A reply to Mr. Increase Mather's printed remarks on a sermon preached by G.K. at Her Majesty's Chappel in Boston, the 14th of June, 1702. In vindication of the six good rules in divinity there delivered. Which he hath attempted (though very feebly and unsuccessfully) to refute. / By George Keith, M.A. Keith, George, 1639?-1716. Approx. 90 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 35 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI : 2005-03. N00926 N00926 Evans 1109 APW4040 1109 99009999

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 1109. (Evans-TCP ; no. N00926) Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 1109) Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 1109) A reply to Mr. Increase Mather's printed remarks on a sermon preached by G.K. at Her Majesty's Chappel in Boston, the 14th of June, 1702. In vindication of the six good rules in divinity there delivered. Which he hath attempted (though very feebly and unsuccessfully) to refute. / By George Keith, M.A. Keith, George, 1639?-1716. 35, [1] p. ; 19 cm. Printed and sold by William Bradford at the Bible in New-York,, [New York] : 1703.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Mather, Increase, 1639-1723. -- Some remarks on a late sermon, preached at Boston in New England ... Keith, George, 1639?-1716. -- Doctrine of the holy apostles & prophets the foundation of the Church of Christ. Society of Friends. Church of England -- Doctrinal and controversial works. 2004-03 Assigned for keying and markup 2004-07 Keyed and coded from Readex/Newsbank page images 2004-08 Sampled and proofread 2004-09 Re-keyed and coded from Readex/Newsbank page images 2004-10 Sampled and proofread 2004-10 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

A REPLY To Mr. Increase Mather's Printed Remarks ON A SERMON Preached by G.K. at Her Majesty's Chappel in Boston, the 14th of June, 1702.

In Vindication of the Six good Rules in Divinity there delivered.

Which he hath attempted (though very Feebly and Unsuccessfully) to Refute.

By George Keith, M. A.

Printed and Sold by William Bradford at the Bible in New-York, 1703.

A Reply to Mr. Increase Mather's Remarks, &c.

THE Occasion of the Author of those Remarks, his publishing them in Print, was, as he declares in pag. . That he was importuned by some, who are scandalized by that Discourse, to anni •• advert upon it. To which I say, That on my thorow perusal of his Remarks, I do not find that he hath discovered any one thing therein that can be said to give any just scandal to any. The first part of my Sermon, that goeth before the Rules, he hath said nothing against, and in Charity I judge he hath nothing against it.

Pag. 1. Sect. 1. He saith, The Author, instead of keeping to his Text, 〈◊〉 to the Doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, hath obtruded upon us Notions of his own, which e alls Good Rules in Divinity, but every one of them, if not taken with grains of Salt, are unsavoury Divinity.

Answ. Seeing all this is said, without proof, I shall not regard it, but recommend what is contained in those Rules to every well informed Conscience of those that have read, or may happen to read them, (and who hall compare them with what he hath said against them, and with what I say in vindication of them) whether I have not well kept to my Text, and also to the Doctrine of the holy Prophets & Apostles. If what I have delivered, as touching those Rules, taste Unsavoury to him, and others of his Taste, vitiated by the Prejudice of Education and Male Information, I am sorry for their Distemper; but neither his not any other Mens Taste whatsoever is the proper Test or Touch-stone, where-by to judge of true or false Rules i Divinity, but the alone proper Test and Touch-stone in the case, is Gods holy Word contained in the holy Scriptures, to which, in this as in all other things of Religion, I submit to fair Tryal. But to make Mens Taste their Rule of Judgment, savours too much of Quakerism, as indeed do not 〈◊〉 few other things delivered by the Author in his Remarks.

But before I further proceed, I desire the Impartial Readers to observe a great inconsistency (as appears to me in the Author of those Remarks. F ••• t, That in pag. . he calls the Rules given by me, Notions o my own, I have 〈◊〉 upon them.— And yet, in pag. 2. he tells, That I have not said any thing out what crambe bis cocta, said by others, and has been answered more than Twenty Times. Now, how he can call those six Rules My own Notions I obtrude upon the People of New-England, and yet all of them said by others, before me, more than Twenty times, do not understand for what we call a Mans own Notions, we commonly attribute to his own vention However, I am glad the Author doth not give me the hono r of inventing them, or of the first discovery of them, as indeed I am not; for as they are all well grounded on holy Scripture (notwithstanding what this Author hath said to the contrary) so I freely acknowledge I have found the Substance and Matter of them all in the Pious Works 〈◊〉 divers Pious and Learned Teachers of the Church of England, to whose Piety and Learning I presume, in Cha i y, the Author of the Remarks, will not compare himself, in way of Equality. And what if these Rules have been above twenty times answered? so have good Protestant Principles of true Divinity maintained by the most Pious and Learned Protestant Writers, been above twenty times answered by popish Authors, but o as little purpose, and with as feeble Arguments as this Author of the Remarks has answered those six Rules. We are not to Notice, Quoties or quam Mult m, how oft or how much Men have answered to Books or Discourses that they dis-relish, but Quam bene et quam vere, i.e. how well and how truly.

Pag. 1. Whereas he saith, This Writer has not long since been famous for orrupting many in the Fundamentals of Religion, in which he has seen and renounced his Errors

I Answer: That I am not at present conscious, nor do I remember that ever I corrupted any one in the Fundamentals of Religion, as they are commonly reckoned by Christian Protestant Authors, that is, such Doctrines of Faith and Precepts of holy Life as are essential and necessary to Salvation, so as no Man can be saved without them; these are commonly reckoned Fundamental by Protestant Authors, and all th se, to 〈◊〉 , all the Articles of the Apostles Creed, and all the Contents of the Decalogue, with many other Gospel Precepts, together with the Promises and Threatning thereof, and also the Contents and Words of the Lords Prayer, I did Piously and Devoutly imbrace all the time of my being under the Profession of a Quaker, and carefully taught them, in the time that I had a School, both in England and Pennsilvania, to the School-Boyes, and caused them get them by heart; and I think it will be a work too hard for this Author, in any of my Books published by me, when under the Profession of a Quaker, to find that I had corrupted any as touching one Fundamental of the Christian Religion. And not only [as I humbly conceive] held all the Fundamental Articles and Precepts, as aforesaid, that may be called Fundamental, but also many others belonging to the Super str cture, as the Integrals thereof; I do not say this to extenuate or excuse my too many Errors I was too much leavened with, which were Wood, Hay and Stubble I built on the Foundation; and I thank my most merciful and gracious God, that has given me both Eyes to see those Errors where withal I had been corrupted, and be d instrumental to corrupt others, and an heart to Repent of them, and freely to confess and Retract them, and be zealously concerned to Rescue others from them, so far, as by the blessing and Grace of God I might be instrumental therein. But had I been guilty of the Author's Charge it looks not so very Christian in the Author, that after I have found Grace of God to Repent of them, and his Merciful Forgiveness, [as I trust I have] to bring up my former Errors to Remembrance, with an in •• nuation as if my Repentance had not been sincere, or at least, that I have brought my self [since I left my former Errors] under a new Guilt of a very deep stain; for though he seems to praise me on the account of Renouncing my former Errors, as worthy of Commendation, yet he comes immediately after with a severe Sentence against me, saying, Nevertheless it seems by the Publication of his present pretended Sentiments, he arms at gaining a Reputation by endeavours to seduce other Men from the Truth, in matters relating to that Order of the Gospel which is of divine Institution. So that by his Uncharitable account I am a 〈◊〉 still, for Preaching and publishing those six Rules. But since the ablest and best Men in the Church of England both for Piety and Learning, in neither of which the Author, I think, will presume to equal himself, [by his own confession] have taught and published those very Rules, he must either assoil me, or own those worthy Persons, as Mr. Hooker, Dr. Sanderson, &c. and all those excellent Divines of the Church of England, who have published those Learned and Pious Treatises of the London Cases, of late collected into one Volumn, to be equally guilty with me, or rather far more guilty by means of whom, I freely confess, I have been enlightned (as I hope also that God has internally enlightned me by his holy Spirit to understand, assent and believe them to be true and good, notwithstanding of all the Author's busling against them. But is the Author's Charity 〈◊〉 scanty, that he will not allow others to differ from him so much as about what he himself calls the Circumstantials of Religion, as he is pleased to call those Rules, but presently he must pass Sentence upon them all however so Pious and Learned, many or most of them have been, and are beyond him in Piety and Learning, as a company of Seducers, endeavouring to seduce Men from the Truth, in Matters relating to the Order of the Gospel, which is of divine Institution. At this rate not one Man shall differ from the Author, in what he calls the Circumstantials of Religion, but he shall stigmatize him with the infamous Character of a Seducer. I heartily with him and all his Brethren, of the same Alloy, more Christian Tenderness and Charity.

