think his bare Affirmation sufficient to weigh down all Argu­ments? And why does he call this Admon. p. 164. Our manner of singing Psalms, when 'tis theirs as well as ours; and tho' he has ventur'd to exclude it from being any substantial part of their Worship, and made it a meer Diversion, yet he has done it without any Autho­rity or Commission from the establisht Church, by whom it seems allow'd as a stated part of Worship.

And as the Bishop has ascrib'd to me a Rule about Worship that I never laid down, so he stiffly pretends to adhere to his own, when yet what I had alledg'd a­gainst it, as unhappily worded by himself, has so far convinc'd him, that he found himself necessitated to en­large it. He had before said, That all ways of Worship are displeasing to God that are not expresly contain'd in the Ho­ly Scriptures, Disc. p. 3. or warranted by Examples of Holy Men men­tion'd therein. He had us'd the phrase, ways of Worship, frequently to signifie circumstantial Modes of it. I had told him, That if his words be taken in this strict sense, they contain such an Assertion, that if a man believ'd it, he would find it hard to joyn in any Assembly in the Christian World, and must renounce Communion with the Parish Churches. (For many circumstantial Modes of Worship are practis'd there, which are nei­ther expresly contain'd in the Scriptures, nor warranted by any Examples of Holy Men that have us'd those particular circumstantial Modes, ex. gr. The singing [Page 47] Psalms as appointed in the Common-Prayer-Book, or in the Metre compos'd by Sternhold and Hopkins, the use of a stinted Liturgy in general, and particularly our English one, Reading the Apocrypha, bowing at the Name of Jesus, kneeling at the Sacrament, &c.) But his Lordship, instead of taking any notice of this obje­ction against his Rule, very silently now extends it,Admon. p. 165. only to make those things unlawful that are not contain'd in Scrip­ture, or warranted by Example of Holy Men in it, or may not be deduc'd by clear consequence, or parity of Reason from them. Now 'tis evident that many things may be drawn by clear consequence and parity of reason from the Precepts of Scripture that are not expresly contain'd in 'em. And the same may be said of Scripture Examples. So that the Bishop has now really charg'd his Rule by this new comprehensive Addition to it, and as 'tis now laid down, 'tis much the same with what I have assert­ed, tho' I think not so clear. And now he will find, there's nothing in our Worship but what is easily justi­fiable by his own Rule in this just latitude: For our manner of singing it self, (which is the Instance he so often insists on) may be drawn by just consequence and by parity of reason, both from the Precepts and Exam­ples of singing in the Holy Scriptures. For if we must sing Psalms, and that in a way most conducive to ge­neral Edification, we must use such Metre and Tunes as the People can joyn in: And if the Jews us'd such sort of Metre and Tunes as were most known and common among them, we may by parity of reason choose those that are most familiar to us. And now I hope the Bishop will, upon the review, see how little reason he had to except against this part of the Remarks, when they have really oblig'd him to reform and cor­rect his own Rule, and bring it up to that I had laid down, tho' to conceal the matter, he has thought fit to misunderstand and pervert mine, or rather to coyn a new one for me.

2. The Bishop alledges, That I endeavour to perswade the Dissenters of his Diocese, that the greatest Exception [Page 48] against joyning with the establisht Church, is not the mat­ter of their Publick ordinary Worship. On which he makes several Observations.

Before I consider 'em, I must premise that 'tis true, I have told his Lordship that the Contest between the establisht Church and Dissenters, does not lye chiefly a­bout their ordinary Lord's-Day Worship, but what oc­curs in other Offices, and chiefly about the corruptions and abuses of Discipline, and 'tis no more than has been frequently suggested by the most judicious N.C. Divines that have wrote on the Subject of our Differences. But why does he pretend that I diswade any Dissenters from joyning with the establisht Church (if he mean it concerning all occasional Communion with 'em) when I have so expresly declar'd my Judgment for it, and in vain urg'd him to the like declaration of his Charity towards us, and never pretend to alledge our Diffe­rences in Reference to Worship or Discipline, as any Argument against such occasional Communion in their or­dinary Lord's-Day Service. There is no reason then to pervert what I have offer'd to such an uncharitable purpose, so that his following Observations are found­ed on a mistaken supposition. And therefore I shall content my self with these short Remarks on 'em.

1. I did then, and do still think it requisite to ac­quaint the Reader, that the Bishop had not in this Dis­course so much as touch'd the Principal Matters in Diffe­rence between the establisht Church and the Dissenters, and particularly those to which this charge of Human Inventions does most properly belong. And whereas be now tells us, that if he writ about Discipline, we should be less pleas'd with his perform­ance,Adm. p. 165, 166. because he must look on the gene­ral Frame of our whole Constitution as a meer Human Creature, &c. I must so far agree with him. That if he treat that Subject in the same manner that he has done this about Worship, we shall certainly be less pleas'd with it, because all those faults that oc­cur in the manner of handling this Subject, will be the more aggrevated if he repeat 'em on another.

2. Whereas the Bishop pretends, I desire to shift ground, and thence presumes I apprehend some disadvan­tage in it. I do not find he has any reason for such a Triumph for my having avoided the consideration of any thing in his Book that carried the face of an Argu­ment: Nor have I any need to multiply Matters of Controversie from any Answer that his Lordship has yet given to the Remarks. Admon. p. 46. And whereas he saith, ‘That I attempt not to justifie their sitting at Prayers, nor their omit­ting to add their Amen to their Prayers, nor the manner and frequency of their Communion, nor their way of singing Psalms;’ I shall only add, That for sitting at Publick Prayer, I was no more oblig'd to defend any particular persons in that posture that indulge it out of sloth, than he to defend the Toying or Laughing, that's too often us'd in their Churches: But his Lordship was oblig'd, either to defend his charging this upon our O­pinion, as if we taught, That no postures of Reverence may be lawfully us'd; and condemn'd such as standing and kneeling as Relicks of Idolatry; or else to retract so hai­nous Calumnies as these must be, if they are untrue and groundless. For adding Amen, I shall, if that will please the Bishop, concur with him that 'tis more agreeable to Scripture Pattern, that the People pronounce it more audibly; but I hope this omission signifies nothing to his Charge of Human Inventions. For the Matter of Ce­lebrating the Lord's-Supper, if it refer to the posture, I hope the Bishop is convinc'd, that ours is more agreea­ble to Scripture Pattern. For the frequency of it, I hope hee'l allow the generality of the Dissenters have much the advantage above the generality of the Parish Churches by communicating much oftner. And for what concerns the Practice of the Dissenters in his Diocese, it has been already consider'd in the Account of Mat­ters of Fact, and I have there shown that their way of Administring it once a year, is equivalent to its being Administred thrice in the Parish Churches, as to the frequency of their Members Communicating. And for singing Psalms, I have already said enough to shew [Page 50] him that our Practice needs no Reformation, but rather his unreasonable prejudices against this part of Divine Worship, common both to them and us.

3. The Bishop need take no pains to prove, That my demands about the Reformation of the Discipline of the establisht Church, are not Arguments against all occasional Communion with 'em. For they were never propo'd for that end; but then I must tell him, That where there are in a Kingdom two Parties, or Bodies of Protestants, in one of whom both the Worship and Discipline of Christ is more fully restor'd to its primitive simplicity and purity, in the other there are some defects and corruptions left in their Worship and Discipline almost entirely neglected or perverted and abus'd. I think every considerate Christian should prefer the stated Communion of that Party, in which necessary Refor­mation has made a happier progress, and those better Reformed Churches, have no reason to subject them­selves to those corruptions they have rejected. And moderate and wise men will separate from the Churches of neither Party, as if they were no true Churches, and no part of the Church Catholick, but will rather to shew their regard to Truth, more statedly communicate with those on whose side it lies in the Matters in Dif­ference, and yet to express their Charity, maintain oc­casional Communion with the other, so far as they can do it without Practising what themselves think unlaw­ful.

4. Whereas the Bishop is so much displeased with those Requests that I have offer'd to the Conforming Clergy, relating to those Practices wherein we chiefly desire some Reformation of their present Discipline, and thinks me very unreasonable in proposing 'em, and cannot see to what good purpose they can serve; I shall, to give him all the satisfaction I can, acquaint him with the true Reasons of my offering 'em.

1. I take the Abuses, of which some Reformation is there requested, to be the chief Obstacles to that happy Union among us, which has been so long the earnest desire of all good men, and I hope I can most sincerely [Page 51] say my own. So that I think none who have that end in their Eye, can be reasonably blamed for humbly pro­posing to Publick Consideration so proper and effectual means to attain it; from which I thought his Lordship's Discourse had some tendency to divert the minds of men by amusing 'em with a new Dispute of Human Inven­tions. And therefore I thought this a very sutable oc­casion to lay open the main grounds of our unhappy Differences, that if any charitable Persons should think of any attempts to compose them, they might by a true view of the Disease judge of the Remedy proper to heal it. And truly, 'till these Corruptions be reform'd, I see as yet little reason to hope for any concord in our practice, tho' I would hope to see much greater in our mutual Affections.

2. I take these to be abuses, which the generality of the most judicious and learned, as well as sober and charitable of the Conforming Clergy and Laity are sensible of, and would readily concur in their desires and endeavours to reform, if they had a fair opportunity for it, so that I did not believe these Requests would be any matter of just offence to them, nor do I yet find that they are. And for the offence of any that would perpetuate our Divisions, by keeping up those Corrup­tions that are the chief Engine of 'em, because they are serviceable to their Secular Interest, I think not my self much oblig'd to regard it. The Glory of God, and Concord of Christians are so much more valuable an In­terest, that we may justly pursue it, tho' it should clash with the Humours, the Ambition or Avarice of Men, to which too many even of the Clergy, have too long Sa­crific'd the more precious Concernments both of the Churches Purity and Peace.

