I AM ſo far from finding Fault with your Attempt to vindicate the Church of England from the Exceptions both of Mr. J. G. and my ſelf, that I cannot but think every Man equally entitled, both to follow the Dictates of his own Reaſon, and Conſcience in matters of Religion; and to give the Reaſon of his Hope to others for their Conviction or Satisfaction. And I muſt acknowledge, that you and the reſt of your Brethren that have deſerted our Communion for that of the Church of England, had a ſpecial Call to ſatisfy the World about you, as to the Reaſons of your ſurprizing Conduct. And I know no other but this publick Method of doing it, that would ſo effectually obviate thoſe harſh Inſinuations and cenſorious Reflections, unto which you are liable; and convince every Body, that your Change was not owing to the Want of neceſſary ſelf-Denial, and chriſtian Contentment with the Hardſhips and Indigencies, that (thro' the Ingratitude of the People) are the too common Lot of the Miniſtry in this Country. But you'll pardon me, if I find it more difficult to apologiſe for the Method, in which you have choſen to publiſh your Vindication.

It might have been expected, that tho' you had ſeen Reaſon to change ſome of your Religious Principles; you would nevertheleſs have retain'd ſomething of that common Civility, for which you have formerly been famous; and at leaſt have treated your Adverſaries with that Decency, that is alwaies due to human Nature; if your new Principles could not have allowed us the Character of Friends, Gentlemen, or Chriſtians. (Indeed Sir, I cannot account for thoſe opprobrious Epithets you are pleaſed ſo freely to beſtow, ſuch as brutiſh Noiſe, palpable and notorious Untruths, Prophane enough for an Infidel, Fool &c. I cannot but think your Arguments would have been every whit as concluſive, without theſe Decorations as with them.

I am in like Manner uncapable to apologiſe; for your overlooking ſo great a Part of the Sermon you had undertaken to anſwer. You have wholly overlook'd the Preface to that Sermon. — You have made no Reply to the Imputation of Arminianiſm, which methinks might have ſtuck pretty cloſe to ſuch Clergy-men of the Church of England, as have ſubſcribed the xxxix Articles.— You have made no Reply to the Reaſons offered againſt Requiring as a religious Duty, what God has not propoſed as ſuch, nor required of us; againſt enjoining as Terms of Communion, what God has not enjoined; and againſt impoſing any Terms of Communion by penal Sanctions. —Nor have you taken any particular Notice of the three following Heads, wherein is ſhewn, how teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, renders our Worſhip vain.— You have indeed roundly aſſerted, that there cannot be any publick Worſhip, but there muſt be ſome ſtinted Prayer impoſed. p. 17. And that there neither is nor can be any Church upon Earth, but what hath Terms of Communion and Ceremonies impoſed, which God hath not expreſly commanded. p. 51. But did you think that theſe ſtrong Aſſertions, were ſufficient Anſwer to all the Arguments in the Sermon againſt Impoſitions? Are we to take your Word in this Caſe, and not know why? This is I confeſs a very conciſe and ſummary Method of anſwering that Diſcourſe, to wholly neglect the greateſt Part of it; and even that Part which was propoſed as the Grounds and Foundation of thoſe Exceptions, that you have been pleaſed to make ſome Remarks upon.— If you thought theſe Things unworthy your Notice, 'twuold have been proper for you to have treated the whole with the ſame Contempt; ſince it was ſo neceſſary to take off Sampſon's Hair, (as you are pleaſed to ſtyle my Arguments againſt Impoſitions) in Order to prevent his making further Spoil of the Philiſtines.

But perhaps you might ſuppoſe, that the anſwering thoſe Arguments would not at preſent be quite ſo popular, among the new Proſelytes at Newark, to whom it might be ſomething ſhocking to think, that they had parted with their old Profeſſion and Freedom together.— They might have been frighted at the Sight of the Yoke; and it is therefore too early to endoctrinate, them in the Neceſſity of a blind Obedience to their ſpiritual Guides, and an abſolute Subjection to their Impoſitions.

Having premiſed theſe Things, I proceed to conſider your Vindication, which as you inform us, is no new Reply; but a Collection from ſeveral Writers, that we may ſee how each Complaint has been anſwered, long before I preached or publiſhed them; and therefore, how little Need there was to renew the tragical Outcry. By which Declaration I find, I have the united Strength of all your Party to grapple with.— For you have doubtleſs collected the beſt Anſwers, that you could find, among all the Authors that have written on your Side of the Controverſy.— And if I can juſtify my Exceptions, againſt all theſe Champions called in to your Aſſiſtance; it will appear, that we have good Reaſons, why we cannot ordinarily join with the Worſhip of the Church of England; which was the Thing I undertook to prove in that Sermon. And that there is Cauſe to continue the ſame Complaint, that has ever been made from the beginning of the Reformation, againſt the Impoſitions of the Church of England, in the Points under Debate.

I am firſt to attend upon your Explication of the Text I preach'd upon; and your Anſwer to that Enquiry, What is it to teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men? This (you tell us) is no more nor leſs, than to teach that, that is a divine Law or Ordinance, which is really but a human Appointment. When Men father thoſe Practices on God which have only an human Original; and 〈◊〉 that God has made that a Duty or a 〈◊〉 which he has never commanded nor forbidden p. 5. But by what Argument is this Gloſs juſtified? — You tell us out of Dr. Pride and of the Jews pretending to a twofold Law, the Written and the Oral Law; the latter equally divine, and of the ſame Authority with the former; that this Oral Law, or Bundle of Traditions, was committed to Writing in a Book called the Talmud, &c. In the Talmuds I confeſs theſe Traditions were pretended to be of Divine Authority: But don't you know, that the Jeruſalem Talmud was written above five Hundred Years after Chriſt; and the Babylonian Talmud much later? — How then does the ridiculous Dotages of the Talmudiſts, prove this to be the Doctrine of the Phariſees, oppoſed by our Bleſſed Saviour in this Text? It is certain they had Multitudes of moſt trifling ridiculous Traditions and Obſervances, at the Time that the Talmuds were written, which were utterly unknown, while our Saviour ſojourned upon Earth. 'Twould therefore have been more to the Purpoſe, for you or your Author to have proved, That this Doctrine of the Oral Law, and of Waſhing of Hands before Meat as a part of it, was received to be of Divine Authority in thoſe 〈◊〉 of which that Context treats; than 〈◊〉 have founded your confident and poſitive interpretation of the Text, upon 〈…〉 ſo many Hundred Years after.

But ſuppoſe this was the Caſe, I can't ſee how it at all affects the preſent Argument. — are not they as well changeable with teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, who enjoyn theſe Commandments by the ſevereſt Penalties; and are more careful of their Obſervation, than of the Obſervation of God's own Inſtitutions; as they who expreſly declare, that theſe Commands are of divine Inſtitution? — What does it ſignify for the Church of England to teach that, Theſe Ceremonies are not Ordinances neceſſary to Salvation, when they are impoſed with ſuch ſevere and dreadful Sanctions? — You tell us, the Scribes and Phariſees valued their pretended Oral Law, more than the written Law of God; and made the written Law give way to it. p. 9. — And I muſt tell you, That the written Law of God requires us, to receive one another, as Chriſt alſo received us, to the Glory of God, Rom. xv. 7. To receive him that is weak in the Faith, but not to doubtful Diſputations, Rom. xiv. 1. Not to judge one another any more; but to judge this rather, not to put a Stumbling-block, or Occaſion to fall, in our Brothers Way. Rom. xiv. 13. And not to deſtroy him with our Meat, for whom Chriſt died; nor to eat Fleſh; nor drink Wine; nor any Thing whereby thy Brother ſtumbleth, or is offended, or made weak. verſ. 15.24. — The written Law of God requires, that we ſhould have Compaſſion one of another, love as Brethren, be pittiful, be courteous. 1 Pet. iii. 8. — And would it not be a valuing the Commandments of Men, above the written Laws of God, to declare all excommunicated ipſo facto, that don't acknowledge theſe Commandments of Men, to be ſuch as they may with a good Conſcience approve, uſe, or ſubſcribe to; or that do but pretend to groan under certain Grievances, impoſed upon them by the Commandments of Men? vid. Can. vi. & x. And yet you are no Stranger to that excellent Conſtitution, where all ſuch as theſe are by Canon delivered up to Satan. — And did the Scribes and Phariſees ever go further than this, in teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men?

You alſo inform us, That the Scribes and Phariſees eſteemed this Inſtance of waſhing of Hands before Meat, as much a divine Command, as that thou ſhalt not kill; or thou ſhalt not commit Adultery. — And would it not be a virtual and practical declaring the ſame Thing, to treat ſuch as capital Offenders, who conſcienciouſly refuſe Subjection to theſe Commandments of Men? And yet that many Hundreds have been laid in Irons, in ſtinking Dungeons, been baniſhed, diſmembred, and put to Death in this Cauſe, is well known to all that are acquainted with the Hiſtory of our Nation.

And now, Sir, I dare even make the Appeal to your ſelf, whether it ben't as much teaching theſe for Doctrines, to impoſe them with ſuch dreadful Severity, as to barely declare them divine, when they are not.

You tell us, they are not taught to be neceſſary to Salvation. p. 7. And that the Church has declared to the World, That they place no Religion in theſe Things. p. 9. And muſt all be lookt upon as Heathen Men and Publicans, by Virtue of the Church's Excommunication, who can't conform to theſe Things, that by your own Confeſſion have no Religion in them? — Muſt they be perpetually pelted, with the frightful Clamours of damning Schiſm, who ſcruple the Obſervance of thoſe Commandments of Men, which the Impoſers themſelves declare to the World that they place no Religion in?

But that we may put an End to this Debate, let us view the Caſe, as it is repreſented by the Evangeliſt himſelf, and ſee whether all teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, are not condemned in the Text.— And whether all Impoſitions of our own Inſtitutions upon other Mens Conſciences, (whether we give them the Character of divine Ordinances or not) are not culpable, by this Verdict of our bleſſed Saviour. If we recur to the ſacred Story, we find it thus related. — Then came to him the Phariſees, and certain of the Scribes which came from Jeruſalem; and when they ſaw ſome of his Diſciples eat Bread, with defiled (that is to ſay, with unwaſhed Hands they found Fault. — Then the Phariſees and Scribes asked him, why walk not thy Diſciples according to the Tradition of the Elders, but eat Bread with unwaſhen Hands? He anſwered and ſaid unto them, well hath I ſaids propheſyed of you Hypocrites, as it is written. — This People honoureth me with their Lips; but their Heart is far from me.— Howbeit in vain do they worſhip me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. — By which Narrative it plainly appears, that the Thing and the only Thing found Fault with by the Scribes and Phariſees, was that the Diſciples eat Bread with unwaſhed Hands. — That the Reaſon and the only Reaſon of their finding Fault was, that they walked not according to the Tradition of the Elders. There was not the leaſt Pretence that his Obſervance was founded upon any divine Authority.— It was the Injunction of this (in it ſelf) innocent and indifferent Rite, by the lawful Authority in the Jewiſh Church, that brought upon 'em theſe ſevere Cenſures. You Hypocrites, in vain do you worſhip me, &c. And I muſt take Liberty to ſay, that I cannot imagine any Plea or Pretence, that can poſſibly be made for the Impoſition of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, that may not with like Propriety be offered, in Favour of the Scribes and Phariſees in this Context.— Are the Injunctions of the Church of England impoſed by lawful Authority? So was waſhing of Hands before Meat.— Are they ſignificant of inward Purity and Holineſs? So was this.— Are they pretended to be decent and orderly? And was not this Pretence much more plauſible in the Caſe before us? Are your Ceremonies as you tell us, p. 11. convenient; and conducive to the Peace and and good Order of the Church, in the Opinion of the civil and eccleſiaſtical Governours?' And was not this ſo too? Do you pretend that the Churches Injunctions are not forbidden by God, and therefore lawfully impoſed? You know this has been alwaies a Subject of Debate.— But none can pretend that God has any where forbidden us, to waſh our Hands before Meat.— Or do you plead, that your Ceremonies are indifferent Things; and therefore what can't be juſtly objected againſt. But can they be more indifferent, than the waſhing of our Hands before we eat? In ſhort, try your Skill in making what Apology you pleaſe for the Impoſition of your Rites and Ceremonies; and the ſame Arguments will conclude with equal Force, in Favour of the Scribes and Phariſees in this Context.

And now I'm come to conſider your artful turning the Point upon us; and to try if we can no Way avoid the dangerous Thruſt.— No, no, they teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, (you inform us) who ſay it is a Sin to join in an impoſed Form of Prayer, when God never ſaid ſo, &c. p. 8. But what is this to the Purpoſe? We do indeed ſay it's a Sin for any to join in thoſe impoſed Forms and Ceremonies, againſt the Remonſtrances of their own Conſciences; and a Sin for any to impoſe them.— But you muſt give us better Conviction than your bare Word, that God has never ſaid ſo.— I am ſure God hath ſaid, that he that doubteth is damned if he eat, becauſe he eateth not of Faith; for whatſoever is not of Faith is SIN, Rom. xiv. 23. — And God has alſo ſaid, that if ye SIN againſt the Brethren and wound their weak Conſcience, ye SIN againſt Chriſt. 1 Cor. viii. 12.— But you tell us. They are the guilty Perſons, who make theſe Things ſinful, which God has left indifferent; as he has all the Ceremonies of the Church of England. Has God left theſe Things indifferent? Why then I beſeech you, don't the Church of England leave them indifferent too? Can they order this Matter better than God has done? And I muſt further enquire, to whom are theſe Things indifferent? If to the Impoſers, they could eaſily part with indifferent Things, for the Peace and Union of the Church, without any Prejudice to their Conſciences.— But how often muſt you be told, that they are not indifferent to us; and therefore cannot be comply'd with without Sin.— If you ſay, that our Scruples are unreaſonable.— I anſwer, that you have no Buſineſs to monopolize all Reaſon to your ſelves. — We have as good a Claim to follow the Dictates of our own Reaſon, as you have.— We muſt believe for our ſelves, act for our ſelves, and give an Account for our ſelves.— And are therefore not to depend upon your Reaſon for our Guide.

Thus I've endeavour'd to reſcue my Text out of your Hands, and have (I think) left the Foundation of that Diſcourſe ſafe, notwithſtanding all your Attempts to ſubvert and undermine it.

You next endeavour to turn my own Conceſſions againſt me; and appeal to any Man that is not ſtark blind with Prejudice, whether I have not by theſe true Aſſertions, wholly freed your Church from that dreadful Charge, of teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. But why could you not give your Reader my Conceſſions in my own Words, without leaving out ſome Paſſages, and altering and adding others, according to your own Fancy? Did not your publiſhing thoſe Paſſages in the Italick Character, give your Reader Reaſon to ſuppoſe them an exact Tranſcript; and did not the Juſtice of the Cauſe require, that they ſhould be ſo? Indeed Sir this looks a little ſuſpicious.