Pag. 2. After his having repeated the first Rule, viz. Whatsoever is enjoyned by our Superiors, if it contradict not Gods Commands in holy Scripture, ought for Conscience sake to be Obeyed, according to 1 Pet. . 13, 14. Rom. 13. 5. Heb. 13. 7. 17. And if what they e joyn is not made a Command of God, or an Article of Faith, or a Means of Grace; he adds, First, Such a Rule as this would do very well among Papists.

I Answer: It would indeed do so very well among them, that it would in great part, if notwholly Reform them from Popery, and bring them over to true Christian & Protestant Principles, did they well observe & Practise it. I observe, it is a fault too frequent with such Men as this Author, to use this Policy, that what they cannot Refute with fair Argument, to brand it with Popery, as one hath fulsomly done, in that called, A brief Discourse concerning the Unlawfulness of the Common Prayer Worship, printed in New-England, supposed by some to be this Authors, which hath been, I judge, effectually answered by a Worthy Divine of the Church of England, whose Answer I have read to my great Edifi-cations.

But what saith the Author to Refute the said first Rule? Why! It doth not very well agree (he aith) with the Apostles Rule, who taught Christians not to use their lawful liberty, when the use thereof cannot be without S •• ndal, Rom. 14. 22. He saith further, That the said 〈◊〉 implyes that the Determination of Superiour will take away the six of Scandal, and make it a Duty for a Man to offend his Brother.

Answ. Nothing he here hath said doth in the least prove my Rule to be false; for the Limitations expressed in it, sufficiently guard it against This, and all his other Exceptions, which are Digressions from the proper Subject of Dispute. If what Superiors enjoyn give just cause of Scandal, all that is contradictory to what God commands, which is 〈◊〉 express Limitation in the Rule given. I suppose the Author is not so ignorant in the Casuist Divinity, but he has learned the distinction of of Scandal, into datum et acceptum, i.e. into Scandal given & received: A Scandal may be received, and yet not justly given, and where it is not justly given by the Commands of Superiors, is renders them not guilty, nor their Commands unlawful.

As concerning his Authorities, quoted by him, out of Dissenters from the Church of England, I am not to regard them, where I find them not to agree with Scripture and right Reason, so shall not spend much time and Paper to answer to any of them, wheresoever scattered through his Book, though many of them, even as quoted by him as that of Dr. Ames and Mr. Gillespy) make against him, and not for him; for what Dr. Ames saith, That Obedience is not due to Superior , when acting contrary to Edification & Charity, doth nothing militate against either the first Rule or any of the six; for what is enjoyned contrary to Edification and Charity, doth contradict the Command of God, and so agreeth with the Rule that is given. As also, what Mr. Gillespy aith, as quoted by him, maketh nothing against the said Rule, viz. That whatsoever Superiors command in such Matters, as any way appertain to the Eternal Worship of God, must be both Lawful in the Nature of it, and Expedient in the Use of it. The Author further adds, That the divine Law binds men to do nothing which is not for Edification, quoting for Proof, Cor.6. 12. & 14.26. All which is plainly contained within the Limitation expressed in the Rule, and therefore not contrary to it. Again, in answer to the Scriptures cited by me, in proof of the above-said Rule, he saith, Their Divines say, there is a difference between Subjection and Obedience, Subjection may be where there is not Obedience. But what says this against the Rule given? Though all Subjection is not active Obedience, yet all Active Obedience is Subjection Can the Author be so ignorant to think that in those Scriptures quoted by me, in proof of the first Rule, Active Obedience to Superio s, in things lawful, is not required, but only and alone Passive Obedience, or a subjection to Punishment? This would make the Commands of Superiors universally Cruel, and the Condition of their Subjects very Miserable.

Next, whereas he saith, pag. 4. W e her the thing required be so, ( viz. for Edification) every Man has liberty to examine by the Judgment of Discretion; for which he quotes Davenant [a worthy Doctor and Bishop of the Church of England] But what, or how, doth this make against the Rule above given, which the said Bishop himself did own as ound and good? It is not questioned by any true Protestant, but readily affirmed, that every Man has liberty to examine, by the judgment of Discretion, whatever is required of him; but his Judgment of Discretion must be no Rule to others, nor indeed to himself; but his Judgment of Discretion should have for its Rule, the Word of God contained in the holy Scriptures, and right Reason; for it oft happens that Mens Judgment of Discretion is Erroneous, and the dictate of an Erring Conscience. Wherefore, it is only safe for all, both Superiors and Inferiors, to submit their Judgment of Discretion to the Rule of holy Scripture and Right Reason, which will never disagree.

And whereas he saith, Mr. Keith designing to exalt the Churches Authority, alledgeth Heb. 13. 7. Doubtless his meaning is, That in things 〈◊〉 forbidden by the divine Law, the Commandments of Bishops must be obeyed.

Answ. That is doubtless my meaning, for the very words of the Rule plainly import it. But I find nothing to the purpose either of Argument or good Authority, that he saith against it. What the Author quotes out of Dr. Richard Smith his Recantation, viz. That Bishops and Ministers have no Authority in making Laws and Decrees, besides Gods Word, I reckon may charitably be construed, in Opposition to Popery, to mean such Laws and Decrees as Popes and Popish Councils commonly make, both against Gods Word, and besides it, as if they were Commands of God, or Articles of Faith, or Means of Grace; all which the first Rule expresly provides against. That St. Paul as an Ecclesiastick Person had Power to command what the divine Law did neither command nor for bid, see Philemom v. 8. & 1 Cor. 7. 12.

But whereas he doth peremptorily affirm, That it belongs to Christ alone to appoint Laws for the Government of his Church. If he mean such Laws as primarly and by themselves immediately bind the Conscience, and concern the substantial part of the Government of the Church, I grant; which nothing militates against the above given Rule. But that our Superiours, both Ecclesiastick and Civil, have not power to make Laws and Rules in Circumstantials, that do not bind the Conscience primarly and immediately by themselves, he has not in the least proved, but takes it for granted without all Proof, and contrary to all good Reason and common Practice of all Christian Societies. For the Laws of Christ in Scripture, many of them being general, in order to their being the better understood, and obeyed, require some particular Rules made by Superiours, and even by the Community, where the Community is a Democracy (such as I guess these called Independent Churches generally are, or at least very near to, in resemblance (which sort of Democracy in a Christian Church, I can no where find in holy Scripture) even the said Community gives Laws and Rules, binding not only the Makers of them, but their Children and Successors after them, that had no hand in the making of them. For it is hardly possible that any Society, whether Ecclesiastick or Civil, can consist without several Rules determining such particular Circumstances, as to Times, Places and Persons, which general Laws of Scripture do not determine, as, To meet for Religious Worship at such Places and Times, Who, or What Persons shall be Past rs of such a Congregation; and many other Cases of great and weighty Circumstances. And upon a very slender Search, I think it will be easie to find, that these called Independent Churches in New-England, and else-where, have Laws and Rules among them, which they as really and severely impose on all that come in to them, after such Laws are made by the Community, as any other do, insomuch that who will not submit to them, are not to be received into their Community; and among other things, that called by them their Church Covenant, which they make a distinct thing from the Baptismal Covenant, and to be sure widely distinct from Episcopal Confirmation, not only I, but many Thousands of good Christians cannot find any Warrant for it in Scripture, by the best Judgment of Discretion that we can make; but on the contrary, we not only think it superfluous, but more burdensom to our Consciences, should we submit to it, than all the Ecclesiastick Canons, on the supposition that they were as Unprofitable to Edification as the Author and his Brethren render them to be. Besides, as to the time and manner of receiving the Lords Supper, do ye not make some Law or Rule when the Congregation is to receive it, as at or before Noon, or some time before Night, though at its first Institution it was practised at Night, and after the Passover Supper? And do ye not as much impose it on your People, that they should not kneel at the receiving the Lords Supper, but sit, as ye think the Church of England imposes it no her Members to Kneel? And why do ye not allow or practise your Males sitting with their Hats upon their Heads at the Communion Table? Do ye not hold this Practice of Mens sitting at the Communion Table with their Hats on their Heads in time of receiving, a very indecent Practice, as I have heard some Independents confess? And suppose a great Number of a Congregation should begin to receive with their Hats upon their Heads, or lying on their sides, would ye not think it to make some Law or Rule against it? This is but a hint in a few things, instead of many more that might be objected in your own Discipline. Which, if they have not sufficient weight to you, No more, but indeed far less has what ye object against the Commands of Our Superiors to us, as touching the Circumstantials of either Religious Worship or Church Government. Besides, Ye have no Command in Scripture enjoyning you to sing Davids Psalms in Meeter and Rhyme (the putting them into Rhyme being altogther done by Humane Art) your ground then of doing it must either be a Law made among you, or such a constant Custom as is equivolent to a Law. And if no Law be warrantable but what is commanded by Christ, as to Circumstantials of Worship and Discipline in the Church, by the like Reason, or rather by greater Reason, ye may argue against all Customs not commanded by Christ in the holy Scriptures. And why do ye not read the holy Scripture in your Congregations, which are given for Mens Instruction to be read and heard in Publick, as well as in Private? I think ye had much better agree to make it a Law, that every time the Congregation meets, One Chapter, at least, of the Old Testament should be read, and another of the New, and that in good Order, than to neglect it, as ye generally do, One only Congregation at Boston excepted, as I am informed. Now though the reading of the holy Scriptures in Publick is well warranted by Holy Writ, yet What, or How Much ought to be read every day the Congregation meets, the Scripture determines not, and therefore in This, as in Other the like Cases, Ecclesiastick Superiors may give Laws or Rules, What is to be done, according to the Limitations given in the first Rule.

