r^. Tf^ * 
 
 
 ^c-^<^ 
 
 x<^ 
 
 ^ill 
 
 'ii^t,. 
 
 PEINCETON, N. J. 
 
 
 Shelf.. 
 
 Division . 
 Section . 
 A'mnber . 
 
 sec 
 
 im 
 
 ^'sm^mr.w^v^2 
 
/; 
 
BULWARK 
 
 S T O B. M E D : 
 
 In Answer to 
 
 Thomas De Laune'^ 
 Vie a for the Non-Conformifis. 
 
 Wherein is fliewed 
 
 The Fallacioufiieft and Unconclufivenefs of 
 every Argument: in that Pret^^-d.&et.: 
 Unanswerable ^O QhWr^^ 
 
 J f 1^-2.1 
 
 By EDIVARDIHART. 
 
 ^Aqui 
 
 WITH A >.^?5iirmi^ 
 Letter tO the Autho1\ 
 
 In Vindication of the Primitive Church, and 
 the Church of Engl.and, from the Cor- 
 ruptions which the fliid "Tboffias De Laum 
 has falily charged upon them. 
 
 By the Reverend Dr. Brett. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for W. I n n y s at the Prince's Arms 
 in St. PauVs Church- Yard. 1717. 
 
 w ^\ 
 
(iii) 
 
 Dn Brett'^ Letter to the 
 Author, in Vindication of 
 
 the Primitive Church, &C. 
 
 Mr. Hart, 
 
 Never hcrj'd of Dc Laune'z Plea 
 till you 'brought it me, and told 
 me that it was a Book which 
 was muirli cried up by the Dif-^ 
 (enters^ who faid it neither had 
 been nor could be anfwer'd . Ard 
 I find til at Mr. De Fee alfo re- 
 prefents it as unaniXverable. He tells us in his 
 Preface, /'.if. That the Book is perfc^ in it fclf-^ 
 m^-er Ainhor kft behind him a nmx fimfifd Pitc€ 5 
 a7td that lie hliez^es iht Difpntt is entirely ended. 
 If any Mtin ask what they can fay ^ r^-hythe Diflco- 
 tcrs differ from the Chrrch of England, aTtd ivhat 
 they can plead for it? He can recammmd no hciter 
 
 A 2 Reply 
 
iir Dr. Brett'^ Letter. 
 
 Reply than this ^ Let them anpwer^ in floor t^ Tho-' 
 mas De Lniine j and defire the ^uerifl to read the 
 Book. I therefore read it over carefully, aiid 
 found it to be what I expe6]:ed , a T'reatife writ- 
 ten 'With fome Art ayid Sophifiry , hut without one 
 good Argument that would hear the 1'eft. Howe- 
 ver, canfidering your Education and Employ- 
 nlent, I feared ( being then a Stranger to you } 
 that you was not qualified to give this Book a fo- 
 lid Anfwer. But I had not read many Leaves of 
 your Bulwark Storm' d before I was convinced, 
 that good Senfe and a found Under (landing are 
 by no means corffined to M'en of a liberal Educa- 
 tion ; and it having pleas'd God to blefs you with' 
 thofe Talents, together with an honeif Mind, 
 you had not failed to make a good Improvement 
 of themj notwithllandingyour low flation in the 
 World had barred you from thofe Advantages 
 which Men of a learned Education and eafier For- 
 tunes enjoy. And I found that you had not only 
 read, but throughly underilood and digefled our 
 befl Engliflj Authors, and had thereby fo well ac- 
 quarmted your felf with the Grounds and J^rinci- 
 ples of true Religion, that you could eafily fee 
 through all the Sophifms and Fallacies ofDeLaune's 
 Arguments, and fet them in a plain Light, fo as 
 to make them obvious to the moft vulgar Rea- 
 ders y though you had not Learning and Op- 
 portunities to enquire into- the Fairnefs of his 
 Quotations from ancient Authors, or to exa- 
 mine whether thofe Ceremonies which he char- 
 ges with Novelty were fo or not. Give me leave 
 therefore to fhew you, that he has been been ve- 
 ry unfair in his Reprefentations of the true Pri- 
 mitive Churchy and many other Matters, which 
 you have not obferved in your Anfwer, Not but 
 
 I think 
 
Z)r. Brett'5 Letter. v 
 
 I think you have fufficiently confuted Dc Lamie''s 
 Arguments, and fhewed that they cannot (land, 
 whether thcfe things are true bv falfc. But that 
 I may vindicate i\\q Primitive Churchy and our 
 own, from thofe Calumnies he fo unjuftly loads 
 them with, and fhewthat this Fellow, who pre- 
 tended to be a Scholar, v/as either egregioufly 
 ignorant, and knew not whether v^hat he ailerc- 
 ed was true or f^lfe, or elfe abominably impudent 
 in endeavouring to impofe upon the World what 
 he. knew to be falfe. 
 
 I iTiall begin with what he fays concerning the 
 primitive times, that is, thofe times of the Cl^iurch 
 v'hich were within four hundred Years after the 
 Birth of Chrift. Now thefe were certainly the 
 purefl: times of the Chriftian Church. The firft 
 hundred Years was under the Prefidency of Chrift 
 himfelf here on Earth, orfomeof his Apoiilesj for 
 Si.John^ the beloved Difciple , did not die till about 
 an hundred Years after the Nativity of our Saviour. 
 The next fifty Years, at leaff, was under the Pre- 
 fidency of fuch Bifhops as had been inftrucled by 
 the Apollles or apollolical Men -, for the Apoftles 
 had many Afiiftants and Fellow- Labourers, whofe 
 Names we meet with in the New Teftament, as 
 7'imothy^ 7'itus^ Syhanus^ Epapbroditusy Clemens^ 
 and others, who were as careful to preferve the 
 Purity of the Chriftian Faith and V\^orfhip, as 
 the Apoftles themfelves. And we have reafon to 
 believe that their immediate Succeflbrs , who 
 were educated and ordained by them, would not 
 immediately corrupt the Faith and Worfhip of 
 God , and deviate from the apoftolical DoCcrine 
 and Pra6lice > efpecially when we confider that 
 the Apoftles, and apoftolical Men their Contem- 
 poraries, had the Gift of difcerning Spirits, and 
 
 A 4 therefore 
 
vi Di\ Brett'5 Letter. 
 
 therefore would not let aay Men over tbe Church 
 to govern it after then' Deaths, whom they did 
 not know to be found in the Faith, and very un- 
 likely to conupt that Doctrine and Worfhip 
 which they had received from them. So that I 
 think v^e may very well conclude that the Church 
 was not corrupt whilft it was under thePrefiden- 
 cy of the Apoftles, or their immediate Succef- 
 fors y that is, for an hundred and fifty Years after 
 the Birth of Chrift. Neither have we any rea- 
 fon to think that the Church was corrupted with- 
 in the next hundred and fifty Years j for we find 
 the x'luthors of thofe times frequently appealing 
 to the Doctrines and Pra^Slices deliver'd by the 
 Apoftles 5 and very zealous for the obferving and 
 retaining them pure and uncorrupt , and vigo- 
 roufly oppofing all that would deviate from them. 
 And in fo fhort a fpace of time as an hundred and 
 fifty, or two hundred Years, they could not 
 but know what were the apofiolical Pradices. 
 They could not but know what kind of Go- 
 vernment the Apoftles had fettled in the Church, 
 what Orders of Minifters they had appointed, 
 how and in what manner .they adminillred Bap? 
 tifm. Confirmation, the Eucharill, and fuch 
 like> what kind of Service they ufed in their 
 folemn AfTemblies, what Feafls and Fafts they 
 obferved, or whether any at all. Thefe, and o- 
 ther matters of tbe fame nature, they could not 
 but know, as well as we can know what were 
 the ufages of our firft Reformers, who lived a- 
 bout the fame diftance of time from us that the 
 Apoftles and their immediate Succeflbrs did, from 
 thofc who lived at the latter end of the third, and 
 the beginning of the fourth Century. And for- 
 afmucii as we find that the Church continue4 
 
 the 
 
Dr. Brett'^ T.etter, vii 
 
 tlie fame Doftrine and Worfhip to the end of the 
 fourth Century, and afterwards, which they ob- 
 ferved \x\ the beginning of that Century, of 
 which we have a clear Account from the nu- 
 merous Writers of that Age j we conclude with 
 very good reafon, that for thefe full four hun- 
 xired Years after the Birth of Chrifi^ that Church 
 was as pure and uncorrupt as we can expe61: to 
 find her in her militant State, and confequently 
 tliat the Dodtrine and Difcipline of the Church, 
 in thofefirft Ages, is the bcft Pattern we can 
 llavc to complete and finifh our Reformation. 
 And though perhaps we may find fome ufages a- 
 mongft them, which are not direftly authori7xd 
 t)y Scri^iture, yet we have no reafon to doubt 
 but that what was univerfally received and prac- 
 tifcd by the Church, within the Period I have 
 mentioned, was derived from undoubted apoflo- 
 lical Tradition. For as St. Angiijlrn^ who lived 
 about the latter end of this Period , obfcrves, ia 
 one df his Books againfl; the Donatifts^ (De Bap- 
 t'lfm, lib. 4. cap. z\.) ^jod nmverfa tenet Ecckfia^ 
 nee Conciliis jyifiitiitum^ fed femfer retenfnm eji ^ 
 noil nifi Alitor it ate apoflolicd traditum re5f?Jjime 
 ctedltiir. That which is hold en and obfervcd hy 
 the whole Chunh ^ and was not Inflituted by any 
 Comlcils^ but has been always retained^ -is nioji fru- 
 ly believed not to have rifen from any other Autho- 
 rity than apoftolical tradition. And therefore, as 
 :Fincenti'tis Lifinenfis obferves, what has been 
 taught and praftifed /;? all Times ^ in all Places^ 
 and by all the Faithful^ is not to be efleemcd cor- 
 rupt and erroneous, though it be not particular- 
 ly prefcribed in the Holy Scriptures. For indeed, 
 if we lay afide this Rule, how lliall we know 
 avhat is^ Scripture and what is not fo ? Let me 
 . A 4 ask 
 
viii 2)r. Brett'^ Letter. 
 
 ask any Man , how he knows that the Books of 
 ^X. Matthew, Si. Mark, St. Luke , or St. John, 
 were written by any of thofe Apolllcs or Evan- 
 gclills whofc Names they bear, otherwife than 
 by this moil ancient and univerfal Tradition ? 
 And if they were not written by thofe Perfons 
 who hved and were converfant with Cbrifi and 
 his Apoflles, and therefore could not be deceived 
 in what they wrote concerning him and them, 
 how iliali we know that they have given us a 
 true account of the T>ife and A6tions, the Pafli- 
 on and Death of our Saviour? Nay, how fhall 
 \vc know that the Epiilles written by St. Peter, 
 St. Paul, St. James,, St.John, and St. 7«^^, were 
 nat forged by other Men in their Names, with- 
 out we allow this univerfal Tradition to be one 
 good Proof of it? For the Holy Scripture's Te- 
 liimony concerning it felf is not alone fufficient, 
 ■without this Conjundion of the univerfal Tradi- 
 tion of the Church. Thus, for inftance, if the 
 internal Tellimony of a Book concerning it felf 
 be fufficient to command my beUef and alTent to 
 it, why il^ould I believe the Book of the Pro- 
 •verbs to have been wTittep by Solomon , and not 
 the Book of IVifdom. One bears the Name of 
 Solomon no lefs than the other 5 and it is plain 
 that the Author of the Book of TVifdom writes 
 '4S if he was Solomon the Son o^ David -y and, if 
 we may credit his own words, he could be no 
 other. For, in his Prayer to God for Wifdom, 
 he fays (Wifd. ix. 7.) ihoii haft chofen me to he a 
 King of thy People , and a Judge of thy Sons and 
 Daughters : 'Thou haft commanded me to build a 
 Temple on thy holy Mount, and an Jltar in the Ci- 
 ty wherein thou dwelleft. If then we might de- 
 pend upon the Teflimony of this Book concern- 
 
 ing 
 
Dr. Brett'^ Letter, \x 
 
 ing it felf 5 the Author of it could be no other 
 than Solomon the Son of David. And there is 
 nothing in the whole Book but what is agreeable 
 to the undoubted canonical Scriptures. And it 
 contains many excellent Precepts and Jnilrudi- 
 ons: And for any thing that appears in the Book 
 it felf , I cannot fee why it fliould be reje^lcd as 
 j^pocryphal. But then we learn from the Tradi- 
 tion of the Church, that it was not written by 
 Solomon , but by one Philo an helleniflical Jew^ 
 who lived about the time of the Maccabees j and 
 therefore w^e juftly reje61: it as a Counterfeit. But 
 we could not have known that it was a Counter- 
 feit merely by reading the Book it felf, or from 
 the Teftimony of any other Scriptures, but only 
 from the traditional Teftimony of the Church, 
 which has always rejefted it as fuch. And there- 
 fore to difregard and contemn an univerfal Tradi- 
 tion, fupported by the unanimous Teftimony of 
 all i'imes^ all Places^*- and all the Faithful^ will 
 weaken the Authority even of the Scriptures 
 themfelves, and leave us no Rule to go by. And i 
 freely confefs, that if the Church of Rome could 
 {hew fuch an ancient and univerfal Tradition as I 
 here plead for, in behalf of the Pope's Stipr^wa- 
 cy^ Tranfuhftantiation^ Purgatory^ Prayers to Saint Sy 
 Images^ &c. I would not call thole Do6trincs 
 corrupt and erroneous. But being well aninec 
 that they want antiquity, and that direct contraiv 
 Podrines, entirely inconfiftent with them, were 
 ever taught by the Fathers of the four ( I may 
 fay the fix) fir ft Centuries, who were undoubt- 
 edly much better acquainted with the Traditions 
 deriv'd from the Apoftles, than we can be at this 
 diftance , orherwife than by their unanimous 
 Teftimony J I abominate and deteil thofc, and 
 
 all 
 
X Dr. BrettV Letter. 
 
 nil other corrupt Doftrincs of Popery, as Novd- 
 liesand pernicious Erroiirs. For I think the Pfi^ 
 Tnitive Church of the four firft Centuries ought ta 
 be our Pattern, both for Do6l:rine and DifcipHne, 
 for the Realbns ahxady mentioned. 
 
 But Dc Laum fiiys (pag. i5>.) That -zor find 
 ihofe Tery times abounding zrry 7nuch *wiib Error 
 and Superfiition \ which (fays he) is an Argument 
 ^joe JhoM not receive them for our Pattern m-ors 
 than ethers 'y ^whereof (adds he) I jhall gil^e you 
 [ome Infiances of their Nsevi, or Errors mentioned 
 by the Centuries. And then he proceeds to tell us, 
 that Ortgen^ Cyprian^ Aufiin^ Confiantine ^ and 
 Chyfhftoin^ were corrupt. And fuppofe thefe 
 Centurifts, or De Laune^ could have made their 
 alfertions good, and have proved thefe particular 
 Men to hitve been corrupt, would it have fol- 
 lowed that the Church was alfo corrupt in their 
 times ? Mr. M^hiffon and Dr. Clark , and for 
 ought I know, many others that are now living, 
 and not expelled from the Comniunion of the 
 Church of England^ are corrupt and profcH'cd A- 
 riansy docs it -therefore follow that the Church 
 <3^ England :i\'io \s cymx'pitd^^nih Arianifm^ YjYnth 
 is fo dn-e<51:ly cont raiy to hr/>^;7/V/^ J, Creeds^ and"^ 
 Liturgy ? There have b?en and' rv^ill be corrupt 
 Men in all Ages 5 tPie Tare^ will grow un with 
 the Wheat : But does it therefore follow that the 
 Church it fclf is corrupt? There was a Judas a- 
 mongft the twelve Apoflles, even' wbilft our Sa- 
 viour himfclf was on Earth converfaiit with them. 
 There were falfc Piopliets wrA falfc Teachers , 
 v/ho brought in damnable Herefies e\'cn ill t\rz 
 Apolllcs Daysj but was the apoltolical Churclr, 
 or the Church which v/as then under the Gui- 
 dance and Government of the Apoilles tlicrefoi'e 
 
 corrupt ? 
 
Dr. Brett'5 Letter. xi 
 
 covrupt? Or, to turn the Argument upon the 
 DifTcnters thcmfclves : Is there any Pitrty umongil: 
 them that has no Men which hold corrupt Opi- 
 nions? Are they all infallible, and free from Er- 
 ror ? Will the Body of DilTenters juilify e\'ery 
 thing that is to be found in the Books written by 
 any Man of their Party ? If we fliould charge the 
 DilTenters with the Errors and Corruptions which 
 may be found in fome of their Authors Writings, 
 would they not fay to us, Let thofc Men anfwer for 
 themfelves y we hold no fuch Doctrines j v/e will 
 not defend their Miftakes? Have they not writ- 
 ten Pro and Con^ one againft another, as well as 
 particular Men of the Church of England? Are 
 they all of one accord, and of one mind? Som.c 
 of them tha-efore muil be miftaken. But if they 
 do not think it fair, that the Miftakes of particu- 
 lar Men fhould be charged upon all that commu» 
 nicate with them, with what Face can they put 
 the. Mi Hakes of panicular Men upon the w holer 
 Church ? For Origen^ Cyprian^ jiujiiriy Conft&u^ 
 tlne^ and Chryfoftome^ were no other than parti- 
 cular Men, who lived at different times one after 
 another in the Primitive Church : For there were 
 but two of them, ^ujlin and Chryfoflome^ that 
 were Contemporaries. So that if De Laiine could 
 have proved every one of thefe to have been cor- 
 rupt and erroneous, yet this would have been no- 
 proof that the Church it felf in their times was 
 fo. However, forafmuch as theie were all of 
 them Men of Emincncy and Station in the Church, 
 and whofe Names have been venerable to this 
 Day, I think it very proper to vindicate thcra. 
 from the afperfions call upon them by De Lanne. 
 
 He tells us. That Origen averted two Chriils^ 
 denyed bis Godhead^ ivas the Head of the Arians<^;?^ 
 
 Pelagians, 
 
xii T)r, BrfttV Letter. 
 
 Pelngi'.in.^^ l^cldlu^ (zsjerofr^ehys) 'very defpe^t- ate y 
 ' ly ccuccrnwg the Sprit , a^d icry corruptly about 
 Jiiigeh^ Devils^ Creation^ Provide-nce^ original Si?? ^ 
 Church'Qh'vernment^ and the Refurreciion end fa- 
 crificing for the Dead: Baptifm takes a-way Sin^ 
 /ind that there miijl he a B?.ptlfm after the Refur- 
 re&ion. But by the way, this very Charge of 
 St. Jerom againil; Origcn (if St. Jerom has charged 
 him with all thefe Particulars) is an Argument 
 tliat the Church was not altogether chargeable 
 with fuch Opinions. For St. JerG77i lived in the 
 fourth Century, and therefore would not have 
 charged Origen with heterodoxy, for holding 
 fuch Opinions, if they had been the Opinions of 
 die Church at that time. Therefore this very 
 Charge of Si. Jerom againd: Origen is fufficient to 
 clear the Church from the Errors and Corrupti- 
 ons which h€ is accufed of. But we are farther 
 to conllder, that St. Jerom lived near two hundred 
 Years after Origen-, and that before that time,- as 
 Rufiniis^ who lived at the fame time with St. 7^- 
 rom^ informs us, many of Or/^6Vs Books, which 
 were very numerous, were corrupted by Here- 
 ticks 3 and many things foiited into them dire6t:ly 
 contrary to the Doctrines he had taught, and 
 which were to be found in his undoubted gc; 
 nuine Works, which had not been interpolated. 
 And particularly as to the firft and capital Error 
 with which De Laune charges him, viz. his af- 
 ferting tv)o Chrifts^ and denying his Godhead^ and 
 being the Head of the Arians 3 it appears to be a 
 very falfe Accufation, as the learned Bifhop Bull 
 has fhewed (Defenf. Fid, Nican. Edit, per Grabe, 
 p. 107.) from Orlgen's own undoubted Works, 
 ilill extant. But nothing can better jullify the 
 Church m Ovigm's time, and Origen himfelf, 
 
 froi^. 
 
Dr. Brett'^ Letter. xui 
 
 from this Calumny of denying the Godhead of 
 Chrift^ than that the Church, as Eufehius informs 
 us, (Ecclef. Hift. lib, 6. cap. t^^) in a folemn Sy- 
 nod condemned that very Error, when BeryJlus 
 Bifhop of Bofira in Jrabia endeavour'd to intro- 
 duce it ; and Origen was the very Man who dif- 
 puted with Beryllus on that occaiion, and pre- 
 vailed with him to icpcnt of, and openly rctra<5i: 
 that wicked and heretical Opinion. 
 
 As to Cyprian^ De Laune fays that he affirmed 
 the Church of Rome to he the Mother-Church 5 
 that there ought to he one High-Prieft o'ver the 
 Church -y that the principal Church is Peter'i Chair ^ 
 from whence the Unity of the Priefthood arifeth 5 
 and that 6>;^ Peter the Church is founded. But let 
 us hear ^i. Cyprian's own words, and what hh 
 Sentiments were as to thefe Points, and then we 
 ihall fee plainly that the Centurifls, and De Laune 
 from them, have very much mifreprefented him. 
 Cyprian then, not far from the beginning of his 
 Book Of the tfnity of the Churchy has thefe words, 
 " The Lord fays unto Peter (Matth. xvi. 18.) 
 '' Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I zvijl build 
 " my Churchy and the Gates of Plell fhall not pre- 
 ^' "vail againft it : And I will gi-ve unto thee the 
 ^' Keys of the Ki?jgdom of Heai'cn j and what foe' 
 '' 'uer thou foalt hind on Earthy fJmll he bound in^ 
 ^' Hea^'en 3 and what foe vcr thou fkalt loofe on 
 '' Earth , Jhalt he loofe d in Eleaven. And again 
 " he fays to him , after his Refurre6iion (Joh. 
 '' xxi. 16.) Feed my Sheep. Upon him alone he 
 '^ builds his Church, and commits the feeding of 
 " his Sheep to him. And although after the 
 " Rcfurredion he gave to all the Apoilles an e^ 
 " qual Power^ and laid, (Jch. xx. 21 .) Js iny Fa" 
 ^' ther hath fcnt m?^ fo fend I you j r^ceiz'c the Ho- 
 
 '' ly 
 
XIV Dr. Brett'5 Letter. 
 
 *' ly Ghoft. Wh^fefoe'ver Sins ye remit ^ they are 
 '^ remitted unto them \ and whofefoevcr Sins ye re^ 
 " t'.tin 5 they are relained. Yet that he might 
 *^ manifcfl: the Unit}^, he cftablifhcd one Chaif^ 
 " and fettled the Original of that Unity by his 
 ^ own Authority, beginning from oiie. For th^ 
 ^^ other j^poftks were the fame that Peter was^ in^ 
 " "vefted 1^'ith an equal floare hoth sf Honour and 
 ^' Pov)er\ but the beginning proceeded from 
 ^^ Unity. The Primacy is given to Peter ^ to 
 *^ demonfrrate the Church of Chrifi to be but 
 " one. And all are Shepherds, but th.e Flock is 
 '^ ojic , which is ^zO. by all the Apoftles with an 
 " unanimous Confcnt." 
 