I did (I confeſs,) allow, that agreeing among our ſelves, upon any meer Circumſtantials and Apendages of Worſhip, is not teaching for Doctorines the Commandments of Men.— That it's impoſſible to attend upon any publick Worſhip, without adjuſting ſome external Circumſtances with Relation to it, ſuch as the Time and Place of Worſhip, and ſuch like Things as are altogether extrinſecal to the Worſhip it ſelf; and which have no Religion placed in them.— But what is this to the Affair under Conſideration? You indeed demand, What has the Church of England done, but only agreed together about ſome meer Circumſtantials and Apendages of Worſhip? And tell us, They have declared to the World; that they place no Religion in theſe Things, &c. But could you be ſerious, when you wrote this? Are the Churches Impoſitions of theſe Things with ſuch ſevere penal Sanctions, no more then an Agreement among themſelves? Is there no Difference, between adjuſting ſuch external and altogether extrinſecal Circumſtances with Relation to the Worſhip of God, as the Time and Place of Worſhip; and the impoſing your myſtical ſignificant Ceremonies, your Modes and Forms of Worſhip? Don't you your ſelf allow, that the Sign of the Croſs (for Inſtance) is a viſible Sign of inviſible Grace.— That it is a Badge of our Chriſtianity; that it is a covenanting Sign, a Sign of profeſſed Conſent to the Covenant Duties, an obliging Sign, an inveſting Sign; that it is to operate Grace morally on the intelligent: And that it is a Diſcharge of our Duty, by glorying in the Sufferings of Chriſt? From p. 20. to 26. And can any Body pretend, that this is no more than meer Circumſtantials and Appendages of Worſhip, ſuch as Time, Place and the like? Or can any Body pretend, that the Modes of Worſhip are altogether extrinſecal to the Worſhip it ſelf; that they are meer Circumſtantials, that have no Religion in them? Why then are we forbid in the ſecond Commandment, to bow down to any Thing in Heaven or Earth? Why did the three Children rather chooſe the Fiery Furnace, than to fall down to Nebuchadnezzar's golden Image. Dan. iii. 16? And why were the Martyrs in the Roman Perſecution ſo weak, as to ſuffer the moſt terrible Death their Enemies could inflict, rather than take a Cenſer in their Hands, with burning Incenſe, in an Idols Temple? Could not theſe have performed the outward Act, without any inward Conſent, by the Help of this faſhionable Diſtinction; Theſe are but meer Circumſtances, we place no Religion in them? — You'll remember Sir, that I am not now comparing your Modes of Worſhip to the idolatrous Modes of the Heathen; but endeavouring to ſhew, that the Modes of Worſhip are ſomething more than meer Circumſtances.— And if it be ſo in heathen Worſhip, it is ſo likewiſe in Chriſtian Worſhip.— Since it is ſo from the Nature of the Thing, it is ſo in all Caſes whatſoever, as might be abundanlty proved from Scripture, if there needed any further Evidences, in ſo clear a Caſe.— And I have the ſame Cauſe to expoſtulate with you, with Reſpect to your Forms of Worſhip.— Will you yourſelf ſay, that there is no Religion placed in them? If you do ſay ſo, you acknowledge all the Forms of the Church of England to be void of Religion; and I'm ſure then not very deſirable. — If you do not ſay ſo, how are they meer Circumſtantials and Appendages of Worſhip? How can your Church declare to the World, that they place no Religion in theſe Things? In a Word, you muſt perſwade the World to quit their Underſtanding; and to act wholly by an implicit Faith, before your Reaſoning will paſs among Men of Diſcerning, for any Thing but moſt egregious and ludicrous Trifling.

I am in the next Place to take Notice of your Attempt to vindicate the Church of England, from the Imputation of Will-Worſhip.— And whether that Church be chargeable with Will-Worſhip or not. I can't but think the Difference here made by you, and the learned Advocates called in to your Aſſiſtance, is very lame and deficient.— You begin with an Expoſition of Col. ii. 23. And tell us, from thence, that Will-Worſhip muſt conſiſt in theſe two Things, 1. In giving that Worſhip to a Creature, which is due only to God. 2. In enjoining a Thing as neceſſary and commanded of God as a Piece of his Service, when God never commanded it; and in prohibiting Things as unlawful by God's Command, when God never forbid them. — But whence I beſeech you, is this Limitation of Will-Worſhip? Can no Worſhip be inſtituted from Mens own Wills, as the Foundation and Rule of it, without terminating in the Creature, or pretending an immediate Command from God for it? Nay, are not all Inſtitutions of Worſhip meerly human, founded upon the Will of Man, and that only; Whatever Reaſons Men may pretend for their willing and requiring ſuch Kinds of Worſhip; yet their Wills are the only Foundation and Rule of it. —This is (I think) inconteſtable, that ſuch Worſhip muſt be founded upon a Declaration of the Will of God, or the Will of Man.— The former you your ſelf expreſly exclude in the preſent Caſe; and tell us, that they are not impoſed under the Notion of Neceſſary Duties, or religious Actions, or as commanded by God. p. 11. They muſt be therefore impoſed as commanded by Man; and founded upon the Will of Man.— That is, they muſt be Will-Worſhip.— But you may yet object, that this is not what was deſigned by the Apoſtle in the cited Text.— Let us then conſider the Caſe a little.

Either this Imputation of Will-Worſhip, muſt be connected to all the foregoing Context; (as you ſeem to ſuppoſe) or elſe only to the two Verſes immediately preceeding.— If the former, then the impoſing of Meat Drink and HOLD DAYS. v. 16. Voluntary Humility, and worſhipping Angels. v. 18. the Rudiments of the World, and human Ordinances. v. 20. forbidding to touch, taſte, or handle. v. 21. all the Commandments and Ordinances of Men. v. 22. are equally condemned as a Shew of Wiſdom in Will-Worſhip, in the Text under Conſideration.— But if we are to conſider this Charge of Will-Worſhip, as referring only to the two Verſes immediately foregoing the Text; yet even then, all the Doctrines and Commandments of Men in the Worſhip of God, are without Diſtinction to periſh together, under this Indictment.—They are all in the Apoſtles Account, but a Shew of Wiſdom in Will-Worſhip.— There is no Place at all for your Diſtinction, of pretending theſe Things to be neceſſary and commanded of God, when God never commanded them.— All that the Apoſtle founds this Charge upon, is their being meerly the Commandments and Doctrines of Men.— No Pleas or Pretences of Gods having commanded or not commanded them comes into the Queſtion in this Context.

And now for the Application.— Whether this Charge lies againſt ſome hot Diſſenters, (as you are pleaſed to call us) or againſt thoſe that made them ſuch; is a Queſtion pretty eaſily anſwer'd.— Let us be deem'd guilty, if we forbid Meats and Drinks; and appoint for Days of faſting and Abſtinence, the forty Days of Lent, the Ember Days at the four Seaſons, being the Wedneſday, Friday and Saturday after the firſt Sunday in Lent, the Feaſt of Pentecoſt, September 14. and December 13. The Rogation Days, being the Monday, Tueſday and Wedneſday, before holy Thurſday or the Aſcention of our Lord; and all the Fridays in the Year, except Chriſtmas Day.— Let them bear this Imputation; that ſay touch not, taſte not, handle not, for above a hundred Days in the Year.— We will alſo be content to bear this Charge, when you prove us guilty of appointing HOLY DAYS to be obſerv'd; (which is another Article in the Catalogue of Will-Worſhip) and when we require between twenty and thirty Days in the Year, to be obſerved in Commemoration of certain Saints departed; and of notifying in our Calendar, the Days of above fifty more, ſome of them very little worthy to be remembred; and ſome of them utterly unknown, beſides Chriſtmas, Circumciſion, Epiphany, good Friday, Eaſter, Whitſunweek; with a long etcetera. — If we (I ſay) thus appoint above half the Days in the Year, for Feaſts, and Holy-Days, let us bear the Imputation of Will-Worſhip. — For if ſo, I don't ſee how we could evade the Charge of rejecting the Commandment of God, (ſix Days ſhalt thou labour) that we may keep our own Traditions. Mark vii. 9. I will add to this— We ſhall alſo confeſs our ſelves chargeable, when we enjoin the Rudiments of the World, and ſubject our People unto human Ordinances, and the Commandments and Doctrines of Men; (Which are the other Articles in the Apoſtles Catalogue of Will-Worſhip) and impoſe all theſe, under the Pains of Excommunication: When we impoſe the Athanaſian Creed; and damn all that don't believe the whole of it, tho' not one in five hundred underſtand it. — When we impoſe conteſted and ſcrupled Forms of Prayer, canonical Veſtments, the Croſs in Baptiſm, Kneeling at the Lords-Supper, and the like. And yet at the ſame Time acknowledge; as you do. p. 11. That we don't impoſe them under the Notion of neceſſary Duties or religious Actions, or as commanded by God: But in ſhort, to aſſert our Dominion over other Mens Conſciences. — When we ordain, that the Church ſhall be governed by Arch Biſhops, Biſhops, Chancellours, Commiſſaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-Deacons, &c. that the Scriptures know nothing of.— Then muſt we plead guilty at this Bar. For we have but one Law giver, who is able to ſave and deſtroy.— And who is he that judgeth another? Jam. iv. 12. But in the mean Time, Turpe eſt Doctori cum Culpa redarguit ipſum.

As to your Diſcourſe of Superſtition, which you acknowledge to be another Name for the ſame Thing, p. 12. There is no Occaſion to ſay any Thing about it, having already obviated all your Pretences upon that Head; and ſhall therefore only obſerve, that it can certainly be no Superſtition, to avoid Will-Worſhip.— And to whom that Imputation properly belongs, let the World Judge.

Upon the whole, I muſt remark to you, how impertinent are all your Pretences, of fixing the Charge of Will-Worſhip and Superſtition upon us; for avoiding what God has not forbidden. For he has forbidden every Thing in his Worſhip, but what he has required.— Chriſt has given no Commiſſion to his Miniſters to teach any Thing, but what he has commanded them. Mat. xxviii. 2. To the Law and to the Teſtimony, if they ſpeak not according to this Word, it is becauſe they have no Light in them. Iſai. viii. 20. Whatſoever Thing I command you, obſerve and do it; thou ſhalt not add thereto; nor diminiſh from it. Deut. xii. 32. For I teſtify unto every one that heareth the Words of the Prophecy of this Book, if any Man ſhall add unto thoſe Things, God ſhall add unto him the Plagues, that are written in this Book, Rev. xxii. 18. To which may be added, beſides many other plain Scripture Proofs, the Texts already debated.— By the one they are reprimanded as Hypocrites, who worſhip God in vain, on Account of their teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men; and by the other, they are ſtigmatized as Will-Worſhippers, who teach the Commandments and Doctrines of Men.

Pardon me Sir, if I here take Liberty to enquire of you, upon what Warrant the Church of England have rejected the Popiſh Ceremonies and Inſtitutions? The Scripture no where expreſly forbids ſaying Maſs, uſing holy Water, croſſing our ſelves upon all Occaſions, ſetting up Croſſes in our Churches or Streets; or wearing them in our Boſoms: Nor does it expreſly forbid wearing a String of Beads about our Necks, and counting them when we ſay our Prayers, or the like. Now according to your own Rule. p. 12. ſince you think to pleaſe God by avoiding what he has not forbidden, are you not guilty of Will-Worſhip and Superſtition, in rejecting of theſe Things? If you ſay that the general Prohibition of theſe Things in Scripture is ſufficient. We give the ſame Anſwer with reſpect to your unſcriptural Inſtitutions. And aſſign any Reaſon if you can, for the Church of England's Authority, in appointing any unſcriptural Inſtitutions, which ſhe thinks decent and orderly in the Worſhip of God; which can't be urged with the ſame Force, in Favour of the Church of Rome's Authority in appointing ſuch unſcriptural Inſtitutions, as ſhe thinks decent and orderly in the Worſhip of God, I muſt take leave to tell you again, that tho' there is greateſt Difference in the Nature of the Things impoſed; yet there is none at all in the Authority to impoſe them; nor any at all in the Authority to judge, what are, and what are not decent and orderly in Gods Worſhip.

Thus I'm prepar'd to hear what you have to ſay, to the particular Charges as you call them.

The firſt is, that I think ſtinted and impoſed Liturgies, are teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, for this Reaſon among others; becauſe the Scriptures have not impoſed nor preſcribed any. And is not this a good Reaſon? Such impoſed Liturgies muſt be either the Commandments of God or the Commandments of Men.— If the former, God has preſcribed and enjoined them; and if he has not, they are the Commandments of Men, which is what I undertook to prove; and I think this falls nothing ſhort of Demonſtration.— If it had been the Will of God that we ſhould worſhip him by ſtinted Liturgies, he would have told us ſo in his Word.— It is impoſſible by any Evidence to determine that to be his Will in this Caſe, which he has not revealed to be ſo in his Word, which is the only Manifeſtation of his Will, with Reſpect to the Modes of Worſhip. — And it is not ſo light a Concern, whether we worſhip God with a Form or without, whether we have a ſtated and ſtinted Liturgy or none at all, or by that ſort of Form or Liturgy, whether by a Maſs-Book, or Common-Prayer-Book, or ſome other, we are to perform our publick Worſhip, that there ſhould be no Proviſion made about it in the Word of God, if it had been the divine Pleaſure, that there ſhou'd be a ſtated ſtinted Liturgy conſtantly uſed in the Church, for publick Worſhip. Whence I think we may ſafely conclude, that the impoſing any ſtated Liturgy, is teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men.

But was you in earneſt, when you pretended to turn this Argument upon us? Can you, who have lived ſo long among us, be capable to imagine, that we impoſe our extemporary Prayers, upon our Congregations? Did you ever know any Penalties inflicted by us, upon ſuch as differ from us about conceived Prayers? How could you with any Juſtice ſay, that I excommunicate all that can't in Conſcience join with me. p. 17. I challenge the World to produce as much as a Shadow of an Inſtance of this Kind.— No, it is with ſuch as agree with us about the Uſe of conceived Prayers, with whom that Part of publick Worſhip is performed.— We have no canons to excommunicate ſuch as differ from us in that Matter. We refuſe no ſacred Ordinances to any upon that Account.— And let it be ſo in the Church of England, and (tho' we could not then think their Way of Worſhip the beſt; yet) we would maintain no Controverſy with them about it; but conſent to have every one Practice, according as he is fully perſwaded in his own Mind. And what Impoſition, I entreat you, is it, to agree with them that agree with us; and uſe conceived Prayers with thoſe that deſire it?