Pag. 6. His Exceptions against the Second Rule, are as weak and Insufficient, as These against the first. The Second Rule being this,

That whatever Church holds the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion, and has the Word o God d ly Preached, and the Sacraments of Baptismand the Lords Supper d ly Administred, such a Church is a True Church 〈◊〉 Christ, and to seperate from such a Church in external Communion and in external Acts of Worship, is a sin, the which sin is the sin 〈◊〉 Schism.

In the first place, he saith, It is evident by these words that G.K. has not attained unto the true Notion of a Schism. According to him (meaning .K.) Schism consists in a Separation from a true Church in external Acts of Worship; but according to Scripture, Men may be guilty of Schism, and 〈◊〉 h ld external Communion with the Church where they have made a Schism, instancing Corah in the Church of Israel, and the Schismaticks in the Church at Corinth.

I Answer: Here he fights against his own Shadow, and not against the Second Rule laid down in my Sermon. I did not give the full and entire Notion of Schism in that Rule, no had I any occasion o to do; it is sufficient to justifie the Truth of the Rule, That whoever seperate from a Church so qualified, as I have described in that second Rule, are guilty of Schism; though it is confessed that Persons may also be guilty of Schism in divers Cases, who hold external Communion together; for there are divers parts and degrees of Schism, of which 〈◊〉 only touched at one part.

But to make the Second Rule seem false, he quotes again only about two Lines and a half of it, as it stands in his Printed Remarks, and argues against it; whereas had he argued against the Second Rule, as entirely considered, there would have been no place for his Objections, as, first, where he instances, If false Doctrine be imposed, instead of true. 2dly. If a true Church walk disorderly, and not hearken to the Admonitions of those that would reclaim them from the Error of their way. For if he mean that the whole Church be guilty of those things, the Qualifications expresly given in the second Rule secure it sufficiently against his two Objections, as they do against the other two following, 〈◊〉 , 3dly, That it is not only lawful, but a Duty to seperate from the Church of Rome. I cannot but wonder at the Author's inadvertency here, for waving that Question, Whether the present Church of Rome be either a true Church or a Church Vera, though not Vera. The present state of the Church of Rome doth altogether disagree with the Qualifications of the Church given in the Second Rule, which are, That she has the Word of God duly Preached, and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper duly administred; None of which due Qualifications will the Author dare to say the Church of Rome hath; and therefore in this Third, as well as in his Fourth, he hath discovered his great Inadvertency, as where he saith, It is possible that a true Church may impose 〈◊〉 its Members Unlawful Terms of Communion. I say, in that case, She ha not the Word of God duly Preached, nor the Sacraments duly administred.

But to make his matter seem the more pi •• sible, he leaves objecting against the second Rule, and falls upon accusing the Church of England, That she Imposes on her Members U ••• wful Terms of Communion. But as I know no such Things that the doth, o whether the doth so or not, are wholly beside the present subject of Dispute: And as for his several Instances of such Impositions, they are all easily answered; but I refer the Reader to that Treatise, called, A brief Discourse concerning the Lawfulness of Worshipping God by Common-Prayer, and other Treatises of Pious and Learned Writers in the Church of England, that have Piously & Learnedly answered to all his Objections, or any others of the the like Nature. But as his Objections against the Church of England are a wide Digression from the present subject of Dispute contained in the Second Rule, which mentions not one word of the Church of England, so should I answer him, as he thus widely digresses from the proper subject, I should be guilty of the same fault.

But whereas he saith, One of the first things in the Liturgy is Mathematically false, for it iveth a Rule for the finding of Easter-Day forever, at fallible as Mr. Keith's Rules of Divinity. Passing his Sarcasme against what he calls My Rules in Divinity, none of which he hath proved either false or fallible, for all his attempt, I think it very rashly and inconsiderately done by him, to say, That one of the first Things in the Liturgy is Mathematically false, to wit, the Rule given in the Liturgy for finding Easter-Day forever; and for this to give no Proof but his bare Affirmation. Besides, in so doing he presumes to be more skillful in the Mathematical Sciences than they who gave that Rule, and continue to practise it. But I think to persons but ordinarily skilled in the Mathematicks, it will appear by the Author's Charge against the Rule, about finding Easter, that he is very unskillful in the Mathematicks; and he cannot but know, that there are at present in the Church of England as good Mathematicians as the World affords, that could easily have discovered the Error of the said Rule, if it had 〈◊〉 Methematically false. For to say the Truth, the Mathematicks have nothing to do with it, it hangs on no Mathematical Theoreme or Canon, but only on an Antient Practise or Sanction, ever since the 〈◊〉 Council, that whereas the Equinoctial about that time happened upon the 21th Day of March, after which Equinoctial the Jews, under the Old Testament began the first Moneth, and the 14th Day was the Day of the Passover, counting from the first New Moon after the said Equinoctial, the Atient Latine Church, that it might not seem to Judaise, did keep the Christian Easter, not precisely on the fourteenth Day of the Moon or Moneth, but on the Lords Day following. Now though the Equinoctial has gone back from the 2 th Day of March to the Tenth of March, now, as in our present Age, and as the World continues, may go back, after some Tract of time, to the first of March, and so still backwards; yet this is no Error in the Rule for finding Easter, either Mathematically or otherwise; and none will or can so say, but he who is extreamly ignorant in all true Mathematicks.

But perhaps he has some other Reasons, that are as weak as the former, for I remember I have read objected by some Dissenters, That Easter-Day, in some year past, in the Church Kalander, did not answer to the Day of Easter in some Astronomical Almanack. Which was nothing else but a plain instance of those mens Ignorance how to distinguish betwixt the Astronomical and Civil beginning of the Day, the Astronomical beginning of the Day being at Noon, & the Civil at Mid Night. O , Lastly, The ground of his Charge may possibly be, That according to the New-England Churches, the Lords Day, and all other Dayes begin at Sun-set or Evening. But this is more Jewish than Mathematical, and the Mathematicks do in no part Contradict the Rule given in the Liturgy for finding Easter forever. And without changing that Rule, though the World should continue many Thousands of Years, the Time of Easter may be so fixed, as not 〈◊〉 make any considerable difference, as to the Season of the Year wherein it falls, to wit, by adding one Day more to some Moueth of the Year, after the space of each Hundred and Thirty Years is expired. Or, if the Author has any further to Object, than what is mentioned here, let him in his next produce it, and I question not, but he will thereby, to the Intelligent, shew, That he had as little ground to object against the Rule in the Liturgy, for finding Easter, as against the Rules in Divinity given by M

Pag. •• . But says the Author, G.K. has put a Weapon into our hands which slayeth himself.

Answ. Hath he so! how, I pray? Why George Keith and his Brethren seperate from the Churches of New-England, and other Independent and Presbyterian Churches, who have the Word of God duly Preached, and the Sacraments duly Administred, and hold the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion, and therefore are guilty of Schism.