 But what corrupt erroneous Do6trine is to be 
 found in this, or perhaps other PafEiges of St. Cy- 
 prian to the farTi^i effect? i4e does indeed make 
 St. Peters Chair the Principal of Unity to the 
 Church. But does not the Scripture aifo do the 
 iame? For what is it that he calls by the Name 
 of St. Peter's Chair? Not the Pope's Chair 5^ as 
 Dc Latme would iniinuate, but the Commiliion 
 which was fir ft given 10 Peter ^ aixl afterwards to 
 all the Apoitles. He allpws to Peter no Pre- 
 eminence above the reft, but fays they had all 
 par em Potefiatem^ an equal Pozver : Only he fays 
 that Peter was the firft to whom this Power was 
 given i that he had the Primatus^ the Primacy or 
 Precedency in order of time j and fo, as the ei- 
 deft Apollle, the right Hand of Fellowfhip be- 
 longed to him. He received his Com. million firfl-, 
 but every one of the Apollles received the very 
 fame Commiflion 5 they all fat in one and the fame 
 Chair with him, and were all pari confortio pr^e^ 
 diti ^ Honoris t^ Poteflatis^ invefted 'with an e- 
 qual fiare hoth of Honour and Poixjer. It was one 
 
 and 
 
Dr\ BRETT'i Letter. xv 
 
 ^nd the fame Jpoftolat , one end the fame Epifco- 
 -pat ^ which VvMs given to every one of them. 
 And to this purpolc St. Cyprian exprcfleth him- 
 felF a little after, Epifccpatus unus ejl cujus a Jia- 
 gulls in foVidum pars tenetur : 1'here i^s one Epifco* 
 pat^ of ivhich part is committed to every Bifhop in 
 full. Tht \\oYdi in fvUduin^ oxi/ifuU^ isaPhrafc 
 of the Roman Law, and {igni£es here that part 
 of this one Epifcopat was fo committed to every 
 fingle Bifhop, that he w^a^ likewife charged with 
 a Care of the whole Church. And fo he ex-* 
 plains himfelf, (in his fifty fifth Epi(He) Cum fit 
 Chriflo una Ecdefia per totum miindum in ?fiulta 
 membra divifa j ita Epifcopatus uniis^ Eplfeoporum 
 multorum concordi numerofitate divifus : As there is 
 one Church of Chrifi^ diftinguifoed into many Mtm^ 
 hers through the ivbole PForld^ fo there is one E- 
 pifcopat of a great united number of many BiJJ^ops f 
 diffufed through that one Church. If then it was 
 St. Cyprian's Opinion, that the Apoftles ivere all 
 equals and that all Bifiops "jjere equal likewife, as 
 is fo evident from his own words > and that he 
 neither allowed that Peter had any greater fliarc 
 of Honour and Power than any other Apolllc , 
 or that anyone Bifhop had a fuperiority over tlie 
 ^ reil", it is evident that he could not affirm, as the 
 Centurifts^ and De Laune from them, tcUs us that 
 he does, that there ought to be one Higb-Priefi-. o-< 
 'ver the Churchy if we underlland him to fpcak oi 
 any mortal Man as that High-Prieftj andif it. be 
 under flood of Clmfi:^ I am fure it is neither cor- 
 rupt nor erroneous. Neither does he make St. Pe- 
 ter's Chair the principal Churchy as it is to beim- 
 derflood of the Church of Re?ne^ or any other 
 particular Church 3 but by St. Pctcfs Chair he 
 plainly means the Chair of every one o£ tiie Apc- 
 
xvi Dr. Brett'5" Letter. 
 
 flics, who, as he direftly tells us, had an equal 
 Power with St. Peter : For he does not fay that 
 Chrift fettled the Original of Unity in Peter^ but 
 only that he bega}^ from him. I might, if it was 
 neceflary, produce abundance of Paflages from 
 St. Cyprian^ to fhew that he was the fartheft of 
 any Man from maintaining or afTerting the Au- 
 thority of the Bifhop of Rome over other Bifbops > 
 nor indeed did the Bifhop of Rome pretend to a- 
 ny fuch Authority in thofe early Days, or for 
 fome Ages after. And there is no Book of that 
 Antiquity in the World , from whence fo many 
 Arguments may be drawn againft the Papal Pre- 
 tenfions to a Supremacy over the whole Church , 
 as may be taken from the Works of St. Cyprian* 
 So far is that Father from being corrupt or erro- 
 neous in that Point, ^sDe Laune either ignorant- 
 Iv or impudently would infinuate that he is. 
 
 But De La une hrthcY tells us, that he was a 
 'Violent hnpiigner of Priefts Marriages. But for my 
 part I can find nothing like it , though I have 
 pretty carefully examined his Works. He does 
 indeed frequently commend Virginity, as St. Paul 
 alfo does 5 but he forbids npMan to marry, whe- 
 ther Lay-Men or Priefts. And it would be 
 flrange if he fhould, fince he himfelf was a mar- 
 ried Man, and lived with his Wife after he was 
 a Prieft, as well as before 5 as Pontius his Deacon, 
 who lived with him , and wrote his Life, in- 
 forms us: Which is a moft certain Evidence that 
 he did not think Priefts Marriages to be unlawful i 
 and if he did not , he ought not to be called a 
 'violent Impugner of them. 
 
 The next Corruption, with which he charges 
 Cyprian^ is. That he held that Sins are done a- 
 imy by Jims and good Works. And indeed St. Cy- 
 prian 
 
Dr. Brett^5 Letter. xvii 
 
 prian has written a Book concerning good Worh 
 ■and Alms ^ wherein he ihews how veryufeful and 
 beneficial they will be to usj and fpeaks of theni 
 as things neceflary to be done, in order to the ob- 
 taining the Remiflion of our Sins, and eternal 
 Life. And whatever he fays on this occafion, he 
 proves by exprefs Texts and Quotations from the 
 holy Scriptures. Nor does he fay that thefc 
 things are capable of cleanfing us from t)Ur Sins, 
 any otherwife than as they are done in Faith ; 
 that is , as they are done in Obedience to Chrifty 
 and a dependence and rruft for Pardon and Salva- 
 tion through his Merits. For his words are,£/^f- 
 ynofynis i^ fide deU5ia purgantur : Sins are done ^- 
 ivay by Alms and Faith j agreeable to that Text 
 fo frequently repeated in the Scripture, (Hah. ii. 4. 
 Rom.i.j, Gal'm.ii. He^x.^S.) Ue Jufi Jhall 
 Ji'ue by his Faith. For who is to be called ^z^/ or 
 righteous^ but he that does good Works, and 
 gives Alms according to his Ability ? The Scri- 
 pture no where fays that the Wicked fljall live by 
 his Faith ; but the contrary. IVJoat doth it p'o- 
 fit^ fays the Apoftle, (Jam. ii. 14.) though a Man 
 [ay he hath Faith ^ and have not Works ? Can Faith 
 fave him? What is it then St. Cyprian fays on 
 this occafion, which the Scripture does not fay? 
 
 Well, but St. Cyprian fays, the Perfon bapti- 
 zing^ in the very a^ confers the Floly Spirit. And 
 I do confefs that he does more than once ufe cx- 
 preffions, which imply that to have been his d- 
 pinion. But I do not conceive him to have been 
 corrupt and erroneous in it , becauie I find it to 
 have been the Doftrine taught by the Apoftles, 
 (Acis ii. 38.) Repent and be baptized^ every one of 
 youy in the Name 0/ Jefus Chriil:, and ye flmll re- 
 ceive the Gift of the Holy Ghefl. From whence I 
 
 B think 
 
xviii Dr. Brett's Letter. 
 
 think it is very evident, that Avhen Baptifm is 
 given and received duly and regularly as it ought 
 to be 5 that is, where the Giver is duly qualifyed 
 by Chriji's Commiflion to adminiiier it j and 
 there is no obftruftion in the Receiver, either of 
 Impenitence or Unbelief, the Holy Ghoft is alfo 
 given with it. For if the Gift of the Holy Ghofi 
 be a necefTary confequence of good and efFedual 
 Baptifm , as the Scriptures teach us that it is j 
 then the Perfon who has a Commiflion from 
 God to adminifter that Sacrament, may very well 
 be faid minifierially to confer the Holy Spirit in 
 the very JU of baptizing 5 confequently St. Cy* 
 prian aflerts no more than the Scriptures warrant- 
 ed him to do^ and therefore ought not to be 
 accufed as corrupt and erroneous on this ac- 
 count. 
 
 But he farther tells us that Cyprian fays, that 
 Chrifm and Exorcifm are ahfolutely necejfary. Now 
 1 do acknowledge that St. Cyprian does Hiy that 
 Chrifm is necefTary 5 but he does not fay ahfolute- 
 ly neceflary, as De Laune charges him to do. 
 And for Exorcifm^ he does not fo much as fay 
 that it is necefTary 5 but of that in the next 
 place : We will nrfl confider what he fays of 
 Chrifm^ which he fpeaks of in his LXX. Epi- 
 ftlc direded to Januarius and the other Bifhops 
 of Numidia^ and fays, Ungi quoque neceffe eft eum 
 qui baptizatus fit^ ut accepto Chrifnate^ id eft, 
 Un6lione effe unhus Dei^ £5? habere in fe Gratiam 
 Chrifli pofflt. It is alfo necejjary that he that has 
 been baptized fhould be anointed^ that having re- 
 ceived the Chrifm^ that is, the Undiion, he may be 
 the Anointed of God, and have the Grace of Chrifi 
 reftding in him. And what he here calls Chrijm 
 or Un^iony he in his LXXII. Epiilie diredcd 
 
 to 
 
Dr. Brett'^ Letter. xii 
 
 to Stephen Rifhop of Rome^ calls Tmpofttion of 
 Hands for the receiving of the Holy Ghofl : Which 
 is that Ordinance which we now call by the 
 name of Confirmation. Which being always ad- 
 miniftred from the Apoflles Days down to the 
 Reformation with the ceremony of Anointing, 
 was therefore ufually called by the name ofChrifm 
 or Un6iion. Now the faying that this Ordinance 
 of Confirmation is neceflary, is faying no more 
 than the Scripture it felf warrants him to fiy, 
 fince it is numbred by St. Paul {JHeb. vi. i^ 2.) 
 amongft the Fundamentals of the Chriftian Reli- 
 gion. For fpeaking of the Foundation^ or thofc 
 Points of our Religion which are necejfary^ fuch 
 as Repentance from dead Works^ Faith towards 
 Gqd^ the RefurreUion of the Dead ^ and eternal 
 Judgment^ he adds to them not only the Do^rine 
 of Baptifms^ but likewife of Laying on of Hands. 
 If therefore St. Pi2«/ judged this Ordinance to be 
 one of the Foundations of our Religion, as he 
 Cxpreflly calls it, I cannot think ^t. Cyprian cor- 
 rupt and erroneous for faying that it is necejfary : 
 For they both fpeak of the fame Ordinance,- 
 though one calls it the laying on of Hands^ and 
 the other calls it Un6tion or Chrifm^ becaufe both 
 thofc Ceremonies were ufcd in the Miniflratioii 
 of it. And therefore whether Oil was neceflary 
 or not to be ufed in this Ordinance, St. Cyprian 
 was not corrupt or erroneous in fpeaking of 
 Chrifm as necerfary, fince that Ordinance in his 
 time, and long before, even from the Apoftles 
 Days, was not adminiftred without it. And I 
 conceive there is more Reafon to believe, that 
 we our felves have been erroneous in laying afide 
 the Ufe of Chrifm or Oil in the Ordinance of 
 Cofifirmatim^ than that he was erroneous in mcn- 
 
 B ^ tioning 
 
XX Dr. Brett'5 Letter. 
 
 tioning it as neceflary. Much more have thofe 
 been corrupt and erroneous, who make Confirma- 
 tion it felf notnecefTary j and have altogether- laid 
 afide a Divine Ordinance which St. Paul places 
 among the Fundamentals of our Religion. 
 
 As to Exorcipms which De Lame tells us St. Cy- 
 prian makes to be ahfolutely neceffary y I mull fay 
 that he no where fpeaks of them as necejjary : 
 He does indeed once, towards the end of his 
 LXIX. Epiftle direded to Magnus^ mention 
 the Exorcifts as Perfons that did caft out Devils. 
 And it is known to all that are acquainted with 
 the Writings of the Primitive Fathers, that the 
 Chriftians^ as well in St. Cyprian's Age as before 
 and after, did caft out Devils from fuch as were 
 poflefTed : And they challenged the Heathen to 
 put the matter to the Trial at any time, in or- 
 der to convince them that the Gods which they 
 worfhipped were no other than mere Devils. 
 Bring forth any Man^ fays 'TertuUian in his x^polo- 
 gy for the Chriflians againft the Gentiles^ (cap.z^.) 
 "ivbo is poj/effed with a Demon^ and place him before 
 your own 1'ribunah : 'That Spirit being commanded 
 by any Chriftian to fpeak^ Jhall then as truly con- 
 fefs himfelf to be a Devil^ as he falfty in another 
 
 place pretends to be a God. If they do not 
 
 confefs themfelves to be Devils^ not daring to lie to 
 a Chriftian, then immediately jloed tbe Blood of that 
 ifkpudent Chriftian. And can we think any Chri- 
 fiian durft have made fuch a daring challenge to 
 thofe that were in Power, and had at that time 
 the fupreme temporal Authority, if he had not 
 been afJured of the Truth of what he faid. And 
 a Httle after he adds concerning thofe evil Spi- 
 rits y "they fearing Chrifi in God, and God in Chrifi^ 
 are fubje^ to the Servants of God and of Chrift. 
 
 So 
 
Dr. Brett'^ Letter. xxi 
 
 So that by our T'ouch or our Breath being feized 
 with the Fore fight and Reprefentation of that Fire to 
 ivhich they jhall h4 condemned^ they alfo at our com- 
 mand go out of the Bodies they have pofiefied^ though 
 they do it unwillingly^ and with grief and floame^ 
 becaufe it is in your Pre fence. What wonder 
 therefore is it if St. Cyprian^ who lived in the 
 next Age to T'ertuUian ^ and whilfb this Power 
 continued in the Church, fhould jull mention 
 thefc Exorcifis who were employed by the Church 
 to caft out Devils by their Prayers ? I am fure I 
 can fee nothing corrupt or erroneous in it. For 
 this Power of calling out Devils was then mat- 
 ter of Fadb, and vifible to all. And fuch a Pov/er 
 being then manifeftly in the Church, is an Argu- 
 ment of its Purity and Incorrupcion > otherwife 
 we have reafon to believe, that God would have 
 withdrawn this miraculous Power from it. Nor 
 let any one fay, that the Truth of this is not well 
 attefled j for what better Teftimony can be de- 
 iired, than that they did it publickly in the pre- 
 Icnce of their Enemies, and offered to do the fame 
 at any time before the publick Tribunals of their 
 moil bitter Adverfaries, and that at the Peril of 
 their Lives if they failed in the Undertaking ? 
 They appealed to no private Evidence of their 
 own Friends, but did thefe things in publick, 
 and before the moft difcerning of their Adver- 
 faries. 
 
 The lafl: Error with which he charges St. Cy- 
 prian [$^ That there fhould he Sacrifices for the 
 Dead, And indeed it does appear from the very 
 iirll Epiftle of St. Cyprian^ rhat he did approve 
 of Sacrifice (not Sacrifices in the plural number) 
 for the Dead : But then I cannot allow that he 
 was corrupt and erroneous in it. Let us there- 
 
 B 5 fore 
 
xxii Dr. Brftt'5 Letter. 
 
 fore fee what it was that this holy Father called 
 Sacrifice for the Dead ; and I, will give it you in 
 his own Words : There was ojje Fi6ior a Prieft, 
 who at his Death had made Fauftinus ^ another 
 Priell, his Executor j which being contrary to a 
 Canon before made, St. Cyprian and his Collegues 
 order that this' Canon fhould be obferved in 
 f^i&or's cafe^ which, as they tell us^ was, mu 
 offeretur pro eo^ nee Sacrificium pro Dormitione ejus 
 ceJehraretur , neque enim apud jilt are Dei meretur 
 ftominari in Sacerdotum prece^ qui ah Altari Sacer- 
 dotes y Miniftros n)oluit avocare. No Oblation 
 Jhall he made for him^ nor any Sacrifice celebrated 
 for his Refi : For he deferves not to be named at 
 the Altar of the Lord in the Prayer of^ the Priefls^ 
 who would call away the Priefts and Minifters 
 from their Attendance at the Altar. And this Ca- 
 non St. Cyprian fays was made jampridem^ a great 
 while before his time. And the cuflom of Sacri- 
 ficing for the Dead^ as appears from the Canon it 
 felf, was much elder than the Canon. For the 
 yery forbidding Sacrifice to be offered for the Refi 
 of him that fhould make a Priefi his Executor^ is 
 a Teftimony that it was* the cuftom to facrifice 
 for the Dead^ or to mention the names of the Dead 
 at the Altar before that time. Now St. Cy- 
 ;prian lived within two hundred and fifty years 
 after the Birth of Chrift^ and this Canon having 
 been made long before his time^ we may very rea- 
 fonably fuppofe that it was made fifty years be- 
 fore 5 and we may alfo reafonably fuppofe, that 
 the Cuftom of facrificing for the Dead was at 
 le^ft fifty years elder: Which carries it up to 
 the time of thofe Biihops who immediately fuc- 
 cecded to the Apoftles. And as I have already 
 |hcwed, there i% no reafpn to believe that the 
 
 Apoftles 
 
Dr. BrettV Letter. xxiii 
 
 Apoftles immediate Succeflbrs, who had been 
 ordained by them, would in fuch a matter a? 
 this deviate from the Apoftolical Practice, which 
 they could be no Srrangers to 5 confequently that 
 it muft be a Practice derived to them from the 
 Apoftles themfelves. And if it was fo, I atn 
 fure it could not be corrupt and erroneous > be- 
 ing well allured that the Apoftles who wxre in a 
 more efpecial manner guided by the divine Spi- 
 rit, would not introduce corrupt and erroneous 
 Practices into the Church. But befide this we 
 have the Teftimony of fertulUan^ who was born 
 within an hundred and fifty years after our Savi- 
 our 3 that is, within fifty years of the Death of 
 St. John^ and he (in his Book de Corona Mi lit is) 
 where he fpeaks of the Traditions and Cufloms 
 which the Church had received from the Apo- 
 ftles, particularly mentions OhJationes pro De^ 
 funUis^ Oblations for the Dead. And he living 
 fo near the Apoflles Age, could not be deceived 
 in a matter of Fa6b as this was j nor would he 
 -pretend to im.pofe fuch a thing upon the World, 
 at a time when every Body mufl have been able 
 to refute him. There was no Man of any Senfe 
 or Learning, which lived at that time, but mull 
 know whether making Oblations for the Dead 
 was pra6tifed by the Apoflles, as well as we can 
 know at this time, whether the Communion was 
 received kneeling by the Members of the Church 
 of England in the fecond or third year after the 
 Reftoration of King Charles the Second. For 
 the Oblations for the Dead were as publick as 
 the Communion it felf, and therefore every body 
 that received the Communion, muft know what 
 w^as the Apoftle's praftice in this cafe. And I'er- 
 tullian could in his days, no more impofe a falfe 
 'B 4. Tradition 
 
xxiv Dr. Brett'5 Letter. 
 
 Tradition upon the World concerning an Apo^ 
 ^olical Praj^lice, than any one at this time could 
 impofe a falfe Tradition concerning the publick 
 and notorious Practice of the Church of England 
 in the firft times of King Charles the Second. 
 
 It is therefore to be known, as has been abu«- 
 dantly proved from the holy Scriptures in a Book 
 publiihed but a few years lince, called, Some 
 Primitive Do&rines revived^ £cc. that the Primi- 
 tive Church, even the Apollles themfelves, did 
 believe and hold it for a Chriftian Doctrine, that 
 the Souls of the Faithful do not at their depar- 
 ture out of this Life immediately afcend nito 
 Heaven, but are detained in a middle State called 
 in Scripture P^r^<^//^ and Abraham's Bofo7n^ where 
 they enjoy great degrees of Happinefs, but vaftly 
 fhort of thofe which they hope to enjoy at the Re- 
 furredion : And they do alfo in this State gradually 
 receive greater degrees of Refreihment and Joy. 
 They alfo beheved that we and the Faithful de- 
 parted are but one Church 5 and that though the 
 rneans of Communication are cut off between us 
 by their Deaths, yet our Communion with each 
 other is not cut off, for they and we make but one 
 Communion of Saints. And therefore as they made 
 no doubt but the Saints departed prayed for the 
 Church on Earth, fo the ^rirmti've Church alfo 
 prayed for the Saints departed, as knowmg them 
 to be in a ffate of Expectance, and capable of 
 greater Bleflings than they yet enjoy. But they 
 did not therefore pray to them as the Church of 
 Rome does, no not fo much as to defire their 
 Prayers : Becaufe, as 1 have obferved, the Com- 
 munication betwixt them was cut off, though 
 ^e Communion was not. For Communion and 
 l^ornmunication arc different things; Thus fqr 
 
 inftancc, 
 
Dr. Brett'5 Letter. xxv 
 
 inflance, if all Communication was cut off be- 
 twixt the Church o^ England here and the Church 
 o^ England in America^ which may eafily be fup- 
 pofed ; no one would blame the Church of Eng- 
 land for offering up Prayers for the Church in 
 America j or the Church in America^ for doing 
 the like for the Church of England. Neither 
 would any one be blame-worthy, that ihould 
 pray for any particular Perfon in the Church of 
 America. The doing this would be no more than 
 we ought to do then, than it is to do it now 
 that the Communication between us is not en- 
 tirely cut off". But if any particular Man, or any 
 Congregation fhould kneel on their Knees here, 
 and pray to the faithful in America to defire their 
 Prayers for them> this would be ridiculous and 
 fuperftitious. And thus it is with regard to the 
 Saints departed. All Communication betwixt us 
 is entirely cut off, but the Communion is not 5 
 therefore we may pray for them as we doubt not 
 but they do for us. But to pray to them is ridi- 
 culous and fuperftitious, and miUfl: naturally lead 
 us into a Notion that they are omnifcient and 
 omniprefent, which are the peculiar Attributes 
 of God, and cannot be communicated to any 
 Creature j and this renders fuch Prayers nioff 
 wicked and abominable. We fee therefore that 
 to pray for the Faithful departed, and to pray to 
 them, though but barely to deiire their Prayers 
 for us, are very different things. St . Paul (2 Tun. i. 
 18.) prayed for Onejifhorus after Onejiphorus was 
 dead, faying, The Lord grant unto him that he 
 may find mercy of the Lord in that Day ^ or the Day 
 of Judgment \ but we never find that he or any 
 of the primiti've Chriftians ever prayed to any one 
 that was dead : Becaufe the cafes, as I have ihew- 
 
 ed, 
 
xxvi Dr. Brett'x Letter. 
 
 ed, were widely different : And the ancient Pray- 
 ers for the Dead were fuch as this which St. Paul 
 made for Onefiphorus^ as "TertuUian teaches us, (in 
 his Book de Monogamia) where he tells the Wife 
 how ilie fhould behave herfelf with regard to her 
 deceafed Husband. Pro anima ejus orety (^ refri- 
 gerium interim adpoftulet ei^ in prima refute 
 re6iione confortium. Let her pray for his Soul^ and 
 befeech God to grant him a Partnerjhip in the fir ft 
 Refurr-'Bion^ and that in the mean time he would 
 vouehfafe htm Refrejhment. 
 