But you inſinuate, that we have no Command of God in the Scriptures for our conceived Prayers, any more than you have for impoſing your Liturgy upon us.— To which I anſwer.— We have expreſs Command in Scripture to attend upon this Duty of Prayer, to pray with all Prayer and Supplication in the Spirit.— We have particular Directions as to the Method of performing the Duty: But no Precept, no Example, no Direction at all for the compiling, impoſing, or uſing any Liturgy, either for publick or private Devotion.— From whence I think the Conſequence is neceſſary, that we are commanded to pray without a Liturgy, ſince we are commanded to pray, and have frequent Examples in Scriptures of praying without a Liturgy; But no divine Warrant for the Uſe of a Liturgy upon any Occaſion, much leſs a ſtinted Liturgy for conſtant publick Worſhip. And I muſt further obſerve to you, that your Reaſoning will as well conclude againſt our preaching my Sermons of our own compoſing; and for our conſtant Uſe of the Homilies in our publick Miniſtry.— For God has no where expreſly commanded us to preach our own Compoſures — Will you therefore conclude, that we muſt preach no Sermons but what the Church has compoſed for us? I believe you'll acknowledge that the general Commands to preach, to be inſtant in Seaſon and out of Seaſon, to declare the whole Counſel of God, &c. are a ſufficient Declaration of God's Will, againſt a ſtated and ſtinted Uſe of the Book of Homilies.— And why it is not equally ſo in the other Caſe, it concerns you to ſhew.— Would you argue, that compoſing of Sermons, is one of the chief of thoſe Gifts that Miniſters are required to ſtir up and exerciſe. And why not compoſing or conceiving their Prayers too? How comes the Gift of Prayer confined to the Compoſers of the Liturgy; and denyed to all other Miniſters, tho' as much concern'd as they, about both the Matter and Form of their Prayers? Would you urge, that our Sermons ſhould be ſuited to the ſeveral Occaſions and Exigences of our Congregations.— And why not our Prayers too? Why ſhould we be confined by the Book, to Joy and Gladneſs, when God calls for Weeping and Mourning and Baldneſs and girding with Sackcloath? See Iſai. xxii. 12 13. And on the other Hand.— Why muſt we be confined by the Book, to Faſting and Humiliation, when ſome ſignal Inſtance of ſpecial Mercy calls for preſent Thanksgiving? See Neh. viii. 9.10. And yet theſe are Caſes, that often do and muſt occur.

Beſides, it's utterly impoſſible, that this Book, or any other, ſhould provide for all the various Exigencies and different Diſpenſations of Providence, that frequently happen.— And muſt theſe Occaſions be never regarded in our Devotions? Thus you ſee what becomes of your fine Reaſonings upon this Subject.

But after all, if it were indeed as you boldly aſſert, that there is a Neceſſity of Peoples ſubmitting to impoſed Prayers, p. 15. And that conceiv'd Prayers are a Form impoſed upon the People: Yet this makes nothing at all for your Prayer-Book, I ſhould nevertheleſs be unſatisfied with ſtated and ſtinted Liturgies, for theſe Reaſons.

1. Becauſe there was no ſuch Liturgy compoſed nor impoſed in the Chriſtian Church in the earlieſt and pureſt Times of it.— Chriſt and his Apoſtles have given us no ſuch Pattern for our Imitation; and I would willingly walk ſo, as to have them for an Example, Phil. iii. 17. Certainly if this Method of publick Worſhip had been the beſt, it muſt have been uſed by them who were infallible in their Choice of the beſt Methods of worſhipping God.

2. Becauſe there is no Commiſſion given by the great Head and King of the Church, to any Man or Men upon Earth, to compoſe or impoſe any Liturgy for the Churches Uſe.— Wherever it is, it muſt be without Authority; and therefore without any Promiſe of God's Acceptance.— And I am loath to do any Thing in the Worſhip of God, that will expoſe me to that Reprimand.— Who hath required this at your Hand, Iſai. i. 12.

3. Becauſe where this Commiſſion is wanting, Chriſtians are bound to withſtand and oppoſe all theſe Impoſitions; and all Infractions of their Chriſtian Liberty: And even in lawful and indifferent Things, not to be brought under the Power of any, 1 Cor. vi. 12. But to ſtand faſt in the Liberty, where with Chriſt has made us free. Gal. v. 1. And in doubtful Caſes they ſhould certainly take Care, that they condemn not themſelves, in thoſe Things which they allow. Rom. xiv. 22.

4. Becauſe a ſtated and ſtinted Liturgy, limits both the Matter and Manner of our Prayers; and as it prevents thoſe proper Addreſſes to God which ſpecial Exigencies call for, and which no Form can provide for; ſo it deprives us of thoſe divine Aſſiſtances, that may be hoped for in the Uſe of conceived Prayers.— Whence it ſeems inconſiſtent with that of the Apoſtles, Rom. viii. 26. Likewiſe the Spirit alſo helpeth our Infirmities: For we know not what we ſhould pray for as we ought: But the Spirit it ſelf maketh Interceſſion for us, with Groanings that cannot be uttered. — Of this you were told before, but have found nothing to reply to it.

And now let us conſider, whether I am chargeable with ſuch a groſs Miſtake as you ſuppoſe. In ſaying, that there is no Account in the Old or New Teſtament, of Forms of Prayer for ſtated publick Worſhip.— You call upon us to look into Deut. xxi. 7. xxvi. 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15. Num. vi. 23. Joel, ii. 17. But you did not think it proper to tranſcribe the quoted Texts. That would have laid them open to the Readers view, whereas you might hope, that the moſt of 'em would take your Word, for the Pertinency of theſe Quotations; and never take the Pains to read and conſider them. — But I have followed your Orders, I have lookt into Deut. xxi. 7. And find there Directions, how Men were ordered to clear themſelves from the Guilt of innocent Blood, in the Caſe of an unknown Murder. But then, this was no publick Worſhip at all, much leſs was it ſtated publick Worſhip.— I have lookt into Deut. xxvi. 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15.— And find there Directions given, for the Method of bringing the firſt Fruits to the Prieſt; and for the Declaration they were to make, when they had made an End of Tything all the Tythes of their Encreaſe: But in this Caſe alſo, the ſame Objection lies againſt you.— Were theſe Directions for publick ſtated Worſhip, when the Occaſions occurred but once in a Year; and but once in three Years? Did the publick ſtated Worſhip of the Jews return no oftner? Is there no Difference between ſtated, and ſuch Occaſional Worſhip (if it be proper to call it Worſhip at all)? I confeſs I was ſo Ignorant, as to think occaſional and ſtated Worſhip to be oppoſites; and did therefore put in the Word ſtated, in Oppoſition to theſe occaſional Obſervances.— I have alſo lookt into Numb. vi. 23. Which is only a Direction as to the Manner of the Prieſts pronouncing the Bleſſing to the People; and not for the Peoples Worſhipping God at all.— And as little to the Purpoſe is your laſt Quotation from Joel ii. 17. Which is no more than a Direction to the Prieſts, to uſe a particular Petition in their Prayers to God, on one particular Faſt Day then appointed by the Prophet, without any Direction that it ſhould ever be uſed, upon any other Occaſion.— And what is this to ſtated publick Worſhip?

Could you your ſelf ſuppoſe, that thoſe Texts of Scripture any Thing affected the Debate between you and I? Do they make any Thing at all, for the compoſing and impoſing a ſtinted Liturgy for their conſtant publick Worſhip? Which was the Thing (as you know) that I was then pleading againſt.— Is it juſt arguing, that becauſe in the Caſe of an unknown Murder, Men were to uſe a Form to clear themſelves from the Guilt of that Murder; Or that when the Jews brought in their firſt Fruits, and Tythes, they were to uſe a particular Form of Words, upon their delivering them to the Prieſt; or becauſe the Prieſts were to bleſs the People in a particular Form of Words; or that becauſe there was a ſpecial Petition to be uſed, upon one particular Faſt Day of Gods appointing; that therefore we are to be tied up to a ſtated ſtinted Liturgy of human Invention and Appointment, in all our Prayers in the publick Worſhip of God? Methinks a little more thought upon this Subject would have been proper, before you had publiſhed that ſcripture Evidence to the World.

But you have one more Scripture Proof which is, that the Pſalms of David, Moſes, &c. are Forms of Prayer as well as Praiſe; and called Prayers. p. 6. But were not theſe penned to be ſung in the Congregations? Were not praying and ſinging different Parts of publick Worſhip, in the ſolemn Aſſemblies of the Jews? And do not we as well as you, uſe theſe very Forms in our publick Worſhip? What then is this to the preſent Caſe? Is this Reaſoning; or is it trifling, to urge, that becauſe it is agreed between us, that there were Forms of Divine Appointment for publick Singing, that therefore there were alſo Forms inſtituted for the ſtated publick Prayers in the Jewiſh Church. — What does it ſignify, that theſe Pſalms were ſome of them by Way of Petition to God, ſince they were deſign'd for a different and diſtinct Part of Worſhip, from their ſtated publick Prayers.

Upon the whole, I have this further Remark to make, that you your ſelf don't pretend to any Warrant from the New-Teſtament, for the Uſe of Forms of Prayer in our ſtated publick Worſhip.— Whence you implicitly allow, that there is no ſcripture Warrant for their Uſe under the Goſpel Diſpenſation.

I am now to conſider, what you can offer againſt this Saying of mine, in the Sermon you oppoſe, that we can't help but think, that taking a great Part of the Prayer-Book out of the popiſh Liturgy, is teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. To which you anſwer, firſt "I wiſh you had the Maſs-Book that you might ſee with your own Eyes, how wide he is from the Truth." But what an odd Evaſion is this? Did I pretend, that the Common-Prayer was taken out of the Maſs-Book ſtrictly ſpeaking? Or is that Book (if conſidered only as the Order and Canon of the Maſs) all the popiſh Liturgy? No Sir, when you undertake to compare Notes, be pleaſed to look into the Roman Breviary for the firſt Part of the publick Prayers; into the Ritual for the Order of Adminiſtring Sacraments, Matrimony, viſiting the Sick, and Burials; into the Miſſal for the Order of Conſecration; in the Communion, for the Epiſtles and Goſpels and Collects; and into the Pontifical, for the Order of Conſecration of Biſhops and Prieſts: All which belong to their Liturgy.

You next pretend to call in ſome Witneſſes in your Favour, Mr. Ball and the Miniſters of Old-England, in their Letter to the Miniſters in New-England.— But what do they ſay? Do they deny; or could they deny, that the Method and Form of the Prayer-Book, was taken out of the popiſh Liturgy? No, but that the popiſh Liturgy was refined; and that what the Church of England retain'd in their Prayer-Book, was in moſt Things according to the pureſt Liturgies, that were in Uſe, long before the Maſs was heard of in the World.— Which if true, does not contradict any Thing ſpoken, by me, ſince it is not denyed; but that theſe Things were Part of the popiſh Liturgy, when the Prayer-Book was compiled.— But what are we to underſtand by theſe ancient and pureſt Liturgies, they ſpeak of? You tell us, The Truth is the Church of England when ſhe reform'd came as near as ſhe poſſibly could, to the Church in the pureſt and apoſtolical Ages, long before Popery was heard of in the World.. p. 18. This (I muſt confeſs) is ſomething ſurprizing.— Can you direct where to find thoſe Liturgies of the Apoſtolical Ages, that the Prayer-Book was copied from? Or can you find any Liturgy at all, of conſtant ſtated Uſe in the Church, before Pope Gregory's Time, in the Year of Chriſt 600. If you can find any ſuch Liturgy, from which the Church of England copied any Part of the Prayer-Book, before that Time, let us hear of it in your next.— But if you can't, what mean theſe Boaſts of the Apoſtolical Ages? What if the Church of England might find ſomething of Pope Gregory's Liturgy in the Popiſh Service, when ſhe extracted the Prayer-Book: I muſt nevertheleſs obſerve to you, that the Church in Gregory's Time, inſtead of being Apoſtolical, was very Apoſtatical; and Popery was heard of in the World, long before that Time.

But ſince you are pleaſed to call in human Teſtimony in your Vindication, it may'nt be improper for me alſo, to offer you ſome human Teſtimony, more pertinent, and of better Authority. And I'll firſt bring forth two Royal Witneſſes, who are as expreſs in my Favour as Words can be. — King Edward the vi. in his Speech to the Devonſhire Rebels (that were armed in Oppoſition to the Reformation) tells them, As for the Service Book in the Engliſh Tongue, it perhaps ſeems to you a new Service; yet indeed it is no other but the old THE SAME WORDS in Engliſh that were in Latin, ſaving a few Things taken out, that were ſo fond, that it had been a Shame to have heard them in Engliſh. If the Service of the Church was good in Latin, it remains good in Engliſh; for NOTHING IS ALTERED, but to ſpeak with Knowledge, what was ſpoken with Ignorance; and to let you underſtand what I ſaid for you. Foxes Acts and Mon. Vol. 2. p. 667. King James the firſt, in a ſpeech to the general Aſſembly of the Church of Scotland, thus expreſſes himſelf, As for your Neighbour Kirk in England, their Service is but an evil ſaid Maſs in Engliſh, they want nothing of the Maſs, but the lifting up, &c. Calderwood Hiſt. p. 256. To theſe I add Mr. Thomas Gage, who was bred a Popiſh Prieſt; and therefore very capable to judge in this Caſe. Who thus expreſſeth himſelf. When in Paul's Church, I heard the Organs, and the Muſick, and the Prayers, and the Collects; and ſaw the Ceremonies at the Altar, I remembered Rome again; and perceived but little Difference between the two Churches. I ſearched further into the Common Prayer; and carried with me a Bible into the Country, on purpoſe to compare the Prayers, with a Maſs Book, which there I had at Command; and found no Difference but Engliſh and Latin, which made me wonder, and to acknowledge that much remained ſtill of Rome in the Church of England; and that I feared my Calling was not right. Engliſh Amer. p. 205. And if a Witneſs from among the Papiſts will add any Force, you may take that of Weſton, whom I believe you will think ſatyrical enough. Some Proteſtants (ſays he) that they may not appear abſolutely impious and irreligious, uſe our Miſſal and Breviary, ſelecting what they pleaſe thereof, for their Liturgy; and to make the Form of their Worſhip to appear more goodly, they have their Canonical Perſons forſooth, after the Modes and Cuſtoms of the Church of Rome. Their Caps, and Hoods, and Holy-Days, and ſuch like Stuff, which they ſay they found in the Synagogue of Antichriſt. By which very Thing it is apparent, that the Religion of theſe Proteſtants ſtands guilty of Stealth and Robbery, by which it firſt came into the World. Or if they will not be taken for Thieves, let them go for our Apes. Theſe with their whole Service are derided, not only by ours, but alſo by their own. The Engliſh ſeem to have driven the Pope out of England in ſuch Haſte, that they forced him to leave his Cloaths behind him, which they, like Fools in a Play, put on with a kind of pompous Ceremony of Triumph, and ſo lead the Quire. A goodly Reformation it is, that they dare not earn through! Thus he. To which I may add, That two ſucceſſive Popes offered Queen Elizabeth, on certain Conditions, to confirm or allow the Prayer Book, as we are told by the aged Nonconformiſts, out of Cambden's Eliz. p. 46. and Fox's Acts and Monum. Vol. 2. p. 667.