Answ. The Author is here guilty of what Logicians call Petitio Principij, i.e. A begging the Question; for the Church of England, whereof G.K. is a Member, 〈◊〉 not think that the New-England Independent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word duly Preached, and the Sacraments duly 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 want of 〈◊〉 O di a ion, and other considerable Defects, which 〈◊◊〉 charg'd on the Church of England Besides that, the Church of England is 〈◊〉 Mother Protestant Church, retaining her first Purity, from whom the 〈◊〉 made the Schism, and not S e from Them, the which Schism is contrary to the Word of God. Nor yet doth the Church of England stand to averse from the Churches of NewEngland, such as are Presbyterian especially, or such as incline that way, that the doth freely allow her Members to joyn with the Presbyterian reformed Churches in France, Holland and Switzerland, in external acts of Worship, and particularly in receiving the Lords Supper with them, as hath been frequently practised by her Members in those abovementioned Places. And were not most of the Churches in NewEngland more averse from Us of The Church of England, than we are from Them, and most Uncharitable to Us, We could not only joyn with Them here in New-England, in most external Acts of Worship, but Preach and Pray in their Churches, as some of Us have lately done, at the Charitable Christian Request of some Ministers of some New-England Churches, where we were well and kindly received, both by Ministers and People, and thanked by both for our Christian Doctrine and Labour of Love. And were we ever to desirous to joyn with you in that most Solemn Act of receiving the Lords Supper with you, ye would not admit us, but exclude us, by imposing upon us Your Church Covenant, whereby ye would bind us up from Communion not only with the Church of England, whereof we are Members, but from all other Protestant reformed Churches Thus what the Author chargeth most unjustly upon the Church of England, as, That she imposeth on her Members Unlawful Terms of Communion, is most justly chargeable upon him, and his Brethren; for we, with many others of tender Consciences, do look upon your Church Covenant to be very unwarrantable and disagreeable to holy Scripture considering the rigor of it, in binding up the People that come 〈◊◊〉 , from holding Communion with other Protestant Churches, 〈◊◊〉 in receiving the Lords Supper with them, but in noosing them up 〈◊〉 that Narrowness, that the People bound with your Church Covenant are scarcely, without your severe Censure, so much as come and hear a good Sermon in any of our Churches, far less to joyn with us in the publick Prayers of the Church; This we think is a Yoak of Bondage ye put upon People, by which means ye have frighted away many of the People of NewEngland from joyning with you, and having had no where else to go, in many places, many of the young Generation, who are not within your Covenant, are little better than Heathens, and are exposed to be leavened with Quakerism, and other vile Errors, as too many already are so leavened these-with

This your Church Covenant (we think) is an heavy Yoak, which ye impose upon the People, both Ministers and Others, that hath no Warrant from Scripture; but Thanks be to God the Church of England layeth no such York upon her Members, but alloweth them full liberty to joyn in Communion with all true Protestant Churches, who hold Communion with her, in Holland, France, Switzerland, Germany, and other parts. But they who deny to hold Communion with her, as most of the Dissenters do both in Old England and New, they cannot 〈◊〉 blame her for not holding Communion with them.

And notwithstanding of this Authors and his Brethrens great Clamour against Impositions, of things not commanded in Scripture, We find Them much more for Impositions, than those against whom they so complaint and indeed it is very ordinary, that none are more for Impositions upon Others, than they who yet cry out against i upon Themselves. For, does not your Church impose (at times) Days of Fast upon People, which if they do not observe, though they are not of your Church, ye will be severe upon them?

Pag. 12. He has no other way to except against the Third Rule delivered in my Sermon, but by putting an Uncharitable and streined Sense upon the words of it; The which Rule is this,

What things we see amiss in particular Persons, are not to be charged upon the whole Church, unless the Church do Justifie those Persons in those Things; and what we cannot amend, we ought to bear; for there is no Christian Society on Earth but has some particular Persons that do amiss; and all Dissenters, when particular Failings of particular Persons are objected to them, give the like Excuse.

Now the streined Sense which he puts upon the words of it, is this, That by Justifying, I mean an avowed defending of Scandalous Criminals, at least he is very jealous that I so meant it, otherwise why should he find fault with this Third Rule? The Author cannot be ignorant, that Not to justifie, doth several times in Scripture signifie not only not to defend or approve, but severely to Censure and blame, as where Job said to his Friends, God forbid that I should justifie you, and where God is said, Not to clear or justifie, (as the Hebrew doth bear it) the Guilty, i. e. He doth severely censure and judge them; and like that of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not, i. e. I greatly dispraise and blame you. All which is said by a Rhetorical Figure frequent in Scripture, as well as in other Writers, called, A Meiosis, where something more is understood than is expressed. And that my plain meaning was, That scandalous Persons, who gave publick Scandal, are not only Not to be defended or connived at, but that they are to be publickly censured & a due Testimony born against them, is evident from my saying, That all Dissenters, when particular Failings of particular Persons are objected to them, give the like excuse. And All Dissenters include the New-England Independents as well as others, who profess, That scandalous Persons ought not only Not to be defended, but to be duly Censured, and a due Testimony born against them. And the Author knows in his Conscience, That The Discipline of the Church of England requires this: He had therefore no just reason to object against the Third Rule. But where he cannot find a fault, in this or any of the Rules, it seems he was resolved to make one, and to set up a shadow of his own, and fight against it. But suppose a Church is r m s in due censuring scandalous Persons, though this 〈◊〉 is a great fault in her, as it was in the Church of 〈◊〉 , an in that of 〈◊〉 and Thyatira, yet that fault did not Unchurch them, nor justifie the Seperation or with-drawing of Members from them in external Acts of Worship.

But when the Author cannot find sufficient matter against this Third Rule, (the only proper subject of the Dispute) he preceeds after his former manner to inveigh against the Church of England, for her neglect of Discipline: Though in many places good Discipline is used in her (praised be God) and there are as many good Christians eminent in ound Faith and good Life in her Congregations as in any Church upon Earth, comparing Number with Number, and where it is otherwise, I pray God it may be amended. But as want of Discipline in some particular Places and Congregations, is no Refutation of the Rule given, so nor is it any just Cause of Seperation from the Church: And dare the Author say, there is no want or neglect of due Discipline in the Churches of New-England? And are all the Failings of particular Persons amo •• g them duly censured? And is a due Witness publickly 〈◊〉 against them? Have they ever to this day born a publick Testimony against the Severity and Cruelty of these who hanged three Quaker Men and One Quaker Woman? and if any few did blame it, how long were they silent, and did rather approve it than Condemn it? Or, have they born a due Testimony against these of their Churches that caused ptu many Innocent Persons to Death for Witches? And hath the Author himself born a due Testimony against the unfound Doctrine of Mr. Samuell Willard, President of the Colledge at Cambridge in New England, who, at the publick Commencement there the first day of July last, did openly defend that Position, That Adams Fall was 〈◊〉 by Gods 〈◊〉 before all time, and by his Determination in Time, of Adam's Will to sin, and 〈◊◊〉 the rest of mens Actions; where-with not only I, but some of his own 〈◊〉 were offended.

Pag. 14. As to hat the Author quotes out of the Liturgy, to cast Blame upon the Church of England, That in the 〈◊〉 Church there was a 〈◊〉 Discipline, and that it is much to be wished that Discipline 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 , I suppose the Author does not know what they 〈◊〉 who 〈◊〉 those words, which indeed was a Discipline in a more strict and exact way required of Penitents, than at present is performed in any Protestant Church whatsoever, or hath been performed since the Reformation, and to e sure is not performed, not ever hath been, in the Independent Churches of New-England, and were such a strict Discipline upon Penitents so much as offer'd to be put in practise among them, its like most of them would be ready to cry out against it, not only as Imposition, but Intollerable Severity and Cruelty; and yet for want of such sort of Discipline he severely blames the Church of England, That no care has be taken for the restoration of that Discipline to this very day. But how knows he that no care has been taken about it? A thing may be long cared for, and much Care and Thought be taken about it, before it be effected.

But that he might more severely and uncharitably reflect upon the Church of England, he saith, pag. 14. The Discipline of Christ is become a Pecuniary Business in the Church of England, as well as in the Church of Rome. If the Author has not writ this against his Conscience and Conviction (as hope, in charity, he hath not) he has shewed his great Ignorance and Rashness in condemning her at the rate he doth, and equelling her, in a manner, with the Church of Rome in the Sin of Simony, it having passed as a Proverb among Travellers, who have been at Rome, Omnia sunt venalia Romae, All things may be sold, or are to be sold at Rome; But dare the Author say, with a good Conscience, that it is o in the Church of England, where Simony is judged a horrid Crime, and abhorred by many Thousands of that Church; indeed, generally it is so; but if some do most hypocritically practise it in secret, when they are found out, are severely punished for it. This is no good Argument against the lax Discipline of the Church; but that it is severely punished, when discovered, is a good argument for her Discipline being so far good. Besides that, the Antient Discipline of the Church was severe upon the Deserters of it, & such as did seperate and make a Schism there from; the which severe Discipline were it now, or but the half of it performed upon all the deserters 〈◊〉 who have without all just cause gone from her) of the Church of England, the Author would Cry as much against that Discipline, if restored, as Cruelty and Persecution, as now he doth cry out against the Church for the want of it.

Pag. 14 & 15. I cannot •• ed any thing that the Author offers against the Fourth RULE, that hath any show of Reason; for, after having repeated the Rule, which is this,

To joyn in external Acts of publick Worship, where the Matter is sound, though there be a great Mixture of Unsound Members, with others sound, is no sin, but our Duty, for which we are warranted by the Practice both of the Prophets and Apostles, &c.