 To this effect were all the Prayers which the 
 Ancients made for the Dead: They knew no- 
 thing of a Purgatory in thofe Days, nor for fome 
 Ages after, and yet they prayed for the Deadj 
 but it was only for thofe which died in the 
 Lord, who lived and died in the Communion of 
 the Church, and were not known to be guilty 
 of any Sins which might render them fit to be 
 excluded out of it : As we may learn from this 
 very Paffage of Cyprian before cited j by which 
 it appears, that he and his Collegues forbid that 
 Man to be prayed for, who at his Death flicwed 
 a contempt of the Canons of the Church. But it 
 may be asked of what Avail, of what Benefit 
 can our Prayers for the Dead be ? Can they re- 
 ceive any Good by them ? Shall they not be re- 
 warded according to their own Works, and not 
 according to our Defires and Wifhes expreffed in 
 our Prayers ? It may be anfwered, that every 
 Man, whether dead or living, fhall be rewarded 
 according to his own Works, and not according 
 to the Prayers of others for him j unlels his own 
 Prayers and Endeavours accompany the Prayers 
 of the Church: And therefore this Objcdionis 
 as ftrong againfl; Prayers for the Living as for the 
 
 Dead; 
 
Df\ Brett'5 Letter. xxvii 
 
 Dead : Yet no body queftions but Prayers for the 
 Living are very proper, as Means to induce God 
 to give them the Grace of Faith and Repen- 
 tance i or if he has already given them thofc 
 Graces, to continue them to them. And foraf- 
 much as Chriji has promifed to hear the Prayers 
 V'hich we make for others, as well as for our 
 felves, provided thofe we pray for do not obftrud 
 that Benefit by their Obftinacy and Impeni- 
 tence J and that the Peace which the Church 
 prays for fhall reft on thofe v/ith whom the Soil 
 of Peace dwells : We have no Reafon to doubt, 
 but fuch Perfons have Benefit by the Prayers of 
 the Church. Now thofe who die in the Lord, 
 carrying their Faith and Repentance with them, • 
 and their good Works following of them > w.e 
 have reafon to believe, do not by any A6i: of 
 their own, whilfi: in their middle State, or State 
 of Expedance, (the State of all Men till the Re- 
 furredion) obilruft the Benefit of the Churches 
 Prayers, but farther and help it by their own : 
 We have therefore good reafon to hope, that 
 God may and does hear our Prayers for them \ 
 and being of one Communion, though the Com- 
 munication between us is cut off, our Prayers, 
 in conjundion with their own, are available to 
 their obtaining greater degrees of Refrefhment 
 and Happinefs in the date they are in. And for 
 this Reafon, we doubt not, it was that St. Paul 
 himfelf prayed for Oneftphorus after his Death j 
 and that the primitive Church prayed alfo for all 
 thofe that died in the Lord. But they prayed 
 not for thofe who died not in the Lord, as 
 knowing that their Prayers could not avail thofe 
 who obilruded the Benefit of them by their 
 GWi> Infidelity or Impenitence. And the Truth 
 
xxviii Dr. BrettV Letter. 
 
 is, not to pray for the Dead which die in the 
 Lord, looks as if we thought all Communion 
 with them, as well as Communication, was cut 
 off. The laying afide this Pra6tice has alfo intro- 
 duced a great Error amongft us : Moft People 
 believing that the Soul, as foon as feparated from 
 the Body, goes immediately either to Heaven or 
 Hell'y underftanding by Heaven a place of per- 
 fe6t Blifs, and by Hell a place of the moft ex- 
 quifite Torments. A Doftrine which has a na- 
 tural Tendency to overthrow the Refurreftion. 
 For if the Soul is perfedly happy, or compleatly 
 miferable, as foon as it goes out of this World 
 and is feparated from the Body, what occafion 
 is there for the Body to be united to it anymore? 
 How fhall it add either to its Happinefs or Mi- 
 lery ? Or if every Man receives his fatal Sentence 
 the moment after his Death, what occaiion c-^n 
 there be for a general Judgment at the laft Day I 
 Befides, this Do6i:rine of every Man's Soul going 
 immediately after his Death to the higheft Heaven 
 or the loweft Hell, is direftly contrary to the 
 Article of our Creed concerning Chriffs Defcent 
 into Hell or Hades*, for that place where the 
 Soul of Chrift continued during the time his 
 Body was in the Grave j and confequently where 
 the Souls of thofe who die in Chrift^ muli: reft 
 fo long as their Bodies are in the Duft, the 
 Scripture teaches {Luke xxiii. 45.) is Paradife^ a 
 middle State^ not the higheft Heaven 5 for thither 
 our Saviour himfelf fays {J oh, xx. 17.) he did 
 not afcend till after his Refurredion. But for 
 the farther proof of this Point, I refer to what 
 I have faid in my Vindication from the Charge 
 of Popery, (pag. 44.) and to that excellent Book 
 called, Some Primitive Do5frines revived. Now 
 3 all 
 
Dr. Brett'5 Letter. xxix 
 
 all thefe things confidered, I conceive we may 
 rather fay it is corrupt and erroneous not to pray 
 for the Dead ; at leaft it has a plain Tendency 
 to Corruption and Error. 
 
 But St. Cyprian did not only pray for the Dead^ 
 but he offered Sacrifice for them alfo -, and what 
 has the Chriftian Church to do with Sacrifices? 
 I anfWerj that as I have already obferved, St. Cy- 
 prian does not fay Sacrifices in the Plural Num- 
 ber, as De Laiine reprefents him to have done, 
 but Sacrifice in the Singular Number. And it is 
 very evident, and has been abundantly proved by 
 many worthy and learned Divines of the Church 
 of England^ that Chrift did inftitute one Sacri- 
 fice of Bread and Wine to be offered to the Fa- 
 ther, as the Reprefentative or Memorial of his 
 own Body and Bloody which was broken and 
 poured forth on the Crofs. 
 
 This I am well aflured, the primitive Chrifti^ 
 ans^ from the Apoftles Days downward, always 
 eileemed it to be a real, proper and propitiatory 
 Sacrifice. Not indeed propitiatory in its own 
 Nature, but by virtue of the original truly pro- 
 pitiatory and meritorious Sacrifice of Chrifi up- 
 on the Crofs 5 and not only received it as fuch, 
 but at every Communion folemnly offered it to 
 God as the Memorial of that Sacrifice. And 
 fiDrafmuch as the Sacrifice of Chrift was virtu- 
 ally a propitiation for the fins of the whole IVorld^ 
 and actually and effeduafiy fuch for all true Be- 
 lievers in Jefus Chrift -, therefore when they of- 
 fered this Memorial of that great and moft proper 
 Sacrifice, they offered it not only for themfelves, 
 but as living Members of the myflical Body of 
 Chrift for the whole Church alfo. And there- 
 fore as foon as they had confecrated or dedica- 
 ted 
 
txx Dr. Brett'^ Letter. 
 
 ted this Bread and Wine^ according to our Savi- 
 our's Inftitution, to be the reprefentative Body 
 and Blood of Chrift^ they made a folemn Obla- 
 tion of it to God > and having prayed that he 
 would fend his Holy Spirit on thofe Gifts, and 
 make them to become to every one of them the 
 Body and Blood of Chrift 5 they then added 
 thereto a Prayer for the whole ftate of Chrift'*^ 
 Churchy not much unlike that which we call the 
 Prayer for the Church Militant here on Earthy in 
 our Liturgy. Which Addition of Militant here 
 on Earthy was utterly unknown to the ancient 
 Liturgies, and to our own alfo, till Bucer (the 
 grand Corrupter of our Reformation) procured 
 to have it added to the Title of this Prayer, to 
 introduce his Opinion of our holding no Com- 
 munion with the Saints departed. And there- 
 fore the chief difference between the ancient 
 Prayer for the ftate of Chrift' s Churchy and that 
 which we ufe now^ is^ that they prayed for 
 them, and we give thanks for them, praying that 
 we may follow their Examples. Their Prayer 
 was a full Teftimony that they looked upon the 
 departed Saints to be yet. in full Communion 
 with thofe who were then living in this World: 
 But ours feems to have no regard to any Com- 
 munion with the departed Saints, for whom we 
 do not pray, but only for our felves that we may 
 be like them. Indeed in the conclufion, where 
 we pray that *we with them may he partakers of 
 God's Heavenly Kingdom^ we may be faid to pray 
 for them, that they may be at the lail Day ad- 
 mitted to the higheft Heavens 5 but the words 
 will bear another Conllrudion, and may fignify, 
 that we fuppoling them already in that place,- 
 only pray that wc may be admitted to be there 
 with them. Now 
 
Dr, Brett'5 Letter. xxxi 
 
 Now the primitive C^riJIians^ as I think I 
 have lufficiently proved, did not only pray for 
 the Dead, but had very good reafons to do fo. 
 And if they might pray for them, then might 
 they offer Sacrifice for them alfo j that is, pray 
 for them at the holy Altar, when they there 
 offered the Bread and Wine as the reprefenta- 
 tive Body and Blood of ChriJ} : For there could 
 be no more proper time to pray for them, and 
 thereby teftifying their Communion with them, 
 than when they were met together in the moli 
 folemn manner to ratify, confirm, and feal their 
 Union with Chrift^ and with all the Members of 
 his Body, whether in this World or the other. 
 And the praying for any particular dead Perfon 
 by Name on this occafion, was what SuCyprian 
 calls a Sacrifice for bis Reft or Dormhion^ as ap- 
 pears from the very words of the Decree be- 
 fore cited which he refers us to, where it is faid. 
 He deferves not to be named at the Mtar of the 
 Lord in the Prayer of the Prieft^ %vho would call 
 away the Priefts and Miniftsrs from their Atten* 
 dance at the JItar. Thus we fee that the naming 
 him particularly in the Prayer for the State of 
 Chrijfs Churchy among thole that were depaiT- 
 ed in the Faith and Fear^ was called a Sacrifice 
 for his Reft or Dormition. And this was what 
 was done at the Burial of every good Chriftian^ 
 and his near Friends and Relations like wife met 
 annually on the Day of his Death, to receive the 
 Communion, and to pray for him, as we learn 
 from "FertuUian (in his forecited Book de Monoga- 
 mid) where he fays,, concerning the Wife of the 
 deceafedj Offerat annuis diebus Dormitionis ejus. 
 Let her ofer or communicate yearly on the Days 
 of his departure. And that this was the pradicc 
 
 of 
 
xxxii Dr. Brett'5" Letter. 
 
 of the Cliurch he alfo tells us, (in his Book de 
 Corona Militis) faying, Oblat tones pro defuncts 
 annua die facimus : We have Oblations for the 
 Dead yearly on the proper Day. And this Cuftom 
 of having a Communion at Funerals, with Pray- 
 ers for the deceafcd Perfon, was prefer ved in this 
 Church at our firft Reformation, there being a 
 Rubrick in thefirft Liturgy of King jE^'ztY/r^ VI. 
 for the celebration of the Holy Communion^ when 
 there is a Burial of the Dead. Nay in Qiieen 
 Elizabeth's time, as Mr. Strype informs us in his 
 Hiflory of the Reformation^ (pag. li6) in the year 
 If (So. ^here was an Office appointed to be ufed at 
 the Funerals and Exequies of Chrifiians deceafed^ 
 when the Friends and Neighbours were minded to 
 communicate : Which^ as he obferves, was a Cu^ 
 jlom then^ hut now wholly difufed. Now this 
 Communion which was celebrated at the Fune- 
 ral of the Deceafed, being accompanied with 
 Prayers for his Reft, Refrefhment and encreafe of 
 Joy in the State to which he was gone, was then 
 called Sacrificiwn pro Dormitione ejus : The Sacri^ 
 jice for his departure to Reft and Peace, And be* 
 ing accompanied with Alms and Oblations offer- 
 ed at the Altar out of the Goods of the De^ 
 ceafed, was alfo called Oblations for the Dead. 
 This was the Practice of the ancient Church 
 with relation to all Perfons dying in its full Com- 
 munion. But then belides this, the Bifhops and 
 Presbyters of every Church , whether dead or 
 living, were particularly named at every folemn 
 Communion, together with the Names of the 
 Bifhops of the chief Sees with whom they held 
 Communion j their Names being read publickly 
 out of certain Tables which were called Dypticks^ 
 and to ftrike a dead Bifhop's Name out of the 
 
 Dypticks^ 
 
Dr. Brett'x Letter. xxxili 
 
 jbiptycksy was the fame with denying him to have 
 Hied in the Communion of the Church : As we 
 learn from the fatnous Cafe of St. Chryfoftom^ 
 mentioned by all our Ecclefiaflical Hiftorians of 
 that Age, and from divers other Monuments of 
 Antiquity. And now I muft leave every impar- 
 tial Perfon to judge, whether this is to be called 
 a corrupt and erroneous Pradice. It is agreea- 
 ble to the Scripture, in which we find St. Paul 
 himfelf praying for a dead Perfon : It was the 
 univerfal Pradice of the primitrue Churchy arid 
 we have the Teftimony of art Alithor born with- 
 in fifty Years of the Apoftles Days, that it was 
 a Tradition derived from them : And it is alfo 
 agreeable to Reafon, and to that Communion 
 which we ought to maintain with the Saints de- 
 parted. It is alfo what was pra6tifed by our firft 
 Reformers, till they permitted Cah'i?i and Buce-r^ 
 and fome other foreign Presbyterians^ to prevail 
 with them (without any ^worthy Caufe^ as them- 
 felves confefled) to alter their firft Liturgy. For 
 all which Reafons I cannot but think, that we 
 have been corrupt and erroneous in laying afide 
 this Pra6lice, rather than that the Ancients were 
 fo in retaining it. 
 
 The Charge which De Ldune bring§ againft 
 St. Auftin^ St.Ambrofe^ and Si. Chryfoftom^ is, 
 that they alfo prayed for the Dead j but I have 
 faid enough upon that Subjed. Biit then he 
 charges St. Gregory with prayirig for the Soul of 
 "frajan^ which I corifefs would have proved him 
 to have been corrupt and erroneous in that par- 
 ticular, if the Storf were true : For the Church 
 never prayed for departed Heathens^ but only for 
 thofe which died in the Lord, or in the full 
 Communion of the Church. But that Story is 
 
 C rejeded 
 
x^xiv Dr\ Brett'-J Letter. 
 
 rejefted by all the Learned Jis a mDnkifh Le- 
 gend, and was invented many Ages afcer St. Grei- 
 gorfs Death. Befides, St. Gregory lived after the 
 fourth Century, the Period fixed by De Lame 
 himfelf for the Pattern which we pretend to 
 follow. 
 
 But then he charges St. Juftin^ and Conjlan- 
 tine the Greaf, as Friends to Relicks. But what 
 was this Friendlliip .^ Did they bow down to and 
 wprfhip them as the Lutherans and Papifts do? 
 The Fellow had not impudence enough to charge 
 them with any fuch thing. All the Friendfliip 
 then which it appears that they had for them 
 was, that if they met with a Bone, for inflance, 
 or any other Relick of a Saint, th^y would not 
 ufe it like the Bone of a Dog, and throw it away 
 into the Dirt, but would lay it up among their 
 Rarities, and fliew it to a Friend as a Curiofity > 
 or if a new Church was to be built, they woiild 
 bury it there, that thofe who ihould be after- 
 wards buried in that place, might have their 
 Aihes mingled with the Aihes of the Saint > or 
 perhaps might order them to be buried in the 
 fame Grave with themfelves •, faying as the Pro^ 
 phet did, (i Kings xiii. 31.) JVben I am dead, 
 lay my Bones he fide his Bones. But for my part, 
 I can fee no Error or Corruption in all this ? 
 
 But St. Aufiin^ fays De Laune^ talks of great 
 Miracles vjroug^t by Relicks. And does not the 
 Scripture do fo too ? W as not a Man reftored to 
 Life (2 Kings xiii. zi.) as foon as his Bones 
 touched the Bones o^ Elijba? And cannot Gc^ 
 work a Miracle by the Rdick of any other Holy 
 Man, as well as of EJifba ? It is certain Miracles 
 were not entirely ceafed, though they were rare 
 in St. v/?(//i;«'3 Age. And therefore why is it in- 
 credible 
 
Dr, BrettV Letter. xxxv 
 
 credible that God fliould in thofe Days honour 
 fome Saint in the fame manner as }ie hiid honour- 
 ed Elijha ? I am fure there is nothing corrupt of 
 erroneous in believing^ that God may work a Mi- 
 racle in what Manner and by what Means he 
 pleafes. Indeed to fay that a Relick {hall or will 
 Work a Miracle, is corrupt and erroneous, I?e- 
 caufe we have no promife from God concerning 
 ^ly fuch matter. But to fay that a Relick has 
 worked a Miracle^ or that God has by the mean§ 
 of a Relick wrought a Miracle, is quite a diffe-» 
 tent thing. For this iS only aflerting, that fuch 
 U matter gf Fad has happened j which whether 
 it has or not, muft depeiiid upon the credibility 
 of thofe who relate it. If therefore St. Juftin 
 fhould have affirmed, that fome Miracles had 
 been wrought by Relicks, and yet thofe Mira- 
 cles had never been wrought 5 this could only havo; 
 proved him to have been credulous, and to hav^ 
 been itnpofed upon in a matter of Fa8; : But it 
 would by no means have prpved blm to have beeit 
 corrupt and erroneous. And yet for any thing 
 De Laune could know to the contrary, the Mi- 
 racles St. Juftin affirms to have been wroyghrjf 
 might be true in Fa6t. 
 
 But he has an heavier Charge againft St. Je^ 
 rom : He was not only a great Defender of Relicks^ 
 but alfo of the Adoration of them. And for thi^ 
 he quotes St. Jerom's fecond Epiftle ag^i^ft Fi^ 
 gilantius : Where indeed it does appear, that this 
 J^eretick did not only accufe St. Jercm^ but the 
 "Whole Church like wife of this AboBiinatipOj and 
 St. Jerom pofitively denies the Charge, Uyingj 
 Non dico nos Martyr urn reUquias^ fid ne foUm qi^i" 
 dem y lunam'i non Angelo^ non Jreh^ngelos^ noif 
 Cheruhin^ non Sevafhin^ ^ omu norn^n iHd no*- 
 
 C z minatirr 
 
tttn Dr. Brett'5 Letter. 
 
 fninatur in prafenti peciilo £5? in fp^turo^ coUmus 6? 
 adoramus^ ne ferviamus creature pot ins quam Crea-^ 
 tori J qui eft henediBus in fecula. I do not only fay 
 that we do not worJJjip and adore the Relicks of 
 Martyrs^ but neither the Sun nor the Moon^ nei- 
 ther Angels nor Archangels^ neither Cheruhin nor 
 Seraphin^ or any Name that is named either in this 
 JVorld or that which is to come^ leaf we jhould 
 ferve the creature rather than the Creator^ who is 
 blefed for ever. This is the Evidence De Laune 
 refers us to, in order to prove St.Jerom adored 
 Reh'cks. And can there be a better Proof that he 
 did not do it ? What credit then is to be given 
 to fuch a Fellow's AfTertions? 
 
 But then he tells us that Mr. Mede fays, "That 
 the primitive Chriftians canonized Saints^ and ho- 
 noured the Relicks in imitation of the Gentiles, 
 their D.-emon-Worihip, thereby to allure them-y 
 which^ fays he, laid the Foundation of Antichn^'s 
 ^Hc-Jauf/^ovict^ and Idololatrick Apoftafy. Now I 
 have not Mr. Mede by me to confult on this oc- 
 cafion J to examine whether De Laune has fairly 
 reprefented him or not. But this I am fure of, 
 that if Mr. Mede fpeaks of the firft four Centu- 
 ries, which are the times De Laune himfelf (as 
 you have obferved) pretends to treat of in this 
 place, he is certainly in the wrong j but if he 
 fpeaks of later Ages, as I doubt not but he does, 
 he Teems to be right. For as Dr. Inet has well 
 obferved in his Judicious Hiftory of the Englifh 
 Churchy (pag. 25-.) « Whereas in the iirft Con- 
 " verfions of the Nations, by the Apoftles, and 
 " their immediate Followers, the greateft care 
 ** was ufed, not only to bring the Converts to a 
 " jull Idea of the Gofpel-Revelation, and con- 
 ^ dud their Devotions by the general Rules 
 
 " thereof 
 
Dr. BrettV Letter, xxxvii 
 
 ^ thereof; but as far as it was poflible, to leave 
 *-' no Foot Iteps of the Pagan worihip; and upon 
 ^ this Ground, the Ufc of Images, and the Rites 
 " of the ancient Genlile worfhip were entirely 
 " banifhed, and a plainnefs and fimplicity fuited 
 *' to the worlhip of God in Spirit and Truth ge- 
 " nerally introduced. About the fixth Centuiy, 
 '' when the Northern Nations were converted, 
 " they had been allowed to introduce their 
 '■ Images into Churches 5 and abundance of new 
 '^ Rites, and Pomp, and Ceremonies were then 
 " brought in". And from about this time Cor- 
 ruptions did begin to come into the Church by 
 degrees •, and from this time I make no quefti- 
 on, but Mr. Mede dates the Introdudtion of them. 
 Though if he does not, his bare aflertion, with- 
 out good proof from ancient Teftimonies, is of 
 no weight: For he lived izoo Years after the 
 Times we are concerned about ; and Evidence 
 ought to be fetched from contemporary Writers, 
 or from fuch as lived very near thp Times of 
 which they give an j\ccount. 
 
 Then De Laune tells us of more Corruptions 
 of thofe Times, and fays, they had Suffiatiov^ 
 "Trine Immerfion^ Exorcifm^ Chrifm^ white Gar^ 
 ments^ Milk^ Honey to the New-haptized^ giving 
 the Eticharifl to the Infant^ from the fourth to the 
 twelfth Century^ mingling Water with the Sacramen- 
 tal Wine^ the Eulogice^ (3cc. I lliall therefore ve- 
 ry briefly confider thefe Particulars, which he 
 calls Corruptions. Firil as to Sufflation^ that was 
 only a Species of Exorcifm^ of which I have al- 
 ready treated, and fhewn, that it was no Cor- 
 ruption, and fo have I done with regard to Chrifm, 
 As to i'rine Immerfion^ I can fee no Corruption 
 in it, yet it docs not appear to have been an uni- 
 
 C 3 verfal 
 
3:xxviii Dr. Brftt'5 Letter. 
 
 vcrfal Practice 5 for every particular Church afted 
 in this matter as they faw convenient : Some dip- 
 ped the Perfon they baptized thrice at the naming 
 the Name of every diilinft Perfon of the Trini- 
 ty ', and others dipped but once^ as they thought 
 that a properer Symbol of the divine Unity. 
 And this they did without breaking Communion, 
 or condemning one another about luch an indifFe- 
 I'ent matter. As to "white Garments^ I muft de- 
 clare I Can fee no Error or Corruption in the ufing 
 of them : And fure the Church may, Avithout be- 
 ing charged with Iniquity for tt^ enjoyn that Per-' 
 fons coming to be baptized Ihould come in a 
 white Garment? And if they alio ordered that 
 Milk and Honey fliould be given to the New- 
 baptized, I can fee no harm in it > it was an in- 
 different matter whether they gave them that or 
 any thing elfe. As to the Eucharifi being given 
 to Infants J he himfelf owns it not to be done till 
 after the 4th Century, and therefore falls not' 
 >;vithin the'compafs of time I am concerned tO' 
 defend, and confequently I have no occafion to 
 take notice of it farther. 
 
 As' to mingling U^^'aier with the facramental 
 JVine^ that was fo far from being a Corruption, 
 that it is rather a Corruption not to do it. For 
 the Cup which our Saviour gave his Difciples, 
 Contained the Reprcfentative of that Blood of 
 the New Tellament, which he then was aboUt- 
 to fhed on the Crofs: But what: he there fhed 
 was not Blood alone or unmixed, but Blood and' 
 Water, as the Scripture teaches. And there is ■ 
 i\i> doubt but the Wme which was in the very 
 pup that our Saviour himfelf bleffed or confecra- 
 ted, was alfo mixed with Water, as thofe that 
 ^e well skilled m iht J eivijh Cuftoms have abun-^ 
 'V ■• ■ ■ • dantly 
 
Df\ Brrtt'5 Letter. xxxi^: 
 
 dantly proved, and particularly Dr. Light foot ^ (Hor. 
 Hebraic, in Mat. c.ip. xxvi.) a Perfon as well 
 skilled '\\\ thofe Antiquities, as perhaps any Maa 
 this Nation has bred. And the primitive Church 
 even from the Apoflles times, as we learn from 
 Juftin Martyr^ tvho was born before St. John'% 
 Death, always fo adminiftred it. And flitely th^ 
 Apoftle^ and their immediate Succellbis would 
 not corrupt fo weighty an Inftitutioll of Chriji : 
 They could not but know what was in the Clip 
 Which Chriji gave them to drink > hor \Vould 
 they teach their immediate Succeflbrs, \vith\\'horn 
 Juftin was Contemporary, to adminifter anothel* 
 Liquor than our Lord himfelf had done. Not 
 can we fuppofe that they would all of them at 
 ohce immediately deviate from the practice of 
 the Apoftles. Yet they muft have done fo, if 
 the Apoftles did not mix W^ter with the Wine 
 in the holy Eucharift. Nor can we find any Age 
 or any Church where Water was not mixi^d with 
 the cuchariftical Wine, 'till John Cahin intro- 
 duced the corltrary pradice. Out* firll kefor- 
 mers were fenfible of this, and in the firll Li- 
 turgy of Edio. VL ordered, that 'when the Wine 
 was put into the Chalice^ a Utile pure a-nd clean 
 Water Jhould be put into it alfo. But to pkafe 
 Calvin and l^uctr^ the latter pah of this Rubficlt 
 >Xra$ omitted in the fecond Liturgy. Which I 
 muft needs fay I look upon to be a cofruptiorf, 
 ^nd a plain deviation from the praftice of Chrifi 
 atnd his ApoftleS. 
 