Thus I have entertained you with ſome counter Evidences, and have more at your Service, if theſe wont ſatisfy.

But what need of Evidences in a Matter of Fact, always open to the Teſt? Mr. De-Laun you know, has exactly drawn the Parallel, between the one and other Liturgy, to whom I refer you for further Satisfaction.

But you ſay, ſuppoſe the Papiſts uſe ſeveral of thoſe Prayers that we uſe, what then? Did I not tell you before, what then, that we think we have juſt Cauſe to complain, that the Order and Method, as well as a good Part of the Maſter of thoſe Prayers, are not only from the Commandments of Men; but from the Commandments of Antichriſt himſelf. It therefore appears to us, too great a ſymbolizing with Idolaters, to ſtatedly uſe them in our publick Worſhip, contrary to that Rule, 1. Cor. x. 28. and that 1 Cor. vi. 17. To which you have not ſeen Cauſe to make any Reply.

What next offers, is your Attempt to vindicate the Prayer-Book from the Imputation of vain Repetitions. And in Order to a juſt view of the Caſe, it may be proper to enquire into the meaning of our Lords Prohibition of vain Repetitions, in Mat. vi. 7 — And then conſider, how applicable that Text is to the Caſe before us. The Words of that Text are.— But when ye pray, uſe not vain Repetitions as the Heathen do: For they think that they ſhall be heard, for their much ſpeaking. — From whence it's apparent, that the frequent Repetition of the ſame Thing, that God may the rather hear and accept us on that Account, is what is here prohibited and condemned by our bleſſed Saviour, under the Character of vain Repetitions. And is not this the Caſe in the Prayer Book? That there are numerous Repetitions of the ſame Thing, is certain. And that theſe Repetitions are altogether needleſs, is as certain. One ſingle Uſe of Good Lord deliver us; or of We beſeech thee to hear us good Lord, would have been as well connected with the Whole of that Prayer in the Litany, as the Repetition of the one eight Times, and the other Twenty. And what is this much ſpeaking of the ſame Thing for? Is it not that God may hear you? Or is it meer trifling to no Purpoſe at all? The one or other of theſe muſt be the Deſign of it. If the former, how can you be excuſed from vain Repetitions, in the very Sence that they are prohibited in this Text? If the latter, it is horrible Profaneneſs, which therefore cannot be the End of it. I don't apprehend what Anſwer you can give to this.

It don't at all affect the Caſe, for you to ſay as p. 19. When we repeat Good Lord deliver us, it always relates to new Matter; ſince there is no new Matter at all, ſpoken by thoſe that vocally pronounce theſe Petitions; nor any Cauſe at all (that I know of) that calls for their Repetition. And there are beſides this, many other Repetitions in your Prayers, where there can be no Pretence for any new Matter intervening. For inſtance, in the very ſame Prayer before referred to, that Petition Have Mercy upon us miſerable Sinners, is uſed eight Times ſucceſſively, without any other Petition between; and that Petition, Lord have Mercy upon us, Chriſt have Mercy upon us, ſix Times ſucceſſively, without any new Matter. And you know where to find more of the like Kind. The Common Prayer Book complains of the Papiſts uſing Multitudes of Reſponds, Verſes and vain Repetitions We make the ſame Complaint of the Prayer-Book. And the likelieſt Way to ſatisfy our Complaint, is to ſhew how Multitudes of Repetitions in the Popiſh Prayers are vain; and Multitudes of Repetitions in the Prayer-Book are not vain. But I can think of no poſſible Method of doing this, unleſs you pretend, That the Papiſts have wrong Ends in their uſing theſe Repetitions: But then, mayn't they that joyn in your Litany have wrong Ends too? And don't the Repetitions in both, tend to the ſame End? You tell us indeed, that theſe Repetitions are very neceſſary to raiſe our Devotion, and keep up our Attention. p. 19. And won't the Papiſts make the ſame Plea, upon the ſame Grounds? But unto what, I beſeech you, are they likely to raiſe our Devotion, and keep up our Attention, when we are doing Nothing but repeat the ſame Thing over and over again, unleſs it be to an Expectation of our being heard for our much ſpeaking? This appears to me their direct Tendency; and I don't know how you can inſtance in any Repetitions uſed among the Heathen, that carry a greater Shew of this Kind in their Countenance, than theſe do. Let us for Inſtance, pitch upon that Prayer of the Prieſts of Baal, 1 King xviii. 25. And how do theſe ſhew their Expectation, of their being heard for their much ſpeaking, by repeating O Baal hear us! any more than they, that above Twenty Times going, repeat, We beſeech thee to hear us good Lord, or that do nothing but repeat, Have Mercy upon us miſerable Sinners? It's granted their Petitions were made to a falſe God, yours to the true God: But that is ſo far from helping the Caſe, that it is the very Argument of our Saviour, why we ſhould not imitate them, in the Verſe following the Text under Conſideration.

But in Juſtification of theſe Repetitions, you plead, that in Pſalm cxxxvi, there are but Twenty ſeven Verſes; and thoſe Words, For his Mercy endureth forever, are repeated twenty ſeven times. And what can you argue from hence, but that becauſe we may uſe Repetitions in Singing, where Chriſt has not forbidden it, we may uſe Repetitions in Prayer, where Chriſt has forbidden it. Beſides I have often heard of the Burden of a Song; and this has been at all Times uſual, both in ſacred and prophane Songs. But I never heard of the Burden of a Prayer.

You add, Chriſt himſelf repeated the ſame Words thrice, in his Prayer in the Garden, Mat. xxvi. 44. And twice on the Croſs in one Breath, Mat. xxvii. 46. But I muſt needs tell you, That you ought to have conſidered this Caſe better, before you had ventured to publiſh ſo great a Miſtake to the World, upon any Man's Authority. For (firſt) if it were granted, that our Lord did uſe the ſame Words three times; it was in three diſtinct different Prayers; and what is this to the Caſe of uſing needleſs Repetitions in the ſame Prayer? Did ever any Body object againſt praying for the ſame Thing, in ſeveral diſtinct Prayers? If you pretend, that theſe Words were repeated in the ſame Prayer you directly contradict the ſacred Story referred to, where we are expreſsly informed, that he came from his Retirement to his Diſciples, the firſt Time, the ſecond and third Time; and waked them up, converſed with them; and then returned again to his ſecret Devotion. And (ſecondly) there is no ſuch Thing in the Original of that Text you quote, as Chriſt's repeating the ſame Words. The Original Words are TON AUTON LOCON, which ſignifies the ſame Speech, or the ſame Matter; but not the ſame Words; and ſo it is accordingly rendred in both the Latin Verſions. And it is certain that he did not uſe the ſame Words. For the Words of his firſt Prayer were, O my Father, if it be poſſible, let this Cup paſs from me; nevertheleſs, not as I will, but as thou wilt. ver. 39. But his ſecond Prayer was thus expreſs'd, O my Father, if this Cup may not paſs away from me except I drink it, thy Will be done. ver. 42. So that it's plain, our Lord uſed no Liturgy, in that he prayed for the ſame Thing in different Words, much leſs did he uſe any Repetitions at all. So far from it, that in his praying for the ſame Thing, in ſeveral diſtinct Prayers, he uſed different Expreſſions.

And as for your laſt mentioned Text. Was there any Petition twice uſed, or any Thing like it, in the ſame Breath? What then could you mean by pretending to it? That he invoked the Name of God twice is true, but nothing to the Purpoſe. I can't but think it looks pretty hard upon your Cauſe, that you have no better Arguments to ſupport it.

And now I proceed to the Conſideration of what you have to ſay in Vindication of your Churches appointing the Apocrypha to be read, as a Part of publick Worſhip, while there are a great many Parts of the canonical Scripture, never read in publick. Your firſt Anſwer is by Way of Recrimination upon your Adverſaries, for complaining of this, when they themſelves have laid by the whole Bible; and never read one Chapter by way of Leſſon. But who are theſe Adverſaries you ſpeak of? It was with me, that you had to do in this Debate; and you very well know, that it is my conſtant Practice to read a Chapter of the Bible, upon every Occaſion of publick Worſhip. There are, it is true, ſome of our Miniſtry in this Country, that do live in the Omiſſion of that Part of publick Worſhip; and I dare not undertake to juſtify them. Our publick Formula's do (I think) all declare for it. And I confeſs my ſelf ignorant, upon what juſtifiable Pretence it can be omitted.

Your other Anſwer is, that they (your Adverſaries) know, that you never read the Apocrypha as the Word of God, never read it on the Lord's Day, never neglect the Holy Scripture for it. To which I anſwer. How ſhould we know, that you never read this as the Word of God, when you declare ſo loudly in the Preface to the Common Prayer, that nothing is ordained to be read, but the pure Word of God, the Holy Scriptures; or that which is agreeable to the ſame. And muſt we ſuppoſe, that the legendary Story of Judith and her wonderful laſcivious Feats, in a meer Utopian Bethulia, on a certain Time, that could never be brought into any Calendar, under the Reign of a Nebuchadnezzar, that never had any being, is the pure Word of God, or agreable to the ſame. And yet your Calendar directs Judith the firſt and ſecond, to be read October 5th. Or muſt we ſuppoſe the ſame of the famous romantick Story of the lying Angel (that ſaid his Name was Azarias, Tobit's near Kinſman, of the Tribe of Naphtali, &c. who in Company with Tobit's Son, reſcued him out of the Mouth of a Fiſh big enough, and fierce enough, it ſeems, to have devoured him; and yet theſe two (a couple of notable Trencher Men, I confeſs!) eat up the mighty Fiſh at a Meal, except his Heart, Gall, and liver, which were reſerved for very ſacred Uſes; the one of 'em, to cure Tobit's Eyes, that were muted out by a Swallow; the other, two to ſmoak away the Devil into the furthermoſt Parts of Egypt, that he might be bound there, and return no more, to carry on his Amour with the young Man's Wife. And yet you know, this very edifying Story is by your Calendar appointed to be read, in your publick Worſhip. It is there ordained, that Tobit 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, be read on the 27, 28, and 30 of September; and that Tobit 7, 9, 11, and 13, on the 1, 2, 3, and 4, of October. You tell us us indeed, that theſe are never read on the Lord's Day. But tell us not, why they are appointed to be read on any Day in God's immediate Service. And I would humbly enquire, whether the Lord's Day never happens on the three laſt Days of September, or the four firſt Days of October; or on any other Days of the Months, on which Leſſons are by the Calendar appointed to be read out of the Apocrypha. But to avoid Prolixity, I venture to ſum up this Debate, by an Appeal to the World, whether the ridiculous and falſe Stories, as well as the many falſe Doctrines, that are appointed to be read out of the Apocrypha, are worthy of that Honour, which is due only to the Word of God, to be made Part of our publick Worſhip, in our Religious Aſſemblies. And whether it ben't the higheſt Indignity to the Oracles of God, to omit the reading of a great Part of them at all, in order to make Way for ſuch fabulous Compoſures.

And now let us conſider, whether the Sign of the Croſs in Baptiſm, be not teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men; and a juſt Exception againſt your Liturgy. I had obſerved, that the Croſs is made on the Forehead in Baptiſm, in Token, that the Party be not hereafter aſhamed to confeſs the Faith of Chriſt crucified, and that he is to fight manfully under his Banner, &c. Now if this be a Token of theſe inviſible Graces, it agrees with the Churches own Definition of a Sacrament. A viſible Sign of inviſible Grace. To which you anſwer, Surely he thinks the People of Newark are Ideots or natural Fools, to believe that to be true, which every Child which has learned the Catechiſm, knows to be falſe, &c. But why ſo much Heat! Will you cool a little, and ſubmit to be catechized; and anſwer me a few Queſtions, according to your own Catechiſm and Prayer-Book.

You inform us, that, if this Definition of a Sacrament be true, then Kneeling or Standing in Prayer is a Sacrament. For it is a viſible Sign of our Fear and Reverence of God; yea my miniſterial Band is a Sacrament.— For that is a viſible Sign of my being devoted to Chriſt in the Miniſtry. Well! ſuppoſe this were true, who I beſeech you are you diſputing againſt? Who have determined theſe two Things to be the only Parts of a Sacrament? But I muſt take Leave to inform you, that theſe are groundleſs Surmizes, unleſs you can prove that every one that Kneels or Stands in Prayer, and every Miniſter or Lawyer that wears a Band, are gracious Perſons. Nor would that do neither.— For theſe are not inſtituted either by God or Man, to ſignify any ſuch Thing.— And it is the Inſtitution that makes a Sacrament, as I obſerved before. And as I am utterly averſe to all human Sacraments, ſo in an eſpecial Manner, to the giving by Inſtitution, the Honour of a Sacrament to a popiſh Idol, as you can't but acknowledge the Croſs to be.

I had demanded in my Sermon, why this Honour was done to the Croſs, on which Chriſt was crucified, any more than to the Thorns with which he was crowned, to the Traytor by whom he was betrayed; or the malicious Court by which he was condemned? To which you anſwer, becauſe the Scripture makes an honourable Mention of the Croſs frequently; but not of Judas and the reſt. p. 22. You inſtance in two Places of Scripture, Mat. xvi. 24. and 1. Cor. i. 17. p. 26. But could you ſeriouſly ſuppoſe, that theſe or any other Scriptures that mention the Croſs, intend thereby the material Croſs upon which Chriſt ſuffered, or the Figure of it made in the Air? Let us ſee what Work we ſhall make of it, if we underſtand theſe quoted Scriptures in that Sence.— If any Man will come after me, let him take up his Croſs, (that is let him carry a wooden Croſs on his Back; or keep making an Aerial Croſs on his Forehead) and follow me. For the preaching of the Croſs, (that is preaching about a wooden Croſs; or the Sign of it made in the Air) is to them that periſh Fooliſhneſs; but unto us which are ſaved, it is the Power of God.— Can you think this a juſt Interpretation of theſe Scriptures? If not, why are they quoted, if it be, why is the wooden Croſs laid aſide? Why don't you wear Croſſes upon your Breaſt? Why are not Croſſes painted on your Church Walls; and erected at every Corner of the Streets? Why don't you croſs your ſelf upon every Occaſion? I believe you will be hard put to it to find any Thing in Scripture, that ſpeaks more honourably of your Uſe of the Croſs, than of theſe Practices of the Papiſts, which you have rejected.— But the Truth is, wherever the Scripture makes honourable Mention of the Croſs of Chriſt, it intends the Death of Chriſt, or Chriſt himſelf that ſuffered upon the Croſs; and not either a Croſs of Wood, or the Sign of it.— How impertinent therefore, are all thoſe Pleas or Pretences from Scripture! And the ſame Anſwer is ſufficient for your ſecond Pretence, that the Croſs was reproach'd by Infidels; but ſo were not the reſt.— That is, they reproached our Saviour and his Followers, on Account of his accurſed Death.— And what is this in Favour of the Sign of the Croſs? Did he not ſuffer this accurſed Death, thro' the Treaſon of Judas, by the Sentence of the malicious Court by which he was condemned; and with a Crown of Thorns on his Head? And I venture to affirm, that there is no more honourable Mention made in the Scriptures, of the Croſs of Wood on which he ſuffered, than of theſe.— That is, there is no honourable Mention made of either of them.