He saith, This Argument, though often urged, is not Cogent. But how does he prove that it is not Cogent? Is his bare Authority or Word a sufficient Proof against the Rule, which was the main subject of the Dispute, as stated by himself? for I find not that he gives any other Proof, only to divert his Reader from the proper subject, he tells, That it is controverted among learned Men, whether there were any Ecclesiastical Discipline in the Jewish Church, in respect of Moral Offences; but however, the Author himself affirms, that Heresies (and to be sure they are great Moral Evils and Offences) were censurable among them. And this is all he saith against the Fourth Rule, which is just nothing. But when all his Shot is spent against the Fourth Rule, after his wonted manner, he makes a fresh Assault upon the Church of England, so that his Spleen is mainly against her; and were but the Rules as much in favour of the Churches of New-England, called, Independents, its very like he could swallow them all down very kindly, and easily digest them. He tells us, That I cannot but know, that the Dissenters from the Church of England find fault with some particulars in the matters of the Worship required in the Liturgy. They verily believe that such things are therein commanded, as God has forbidden; whether they are Mistaken in their Judgment, the day will declare it. And then he has a Hit at the Ceremonies of the Church of England, telling us, That the Non-Conformists believe that they are forbidden in the second Commandment. But what is here of real Argument either against the fourth Rule or the Church? What this Man aith, or that Man saith or believeth, is no good Proof whether a thing e true or false, except e bring Scripture or good Reason for him. He saith, He will not dispute that point which hath 〈◊〉 so elaborately handled by many others. But why then does he bring 〈◊〉 up to cast blame on the Church? We know that many Pious and Worthy Divines of the Church of England have more truly and more elaborately also answered all their Arguments against what they call the Ceremonies of the Church of England. But have the New-England Independents no Ceremonies among them, that is, no things that they use relating to Circumstantials of Worship or Religion, but what is contained in Scripture? Have they nothing of Humane Institution among them? Dr. Saywell, in a Book of his, in answer to Mr. Baxter and Dr. Owen, saith, He knoweth but One Ceremony in the Church of England, and that 〈◊〉 the Use of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism, which has no more Idolatry or Superstition in it, than for a Man in Writing to write a Roman X to stand for the word Cross; for the word [Cross] it self, is but a Sign, as all words are, Verba sunt signa rerum 〈◊〉 conceptum, i. e. Words are Signs of Things and of Thoughts, say all Logicians. But after that he hath cryed out against the Church of England for using the Sign of the Cross after Baptism, he brings not the least Reason to prove it sinful, only tells us, That Non-conformists complain of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, as a corrupting addition to an Ordinance of divine Worship. But he should have said, [after Baptism] and not [in Baptism] for the Church of England makes not the Sign of the Cross any part of Baptism; and therefore it is not [in it] but [after it] and many are baptized in the Church of England daily, who are not 〈◊〉 all signed with the Sign of the Cross, to wit, such sick infants who are baptized in their Parents Houses, many of which dye before they could be brought to Church, and yet are esteemed truly baptized, and true and real Members of the Church.

Again, He first blames the Church of England for kneeling at the Lords Supper, and yet with the next Breath aith as much as doth clear her for he grants, p. 16. That the Church doth declare that Christ is not Bodily present in the Sacrament; and that the Bread is not real Christ; for which cause (he saith many that do kneel, do not violate their Consciences. But why not [all] as well as [many] who are sound in the Faith of the Church of England? for if any do not believe as the Church of England declares, they are not of her.

But why doth he make all this Cry against the Church of England for holding, That to joyn in external acts of Worship, where the matter 〈◊〉 sound, though there be a great Mixture of unsound Members, with others Sound, is no Sin, but Duty? Have they of the New-England Independents no Unsound Members among them? yea, do they not joyn, and allow others to joyn with them in external Acts of Worship, as Prayer and Singing who are no Members of their Church, and many of which are known to be Unruly Walkers? Their own Practice therefore doth 〈◊〉 this Rule, notwithstanding he is so set against it.

In his disputing against the Fifth Rule, he is as weak, as against 〈◊〉 the former. The Rule is this:

What things soever were commended of God or allowed and practised lawfully under the Old Testament, that were neither any part o the Ceremonial Law, nor of the Jewish Polity, peculiar to that Nation, are still binding to Us under the New Testament; and a proof out of the old Testament in all such Cases is as good as a Proof out of the New.

Now what saith he against this? Surely nothing to prove the Rule to be false; for what things were either commanded or permitted to the Jews, that are not lawful, no necessary to us, were either parts of the Ceremonial Law, or belonged to the Politie of the Jewish Nation, as that of Poligamy and Divorce (except in the case of Adultry) To Pray with their Head or face covered, was part of the Ceremonial Law. Concerning putting off their Shoes when they entered into the Synagogue, if they had any such Practice, he but very weakly proves it from 〈◊〉 5. 1. I no where find it commanded to the People of Israel; if it was a Custom among them, and et had no Command of God to warrant it, as he has showed none, This makes against him, That Customs may be lawfully used in the Church, and have no Command of God in particular; which is contrary to the mind of the Author, of Whom it may be said both here, and oft else-where, 〈◊〉 se jugulavit gladio, i. e. He hath slain himself with his own Sword.

In Opposition to the fifth Rule, he saith, They may a firm two things, first, That the Apostacy of the Christian Church has consisted partly in its Judaizing. But how this is any Proof against the fifth Rule, I see not, nor can any other Man that has his true sight. Do Christians Judaize, if they practise neither what was Ceremonial, nor what was only proper and peculiar to the Jewish Nation, but only what was either commanded or allowed by the Moral Law, and some other positive Precepts? I cannot but oft wonder at the Author's Inadvertency He mentions the Observation of Easter, and some Holy Dayes that were observed among the Jews; and that they had Musick in their Temple Worship, and the Priests had Holy Garments to distinguish them from others; and from this he infers, That the Church of England doth Judaize in observing the Christian Feast of Easter, and other Christian Festivals, and having Musick in their Cathedrals, and some other places. But he has made no Essay to prove his Consequence, which is with as good Authority denyed, as by him affirmed. And why did he not as well argue, That because the Jews heard the Old Testament read in their Synagogues and in the Temple, and Prayed and sung Psalms, that therefore it is judaizing for the Church of England to either Pray or Sing in their Congregations, or to hear the Old and New Testament read in their Assemblies. This last, it seems, they think Judaizing, and therefore do not practise it; only (as I am informed) Mr. Colmans Church at Boston hath the Scriptures read in it, which I suppose the Independent Brethren do reckon not only Judaizing in them so to do, but coming too near to a Conformity to the Church of England. The Author should better know or at least consider, That 〈◊〉 like Practises, when done on different Reasons, and to different Ends, the one may be good and justifiable, the other bad and condemnable. But is it not a rare Argument of the Author against the fifth Rule, that the Jews in Swearing, should say, By the Law I Swear? But did the Law permit or command any such thing? Surely Nay; and our Saviour taught the Jews, They were not to Swear by any Creature, But the Jews, when they Swear, did lay their hand on the Pentateneh. What then? we do not find that our Saviour did blame any of them for this, if they so did; nor can the Church be charged with Judaizing, for allowing her Members to lay their hand on the Bible when they Swear. He may as well argue, Quaker-like, That because Jews did Swear, therefore all Swearing under the Gospel is Judaizing; yea, and all Self-Defence by Carnal Weapons, as the Quakers say, & argue with as much Strength as this Author doth against the Church of England for some aforesaid things, such as the Jews practised, but on quite different Reasons, and to quite different Ends.

Pag. 20. Whereas I had affirmed, That Proofs out of the Old Testament are in all Cases as good as Proofs out of the New, which I brought as a Reason or Illustration of the Fifth Rule, the Author saith, No Man doubts of that, provided they be Proofs indeed, and not Scriptures Misinterpreted or Mis-applyed. And doth the th Rule import or imply any such thing, that Scriptures Mis-interpreted or Mis-applyed are good Proofs either out of the Old Testament or the New? Surely Nay: Therefore all this said by him is nothing to the purpose against the truth of the Rule. But this I throughout observe, that the Author, instead of proving the RULES to be false, which was his main Undertaking, he makes it his main Business to ight against the Church of England, as if by these very Rules he could prove Her to be such, that an good Christians should forsake her, and seperate from her, which at last confirms the goodness of the Rules, though against his own Will and Inclination. But if the Rules be all false, then he hath not done well to measure and try The Church of England by such false Rules, and so pass a Judgment against Her.

Pag. 20. But that he saith, It is only the New Testament that informs us what Officers, what Sacraments, what Censures are to be allowed of in Churches of Christians to the end of the World.