 The lalt charge of Corruption in tlie primitive 
 Church is the Eulogia^ by which I fuppofohe 
 means pieces of confecrated Bread fent from one 
 Diocefe to ^nbther. But I find no fnention of 
 this till the middle of the fourth Century, and 
 
 C 4 then 
 
xl Dr, Brett'^ Letter. 
 
 then it feems fome Perfons began this Pra6lice % 
 but the Church immediately condemned it in the 
 fourteenth Canon of the Council of Laodicea. 
 put if the Church muft be charged with Cor- 
 ruptions which file herfelf condemned in her Sy- 
 nods, then no Church, not even that which was 
 under the Government of the Apoftles themfelves 
 pn be faid to be free from Corruptions \ for they 
 were forced, as we learn from the Scriptures, 
 (A5is XV.) to condemn Corruptions and Errors in 
 a Synod, which fome Judaizing Chriftians would 
 have impofed upon the Church. But fure thofe 
 Errors concerning the neceflity of Circumcifion, 
 and the obfervation of the Law of Mofes^ are not 
 to be charged upon the apoftolical Church, which 
 fo folemnly condemned them? No more oughp 
 thefe Eulogia to be charged upon the primitive 
 Church, which took {q_ much care to prohibit 
 them as foon as they began. 
 
 At the end of his Charge he claps an 13 c as if 
 he had a great many more Corruptions to charge 
 upon the primitive Church > but what they are I 
 cannot fo much as guefs, yet doubt not but when^ 
 ever they fhall be produced by any of De Laune's 
 Friends, they may eafily receive an Anfwer. 
 
 Having thus vindicated the primitive Church 
 and Fathers from the groundlefs Afperfions caft 
 upon them by this ignorant or impudent Fellow, 
 and fhewn, that what he charges upon them for 
 Corruptions and Errors are either falfe and ground- 
 lefs, or elfe that the Error and Corruption is on 
 the other fide, and more juftly chargeable on thofe 
 that have deviated from the primitive Pradice. 
 tfhall now proceed to vindicate our own Church 
 from the Calumnies he has thrown upon her. 
 
 ?irft 
 
Dr. Brett'5 Letter. xU 
 
 Firft then he tells us, (pag. 21.) that // is ma- 
 fiifeft that our firjl Reformers did not make fuch a. 
 perfe6i piece from pure primitive j4ntiquity in the 
 firji Reformation^ and forming of our Liturgy^ 
 'which contains fo much the Ritzs^ Services and Ce- 
 remonies of the Church > for if fo^ there had been no 
 fuch need to make fo many Alterations^ and reform fo. 
 pften^ and in fo many things the Reformation. But 
 let us enquire for whofe fake, and upon whofe 
 account thefe Alterations were made : The Church 
 thought her Liturgy very good, and agreeable to 
 the primitive Standard at her firiV Reformation, 
 and conceived that Ihe could not have compiled 
 it fo well as fhe had then done, without the par- 
 ticular Jid of the Holy Ghofts as the Ad of Par- 
 liament which eftabliihes that Liturgy tells us. 
 Neither did {he want it alter'd, but was well fa- 
 tisfied with it, as we learn from the very A6t of 
 Parliament that eflablifhed the fecond Liturgy 
 Jnllead of it. However, it was altered, as I have 
 before obferved, to flitisfy Calvin^ Bucer^ Martyr j 
 Fagius ^ and their Followers the Presbyterians 
 here. Then again in the firil years of YAngJames 
 Xhc Firft, fome more Alterations were made to 
 gratify the Puritans^ who deflred thofe Alterati- 
 ons at the Conference at Hampton-Court^ and pro- 
 mifed Conformity upon the obtaining them 5 but 
 did not keep their words. Several Alterations 
 were made a third time at the Relloration of 
 King Charles the Second, to gratify the Noncon- 
 formifts^ and to take off divers of their Cavils 
 which they made at the Conference in the Savoy. 
 Since which time no Alterations have been made. 
 But inftead of thanks for complying with the 
 Diflenters fo far, this unanfwerable Champion of 
 ^heiis (and we have rcafon to think he fpeaks th^ 
 
 fenfe 
 
xlri Dr. Brett'5 Letter. 
 
 fenfe of the whole Party^ who arc fo very fond 
 of his Book) tells us, that if our fir ]i Reformati- 
 on hud been primitive^ ive would ttot have altefd 
 it. Thus we fee what we have got by driving 
 to oblige them, and deviating from our fir ft Li- 
 turgy, and receding fo far, and in fo, many Points, 
 from the pradiice of the pure primitive Church, 
 in hopes to gain therti over^ only to be ridiculed 
 by thofe very Perfons for whofe fake all this was 
 done. But it is to be hoped, that the Governors 
 of the Church may by this time fee their Error^ 
 in hoping to win the Diffenters by fuch kind of 
 Compliances. And that if they fhall hereafter 
 have any thoughts of correcting the Liturgy^ it 
 will be to make it more Primitive indeed, and 
 that inftead of feeking to gain the Diflenters by 
 deviating farther from the primitive Pradice, as 
 we have formerly done j let us feek to do it by 
 going ftill nearer to the primitive Practice of the 
 firft three or four Centuries, and make our Church 
 as near as poflible, fuch as the Catholick Church 
 was at the time of the Council of Nice. We 
 have tried all other Methods to gain the Diffen- 
 ters, and they have failed us : Why then ihould 
 we not try this at the laft ? God be praifed our 
 Church, as it is, has as few deviations from the 
 J)rimitive Church as (I am firmly perfuaded) any 
 Church this Day in the World : And thofe De- 
 viations have been made to gain the Diflen- 
 ters, as I have (hewed ; but inftead of gaining 
 them, it has only given them a better ground to 
 reproach us ; But would we return fiilly and per- 
 fedly to the Plan of the true primitive Churchj 
 this Ground of Reproach at leaft would be taken 
 away, and we ihould be more likely to gain evefi 
 the Diffenters themfelves. For let Men decry 
 
 4ntiquityy 
 
Dr. BkEtT'5 Letter. xliii 
 
 Antiquity^ Univerfality^ and Confent^ as much as 
 they pleAle, yet all Men that will ieriouily and 
 impartially confidcr, muft fee and be convinced 
 that the Truth is mod ancient, and all Corrup- 
 tions and Errors muft be Novel. Nay we might 
 not only have better hopes of gaining the Prote- 
 ftant Diffenters to embrace our Communion, bat 
 the Pafifis alfo: For that learned Primate Arch- 
 \}\^oy^ Bramhall^ in his Vindication of himfelf and 
 the Epifcopal Clergy from the Presbyterian charge 
 of Popery (pag. 140.) aiuires lis/ /^^^ Father Paul 
 Harvis, (a Romanift violent enough) hath often faid 
 to bim^ that if "we had retained the Liturgy ufed in 
 Edward the ftxtlfs time^ he would not have for- 
 born to come to our Communion. And indeed if 
 we would entirely go into the old Paths prefcribU 
 to us by Chrift and his Apoftlcs, and deliver'd to 
 us by them and their apoftolical SucceiTors, wc 
 might reafonably expect more Strength and Grace 
 than we now find amongft us, and greater Afli- 
 itances from the holy Spirit, Would we entire- 
 ly conform our felves to the Doctrine, Difciphne, 
 and Worihip of theprimitive?Church, and eiidea- 
 vour alfo to be truly Primitive in our Lives, we 
 might then hope for as great a meafure of God's 
 Spirit, as We find to have been in the primitive 
 Chriltians ; and for fuch an Undaunted Courage, 
 ^ might keep us from all finful Compliances ahd 
 Pre^^iricattions in the time o^ Danger. We hsive 
 God's gracious Promife of his more particular 
 Grace and Favour, whilll we keep to the old 
 Waysi f<0f (Jer^ vi, l^.) Thks faith the Lord^ 
 ft^?id ye in the W^ys.^ and fee^ and ask for the ela 
 Paths 5 ivhere is the good Way^ and '^alk f herein^ 
 and ye fball find refl for your Souls, 
 
 But 
 
xliv Dr. BrettV Letter. 
 
 But to return to De Laum^ his next Calumny 
 which he throws upon our Church is, that many 
 ef her Rites and Ceremonies are Novel. And he 
 begins with rhofe three Ceremonies about which 
 there was fo much contention at the Savoy, as he 
 fays, viz. Kneeling^ Surplice^ and the Crofs in 
 Baptifm. -As to kneeling at the Altar^ or at the 
 Sacrament of the Supper^ he tells us, that it is 
 novels and but of y eft er day ^ and never known before 
 Itranfubfiantiation. ^hat Pope Honorius in the 
 year 1214. ordained kneeling at the Sacrament. 
 jlnd his Predeceffor Innocent III. I'ranfubftan- 
 tiation: And for this he cites the Decretal^ (lib. 3. 
 tit. I. cap. 10.) And adds that it is faid, ^hat in 
 Tertullian and ChryfoflomV time.^ they were faid 
 to ftand at the Altar when they partook of the 
 Supper. And Socrates faith^ 1'hey took it in a Ta- 
 hle-Gefturey eating it at their Love- Fe aft s. And 
 fpr this he quotes Hofpinian (de Orig. I'empl. I. 2. 
 c. z.) and Socrates^ (I. f .) and Parous. But as 
 to Hofpinian^ I am fure he fays nothing of the 
 matter in the place De Laune refers to : And 
 whether he fays it in any other place or not, I 
 think it not worth my while to examine 3 for. 
 Hofpinian is but a modern Author, and by no 
 means to be depended on in his Reprefentation 
 of the Cuftoms of the ancient Church, neither 
 is Parous 'y and for Socrates^ I am well aflured he 
 aflerts no fuqh thing as De Laune here pretends. 
 Neither is there ope word concerning the Sacra- 
 ment in that Chapter of the Decretal to which 
 he refers us. So that it is impoifible that a Man 
 ihould fhew more Ignorance or Impudence, or 
 both, than this Fellow has done in this one Paf- 
 fage. But he knew tjiat thofe, for whofe fake 
 he wrote his Book , would believe all he faid 
 
 without 
 
Dr. BrettV Letter. xlv 
 
 without Examination. However I do allow that 
 in the primitive Church the Eucharift was re- 
 ceived (landing, bccaufe landing was alfo the 
 Pofture ufed by them at their Prayers, on all 
 Sundays^ and on all other Days alfo from Rafter 
 to Whitfontide^ as we learn from the 20th Canon 
 of the Council of Nice^ and many pafTages of the 
 Fathers who lived before or about that time. 
 And this they did, as they tell us, out of a joy- 
 ful memory of the Refurreiiion. However it ap- 
 pears from hence, that they received it in o^pray^ 
 ing Pofture^ and not in a I'abk-Gefture^ as De 
 Laune would have us believe. They prayed Hand- 
 ing, and therefore they received the Eucharift 
 Handing -, we pray kneeling, and therefore we 
 receive the Eucharift fo. Whereby it appears 
 that kneeling at the receiving the holy Commu- 
 nion, is no more a deviation from the pradice of 
 the primitive Church, than kneeling at our Pray- 
 ers is, and yet I never heard that found fault with 
 by any. Befides, in the primitive Church they 
 kneePd at their Prayers, and confequently at the 
 receiving the holy Eucharift on all Days hut Sun- 
 days^ and the time between Eafter and Whit fun- 
 tide ', fo that though they did not kneel always 
 on that occafion, they kneeled fometimes, and 
 thereby {hewed they did not think that pofture 
 unlawful. 
 
 As to the Surplice^ he fays, the Fathers ufed it 
 not^ though it is clear the Pagans did j and it ivas 
 brought into the Church by Pope Adrian, Anno "J 96. 
 But he gives us no Authority for this, but two or 
 three Moderns, Sahnafius and Petavius^ and one 
 who wrote a Reply to Dr. Morton^ and has no 
 Name: Neither does he fo much as tell us what 
 Authority they pretend to have for it. And if 
 
 his 
 
xlvi Dr. Brett'5 Letter. 
 
 his Quotations from them arc no fairer than thofe 
 he produces for his former Aflerrion, it is only a 
 farther Teftin^ony of the Fellow's impudence. 
 But I ihall not examine whether they are or not, 
 for he here refers ys not to Books and Chapters as 
 before, but to voluminous Authors at large > and 
 ic is not worth my while to turn over fo many 
 Volumes to fee whet;her a Fellow whom I have 
 fo often catched at falfe Quotations, be not guilty 
 of the fame here alfo. But neverthelefs, what'* 
 ever thefe Moderns may fay upon the matter, wc 
 have Witnefics Hving in the primitive Times, 
 which do alTure us that an outward ivhite Garment 
 or Surplice^ was worn by the Prieils of the Chrh 
 ftian Church when they celebrated divine Ordi* 
 nances. For St. Cbryjoftom and St. Jerom^ w^ho 
 both lived 400 years before the time of Pope ^^ 
 drian^ by whom De Laune pretends the Surplice 
 was firfl brought into the Church, plainly fpcak 
 of it as ufed in then' Times > that is, within the 
 Times whofe ufagcs we pretend and defire to fol* 
 low. For whereas Pela^ius^ like our DiJJentcrs 
 at this time, had affirmed, that the glory ofCImths 
 and Ornaments was a thing contrary to God an^ 
 Godlinefs. St. Jerom (adverf. Pelag, lib. i. cap.^.) 
 anfwers him and fays, Is it enmity 'with Qod if I 
 "wear my Coat fomewhat handfome ? If a Bifiop^ a. 
 Prieji^ a Deacon^ and the reft of the Ecclcfiaftical 
 Order ^ come to adminijler the ufual Sacrifice in a 
 white Garment^ are they hereby God's Adxerfarics ? 
 Now if the Clergy had not then miniftred in a 
 white Garment, St. Jerom'^ anfwer would have 
 been trifling and ridiculous. But St. Chryfoftom's 
 Teftimony is as plain and full as can be dcfiredy 
 (Hom> 8 J. on ^t.Mat.) where fpeaking to the 
 Miniftcrs of the Church, he fays, having Hrft told 
 
 thenar 
 
Dr. BRETT'i Leticy. xlvii 
 
 them fome of the Duties of their Office, Thh is 
 jQur Dignity^ your Stay^ your CrowHy not that you 
 ivalk up and down in a white and Jhining Garment, 
 How nonfenfical muft this Speech have been, 
 how unworthy the Eloquence of Cbryfoftom^ if 
 the Priefts at that time had not worn a Surplice 
 or white Garment in their Miniftrations ? But De 
 Laune fays 'tis of Pagan original, but he has not 
 proved itj and I think I have fufficiently fliew- 
 cd, that we have no reafon to take his wor4 
 for it. 
 
 Then he proceeds to the fign of the Crofs i/t 
 Baptifm^ and fays, we read of no fuch Rite amongft 
 the Ancients, And I muft tell him that neither 
 have we any fuch Rite : We ufe not the fign of 
 the Crofs in Bapifm^ but only after Baptifm. 
 For the Baptifm is compkatly finished as foo^ as 
 the Perfon has b(?en dipped, or has had Water 
 poured upon him in the nante of the Father y tht 
 Sony and the Holy Qhofiy as we declare in theRu^ 
 brick following the Form of pri'vate Baptifm^ 
 where the figning with the Crofs ought not tp 
 be ufed, being direded to be ufed afterwards 
 when the Child is brought tp have his Baptifm 
 declared to the Church. For that Rubrick fays 
 with regard to this Baptifipj in which the figu of 
 the Crofs ha^ been omitted, het them not doubt 
 hut that the Cht/d fo baptized is lawfully and fuffi^ 
 ciently baptized. The only difference in this c^^t 
 between private and publick Baptifm is, that 
 when a Child has received private Baptifm, it is 
 not figned with the Crofs till fome confiderable 
 time after the Baptifm \ and in pubhck Baptifm 
 ip is figned ipim^diately after it s but in both cafes 
 it is not figned till after the Baptifm is compleat- 
 cd. It mull indeed be owned, that in the thir- 
 tieth 
 
xlviii Dr. BrettV Letter. ^ 
 
 tieth Canon it is called, the ftgn of the Crofs tH 
 Baptifm j but it is evident that no more is meant 
 by that Expreilion, than the ftgn of the Crofs 
 which is clireEled to be ufed in the Form or Ser'vice 
 appointed for Baptifm in the Liturgy. And that 
 very Form fhews, that that fign is not to be ufed 
 till the Baptifm is fufficiently compleated > confe- 
 quently that fign cannot be faid to be ufed by us 
 till after Baptifm^ and fo Be Laune confefTes it was 
 ufed in the primitive Churchy and therefore is no 
 Novelty as he pretends. 
 
 The next Novelty with which he charges us 
 is, that wc have left out the Chrifm in the Office 
 of Confirmation. And I do confefs we have lix 
 this Pomt deviated from the Pra£bice of the primi^ 
 tive Church 5 but we have good reafon to believe, 
 that this was done to oblige iho^ foreign Presbyte- 
 rians and their Friends here : And the recompence 
 they make us for it^ is to make this which was 
 done to gratify them, a new obje&ion againft our 
 Communion. As to his faying that our Confir- 
 mation by impofition of Hands is not warranted 
 by Scripture, I before fufficiently confuted that, 
 and need not here repeat what has been faid. 
 And whereas he tells us Archbifhop Cfanmer doe^ 
 acknowledge that there is no direction in Scripture 
 for Confirmation, and refers us to a Paper of his 
 printed by Bifhop Burnet : I muft acknowledge 
 truly, that Archbifhop Cranmer was certainly ve- 
 ry wrong in many things contained in that Paper ; 
 but then it appears from the fame Paper, that he 
 himfelf changed his Opinion in many Particulars 
 there mentioned, after he had feen the Opinions' 
 of others, and heard their Reafons, and particu^' 
 larly in this very point, 
 
 M 
 
Dr. Brett'^ Letter. xlii 
 
 As to what he fpeaks concerning baptizing In^ 
 fants, you have given fo particular an Anfwer to 
 that Point in your Book, that I need not make 
 any Additions to it. 
 
 The next Novelty with which he charges our 
 Church is its having a Liturgy : This he tells us 
 cannot be found among the j^n dents. But let us 
 hear his Proofs. 'TertuUian^ he lays, in his Apo- 
 logy, (cap. 30.) fhews it was clear that in the 3^ 
 Century they had no Directory or Book to pray by^ 
 iis appears from thefe words. We look up to Hea- 
 *ven with our Hands firetched forth^ as being inno- 
 cent and bare-headed^ as not afijamed to make our 
 Prayers fine Monitore, without a Dire^ory^ as 
 coming from the free motion of our own Heart. But 
 I mull lay that DeLaune^ though a Schoolmafter, 
 did not underftand the word Monitor.^ or eUe 
 would impofe upon us ^ falfe Tranflarion of it ; 
 for that word is never ufed to fignify a Book, but 
 a Perfon, and properly fignifies a Prompter^ one 
 that ftands behind another to tell him what he has 
 next to fay if he happen to be out : And there- 
 fore he has plainly milreprefented T'ertullian^ who 
 does not mean that they had no Form of Prayer 
 for their common ufe in publick Worfhip, but 
 only that their Prayers being agreeable to the free 
 Motions of their Hearts, they were fo perfed in 
 them, that they needed no Monitor or Prompter 
 to ftand behind them, and tell them what they 
 were to fay next. But that there were Forms of 
 Prayer before 'TertiiUian\ Time, is evident from 
 Jufiin Martyr^ who lived fome years before, even 
 from that very place which is cited by De Laune^ 
 only he has milreprefented it in his Tranflation, 
 as he had done by TertuUian > for whereas De 
 Laune fays they began with Pray^r^ the Grignial 
 
 D is 
 
1 Dr. Brett'5 Letter. 
 
 is, Mivug ^xoiq TSQiviCQ^Qi^ making or offering their 
 Common Prayers. And then having in this man- 
 ner miireprefented this holy Father, he has the 
 impudence to fiiy, here was no Liturgy or Common 
 Prayers mentioned } whereas Jufiin Martyr's words 
 are. Common Prayers. What can be faid in de- 
 fence of fuch a Man as is pad all fhame, who 
 lirft mifreprefents the Fathers in his Tranflation, 
 and then tells us, that they make no mention of 
 that which they do mention in the mod direct 
 Terms, only he had concealed it. Now Common 
 Prayers mufl be a Liturgy or fet Form, for an 
 extempore Prayer can never be common. And 
 De Laune himfelf acknowledges as much, when 
 he makes Liturgy and Common Prayer fynonymous 
 Terms. I might produce many more Arguments 
 for the Antiquity of Liturgies or fet Forms of 
 Prayer ^ but that havir^g been fo fully done by 
 many that have written in defence of our prefenc 
 Book of Common Prayer^ I refer fuch as may de- 
 fire farther farisfadion to thofe Authors. Then 
 he tells us that PValafridus Strabo^ who lived in 
 the ninth Century, fays, jlll which is done now 
 with a multitude of Prayers^ Lejfons^ Songs ^nd 
 Confecrations ^ which the Apoftles^ aud thofe who 
 next followed them^ did with Prayers and remem- 
 brance of the Lord's Sufferings^ e^ven as he command^ 
 ed. But does IValafridus Straho therefore fay, 
 that the Apoflles, and thofe who next followed 
 them, had no Liturgy or Forms of Common Prayer^ 
 which is the Point De Laune here pretends to 
 prove. But what is it to the purpofe to fay, that 
 the Prayers were more numerous in the ninth 
 Century than they were in the apoftolical Age; 
 This is therefore mere impertinence, and fo is 
 what he quotes from Socrates immediately after j 
 
 though 
 
Di\ Brftt'5^ Letter. H 
 
 though he there alfo mifreprefents his Author, 
 for Sacrates does not fay as he tells us he does, 
 nat among all the Chriftians in that Jge^ fcarce 
 two were to he found that ufed the fame words in 
 Prayer : But Socrates really fays, in all Places y 
 and amongfi all Se5is^ you will fcarccly find two 
 Churches exactly agreeable about their Prayers. And 
 then he goes on to tell us, what Cuttoms they 
 had in one Church which they had not in ano- 
 ther. But who ever pretended that all Churches 
 ought to ufe the fame Liturgy^ or ever did do fo. 
 But ftill this is no proof, but that every Church 
 had \}[\t\x Liturgy or ftated Forms of Prayer. Nei- 
 ther by a Church does Socrates mean a fingle Con- 
 gregation, as the DifTenters may be apt to ima- 
 gine, but a Patriarchate or Province at lealf, for 
 fuch are the Churches Socrates here treats of, as 
 appears by the particulars he mentions both be- 
 fore and after, as Jerufalem^ Confiantinople^ Alex- 
 andria^ Rome^ 6cc. in each of which we are well 
 afliired there were flated Liturgies long before the 
 time of Socrates 5 and we alfo know that thpfe 
 Liturgies were different from one another. But 
 the difference was not in any material Points^ 
 but only in fome indifferent Matters which the 
 Church has Authority to determine as fhe pleafes. 
 
 I fhould write a Volume fhould I go about to 
 corre6b all his Miftakcs, and Blunders, and Falf- 
 hoods which immediately follow, with relation 
 to the particular Offices of the Church, the Re- 
 fponfes, Collefts, t^c. Let it fuffice to fay, that 
 he has given a falfe account concerning every 
 one of them > and I fhall be at any time ready to 
 prove it when duly required to do fo. I fhall 
 therefore take notice but of two Particulars more 
 in his long Lift, and that is what he fays con* 
 D 2, cernifig 
 
lii Dr. Brett's Letter. 
 
 cerning EccJeftaftical Orders^ and the Dedication 
 of Churches. 
 