But its Time to attend upon the Anſwers you give, to any that ſhall be ſo impertinent, as to aſk what Warrant you have from Scripture for the Sign of the Croſs, p. 25. And you tell us, The Scripture requires of us, that we expreſs our inward Sence of God and Duty towards him, by ſuch Actions as general Cuſtom has made ſignificant in like Caſes. Ibid. But I'm afraid you have not ſufficiently conſidered this Rule of yours; and what Conſequences muſt neceſſarily follow from it. — For if this be true, then the Scripture requires of you, that you ſhould paint God the Father in the Form of an old Man, Our Saviour in the Shape of a Younger Man upon the Croſs; and the Holy-Ghoſt in the Form of a Dove.— You ſhould keep Images of Angels and Saints in your Churches; and in your Houſes. For yon know where theſe, and multitudes more of ſuch Abominations, are by general Cuſtom, become ſignificant of our inward Sence of God and Duty towards him. If you ſay, theſe are evil Cuſtoms, be pleaſed to clear the Cuſtom in Queſtion from that Imputation. And beſides, the Rule you have given, has made no Diſtinction in this Caſe. If it had 'twould have been altogether impertinent.

You go on to argue, "glorying in the Sufferings of Chriſt is a Duty. Gal. vi. 14. But good Sir, is there no way to glory in the Sufferings of Chriſt, but by making a Croſs on the Forehead? For my Part I can't conceive how this is glorying in his Sufferings at all.

You add, making the Sign of the Croſs, is an Action which by univerſal Cuſtom in all Ages, ſince the Apoſtles Time▪ has been applyed to ſignify our glorying in the Sufferings of Chriſt, A bold Aſſertion, without any Pretence of Proof! Be pleaſed in your next to ſhew, that the Croſs in Baptiſm was ever once uſed during the three firſt Centuries; and it will be more to the Purpoſe.— But ſuppoſe it were ſo, ſince it was not uſed in the Apoſtles Time, I enquire by what Authority was that Cuſtom introduced.

There is one Thing more, propoſed as an Argument for this Uſe of the Croſs; and that is, 'Tis Part of our Chriſtian Liberty, that God allows us to expreſs our Devotion, in ſuch becoming Actions, as univerſal Cuſtom has made ſignificant. p. 27. But is it Part of your Chriſtian Liberty, to impoſe theſe Things upon thoſe that ſcruple them? Is your Liberty infringed, if you want Liberty to excommunicate the half of the Kingdom? Have none any Claim to Chriſtian Liberty, but your ſelves? Or is it an Attempt upon your Liberty, to peaceably debate theſe Things with you? I know not how you can pretend, that your Liberty is in the leaſt invaded, unleſs in theſe Inſtances. — Thus I have, tho' but briefly, yet (I think) fully anſwered all your Arguments for the Uſe of the Sign of the Croſs in Baptiſm; and ſhall under this Head only ſubjoin ſome Qeries, which I hope you will particularly anſwer in your next.

Q. 1. I would firſt enquire, Whether any Church upon Earth, has Power to impoſe doubtful and ſcrupled Rites, (ſuch as you know the Sign of the Croſs is, to the greateſt Part of the Proteſtant World) upon the Conſciences of others; and to excommunicate all that won't comply with them? And whether this be not to judge another Man's Servant, who muſt ſtand or fall by his own Maſter? Contrary to Rom. xiv. 1.

Q. 2. Whether, ſince the Sign of the Croſs has no divine Inſtitution, and has been abuſed to the moſt abominable Superſtition and Idolatry, it ought not to be treated as Hezekiah did the brazen Serpent, and called Nebuſhtan, 2 Kings viii. 4? And whether God's Directions to his ancient People, that they ſhould utterly deſtroy all the Remainders and the Monuments of Idolatry, all that had been abuſed and polluted by an Idolatrous Uſe, be not from the Nature and Reaſon of the Thing obligatory upon us? See Deut. vii. 5, 25. Iſai. xxx. 22. and xxxii. 9.

Q 3. Whether that which is the principal Badge of Popery, has been a dreadful Snare to Multitudes of poor deluded People, and has ſhed ſo much precious Blood, which the Earth will not cover, ſhould be advanced to the higheſt Honour in a Proteſtant Church, without any juſt Pretence to a divine Warrant? And yet you know all theſe Things are true, of the Sign of the Croſs.

Q. 4. Whether the curſed Inſtrument of our bleſſed Saviour's extream Sufferings, ſhould (on the Account of its having been ſuch to him) be had in higheſt Honour and Reverence by us?

Q. 5. Whether any of the five Popiſh human Sacraments, have not as good a Claim to our Obſervation, as the Sign of the Croſs; which I have already proved from your Prayer Book to have the Nature of a Sacrament, by the Inſtitution of your Church?

I am now prepared to conſider your Arguments for Kneeling at the Lords Supper. And I ſhall begin with that which you triumph moſt upon. But does he think (ſay you) that the Apoſtles continued eating or ſitting, whilſt Chriſt was at Prayer over the Bread and Wine. — But if the Apoſtles roſe up or kneeled, whilſt Chriſt prayed, where does he find that they ſat down again to receive immediately after the Conſecration. Let Sitters anſwer this; or elſe let them ceaſe to tell us, that Chriſt when he uſed this Ordinance, did it in a Table Poſture: But this they can never anſwer. p. 32. — The beſt Way to ſet this in a clear Light is, to ſee how this Affair is repreſented by the Evangeliſts. We are told by one of them, That when the Hour was come, he SAT DOWN, and the twelve Apoſtles with him, — And he took the Cup and gave Thanks, &c. Luke xx •• 14, 17. We are told by another of them, that Supper being ended, HE RISETH FROM SUPPER, and laid aſide his Garments, Joh. xiii. 2, 4. And is not their ſitting down to the Table at the Beginning; and their riſing up from it when they had done, a ſufficient Evidence, that they partook of this Ordinance ſitting? If not, I diſpair of ever ſeeing any Thing proved, by the moſt plain, poſſitive and intelligible Expreſſions. Therefore as to your curious Queſtion, whether the Apoſtles continued ſitting, whilſt Chriſt was at Prayers over the Bread and Wine? Or whether they aroſe and ſat down again after the Conſecration? I anſwer, they might do either the one or the other. If the former, it would not be the firſt Time that they ſat by our Saviour's expreſs Commandment, while he prayed for a Bleſſing upon his Table. See Mat. xiv. 19, And he commanded the Multitude to ſit down on the Graſs, and looking up to Heaven, he bleſſed and brake, &c. So alſo Mat. xv. 35. Nor do I ſee any Incongruity in ſuppoſing on the other Hand, that they roſe up whilſt Chriſt was at Prayer; and ſat down again after the Conſecration. Certain it is, if they did riſe at the Conſecration of the Elements, they did ſit down again, or elſe they could not riſe from the Table, when the Supper was ended. In ſhort, whether the Apoſtles ſat or ſtood whilſt Chriſt was at Prayer, we know that ſtanding is by divine Inſtitution, a proper praying Poſture, which is a ſufficient Warrant for our Conduct in ſtanding up, whilſt we pray for a Bleſſing on the Elements. And the Example of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, is a ſufficient Warrant for our ſitting, when we partake of them. We do not know, whether they ſat or ſtood whilſt Chriſt bleſſed the Elements, and therefore may attend upon that Part of the Inſtitution, in a proper praying Poſture. But we do know that they ſat, whilſt they partook of the Elements, and therefore may not deviate from that Pattern. Impertinent therefore are all thoſe ſpecious Pretences, urged from Biſhop Beveridge, of Kneeling out of greater Humility, Reverence, and the like. For where will the Charge of wanting Reverence, Humility, &c. terminate? Was ſitting the Poſture that Chriſt himſelf appointed; and ſhall his own inſtitutions be charged with Irreverence? Or can you pretend to refine upon his Inſtitutions, and order Things better than he has done? Would not this be the higheſt Reflection upon his Wiſdom and Authority? Our bleſſed Lord has given us an Example, which ought to be a ſtanding Pattern to his Church, this we are bound to imitate. We have no Allowance to decline from it, no Authority to alter or change it, no Warrant to contrive a more humble, decent, or reverend Poſture, than he has exemplified. And are therefore certainly ſafeſt, whilſt we are Followers of him as dear Children. For Obedience is the beſt Humility.

I muſt therefore again enquire; ſince the Church of England diſclaims any Adoration to the Elements, why does ſhe uſe the Poſture of Adoration? Why will ſhe ſymbolize with the Papiſts, in their Adoration of their Breaden God? And why give ſuch Countenance to their horrid Idolatry, to the Grief and Wounding of ſo many of God's dear Children? I muſt obſerve to you, that your pretended parallel Caſe, is altogether impertinent: For when I kneel before a Chair in Prayer, I don't kneel down to any Sign, Repreſentation or Image, with my Mind and Eyes fixed upon that, as you do, when you kneel at the Lord's Supper; and therefore can be in no Danger of Idolatry, when I kneel immediately to the higheſt Object of Worſhip, without any intermediate Sign.

You deny that Kneeling was brought in by the Papiſts.— And in Anſwer, I make you this fair offer.— If you'll prove that Kneeling was uſed in any Church upon Earth, at the Lord's-Supper, before Tranſubſtantiation was brought in, I will acknowledge my Miſtake, as publickly as you pleaſe.

You complain of my ſaying, that the glorious Author of this Feaſt, is pleaſed to ſtoop to a friendly Familiarity with his Gueſts; and ſeem ignorant of what I mean by it. — I will therefore inform you, that I mean by it, that Chriſt is dealing by us in this Ordinance, as a great Monarch does by his mean Subjects, whom he invites to a Feaſt.— He is ſuffering us to ſit down with the King at his Table; and allowing us moſt near and intimate Communion with himſelf.— He is here calling upon us ſaying, eat O Friends, Drink, yea drink abundantly, O my beloved.— And now I'll conculde this Head alſo, with a few Queries, which I hope you'll particularly anſwer in your next.

Q. 1. I firſt enquire, whether Bowing down or Kneeling to Signs or Repreſentations of God, and heavenly Things, does not incur the Guilt of Idolatry and Image Worſhip, even when the Adoration does ultimately refer to God himſelf? Whether this ſort of Idolatry ben't expreſly forbidden, by the Letter of the ſecond Commandment? Whether the Elements in the Lords Supper, be not Signs and Repreſentations of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; and therefore, whether this don't look too much like that ſort of Idolatry, to bow down or kneel to theſe Elements; or whether it has not at leaſt too much Tendency to lead weak and ignorant Perſons to it?

Q. 2. Whether Meditation and ejaculatory Prayer, ben't the proper Exerciſes to be attended at the Time of Participation; and whether Kneeling be an inſtituted Poſture for the attending thoſe Duties?

Q. 3. Whether appointing a different Poſture in this Ordinance, from that inſtituted by our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, under a Pretence of Humility, be not according to the Letter of that Text, Col. ii. 22. A Shew of Wiſdom in Will-Worſhip, and Humility?

Q. 4. Whether thoſe can be in any Danger of diſpleaſing our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, who imitate his own Example in the Poſture they uſe at this Ordinance? And whether there be no Danger on the other Hand, in deviating from the Pattern he himſelf has ſet us?

The next Thing that offers, is your Vindication of your Sureties in Baptiſm.— Upon this Head you tell us, that It's no Wonder I find Fault with it; For I have miſtook the whole Matter.— Here the Sureties make not one Promiſe of any Thing, that they will do for the Child; but only are the Mouth of the Child; and the Child promiſes and profeſſes by them as Proxies. p. 30. 31. Then according to this account of the Matter, the Sureties are under no Obligation at all.— They don't make one Promiſe of any Thing, that they will do for the Child.— What then do you mean by ſaying; that Tho' ſome Sureties are careleſs of their Duty in this Regard, yet others do it very well. What Duty I beſeech you? They are under no Obligation.— they are ONLY the Mouth of the Child, to let the Congregation know for their Edification, what the Child ought to have ſpoke, if he had been able to ſpeak. What ſignifies it to tell us, that we may ſee the Duties of the Sureties, in the Exhortation, at the End of the Office; when they are under no Obligation to regard that Exhortation, any more than their Neighbours? They have done their Part already. They are only the Mouth of the Child, to ſpeak in his Name; and that they have performed. And what is all this, but a meer Piece of Pageantry? Could not the Miniſter acquaint the People with the Nature of this Ordinance, and the Duties belonging to it, without all this ado? And does not his Office oblige him to it? How came the Sureties by their Call, to preach to the Congregation? The Child (you ſay) ſpeaks and profeſſes by them, as his Proxies. As his Proxies for what? Who conſtituted them his Proxies? How came they ſuch without his Leave? Or how does the Child promiſe and profeſs by them, when he knows Nothing of what they ſay? How ludicrous is the Pretence! How vain and trifling is the whole Affair, if this be a true State of the Caſe! But I ſuſpect, that upon an impartial View, it will appear in very different Colours.

Will you be pleaſed, Sir, to allow me once more a little of that former Intimacy I have had with you, and anſwer me a Queſtion or two, according to your Catechiſm and Prayer Book.

Thus your own Catechiſm and Prayer-Book determines the Caſe againſt you. It's moſt certain, the Sureties do make all theſe Vows and Promiſes for the Child, according to the Churches own Interpretation of the Obligations; and it is as certain, that theſe are Promiſes beyond human Strength or Ability to perform. For who can promiſe for an Infant, that it ſhall have the Exerciſe of Reaſon, much leſs that it ſhall have the higheſt Exerciſe of Grace? As I obſerved before. Nor may we pretend to (for we may not expect) divine Aſſiſtance, in invading the divine Prerogative.