I Answ. If all this were granted, yet it saith nothing against the Truth of the fifth Rule. Besides, he but barely affirms it without Proof, That Only the New-Testament informs s of those things; for though they are more clearly Revealed in the New-Testament, yet under the Old Testament they were held forth in Promises, Prophecys, Types & Figures, as well as Faith in Jesus Christ, and other Gospel Truths of greatest Moment.

Pag. 21. As to the Sixth and Last Rule, he seems to grant to it, in the case of Psalm-Prayers: But why not in the case of Prayers and Thanksgivings in Prose as well, seeing we have no command to put any part of our Prayers and Thanks-givings into Meeter of Rhyme, and sing them with Musical Tunes and Notes, and yet the Independent Churches do so, as well a the Church of England, and I sappose enjoyn it to be done too. But, as I said in my Sermon, (which I find not that the Author has noticed) Why singing with the Book (a thing practised by many Dissenters) in consistent with singing with the Spirit, and yet praying with the Book is not consistent with praying with the Spirit, is unaccountable. If the Author publish any Answer to this Reply, I desire him to give a particular Answer to This, as well as divers other things of weight he hath past without all Notice.

Pag. 21. He saith, It is not Our Opinion that all Forms are Unlawful; and that a late virulent anonimous Author has slander •• sly 〈◊◊〉 to be the Opinion of him th •• wrote a brief Discourse concerning the Unlawfulness of Common Prayer.

I Answ. I have not that Book that treats of the Unlawfulness of Common Prayer, to compare it with the Answer of that Worthy 〈◊〉 , eminent in the Church of England both for Piety are Learning, whereby to examine whether he has wronged him o ot 〈◊◊◊〉 who is supposed to be the Author of that Book, 〈◊〉 , A 〈◊〉 Discourse concerning the Unlawfulness 〈◊〉 Common Prayer Worship, had done more manly either to have refused that Book above-ment •••• d throughly and entirely, or at least to have proved him guilty of those things, whereof he accuseth him, which I find not that he hath done; nor by any thing that the said Mr. Mather hath yet said, can I find, that he has wronged him. He now says, That it is not his Opinion that all Forms are Unlawful. But why then doth he set himself so much against all Liturgies, which contain nothing but Forms? If Forms be lawful, why may it not be thought that they might be used in the earliest Times of the Church? And if lawful in private, why not also 〈◊〉 Publick?

Pag. 21. Whereas he saith, They (i. e. the Author and his Brethren) maintain, that there was no such Common-Prayer-Book of divine Institution, as our Author and some others have imagined.

But I Answer: Where did I ever maintain, that the Jews had a Common-Prayer-Book? I remember nothing of it, either in my Sermon or else where. They viz. the Jews) might have had some short Forms in the days of the Prophets, which they might have used without Book But that they used the Book of the Psalms of Davi in their Worship, I suppose the Author will not deny. And seeing that he has granted that 〈◊〉 Forms are lawful, even of humane Composure, providing the Matter be Scriptural, and proper for the occasion, I see not how he can deny, but that All are lawful as well as 〈◊〉 , if they have the like Qualifications. A d why they may not be writ or printed in a Book, as we •• as David's Psalms, he hath not told us.

P. 22 He quotes Sa b ••• , d p ecibus Hebreor m, p. 123. to prove, That from the Time of M ses to the great Sanhedrium, there was no o nary Form of Prayer among the Israelites, but every Man made a Prayer for himself.

I Answer. If all this were true, which yet may be questioned, notwithstanding of his one Author yet that proves not, but is the 〈◊〉 of our Saviour (as well as lo g •• fore) they had 〈◊〉 of Pr yer i common, (which our Saviour did ot find ault with otherwise how was it that 〈◊〉 taught a Form of Prayer to his Disciples, and our Saviour to his? And if he 〈◊〉 not against all Forms of Prayer, why doth he not use that form of the Lords Prayer in Publick, for I do not hear that he doth i at any time?

Pag. 22. He greatly wrongs me, as if I inferred from Isa. 29. 1 . that therefore the Jews had a •• inted L ••• rgy, or used a Common-PrayerBook; I only inferred from Isa. 29. 13. and Mat. 15 8. and some other Scriptures, as Joel 2. 17 Hos 14. 2, 3. That they prayed Vocally with their Mouthes and Lips, together with the Minister; a plain instance whereof we have in Neh 9. throughout; for whether it was a free conceived Prayer only in that instant, that 〈◊〉 was born or brought forth, or whether they ( viz. the Levites together) or any of them had premeditated it before hand, and committed it to Memory, this is evident they Uttered it together, and the People had some •• are or part in it, even Vocally, as appears, vers. 2, 3, 5. of that 9th Chapter, &c. He grants Some Forms of Prayer to be lawful, and yet denys that our Saviour gave or commanded the Lords Prayer to be used as a Form. But why then doth he allow of any Forms? If that most excellent Form of our Lords own Composing be not to be used, why should any other?

He saith, p. 4. We do not find that ever the Apostles concluded their Prayers with the Repetition of these words, viz. Our Father, &c.

Answ. Nor do we find that ever they used the Form of words in Baptism, In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and yet we have cause to believe they used that Form, because he Commanded it; and as plainly he commanded them, Luk •• . 2. when they pray, to say, Our Father, &c. which had it been only intended for a Plat-form and Directory, would not have been given in words of the first Person 〈◊〉 respecting them that pray, and immediately directed o God in the second Person singular, as, Hallowed be 〈◊〉 by Name, Thy Kingdom come, &c. Directories for Prayer use not to run in 〈◊◊〉 . Besides, if the Apostles needed no Forms of Prayer, but were taught to pray altogether by the Spirit, without any external Form, why did they need a Directory or Plat-form afterwards? Was it not the work of the Spirit to as •• it and furnish them as much to one as to the other? 〈◊〉 , in this very case of Prayer, as to rejecting the Form of the Lords Prayer, the Author doth too much 〈◊〉 with Quakerism. 〈◊◊〉 other things. But the Quakers refusing to use this, or other Forms, learned it of other Dissenters, and not the Dissenters from them; which led the way to Quakerism.

P. 4. He thinks this will finish the Argument, If there had been any need of a Common-Prayer-Book for the Edification of the Churches, doubtless the Apostles would have composed one, which they never did.

Answ. This Argument is as weak as any of the former, and is far from concluding against Forms of prayer to be used in Publick; for he might as well argue The Apostles would have made forms of Catechisms, Confessions of Faith and Directories, which We find not that they did; and yet the Independents have their Confessions, Catechisms and Directory. 〈◊〉 was no need for the Apostles making a CommonPrayer for the Church after their days. They knew and believed that the holy Spirit would assist the Pastors of the Church to compose Forms of Prayer for publick Use sufficiently, by means of the holy Scriptures.

P. 2 . But says he. Supposing it to be a Duty to make use of Forms, which were of divine Inspiration, it does not at all follow, that it is then Duty to use Forms which are of Humane Composure.

I Answ. This spoils all his former Confession, That he is not against all Forms; for he allows Men who have not the Gift of Prayer to use a Form in their Families, rather than not to pray at all; and I suppose that he will allow such Prayers to be, as to form and order of words, of Humane Composure. But of what Composure, I pray, are the Author'S, Prayers in the Church, and his Brethrens, are they not of Humane Composure as well as the Prayers in the Liturgy of the Church? if they are not, but wholly Divine, by the same aid and assistance of the Spirit as the Prophets and others had in extraordinary cases, they may be bound up in the Bible as parts of Canonical Scripture. Thus through his Inadvertency he falls again into the Spirit of Quakerism, who contend that all their Preaching and Prayers are the immediate Dictates of the H. Spirit. And what else case the Author pretend his Prayers at least to be, if as to the form and order of Words, they are not of Humane Composure, as much as the Prayers contained in the Liturgy.

P. 27. The Author has again Wronged me, as that from St. Cyprian's Words, Publica 〈◊〉 est et Communis oratio, I did infer, that the Christians in his Time had a Common-Prayer-Book; but I made no such Inference, only I did argue from thence, That the people prayed Vocally with the Minister, which could not well be out in known Forms and 〈◊◊〉 People had a part and share in the vocal Prayers of the Church, by giving a Vocal Response to the Minister, appears from St. Cyprian's Relation of Matter of Fact, how the Minister said, in the Congregation, S •• sum Corda, i. e. Lift up your hearts; and the People answered, Habem s 〈◊〉 Dominu , i. e. W lift them up unto the Lord. It seems not that ever the Author has read St. Cyprian on the Lords Prayer, otherwise he is very forgetful or unfair not to have taken Notice of this Passage, which proves that People gave a Response to the Minister; and it is not likely that there was but this one then used in the Church, for the Minister saying Dominus vobisc •• , i. e. The Lord be with you, and the People answering, et Cum 〈◊〉 Spirit , i. e. And with thy Spirit, is very Antient; both which are in the Liturgy of the Church of England.