There are two things indeed which the Bishop Accu­ses those Requests, of which I am concern'd to consi­der,

1. That some of 'em are founded on most unjust Repre­sentations of their Practices and Principles, which if truly Represented needs no Reformation, as may appear (saith he) from his adding to, Admon. p. 171. and [Page 52] taking from our third and fourth Canons, p. 179. And may farther appear in the 2d, 3d, 4th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, and 13th Requests. Now I have review'd all these, and can see no such unjuct Representations in 'em. So that I think, his Lordship had been more just, if he had, either never advanc'd this Charge against me, or had taken the pains to prove it. Particularly, I cannot ima­gine, wherein I have added to these two Canons, in what I have cited of 'em, or why I must be said to take from 'em, because I only cite that part of 'em, which my Discourse there led me to take notice of.

2. He is pleas'd to insinuate, That I give ill Language in those Requests; and to that purpose faith, That I expose the Kingdom and Protestant Inhabitants of it, as again, overspread with Swearing, Profanation of the Lord's-Day, Ʋncleanness, Pride, Luxury, &c. An Imputation (saith he) which I can by no means allow to be general; there being, I am perswaded by the goodness of God, a manifest abatement of these in this Diocese.

Answ. I should be glad to hear of such an Abate­ment of these Sins in his Diocese, and doubt not if true, that the Dissenting Ministers have been no way negli­gent to contribute towards it. But if the Bishop deny the Truth of this Complaint, concerning the generality of the Protestants of this Kingdom, as 'tis there deli­ver'd, he sees with other eyes, than any sober Person I have yet convers'd with. For Swearing and Profanation of the Lord's-Day, no good Man can converse in any part of the Kingdom, without being a sorrowful Ear and Eye-witness of it. Nor does there appear any considerable abatement of those other Crimes, from what was before, besides what the diminution of mens Estates have necessitated them to. So that I cannot ima­gine what ill Language it should be, to mention and la­ment the revival of these Vices, and request all Mini­sters to concur in their endeavours, to preserve or re­claim those under their care from 'em. And I fear that the generality of Protestants among us, need the loudest call we can give 'em to Repentance, instead of such an undeserved Commendation as tends to perswade 'em, [Page 53] there is not so great and general a necessity of it. The common guilt is too great and too deeply aggravated, to be either conceal'd or extenuated, and deserves a fuller Description and a severer Reproof then I had then occasion for.

III. The third Allegation which the Bishop saith, I use to take off the force of his Book, is, That he hath omitted to handle that part of the Wor­ship of the establisht Church, Admon. p. 54. against which the Dissenters have the greatest Exception, and particularly what refers to Baptism.

Answ. I felt no such force in his Book, as needed this new Dispute to take it off. But 'tis true enough, That the Debate about Human Inventions does more particu­larly concern Baptism, than the other parts of Worship his Lordship had insisted on.

And therefore, since the Bishop has offer'd us some­thing new on this Subject, I shall the more willingly address my self to the Examination of it, because the precedent part of the Admonition, has left the Argu­ment between us almost wholly untouch'd, and contains little but such slight Cavils about it, as were in effect obviated in the Remarks themselves. And here

I. The Bishop gives us the Reason why he omitted this part of Worship, viz.

1. "Because it was occasional,Admon. p. 172, 173. not ordinary.

1. Answ. But he knew that in a Discourse about the Inventions of Men in the Worship of God, it was proper to consider that part of Worship about which that Di­spute chiefly lay.

2. ‘Because he found the Defects and Additions of our Directory so great in this Office, that they deserv'd a Discourse by themselves.’ Admon. p. 173, 174. And accordingly he men­tions these following Defects in the Di­rectory.

Answ. I know no great harm to the Cause of Dissen­ters, if we should own there are some Omissions in the Directory; especially when the Compilers, to avoid the rigorous and imposing humour, that had too long reign'd in others, seem to have left many things to the discre­tion of particular Pastors, which they would not posi­tively enjoyn. And for these Defects which the Bishop has cited out of Mr. Baxter's Treatise of Infant Baptism, they are not so material as his Lordship seems to ima­gine, and are easily supplyed by every Minister that thinks more express Professions requisite than are there positively enjoyn'd.

As to the first, The making of an Express Covenant in the name of the Child, if the Bishop mean by it, that the Parent should explicitly profess his Dedicating his Child to God, and bringing it thereby under a Solemn Obli­gation to the Duties of his Covenant, this is really inclu­ded in that Profession he is required by the Directory to make of his desire to have it Baptiz'd: and accord­ingly 'tis usual for the Ministers to propose the Questi­on more fully to this purpose; Do you profess your desire of having this Child dedicated by Baptism to the Faith, Worship and Service of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? But if he mean that the Parent or Offerer of the Child should make such a Profession in the Child's name, as our Sponsors are order'd to do in the Common-Prayer-Book, 'tis so far from being a Defect in our Di­rectory [Page 55] that it enjoyns no such thing, that 'tis no small Blemish of the Office of Baptism in the Service-Book, that it requires such a Profession from 'em, as personating the Child they present. And that his Lordship may be assured Mr. Baxter intended no such Express Cove­nanting in the name of the Child as this is, I shall pro­duce his own words (and the rather because I take them to carry great weight and force in 'em) in his N. Confor­mity stated, &c. he brings in the Lawyer asking, ‘What is your fourth Objection against our way of Baptism? To which the Minister thus Answers: That in personating the Child, they say, that they (and so he by them) doth at present believe, renounce and desire, &c. falsly in­timating that Infants are at present bound to do this by another. And yet the same Men plead that God doth not accept him for the Faith of his Parents, when as God requireth no Faith or Repentance of Infants, but only that they be the Seed of Penitent Believers devoted to Christ. And in the Catechism 'tis said, that (Repentance and Faith are requir'd of Persons to be Bap­tiz'd; and that Infants who cannot perform these, are Baptiz'd because they promise 'em by their Sureties, which Promise when they come to Age, themselves are bound to perform.) Where note, that the former Common-Prayer-Book had [They perform 'em by their Sureties] They perceiv'd that having said Faith and Repentance are requisite, Infants they saw must have at present what is requisite at present. And they knew that they had them not themselves, and so were fain to hold that the Sureties Faith and Repentance was theirs, and a performance of that requir'd Condition. But the Makers of the new Book saw that this would not hold, and so they say, "[Tho' Faith and Repentance be requir'd of Persons to be Baptiz'd, yet Infants are Baptiz'd because they promise 'em by their Sureties to be hereafter perform'd,] amending the former Errour by a greater or a double one: 1. Granting Faith and Repentance are pre-requisite, and yet confessing that Infants have neither of their own or Sureties for 'em, and yet are to be Baptiz'd. 2. Or making a Promise [Page 56] Future Faith and Repentance to be Present Faith and Repentance. 3. Or tho' Faith and Repentance be re­quisite in those that are to be Baptiz'd, yet God will at present justifie and save all that have it not in In­fancy, because they promise it hereafter. All plain Contradictions; as if they said, 'Tis requisite in Per­sons to be Baptiz'd, and 'tis not requisite. L—How would you have 'em have answer'd these? M. Profes­sed Faith and Repentance are requisite in adult Per­sons to be Baptiz'd; and in Infants, that they be the Seed of the Faithful, devoted by them to God in Christ, according to his offer'd Covenant of Grace.’

Thus far that accurate Divine, from whom his Lord­ship may learn, That the modesty of the Compilers of the Directory, which made their Orders about this Mat­ter, seem defective by leaving some Particulars to the prudence and liberty of particular Ministers, is far more excusable, than the assurance of those who impose in such solemn Professions, things so confus'd and inconsi­stent. If there be any defect in their Orders, 'tis easily supplied; but the mistakes of the Service-Book are remedilesly impos'd on all that Administer this Ordi­nance according to it.

For the second Defect, viz. ‘That there is in the Di­rectory no Profession of the Christian Faith requir'd from the Parent or Offerer of any Child;’ I think there is such a virtual Profession requir'd by the Directory, when it enjoyns the Minister to require from the Pa­rent, a solemn Promise to bring up his Child in the knowledge of the Grounds of the Christian Religion, and in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. For this implys his owning himself the Christian Religion; be­sides that his being a known Professor of it, is presuppos'd to his Childrens Admission to that Ordinance. Nor does the Directory hinder the Minister from requiring a more express Profession from the Parent, of the Christian Faith, where it is doubtful whether he own it or no. And I am sure the Form of Baptism drawn up by the N. C. Divines at the Savoy-Conference, in their Propo­sals for Accommodation, does expresly require it; and [Page 57] I have observ'd it ordinarily requir'd, at least in general terms.

For the third and fourth Defects of the Directory, ‘That there is no solemn Recognition of the Vow of Baptism requir'd of Persons Baptiz'd in Infancy, when they come to understand their Duty, as there is in the Confirmation practis'd in the establisht Church; and that the express words of the Covenant are not pre­scribed out of the Word of God.’ Tho' I take this to be an Omission, and therefore have both my self practis'd, and known many others practise that Confir­mation recommended in the Reformed Liturgy, drawn up by the N. C. Divines at the Savoy-Conference, (‘ac­cording to which no Person Baptiz'd is admitted to the Lord's Supper, till at years of discretion, not only un­derstand the Baptismal Covenant, but with his own mouth, and with his own consent openly before the Church, ratifie and confirm it, and promise his faith­ful observance of it to the end.’ In which Liturgy there is also an excellent Form of the Baptismal Cove­nant, drawn up as agreeable to the Scripture as any I have yet seen) yet I think this Omission of the Dire­ctory, far more excusable than what the Common-Prayer-Book imposes in reference to Confirmation, of which they have both made something too like a Sacrament, and also turn'd a very useful practice, and agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture into a Childish Formality, as I had occasion to shew in the Remarks. 'Tis easier to supply such Defects, than to remove such unreasona­ble Impositions.