 And firft he tells iis, that ai for Ecclefiaftical 
 Orders and Officers of the Lord Archbifiops^ Lord 
 Bifhops^ Dcans^ Archdeacons^ &c. and the Supre- 
 macy exerc'ifed one over another in the Church of 
 England, they are fo far from having the fiamp of 
 primitive Antiquity^ that they are not to he found 
 therein^ at leafl for the three or four firfi Centuries . 
 Now I do very freely confefs that Archbifhops 
 and Bifhops were not called Lords in the primi- 
 tive Times j that is a civil Honour granted to 
 them by the favour of the Prince. Nor do our 
 BifJwps pretend to derive their LordfJoips from the 
 Apollles or primitive Bifhops, but from their Ba- 
 ronies and Peerage, which are the Grants of the 
 Crown, and were beilowed upon them by the 
 Kings of this Realm, who are the Fountain from 
 whence all civil Honours are derived, and have 
 an undoubted Right to confer them on whom 
 they pleafe : And they have thought fit to ho- 
 nour the chief of the Clergy with them. But 
 then as to ArchbifJoops and Bifljops^ without the 
 Title of Lords^ together with L>eans and Arth-^- 
 deacons^ with a Superiority or Jurifdi6lion one 
 over another, (not a Supremacy as De Laune calls 
 it, or fovereign unlimited Power) fuch as is exer- 
 cifed in the Church of England^ this is certainly 
 of primitive Antiquity, and has been proved by 
 a multitude of Authors, fince the Controverfy 
 about Epifcopacy was on foot. The three Or- 
 ders of Bifhops^ Priefis^ and Deacons^ with a Su- 
 periority one over the other, are frequently men- 
 tioned by St. Ignatius^ a Contemporary of the 
 Apolfles, in every one of hisEpiftles, which have 
 been traijflated into EngUfl) by Archbiihop JVakej 
 
 and 
 
Z)r. BrettV Letter: liii 
 
 and may therefore be eafily confulted by every 
 EngUJJj Reader. And for the Learned they can- 
 not but know, that there is (carcc a Book now 
 extant, written in the three or four firft Centu- 
 ries, as well as in later times, which makes any 
 mention of the Governors of the Church, which 
 does not fpcak of thcfe three as diftin61: Orders, 
 and the one fuperior to the other 3 fo that it muft 
 be want of Will, and not wane of Light, which 
 mud: make any Man of Learning, who has but 
 dipped into the Writings of the Fathers, to di- 
 fputc this Point. And this has been aUb now fo 
 fully proved by thofe who have written in our 
 own Language from the Teftimonies of the Fa- 
 thers, that no body who will give themfelves the 
 trouble to read even our modern Authors, who 
 have written on the Subje^, can difpure itx As 
 \.o Archhijhops^ they were not a dilHnct' Order 
 from other BiJJoops in the primitive Times, nei- 
 ther are they fo nov/. Yet in the primitive 
 Church, as well as now, as we learn particularly 
 from the fixth Canon of the Council of Nice^ 
 there was one Bifhop in a Province, vv^ho by an- 
 cient Cuftom^ as it is there called, had fome Pre- 
 rogative and Privileges above tlie rell: Such as 
 to fummon them to Councils or Synods, and pre- 
 side in thofe Synods y to take care of vacant ^i- 
 fhopricks within the Province, to prefide in the 
 Confecration of other BiJhopSy and in all matters 
 which concerned the general government of the 
 Province. And fuch are our prefent Archhijloops, 
 Alfo in the primitive Church every BiHiop had 
 \\\% College of Presbyters^ refident with him at his 
 Cathedral Church, with whom he confulted and 
 advifed in matters relating to the Government of 
 bis Church y and this College of Presbyters is 
 
 D J * what 
 
liv Dr. Brett'5 Letter. 
 
 what every Bifliop has now in the Church of 
 England^ only we call it the Dean and Chapter j 
 and the Dean is no other than the Head or firft 
 Presbyter of this College or Chapter. Then alfo 
 in the primitive Church, the Bifhop had his Dea- 
 cons to attend him in his Minillrations 5 and one 
 of thefe who was called the Archdeacon^ was fre- 
 quently fent by him to vifit his Diocefe, and to 
 give him an Account of what he found amifs in 
 any part of it. This Archdeacon alfo had Autho- 
 rity from the B'lfhop^ where he found any thing 
 out of order, to give dire6i:ions to have it reftifi- 
 cd j and if his directions were not obeyed, then 
 to inflift Church Cenfures on the dilobedient \ 
 but all this he did as under the Bijhop^ and by his 
 Authority j and whoever thought hirafelf grieved 
 by the Archdeacon^ might apply to the Bifhop for 
 redrefs. And this is the fame with what our 
 Archdeacons do in England. I can afTure you this 
 is agreeable to the government of the primitive 
 Church : But I Ihould much exceed the bounds 
 of a Letter , if I fhould enter into a particular 
 proof of thefe matters > but I have, I conceive, 
 fully proved them in a Book I publifhed fome 
 years ago, called an Account of Church-go'vernment 
 and Governors^ to which I therefore refer. And 
 as to what De Laune quotes upon this occafion 
 from Dr. StiUingfleefs Irenicum : I ihall • only fay 
 of it that it is a Book which was written by 
 Dr. StilUngfleet in his younger years, when he ei- 
 ther underilood little of thefe matters, or elfe 
 v/as (o carried away and biaffed by the prejudices 
 of an unhappy Education in the time of the Re- 
 bellion, that he did not fee the weaknefs of his 
 own Arguments, and the flender foundation they 
 werp built upon> and that there is not any* thing 
 
Dr. Brett'^^ Letter. Iv 
 
 in that Book which was not anfwered by himfclf 
 in fome of his other Works written in his riper 
 years. And for the other two Books he after- 
 wards refers us to, they have both received full 
 and fatisfa6i:ory Anfwers, in Dr. Maurice''^ Trea- 
 tife of Diocefan Epifcopacy ^ and his Anfwer to 
 Mr. Baxter's Church Hiftory. 
 
 In the next place De Laime tells us, that the 
 primitive Fathers were againft dedicating Churches 
 to Saints and Angels, And I can aflure theDifTen- 
 ters, that the Church of England is fo too. We 
 do indeed call our Churches by the Names of 
 Saints and Angels, but we dedicate them only to 
 God, as may be feen in the Forms of Confecra- 
 tion, which have been ufed by any of our Bi- 
 fhops fince the Reformation, particularly that 
 ufed by Bifhop Andrews at the Confecration of a 
 Chapel, and publiihed in Sparrow's Colle6lion of 
 Canons, which has been the general pattern for 
 thofe which have been ufed fince. And the 
 Names of a Saint or an Angel are given to them 
 only for diftindion fake, even as we give the like 
 Names to our Children : And it may as well be 
 faid, that when a Child is baptized by the Name 
 of Peter^ James^ or John^ or by the Name of 
 Michael^ Gabriel^ or Raphael^ he is dedicated to 
 that Saint or Angel whofe Name he bears, as that 
 a Church is fo dedicated, becaufe it bears any of 
 thofe Names, though the Title of Saint is an- 
 nexed to the Name given to a Church, and is 
 not annexed to that which is given to a Man. 
 For the adding or the leaving out that Title, can 
 make no difference in the cafe : For the bare Title 
 Saint ^ cannot make a Dedication. 
 
 And when De Lanne has in this manner, very 
 
 flUfely and malicioufly, charged the Church of 
 
 , D 4 England 
 
ki Dr\ BrettV Letter. 
 
 England with the introdu6i:ion of fo many Novel- 
 tics ^ he then again repeats what he had faid be- 
 fore, concerning our deviating from the primi- 
 tive Churchy by the difcontinuance of many of 
 their praftices j and therefore conckides, that we 
 cannot pretend to make the primitive Church our 
 Example. fFe may fee (he tells us from a Book 
 called the Proieftant Reconciler) how vainly 'tis 
 pretended that thefe Ceremonies were retained and 
 inipofed^ to manifeft the jufiice and equity of the 
 Reformation^ by letting their enemies fee^ they did 
 fiot- break Communion with them for mere indiffe- 
 rent things 5 or that they left the Church of Rome 
 no farther^ than fie left the ancient Church 3 as 
 faith Dr. Stillingfleet. TVhen 'tis manifeft^ fays 
 he, that we left of praying for departed Saints^ 
 the untiion of the Sick^ the mixing Water with the 
 facramentalWine^ the Chrifm^ Exorcifm^ the anoint- 
 ing the baptized Perfon^ crofjing the Breaft at the 
 -eonfecraticn of the Eucharift and the baptifmal 
 JVater^ with many other things which were retain- 
 ed in the ancient Churchy and in the Liturgy of 
 Edw. VI. But as 1 have already iliewed thefe 
 things were left out , not becaufe our Church 
 condemned them, but purely to gratify the Dif- 
 fenters^j and now we fee the end for which they 
 were fo importunate to have them left out, not 
 that they intended to unite with us, if we would 
 fo far complj with them 5 but only that we might 
 give them nii handle to upbraid us for departing 
 in fo many particulars from the pra&ice of the 
 primitive Church. From whence we may fee, 
 that their perpetual Clamours which they make 
 againft the ancient Ceremonies and Cuftoms 
 ftill retained by us, is not becaufe if thofe alfo 
 ftiQuld be laid afide they would be ready to unite 
 
 4 with 
 
Dr. Brett'5 Letter. Ivii 
 
 with us, but only that they might have yet far- 
 ther occafion to upbraid us with our departure 
 from the primitive Cuftoms. Since therefore it 
 is fo evidently impoflible to gain them by thefe 
 Comphances and Deviations from the ancient 
 Pradices of the Church 5 and that all our endea- 
 vours this way have only tended to raife new and 
 greater objedions againft us 5 why fhould we not 
 r.gain reftore thefe primitive Culloms, and there- 
 by, at leall, take off this Obje6lion > that by 
 making our Church in all particulars conformable 
 to the primitive of the three or four firft Centu- 
 ries, we may deprive all our Advcrfaries, of what 
 denomination foever, of this Objedion, which is 
 certainly of the moft weight of any they can have 
 againft us ? 
 
 As to our fymholizing with Popery^ you have 
 already in the following Book fufficiently an- 
 fwered that Point y as you have alfo done what- 
 ever is Argumentative in De Latme's Book. And 
 my bufinefs is only to ihew his Falfhoods and Pre- 
 varications as to Matters of Fa6t ; of which I 
 fhall give one or two Inflances more, and then I 
 have done. 
 
 De Laune fays, (pag. fo.) That the Epiftles^ 
 Gofpeh^ and Pfalms^ in the Service-Book^ are mif- 
 tranjlated^ being taken from the corrupt vulgar La- 
 tin Bihle^ which is fo extream faulty^ and fo much 
 complained of by the learned^ both Proteftants and 
 others. Now nothing can be more falfe than this, 
 and even an Engliflo Reader may difcover it to be 
 fo, with relation to the Epiitles and Gofpels, 
 which are the very fame word for word with 
 thofe portions of Scripture in our common Bi- 
 bles of the laftTranflation, which was made from 
 the Original Qreek^ as the Preface to that Bible, 
 
 and 
 
Iviii Dr. Brett'5 Letter. 
 
 and the Title page of the New Teflament in- 
 forms us : And is alfo the very fame that is ufed 
 by the DifTenters themfelves. And the impudence 
 of De Laune in endeavouring to put fuch a noto- 
 rious falfliood upon the World, which the moft 
 common Reader, by only comparing the Com- 
 mon Prayer Book and Bible might difcover to 
 befalfc, Ihews whata mean opinion he had of the 
 DifTenters themfelves, and how eafy he believed 
 they were to be impofed on : And plainly difco- 
 vers, that he looked upon them to be Men that 
 would take any of their Party's word upon truft 
 without examination ^ and that he was able to 
 make them believe juft what he pleafed*, though 
 never fo falfe, and that falfhood never fo eafy to 
 be difcovered. 
 
 The Pfalms indeed are different from the Tran- 
 slation which we have of them in the Bible. But 
 a Scholar, as De Laune was, might eafily have 
 difcovered that they were not tranilated from the 
 vulgar Latin Bible, bccaufe w^here the vulgar L^- 
 iin differs from the Flehrew^ they alfo differ from 
 the Latin^ and agree with the Hebrew^ and that 
 in at leaft two hundred and fifty places > where- 
 as they differ from the Hebrew^ and agree with 
 the v\i\g2ix Latin in not much above fixty Paffages, 
 and have not done that without good Reafon 
 and Authority. To inftance in that very paffage 
 which De Laune has picked out, (pag. f i .) where 
 he tells us, that they have added three whole verfes 
 to the fourteenth Pfalm^ which are not in any of 
 the original Copies. And it is confeffed that they 
 are not in any of the Hebrew Copies now extant : 
 But that they were in the old Hebrew Copies we 
 have no reafon to doubt, becaufe they are in the 
 Septuagint which was tranflated from an Hebrew 
 
 Copy 
 
Dr. Brett'5 Letter. lix 
 
 Copy much ancicnter than any we have now, 
 which was frequently ufed by our Saviour and his 
 ApolHes, whofe Quotations from the Old Tcfla- 
 ment are generally more agreeable to the Septua- 
 gint^ than to our prefcnt Hebrew Bibles in thofe 
 places where the Hebrew and Septuagint differ. 
 And thefe three verfcs which Dc Laurx fays our 
 Tranflators of the Pfalms in the Common Prayer 
 Book have added to the Scriptures, are all joined 
 to a Quotation of the other parts of the four- 
 teenth Pfalm^ by St. Paul in his Epillle to the 
 Romans (Chap. iii. ver. 13. i^c.) Having there- 
 fore fuch infiillible Authority to convince them 
 that they belonged to that Pfalm^ they cannot 
 be juftly charged with making additions to the 
 holy Scriptures in this place, as De Laune accufes 
 them to have done. But for a fuller Vindication 
 of this Tranflation of the Pfalms in our Liturgy^ 
 I refer you to the Learned and Reverend My. John- 
 fon'% excellent Book written on this Occafion, 
 called Holy David^ where you will find it admi- 
 rably defended againft this and all the other ob- 
 jciStions which have been made to it by our-Dif- 
 Venters. 
 
 Another impudent falfhood of De Laur.e^s is 
 where he tells us, that the fecond Epiftle to the 
 Theflalonians, and the fecond and third of John, 
 are left out of the Sunday and Holiday Lefjhis, 
 Whereas every body that but looks into our Ca- 
 lendar in the Common Prayer Book, and the Ta- 
 ble forLeflbns on Sundays and Holidays, muft fee 
 that we have very few proper LefTons for Sundays 
 and Holidays out of the New Teftament > but 
 that every Chapter in that Book, excepting the 
 Revelations^ (which being not to be underltood 
 by vulgar Readers, if by the Learned themfelves, 
 
 is 
 
Ix Dr, BrettV LeffL'r. 
 
 is not thought fo proper for the edification of 
 the Audience) is read every Day of the year in its 
 courfe j and if that Day happens to be a Sunday^ 
 the Chapter for that Day is read out of the fe- 
 cond Epillle to the I'heffalomayis^ or the fecond 
 and third o^jolm^ as regularly and duly as out of 
 any other pare of the holy Scripture. And that 
 there are but four Sundays in the whole Year, 
 that is Palm-Sunday,^ Eafter-Day^ PVhitfunday^ 
 and 'trinity Sunday^ when the (econd Leflbns ap- 
 pointed in the ordinary courfe are changed for 
 others more fuitable to the occafion > and it fo 
 happens, that noLeflbn out of the fecond Epiftle 
 to the Thejfalonians^ or the fecond and third of 
 John^ can fall out to be read on any of thofe 
 Days, and fo to be kt afide for any proper Leflbns 
 then appointed. So that he could not have been 
 more unlucky, than in pitching upon thefe Books 
 as left out of the Sunday LefTonsj fince it is evi- 
 dent that whatever Chapters out of fome other 
 Books of the New Teilament, may happen to 
 be omitted in the ordinary courfe of reading, 
 when any of thofe four Sundays fall, yet the 
 Leflbns out of thefe Books can never be fo omit- 
 ted. And forafmuch as it is impoflible that the 
 whole Bible fliould be read through on Sundays 
 and Holidays, without making the Service tire- 
 fome, is the Church to be blamed (fince it was 
 obliged to leave out fome parts of the Scripture 
 on thofe Days) to leave out fome of thofe Books, 
 whofe Contents were leail ufeful for a vulgar Au- 
 ditory ? And as for thofe Chapters out of the 
 jipocrypha^ which arc appointed to be read on 
 fome Holidays, (for not one of them is appoint- 
 ed for a Sunday) I defy any one to (hew any thing 
 fabulous in them^ or whicb favours too much of the 
 
 adored 
 
Dr, Brett'5 Letter. hA 
 
 adored Vanities of Gentilifm^ as De Laime has 
 thought fit to fay they do. For the Leifons ap- 
 pointed to be read out of the jipocrypha on fome 
 Hohdays, are only a few chofen Chapters out of 
 the Books of IVifdoyn and Ecdeftafticus^ which 
 contain no fabulous Stories, but only fome ex- 
 cellent moral Precepts agreeable to what we find 
 in the holy Scriptures. 
 
 And now if a Book ftuffed with Lies and 
 Falfhoods, as I think I have fufficicntly fhewn 
 this of De Laune\ to be : Or made up of collu- 
 fivc, fophiftical z^rguments, as you have evidently 
 proved that this Book is, which the Diflenters 
 have fo long and dill do cry up as unanfwerable, 
 he perfect in it felf and fuch as never Author left 
 behind him a 7nore finifl^ed Plece^ as De Foe tells 
 us in his Preface : Then let the Di£ enters go on 
 flill to boail of it 3 and as De Foe adds, If any 
 Man ask what they fay^ why the DiJJenters differ 
 from the Church of England, and what they can 
 'plead for it ? . Let them reply ^ read Thomas 
 De Laune'j Book. But if fuch a Book is fcan- 
 dalous, and pernicious to the very Caufe it pre- 
 tends to defend, fince that which is juft and 
 good can never need Lies and Sophifms to fup- 
 port it, then lince thofe notorious Lies and 
 Sophifms are now fo clearly difcovered, it is to 
 be hoped that all thofe DilTenters who have any 
 Affedion to the Truth, will hereafter be afhamed 
 of fuch a Champion, who has indeed betrayed 
 their Caufe, by fhewing the World that it is not 
 to be maintained by a fair and honeil difcovery 
 of Truth, but that it Hands in need of an 
 Heap of Lies and Calumny to preferve it from 
 finking. And it looks as if the Body of the Dif- 
 fenters ac the Time when the Book was writtca 
 
 bad 
 
Ixii Dr. Brett'^ Letter. 
 
 had that Opinion of it, which might be the 
 Reafon that they fuffered the Author with his 
 Wife and two Children to flarve in Gaol for fo 
 fmall a Sum as loo Marks, as De Foe upbraids 
 them that they did. But the Diffenters having 
 by this time been beaten out of all their Tricks 
 and Subterfuges, they now think it proper to 
 make Lies their Refuge, and therefore cry up 
 De Laurie's Book, which they were at firll a- 
 fhamed of. 
 
 But De Foe exclaims loudly againft the Go- 
 vernment, which took occafion, as he fays, to 
 anfwer De Lame by a Fine and Gaol. And 
 I muft confefs it might be thought very hard 
 dealing if the Book had been written with any 
 tolerable Modefty or Honefty. But confidering 
 that the Book is llufFed with fuch an Heap of Lies, 
 and moft fcandalous and untrue Reflections both 
 on the Primitive Church and that eftablifhed by 
 Law 5 and fuch as the Author himfelf, being a 
 Scholar, could not but know to be Falflioods, 
 at lea ft ought to have known whether they had 
 been fo or not, before he had publilhed them to 
 the World to deceive the Ignorant, I cannot 
 think the ufage he met with fo very hard and 
 undefervcd. For it is ridiculous to fay that his 
 writing this Book was only to anfwer Dr. Calamy's 
 Challenge. The Do6i:or only exhorted the Dif- 
 fenters fairly and impartially to examine the Merits 
 of the Caufe^ and the Grounds of thofe Differences 
 isohich were between them and the Church 5 and 
 had De Laune done no more than this, he might 
 perhaps have heard again from Dr. Calamy j but 
 I dare fay he had been fafe enough from the Go- 
 vernment. But when inftead of fairly examining 
 the Caufe, De Laune only made it his Bufinefs to 
 
 throy/ 
 
Di\ Brett'5 Letter. Ixiii 
 
 throw Dirt at the Church, and to load it with 
 fcandalous and falfe Afperfions, it was but iull: that 
 he fhould be anfwcred in another Way than the 
 Do6lor was capable of anfwering him. For it 
 is a Jeil to fuppofc that there ought to be fuch a, 
 Liberty of Confcience^ as may give Men leave to 
 utter what Lies or Untruths they pleafc againd 
 the Religion eftablifhed by Law. For though I 
 would by no Means have any one fufrer for wor- 
 fhipping God according to his Confcience, yet I 
 think no Man can pretend to plead Confcience 
 for Lying and Slandering j or if he fhould, I 
 cannot think it fit that fuch a Pica fhould be al- 
 lowed. And this feems to have been plainly Be 
 haune's : Who becaufe he fufFered as a Lyer and 
 Slanderer (which I conceive I have fufficiently 
 proved him to have been) is by De Foe reckoned 
 a Martyr for the DifTenter's Caufe. 
 
 I lliall only add, that I think both you and I 
 have beftowed a great deal more Time and Pains 
 upon this Book than it deferves. But forafmuch 
 as De Foe^ and (as you inform me) the Obfer- 
 vator before him have recommended it to" the 
 World, as a moil finifhed and unafwerable Per- 
 formance, whofe Recommendations (though lit- 
 tle worth in themfelves) are not only of great 
 Weight amongft all the DifTenters in general, 
 but likewife4iave and may yet miOead many harm- 
 lefs and well-meaning Perfons who cannot dif- 
 cover the Falfity of his Quotations, nor fee 
 through the Weaknefs of his Arguments > and 
 whereas the Book it felf (as De Foe fays) has 
 already had at lead fcven Impreilions, and the 
 Diflcnters make great ufe of it to feduce the igno- 
 rant and unwary, by telling them that it has yet 
 received no Anfvver > I think it is very expedient 
 
 that 
 
lxi\r Dr. Brett'^ Letter. 
 
 that what you have written on this occaiion 
 fhould be publifhed. And forafmuch as yoU 
 have only anfwered the argumentative Part, and 
 taken but little notice of his falfe and infincere 
 Quotations, and his Mifreprefentations both of 
 the primitive Church and our own, I defire that 
 what I have here written may be aifo publifhed 
 with your Book. And then I trufl we may fay 
 th^t Thomas De Laune's Book is fully anfwered. 
 
 I am 
 Spring-Grove, Tour hearty Friend 
 
 and Servant^ 
 
 Tho. Brett. 
 
 THE 
 
% THE 
 
 BULWARK 
 
 STORMED: 
 
 In An s w e r to 
 
 Thomas De La u n e'^ 
 
 Plea for the Non-Conformifts. 
 
(3) 
 
 THE 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 J ^hink it may not he amifs in the 
 fir ft place to let the Reader know^ 
 that the Author of this fmaWTrea- 
 tife is one^ that had the misfor^ 
 tune to he educated in the Princi^ 
 pies of the Dijfenters : And tho'* 
 I ha-ve upon good Reafons (as I 
 think) fince left them^ yet I think 1 floould not a6t 
 as hecomes mc^ unlefs I "vindicate (as far as I am 
 ahle) the Caufe I have efpous^d\ and let my Friends 
 fee^ that the Book^ in which they fo much triumph^ 
 is infufficient to accomplift) the end for which they 
 have fo many times fent it to me. 
 
 'They know Religion is a very facred thing 3 and 
 he that is eafily frighted out of one ^ may he as incon- 
 fiderately frighted into another, Notwithftanding 
 this^ I cannot think that Religion true^ that will 
 not ft and the fir i ft eft Tryal : Neither do I think 
 that Man ever will^ nay can he an Ornament to n 
 Religion^ the Principles of which he is tmac^uaint- 
 
 E z id 
 
4 The Preface. 
 
 ed luith : j^nd tho' I cannot fay that^ when I left 
 the Diffenters^ I was fo well acquainted with the 
 fenets of the om or the other Party as I now am j 
 yst it is my comfort^ that I can now look hack and 
 fee^ that I have not the leaf reafon to repent my 
 c^i^nge. 
 
 Religion^ I fay^ is a thing of the mo f moment 
 and concern in the World y and therefore requires 
 our moft unwearied diligence to know and praUife 
 according to the mind and will of God. Why 
 clfe fioould we he commanded to fearch and try our 
 ways^ if it were a matter of indiferency which 
 way we wa]k\l in 7 . And fo^ if it were a matter 
 of indiffeirency what we he%rd^ or how we heard^ 
 or with whom we joyn'd in religious fforfoip-y I 
 can't think why we foiCd he commanded to try the 
 Spirits^ and to examine the Doctrines too ^ and to 
 mark them which caufe DivifiouSy 6cc. if it were 
 7iot in order to avoid them. 
 