P. 27. Whereas he saith, He has that Charity for me, as to believe that I did not my self consult Cyprian, but made use of that Sentence, as I found it quoted and perverted by Dr. Comber,

I Answ. I had no need of his Charity in that respect, for I have several times read it with my own Eyes in St. Cyprians own Works, and not only a good while a go, but so very lately as when I was at Boston in July last, where I found St. Cyprians Works in the House of Mr. Myles, one of the Ministers of the Queens Chappel in Boston.

P 31 He Ridicules, but doth not give any answer to my Illustration, That New Forms of Prayer are no more necessary, but rather more improper, than for Men to put on a new suit of Apparel or New Shoes every day, which a King would not do From this he Ridicules me Consequence of his own making, which is this, Ergo, a Christian should not make a New Prayer every day. But my words were not as he represents them, but thus, Why should People be so much for a continued Novelty of Forms of Prayer, that a New Form must be used every time? This I see as little need or convenience of as New Shoes every day; and as the Form needs not to be New, 〈◊〉 nor need the Matter of it to be New every time, but rather on extraordinary Occasions; yet it ought always to be New in respect of New hearty Affections and Desires, and that by the special aid and assistance of the H. Spirit. The like ay of Ridiculing he makes with my arguing from Rom. 15. 6. and 1 Pet. 2. 5. but saith nothing, in effect, to answer my Arguments, but th •• , That the Refutation of such weak arguing is Confutation sufficient. But in this he is not to be his own Judge, but it is to be left to the more impartial Judgment of Intelligent Readers.

P. 32. He has another Hit at me, 〈◊〉 charging me, That I wrot a very wicked Book, 1689. sull fraught with 〈◊◊〉 and 〈◊◊〉 , and with Revilings and Slan ••• ings of the Ministers and Churches of Christ.

I Ans. n this he hath over charged me, for I do not remember that there was any real Blasphemy in it or a y 〈◊〉 or Error oppugning directly any Fundamental of Chris •• anity, though other Errors were in it, I confess 〈◊〉 and too great •• especially in Opposing those Institutions of Baptism and the Lords Sapper, which yet I did not willfully, but being deceived by false Teachers, to whom I too much trusted. But seeing I have found Mercy and Forgiveness of God concerning those Errors and Uncharitable Speeches against Protestant Churches and Ministers, which I have freely Retracted, it doth no , (I think) savour so well of a Christian Spirit thus again and again to bring it up against me; should be not rather be like our heavenly Father to Forget, or not to remember our sins, as well as to Forgive them.

But the main Offence the Author seems to take against Forms of Prayer, is the Imposing them. For, saith he, Indeed we look upon the Imposition of Forms as sinful, but not all Use o them. What the Author means by the Church her Imposition, other than Enjoyning, I know not, and that only to her own Members, or any others especially, that would come into Communion with her, and most especially the 〈◊〉 the Church of England, or any others that on due Tryal of Qualifications, would offer themselves to officiate in the Ministry, as some have done, of such who had their Education among the Dissenters, and its to be hoped many others will in time follow the •• Example. But do not the Independent Churches in New-England as much i •• ose on their Ministers and People their way of Worship, by what they call free conceived Prayer. (called otherwise extempore Prayer?) Will they allow any of their Ministers to use those forms of Prayer, as contained in the Liturgy of the Church of England, (against which they can make no exception, as to the Matter) or the People to joyn with them, on supposition that some of their Ministers and People were most desirous to have their liberty to use them as thinking them more edifying, as well as more safe; for that they can the more safely joyn with them, and put a Seal of Amen to them (such as a Man's Seal that he puts to a ond, which no prudent man would readily do at once hearing?) I think the Author will say Nay, to this weighty Question; and I leave it to impartial Men to consider, whether then the Independent Churches are not equally Imposers in One Way, as they judge us Another Way? And why what is lawful, and not 〈◊〉 , may not be enjoyned by our spiritual Fathers, as well as they may be imposed on Children and Servants by their Natural Fathers & Masters, I understand not. However, I think I have proved the Imposition (if it be proper so to call it) is equal on both sides.

If it be said, But the Parliament in King Charles the 2d's Reign, imposed a Fine of One Shilling on every one that would not come to Church on Sunday, according to a Statute made in Q. Elizabeths Reign.

I Answ. But since the Act of Tolleration, that Statute and the Use of it is expired; beside, it was not the Church but the Civil State that made it. But if I am rightly informed, the Independents in New-England have (since they set up in N. England) imposed, i. e. enjoyned a greater Fine for them that come not to their Churches every Lords Day; so that still the Imposition is equal on both sides, or rather greater on their side. And what severe Laws the Independent Magistrates (who were eminent Members of their Churches, made against the Quakers, only as Quakers, and who did but distinguish themselves from others by their Thou and Thee to one, and Not Saluting with their Hats, the Author knows well enough. This the Quakers complained upon to be Imposition, and I think might justly so complain against the Independents as guilty of Imposition, & such Severity as the Church of England never practised.

But whereas the Author saith, pag. 23. I affirm that there is not One Instance in all the Bible of Mens rea ing their Prayers (still remembring that we distinguish between Psalms and Prayers) but there are very many Examples of free Prayer.

I Answ. As many Prayers are not Psalms, so many Psalms are Prayers, and such as are Prayers (as the Book of Psalms abounds with such) ought, when used in Acts of Worship, to be used as Prayers; and if some of the People of Israel had them all by heart, yet its not likely that all had them so, but rather they used the Book to help their Memory in Prayer; and the Author can never show a right Reason why a Book may not be as lawfully used in Prayer as in Singing, seeing both are high Acts of Worship, and ought to be spiritually performed. Nor doth the Church of England think that bare reading a Prayer or Prayers, either in private or publick, is any acceptable Worship to God (and no more is extempore Prayer) but as it comes from the heart, with Sincerity and true Devotion & Life. Many of most that use the Book in Preyer have all the publick Prayers in the 〈◊〉 (most commonly used) by heart, and pray them from the heart, with sincerity and fervour, yet to use the Book so far us to have it lie open before them, to help their Memory, as they need it, I cannot see what sin is in this, suppose we had no Example of it in those most early Times of Primitive Antiquity when Printing was not known, and Writing was rare and very costly, so that every one could not have a Common Prayer -Book.

But whereas in my Sermon, p. 16. I shewed, That the Church of England has this advantage over all the Protestant Churches in Holland, France, Germany, &c that the people pray vocally with the Minister, which (I said) cannot be well or safely done without set Forms. In Answer to this the Author saith, He (meaning G K.) cannot be ignorant that in Antiphones and Responses in publick Worship the Church of Rome out-does the Church of England.

To which I Answer: The Author of the Remarks, I think, cannot be ignorant that the common People have no part in those Antiphones and Responses, being all in Latine, which is an unknown Tongue to the generality of the people, and therefore he cannot be ignorant that his comparing the Church of Rome to the Church of England, so as even to out-do her, is very Unfair, seeing all the Prayers in the Church of England are in the English Tongue, and very intelligible to the generality of the People.

The Author charges me to be a little Mistaken about the Protest an Churches in Germany, for some of them do, viz. pray vocally with the Minister. Answ. If some of them do, of the more obscure sort, yet it is no great Mistake (if any to be Noticed) seeing even in Scripture stile, by the word All is signified the most part, of greatest Number of the Species, as where it is said, All Judea were baptized by John, and yet the Pharisees were not.

Pag. 32. The Author is not yet satisfied with his so severe upbraiding m with my former Errors again and again, which he too Uncharitably calls Blasphemies; if taken in the common sence, none of which ( o far as I can remember) I ever had, or ever preached or printed; but through his Mistake or want of due Information, he chargeth me for my not making a penitent Acknowledgment of my great sin, for my former Errors, as to matters of Religion [As to Morals, I thank God, I have been preserved from my Infancy free of all Scandal] for I have again and again, in a much more publick place than Boston in New-England, (to wit, in publick Churches in London, and else-where, as at Turners 〈◊〉 in London, before many Witnesses of Worthy Persons, both Ministers and People of the Church of England, as well as many others of Dissenters) made from the sincerity of my heart, with great Sorrow & Cont •• tion, a penitent acknowledgment of my former Errors, when under the profession of a Quaker, and have particularly named them, not only by word of Mouth in those publick places, but in several of my printed Books, and particularly I have, some years ago, printed a Book of Retractations as well as Explanations of many Passages contained in my former Books; and, as I have above quoted him, he confesseth, That I have seen and renounced my Errors: And what would he have more? Must there be no end of publick Repentances? This is more severe tha the severest Penances that the antient Church laid on Delinquents. If I had a mind to Recriminate I might, but I willingly forbear. If he thinks he has treated me some-what more civilly than the Quakers have done, in their scurrilous and lying Pamphlets, I thank him for it, (though I think in several Passages of his Remarks, he has been too severe and uncharitable towards me, and I have taken care hitherto, and intend so to do throughout my whole Reply, to treat him not only as civilly, but more civilly than he has treated me, so as to abstain from all Personal Reflections, and indeed from all other Reflections but what the Thread of his Discourse necessarily leads me unto, either by direct Argument, or by what we commonly call Argumentum ad Hominem, which he hath used against me, as I have against him: And whether He or I have the best cause, I leave to Intelligent and Impartial Readers. Besides, if the Author has but overly considered the Contents of my Sermon, he could not but fi d my free Acknowledgement of my former great Error and Sin in my uncharitable Censures of the Church of England, and Seperation from Her (which was with respect to Doctrines as well as Practices not only of the Church of England, but of other Protestant Churches and to his Son Mr. Cotton Mather I made a free Acknowledgment to his face, in his own House, That I acknowledged my Errors and Uncharitableness towards Him and his Brethren, in my several late Books of Controversie with them, while I was under the profession of a Quaker; and I desired him to signifie so much to his Brethren.