I shall conclude this Head, with observing that the Bishop has, of all Men, the least reason to blame the Directory for these Defects: For unless he could produce express Scriptural Precepts or Pattern for these things, which he saith the Directory has omitted, (as I think no Man can do it) he must, according to his former Prin­ciples, censure 'em for Human Inventions, and rather commend the Directory for omitting them.

For the Bishop's Charge against the Directory, for re­quiring Additional Conditions contrary to Scripture [Page 58] Presidents, of which he gives us only one Instance, viz. Its ordering that Baptism be not Admi­nistred in private Places, Admon. p. 174. but in the place of Publick Worship, and in the face of the Congregation. I suppose the Bishop will grant that it should ordinarily be Administred in Publick; and if these words of the Directory were intended in the strict­est sense they are capable of, I am sure the generality of Dissenters have receded from the rigour of this Rule.

II. The Bishop comes to shew that my Argument a­gainst the Cross is of no force.

Of this he only gives us this short Account, Admon. p. 175. His great Objection against it is, That we make a new Human Sacrament, and then it must be a Human Invention. And upon this the Bishop proceeds to give us a new Account of his own concerning the Nature of a Sacrament, and endeavours to shew that the Cross is not made a Sacrament by 'em, according to that Ac­count. Now tho' I should have thought it fairer to have propos'd the Argument in the same manner I had done, yet in order to the bringing this Debate to some issue, I shall do these two things.

1. I shall set the Argument I had propos'd against the Cross in Baptism, in its due light, by giving as distinct and clear an Account as I can, of the Nature of those Parts of Positive Worship which we call Sacraments, and applying it to the Subject in dispute.

2. I shall shew the insufficiency of the Bishop's An­swer to this Argument.

1. I shall set the Argument I had propos'd against the Cross in Baptism in its due light, by giving a di­stinct and clear Account of the Nature of those Parts of Positive Worship which we call Sacraments, and ap­plying it to the Subject in dispute:

And this is the more necessary, not only because the uncertain signification of the word Sacrament has in­volv'd this Subject in great obscurity and confusion, but especially because the Account which the Bishop gives of it, (when he supposes us ill-instructed in it, and proposes to inform us better) seems to me not only [Page 59] indistinct, but also very lame and defective, omitting se­veral considerable uses of Sacraments, which were the chief strength of this Argument against the Cross.

There are two Ordinances of Positive Worship pre­scrib'd in the New Testament, viz. Baptism and the Lord's-Supper: There have been two Names invented and frequently us'd among Christian Writers, to signifie the common nature of these two Institutions, that of Mysteries in the Greek Church, and that of Sacraments in the Latin, a word probably borrow'd from the Mi­litary Oath which Soldiers took with certain Rites ap­pointed for that end, and which was call'd the Milita­ry Sacrament. But 'tis the thing it self we are concern'd to enquire into. Now if we can fix upon the true ge­neral Notion, wherein these two Ordinances of Bap­tism and the Lord's-Supper agree, we may thence easi­ly infer what a Divine Sacrament is: For of that I am now speaking.

And if we attentively consider this Matter, we may soon observe, that those two Ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper agree in this, that they are Foede­ral Rites, or Sacred Ceremonies instituted by God for Pub­lick Solemnizing the Covenant between him and us. And on the other hand, in this they differ, that the former is the Sacred Rite, whereby that Covenant is first pub­lickly Enter'd into; the latter is that whereby 'tis Re­new'd. And accordingly these Positive Institutions un­der the Gospel, succeed in the place of two parallel Or­dinances, or foederal Rites under the Old Testament, viz. Circumcision and the Feasts upon Sacrifices. By the for­mer the Israelites were initiated into that Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed: By the latter their League of Amity and Peace with God, was (upon the Attonement made by Sacrifices) renew'd by these Feasts upon 'em. Of which more may occur anon.

Now these Sacred Rites that are appointed by God, both in our first publick Entrance into the Covenant, and our publick Renewal of it at the Lord's Table, are design'd for several uses, and principally for the three follow­ing.

1. As representing signs for Instruction.

2. As obliging signs to Confirm and Ratifie the Cove­nant Enter'd into.

3. As distinguishing Signs or Badges of our Profession, and the Relations we thereby are invested in.

All these uses of 'em must be carefully and distinctly consider'd.

1. These Sacred Rites are us'd in these two Ordi­nances, as Representing Signs for Instruction. (The in­finitely wise God condescending herein to our infirmity and weakness.)

Thus washing with Water, which is the Rite appoint­ed in Baptism, is by its resemblance instructive to us, both concerning the Priviledges and Duties of the Covenant we enter into.

Concerning the Priviledges, Thus 'tis design'd to re­present our Natural pollution and defilement, and the necessity of the Regenerating and Purifying Vertue of the Holy Spirit. And hence we are said to be born of Water and the Holy Spirit, 3 John 5. i. e. formed to a new and di­vine Life by that sanctifying efficacy of the Holy Spirit, which is compar'd to the purifying Vertue of Water. And elsewhere in allusion to this Baptismal Rite, we are said to be Saved by the Laver of Regeneration, and the Renewing of the Holy Ghost, 3 Tit. 5.

Nay, this Rite seems also design'd to instruct us con­cerning our Guilt, as well as Pollution, and of the ne­cessity of our being Cleans'd from it by the Laver of our Mediatour's Blood. For the most judicious Expo­sitors understand those words of Ananias concerning the Remission of Sins, when he saith to Saul upon his Con­version, Arise and be Baptized, and wash away thy Sins, (or be thou washt from thy Sins, [...]) calling on the Name of the Lord Jesus, 22 Acts 16. And accordingly such a cleansing virtue is ascrib'd to the Redeemer's blood, and that Expression of his Washing us from our Sins, in it, seems to carry an Allusion to this Sacred Baptismal Rite. See 1 John 1.7. 1 Rev. 5.

The same Sacred Rite is designed to represent our Duty to us, viz. To renounce the Defilements of Sin and of the World, and to consecrate our selves to a Life of Holiness, as Christ's purified peculiar People. And this use of it the Bishop omits in his Account. To this Rite those Expressions seem to refer, Such were some of you, but ye are washed, ye are sanctified, 1 Cor. 6.11. And thus the Apostle supposes in our Baptism, that there is a Resemblance of our Dying with Christ, and our Ri­sing with him, that should instruct us in our Duty, to Dye to Sin, and Live to Righteousness, 6 Rom. 3, 4, 5. 2 Col. 12. For our Dying to Sin and Walking in new­ness of Life, is not signified in Baptism as the Benefit confer'd by God, as the Bishop seems to suppose, but rather as the Duty requir'd from us, tho' the renewing and purifying efficacy of the Holy Spirit, whereby we are enabled to do so, is signify'd as a Benefit which we receive from God.

The same I might observe concerning that other In­stitution of the Lord's Supper, in whose Sacred Rites there is not only a Commemorative Representation of the Death of Christ, but also an Instructive Representation of our Spiritual Communion with him in his Body and Blood, (viz. in the precious Fruits of his Sacrifice,) and of those Duties or Exercises of our Faith and Devotion to him, by which we are said to Eat his Flesh and Drink his Blood, 6 John 53, 54.

I might observe the same concerning those two paral­el Institutions under the Old Testament, Circumcision and Religious Feasts upon Sacrifices. But this use of Sacraments being so obvious, I shall not insist any far­ther upon it, but only add, That tho' I suppose all Sa­cramental Signs to be Representing ones, and to carry such an Instructive Resemblance and Allusion, yet I do not suppose all barely instructive Signs to be Sacramental or Foederal ones. For there seems to be more requisite to such

2. The Sacred Rites in Baptism and the Lord's Sup­per are intended also as obliging Signs to Confirm and Ra­tifie that Covenant that is then Enter'd into or Renew'd be­tween God and us.

'Tis evidently so in Baptism; for the Sacred Rite there us'd is both,

1. An obliging Sign on God's part; whereby he con­firms and ratifies the Promises of his Covenant to all that are interessed therein, even that grand comprehen­sive Promise of being the God of the Faithful, and of their Seed, and particularly that eminent Promise of the Remission of Sins. See 17 Gen. 7, 11. and compare it with 2 Acts 38, 39. Repent and be Baptiz'd every one of you for the Remission of Sins, and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost; for the Promise is to you and your Children, &c. And our being Baptiz'd into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, implys his engage­ment to be a reconcil'd Father, Redeemer and Sancti­fier, to all that sincerely devote themselves to him.

So in that other Foederal Rite of the Lord's Supper, 22 Luke 20. 'tis said of the Cup, That 'tis the New Testament in the Blood of Christ, i. e. This Sacred Memorial of his Blood is like an Authentick Seal set to the New Testament, wherein so many precious Legacies are convey'd to us as the Fruits of his Death and Sacrifice.

And the same may also be observ'd concerning Cir­cumcision, both in the place fore-quoted 17 Gen. 7, 11— and in its being call'd by the Apostle Paul the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, (viz. of that right to impunity and life, which Abraham was as a Believer entitled to thro' the Merits of that Redeemer, who was his pro­mised Seed) 4 Rom. 11.