I had before obſerved, that God has never given, never promiſed Aſſiſtance to any Man, in changing the Hearts, ſanctifying the Natures, and governing the Affections and Paſſions of others. Upon which you exclaim; — This I confeſs is as fine a Piece of Divinity, as ever I heard in my Life. And ſo go on to gravely argue. If this Doctrine be true, it renders not only the Office of Sureties vain; but all Endeavours of Parents to educate their Children. And why does our Author preach, and endeavour to convert his People, when God will never aſſiſt him, nor any Man, for the obtaining that End? But what a Pity it is, you could not underſtand this plain eaſy and familiar Sentence, before you got into ſuch a Heat, as to cry out ſo vehemently, How madly will ſome Men lay about them, when they deſign to ſcare People from the Church! Can you ſeriouſly think, That there is no Difference between having God's. Aſſiſtance IN changing Mens Hearts efficiently; and in uſing the appointed Means, for the Obtaining that End? Is it the ſame Thing to be aſſiſted IN doing the Work our ſelves; or in being only Inſtruments in the Hands of the great Workman? Or in other Words. Is it the ſame Thing for us to do it, or God to do it? To apply this to the preſent Caſe. The Sureties promiſe what none but God can perform. They promiſe, that the Heart of the Child ſhall be changed, the Nature ſanctified, and the Affections and Paſſions be under conſtant good Government. But are they Gods! Is this in their Power? Or can they even expect divine Aſſiſtance IN doing that which no Man ever did do, what no Man ever could do, or ever will do; and what belongs to the divine Royalty to do? Can they enable the Child to renounce the Devil and all his Works, the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World, to believe all the Articles of the Chriſtian Religion, &c.? If not, how can they promiſe that he ſhall do it; ſince they have no Power, nor are ever like to have Power, to endue him with that Grace, which they have vowed and promiſed that he ſhall live in the Exerciſe of? I hope now you ſee, what little Reaſon you had for that paſſionate Exclamation. — And thus I'll conclude this Particular, with a few Queries, unto which I ſhall expect your Anſwer.

Q 1. Have not Infants a Claim to Baptiſm, on Account of their Parents Covenant Relation? According to that, 1 Cor. vii. 14. Elſe were your Children unclean, but now are they 〈◊〉 .

Q. 2. Since Infants are baptized in their Parents Right, ſhould not their Parents dedicate them to Chriſt in this Ordinance, and come under proper Covenant Obligations on their Behalf, to whom it belongs, to bring them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord, Eph. vi. 4?

Q. 3. Whether you can agreable to the Rules in the Prayer Book, allow Parents to do their Duty in this Reſpect, to dedicate their Children to Chriſt in this Ordinance; and to be (as they ought to be) Sureties for their Religious Education?

Q. 4. Whether accepting of the Suretiſhip of Strangers, has not a direct Tendency to make Parents unmindful of their Duty towards their Children; and whether it be'nt therefore a great Prejudice, inſtead of a Furtherance to the religious Education of the Children?

Q. 5. Whether there be any Direction or Warrant in the Word of God, for Sureties in Baptiſm?

But it's Time to take ſome Notice of your Vindication of the Burial Office; and here you obſerve to us, that when you ſay in ſure and certain Hope of the Reſurrection, &c. It is only a Repetition of that Article of the Creed, We believe there will be a Reſurrection of the Body; and it is very injurious to ſay, that this neceſſarily relates to the dead Perſon, ſo as to imply a certainty of his happy Reſurrection. I am then at ſome Difficulty to underſtand, what you mean by ſaying, That it never was the Deſign of the Church, that it ſhould be uſed over a Perſon, let him have lived never ſo wicked a Life; and dyed in the very Act of Sinning. I know of no Miniſter that would; and I am ſure I would not, uſe it over ſuch a Perſon. But I pray, why would you not uſe it over ſuch a Perſon? Is it not as ſuitable that the People ſhould be put in Mind of the general Reſurrection, at the Funeral of a wicked Man as of a good Man; or is it not at leaſt lawful to do ſo? But I muſt needs tell you, that I am ſurprized at this wonderful Evaſion; and that you could publiſh to the World ſuch an Expoſition of the Church's Meaning, where the Prayer Book can be had. Can you your ſelf think, that there is nothing but the general Reſurrection intended by declaring, that it hath pleaſed almighty God of his great Mercy, to take TO HIMSELF the Soul of our dear Brother, here departed? And is it nothing but the general Body of Mankind, that they commit to the Ground; the general Earth; of all that are dead, to the Earth; the general Aſhes to Aſhes; and the general Duſt to Duſt, in ſure and certain Hope of the Reſurrection to eternal Life? Can you your ſelf believe, that there is nothing but the general Reſurrection intended, by giving hearty Thanks to God, that it hath pleaſed him to deliver this our Brother, out of the Miſeries of this Sinful World? Or can you ſuppoſe that there is nothing elſe intended by that Prayer, that God would raiſe us from the Death of Sin, unto the Life of Righteouſneſs, that when we ſhall depart this Life, we may reſt in him, as our HOPE is, this our Brother doth? Whoever was the Author of this chimerical Gloſs upon the burial Office, ſhould have perſwaded the World to have receiv'd it upon his Authority, and never to read a Prayer Book, or attend a Funeral, for fear of being undeceived.

As to your trifling Accuſation, that the Particle (the) was left out in my Sermon. It only ſhews that you were glad to find ſomething to carp at when ſo ſmall an Omiſſion of the Preſs, muſt be made an Occaſion of ſo much Triumph.— And whoever informed you, that when I preached that Sermon, I ſaid his Reſurrection inſtead of the Reſurrection, was in a great Miſtake at the beſt; and entertain'd you with a falſe Report, which you have credulouſly publiſhed to the World.

As to your Pretence, that it never was the Deſign of the Church, that this Office ſhould be uſed over thoſe that have lived wicked Lives.— I anſwer, that there is no Way ſo certain to know the Mind of the Church, as to recur to her own Declaration, what her Mind is.— Let us then hear the Direction of your Prayer-Book in this Caſe.— Here is to be noted, (ſaies the Book) that the Office enſuing is not to be uſed for any that dy unbaptized, or excommunicate, or that lay violent Hands on themſelves. Are there any but theſe excepted? Does the Church ſuppoſe, or do you ſuppoſe, that there are no wicked flagitious Perſons, that are not unbaptiz'd, or excommunicate, or ſelf-Murderers?

But this Office ſuppoſes (you ſay) the Viſitation of the Sick to go before, p. 37. That is, it ſuppoſes that they are by the Prieſt abſolved from all their Sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt; and then their Sins being pardon'd, it may be ſafely concluded, that God has taken their Souls to himſelf. But where does the Office ſuppoſe this? Is there a Word of that Nature in all the Office? Is there any Direction that this Office muſt not be uſed, over thoſe that have died without the Prieſt's Viſitation or Abſolution? This your Pretence (weak as it is) is founded upon Nothing, but your own Imagination. — I will again take Leave of this Article, with a few Queries, to which I hope you'll favour me with a particular Anſwer in your next.

Q. 1. Whether it does not directly tend to harden looſe Sinners in a careleſs ſenſual Life, to hear the eternal Salvation of ſuch as themſelves, ſo poſſitively and ſolemnly declared, in your Addreſſes to God?

Q. 2. Whether it ben't an Affront to the glorious Majeſty of Heaven and Earth, to ſolemnly declare in his Preſence, and praiſe him for, the Salvation of thoſe, who have never by their Lives and Converſations evidenced their Converſion to God; and thereby their Title to eternal Happineſs?

Q. 3. Whether theſe Things which are ſuch juſt Matter of Prejudice, can do any good to the Dead or to Living; and if not, why are they retained to the Offence and Scandal of ſo many good Chriſtians?

Q. 4. Is it not much ſafer to let theſe Things alone, that are at the beſt ſo very ſuſpicious?

The next Thing that offers, is your peremtory and authoritative Abſolving Men from all their Sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. And do you verily believe (as you are ordered by the Prayer Book to declare) that there is Authority committed to you, to abſolve Men from all their Sins? If ſo, what Fault can you find with the Popiſh Indulgencies? Have not the Popiſh Prieſts as much Authority in this Caſe as you have? And can't they cite that Text Joh. xx. 23. in Juſtification of their Conduct, as pertinently as you can? If it gives Authority to you to obſolve Men from all their Sins, it alſo gives Authority to them to abſolve Men from all their Sins. But if Chriſt has yet retained the Prerogative of Pardoning Mens Sins in his own Hands, it is impertinently urged by you, in the preſent Caſe.

But you pretend, that you mean no more, than that you think his Repentance is ſincere; and that if it be, God will certainly forgive him. But then why do you declare any more than you mean? If you intend no more than that God will obſolve him, upon his true & ſincere Repentance, why do you declare, that you abſolve him from all his Sins? Is God's Abſolving, and your Abſolving, the ſame Thing? Who has placed you in God's Stead; and veſted you with that incommunicable Branch of his Prerogative, to Pardon Sins? To what Purpoſe is your Quotation from Mr. Baxter, that the Paſtors of the Churches may as God's Officers declare the conditional general Pardon, &c. wherereas it is an Authoritative ſpecial Pardon, that we find fault with. A Pardon by Virtue of the Power left by the Lord Jeſus Chriſt to his Church. A Pardon pronounced by Vertue of his Authority committed to the Prieſt. A Pardon not only pray'd for, but Authoritatively pronounced. I abſolve you, &c. And do you think indeed, that there is no Difference, between a Declaration of conditional and Authoritative Pardon? Or between the Declaration of a general Pardon to all that truely repent and believe; and a ſpecial unconditional Pardon, to this particular Perſon, upon a bare Preſumption of his Sincerity? I muſt needs ſay (whatever you in particular may intend, when you pronounce the Abſolution) the Words are very exceptionable, and of a very ill Sound. And I can't be reconciled to that Office where the Miniſter muſt ſay one Thing, and mean another.

Why, I beſeech you, does he that finds Fault with the Abſolution, at the ſame Time condemn both the Sacraments, as you ſuggeſt? Is God's Conditional Offer and Confirmation of Pardon at the Sacraments, the ſame Thing with the Miniſter's abſolute authoritative Declaration, That he abſolve the ſick Perſon from all his Sins? How impertinent is this Pretence!

I ſhall not ſpend Time to debate with you the Meaning of that Text in Joh. xx. 23. which you ſeem to build upon, ſince you your ſelf don't pretend, that it authorizes an abſolute authoritative Abſolution, which is the only Thing here in Queſtion. But ſhall only obſerve, that this Text is generally ſuppoſed to imply no more, than a gracious Promiſe to the regular Exerciſe of Church Diſcipline. When by the Diſcipline of the Church, ſcandalous Offences are regularly remitted or retained, this is ratified in Heaven. Some there are (I confeſs) that underſtand it of a miniſterial and conditional Declaration of God's Forgiveneſs. But no Proteſtant that I know of, ſo much as pretends, that this Text gives any Man Authority, to actually diſcharge Men from their Guilt; which is what your Office in Queſtion ſeems to ſuppoſe. Nor any Authority, ſo much as to poſitively declare, that their Sins are forgiven; tho' this is what you ſeem to have eſpecially brought the Text to prove. I ſhall add no more under this Head; but only a few Queries, which you'll be ſo kind as to give a particular Anſwer to.

Q. 1. Has it not a direct Tendency to give ignorant Men a vain Confidence of their good Eſtate, to hear a Miniſter poſitively and Authoritatively pronounce the Forgiveneſs of all their Sins, in whatever Sence the Miniſter himſelf may underſtand the Words?

Q. 2. If the Church has any good and ſafe Meaning in that Office, why was not her Meaning plainly and intelligibly expreſſed? And why is this ſtumbling Block in the Way? See Rom. xiv. 13.

Q. 3. Whether any Man can with a good Conſcience, perform that Office without a mental Reſervation; and without underſtanding the Words in a Sence very different from their plain and natural Meaning? And except ye utter by the Tongue, Words eaſy to be underſtood, how ſhall it be known what is ſpoken. 1 Cor. xiv. 9.

Q. 4. Whether any Man can allow that Office to be performed for him, without giving that Honour to the Creature, which is due only to the Creator, who is bleſſed for ever? For who can juſtify his Claim to forgive Sins, that can't alſo ſay to the Sick of the Palſey, ariſe and walk, Mat. ix. 5.

Let us next ſee whether your Reaſonings will conclude in Favour of the Holy Days, appointed by the Church of Rome, and by the Church of England. I reminded you in my Sermon, that the Apoſtle particularly complains of the Galatians, that they obſerved Days and Months and Times and Years, on which Account, he was afraid he had beſtowed Labour upon them in vain, Gal. iv. 10, 11. I endeavour'd to ſhew, that this Text militated as much againſt the Holy Days obſerved by the Church of England, as againſt thoſe obſerved by the Galatians; that if it was unlawful to theſe, it muſt be ſo alſo to us. And why did you not vouchſafe ſome Anſwer to this? Had you Nothing to reply? Or did you think it would be more popular to endeavour, to retort the ſame Accuſation upon us, than to directly oppoſe and contradict the Scripture? — Methinks this (you ſay) ſounds very oddly, in the Mouth of a Preſbyterian, when they obſerve Holy Days as well as we. And then demand, By what Authority are Diſſenters Lectures kept; and in New-England annual Faſts and Thankſgiving Days enjoined? &c. p. 40, 41. — Your Pretence of our Lectures being Holy Days, is too trivial to deſerve any Notice, ſince in this Caſe, there is no Time ſanctified, conſecrated, or dedicated to God. There never was any more intended or pretended by Lecture Days, than an Agreement to meet together upon ſome ſet Day and Hour, to hear a Sermon, and to attend upon the other religious Exerciſes that ſhould accompany Preaching. And I hope that you'll allow that this is done by God's Authority, who has expreſly required Miniſters to preach (and conſequently People to hear) in Seaſon, and out of Seaſon. 2 Tim. iv. 2.