 Knowledge is what r/iofi Men deftre : But thi 
 knowledge of divine Things is charming fweet 5 tho'' 
 but few Men^ in comparifon^ will he at the trou- 
 ble of fe eking after it. What pains will Men take 
 to gain a little Wealth in this World ! Their thoughts 
 are , as it were^ wholly taken up about it : And 
 at the fame cime they think they may fafely pafs 
 over^ or at leaf not he fo inquifttive about points of 
 Religion 5 ftnce they agree with moft in the belief of 
 a God^ and of his Son Chrift, ^Tis true^ thofe are 
 the chief Articles ^ but thofe are not all the chief : 
 For I conceive a Man may believe them 5 and yet 
 hold other things that may he damnable Herefies. 
 For.^ 
 
 With fubmiffion to better JudgjmntSj I think it 
 not enough to believe aright in one or two points of 
 Ckriftian Doctrine j but he muft live in the unity 
 
 of 
 
The Preface. y 
 
 of the Faitb^ and in the community of the Church : 
 1 mean , in Communion with the lawful Bijhops^ 
 nvho only ha'ue Authority from Chrifi to adminijier 
 his Ordinances to us : And fince Chrifi has confined 
 his Ordinances to his Church j we can ha've no rea- 
 [on to cx-pcH them el fe where. 
 
 I know that what I here a[jnt is condemn'^d by 
 moft of the Diffenters 5 but that's no Argument tlMit 
 it is not true. 'The Do6lrine of the Trinity may be^ 
 nay is condemned by many^ but that does not prove 
 the Do Urine to be falfe, 'Tis my Opinion (and I 
 believe I have good reafons to confirm it) that if 
 any Man^ ur Party of Men^ (believing fotne points^ 
 as our Dijfenters now do very truly) fijou'd have 
 (as they now do) feparated him or themfelves from 
 the primitive Churchy (that is^ from the Bijhops^ 
 for they were then thought Terms fynmimcus) they 
 wouJ'd have been cut off by the publick Cenfure of 
 the Catholick Churchy and looked on as Men in a 
 defpcraie Condition \ tho" in mofl points of Faith 
 their belief had been orthodox : Arid- this feems evi- 
 dent from the very notion of a Church. 
 
 For if we confider the Church as a Society 'of 
 Men (the whole diffufive Body of Chriftians) living 
 in Communion with Chrifi their Head^ as well as 
 with each other 5 we mufi alfo confider that this 
 Society is eftabltfi'd on proper Laws^ by which it is 
 able to fupport and defend itfelf : And as this So- 
 ciety muft be fuppofed to be invejled with power to 
 be flow all the Benefits, granted to it by the Founder^ 
 on fuch Perfons in that Society^ as fi.^all be thought 
 worthy of them > fo mufi it alfo be fuppofed to have 
 power to receive in^ and exclude out of it^ all thofe 
 who are unwilling to .be governed by the Laws of 
 it. Let us farther confider.^ that Chrifi' s Church 
 (the diffufiive Body of Chrifiians) is hut one Society , 
 
 E 3 and 
 
6 The Preface. 
 
 and that it is ahfolutely neceffary that all Societies 
 have fovte Government -, and it iiuill necejfarily fol- 
 lo*m^ that he that founded this Society^ founded alfo 
 the Government of it. Now in all Governments vue 
 know^ there are the Governors^ and the Governed -y 
 fome to remve^ and fome to he received^ according 
 to that Fvrm which is prefcriFd by the Founder of 
 that Society, As therefore no Man can he made or 
 admitted a Member of a Corporation^ but by the 
 proper Officers of it appointed for that pur pofe j who 
 is alfo inroird according to Cuftom : So neither can 
 any be admitted into Chrifi's Church or Society^ but 
 by thofe who have authority to receive them in ftich 
 manner as the great Donor hath appointed. And 
 as no Man can reafonably expeU to partake of the 
 Privileges of a Corporation to which he does not be- 
 long : So no one can have any jufl ground to hope to 
 receive the benefits which Chrifi hath promised to 
 his Churih^ 'till fuch time as he is a regular Mem- 
 her of it. I pray obferve it^ Reader^ there is but 
 one Saviour^ and there is but one Church j as there 
 is hut one Churchy fo there is but one Baptifm j as 
 there is but one initiative Baptifm^ fo none can ad- 
 Tninifier it^ but thofe that were and are fent to 'do 
 it : And as there is but one Baptifm^ fo there is but 
 one Faith that mufi bring us to that one God and Fa- 
 ther of us all^ to thi^t one Salvation which we ex- 
 peB hy Chrifi ^ Jefus. 
 
 "There is indeed a fort of Latitudinarians now 
 among us^ who go about to make the World believe^ 
 that this one Church is a compound of twenty or 
 thirty different Se5ls and Parties -, whofe Principles 
 and Practices mutually contradict and overturn each 
 other: But if fo^ what do they mean by the Catho- 
 lick Church ? What may we reafonably underfiand 
 the Apofile to intend -^ when he /peaks of one Faithy 
 
 and 
 
The Preface. 7 
 
 and one Baptifm ? Can it he thought that he meant 
 no more by it than one Aiticle of Faith ? No fure ! 
 For as then there was hut one Baptifm'^ fo neither 
 *was there hut one common Faith profefs*d by alt 
 Chriftians : j^nd we find in after Ages^ when erro^ 
 mous Opinions were hroadfd in the Worlds the Bi- 
 Jhops of the federal Churches with one Voice con- 
 demned them > and if the Broachers of them perfifi^ 
 ed in them^ they were by puhlick Cenfure cut off 
 from the Communion of the Catholick Church. But 
 if our Libertines have a jufl notion of the Catholick 
 Churchy the primitive Chriftians were a pack of 
 fools to give themfelves fo much trouble^ and take 
 fuch long journeys to meet in Councils to condemn 
 an erroneous Opinion j and by puhlick Cenfure to cut 
 off from the Church thofe who troubled it^ if when 
 they had done^ their Adverfaries cou'd bid them de- 
 fiance^ and fet up ft par ate Meetings^ and yet he as 
 much in the Catholick Churchy as they were before 
 the Sentence was paffed on them. But the truth is^ 
 they were not Latitudinarians, He that in thofe 
 days was not with the Biftoop^ was not thought to 
 he in the Church ; and therefore not in the onl^ 
 known Covenant- Way of Salvation : And whether 
 the primitive Fat her s^ or our modern Gentlemen^ are 
 to blame ^ j^^'-dge ye, I verily believe if many^ nay 
 if any of our Se£is had appeared in the primitive 
 times^ the Bifhops would (immediately upon the no- 
 tice of it) have met in Council and condemned them^ 
 and cut them off from the Chriftian Church : And 
 farther I verily believe^ had De Laune liv'd in the 
 primitive Ages of the Churchy and publiflfd fuch 
 Notious as he has in his Plea^ (as Apoftolick as his 
 Friends think them to be) he would have had a 
 much greater^ at leaft a much more infupportable 
 Fine laid upon him : And had De F<5t, the Pub- 
 
 E 4 lillier. 
 
S* The Preface. 
 
 lifher, (^r the Obfervator then efpoufed it^ as they 
 have noiv done^ they might have jhafd 'with him 
 in the fame Fate^ they would then have found 
 High-Church-Men enough to have anfwefd it 
 with terrible Anathema's : But I have no fuch 
 Authority^ and fo fljall not in that Method 'pro- 
 ceed againft it^ hut I hope to give it a fufficient An- 
 pwer not with flanding^ and in fuch a way as I hope 
 may he of ufe to my Reader. 
 
 / hope my Reader is not infedled with the com- 
 mon evil of the Age j to judge of Books hy the 
 Name of the Author 5 and to meafure Arguments 
 hy the v'ogue of Parties j if you are^ there is little 
 hopes that any Arguments will do you good j for 
 that which is now the darling of your AffeElions^ 
 will in all probability determine your ABions : And 
 fo (fuppofing you to he in a Mifiake) you are like 
 to he always what they will have you. 
 . But I will hope better things of you my Reader 5 
 that thou art one who art a lover of ^ruth^ and 
 willing to hear both, fides impartially 5 and if fo^ 
 let us go on^ and I pray God we may both be fo 
 happy as to dif cover and imbrace the 'Truth. I 
 could (for my Readers fake) wifh^ I were better 
 qualified for this Undertaking : But if my Caufe 
 have a had Advocate -, it is ftill my comfort ^^ I 
 have a good Caufe to plead for -, and I truft I fhall 
 manage it fo^ that the meannefs of the Style > fJoall 
 he no juft Reafon for the judicious to rejeU it ^ 
 when they fee the Argumetits folidly made good > 
 and fo fioall anfwer my own end •, tho' not in all 
 refpe^s (conftdering feme Readers) my own IVifioes. 
 Had this Treatife been more learnedly handled ^y 
 it might have merited perhaps the acceptance and 
 applaufe of fome^ that will in all probability rejeU 
 it now : Bu$ I am not at all concerned for that -, 
 
 for 
 
The Prfface. "9 
 
 for as I ftudy'd not for npplaufc ^ fo I can hfe 
 nothing In miffing it : If my Arguments are 
 truly "valid , and dearly decifi've in the prefent 
 Cafe ; I floall he the lefs concerned for the mean- 
 nefs of the Style :. Ej feci ally c on ful cringe had the 
 Style been more Scholaflick^ this "Treatije might have 
 been lefs ufeful to thofe^ for whom I chiefly in- 
 tended it. 
 
 1 ijuillfuppofe my felf one^ that hath no interefi 
 in the Reader : But ^mithal Pll fufpofc^ I am not 
 excluded from his affe^ions : Jnd fo I am content 
 to ftand or fall in the affcolions of the Reader^ 
 according to the flrcngth or weaknefs of the Ar- 
 guments contained in this Treatife : For it pajfes 
 with me for a prov'd Cafe, that no Authority of 
 Man whatfoever or whofoever^ can make that true 
 which is not fo j for whatever they can fay^ is ei- 
 ther true or falfe before they fay fo j and confe- 
 quently their faying of it adds nothing to Its Autho- 
 rity : And therefore I hope my Reader will not 
 barely rely on what is faid on either fide \ but im- 
 partially confider who gives the heft Reafons Jor 
 what he afferts. 
 
 I pretend not to fay of this Undertaking of mine^ 
 as De Foe does of De Laune's Plea j The Book 
 is peifed of it felE, ^c. no j all that I can fay 
 of it is^ that the Arguments therein contained^ do 
 convince me ^ that De Laune's Pica is a very 
 fcand'alous Piece j and that Men do but betray their 
 own weaknefs in fo highly coi^irnending it. For 
 furely one would think^ Men would confider their 
 own Reputation more than to boafl of a Book's 
 being unanfwerable, the Bulwark of the Diflen- 
 ters Caufe, a finifh'd Piece, iyc. if there were 
 not fome thing extraordinary in it : And yet when 
 %ye come nicely to examine into this wonderful thing ^ 
 
 it 
 
lo The Preface. 
 
 // is only a Mountain brought forth a Moufe : And 
 I hope Mr. De Foe and the reji of his Friends will 
 he fo kind as to t-ake c-are of it. 
 
 This Book of Dc Laune'j you muft knonv^ Rea- 
 der^ was Jiopt in the Prefs in King Chariest time -y 
 hut was afterwards publifjyd by a Friend of his (as 
 be tells us in the Preface to a former Edition ; in 
 anfwer to which thefe Papers were at firft penned) 
 who was his Fellow-prifoner : But whether after* 
 wards or before^ or both^ I will not difpute^ not 
 having that Preface by me at this time^ the Obfer- 
 vator took on hij^n the Guardianflnp of this Piece > and 
 in his publick Papers told his Countryman , that all 
 the high Church Men in England couid not anfwer 
 it 'y and of late Mr. De Foe, itfeems^ is made Ma'- 
 fter-keeper of this extraordinary Piece > and truly 
 I think no Man fo fit > for no Man has jhewn a 
 greater refpe5l for the Author or his Work^ than 
 he : Nay^ he has placed his whole dependence on 
 thofe Arguments > and if they fiould chance to fail^ 
 he declares he can give no better Reafons why he 
 dijjents from the Church of England j and there- 
 fore I hope he will puhlifh his Recantation^ or faew 
 me the infufjiciency of my Arguments. 
 
 / think it may not be amifs to let my Reader 
 know^ that notwith (landing I had drawn up this 
 Anfwer to De LauneV Plea before I faw Mr. De 
 Foe'i Edition j yet fince that is the lafl^ and perhaps 
 the moft common j therefore in all ?ny References 
 I have had an eye to it. 
 
 Another thing there is^ with which I think fit to 
 acquaint my Reader 5 and that is , that there 
 came out (fince the puhlifhing of T>^ FoeV Edition) 
 an Anfiwer to this Plea of De Laune'j by Mr. Ro- 
 beitfon, which at firft made me hope I might be 
 excufied from publlfinng thefie Reafons : But fince I 
 
 » fi^d 
 
, The Preface. ii 
 
 find that Piece is not like to pafs current among 
 them 'y as a fuficient Anpwer to the before-faid 
 Plea ; jind fince my Friends do ftill infifi on my 
 Promife of doing it^ I have refumed my former 
 Refolutions of publiping it, and have made ufe of 
 feme few Remarks^ for which I have been be- 
 holden to that Gentleman. 
 
 I have but one thing more to deftre of my Rea- 
 der : And that is^ that he will read this Treatife^ 
 with the fame Charity that I pen it 5 that he 
 would not let Party or Paffion^ but Reafon be judge 
 in this Cafe 5 which if he does^ I conceive good hopes 
 this Undertaking of mine^ will not only convince 
 him that I have not left the Diffenters without a 
 Caufe 'y but he will fee that he has all the Reafon 
 in the M^orld to do fo too : And if this fmall Trea- 
 tife floall be of any Service to firengthen thofe that 
 are in^ or to perfuade any that are out of the 
 Church of England to com^ in and join with her j 
 1 fhall think my felf very happy ^ (if fo happy / 
 may be) to be the leap; Injirument of fo much good 
 to them^ and that God would be pleafed Jo to 
 blefs it to thee^ kind Reader, both is ^ and fhall be j 
 the hearty Prayer of him^ that wifheth thee a 
 right Judgment in all things that belong to thy eter^ 
 nal Peace : Even fo prayeth he that is in all hu" 
 mility thy Chriflian Friend^ 
 
 Edw. Hart. 
 
 THE 
 
( ^o 
 
 THE 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 T has been an old as well as com' 
 nion Obfervatioii, that as Men de- 
 cay in Zeal towards what St. James 
 ^ calls pure Religion and undejiled 
 before God y ib they grow hot and 
 eager Contenders for that, which 
 as St. Paul fays, ^ profit eth little^ and in their 
 Difputcs contend more for ViUory than T'ruth. 
 For which rcafon, I think there is nothing 
 to which fuch Men may more fitly be com- 
 pared, than thofe Pharifees our Saviour fpeaks 
 of, ^ *who were "very ftri^ in tithing Mint^ Anifo^ 
 and Commin^ when at the fame time they negletled 
 the weightier matters of Religion. 
 
 It is indeed a very fad, but yet great Truth 
 (too -plain to be denied \ becaufe it fo plainly ap- 
 pears in our Books of difpute ) that, when Men 
 are eagerly contending about the outward Form j 
 they aimoft, nay, fome do altogether forget that 
 
 Chap. i. 27. b I Tim. iv. 8. 
 
 c Mat. xxiii. 2,3. 
 which 
 
The Introduction. ij 
 
 which is fo much better in it felf, and there- 
 fore ought to be of far greater account with 
 us, viz, that in which the Sum and Subftance 
 of Rehgion does coniift j I mean that moft ex- 
 cellent gift of Char it y^ the very bofid of Peace ^ 
 and of all Fertues : Which whofoe'ver wants is 
 counted dead before God. Nay, St. Pcml has plac'd 
 all Religion in it > '^he that loveth another^ faith he, 
 hath fulfilled the Law : And a greater than he 
 has made it the dillinguifhing badge of Chri- 
 Itians J by this JJmll all Men knoiv^ fays our Sa- 
 "Jiour^ ^ that ye are my Difciples^ if ye have love 
 one to another : And St. John expreflly fays, 
 he that loves not his Brother abideth in death, 
 "^ But how great a Duty foever Charity may be 
 in it felf, or how necefTary foever it is in order 
 to Peace, we by experience find fome (and them 
 not a few) fo divefled of it, as to condemn ill 
 but thofe of their own Party. And it were 
 well if in this particular, their Pra6lice did not 
 keep pace with their Principles 5 but fince wicked 
 Pradife is but the genuine effect of wicked Prin- 
 ciples, how can I expedb kind A6i:ions frotn 
 hin> who cannot afford me a kind Thought ? 
 He that judges my Religion to bePopifh, Super- 
 ilitious, Paganifm, ijjc, if he be one that is not 
 in love with thofe things, what will he not do 
 to remove it ? and as his Thoughts and Actions 
 are towards my Religion, fo in all probability 
 will they be towards me, 
 
 'Tis true ( the corruption of humane Nature 
 Gonfider'd) moll of our Difputes about Religion 
 have a tendency to diflblve, if not delboy the 
 Peace of the Church : But lure the Pcrfons who 
 
 * Kom, xiii. 8. ^ xiii. 3 j. f i ';}ohn.\\\. 14. 
 
 iiigagc 
 
14 "The Introduction. 
 
 ingage therein, might (if they would) manage 
 them fo, a»not to deflroy the very being of it. 
 
 How happy might we of this Nation be, could 
 we heartily put in pra6i:ice what St. Paul recom- 
 mends to his PhilUpians^ s to he of. one accord^ and 
 of one mind^ and in matters of Religion all /peak 
 and do the fame things that there might no longer 
 be any Divifions among us : But in cafe we cannot 
 be fo happy as we fhould, yet let us come as 
 near to it as we can, by taking the fame Apo- 
 flle's advice, ^ jlnd wheretmto we ha've already 
 attainted^ let us walk hy the fame rule^ let us mind 
 the fame thing. 
 
 There are too many in the World who fo- 
 ment, too few who compofe our Divifions > ma- 
 ny who pull down, but few who build up 3 ma- 
 ny (if we may judge of their Principles by 
 their Pra6i:ice) Vv^ho endeavour to fet the Houfe 
 of God on fircj but few, God knows, very 
 few, who are folicitous to extinguifh it. 
 
 I am not fo vain as to think the World Hands 
 in need of what I can fay or do with refpe6t to 
 this Subje6t : No, I know there has been enough 
 faid by our reverend Clergy before now : Bdt if" 
 any ufe that as an Argument againft this Under- 
 taking of mine, and thence conclude, that I 
 have no occafion to fay any thing on a Subje6i:, 
 that has been fo well and fo often fpoken to by 
 fo many able Pens : Why, this I mull confefs is 
 very true, there is no occafion for me to fay any 
 thing more, i'^ we have regard to the Subjed it 
 felf : But if they confider that I was brought up 
 a Diflenter, and fince I have left them, have 
 had De Laune's Plea for the Nonconformlfts at 
 
 s Chap. ii. 2. Ji Chap. iii. 16. 
 
 three 
 
7%e Introduction. ly 
 
 three feveral times fent and lent me as an un- 
 anfwerable Piece, and have been fo often times 
 urged to fhcw my Reafons, why the Arguments 
 therein ufed, have not prevailed with me to leave 
 the Church of England and again be one of them : 
 (For De Laune has faid, and they fay he proves, 
 that the Church of England is a fuperftitioiis 
 Synagogue of Satan ^ an Image of the Beaft y 
 and a Limb of Anti-chrift 5 and therefore I (hould 
 come out of her and be fcparate : ) He, 1 fay, 
 that confiders this, and withal conliders that I 
 fcad obliged my felf by promife to anfwer their 
 Requeft, will I hope excufe'me for making an 
 attempt to anfwer a Book, fo much cry'd up 
 by them for an unanfwerable Piece. 
 
 But by their leave I muft remind them, of 
 what they cannot be ignorant, that Perfons and 
 things, do not always prove to be what fome 
 Men ^rc pleafed to call them. For common 
 Experience fhews> that moil Men judge of things 
 not as they really are, but as they are reprefented 
 to them by fome conceited Men of their own 
 Party : For which Reafon I think it ought to 
 be Well confider'd, whether their fo much ad- 
 mired Pka^ may not be of the number of things 
 that are fo reputed. 
 
 As to De Laune'' s Pka^ I am really of Opi- 
 nion, it had never been fo much in vogue among 
 them, if the Publijher had not told them that it 
 was the Bulwark of their X^aufe : And the Ob- 
 fervator had not affirm'd, that all the high Chtfrch 
 Men in England could not anfwer it. And to 
 help the matter forward, I find Mr. De Foe (in 
 bis Preface to the late Edition of this Plea) I tel- 
 
 ?JPag. I. 
 
 ling 
 
i6 The Introduction. 
 
 ling us, that it has been publifh'd at lead feveti 
 times •, *' and without doubt, fays he, if the Ad- 
 ^' veriaries of the Diflenters were for coming to 
 " the Teft, either of Scripture^ Reafon^ or j^nti- 
 *' quity^ it would before now have receiv'd fome 
 '' anfwer. And farther, he fays, there remains 
 '' nothing to be added to the Argument, till fome 
 *' attempt to confute them (the Diflenters) fhall 
 *' make a rejoinder necellary > nor indeed can 
 ^' the Diflenters defire to have their Cafe morc 
 '' fairly Hated, or the Condud: of their Adverfa- 
 '^ ries be more concurring to their Juflification. 
 And pag. i f . he (ays, " He fhall make no Apo- 
 '' logy for writing his Preface, but what theRea- 
 ^' der will allow reafonable > for the Book is peie- 
 '' fed of it felf, fays he, never Author left be- 
 " hind hifn a more finifli'd piece, and I believe 
 '^ the Difpute is entirely ended : If any M^^ there- 
 " fore ask what we can fay, why- the Diflenters 
 '' differ from the Church of England^ and what 
 '' they can plead for it ? I can, fays he, recom- 
 *' mxnd'tio better Reply than this, let them an- 
 *' fvvcr in (hort Thomas Be Laune^ and deiire the 
 " ^erifi to read the Book. From all which, 
 and much more-that might be added to the fame 
 EfFed, (from others as well as from him) it plain- 
 ly appears what a mighty opinion thofe Men have 
 conceiv'd of this Plea j and particularly Mr. De 
 Foe has given fuch a Charader of it, as would 
 make a modefl Man blufli, were he never fo well 
 affeded to it j becaufe the Charader thus given 
 by him is fuch, as is not compatible with any 
 rational Undertaking. 
 
 I muft confefs, I had finifli'd what I intended 
 to fay in anfwer to De Laune^ before I faw Mr. De 
 Foe'^ Edition and Preface j but becaufe I findliira 
 
 fo 
 
The Introduction. 17 
 
 fb far bigotted to, and fo loud in his boaft: of, this 
 Plea 5 I muft beg leave (in this place) to make 
 an Obfervation or two on what he fays concern- 
 ing it y before I come to acquaint the Reader with 
 the Method I have taken, in examining the Book 
 it felf. 
 
 Firft then, Be Foe (in order to applaud De 
 Laune's Performance) is willing to put us in mind 
 of the neceflity there then was for fome body to 
 put forth a Plea on the behalf of the DifTenters; 
 who (as he fays) were then commonly infulted by 
 xh^ High Church Party. Secondly, that this was 
 neceffary on the account of Dr. CaJamfs Chal- 
 lenge then made, iays he, to the whole Body of 
 Diffenters. And then, Thirdly, from the Effed, 
 he goes on to infer the Neceflity of the Caufe. 
 
 As to the time in which this Plea was firft 
 pubhfli'd 5 •■' it was, fays he, ^ when the Ene- 
 '' mies of the Diflenters Forces were drawn up, 
 *' and were infulting to fuch a degree, as to ftrikc 
 '' at the Foundation of Religion. When fliould 
 '' the Champions of Religion defend her, but 
 " when they find the Foundation ftruck at"? 
 *' When fhould David take up his Sling againfl 
 *' Goliah^ but when he found him defying the 
 *' Hods of IJrael? Then is the only proper time 
 I muft confefs j but how, and who were thofe 
 Goliah's that thus defy'd the Hofts of Ifrael 5 
 that thus infulted the Diflenters, and ftruck at 
 the Foundation of their Religion? Why read on 
 and you'll find the Anfwer in Dr. Calamy's Chal- 
 lenge, which (as he fays) was then made to the 
 whole Body of Diflenters. " Could we, fays 
 '' the Do6tor, thus prevail with the People, di- 
 
 ^ Preface to De Laune's Pica, p. 10. 
 