So in their Religious Feasts upon Sacrifices, God's admitting the Offerers or Guests to his Table, was a solemn Ratification of the League of Amity and Peace renew'd between em, thro' the virtue of that future at­toning Sacrifice of Christ, of which the Legal ones were only Types and Figures.

2. This Sacred Rite of washing with Water in Bap­tism, is no less an obliging Sign from us to God, whereby we bind our selves to the Duties of his Covenant.

Now this important use of a Sacrament, the Bishop not only omits in his Description of it, but plainly De­nies that it belongs to its nature. For Admon. p. 180. he asserts it to me a Mistake concerning Sacraments, to suppose. That they are Signs from us to God; whereas he affirms 'em to be wholly (for only) Signs from God to us: I confess this seems very surpri [...]ing, because if this be a Mistake, 'tis such a Mistake as he himself has run into in his Discourse: For there p. 4. he gives this reason, ‘Why the Celebration of the Sacraments is a part of Outward Worship, viz. because in them we not only express our dependence on God for his grace, but likewise oblige and bind our selves to serve him.’ Now how this can be true, without making the Sacra­mental Rite a Sign from us to God, of that obligation to his Service, I cannot comprehend. So that his Lord­ship seems to me in this Particular inconsistent with himself, and speaks more accurately of these Matters, where his Partiality to his Cause does not mislead his Judgment. But since he now asserts this to be a Mi­stake, and demands some place of Scripture to prove this Notion, of a Sacraments being a Sign from us to God, (See Admon. p. 180.) I shall endeavour herein to give him all reasonable satisfaction.

And this Account of Sacraments I shall particularly prove, in reference to Baptism, which is the Sacrament in dispute.

That Baptism is a Sign from us to God of our Obliga­tion to the Duties of his Covenant, as well as a Sign from God to us of the Truth of his Promises, is evident from the Apostle Peter's ex­cellent Description of that Internal and Saving Baptism which the External Washing is the Sign of, viz. 1 Pet. 3.25. That 'tis not the putting away the filth of the Flesh, (i. e. Baptism is not meerly or principally that) but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God. Which words manifestly allude to the Covenant-Transaction that passes between the great God and the Adult Person baptiz'd, (for of such the Apostle here speaks) and to the Questions that were to that end propos'd to such as [Page 64] [...] [Page 65] [...] [Page 60] [...] [Page 61] [...] [Page 62] [...] [Page 63] [...] [Page 64] receiv'd this Seal of God's Covenant. They were ask't, If they believ'd in the Lord Jesus with all their heart? (See 8 Acts 37.) or, as some ancient Christian Writers propose the Question, ‘If they recounc'd the Devil and his Angels, the World and its Pomps? If they believ'd in, If they devoted themselves to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? &c.’ And their sincere Profession and Promise of doing so, which in Baptism they ratified by this External Rite of Washing with Water, is that which the Apostle here calls the Answer of a good Conscience to­wards God. So that the Apostle was so far from suppo­sing that Baptism was not a Sign from us to God, that he rather defines it by this part of its end and use, viz. To be a Solemn Rite whereby we profess to engage our Hearts to the Duties of his Covenant. And indeed since Baptism is the Solemnizing a mutual Covenant be­tween the Blessed God on the one part, and our Selves or our Seed on the other, it is first a Sign from us to God, of our Consent to the proposed Terms of his Covenant, before it can be a Sign from him to us, of our or our Childrens interest in those Benefits of his Covenant that presuppose our consent as the Condition thereof. 'Tis the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins, 1 Mark 4. and is therefore first a Sign of our Repentance towards God, before it can be a Sign from him of the Remission of Sins. And so 'tis propos'd by the Apostle Peter at the first time we read of its Administration to his Adult Converts, 2 Acts 38, 39. Repent and be Bap­tized every one of you in the Name of Christ for the Re­mission of Sins, for the Promise is unto you and your Chil­dren. Where they were by Baptism first to profess their Repentance towards God, and Faith in our Lord Jesus, and then receive the promised Benefit, Remission of Sins. Nay, Christ's own Command to his Apostles, first, to Disciple or Proselyte all Nations, and then to Baptize 'em, plainly implys that one great use of Baptism was to be a solemn Bond upon 'em, to the Duties of that Christi­an Profession they had embrac'd, and the Baptizing 'em in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has been always suppos'd to imply a Solemn Dedication of [Page 65] 'em by this Sacred Rite to the Faith, Worship, and Ser­vice of that Blessed Trinity, into whose Name they are Baptized. There is in that Institution a Seal set to the Covenant of God on our part, as well as on his: To which 'tis not improbable that those words of the Apo­stle Paul refer, 2 Tim. 2.19. —Nevertheless the Foun­dation (or as some reader the word [...], Tabula con­tractus, the Covenant) of God stands sure, having this Seal (on God's part) The Lord knows them that are his; and (this Seal on our part) Let him that names the Name of Christ depart from iniquity. As the Covenant is mu­tual, so the External Rite is intended to ratifie our Re­stipulation as well as God's Promise, and accordingly our breach of the Baptismal Covenant by Apostasie or Infi­delity is Perjury, and therefore so often in the Scripture Language represented by the breach of the Conjugal Vow, that the Adulteress is guilty of. And this Notion of Baptism as an obliging Sign from God to us, is the more unreasonably deny'd by the Bishop, if we consider, that 'tis this very use of Baptism, that chiefly occasion'd the Name of a Sacrament being given to it, because Baptism was reckon'd (like the Military Oath of the Roman Soldiers) as a solemn Listing the Person Bap­tiz'd into the Service and Warfare of Christ against the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. So that the Bishop has excluded that from the nature and notion of a Sa­crament, which was the chief, if not the only ground, of this Rite of the Christian Religion being called one.

And it were as easie to shew the same concerning the other Institutions that are call'd Sacraments. Thus as Circumcision was a Token of the Covenant between God and Abraham and his Seed in their Generations; so 'twas an obliging Sign on their part, as well as on God's part. It oblig'd them to receive and obey the Revelations of the Divine Will to 'em. And hence, after the delivery of the Law of Moses, Circumcision was an External Bond on those that receiv'd it to ob­serve that Law; as the Apostle Paul plainly intimates to us, 5 Gal. 3. —He that was Circumcis'd made him­self [Page 66] a Debtor to the Law to do it; i. e. brought himself under a solemn Tye thereto by this External Rite.

That the Feasts upon Sacrifices under the Law were Foederal Rites (in allusion to the general Custom of those Eastern Nations, to Confirm mutual Covenants by Eating and Drinking together; See 26 Gen. 30, 31.31 Gen. 44, 45, 46. 9 Jos. 14.41 Psal. 9.5 Lam. 6. Obad. 7. v.) is so largely prov'd by the Learned Dr. Cud­worth in his excellent Treatise on the Lord's Supper and Feast upon a Sacrifice, that I shall refer the Reader to it for fuller satisfaction. And that one passage in the 50 Psalm v. 5. is sufficient to put it out of doubt; Ga­ther my Saints together, those that have made a Covenant with me by Sacrifice. Now the Covenant was made and celebrated, not meerly by Offering it up, but chiefly by their Religious Feast upon it.

And as the Lord's Supper succeeds in the place and stead of those Jewish Feasts upon Sacrifices, so 'tis evi­dently design'd as such a Foederal Rite, whereby we re­new our League of Peace with God, upon the Me­morials of the Attoning Sacrifice of his own Son by our renewed Consent to the Terms of his Covenant: And hence the Apostle Paul warns his Corinthian Converts against the Idolatrous Practice of Feasting in the Tem­ples of the Heathen Idols, as inconsistent with the Ob­ligations which their Feasting at the Lord's Table had laid upon 'em to be the Worshippers of the only true God, who was too jealous of his own Honor to admit of any Rival in it. See 1 Cor. 10 ch. from the fourteenth to the twenty third verse.

3. These Foederal Rites of Baptism and the Lord's Supper must be consider'd as intended also to be distin­guishing Signs of our Christian Profession, and the Rela­tions which we are thereby invested in.

Thus our Baptism is the honourable Badge of our Discipleship, whereby we are discriminated from the Infidel World. We do hereby put on the Livery of Christ, (as those words of the Apostle Paul imply,— 3 Gal. 27. For a many of you as have been Baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.) And therefore he adds, they [Page 67] were no more to be distinguish'd into Jew or Greek, &c. but all were one in Christ Jesus. This one Livery was to be the common Sign of their belonging to him as their one Lord and Master. And accordingly, our partaking of one External Baptism, is made a Mark and Chara­cter of those that belong'd to that one visible Body, or Church of which Christ is the Lord and Head, as our partaking of one Internal Baptism is the certain Mark of our belonging to the one invisible Church, or mystical Body of Christ. See 1 Eph. 4, 5, 6. To the same purpose we read elsewhere, that we are by one Spirit baptized into one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. The latter words, of being made to drink into one Spirit, according to the general con­sent of the best Expositers, refer to the Lord's Supper, as the former do to Baptism. And the words plainly imply, that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the Sym­bol and the Bond of our External Communion, as Mem­bers of the visible Church, as by partaking of the san­ctifying Operations of the same Holy Spirit, we become Members of one mystical Body of Christ. So that by our Baptism we are incorporated into the Christian Community, and thereby discriminated in our right to its External Priviledges from them that are without, who are yet Aliens and Foreigners. And so by the Lord's Supper we are, as partakers of Christ's Holy Table, distin­guish'd from them that partake of the Table of Devils, and are in fellowship (or Communion) with them— 1 Cor. 10.20, 21.