And as to your other Demand, by what Authority are our Faſt Days, and Thankſgiving Days enjoyn'd? I anſwer, by God's Authority. God has given us Examples and Directions in his Word, that when we are under ſpecial Calls of Providence to it, we ſhould ſet apart Days to theſe Purpoſes. We have particular Directions how a Faſt Day ſhould be celebrated; and to what End, Iſai. lviii. 3. forward. And many Examples as well as Precepts for the Obſervation of ſuch Days. See 2 Chron. xx. 3. Neh. ix. throughout. Jonah iii. 7. Joel i. 14. and ii. 15. Mat. vi. 17, 18. Mark. ii. 20 And in many other Places. — And the Argument is the very ſame, for Days of Thankſgiving. Tho' we have not Authority from God to make any Time holy; yet we have Authority to ſet apart Time for theſe holy Services, when his Providence calls for it. In Obedience to his Authority, when we have eaten and are full, we may bleſs the Lord, for the good Land which he hath given us. Deut. iii 10 We may praiſe him in the Midſt of the Congregation: Our Praiſe be of him in the great Congregation. And we may pay our Vows before them that fear him. Pſ. xxii. 22, 25. We may offer the Sacrifice of Thankſgiving, and call upon the Name of the Lord. We may pay our Vows unto the Lord, in the Preſence of all his People, Pſ. cxvi. 17, 18. and we may agree upon ſome Time to that Purpoſe, according as the ſpecial Diſpenſations of Providence call for theſe Thank Offerings. — Thus you ſee one Inſtance of very great Diſparity between your Holy Days, and theſe that you would have thought parallel to them. Ours are of God's directing and appointing: Yours without any Direction or Warrant from him. And I think it is not very good Arguing, that becauſe we may obſerve Days which God has appointed, that therefore we may conſecrate Days which he has not appointed. Beſides theſe Days are ſet apart on ſuch Occaſions, and for ſuch Services as God has alwaies, and every where approved of in his Word; whereas the greateſt Part of your Holy Days are ſet apart on ſuch Occaſions as God no where, ever approves of in his Word. For Inſtance, I think you won't pretend to any Scripture Approbation of any Saints Days, much leſs of ſuch a Number of 'em. And therefore in this Reſpect alſo, there is a great Diſparity in the pretended Parallel Caſes. Moreover the Diſparity is alſo manifeſt in this. The Days we appoint for theſe ſpecial Services, are occaſionally accommodated to the preſent Diſpenſations and Calls of Providence. Your Holy Days by being unalterably Stated, are often directly contrary thereto.— When Providence calls for Mourning and girding with Sack-Cloth, your Prayer Book often calls for Feaſting, and ſo on the Contrary, as I have obſerved before. I may add, That the Days we ſet apart for the beforementioned Services, accur but ſeldom, upon ſpecial emergent Occaſions. Whereas your Prayer Book appoints above half the Year to be kept as Holy Time. How conſiſtent with the fourth Commandment, it belongs to you to inform us. Allow us to obſerve once more. In keeping Days of Faſting and Thankſgivings, we are followers of thoſe, who from the firſt Ages of the Church, have by Faith and Patience inherited the Promiſes. — Whereas in the Obſervation of theſe Particular Holy Days, you have no higher, nor better Example than the Church of Rome. And by far the greateſt Part of them have been brought in by her ſince her antichriſtian Apoſtacy. Thus you ſee, you have not been very ſuccesful in this Attempt.

As to your Reaſoning from the Days of Purim and the Feaſt of Dedication, it may be ſufficient to tranſcribe a Reply to it, written before you was born. The Days of Purim Eſth. ix. were ſeven Hundred Years ſince objected by Papiſts unto the Waldenſes, and ſince by all Papiſts that have written againſt Proteſtants about Ceremonies, as Gregorius de Valentia, Belarmine, Suarez. And we need not ſeek for new Anſwers about it; for that which our Divines have anſwered to the Papiſts is ſufficient in two Words. 1. That it cannot be evinced, that theſe Days of Purim were religious Feaſts. Junius ſaith Preceptum fuit Politicum, they were only Days of civil rejoicing, they are called only the Days of Purim, not the Holy Days of Purim. They are not called Chaggim. No particular Sacrifice was appointed; nor any holy Convocation of the People enjoin'd. The Ordinance required but Feaſting and Joy; and ſending of Portions to one another. The Reſt mentioned in Eſth. ix. was from their Enemies. So much Work as might ſtand with a feaſting Day, was not forbidden. — 2. Upon Suppoſition of a religious Feaſt inſtituted by Mordecai, He did it, ſaid Dr. Whitaker, God inſpiring him; and peradventure by order of ſome Prophet, as Zech. viii. they changed their Faſts into Feaſts, by the Mouth of the Lord, by the Miniſtry of the Prophet. And tho' we do not read expreſly, that either God or any Prophet did require this Feaſt of Purim; yet forasmuch as it ſtands approved in Scripture, there is no Doubt but it was done by Warrant from God.

The Feaſt of Dedication, Joh. x. 22, 23. hath alſo been objected, from the Time of the Waldenſes. But it is not certainly known what Dedication this was, and whether meerly of human Inſtitution. Some take it for that which Solomon appointed. Some aſcribe it to Ezra, others to the Maccabees. Neither is there any Evidence, that Chriſt approved it. The Text only ſaith, that he walked then in Solomon's Porch, which he might do, without obſerving or approving it. If it was nothing but a Tradition of the Elders, we may be ſure that Chriſt who teſtified againſt other Inventions of Men, did never obſerve this. Thus you ſee that it yet lies upon you to prove, that the Days of Purim were ever obſerved by the Jews, as a religious Feaſt. For it is certain that there were no Exerciſes purely religious, required by the Inſtitution to be attended upon thoſe Days, as on all other Religious Feaſts. And it belongs to you to prove, that if they were religious Feaſts, that they were not appointed by divine Inſpiration. — For Mordecai that inſtituted that Feaſt, is generally ſuppoſed to be the Penman of the Book of Eſther, and conſequently divinly inſpired. — And it alſo lies upon you to prove that the Feaſt of Dedication was that inſtituted by the Maccabees; and that our Lord Jeſus Chriſt did ever obſerve and approve that Feaſt, niether of which is capable of Proof. You tell us indeed, that Chriſt was no Diſſenter; but came many Miles in Winter, to keep this Feaſt. p. 44 But how does this appear? There is not a Word of that Nature in the Sacred Story. His walking in Solomons Porch, is no Proof of it. He might take that Opportunity of a Congreſs of People, as he did all other proper Opportunities, to do good, without any Approbation of the Feaſt. Such is the ſandy Foundation upon which your Holy Days are built.

As for that moſt injurious Calumny upon New-England▪ that They will annually impoſe by civil Sanctions a Thankſgiving in November; yet of Choice they will ſhun the fifth Day, becauſe the King has appointed it. I wonder for your own Sake, you would publiſh ſuch a Story in theſe Parts of the World. — And now I'll take Leave of this Subject alſo, with a few Queries, which you'll be pleaſed to anſwer in your next.

Q. 1. Whether the Jewiſh Holy Days were not condemned by the Apoſtle, becauſe they were Shaddows of good Things to come, Col. ii. 16, 17? Whether it ben't a Reflection upon him, who is the Subſtance pointed to by thoſe Shaddows, to imitate that typical Diſpenſation, as tho' it were not yet fulfilled, and done away? And whether when God has by the Death and Reſurrection of Chriſt, taken the Levitical Yoke from off our Necks, it becomes Chriſtians to wreathe a new Yoke for their own Shoulders?

Q. 2. Whether the Obſervation of Saints Days among the Papiſts (from whom you have taken them) were not appointed and attended by them for the Worſhipping of the Saints; and other moſt execrable idolatrous Purpoſes; which the Scripture calls Doctrines of Devils, 1 Tim. iv. 1? And whether we ſhould not on that Account, reject them with Abhorrence, as we ſhould Meat offered to Idols, 1 Cor. x. 20.

Q. 3. Whether the Lord Jeſus Chriſt was not wiſe enough, to appoint Days ſufficient to keep in Remembrance his own Nativity, Birth, Reſurrection, Aſcenſion, and all the other Wonders of Grace and Love, that he hath done for us? Whether he has not appointed one Day in Seven for this very End? And whether it don't reflect upon his Proviſion for us; and upon the Holy Day he has apointed, to conſecrate more Time for this Purpoſe?

Q. 4. Whether it ben't a great Infringment of our Chriſtian Liberty, that when God has given us ſix Days to labour, your Prayer Book won't allow us more than three Days in a Week, take one Time with another, through the Year?

I obſerv'd in my Sermon, that we had the ſame Complaint to make of the Prelacy and its Attendants in the Church of England, and exemplified the Matter of Complaint. And tho' it was not poſſible in ſo ſhort a Time, to go through the particular Evidences, in ſupport of it; yet the World knows, that I have long ſince publiſhed the Proof of what I then aſſerted, which none of your party have yet pretended to anſwer. And you your ſelf don't pretend, that there is any Mention in the Scripture, of Arch Biſhops, Lord Biſhops, Deans, Prebends, Arch.-Deacons, Vicars, Curates, and the like belonging to the Heirachy of the Church of England. But you tell us, that it would have been more to the Purpoſe, if I had given but one ſingle Inſtance, either in the New Teſtament or in Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory, for 1400 Years after Chriſt, of an approved Ordination without a Biſhop, which you ſay can't be done. p. 44. By Biſhop we muſt here underſtand, an Officer by divine Appointment ſuperior to Preſbyters, one that claims the whole Power of Juriſdiction and Diſcipline, as well as Ordination to himſelf; or elſe you ſpeak nothing to the Purpoſe. And don't you know, that I have already given Inſtances enough of Ordinations without ſuch Biſhops; and vindicated them againſt all the Exceptions of your Party? Why then do you ſay, it can't be done? What Biſhop (in this Sence of the Word Biſhop) was concern'd in the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas, Acts xiii. 1.? Who but the Preſbyters ordained Timothy, 1 Tim. iv 14.? How are Timothy and Titus proved to be ſuch Biſhops? And yet the Power of Ordination was committed to them, 1 Tim. v. 22. and Tit. i. 5. Are not all Preſbyters Scripture Biſhops; and have they not all the Work and Duty of Biſhops committed to them? Acts xx. 17, 28. 1 Pet. v. 1, 2. And were the Apoſtles themſelves in their ordinary Capacity, any more than Preſbyters? 1 Pet. v. 1. 2 Joh. i. and 3 Joh. i. And were not the Powers of Ordination and Juriſdiction, committed alike to all the Miniſters of the Goſpel, in Chriſt's Commiſſion, Mat. xxviii. 19, 20? And have I not particularly and (for what yet appears) unanſwerably prov'd all theſe Things, long ſince? What then could you mean by this wonderful Challenge? And as for your Pretence from Antiquity, how often have you all been called upon, to produce ſo much as one ſingle Author, in the firſt three Centuries, that aſſerts Biſhops to be by divine Right an Order ſuperiour to Preſbyters. But this is what by the Acknowledgment of the moſt eminent of your own Party, can never be done. We may therefore juſtly diſpiſe the Great Words of thoſe, that have but ſuch weak Arguments; and muſt yet complain, that the depriving the Miniſters of the Goſpel, of exerciſing a great part of the Charge committed to them by the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, is an Invaſion of his Royalty, who is Head over all Things to his Church.

I did complain, and think there is yet Reaſon to complain, of the Diſcipline of the Church of England. It is wonderful, that the Church ſhould every Year confeſs and lament before God, above a Hundred and fifty Years together, the Want of that Godly Diſcipline there was in the primitive Church, the Reſtoration of which is much to be wiſhed; and yet not take one Step toward reſtoring of it. If it be ſo much to be wiſhed, why is it not done? What ſtands in the Way to hinder it? But you tell us, I may make my Complaint to the Parliament. And how I pray does that vindicate your Conſtitution? You ſay, we have nothing to do with Chancellors, &c. in this Country. I anſwer, you therefore have no Diſcipline at all among you. If refuſing to adminiſter the Sacrament to a ſcandalous Perſon, be all the Diſcipline that you deſire, as you tell us, p. 46. you deſire much leſs than Chriſt has appointed. But what Plea have you to make for your ſpiritual Courts, for having all your Diſcipline managed by lay Officers, by Chancellors, Commiſſaries, Proctors, Apparitors, &c. Officers that the Scripture knows nothing of? What Plea for carrying on your Diſcipline by corporal Inflictions, Impriſonments and Fines, to the vaſt Charge and temporal Injury of the Delinquents? Not one Word.

You complain indeed of New-England Country Courts, puniſhing Men for their Wickedneſs. But what is that, I beſeech you, to Church Diſcipline? Do their Country Courts pretend to be eccleſiaſtical Officers? is there any Thing of that Nature done among you, but in Order to the Preſervation of the Peace, agreeable to the Laws and Cuſtoms of England? And did you make this Complaint, to teſtify your Deſire that Courſes of Wickedneſs ſhould go with Impunity; or was it becauſe you could find nothing elſe to ſay? You tell us, that in England, if a Man be guilty of any Crime, and will manifeſt his Repentance to the Satisfaction of his lawful Miniſter; and to other Chriſtians, to whom it belongs to make Preſentment, he ſhall meet with no further Trouble. But you don't tell us, how he muſt make his Repentance ſatisfactory. How much he muſt give for his Time, and how much for the Fees of the Court, in Order to eſcape Excommunication and Commitment. As to the broken Reſponſes, you pretend to vindicate from Mr. Baxter, I have not that Book by me, which you quote, nor can I tell what he deſign'd by the Words you quote from him. And it's impoſſible to know what Scripture Command he referred to, there being no ſuch Place in the Bible as Pſ. lxvii. 25. All I find Intended by Mr. Baxter in the Words, by you alledged, is, that Reſponſes may be uſed; but whether ſuch Reſponſes as yours in the Prayer Book, there is nothing ſaid. And it is manifeſt that he did not think it a Duty to uſe them, by his not conforming to that Practice himſelf. But it don't ſo much affect the Cauſe, what his Opinion was, as how God himſelf has appointed his Worſhip to be managed. We have ſpecial Directions in this Caſe, 1 Cor. xiv. from the 6. to the • 0. Verſe. Where the Apoſtle at large urges the Neceſſity, of all Worſhips being intelligibly performed. We muſt pray ſo that our Underſtanding mayn't be unfruitful. verſ. 14. We muſt pray with the Spirit, and with the Unſtanding alſo, verſ. 15. We muſt pray, ſo that he who occupieth the Place of the Unlearned, may ſay Amen at our giving of Thanks, and underſtand what we ſay, verſ. 16. We muſt pray, ſo that others may be edified, verſ 17. And can it be pretended, That your Method of uſing Reſponſes agrees with thoſe Rules? Is your Worſhip intelligibly perform'd, when all ſpeak together, and therefore none can know what is ſaid by the Reſt? Can the Stander by ſay Amen, at your giving of Thanks, when he knows not a Word that's ſpoken? Can others be edified by ſuch Service, which is as unintelligible to them, as if pronounced in Arabick? It's plain, that if the Apoſtle Paul had been conſulted, he would not have recommended your Reſponſes.