 F * " ligcntly 
 
i8 The Introduction. 
 
 '' ligently to examine the Merits of the Caufe, 
 \' our Church would every Day gain more ground 
 " amongfl; all wife Men j for we care not how 
 ^' much Knowledge and Underlknding our Peo- 
 ^' pie have, fo they be but humble and modeft 
 '' with it, ^c. Thofe are the words of Dr. Ca- 
 lamy's Challenge, which (in the judgment of 
 Mr. De Foe) llruck at the Foundation of the 
 Diflenters Caufe : If in this cafe then they had 
 been filent, what could they have been thought 
 Icfs than obltinate, and pertinacioufly efpouiing 
 Notions they could not defend ? Now tho' I 
 think he fpake this rather by Conje6i;ure than the 
 Spirit of Prophecy, yet I cannot fee, w^hy they 
 are not in the fame Danger llill 3 for fince De 
 Laune (their Champion) m anfwering, has fadly 
 neglected clie Merits of the Caufe ^ why ihould 
 they value themfelves for giving an Anfwer that 
 is not to the purpofe ? But I ihall leave the Proof 
 of this till I have made an obfervation on the 
 wonderful Effedls that attended the publifhing of 
 this Plea^ which were very great : For Mr. De 
 Foe tells us, ^ " That they (the Fligh-Church-Men) 
 '' are fo far from making them (the Diflenters) 
 " any more Challenges, that they never made 
 ^^ the leall: Reply to thisj thus, fays he, theNe- 
 " cellity and the Succefs of this attempt make out 
 ^- one another. A very terrible clap of Thunder 
 indeed, to Urike all the High -Church -Men dumb 
 at once! but now. Sir, theTempeit is over, and 
 lince there is now as a great Calm, let me have 
 your Ear, while I offer lomething by way of Re- 
 ply to your Preface. 
 
 ' Preface to De Laune's Plea, />. lo. 
 
 2 As-;, 
 
The Introduction. ip 
 
 As for De Lame's Plea fo much applauded by 
 you, and others of your Party, as an unanfwera- 
 ble piece J I think all hands mull allow, that in 
 this you beg the Queftion. 
 
 Again, as to the Title, (A Plea for the Non- 
 CG?iformifts) it's too general > and therefore, fince 
 you intended to applaud the Performance, it was 
 much you did not amend the Title > for its cer- 
 tain (as the Diflenters cafe now ftands) no one 
 Book can be a proper Plea for them all^ becaufc 
 their Principles being fo very different, that which 
 juftifies the Pretenfions of one fort of Diffenters, 
 will (by contradi6lion of Principles) condemn all 
 the reft. For inftancc, De Laune feems at Icaft 
 to oppofe the baptizing of Infants : Now fo far 
 as he does oppofe it, fo far he oppofes the Pres- 
 byterians^ Independents^ &c. and if he oppofe, fure 
 he does not at the fame time plead for them 5 and 
 if he does net plead for them, how can this Book 
 be called a Plea for the Non-Conformifls ? How 
 then does Mr. De Foe make it appear, that De 
 Laune dy'd a Martyr for a Caufe in which the 
 whole Body of Diffenters were interelled ? What, 
 an Anabaptift^ and dye for that j and at the fame 
 time be a Presbyterian^ Independent^ ^aker^ 6cc? 
 and fuffer as fuch ? What, die for the Defence of 
 every thing, and at the laft be juft nothing ? A 
 worthy Martyr indeed! And what will they fay, 
 if this fhould be prov'd to be his very cafe ? I'll 
 tell you the Story, and leave you to judge as you 
 fee caufe. 
 
 De Laune in his Plea takes the part of ihtAna-^ 
 baptifts^ and denies Infant -B apt ifm 5 and yet ac** 
 cording to the beil account I can get, he had his 
 own Children baptized 5 which Ihews, that he 
 did not either write or pra6tife upon Principle, 
 F z Befides, 
 
16 The In T Ro D u c T I o N. 
 
 Befides, there is a certain Perfon of the Anabap^ 
 tift Party now living, and truly I thinlc he is one 
 on whofe word we may depend 3 he was (as he 
 tells me) De Laune's fellow-Prifoner for the Caufe 
 of Non-Conformity ^ and knew him veiy well 5 
 this Man fays, there was in Newgate at that time 
 (when De Laune was there) about eighty Per- 
 fons. Men and Women, among whom were about 
 eight Minidersj but few or none of us that car'd 
 for his Company: For tho' he was a witty Fel- 
 low and a Scholar, yet he was a Man of little or 
 no Religion ! If this be true, was he not a wor- 
 thy Martyr? If it be not true, my Author is a 
 DifFenter, and now alive to anfwer for it. 
 
 However, I give Mr. De Foe free liberty, not 
 only to build a Monument over his Grave, but 
 aifo to write what Infcription he pleafes on it, as 
 well as on his Work j upon this condition only, 
 that he will tell us in what refpe6t De Laune may 
 be truly faid to die a Martyr for the Caufe in 
 which the whole Body of DilFenters are interefl- 
 ed : For fince it's certain (for the Reafons before 
 mention'd) they cannot all claim him as a Martyr 
 for their Caufe j and if Mr. De Foe cannot fhew 
 which Party among them may claim him, I con- 
 ceive it's very improbable that the whole Body of 
 Diflenters ihould ever joyn and ered a Monument 
 over himj (for what reafon can be given why I 
 Ihould contribute toward ereding a Monument 
 over a Man that was not of my Sentiments?) 
 It may be this was the reafon why they did not 
 raife him Money to pay his Fine j but whether 
 it were or not, it is certain, fince they did not 
 agree in doing that, there is little reafon to be- 
 lieve they will ever agree to do the other. 
 
 4 Whether 
 
The Introduction. 21 
 
 Whether Mr. De Toe have any Reafons to offer 
 for the confirmation of what he afferts (\n the 
 hcfore-mention'd Cafe) I know not ♦, probably 
 his word mull pafs inftead thereof: However, a 
 common Caufe it fcems they have, in which 
 (like Herod and Pilate) they all unite againll the 
 Church of England^ let the Differences amongll: 
 them in other refpe61:s be what they will. 
 
 Now the common Principle on v/hich all the 
 Diflenters unite againft the Church is, as De Laitne 
 tells us, ^ 'That nothing is lawful in the worJJjip of 
 God^ but 'what he has exprejjly commanded : Jf then 
 this be the common Principle in which they all- 
 unite againft the Churchy isDe Laune intimates j 
 and if he fuffer'd for defending their common 
 Caufe, as Mr. Z)^ Foe affirms > then it neceflarily 
 follows, (as I fhall ihew hereafter) that he fuffer'd 
 for the defence of a Caufe which is directly con- 
 tradiiStoiy, Fiift,' to the Pradice of the Diflen- 
 ters themfelves. Secondly, to Reafon and the 
 intent of Laws. Thirdly, to plain Fad record- 
 ed in Scripture. And Fourthly and laftly, to. 
 the known Pradlice of the Church o^ Chrift in all 
 Ages. And if fo, was it. not a worthy Caufe to 
 iuSer for? Was not he a v/orthy Martyr that fuf- 
 fer'd for fuch a Caufe ? 
 
 But Mr. De Foe infinuates, (contrary to what 
 De Laune himfelf affirms) that this was not the 
 Reafon, at leaft not the only one, that engag'd 
 De Laune to the Undertaking, for doing of which 
 he was imprifon'd : What then? Whyhefaysthe 
 Dijj'enters were then generally and frequently chal- 
 leng'd and infulted by the High-Church Party to 
 that degree^ as to fir ike at the 'very Foundation of 
 
 ^ De Laune s Plea, p. 6. 
 
 F 3 their 
 
22 The lNTRODUCTiot^\ 
 
 their Religion. But pray who were tbo'fe High- 
 Church-Men who thus infulted them ? If the 
 High-Church Party infulted them without the 
 Churches confent, why does he level his x^rgu- 
 ments againfl the Church it felf, \vhich did not 
 infult them ? If the Church and High-Church Par- 
 ty be terms fynonymous, fure they were not great- 
 ly mfulted, fince Dr. Calcmty is the only one 
 named (of all the High-Church Party) that mfult- 
 ed them: And truly I think, if the Do6^or's 
 Words and De Launeh Performance, be both 
 well confider'd, it's not much for their credit to 
 mention him as their Infulter. 
 
 ■For how does he infult them ? After what 
 manner does he llrike at the Foundation of their 
 Religion ? 
 
 W hy thus. Could we thus pre'vail with the Pec- 
 ple^ diligently to examine the Merits of the Cauj'e^ 
 equally hear both ftdes^ and think it no jhame to 
 change their Minds when they fee good reafon for it : 
 For we do not defire Men to become our Profelytes^ 
 fays the Do6lor, aiiy farther than we fhew them 
 Scripture a?id good Reafon for it^ &c. Now this 
 is what Mv.De Foe calls challenging and infult- 
 ing the Diffenters, and ftnking at the Foundation 
 of their Religion j which is a great Complement 
 put upon them, I muft confefs! What, Mr. De 
 Foe^ IS it an Infult ofFer'd to the Diffenters, to 
 put them in mind of the Merits of the Caufe ? 
 Is Ignorance the Mother of Devotion among them 
 too ? If not, why fhould you be apprehenfive 
 that the Foundation of their Religion wiil be un- 
 dermined, and the Superftrudure deflroy'd, if 
 People fhould (by equally hearing both fides) 
 grow^ more wife and knowing? Is a ilrid and im- 
 partial examination of the Principles of Religion, 
 
 fuch 
 
The Introduction. 23 
 
 fach a deadly Enemy to their Caufc? If fo, I fear 
 their Caufe is not good : If advifing them to lay 
 by all Affeftion to, or Love of a Party, and meek- 
 ly and modelUy to hear both tides without any 
 pvejndicate Opinion j and to embrace that which 
 on iuch an impartial examination they find moft 
 rational and conformable to Scripture j if this, I 
 fay, be infulting them, they may ftill expeCl to 
 be infulted > for many of them feldom think, 
 much lefs examine the Merits of the Caufe : And 
 thofe among them that have made an attempt this 
 way, particularly De Laune^ have not with Hand- 
 ing fadly neglected it. 
 
 1 {hall now take my leave of Mr. De Foe^ for 
 fome time j and from him transfer my Difcourfe 
 to thofe Perfons who have at ^three feveral tim>es 
 (in boaftiiag ir»a»oer) fent thi^ Pleiz. to me as an 
 unanpmerabU fiece ; and when I have fo done, I 
 will proceed to mv propos'd method. • 
 
 As for thofe Perions who fent me this Plea^ I 
 muft beg lejtvc to tell theei, I angi afraid that they 
 themfelves have not fo fully exajcniin'd it as they 
 ought j however^ this I c^n ^d do aflure them, 
 I have (according t^ thek requeft) carefully 
 read it over and over, and according to the 
 bell Judgment I can make, it has little Argument 
 in it. 
 
 I ever have, and ever will pay a due refpe^t to 
 the Opinions of fober and good Men > but for 
 all that, I muft ask their pardon, if (in points of 
 Religion) I believe them not, farther than they 
 give me Scripture and good Reafon for it. And 
 as without this, I will believe none 5 fo neither 
 without it do 1 defire any to believe me : There- 
 fore all that I require of them is, that they would 
 
 F 4 fufpcnd 
 
24 7^^ Introduction. 
 
 fufpend their Judgments for the prefent, and im- 
 partially hear what I have to offer in oppofition 
 to De Laune's Pka^ before they condemn ei- 
 ther 5 and fince it cannot be deny'd, but this 
 is a very reafonable Requefl > I fhall conclude 
 with a Prefumption that it will not be deny'd. 
 
 THE 
 
( M ) 
 
 THE 
 
 Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 HEN once unanrwerable Books 
 appear in the World, we may 
 reafonably hope, that Men will 
 leave difputing , and in good ear- 
 neft betake themfelves topradice ; 
 But till fuch time as Men know 
 which way to go, it cannot be expeded they 
 will make any great progrefs in their Journey. 
 
 Heaven is the Place it feems to which v/e 
 would all go, but the Way thither we (moll of us 
 at leaft) feem to be unacquainted with : For did 
 we know it better, I cannot conceive why we 
 ihould chalk out fo many quite different Ways to 
 it. Now cither it is a matter of Indifferency in 
 which of thofe Ways we walk in, or it is not y 
 if it is, then, why fhould there be fo much dif- 
 pute about it ? if it be not, then it is a matter 
 of great Importance to take the right : But who 
 is the proper Judge ? who can dired aright? is 
 the great Queftion. 
 
 I mufl 
 
i6 The Bulwark Stormed, 
 
 I muft confefs (could wc tell where to find 
 him ) an infallible Guide in this Cafe would be 
 of great ufe : But fince it is plain, they that 
 have the moft pretended to it, have been the 
 fiirtheft from it 5 (efpecially this performance of 
 Be Laune's fo much cry'd up by their Party as 
 unanfwerable, (^c) it cannot, Ihopc, be thought 
 unreafonable to examine their Pretendons, which 
 for Method's fake to avoid rambling after him, 
 I fhall do in the following manner. 
 
 Firft^ I fhall obferve what Method he takes 
 to frame Negative out of Affirmative Articles of 
 Faith, and how he applies them. 
 
 Secondly^ I'll inquii'e whether it is as he fays, 
 unlawful to ufe or do any thing in the Worfhip 
 of God 5 which he has not in the Affirmative ex- 
 preflly commanded. 
 
 'Thirdly^ I'll fhew, on what account the Church 
 of England appoints the ufe of fome indifferent 
 Ceremonies in the Worfhip of God. 
 
 Fourthly^ I'll fhew from plain Fad, that thus 
 to appoint the ufe of fome indifferent Ceremo- 
 nies in the Worfhip of God, is not deflrudive of 
 the true nature of chriftian Liberty. 
 
 Fifthly^ I'll examine, whether the Church of 
 England (in point of Ceremonies) differs from the 
 Pra6i:ice of the primitive Church. 
 
 Sixthly and laftly^ I'll inquire, whether it be any 
 Crime in the Church of England to fymboHze (fo 
 far as it doth) with the Church of Rome. And 
 when they have gone with me through the Exa- 
 mination of thefe particulars 5 I am inclin'd to 
 think they will find, I have given all that is ef- 
 feptial in De Laune's Plea a due Confideration. 
 
 Firfiy 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 1 7 
 
 FirJI^ Then for the Method he takes for framing 
 Negative Articles of Faith out of Affirmative ones. 
 He Giys, that every Affirmative includes a Nega- 
 tive Article of Faith, and from thence concludes, 
 pag. 6. that nothing is lawful in the Worfhip of 
 God, unlefs it be in the Affirmative exprefJly 
 commanded. But this is a great Mi if akc For 
 \vhat tho', as he fays, every Affirmative doth in- 
 chdc a Negative ? Yet Unce all (that know any 
 thing of Logick) know, that the Negative of 
 every .affirmative, and the Affirmative of every 
 Negative is, and ever ought to be taken for that, 
 and that only, which ftands in a dired: oppofitioa 
 to, either the Affirmative or Negative both in 
 Subftance and Circumlfance : I cannot fee, whan 
 De Lany:2's Caufe gains by his advancing this Pro- 
 polition. 
 
 For inftancc, In the fourth Commandment wc 
 are commanded to keep holy the Sijbbath-Dav : 
 What's the Negative of this Command? why, 
 according 10 De Latme -y ergo^ all our Church 
 Feftivals are unlawful. But why fo ? I pray : be- 
 caufe God having in the Affirmative, exprefliy 
 commanded this Day to be fct apart for his Wor- 
 lliip and Service; hath excluded all-other Days, 
 by the Negative of that Command. But had 
 this been fo, how could the Jews themfelves (un- 
 to whom this Command was given) appoint and 
 obfcrve (without any Cammand from God) the 
 Feaft of Piirm ^ iccxdi of Dedication mentioned in 
 the firft Book of Maccabees °, which notwith- 
 ftanding this Comiriand (to keep holy the Sab- 
 bath-Day) we are fure they did with approba- 
 tion p> thoVby the way let me obfcrve, that nei- 
 
 »■'£/. ix. o.Chap. iv. ^^. ' p "^ohn x. iz. 
 
 the; 
 
2 8 The Bulwark Stormed: 
 
 ther of thofe Days had any more diviae Sanation, 
 than thofe now commonly called St. Petefs or' 
 St. PauFs. De Laune then was out in his appli- 
 cation of this Maxim j for he fhould have con- 
 fidered, that the Affirmative of the fourth Com- 
 mandment is confined to the Sabbath-Day, and 
 therefore fo ought the Negative to be like wife ^ 
 and confequently the Negative of that Com- 
 mand, cannot be interpreted to the prejudice of 
 our Holy-Days^ more than to thofe other before 
 named. From what Affirmative then can our 
 Diflenters infer a Negative Prohibition againft our 
 Holy days ? I take the freedom to ask the Queftion, 
 and give them Liberty to take their own time 
 to anfwer it : And when they give their Inllance, 
 I'll acknowledge my Miftake. But to proceed 
 to another Inftance. 
 
 Chrift Jefus our Lord has in his Gofpel com- 
 manded us to pray 5 what's the Negative of that 
 Command? Why, according to Z)^L^/^;2^, ergo^ 
 a Form o^ Prayer is forbid by the Negative. B.ut 
 why not as well, if not better, ergo an extem- 
 porary Prayer is fo ? or ergo to fit, ftand or kneel 
 in Prayer is forbid by the Negative of that Com- 
 mand, as well as ergo a Form is fo ? Sure I am, 
 any of thofe Conclufions will be as good as the 
 other, take which you will. 
 
 Again, our Lord Chrifi hath commanded hia 
 Followers to receive the Sacrament of his laft 
 Supper : Now what's the Negative of this Com- 
 mand ? why, according to De Laune^ ergo to kneel 
 at the time of receiving it, is forbid by the Nega- 
 tive > but why not as well, ergo to fit, or ergo to ufe 
 leaven'd, or unleaven'd Bread , or ergo to receive 
 it in the Evening or in the Morning, Qc. is forbid 
 by the Negative of that Command, as well as ergo 
 
 to 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 29 
 
 to kneel is fo ? For any of thofc ergo's would be 
 but arguing from the Subftance, the Manner, Kind 
 or Qiiality of the Subftance^which all know is un- 
 certain and undeterminate. For, 
 
 If the Antecedent be of the Entity of a thing, 
 it's certain the Conclulion ought not (by the 
 Rules of Logick) to be, of the Manner, Kind 
 or Quality of that Entity, becaufe the terms ought 
 to be equal, and have refped to the fame thing 
 under the fame Circumftances j for changing the 
 Terms and Circumllances of a thing, quite alters 
 the State of the Queftionj which Diftin6i:ion 
 had De Laune obferv'd, he never had madefo wild 
 an Application of Dr. Stillingfleefs words, as he 
 hath now done, which I fhall now fpend fome 
 time in evincing 3 becaufe De Laune ^ and his 
 Party feem to flatter themfelves, as if they had 
 found a fufficient Foundation for their Negative 
 Article of Faith in the words o'iDv.StilUngfleet. 
 
 In order to do this with the better Succefs, 
 I muft acquaint my Reader, upon what account 
 it was that De Laune had reference to thofe 
 words of Dr. Stillingfleet^ which (as he thinks) 
 are fo favourable to his Caufe. 
 
 You muilknow then, that Dr. Calamy had in his 
 Sermon entitled Scrupulous Confcience^ pag. ip. 
 affirmed, that nothing was to be efleemed a Sin^ but 
 the doing fomething which the Law of God forbids^ 
 or omitting what it commands 5 and from thence 
 infers, lloat our kneeling at the Sacrament^ Forms 
 of Prayer^ &c. are all lawful^ becaufe not forbid 
 by the word of God : Which words of the Do- 
 d:or brought him under the high Difpleafure of 
 De Laune 5 who (to confute the Do&or of his 
 Error) cites Dr. Stillingfleet as his Antagonifl j 
 tho' by the way, this was only a Trick to evade the 
 
 force 
 
30 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 force of what he could not find Arguments to 
 anfwcr. But to how little purpofe it was to citp 
 Dr. Stillingfieet^ as the Antagonift of Dr. Calamy 
 will foon appear, if v/e apply our felves to the be- 
 forefaid Rule. For Dr. Calamy in the place cited, 
 was fpeaking of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies, 
 fuch as is the kneeling at the Sacrament, Forms 
 of Prayer, i^c. which, as he fays, are all law- 
 ful, becaufe not forbid by the W ord of God : 
 Now, it was in contradidion to this (as I ob- 
 ferv'd before) that De Laune oppofes him with 
 the Authority of Dr. Stillirigfleet^ who, in a cer- 
 tain Difpute with a Jefuit about the Rule of 
 Faith (a point quite different from that in Que- 
 ilion betwixt Dr. Calamy and he) afHrms, That 
 the Scripture is our only plain^ full and -perfeH 
 Rule of Faith : And thence concludes, that we 
 fieed not make Negative Articles of Faith j why ? 
 hecaufe the Affirmatives do necejjarily include them^ 
 fays the Doclor : Very true, where the Affirma- 
 tive is expref^ed > but where it is not, there can 
 be no Negative inferr'd. 
 
 For what tho', as theDoflror affirms, the Ne- 
 gative is included in the Affirmative ? If on the 
 iide of the DifTenters there be no Affirmative, 
 commanding the ufe of thofe Cuftoms now ufed 
 among them (as I fhall fully fhew there is not 
 when I come to the next particular) from what 
 can they infer a Negative Prohibition, againfi: the 
 ufe of our Rites and Ceremonies ? It's certain, 
 where a Non-entity fupplies the place of the Af- 
 firmative, there Privation will infallibly fucceed 
 ill the place of a Negative. Now fince he that 
 oppofes his Adverfaries Argument, ought to do 
 it with rcfpect to the fame, and not a different 
 Subjed s 1 cannot fee for what re>afon he fhould op- 
 
 pofe 
 
Ihe B u LWARK Stormed. 3 1 
 
 pafe Dr. Calamy v/ith the words of Dr. Stilling" 
 fleet 'y when it's certain his words have rerpe6t on- 
 ly to the Rule of Faith, not at all to the Cere- 
 monies of Worlhip : Therefore fince Dr. Stil- 
 ling fleet's Affirmative was confin'd to Articles of 
 Faith, fo alfo in reafon ought his Negative to 
 be y and confequently, it was a vain attempt to 
 oppofe Dr. Calamy with the authority of Dr. Stil- 
 li^gfleet's words, which had no relation to the 
 Subje6l he was fpeaking of; Unlefs they can make 
 it appear, that Articles of Faith and Circumflan- 
 flantials of Worfliip, are one and the fame thing, 
 and equally commanded in Scripture j which I 
 think they will never be able to do. Why then 
 does our Author triumph before he has got the 
 Vidory ? Why docs he boaft of Dr. Slillingfieefs 
 authority, as tho' the Do<5lor were come over 
 to his fide, and joyn'd IfTue with him againfl 
 Dr. Calamy 5 that nothing was lawful in the 
 Worfhipof God (with refpecl toCircumilantials 
 of Worihip) unlefs it be in the Affirmative ex- 
 preffly commanded, which is a thing the Doctor 
 wa-s never ignorant enough to imagine. • Nay, 
 why does he, Judas like, iliake hands with the 
 Do6lor, as his very good Friend and AUie, and 
 immediately turn his Fraife into Ridicule and 
 Banter? " Foi, what ihaii \t fay, fays he, that 
 '' fo wife, fo great, and fo learned a Man as 
 " Dr. Stillingfleet^ fhould forget himfelf fo far, 
 '' as to make head and run counter to his ownAr- 
 " gument, and to that ^ vgvcc, us to pawn the 
 ^' whole Coniroverly on that fingle pomt, which 
 "he has not with il:anding fo intalhbly refolv'd, 
 " (and therefore loit nothing by the Venture) 
 
 P Page 7. 
 
 ^ which. 
 
32 7^^ Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 *' which, fays hcjis very flrangeand wonderful! " 
 I muft confefs it to be fo, had the Dodor really 
 done it y but fince he has not, the wonder arifes, 
 not from Fa6i: but Fancy. 
 