Thus was Circumcision the discriminating Mark of these that embrac'd the Faith of Abraham, from such as were Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and Strangers to the Covenants of Promise. Circumcised and Ʋncircumcised was equivalent to one that did, or did not own the Jewish Religion.

Having thus far clear'd the general Nature and Ʋses of these two Institutions in the Christian Religion which we call Sacraments, (for all the particular uses of each of 'em, I am not now concern'd to consider) I come to apply this Account to the Matter in Debate.

And accordingly, 'tis obvious to any that shall con­sider the foregoing Account, that there is one Ʋse of these Foederal or Sacramental Rites that does necessari­ly presuppose Divine Institution, viz. Their being obliging signs on God's part to ratifie his Promises. For it were too absurd for any to imagine that God will oblige himself by signs he never appointed for that end. And there­fore the Papists themselves pretend their new Sacra­ments to be Divine ones, by feigning God's Institution for 'em.

When therefore I speak of a Human Sacrament, I mean no more by it, ‘than an External Rite set up by meer Human Authority, without any pretence of Divine Institution, for several Sacramental Uses, such as con­constitute it as truly a part of Religious Worship as Baptism and the Lord's Supper are.’ So that it wants no­thing but God's Instituting it to be a Seal to his part of the Covenant, as Men have made it a Seal to their part, to render it as proper a Sacrament as either of the two former. And 'tis only in this sense that I suppose the Cross to be made a Human Sacrament by the establisht Church. 'Tis made by 'em a Sacrament, as far as Men can make one of a Religious Rite that they can pretend no Divine Authority for. And this is sufficient to prove it a sinful Human Invention, as I shall now show, in prosecuting the Particulars here suggested.

I. ‘The Cross is set up for several Sacramental Uses, even the like Ʋses as Baptism and the Lord's Supper are appointed for.’

For according to the foregoing Account of these Foe­deral or Sacramental Rites,

1. 'Tis set up as a Representing or Instructive sign. And that both in the Duties and the Benefits of the New Covenant.

'Tis set up as Instructive in the Duties of it. And this the Bishop grants when he owns, (Admon. p. 178.) ‘That the Cross is us'd to signifie the Return we ought to make to God, for the Benefits receiv'd in Baptism.’ And indeed the words of the Service-Book put this out of doubt: We sign this Child, &c. in token that he shall [Page 69] not be ashamed to Confess the Faith of Christ crucified, &c.

'Tis set up as Instructive in the Benefits of the New Covenant. This indeed the Bishop denys in the place last quoted; and tells us, The Cross is not us'd by 'em to signifie any Grace or Benefit communicated from God. But I think there is just ground to conclude the contrary from the Reason which the Convocation alledges for Retaining the use of the Sign of the Cross, viz. ‘That the Holy Ghost by the Mouth of the Apostles did ho­nour the name of the Cross so far, that under it he comprehended not only Christ crucified, but the force, effect and merit of his Death and Passion, with all the comforts, fruits and promises we receive or expect thereby.’ See the Thirtieth Canon of the Church of England. Now I would gladly know what this Rea­son can signifie to vindicate their retaining the use of the Cross, unless they supposed it a fit external Sign to signifie the same things which the Holy Ghost had ho­nour'd the Name of the Cross to signifie. And this In­ference seems the more just, from the account they give of this Ceremony of Crossing, as practis'd by the Pri­mitive Christians, viz. ‘That they signed their Chil­dren with the Sign of the Cross when they were Christen'd, to dedicate 'em by that Badge to his Ser­vice, whose Benefits bestow'd on 'em in Baptism, the name of the Cross did represent.’ And consequently, the Sign of it is design'd to represent too.

But,

2. Which is more considerable, The Cross is made by the establisht Church an obliging and ratifying sign on our part, to bind us to the Duties of God's Covenant, even to the same which Baptism is appointed to oblige us to, viz. ‘To confess boldly the Faith of Christ crucified, To fight manfully under his Banner against the Flesh, the World, and the Devil, and to continue Christ's faithful Soldiers and Servants to our lives end.’ And I may still renew the Question propos'd in the Remarks, What more peculiar Duties of the New Covenant could Baptism ob­lige us to? And to put the matter, if possible, out of [Page 70] doubt, the Infant is expresly said in the Canon to be by this Badge dedicated to the Service of Christ. See Coll. of Ca­ses, 2d Edit p. 377, 378. I know indeed the ingeni­ous Author of the Case relating to the Cross in Baptism, distinguishes here be­tween and immediate and proper, and an improper and declarative Dedication, and according­ly would perswade us that the Convocation only design­ed the latter; partly, because they refer to the words us'd in the Service Book when the Child is cross't, partly because they suppose the Child dedicated by Baptism before, and suppose Baptism compleat without the sign of the Cross.

But I see not that either of these Reasons warrant us to take the words of the Convocation in so very strain'd and improper a sense as this is, viz. That when they af­firm the Cross to be a lawful outward Ceremony, and ho­nourable Badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the Ser­vice of him that died on the Cross, they should mean no more than that 'tis a lawful outward Ceremony and ho­nourable Badge, to declare that the Infant has been dedi­cated to Christ by another outward Ceremony and ho­nourable Badge before. For 'tis evident that the words us'd when the Child is sign'd with the sign of the Cross, do as fully and directly express a proper immediate Dedication, as the words us'd when 'tis Baptiz'd, and therefore we have no reason from them to apply so unusual and odd a sense to the words of the Canon, and the Convocations supposing Baptism compleat without the sign of the Cross; does no way Argue that they de­sign'd not a proper renew'd Dedication by the Cross; for tho' we are dedicated by Baptism, yet we properly renew that Dedication as oft as we attend the Lord's Table. And the Romish Church does in, their Ritual, See Rit. Rom. Paris 1635. p. 7. suppose no more necessary by Divine Right to this Sacrament than we do, and speak of their Cere­monies as only pertaining to the Solemnity of that Sa­crament, yet they use several other Rites for proper im­mediate Dedication, besides that of washing with water

3. The Cross is made a distinguishing sign of our Chri­stian Profession, and the Relations we are thereby invested in.

For this evidently follows from its being made the Honourable Badge of our Dedication to the Service of a crucified Saviour. So that by being cross't, we do truly (according to the establisht Church) wear the Livery of Christ, as by being Baptiz'd. And this former Pater­nal sign is as effectually made the common Symbol and Tessera of our Discipleship, the mark of our belonging to him as our Lord and Master, as the latter can be.

II. Now from hence I farther infer, That the Cross is made as much a Sacrament as Men can make any sign of their own, for which they can produce no Di­vine Institution. 'Tis set up for most of the same uses as Baptism, nay for such uses as do constitute it a pro­per part of positive Worship, that has no stamp of Di­vine Authority, and consequently 'tis made a sinful Hu­man Invention. For if (as the Bishop himself supposes) all ways of Worship are displeasing to God, that are not expresly contained in the Holy Scriptures, nor warranted by the Examples of Holy Man therein, or (as he now adds) that cannot be by parity of Reason deduc'd thence; much more are all parts of Worship truly displeasing to him, (and such as our Saviour justly censures for vain Worship) that are no way Instituted. And yet, that all those Rites in Religious Worship, whereby we oblige and bind our selves to serve God, or (which is the same) Dedicate our selves to his Service, are a proper part of Positive Wor­ship, is evident from the Bishop's own confession, who (p. 4. of his Discourse) does therefore make the Sacra­ments to be a part of outward Worship, not only on the account of our expressing therein, our dependance on the grace of God, but likewise on the account of obliging and binding our selves by 'em to serve him. And doubtless, it does as properly belong to God alone to appoint the Religious Rites whereby we bind our selves to his Ser­vice, as to the Supreme Magistrate to appoint the Cere­monies us'd in our taking the Oath of Fidelity and Alle­giance. Nay it belongs to him alone to appoint the Ho­nourable [Page 72] Badge of our Discipleship, who receives us into his Holy Covenant; and no inferiour Pastors are any more authoriz'd to superadd any other Rite for this use, to that he has Instituted already, than the Servant of any great Prince is warranted of his own Head to prescribe to his Fellow-servants the wearing of a new Livery, as an Honourable Badge of their belonging to such a Master, besides that which he has appointed of his own choosing. To set up External Rites for such Sacramental uses as these, viz. not only to instruct us in the Priviledges and Duties of the New Covenant, but to oblige and bind us to 'em, and to be the Honourable Badge of our Chri­stian Profession, when God has already instituted other Rites for these very ends, is a piece of Presumption we dare not be guilty of: 'Tis an offering him a part of Worship which has no stamp of his Authority, which therefore we have no reason to hope he will accept; nay, which there is no shadow of Reason for, if his own Foe­deral Rites be sufficient for all the ends they are appoint­ed for.

Having thus stared my Argument, I come

II. To shew the insufficiency of the Bishop's Answer to this Argument.

All that I can find, he has directly reply'd to my Ar­gument, is only this; ‘That the whole force of it seems to proceed from two Mistakes concerning the nature of Sacraments: First, As if they were signs from us to God, and not wholly from God to us. Secondly, As if we were to learn the true Nature of Sacraments from the Schools and partial Definitions of interessed Disputants, and not from the Holy Scriptures Hence, saith the Bishop, he has not given us one place of Scri­pture, to prove his imperfect Account of a Sacra­ment.’