But you pretend that it's evident from Rev. xiv. 2, 3. And Rev. xix. 6, 7. That this is the Method of Worſhip uſed by the Saints and Angels in Heaven. And if this were true, what would it be to your Purpoſe? By what Argument can you make it appear, that we are to uſe the ſame Methods of Worſhip here, that are uſed in Heaven? If Reſponſes are uſed there, the Perfection of their Knowledge ſecures them from the like Dangers of not underſtanding what is ſaid, as we are in here-But it's proper to conſider, what Sort of Worſhip you pretend to be performed by Reſponſes, from thoſe Texts. Was it Praying, or Singing? If the latter, what is it to you Purpoſe? And that it was Singing in Conſort with Harpers, is certain, and is expreſly called ſinging a new Song in Rev. xiv. 2, 3. And the ſame is alſo evident from the xix. Chapter and 6 & 7 Verſes, where it's not only called praiſing God, but the Song begins with Allelujah. And what Argument can you bring from hence? Is it juſt arguing, that becauſe we muſt unite our Voices in Singing, which you know we approve and practiſe as well as you, that therefore we muſt all ſpeak with uplifted Voices in Prayer, the Point to be proved. But the worſt on't is, that there are no Reſponſes at all mentioned in the Texts conſidered. — There is not the leaſt Appearance of it in the firſt of them; and all that can be made evident from the ſecond, connected with the forgoing Verſes is, That there was Praiſes ſung to God, from much People, from the four and twenty Elders, and from the Throne: But whether in an immediate Succeſſion, the Text ſays nothing. Or if they were in an immediate Succeſſion, how were they Reſponſes, ſince they were ſeveral Services, from ſeveral Companies or Congregations; and from ſeveral Places? And laſtly, theſe are but myſtical and viſionary Repreſentations, and no Worſhip actually performed by Saints and Angels in Heaven, at all. The Heaven here repreſented, is generally underſtood by all Interpreters of Note, to be the true Church of Chriſt upon Earth, called Heaven, from her heavenly Original, and heavenly Doctrine and Manners; in Oppoſition to the Antichriſtian Church, that had no Relation to Heaven. And theſe imaginary Reſponſes, to be Nothing elſe, but the Praiſes of the ſeveral Parts of the Chriſtian Church, as well from the newly converted Jews, as Gentiles, aſcribed to God for the Deſtruction of Antichriſt. And what Foundation have you then, for your triumphant Concluſion?

Thus I've taken particular Notice of all the Arguments you have brought in Vindication of your Rites and Ceremonies; and the Appeal muſt be made to the World, whether the Exceptions in my Sermon are not fully juſtified. But what was the Reaſon that you had not one Word in Favour of your canonical Veſtments, your Womens ſpeaking in the Churches; and the manifeſt Curruptions in the old Tranſlation of the Pſams, yet in uſe? Do you acknowledge theſe to be indefenſible?

And now ſhall we conſider what you can ſay in defence of your Impoſition of all theſe Things. — You ſeem to acknowledge the Charge, that you do impoſe all theſe Things; and have nothing to vindicate your ſo doing but this, that there neither is nor can be any Church upon Earth, but what hath Terms of Communion and Ceremonies impoſed, which God hath not expreſly commanded. p. 51. And that 'the Preſbyterians do the ſame.' Now ſuppoſe this were true. It is either well or ill done of all theſe Churches, thus to impoſe upon People's Conſciences. If well done, you could eaſily have anſwered my Arguments againſt theſe Impoſitions. If ill done, it's no Juſtification of your Guilt, that others are in like Manner Guilty. Theſe Arguments therefore conclude againſt you, as well as againſt all others that are equally chargeable. Beſides, if others alſo are guilty of ſome Impoſitions, it does not appear from thence, that they are guilty of impoſing Things equally diſagreeable to the Word of God, equally wounding to Men's Conſciences; and equally deſtructive to the Peace and Purity of the Church. But let us conſider how you prove your confident Aſſertion. Did we ever puniſh or excommunicate any Man for believing the Lord's Supper ſhould be adminiſtred at Evening; or for not approving the New-England Verſion of the Pſalms for regular ſinging; or for ſcrupling to receive the Sacrament at the Hands of an unordained Deacon, or any Thing elſe of the like Kind; that you pretend to bring theſe Inſtances againſt us? Mayn't every Body entertain their own Opinions in theſe Points; and be treated with Kindneſs and Friendſhip, having all ſacred Priviledges allow'd them notwithſtanding, among us? If they will be peaceable with us, we ſhould be ſo with them, and ſuffer them to abound in their own Sence. If they wo'nt impoſe upon us their own Humours or Imaginations, neither will we impoſe upon them. They may peaceably neglect what they can't comply with, and yet be treated with Chriſtian Love and Charity. How then could you ſay, that they are excommunicated for theſe Things ipſo Facto? Be pleaſed to give one ſingle Inſtance, of any Man that was excommunicated among us for any of theſe Things, or for any Thing elſe of like Nature. But if you can't, it certainly concerns you to be more careful of publiſhing ſuch Things for true, which can't be proved nor exemplified in one ſingle Inſtance. For my own Part I would admit any Man that I have Reaſon to believe a true and ſincere Chriſtian, unto Communion in all the Ordinances of Chriſt, if he would regularly and peaceably deſire it; notwithſtanding any leſſer Differences in Principle. And for ought I know this is the Mind of all the Miniſters of our Perſwaſion. But is it ſo in your Church? Are not the Stumbling Blocks of your Rites and Ceremonies thrown in our Way? Muſt we not comply with theſe to every Punctilio of a Ceremony (tho' never ſo much againſt our Conſciences) or be rejected, excommunicated, refuſed all Chriſtian Priviledges; and in England be rendred uncapable of any temporal Honours and Dignities, in the State? And can there be ſo much as a Pretence, that theſe are parallel Caſes? That we are as much chargeable with Impoſitions, as the Church of England. The Principles of a Church are beſt known by their publick Formulas. Look into ours; look into the Weſtminſter Aſſemblies, and the New-England Confeſſions, and into the Agreement of the Synod at Philadelphia; ſearch them throughly, and ſee if you can find any thing of this Nature; any damning Creeds; or any Canons that excommunicate ipſo Facto, all that don't approve of our Rites and Ceremonies, that don't approve of the Government of our Churches by an unſcriptural Hierarchy, or that pretend to groan under any Grievances impoſed upon them by our Churches. But if there can nothing of this Nature be found. If it appear upon ſtricteſt Search, that theſe are the Peculiarities of your own Church, and are monopoliſed to your ſelves, I hope you will have ſuch a Regard to your Reputation, as not to entertain us with any Thing more of this Nature.

That an impoſing Power has ever been claimed by the Church of England, even from her firſt Deliverance from the Papal Yoke and Smithfield Fires, is an inconteſtable Truth. A Truth awfully evinced by the bloody Perſecutions begun in Queen Elizabeth's Reign; and long continued in the Reigns of her ſeveral Succeſſors. A Truth moſt apparent from the xx. Article of the Church; and equally apparent form this Doctrine's being moſt openly and ſolemnly avouched in your Book of Canons, that yet remain unrepealed and in their full Force, whereby every one that conſcienciouſly ſcruples the leaſt Tittle of your Injunctions, is excommunicated and deprived of all ſacred Priviledges in your Church. Nay, the impoſing Power has been ſo little queſtioned by the Church of England, that they have even ventured to publiſh it with the holy Bible it ſelf, as a Part of the Contents of it. A flagrant Inſtance of which we have in the Argument of the cxlix. Pſalm; where we are ſaid to be exhorted to praiſe God, for the Power which he has given to the Church, to rule the Conſciences of Men.

And this is what has in all Times paſt raiſed the Wall of Seperation, between the Church of England and her nonconforming Brethren; and yet continues the great Article of our Complaint.

This is what we cannot but eſteem moſt inconſiſtent with the Rights of the Chriſtian Church; and even with Humanity it ſelf. — This is not only to make us meer Machines, to receive our religious Sentiments from external Impreſſions, without any inward Principles of Conviction or rational Perſwaſion; but what we cannot but think a direct Invaſion of Chriſt's Regal Power. And while the Church continues the Exerciſe of this impoſing Power; and refuſes to extend the Terms of Communion to all ſuch as viſibly comply with the Neceſſary Terms of Salvation; and will not open the Doors of the Church to all thoſe that a Judgment of Charity obliges her to believe are ſincere Chriſtians; there will forever remain Cauſe of Complaint againſt your Conſtitution. And I truſt there will ever be a Body of Men, that will ſtand up in Defence of the Liberty wherewith Chriſt has made us free.

And tho' theſe Impoſitions are varniſh'd over with the ſpecious Pretences of Decency and Order: Yet they have fatally prov'd the unhappy Engines of dividing the Chriſtian Church, and deſtroying that Peace and Charity that are the eſſential Characters of the true Diſciples of Chriſt; — I cannot but think it would be more agreeable to the Nature and Deſign of the Chriſtian Inſtitution, to receive one another as Chriſt alſo has received us to the Glory of God, than to go on thus ſmiting our fellow Servants, by impoſing upon their Conſciences, or depriving them of the Ordinances of Salvation, upon Accounts confeſſed to be in themſelves inconſiderable and of an indifferent Nature.

I cannot therefore but eſteem it the peculiar Glory of our Churches, that we open the Arms of our Charity and Communion, to all the viſible Members of Chriſt; and bear our Teſtimony againſt all Encroachments upon the Rights of human Nature, and the Liberty and Priviledges of Chriſtians.

What Laws of New-England you refer to I know not; nor do you give any Account what they be. If there be any Laws that require the Perſecution of thoſe that conſcienciouſly ſcruple their Methods of Worſhip, as you inſinuate, p. 51. I have not one Word to ſay in their Juſtification. I acknowledge Perſecution to be as bad in them as in you; and to be an unmerciful Violation of the Laws of Nature, wherever it is practiced. But you muſt pardon me, if I can't give a full Aſſent to your Repreſentation of the Caſe; becauſe I know there are a Variety of Aſſemblies for publick Worſhip, of very different Principles, in New-England, none of whom meet with the leaſt Oppoſition from the Government.

I acknowledge that it is no Juſtification of the Principles of any Sect. that they were handed down to them from their Progenitors. But yet it is a great Apoſtacy, to renounce the pure Inſtitutions and Worſhip of God, which our Fathers maintained at their Peril, for thoſe human Inſtitutions and unſcriptural Impoſitions, which were the Cauſe of ſuch dreadful Perſecution to them. If their Cauſe was good (as I before proved it to be) then to decline from the good old Way of our Fathers would be diſpleaſing to God, and injurious to our own Souls: And this would be every where true, when Reformations in Religion, that have been procured by our Progenitors, at the Expence of every Thing that is dear to them of a worldly Nature, are given up, and a Declenſion is made from a pure ſpiritual Worſhip, to ſuch a Worſhip as is unſcriptural, without any divine Inſtitution, wounding to the ſcrupulous Conſciences; and deſtructive to that Liberty wherewith Chriſt has made us free. Which (I think) I have proved to be the Caſe with Reſpect to the Rites and Ceremonies in Queſtion, with the People of Newark, as well as New-England. And if you'll prove this to be the Caſe at Canada, I will allow, that the Argument concludes for them too, and that your Harrangue is pertinent; but not otherwiſe.

You were not willing (I ſee) to conclude your Book, without giving us ſome Intimation of what Manner of Spirit you are of. Its true (you tell us many of thoſe who ſetled New-England, came from what they called Perſecution. p. 52. But don't you call it Perſecution too, as well as they? Was it not a real Perſecution to have Miniſters ſilenced, ſequeſtred and deprived; to have the Laity excommunicated, plundred and ruined; to have Ears cut off, Noſes ſlit, Foreheads branded with hot Irons, unmerciful Fines impoſed; to be barbarouſly and cruelly whipt, and to be ſhut up in the moſt afflicting and loathſome Dungeons; and baniſhed to foreign Countries, &c. We ſee then, what we might expect from you, if you had the Power in your Hands. If New-England were guilty of ſome unjuſtifiable Severities towards a mad Sort of Quakers, they don't pretend to vindicate it, as you implicitly do, the barbarous Cruelties of the High Commiſſion.

You tell us, that it's certain, our Fathers did not croſs the Atlantick for Preſbyterianiſm, but for Browniſm, or Independency. p. 53. But I anſwer, they did not croſs it for either of theſe; but to fly from the Perſecutions of Epiſcopacy; and to enjoy the bleſſed Priviledge of God's own pure unmixed Inſtitutions. As to Browniſm, they all diſclaimed it; and tho' the moſt of them were of Congregational Principles; yet there were a conſiderable Number of Preſbyterians among them. There was from the Beginning and is yet, a Mixture of both Sorts, who have always lived together as united Brethren. — Some of the people of Newark have indeed formerly been culpable, for managing a Controverſy with their worthy Miniſter, upon theſe points: And I hope your putting them in Mind of it, may conduce to their Humillation, if there be any of them yet living. But then, they did not imitate the Diſpoſition of the people in New-England, in this their Oppoſition to that worthy Gentleman, who removed from their Abuſes to New-England, was there received with greateſt Kindneſs and Love, advanced to the Rectoral Charge of their Colledge, in which Station he lived and dyed, in the higheſt Honour and Eſteem among them all, notwithſtanding his Preſbyterian Principles. — In a Word, as both Preſbyterians and Congregationaliſts, were from the Beginning embark'd upon the ſame Bottom, ſo have they yet Reaſon to conclude, notwithſtanding their leſſer trifling Differences in their Sentiments, that they have all the ſame common Intereſts to purſue; — What then doth your Arguing reprove?

Thus I have endeavoured to prove that the Sermon you took Notice of, was agreeable to the Council of God. And I think I have proved it from the Word of God. I hope therefore, I may now venture to ſay ſo, without the Hazard of ſuch a ſevere Reprimand, as you gave me before, for ſuch a Declaration of my Sentiments.

I have alſo offered you ſome Reaſons, why I differ from you in ſome of theſe principles you profeſs. But tho' we differ in theſe Things, there are much greater in which we agree. — And it's certain, we are both under the greateſt Obligations, by the ſacred Bonds of Office, to agree in the moſt earneſt Endeavours, to be inſtrumental of the Converſion of Sinners to Chriſt. And it greatly concerns us, not to ſpend all our Time, in filling the Heads of our Hearers with theſe controverſial points, ſo as to make them unmindful of the weightier Matters, to the endangering of their Souls: But to endeavour ſo to acquit the awful Truſt committed to us, as that we may both ſave our ſelves, and them that hear us.

That you may be a faithful Steward in our Lord's Houſe, that the Bleſſing of many Souls ready to periſh may come upon you, that theſe may be your Crown and Rejoicing in the Day of the Lord Jeſus; and that we may both meet at laſt where all Debates and Differences will be ended; and where we ſhall both unitedly join in Communion and Conſort, in the Praiſes of him that ſits upon the Thron and of the Lamb, for ever and eve is the Prayer of