I grant what the Author saith, pag. 32.He ( viz. G.K.) has reason to walk softly all his days, from the consideration of the hurt he has done to the Souls of Men. And so I hope I do, by the Grace of God, and ever 〈◊〉 do. But that ever I led any into Blasphe ses (as the word is commonly taken) as he seemeth to charge me, I deny. If the Quakers can be believed, they will scarce allow that ever I brought over •• y to be right Quakers; for some of Note among them, particularly Arthur Cook told me in a Quakers Meeting in Philadelphia, That I was never any thing (while under the Profession of a Quaker) but an old rotten Presbyterian; and the main reason he gave in the Meeting for his thus c n u ing me, was or my directing the Friends to Christ as God-Man without us, as the object of Faith for Salvation; and for my saying, The Light within was not sufficient o Salvation without something else, meaning by that something else, Christ himself, as both God an Man without us, and yet but one Christ, and also the Doctrine of Christ, as outwardly preached, and as is contained in the holy Scriptures. But to say the Truth (excepting the Errors I had, both too many and too great, which yet did not destroy the Foundation that was laid in me) I was nearer in my Perswasions (even when a Quaker) to the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England, than to any other called Protestant Churches or Communions in Brittain, which made my coming to her Communion more easie to me, alter that God in his great Mercy had so far further enlightned me to see and renounce my former Errors, and I humbly thank my gracious God for the good Foundation of Faith that was laid in me under the Education I had, by the Grace of God (before I came among the Quakers) in my Native Country. But how much o ever I have been (through my Ignorance and Errors, being deceived by false Teachers of the Quakers, through their high pretences to Immediate Revelation, in the same time and manner as the Prophets & Apostles had) prejudicial to the Souls of any, by leading them into such Errors as I had my self, yet I hope I can say, without boasting, it hath pleased God by his Grace, to make me Instrumental to recover more out of the Abiss of Quakerism, than ever I led any, into the more shallow places of it.

Whereas the Author saith, pag. 32. There have been many Conformists whom for their eminent Piety and Learning, we shall always love & honour.

I Answ. But all these were as zealous for the Church of England, and her way of Worship and Discipline, as G. K. and much more, and have defended Her, and her Liturgy, Discipline and Constitution, by the same Arguments and Means as I have used, and which the Author hath called Crambe recocta, as used by me; why then might he not have bestowed on me some of that Charity of Judgment which he has on them, whom he saith, he shall always love and honour, for their eminent Piety and Learning But who will well consider the severe Censures that the Author has past on the Church of England, in these his Remarks, as well as elsewhere, and upon her Judaizing, Paganising, Apostatising and Affinity to Popery, as he would have ignorant credulous People believe, one would judge he had not Charity to think there was one truly Pious in that Church; for seeing they were, and are all engaged in the same cause with Me, and far better and abler Defendants of it than I, who have but borrowed their Weapons, as the Author himself affirms, why he should pass this severe Censure on Me, of being a Seducer, or endeavouring to seduce Men from the Truth, in Matters relating to the Order of the Gospel, which is of divine Constitution, and yet not only let those pass Scot-free, but highly commend them for their eminent 〈◊〉 and Learning, whose Words and Arguments I have but as Copied out (if the Author may be believed) in my delivery of those Six Rules; and I suppose he never knew any of the Church of England eminent for either Piety and Learning, but held them, as much as I do.

Lastly, Whereas the Author saith, Would Mr. Keith make it his Business without concerning himself in those Circumstantials in Religion, about which Godly and Learned Men differ in their Judgments, to undeceive that Miserable sort of people by him formerly Deluded, he might do a Service for Christ.

I Answ. I have indeed made it my main Business o to do ever since God has been pleased further to enlighten Me, and purpose by his Grace so to do for the future; for to Them, I confess, I am the greatest Debtor; and yet why I may not at Times, and upon Occasion, when I see a Service, plead for the Skirts & Garments of the Church of England, (which is the most beautiful, as well as the strongest and ablest of all her Sister Protestant Churches, and the greatest Bullwark against Popery, as well as against all other Heresies) which Author and His Brethren would strip her Naked of [I mean not Garments or Skirts in a litteral but figurative Sense] and not only strip Her to the Skin, but would fley Her Skin off Her Body, and besides all this, would go about to put Her in the Attire of a Whore, as some here have done, and continue to do, Yea, and even the Author in these very Remarks, and in some 〈◊〉 of His Books (especially if that called, A Discourse concerning the Unlawfulness of Common-Prayer-Worship, be His, as it is reported to be, at last, He is a Vindicator of it) hath too much so done. Were these but the Hundred part of the able Divines of The Church of England here in America, to ease me of that Work, its very like I should have altogether been concerned in my Labours, in this part of the World, to endeavour to Undeceive the Deluded Quakers. But finding the Harvest great, even in several parts of New-England, (where I have preached among considerable Numbers of Persons born & bred up in the Churches of New-England, and near Ripe to be gathered into the Church of England, as 〈◊〉 of Corn into the Barn, and but few Labourers of the Church here (Though, God be thanked, those few have laboured with good Success, and I hope shall continue so to do) I could not but put my Hand, and give my Assistance in so good a Work, as to perswade the differing sorts of Protestants here to joyn in the Christian Bond of Truth and Peace with The Church of England. And be it so, that those Things of Difference betwixt The Church of England and the Independent Churches, in point of Worship and Discipline, are Circumstantials of Religion, as the Author calls them, yet they are so Great Circumstantials in the Author's account, that if the Six Rules delivered in my Sermon should come to be owned to be true, by the Ministers and People of New-England, Independents in general, he is ready to conclude, their Hedge would be broken down, of Church of Order, and the Name of Independent Churches, and their Order of Discipline, would be buried, and the Church of England would spread like an Olive Tree, or a Vine, filling the several places of it. Of this, it seems, he is sore afraid, and therefore hath assaulted me with his Remarks upon the Six Rules in my Sermon, all perswasive to Peace and Union. But as much as he thinks himself concerned about the Circumstantials of the Independent Chhurches, in order to preserve their Visible and External Constitution, I think I ought to be as much concerned for the Circumstantials of the Church of England, in order to Her Preservation, where she is, and Her Multiplication where she is not. Besides, these Six Rules which I gave in my Sermon, and are printed therein, were not only for the Information of Independents, to remove their Prejudices against the Church, but as well for the Information of the Quakers, some of which heard me Preach that very Sermon, and divers others have read it, and more, I hope, will read it. And these Six Rules, next to the first past of my Sermon, I did and do judge, that when it pleaseth God to give them a right Understanding of the Truths of both the first part of that Sermon, concerning the true Foundation of Faith, and also of the Second part of it, containing those Six Rules, it will be as ready a way and means, what is contained in both these parts of my Sermon, as any I know, to bring off the Quakers not only from many of their gross Errors, but also to direct them safely (when brought off) where to take up their Residence, even in the Church of England, the Mother Protestant Church of all English Men, and the best Church (I sincerely believe) that God has on Earth, both for Purity of Doctrine and Worship, as well as for the excellent Lives of many Thousands of Her Members, notwithstanding of the Scum and Dross of too many who call themselves by Her Name, as Her Children, but are not, as many of Old were called Israel, who yet were not of Israel.

Thus, I think, I have gone through all the Material Things in 〈◊〉 Book of Remarks, which seemed to Me any wise to deserve a Reply: And what I have not Noticed or Answered, I purposely omitted them, as being but improper Digressions from the Subject of the Dispute, which mainly, or rather only was the Contents of those Six Rules delivered in my printed Sermon.

G.K. Newport in Rhode-Island, Sept. 8. 1702. FINIS.