As to this Answer to the Argument, I need do no more for the Refutation of it, than refer the Reader to the foregoing Account of a Sacrament, wherein I fully prov'd concerning Sacraments in general, and particu­larly that of Baptism, that they are as truly and proper­ly signs from us to God, as from God to us; nay, that they [Page 73] cannot be the latter without being the former. And this I have prov'd, not from the Dictates of the Schools, but from the Oracles of God; having quoted no other Human Authority but his own, and I hope he will not reckon himself one of those Partial and Interessed Dis­putants he speaks of. So that 'tis not the force of my Argument, but of his Answer, that proceeds from a Mistake.

But I suppose his Lordship may lay more stress upon his Account of a Sacrament, and his Application of it to vindicate the Cross, which therefore I shall also briefly consider.

To this purpose he acquaints us, ‘There are Three things necessary to make up a Sacrament.’

Accordingly the Bishop thinks me obliged to prove that These things concur in the Cross in Baptism, viz That the establisht Church teaches that the Cross is instituted by God to signifie some Spiritual Grace we expect from him, and that he has oblig'd himself by Promise to grant us that Spiritual Grace upon the use of the Cross, and will deprive us thereof if we neglect it.

Now to shew the insufficiency and weakness of this Answer, I need only suggest these two things.

I. The Bishop has in this Account of Sacraments o­mitted several of those uses and ends for which they were appointed, and particularly those from whence the force of this Argument is deriv'd. For he neither con­siders their being made representing signs to instruct us in the duties of the New Covenant, nor (which should have been chiefly observ'd) their being obliging signs to bind us to 'em, nor their being distinguishing badges of our Profession and Communion. And yet these are very [Page 74] important uses of those Foederal Rites of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and such as chiefly occasioned their being call'd Sacraments.

2. He expects I should prove that which my Argu­ment no way obliges me to, viz. That the establisht Church teaches, that God has oblig'd himself by Pro­mise to grant us some Spiritual Benefit upon our use of the sign of the Cross, and will deny that Benefit to all that neglect that sign. Now tho' he might justly have expected me to prove this, if I had said, That the establisht Church feigns the Cross to be a Sacrament of God's appointment, and uses it as such; yet 'tis evident from the foregoing Account, that 'tis unreasonable to expect it in what I call a Human Sacrament. For when I suppose it made a Human Sacrament, I intend no more, then that 'tis made a Sacrament as far as Men can make one of a Religious Rite of their own. Now they may make it a sacred Foederal Rite to oblige and bind themselves to God's service; tho' 'tis absurd to ex­pect they should make it a Rite to oblige God to confer his Benefits. And their setting it up to this former Sa­cramental use (as well as other uses aforementioned) is sufficient, as I have shewn him from his own Princi­ples, to make it a sinful Human Invention, as every part of Worship is that has no stamp of Divine Authority. So that I can easily allow the Bishop, without any pre­judice to my Argument, That to be a Seal of God's part of the Covenant, is so necessary to a true and Di­vine Sacrament, that what wants that, is but the life­less Image of one. But Men may presumptuously appoint Rites of their own to so many Sacramental uses as shall as truly render 'em Parts of Divine Worship as Divine Sacraments are, tho' they do not suppose God oblig'd to confer his Benefits on all that use them. And by doing so, they set up such vain Worship as our Sa­viour condemns, as only taught by the Precepts of Men, 15 Matth. 8, 9. compar'd with 29 Isai. 13. So that the Bishop here only cavils at the name of Human Sacraments, while he overlooks the plain force and stress of the Argument, which depends not on the Name [Page 75] at all, but on the Ʋses, for which the Cross is appoint­ed. And I have shew'd 'tis appointed for all but that one that necessarily supposes Divine Institution.

But because the Bishop now pretends to a Divine Warrant for the use of the Cross to those purposes for which he supposes it appointed by the establisht Church, 'tis requisite I should consider what he has offer'd on that Head.

II. The Bishop undertakes to shew, That the use of the Cross in Baptism is warranted by Scripture.

His Argument to prove this is drawn out to a consi­derable length, from p. 181. to p. 187. And that I may not wrong him in contracting it, I shall take this me­thod in what I shall offer against it.

First, I shall shew, That the Bishop's Argument does not reach the main use of the Cross, which he was con­cern'd to defend.

Secondly, I shall shew that the fame Argument will justifie many other Rites added by the Romish Church to Baptism, and other parts of Worship, which they have rejected as well as we.

Thirdly, I shall consider the distinct Propositions the Bishop has laid down, and shew where I judge the Ar­gument in 'em to be weak and unconcluding.

First, I shall shew that the Bishop's Argument does not reach the main use the Cross which he was concern'd to defend.

For he was chiefly oblig'd to defend the Cross's be­ing made a Dedicating sign, whereby we bind our selves to the service of Christ, and thereby a common distin­guishing Badge of our Christian Profession; whereas in his Argument he attempts to prove no more, than that the Scripture does warrant our using it as an In­structive sign to signifie or express this particular Duty of our Glorying in the sufferings of Christ. Now tho' I do not think he has produc'd us any clear Scriptural warrant for this very use of the sign of the Cross, yet if he had, what he has said falls very far short of justify­ing those two other more important uses of it, which are more peculiar to Foederal or Sacramental Rites, viz. [Page 76] It's being a Rite of Dedication to the Service of Christ, and thereby the Livery or Badge of the Christian Pro­fession.

Secondly, I shall shew that the Bishop's Argument will serve as well to justifie many other Rites which the Romish Church has added to Baptism and other parts of Worship.

As to Baptism, a Papist may from the Bishop's Ar­gument draw the following Plea for several other Ce­remonies added to it by the Roman Ritual; such as the Priests putting salt into the mouth of the Infant, his a­nointing his ears and nostrils with spittle, his putting a lighted Taper into the Infants or Godfathers hand, his put­ting a white Garment on him, &c.

‘We are oblig'd (saith the Bishop) to express the inward sense of our Minds concerning God by out­ward means, the Scriptures command to express it by our Actions as well as Words; as to these outward A­ctions, we are to use such as the general Custom of our Country has made significant in the like Cases. Thus because making the sign of the Cross is an Action, which universal Custom has applied to signifie our glorying in the sufferings of Christ, and 'tis proper to make a Profession of doing so in our Baptism, Therefore the Scriptures warrant our use of it in general, and parti­cularly at that time.’ Admon. p. 181, 182, 183.

Since then (may the Papists in Italy or Spain argue) 'tis our Duty to savour the things of God; To have our Lips season'd with Wisdom and Grace; To open our Ears to the Doctrine of Christ as becomes his Disciples; To pre­serve our Garments clean by immaculate Purity of Life, that we may appear faultless before the Tribunal of Christ; To walk in the Light by a blameless observance of our Bap­tismal Vows, that we may with the wise Virgins be admit­ted to the Heavenly Nuptials; Nay, since 'tis as proper to make a Profession of all this in our Baptism, as of Glorying in the sufferings of Christ: And since the Scrip­tures warrant us to make that Profession not only by Words, but also by such Actions as the Ʋniversal custom of our Country has made significant to those Ʋses, we are [Page 77] thereby warranted to use all the Rites forementioned in the Celebration of Baptism, since by the universal custom of our Country, See Rit. Rom. they are applied to signifie our obligation to these undoubted Duties of Christianity.

Nay, the Bishop's Argument will go farther: For since 'tis as lawful to profess our Glorying in the suffer­ings of Christ in other parts of Religious Worship as in Baptism, and universal custom has applied this Action to signifie our doing so, why do we not imitate, instead of blaming the Papists, for their so frequently crossing themselves in all their Devotions? Or rather, since the Scriptures command us to express the inward religious sense of our Minds by Actions; nay, since (as the Bi­shop asserts) Scripture-Presidents, not only warrant but oblige us to use such actions as well as words, as by univer­sal custom signifie our glorying in the sufferings of Christ. How come we to lay aside so pious a custom, so com­mendable, nay so necessary an Expression of our devout respect to a crucified Saviour, which we are not only warranted but oblig'd to use?

Nay, as the Romish Church has in other parts of Di­vine Worship introduc'd a great number of Actions or Rites to express some part or other of our Christian Du­ty or Devotion, and those Actions are rendred significant to that purpose by universal custom among those of that Church, 'tis plain by this Argument, that all those Rites are warranted by Scripture, and our first Reformers seem to have been very unreasonable in their Rejection of 'em. So that this loose way of Reasoning will serve to worse purposes than I hope his Lordship ever design'd it: For it will altogether as well fit the mouth of a Papist, for justifying his observance of most of those numerous Rites and Ceremonies (or in his Lordship's language, significant Actions) which their Church has enjoyn'd, as it does his for justifying the Cross in Bap­tism. If the Bishop should pretend that the numerousness of those Rites is the only fault of 'em, he would do well to acquaint us where we may stop, what number of 'em is innocent, and what becomes sinfully excessive.

Thirdly, I come to examine the Propositions the Bi­shop has laid down for proving the use of the Cross in Baptism to be warranted by Scripture, and shew where­in I think his Argument in 'em weak and unconclu­ding.

That we are, according to Proposition the first, to ex­press our inward Reverence or Worship of God by outward Means, such as Praise, Prayer, &c. will be freely grant­ed.

That we are, according to Proposition the second and third, to express that inward Worship in general, by such bodily Gestures, as either nature or civil custom di­rect us to, and render most fit to represent and testifie it to others by, will be also own'd. But I cannot so easily grant, That the Scriptures warrant our expres­sing the sense of our Minds in all Religious Things or Matters by significant Actions. The particular Duties we owe to God are almost numberless; and if we were warranted by Scripture to express the Thoughts and Sense of our Mind, as to each of 'em, by some signifi­cant Rite and Ceremony, the Romish Church would be sufficiently authoriz'd by Scripture in her introducing such a load of significant Rites and Ce­remonies into Christian Religion,Admon. p. 181. espe­cially if (as the Bishop observes) such significant Actions be more effectual, and sincere expressions of the sense of our Minds then words.

