A vindication of the remarks on the Bishop of Derry's discourse about human inventions from what is objected against them in the admonition annext to the second edition of that discourse by the author of the remarks.

A VINDICATION OF THE Remarks, &c.

In this Admonition of the Biſhops we may conſider the Introduction, The Three Heads he propoſes to give an Account of: And The Reflections he adds on ſome Paſſages in the Remarks.

IN the Introduction his Lordſhip is 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 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.

We can give no Account how many perſons the Biſhop has examin'd, but we know ſeveral whom he did examine that had the Aſſemblies Catechiſm, and could both give an account of it and repeat it, but would not, partly becauſe they heard him ſo enveigh againſt it, that they judg'd he queſtion'd 'em rather to affront than edifie 'em; and partly becauſe they were not free to ſubject themſelves to an Examination he pretended to make as their Paſtor. But to evidence how little ground he had to ſuppoſe 'em ſo generally ignorant of their Catechiſm. If we may be allow'd to judge of other Congregations in the Dioceſe by thoſe two in in the Pariſh of Temple-more (alias Derry) where he reſides, and may be ſuppos'd to have examin'd the greateſt number. We can on good grounds affirm there are in thoſe two Congregations 600 who can give a good account of and repeat the Aſſembly's Catechiſm: And we know of few in any of our Congregations that cannot repeat the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments.

Now if this Account of their own Miniſters, who ſhould be beſt acquainted with their own People, be true, the Biſhop's Account is abſolutely incredible, unleſs he has taken ſome extraordinary pains to pick out the moſt ignorant Diſſenters of his Dioceſe, that by them he might pretend to judge of the reſt. But any one that conſiders the genius of that People, and their particular diſſatisfaction with his Lordſhip, will be eaſily 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.

2. He computes, that there being but nine Meetings in the Dioceſe, (and taking one Meeting-houſe and one Lord's-day with another) not 300 at each Meeting, and there being 30000 Diſſenters in the Dioceſe, Admon. p. 136. it may be thence concluded, that only one in ten, or thereabouts, go to worſhip God any where on the Lord's-day. And this he profeſſes was a great grief to him.

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

In the Pariſh of Temple-more, alias Derry, there are two Meetings, in which there will be found above 2400. who ordinarily worſhip God every Lord's-day. For tho' every one of theſe does not attend every Lord's-day, becauſe ſome of 'em muſt be left to ſecure their houſes, yet theſe and more are ordinary Hearers, as the Miniſters of thoſe two Congregations can undeniably prove by their Examination Rolls. Nay, the leaſt Congregation among us are ordinarily 600, and ſome above a 1000, that do worſhip God every Lord's-day together. So that where Miniſters are ſettled in Pariſhes, we do not know of one in 20, that do not ordinarily attend on publick worſhip. And for thoſe which the Biſhop ſaith have not been at any publick worſhip theſe ſeven years, we know none ſuch of our Communion. And for thoſe places that are not furniſht with Miniſters, the Miniſters that are ſetled ſupply 'em as frequently as their work in their own Congregations can allow.

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

3. The Biſhop pretends that his Book contains an Anſwer to what he found objected by thoſe of the Diſſenters, Admon. p. 137. that he convers'd with againſt the ordinary Lords-day worſhip in the eſtabliſht Church, and that he confin'd himſelf to what he had ſeen and known to be their Opinion and Practice.

Anſ. 'Tis evident by Mr. Craghead's Reply to his Diſcourſe, which Taxes him with the ſame Calumnies as the Remarks, that if thoſe Diſſenters he 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 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, 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 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 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.

But the moſt ſad and deplorable defect of your performance of this Duty, is the caſting out the reading of the word of God from moſt of your publick Aſſemblies, directly contrary to God's Inſtitution and Ordinance for the Inſtruction of his Church; inſomuch, that in many of your Meetings, ſetting aſide a Verſe or Two for a Text or Quotation at the Diſcretion of the Teacher, the Word of God is never publickly heard among them; this is matter of Fact and undeniable. And in all the Meetings of the North of Ireland, in a whole year perhaps there is not ſo much Scripture read as in one Day in our Church, by the ſtricteſt Enquiry I could make, Diſc. p. 83, 84. And ib. p. 84. The Diſſenters baniſh the word of God out of their Meetings.—Sure 'tis a ſad thing, That a Man may go to moſt Meetings many years, and never hear one entire Chapter read in them.

'Tis here obvious, That his main and poſitive Accuſation is, That the Diſſenters have caſt the reading of the Word of God out of moſt of their Meetings, That ſetting aſide a verſe or two for a Text or Quotation at the Diſcretion of the Teacher, the Voice of God is in many of them never 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 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 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 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 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 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.

1. He propoſes a Summary of the Principles of our Chriſtian Religion, drawn rather from the Kalendar than from the Apoſtles Creed, of which ſeveral Articles are omitted, becauſe his Lordſhip could find no Holy-days for 'em.

2. He tells us their Miniſters have a certain time appointed every year for Teaching each of theſe Myſteries.

3. That there lies no Obligation on the Diſſenting Miniſters to go thro' theſe Myſteries in any ſuch time, nor in their whole lives.

4. That he could not find upon Examination that their Miniſters had done it.

5. See Adm. p. 145, 146, 147. He pretends that I endeavour to excuſe this by putting him to produce Scriptural Command relating to it.

Now I would deſire him to review this, and tell us whether it 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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, (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 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 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 give him the following Demonſtration of it, in reference to the Congregations that belong to the Meeting of Antrim, ſent me by the Reverend M. W. Adair Miniſter of the Town of Antrim.