Tho' then the Scriptures enjoyn Bodily Worship in general, and consequently warrant all such devout Po­stures as either nature or civil custom has taught us to express it by, as bowing, prostration, kneeling, standing, and (in these parts of the world) the mens being unco­ver'd, yet they do not warrant us to contrive distinct significant Actions to express each distinct part of in­ward Worship, as one to express our Faith in God, ano­ther to express our Love to him, another our Hope, ano­ther our subjection to his Authority, another our resigna­tion to his disposal, another our dread of his Justice, &c. So tho' we may testifie our Worship of Christ as the In­carnate Word, by the forementioned Postures of Devo­tion, [Page 79] yet the Scriptures no where warrant our contri­ving one significant Action or Rite to express but Be­lieving his Gospel, another to express our Reliance on the virtue of his Merits and Sacrifice, another to signifie out subjection to his Royal Authority, another to declare out glorying in his Cross or Sufferings. Besides the Religious Postures that are expressive of Worship in general, the Scriptures require no other External Rites as Signs of our particular respect to him, besides those of being Baptiz'd in his Name, and commemorating his Death by receiving the Bread and Wine as the sacred Memorials of it. Therefore,

As to the fourth and fifth Proposition, Tho' 'tis our duty to glory in the sufferings of Christ, yet the Scripture does not warrant (much less oblige us, as the Bishop adds) to contrive any particular Rite or Ceremony to signifie it, any more than to contrive such a Rite do signifie but be­lief of his Gospel, or dependance on his Mediation, or sub­jection to his Government. The Scriptures command our expressing our inward Worship by Reverence in our Bodily Postures, and consequently uncovering the Head is to us a Particular included in that general Precept. But the Scripture no where commands us to signifie this particular Duty of glorying in the sufferings of Christ by any External Rites, and therefore does not warrant a­ny particular Rite for that end; for that would have been to have left a Gap open for bringing in an endless Train of such significant Rites of our own devising, in­to Christian Religion, even such as would have made the Yoke of Christianity as heavy as that of Judaism once was.

As to the sixth and seventh Proposition, it plainly fol­lows from what has been suggested, That if the Scrip­ture neither oblige nor warrant us to contrive an Exter­nal Rite for signifying our glorying in the Cross of Christ, much less does it warrant our use of it in Baptism where there is an External Rite appointed by Christ himself, sufficiently expressive of the whole of our Duty to him. What if the same Authority that set up this very sign of the Cross, had appointed leaning on a material Cross, [Page 80] to signifie our Faith and Reliance on the Merits of a crucified Saviour, and kissing a Scepter to signifie our Homage to him as a King, &c. and had introduc'd these Rites into the Office of Baptism? Could they justly pretend the Scripture warranted them, because it enjoyns Faith in a crucified Saviour, and subjection to him as our exalted Head and Lord? And yet these would be as fit Actions to signifie these Duties, as the making that a cry sign to express our glorying in the sufferings of Christ. But the Scriptures have given no countenance to such foolish Inventions of our own, nor open'd any such door to our Fancies, which if indulg'd this way, will soon prove very fruitful in such Superstitious Devices; as the Church has learnt by the sad experience of so many A­ges, in which the multiplicity of such Rites (or in the Bishop's language significant Actions) had almost eaten out the Vitals of Religion.

For the eighth Proposition, I shall consider the parti­cular Instances of such significant Rites in religious Wor­ship, for which the Bishop produces Scriptural-Presidents, and by which he thinks this Ceremony of Crossing e­qually warranted.

For that of Christ's washing his Disciples feet. I can­not see what it should signifie to his purpose: For who doubts but Christ might teach his Disciples Humility, by practising before their eyes a common, but in him a most condescending Instance of it; or, that he might im­prove that occasion, (as he did almost all occurrents) to remind 'em of the Necessity of being wash'd in his Blood, or purify'd by his Grace. But what's this to our appoint­ing a new External Badge of our Dedication to Christ, besides that he has appointed already?

For the second Rite of Dipping entirely under Water in Baptism, if the Bp. had prov'd both that the words of the Apostle did certainly refer to the Practice of Dipping under Water, assigning this Spiritual signification to that particular Rite, and yet that the Christians of that Age had arbitrarily, and without any warrant from Christ or his Apostles, set up this Mode of Baptising as a reli­gious Rite, to signifie their obligation to die to sin, and [Page 81] live to righteousness, in conformity to the Death and Re­surrection of Christ, then indeed this Instance had sig­nified something to his purpose; but unless he prove both these Particulars, it signifies nothing.

And the same Answer may be applied to the next Rite, viz. The change of Cloaths. He should have first prov'd that the Apostles words do certainly refer to such a Religious Rite practis'd in Baptism to signifie our obligation to put off the old Man, and put on the new; and then prov'd this was a Rite meerly introdu'd by arbitrary custom, without any warrant from Christ.

For if the Apostles expressions refer to these two Rites as us'd to these purposes, it will be much more reasonable to conclude that they are a part of the Ordi­nance of Baptism, and consequently should still be re­tain'd and us'd by us; (unless we suppose that as to the former, that Maxim of our Saviour will warrant our Omission of it in this colder Climate, That God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice) And on this supposition the Bishop can draw no Argument from hence to his pur­pose.

For the Feasts of Charity and the Holy Kiss, I do not see that they were Religious Rites at all, but rather real Expressions of their mutual Charity. If the richer sort in a Congregation should on the Lord's Day invite the poor to Dinner, this would be such a real instance of their Love, (agreeable to our Saviour's advice about Feasting, Luke 14.12, 13, 14.) as those Feasts of Cha­rity were, but it would be no such symbol of their spiri­tual communion as their Feasting as the Table of the Lord is. And the same may most probably be said of the Holy Kiss, which being then a common instance of mu­tual Respect and Amity among Persons in their ordi­nary Assemblies, was therefore innocently continued in their Religious ones. As no doubt we may there pay the same Marks of our Respect and Friendship to each other when the Publick Worship is over that we do on o­ther occasions of meeting together. Nay, if we sup­pose these two to have been Religious Rites yet it will be then more reasonable to suppose they had a tempo­rary [Page 82] Institution, than that they had no other warrant than meer arbitrary custom. And upon either of these Suppositions there can be no shew of any Argument drawn from 'em, to prove that the Scripture warrants us to institute a Religious Rite of our own, as an ho­nourable Badge whereby we are dedicated to the service of a crucified Saviour, when Christ himself has instituted one for that use. For this is that which the Bishop was concern'd to produce a scriptural warrant for. And there­fore I may justly add here, that tho' the Bishop's Argu­ment had prov'd that the Scriptures warrant us to ex­press our glorying in the sufferings of Christ, by crossing our selves as the Primitive Christians did in their com­mon Conversation, yet this would not prove that they warrant us to use it as a Religious Rite in Baptism for our solemn Dedication to the Service of Christ, because that is a needless doing that over again by a Rite of our own devising, which is sufficiently done before by a Rite of Christ's Institution. Whereas this is the thing in question, and which to us looks like sinful Presump­tion.

But before I dismiss the Argument of the Bishop's, 'tis requisite I should consider those two significant Cere­monies among the Dissenters, which he thinks liable to the same Exceptions as the use of the Cross in Baptism, viz ‘Their giving their Children names at their Bap­tism, and giving Tickets to Communicants.’

For the former significant Ceremony, viz. ‘Of gi­ving names to Children at their Baptism, The Bishop tells us, it signifies their giving up their Names to Christ, and engaging 'em to be his Servants. So that our Names are a lasting Token and Badge to us of our Dedication to the Service of Christ, and an Obligation on us to behave our selves accordingly.’ Admon. p. 184.

Answ. It seems somewhat strange the Bishop should so positively assert; that we give our Children a Name at Baptism for any such purpose as this. For we use it not as any Religious Ceremony at all, much less as an External Sign or Token of giving up their Names to Christ, [Page 83] and engaging 'em to be his Servants. This is all suggested by his own fancy without any ground; for we know of no other use of this practice in Baptism, then that the Person baptiz'd may be notified to the Congregation, by being call'd by his Name. And for the Bishop's remark on God's giving Abraham a new Name at his Circumci­sion, in allusion to the custom of Masters giving their Ser­vants a new name upon their admission into their Families; besides that, 'tis asserted without any proof, (there being no such reason, but a different one, assign'd by God him­self, for changing his Name from Abram to Abraham, 17 Gen. 4, 5.) yet if it were true, I know not what use it can be to his purpose: for if he would infer from it, That this is a Scriptural warrant for giving Names to Chil­dren at Baptism, as a Token of their Admission into God's Family, he makes it a significant Ceremony of God's own appointment, and consequently can draw no Argument from it, to justifie the use of the Cross as a Ceremony arbitrarily appointed by Men, to signifie their Dedication to Christ.

For the other significant Ceremony, which the Bishop saith, the Dissenters have added to the Lord's Supper, and which he desires 'em to reflect on, viz. Giving of Tickets to such as are to be admitted thereto. 'Tis, I con­fess, a very dangerous one, in which he has found out a­bundance of very strange and mysterious significations. For in this Ceremony he tells us, ‘There is an outward and visible Sign, a Ticket. Secondly, An inward Spiri­tual Grace, our Aptitude and Title to the Lord's Supper and Communion of Saints, found upon our Examina­tion when we receive the Ticket. Thirdly, 'Tis a Badge and Token whereby priviledg'd Members are distin­guish'd from those that are without. Lastly, 'Tis a sort of necessary Term of Communion, since those that neg­lect this Badge, shall not be admitted to the Sacrament.’

Answ. If all these wonderful spiritual significations as­sign'd to this poor Ticket prove meerly the product of the Bishop's Imagination, then I hope there can be no Argument drawn from it to patronise the Cross. The Ticket is I confess an outward and visible sign, but I could [Page 84] never learn before that it was a sign of any thing more, then that the Person that brought it, was allow'd by the Minister to Communicate at that time, and did not in­trude there without his permission. But how it should come to signifie a Man's qualifications for Receiving, or his title to any spiritual Benefits that belong to worthy Communicants, is very hard to conceive. All that can be said of it is, that 'tis probable the Minister would not have given him leave to Communicate by giving him a Ticket, if he had not known him to be a Member of his own or some other Congregation. And the Bishop far­ther mistakes in making the Ticket a Badge to distinguish priviledg'd Members from those that are without; for there may be many present as spectators at Communions that are Members, and have not Tickets at present, because they do not at present Receive. Nor would any Man's having a Ticket secure his Admission, if he were known to be no Member of that or some other Congregation. Nay, the Ticket is no necessary Term of Communion nei­ther, since no man that is a noted Member of that, or any other Congregation, would be refus'd, tho' he should have no Ticket, or left it behind him. It's plain, that the giving those Tickets is a circumstance that genuinely falls within the Apostles Rule of doing all things decently and in order. Now in such multitudes as in the North of I­reland ordinarily frequent their Communions, there can­not be a more easie and orderly expedient to distinguish the Communicants from meer Spectators, and prevent any Persons from intruding into the Communion of par­ticular Churches without leave, then this of giving Tick­ets to such as they allow to Receive at that time. So that the general Rule of Scripture foremention'd, does ob­lige 'em to use this or some other method of the like kind; for the decent and orderly celebration of that Holy Insti­tution, and preventing the contrary confusion and disorder. But I hope the Bishop will not pretend, that Baptism can­not be decently and orderly perform'd without using the sign of the Cross, as an Honourable Badge whereby the Person baptiz'd is dedicated to the service of a crucified Sa­viour, and therefore the Cross, is no way warranted by [Page 85] that rule of order and decency, as the forementioned cu­stom evidently is. If indeed this perillous Ticket had had a Cross upon it, and the Persons that brought it were order'd to wear it upon their Breasts or Foreheads as a sign whereby they publickly profest their Remembrance of and renewed Dedication of themselves to the service of a crucified Saviour, as the adult Members of his Church, the Bishop might then have had some pretence to have compar'd these two customs together. But as they are really practis'd, there is no more resemblance between 'em, then between a prudential Mode of ordering Christs own Institution in general necessary, and vertually inclu­ded in his own Rule of order, and an unnecessary Religi­ous Rite unwarrantably added by Man, to Christ's In­stitution, to some of the same uses as he had appointed another already; and any one that pleases may easily discern a wide difference between these two.

I shall only add here, that as the Bishop has fail'd of producing us any clear Scriptural warrant for the Cross, (and consequently ought by his own Rule on that very score to discard it as a Human Invention) so he has not so much as attempted to vindicate that other Human In­vention of Godfathers and Godmothers, set up to exclude the Publick Promise of Parents, for the pious Education of their own Children, and to enter into rash Vows, which few ever perform, which I take to be the more dangerous corruption of the two. See Remarks p. 167, 168, 169.

As to the Bishop's Conclusion I shall only observe,

1. I do not find that he has made good his Charge of Human Inventions against the Dissenters in any one par­ticular instance of their Worship, notwithstanding all the assurance wherewith he had asserted, Disc. p 187. That they were so strangely misled as to content themselves to meet to­gether, perhaps for some years with a design to worship God, when one could hardly ever see any thing of God's immediate appointment in their Meetings. For this the Bp. there saith, was manifestly the case of the Dissenters in his thoughts. And he still takes the same for granted, Admon. p. 188. That the worship of Dissenters has no express warrant of [Page 86] Scripture for it. And now to advance so terrible and comprehensive a Charge, and not prove the Truth of it in any one particular Instance, seems to us a very unad­vised, as well as a very uncharitable attempt. Nay, 'tis strange, that (except that of Crossing) he has not so much as endeavour'd to vindicate one practice of the establisht Church from his own Arguments when retorted upon himself.

2. Since the Bishop threatens us, if the Matters of Fact be disputed, to produce his Vouchers and Authorities, we must now desire him either to do so, or own those Mi­stakes whereby he has highly injur'd the Reputation of his Brethren. And I hope he will take care that the Te­stimony of his Vouchers be as credible as that of those I have produc'd. And he need not spare to produce 'em out of tenderness to the Dissenters of his Diocese, for they desire no other tenderness in this point, besides that of speaking nothing but Truth of 'em.

3. I think his Caution against the Remarks which he here gives very unfair, unless he had prov'd, instead of barely asserting, That my Arguments are not founded on Scripture, and that my Answers to his Proofs contradict the Letter of Scripture. I hope his Lordship will excuse us, tho' we are unwilling to take all this for granted on no other e­vidence than his bare word.

Lastly, I hope he will find nothing in these Papers contrary to a spirit of meekness, or savouring of passion, And tho' the Dissenters of his Diocese, cannot carry their civility to so high a strain as to thank him for his Book, as he does them for the entertainment they have given it, yet they can readily comply with his Request to 'em, Not to be offended with him for telling 'em the truth. For the chief offence they took at his Book, was not his reason­ing against their Opinions and Practices, but his giving so untrue an Account of 'em. And therefore they cannot altogether assent to what his Lordship insinuates in these following words: ‘Remember nothing is more apt to provoke Mankind then Truth. And if you meet with any Book in Answer to mine, that discovers the writer to have been in a Passion when he wrote it, you may [Page 87] look on it as a probable Argument of the truth of what I have propos'd. And if upon reading what I have wrote, you find any motion in your selves towards Passion, consider well whether it proceed not from the same cause, namely my declaring the truth to you.’ For they think there is one thing more apt to provoke even the mildest and best of Men, and that is, to be unjustly accur'd to the world, and yet, when the Accuser is admonisht of his mistakes, to have the Accusation renew'd, and be ap­peal'd to themselves as Evidences for what they as cer­tainly know to be untrue, as they know their own Judg­ment and Practice. For in this case they think it no pro­bable Argument of Guilt in the accused, if they should express some just displeasure against such ill usage. And yet I hope he will find even this extraordinary provoca­tion has not drawn out any language that looks like passion. But yet as the Bp. expects we should allow plain-dealing to be a part of his character, so I hope he will not deny us the same liberty of dealing plainly with him, not only in vindicating our Opinions and Practices where we think his objections against 'em invalid, but especially in clearing both from such misrepresentations as we think manifestly groundless and injurious, and in desiring an ingenuous Retraction of 'em, as an act which a regard to Justice as well as Truth should prompt him to. For common Justice forbids our ascribing to our Brethren Opinions and Practices which are none of theirs; nay, it forbids our receiving and publishing mistaken Accounts of 'em, from the informations of others, when a little care and diligence might have enabled us to discover the fals­hood of 'em. And consequently the same Principle should prompt us to do right to the Reputation of our Brethren, when we have, thro' our unwary credulity, or in the heat of opposition spoken or written of 'em what is not true, and yet what if believ'd, would tempt others to very un­just and uncharitable apprehensions of their Judgment and Practice. And when his Lordship has given the Dissenters of his Diocese this evidence of his Justice to­wards 'em, they will then be more ready to believe his sincerity in studying their good.

And now if these Papers contribute any thing to recon­cile his Lp. and those whom his Book and Admonition may have misled, to more charitable thoughts of our Worship, and to caution us in such Debates as these to be more strict in observing that excellent Rule of the Apostles, To speak the truth in love, Eph. 4.15. I shall not think my pains in writing 'em wholly lost. For tho' in the Matters in dispute between us, it becomes every good man as to his own practice, to adhere impartially to the rule of the Holy Scriptures as far as he understands it; yet nothing is more plain, then that those great Truths and Duties of Christianity wherein we are agreed, are of incomparably greater moment and importance than those wherein we differ. And as 'tis our unity in those more important Truths and Duties that chiefly recommends us to the acceptance of our blessed Lord; so that alone is sufficient to endear us to one another; and for those smaller Differences among us that are so fully consistent with a happy Ʋnity in these essentials of our Religion, however they may now distin­guish us into Parties, yet they can never be reasonably thought to exclude the Churches on either side from the Communion of the Church Catholick; much less will they exclude the truly pious Members on either side from the Heavenly Society. How little then should those Differences tend to disunite our affections, or to obstruct our amicable endeavours to advance the common Interest of Practical Holiness? how should we rejoyce to see that blessed work prosper in each others hands? how entirely should Chari­ty govern all our debates in the points wherein we dis­agree, and make us unwilling to misrepresent each others opinions or practices, when we calmly reason against 'em? how strongly should it prompt us to treat each other in all respects as brethren, in whom we behold the image of our great Master stampt, tho' we may not see the inscription of this or that party, which we judge to be the most happily reform'd, or the best constituted and modell'd? how much more zealous should we be to proselyte Men to the substance and power of Religion, then to any external Modes of Worship and Discipline? And how heartily should we joyn in that Apostolical Benediction, Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, Amen. 6 Eph. 24.