I take Carn-caſtle, which is the moſt remote Congregation ſave one Northward in our Meeting, and within twelve miles they may Communicate at Glanarm, Blade, Ballimanoch, Coymer, Ballyraſton, Ballyclare, Carmony, Dunagor, Lorn, I. Macgee, Broad-Iſland, Caricfergus twice, Temple-Patrick, and Carn-caſtle it ſelf. In all fifteen times.

I take Belfaſt, which is the fartheſt of our Meeting Southward, and I ſuppoſe within twelve miles they may yearly Communicate above twenty times; viz. at Belfaſt twice, at Caricfergus twice, Antrim twice, Holywood, Knock, Kirk-donold, Newton, Cumber, Killinchy, Donachadee, Tonochneer, Danmurry, Lisbon, Annahilt, Bangor, Carmony, Temple-Patrick, Ballyclare, Ballyraſton, Dunnagor, upper Killade, lower Killade, Broad-Iſland, (which is within 11 miles.) In all 26 times.

You may eaſily conceive that many places, or almoſt all in our Meeting which are towards the Centre, can have the Sacrament as often at leaſt, and generally oftner than at Carn-caſtle.

So that this Matter of Fact is true beyond all Exception, as I have aſſerted it, concerning the generality of their Meetings. And I am no way 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 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 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 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.

WE the under-ſubſcribers having perus'd theſe Papers of the Reverend Mr. Joſeph Boyſe, drawn up in Anſwer to that part of the Biſhop of Derry's Admonition which concerns the practice of the Proteſtant Diſſenters in this Dioceſe of Derry, do declare, Thoſe Informations which we have given him relating to it, and to which he here refers, to be true; and hereby atteſt 'em as ſuch to the World, in order to our juſt Vindication from the miſrepreſentation made of thoſe Matters of Fact by the Biſhop of Derry.

Robert Craghead Miniſter of Derry. Andr. Ferguſon Miniſter of Burt. Will. Homes Minister of Strabane.

And for his Lordſhip's farther ſatisfaction, Whereas one of the moſt remarkable differences between his account and theirs, relates to the frequency of Celebrating the Lord's-Supper (his account ſuppoſing them guilty of very ſcandalous negligence) the Reverend Mr. Craghead has now in his hands, and is ready to produce whenever his Lordſhip deſires it, particular Teſtimonials of this Account now given under the Hands of the Elders, and other Communicants of each Meeting. Nay, ſince the difference is moſt remarkable in reference to Derry 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.

WE the under-named Subſcribers having heard and read of ſeveral things charged on the People of the Presbyterian perſwaſion of this City and Suburbs, now under the Pastoral charge and care of the Reverend Mr. Robert Craghead, and formerly of the Reverend Mr. Robert Rule, for the honouring the great God who is a God of Truth; and in oppoſition to all thoſe that have endeavour'd to poſſeſs the minds of ſuch as are Strangers to us, by ſpeaking or writing contrary to Truth; We do hereby certifie and give under our Hands, and are ready to make it farther appear, if need be, upon Oath, that from the time of our being under the charge and care of Mr. Robert Rule, as our Pastor, which commenc't about the Year 1672. till the time of his being neceſſarily call'd to go for Scotland, which was A. D. 1688. we had the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper duly Administred by him once a year in his Congregation; excepting thoſe wherein we were violently hindred by the ſeverity of Perſecution. And more particularly that the Reverend Mr. Robert Rule Administred that ſolemn Ordinance of the Lord's Supper to us in this place, in May 1687, and in April 1688. ſoon after which we were deſolate of any fixed Minister, till it pleaſed the Lord our now Reverend Pastor, Mr. Craghead, was fix'd among us in the year 1690; and he has ſince then Administred this Sacrament in this Congregation the 12th day of July 1691. On the 24th of July 1692. On the 14th day of May 1693. And on the 22d day of July 1694. The cauſe of our knowledge hereof is, that we were Members of this Congregation, and did then partake of that Ordinance. And we deſire this may be compar'd with what is aſſerted in a Book, Entitled, An Admonition to the Diſſenting Inhabitants of the Dioceſe of Derry, &c. p. 153. In Testimony of the Truth whereof we have hereunto ſet our Hands at London-Derry the 25th of September, 1694.

Henry Long, Mayor. Alexander Lekey, Mayor Elect. James Wilſon. Hugh Davey. Hugh Eadie. Edward Brooks. James Lenox. Horas Kennedy. Robert Harvey. Andrew Garven. Alexander Gourdon. John Cowan. Will. Mackie. John Harvey.

And ſure if the Biſhop's 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.

1. There is no expreſs Covenant order'd in the Directory, to be made in the name of the Child Baptiz'd, either by the Parent or any elſe, tho' there be no other way of engaging a Child that cannot Covenant for it ſelf.

2. There is no Profeſſion of the Chriſtian Faith required in the Directory from any Parent or Offerer of any Child.

3. There is no ſolemn Recognition of the Vow of Baptiſm required from Perſons Baptiz'd in their Infancy, when they come to underſtand their Duty. As it is in Confirmation with us.

4. The expreſs words of the Covenant, are not preſcribed out of the Word of God, but is left to the Diſcretion of every Miniſter, to impoſe what he will on the Baptiz'd, &c.

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 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 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 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) 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 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉 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 '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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

Firſt, An outward viſible ſign inſtituted by God, ſignifying ſome Spiritual Grace we expect from him.

Secondly, An Obligation on God by ſome Promiſe of his to grant us that Spiritual Grace or Benefit whenever we duly uſe the viſible Sign.

Thirdly, Our uſe of this viſible Sign, without which we are not to expect the Spiritual Benefit if we wilfully neglect it.

Accordingly the Biſhop thinks me obliged to prove that Theſe things concur in the Croſs in Baptiſm, viz That the 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 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 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. 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 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, 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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.