 Bur fuppofe the Dodror had really done it, yet 
 why fhould he fo much wonder at it, fince it is 
 a thing Ifaiah had fo long before prophefied of ? 
 ^ / will do a marvellous Work amongft this People j 
 even a marvellous IVork and a JVonder^ (but what 
 IS that ? fays De Laune^) Why the ivifdom of their 
 wife Men fhall perifh^ and the underftanding of the 
 prudent Men fl)all be hid^ but when fhall that be ? 
 when their fear towards me is taught by the Pre- 
 cepts of Men : Unto which he veiy judicioufly 
 adds our very Cafe ! well, who can withlland 
 the inevitable Decrees of Fate ? If it be fuch an 
 ominous thing, to be a wife and prudent Man as 
 De Lamie inlinuates : It was a very happy Cafe, 
 that this Prophecy did not at all concern him. 
 
 For, would any Body but he be fo imprudent, 
 as to laugh at Dr. Stillingfleet for pawning his 
 Controvcrly on a flngle point, which was not 
 only refolvable, but as he fays, infallibly and in- 
 difputably refolv*d by the Do6tor, and immediate- 
 ly do a great deal woife himfelf > even pawn the 
 DilTenters Caufe on a (ingle point, that can never 
 be refolved by any of them ? Can he, I fay, be 
 called a wife Man that does this ? Nay, but has 
 he not done it ? for , does he not tell us, ^ 'That 
 nothing is lawful in the Worfhip of God^ unlefs it be 
 in the Affirmative expreffly commanded 3 and then 
 fays^ the whole Controverfy betwi>it us depends on 
 this fingle point ? Therefore now by confent let us 
 here joyn IfFue, and examine into the Merit of 
 
 9 Chap, xxvii. 11. ^ Plea, pag. 6. 
 
 this 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 3 3 
 
 this Caufe 5 and let his own words decide the 
 matter, and for ever determine the Cafe 5 on 
 which fidefoever (with refped to this fingle Point) 
 we find the truth, there to determine our Pra6tice % 
 and this leads me to what I propos'd. 
 
 Secondly^ To enquire, whether it be unlawful 
 to ufe or do any thing in the Worlhip of God, 
 which he has not in the affirmative expreflly com- 
 manded. 
 
 Now, in order to underhand each other, with 
 refpect to the prefent cafe, I think it will not be 
 amifs to obferve, what it was that gave De Laime 
 an occafion to advance this Propofition. Wc 
 muft know then that Dr. Calamy^ in a Difcourfe 
 caird Scrupulous Confcience^ ^ afTerts thefe two 
 things 5 Firft, " That with refped to the fub- 
 " llantial and eflcntial Parts of God's Woi-fhip, the 
 " Scripture is a plain and perfe6t Rule. Secondly^ 
 " That the outward Circumftances of this Wor- 
 " fhip, as Time, Place, Habit, and Gefture, ^c. 
 '' are not determin'd in the New Teflament, as 
 '^ they were in Mofes's Law. With refpeft to 
 the latter of thefe, De Laune oppofes him and 
 fays, ^ " That Chrift has in the affirmative com- 
 " pleatly reveaPd his Mind and Will in the Bi- 
 '' ble J not OTily with refpe6t to the Do6trine of 
 '' his Church, (as Dr. Calamy affirms) but alfo 
 '' with refpe6t to the Difcipline of it, which he 
 *' denies. It's plain then, when De Laune fays 
 that Chrift hath compleatly reveal'd his Mind 
 and Will in the Bible, (with refpe6t to the Dif^ 
 cipline of his Church) fo that nothing is (in this 
 refped) lawful, unlcfs it be in the affirmative ex* 
 preiHy commanded : He muft be fuppos'd to in- 
 
 T -I - _ I 1- - I ■ . > ■ • ■ ■ • • 
 
 * Pag. If). ^ Plea, pag. 7. 
 
 G tend 
 
3 4 7^^ B u LWARK Stormed. 
 
 tend the fame thing by the DifcipUne of the 
 Church, that Dr. Calamy did by outward Cir- 
 cumftancesof Worfhip5ruch asTime, Place, Ha- 
 bit, Gefture, i^c. becaufe this was the Point in 
 difference betwixt them : And if he did not in- 
 tend to oppofe the Doctor's Argument in the 
 plain and obvious Senfc, it was fooliili to oppofe 
 him in a fenfe wherein they had no difference : 
 Taking it therefore for granted, that he did fo op- 
 pofe him J I fhall now go on to enquire, whe- 
 ther fomething of this nature may not be done 
 in the Worfnip of God, tho' it be not in the 
 affirmative exprefHy commanded ; And if upon 
 examination I find, that fomething may be done 
 that is not fo commanded, then it is certainly 
 falfe that nothing may be done ^ for unlefs they 
 can make Contradictions agree, thofc two caa 
 never both be, either true or falfe. 
 
 If then I can make it appear, that this Maxim 
 of De Laune's is contrary to, Firft, the known 
 pra6i:ice of the DiiTentcrs themfelves. Secondly^ 
 to Reafon and the intent of La>^s. Thirdly, to plain 
 Fact recorded in Scripture.- And Fourthly, to the 
 Pra6tice of the primitive Church : If I can make 
 this appear, I fay, I hope they will own their 
 Bulwark fairly taken 5 and the fingle Point ia 
 which (as De Laune \^ys) the true merits of the 
 Caufe did confift, fully demonftrated in favour 
 of the Church of England-, and confequently if 
 any fhould for the future ask Mr. De Foe^ or any 
 of his Brethren, why they do not conform, and 
 what they can fay for it ? What will their An- 
 
 fwer be ? For Mr. De Foe has declared, he 
 
 can make no better Reply to that Queftion than 
 thatj which upon a ftrid examination is found 
 as bad, or worfe, than none at all. 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 3 j- 
 
 Firfi: then I'll begin with the Di/Tcntcrs own 
 PraiSlice, and as I go Ihall takeZ)(? Laune's Maxim 
 along with me > for nothing is lawful in the Wor- 
 fhip of God (according to him) unlefs it be in 
 the affirmative expreflly commanded 5 but T fay 
 God has no where in the affirmative exprelTIy 
 commanded their Teachers always to Preach, and 
 the People to pray Handing > therefore if De 
 Launch Maxim be true, their Praftice (in thofe 
 Particulars) are unlawful. 
 
 Again,Nothing is lawful in theWorfhip of God, 
 fays De Laune^ unlefs it be in the affirmative ex- 
 preflly commanded : But I fay, and fo fays Mr. Bax- 
 ter " •, they have no exprefs affirmative Command 
 for the ufe of an extemporary Prayer ; therefore 
 if De Laune fay true, their Pra6tice (in this par- 
 ticular likewife) is unlawful. 
 
 Nothing is lawful in the Worfhip of God, fays 
 De Laune^ but that which is in the affirmative 
 expreflly commanded > but I fay , (and fo fays 
 Mr. Manton ^, one of their own Party) God has 
 not fo commanded them to fingPfalms in Metre 5 
 therefore their Practice in this particular alfo is 
 unlawful. 
 
 Again,Nothing is lawful in the Worfhip of God, 
 fays De Laune^ unlefs it be in the affirrtiative ex- 
 preflly commanded 3 but I fay, God has no where 
 expreflly commanded them to ufe leavened (as ic 
 isoppos'd to unleavened) Bread in the Sacrament 5 
 therefore, in this particular likewife, their Pra- 
 ftice is unlawful ^. 
 
 Again,Nothing is lawful in theWorfhip of God, 
 fays De Laune^ but that which is in the affirma- 
 
 * Chrift. Direct Lib. 3. p. ii. w Qn James Y. 13. 
 ^ See Horneck'i Crucify' d Jefus, Chap. 7, 
 
 G z tiy^ 
 
3 6 The B u lwark Stormed. 
 
 live expreflly commanded 5 but I fay, (and fo docs 
 Mr. Baxter >') God has no where in the affirma- 
 tive expreflly commanded the Diflenters to receive 
 the Sacrament fitting > therefore in this particu- 
 lar alfo, if De Laune fay true, their Pra6bice is 
 unlawful. 
 
 Again once for all, Nothing is lawful in the 
 Worihip of God, fays De Laune^ but that which 
 is in 'the affirmative expreflly commanded 5 but I 
 fay, God has no where fo commanded the Diflen- 
 ters to receive the Sacrament in the Evening j or 
 to fprinkle Children in Baptifm, or to preach out 
 of a Pulpit, i^c. therefore either De Laune's Prin- 
 ciple is falfe, or the Difl^enters Pradice is un- 
 lawful. 
 
 From what has been faid, we may obferve, 
 how, much the Diflenters are beholding to De 
 Laune^ for pawning their Caufe on a Angle Point 
 that is fo foon taken out of their Hands 5 nay, 
 that's not all, for this Argument fo much boalled 
 of by him as unanfwerable, and the Bulwark of 
 the Diflenters Caufe 5 is indeed both unanfwerable 
 and a llrong Bulwark, not for, but againfl; their 
 Pra61:ice, as is plain in the before mentioned Par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 For if nothing be lawful in the Worfliip of 
 God, but that which is in the affirmative expreflly 
 commanded in Scripture, as De Laune affirms : 
 And if the Diflenters do thofe things before men- 
 tioned in the Worlhip of God 5 then either the 
 Diflenters can fhew where thofe things -are fo 
 commanded, or they cannot 5 if they cannot, then 
 their Practice gives their Principle thelicj if they 
 
 y Chrifi Dirscl. Part i. p. in. 
 
 can« 
 
' The B u LWA RK Stormed. 3 7 
 
 can, let them do it, and Til here promife them 
 to be a DifTenter to Morrow. 
 
 But fince I know it's not in their power to give 
 'any fuch proof, fo I think it's very jufl: to retort 
 their Argument on them : If then God hath com- 
 pleatly reveal'd his Will to us in the Bible, fo 
 that nothing is lawful in his Worfliip, unlefs it be 
 in the affirmative expreflly commanded , as De 
 Laune affirms \ and yet in that compleat Revelati- 
 on of his Will, he hath not expreflly command- 
 ed the DifTcnters to ufe an extemporary Prayer, 
 or leaven'd Bread in the Sacrament, or to receive 
 it fitting, or in the Evening, (^c. then the Dif- 
 fenters in doing thofe things, do that in the Wor- 
 fhip of God, for the doing of which they have 
 no exprefs Command in our only Rule of Faith j 
 and confequently daily do that in the Worfhip of 
 God which their own Champion has declar'd un- 
 lawful i but the former is true, ergo the latter. 
 
 And now give me leave a little to refle6t on the 
 common demand of the DifTenters : Where have 
 you a Command for the ufe of this or that Cere- 
 mony, fay they to us? Shew us, fay they, an 
 exprefs Command of God for the ufe of them ? 
 Or we will by no means allow the ufe of them to 
 be lawful. Fond conceit ! What intolerable ig- 
 norance or prepoffeffion is this? What, has God 
 bound us to this Rule? And are they free from it? 
 Is it a Sin in us to ufe or do any thing in the Wor- 
 fhip of God, which he has not in the affirmative 
 expreilly commanded ? And is it no Sin in them 
 to do fo ? Nay, but thou art inexcufahle O Man, 
 fays the Apoftle ^, whofoever thou art that judgeft^ 
 for in that thou judge ft another^ thou condemneft thy 
 
 * Rom, ii. I. 
 
 G 5 felfi 
 
38 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 felf \ for thou that judgeft^ doeft the fame thing. 
 What, will they plead not guilty to this ? If they 
 pleafe, let them firft anfwer me in thefe few queiii- 
 ons if they can : Where have they an exprefs Com- 
 mand for the ufe of leaven'd Bread in the Sacra- 
 ment? Where have they an exprefs Command to 
 receive it fitting, or in the Evening? Where do 
 they find an exprefs Command for an extempora- 
 ry Prayer? And in a word, where have they an 
 exprefs Command for many other things us'd and 
 done in the Worfhip of God j for the doing of 
 which, they have no exprefs Command in our on- 
 ly Rule of Faith ? If then they have no Command 
 for the doing thofe things, as it's certain none 
 they have 5 then pray tell me, is not the doing 
 of thofe things in the Worfhip of God, a doing 
 fomething in his Worfhip, which is not expreilly 
 commanded by him? I pray them to confider, 
 whither this Principle will in the end drive them ? 
 As in this it makes them run counter to their own 
 Practice > fo it will make them in the next place, 
 run counter to Reafon and the intent of Laws : 
 Which was the thing I propos'd Secondly to 
 fhew. 
 
 2. It is a Truth no lefs loudly taught by the 
 voice of Reafon, than plainly by the voice of 
 Scripture, that Sin is the Tranfgreffion of a Law^ 
 and confequently there can be no Sin, where there 
 is no Tranfgreflion. For, if we may be faid to Sin, 
 and yet not Tranfgrefs > or Tranfgrefs where there 
 is no Lawj then the Scripture which contains 
 God's Royal Law, is not the only Standard of 
 Sin and Dutyj and the World is yet unacquaint-^ 
 ed with the true notion of Duty and Sin. How- 
 ever, let Sin be whap it will, we are afiur'd by 
 
 St.PauI^ 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 39 
 
 Sl Paul % '\i is not imputed where there is no 
 Law \ nnd if it be not imputed, it will not hurt 
 us, and therefore we need not fear it j for nei- 
 ther Nature, Reafon, or Scripture, oblige us to 
 fear any but hurtful things. Nay, St. Paul ex- 
 preilly fays ^^5 he had not known Sin^ hut by the 
 Law y and for my part I mud confefs, I am to 
 this Day ignorant of any other Rule (than the 
 Law of God contained in the Bible) by which it 
 can be determin'd, what is Sin and what is not. 
 And truly to me it is a plain cafe, and I believe 
 all that will give themfelves time and liberty to 
 enter into a due confideration of the Nature, 
 Reafon, and intent of Laws, will foon be oblig'd 
 to confefs (from Principles of Reafon, what the 
 great St. Paul was inll:ru6]:ed to afTcrt from the 
 Holy Spirit of God) that where there is no Law 
 there is no Tranfgrcflion 5 and where there is no 
 Tranfgrcffion, there is no Sin ; and where there 
 is no Sin, there can be noPunilhment: For, fays 
 he, ^ the Sting of Death is Sin^ and the Strength of 
 Sin is the Law > hut thanks he to our God^ through 
 Jefus Chrifi our Lord -y who doubtlefs will" not 
 (with due Reverence be it fpoken) find a Hand 
 to punifh us, for doing of what he did not think 
 fit to find a Tongue to forbid us the doing of. 
 And in this opinion I am fomewhat confirmed by 
 the concurrent Teilimonies of Mr. Hooker , Billiop 
 jTaylor^ Dr. Stillingfleet^ 6cc. but becaufe Z)^ Z^/-^^/^ 
 has cited Dr. Stiliingfieet as a Partifan in this his 
 Caufej I fhall omit the Reafons of the former > 
 and conclude this Head with the Teftimony of 
 the latter J who tells us, ^ " That in matters of 
 
 a Rom. V. 15. ^ Rom. vii. 7. 
 
 c I Cor. XV. 56. ^ Irenicum, pag. 7, 
 
 D 4 " mere 
 
40 The B u LWARK Stormed. 
 
 '■ mere Decency and Order in the Church of 
 '^ God, or any other civil A6tion of the lives of 
 '^ Men, it's enough, fays he, to make things law- 
 '^ ful if they are not forbidden, which he there 
 ^ proves J firft from the Intentions of God in 
 *^ making known his Will, which was not to re- 
 *' cord every particular Faft done by himfelf, or 
 *' Chrift, or hisApofllesj but to lay downthofc 
 ^^ general and ftandingLaws whereby his Church 
 ^' in all Ages fhould be guided and rul'd 5 and in 
 '' order to a perpetual obligation upon the Con- 
 " fcience, there muft be a fufficient promulgati- 
 ^^ on of thofe Laws which muft bind Men. 
 
 '^ Thus in the cafe of Infants Baptifm, it's a 
 '' very weak and unconcluding Argument to 
 *' fay, that Infants are not to be baptiz'd, be- 
 ^^ caufe we never read that Chrift or his Apo- 
 ^' Itles did it J for this is a Negative in matter of 
 *' Fa6i: : But on the other fide, it's an evidence 
 *' that they are not to be excluded from Baptifm, 
 *' becaufe there is no Divine Law which doth 
 ^' prohibit theii admiflion into the Church by it, 
 '' for this is the Negative of a Law 5 and if it 
 " had been Chrift's intention to have excluded 
 *' any from admiffion into the Church, who were 
 '^ admitted before as Infants werej there muft 
 *' have been fome pofitive Law whereby fuch an 
 '' intention of Chrift fhould have been exprefs'dj 
 " for nothing can make that unlawful which was 
 " a Duty before, but a dired: and exprefs prohi- 
 *' bition from the Legiflator himfelf, who alone 
 *' has Power to refcind as well as to make Laws. 
 *' And therefore Antipaedobaptifts muft, inftead 
 *' of requiring a pofitive Command for baptizing 
 *^ Infants, themfelves produce an exprefs Prohibi- 
 *' |;ion excluding them, or there can be no appea- 
 
 ^' ranee 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 41 
 
 " ranee of Rcafon given, why the Gofpel fhoiild 
 " exclude any from thofe Privileges which the 
 '' Law admitted them to. 
 
 Secondly^ " I argue from the intention and end 
 '' of Laws, which is tocircumfcribe and reftrain 
 "the natural Liberty of Man by binding him 
 " to the Obfervation of fome particular Precepts. 
 " And therefore where there is no particular 
 " Command and Prohibition, it is in Nature and 
 " Reafon fuppofcd that Men are left to their na- 
 *' tural Freedom, as is plain in pofitive hum.ane 
 *' Laws, wherein Men by Compa6t and x'\gree- 
 " ment for their mutual good in Societies, were 
 " willing to reftrain themlelves from thofe things 
 " which fhould prejudice the good of the Com- 
 ^' munity > this bemg the Ground of Mens firft 
 *' inclofing their Rights and common Privileges, 
 " it mud be fuppofed, that what is not fo in- 
 " clofed, IS left common to all as their juft Right 
 " and Privilege ftill. So it is in Divine pofitivc 
 " Laws, God intending to bring fome of Man- 
 ^' kind to Happinefs, by Conditions of his ov/n 
 *' appointing j hath laid down many poiitive 
 " Precepts, binding Men to thePra6lice of thofe 
 " things as Duties which are commanded by him. 
 '^ But where we find no Command for Perfor- 
 " mance, we cannot look upon that as an im- 
 " mediate Duty, becaufe of the neceflkry rela- 
 " tion between Duty and Law 3 and fo where 
 " we find no Prohibition, there we can have , 
 "no ground to think that Men are debarr'd 
 " from the doing thmgs not forbidden. For 
 " as we (ay of Exceptions, as to general Laws 
 " and Rules , that an Exception exprefled , Fir- 
 " mat regiilam in non exceptis , makes the Rule 
 ^' ftronger in things not exprefled as excepted 5 
 
 " fo 
 
4i TToe Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 " fo is it as to Divine Prohibitions 5 as to the Po- 
 ^' fitives, that thofe Prohibitions we read in Scrip- 
 ** ture, make other things not prohibited to be 
 " therefore lawful, becaufe not expreflly forbid- 
 *' den : As God's forbidding Adam to eat of the 
 *' Fruit of one Tree , did give him a Liberty to 
 " eat of all the reft. Indeed , had not God 
 ^' at all reveal'd his Will and Laws to us by his 
 " Word, there might have been fome Plea 
 '^ why Men lliould have waited for particular 
 " Aftions, not determin'd by the Law of Nature : 
 " But fince God hath revealed his Will, there 
 " can be no Reafon given why thofe things 
 '' fhould not be lawful to do, which God hath 
 ^' not thought fit to forbid Men the doing of." 
 Thus far Dr. Stilling fleet. 
 
 This PafTage, tho' fomewhat long, I was the 
 more willing to tranfcribe, not only becaufe De 
 Laune has cited the Dodor as a Parcifan in his 
 Caufe, and therefore it's to be hoped they will 
 take his Word j but alfo, becaufe this Paflagc 
 does plainly evince, that De Laune^s Maxim is as 
 contrary to Reafon and the intent of Laws, it is 
 to the pradice of the DilTenters themfelves. But, 
 
 Thirdly^ Let us inquire whether this Maxim 
 will any better agree with what we find in point 
 of Fa6t, recorded in our only Rule of Faith the 
 Scriptures : But before we inftance in particu- 
 lar Cafes, let us for Argument fake fuppofe, what 
 De Laune takes for granted, that nothing is law- 
 ful in the Worfhip of God, unlefs it be in the 
 affirmative expreflly commanded -, if then no- 
 thing be lawful in that Cafe, then there is no 
 (difference between a thing not expreflly for- 
 bidden 5 and a thing not expreflly command- 
 ed: For the former is a Sin, why? Becaufe 
 
 God 
 
^ The Bulwark Stormed. 43 
 
 God hath expreflly forbid it : The latter is fo, (if 
 D^ Laune ^'^y true,) why? Bccaufe it is not ex- 
 preflly commanded ; But how contrary this is to 
 what we find recorded in our only Rule of Faith, 
 will foon appear. For, 
 
 Firft , We read ^ that Jeroboam made a Feaft 
 on the fifteenth Day of the eighth Month j which 
 as I fliall hereafter fhew was forbid ^. Ahafuerus 
 and Efiher^ they like wife appoint a Feaft-day to 
 be obferv'd by the Jews «, which God had no 
 where expreflly commanded : Were they then 
 both finful alike ? No j for the latter is ap- 
 prov'd ^5 the former condemn'd ^ 
 
 Again, when Judas Maccabeus and his Bre- 
 thren, had repaired the Temple and new built the 
 Altar, which had then for fome time been laid 
 wafle y on the fifteenth Day of the ninth Month 
 they dedicated it, and kept that Feall eight Days, 
 and appointed the Obfervation of it to Poilerity 
 as a yearly Fefl:ival^. Now, fince God had no 
 where expreflly commanded this Obfervation j 
 was it as criminal as Jeroboam'sFc^ik of the eighth 
 Month ? No, ;for we find the former approved ^, 
 the latter condemn'd™. 
 
 Again, Jeroboam built an Altar at Bethel ": The 
 Children of Reuben^ Gad and others, theyalfo 
 built one on the Borders of Jordan^^ which God 
 had no where commanded : Were they then 
 both finful alike? No, for the latter was ap-^ 
 prov'dP, the former was condemn'd^. 
 
 e I K'mgs xii. 11. f Le'vit. xxiii. 34, 39, 41. com- 
 par'd v/ith Beat. xxii. 13. s Efth. ix. ^ Eflh. ix. 
 27, 18. i I Kings xii. 33. ^ I Maccab. iv. 59. 
 
 > ^fl/7« x. 12. Q' Kings xii. 33. n I Kings xii. 33. 
 
 o Joflj. xxii. 10. f ^ojlj, xxii. 30,31. 1 i Kingsy.i\i. 
 I, i, 3. 
 
 Sq 
 
44 T^^^ B u LWARK Stormed. - 
 
 So again , the facrlficing in Gardens *^ , and in 
 Hills and Groves r, were Places forbidden j and the 
 Synagogues v/ere places of Worihip uncommand- 
 cd 5 were they then both finful alike ? No, f6r 
 the latter were approv'd% but the former was 
 condemned ". 
 
 But farther, if nothing be lawful in the Wor- 
 ship of ^God, but what is in the affirmative ex- 
 preflly commanded, what may we think of the 
 Fealts of Love ? (allow'd by all to be in ufe in 
 the firft and pureft chriftian Churches) were they 
 from Heaven or of Men ? If from Heaven, why 
 do not the DifTenters now ufe them ? If they 
 were of Men and yet then approved, how does 
 this agree with De Laune's Maxim, that nothing 
 may be done, unlefs it be in the affirmative ex- 
 prefHy commanded ? 
 
 So again, what fhall we think of the holy 
 Kifs, fo many times mentioned in the New Teita- 
 ment^ ? Likewife the anointing of the Sick with 
 Oil^, were thofe Culloms from Heaven or of 
 Men ? If the former, why then do not the Dif- 
 fenters ufe them ? if the latter, and yet approved, 
 how does it agree with De Laune'% Maxim, that 
 nothing may be done in the Worfhip of God, un- 
 lefs it be in the affirmative exprefily commanded? 
 
 And let me here ask what they think of the 
 circumcidng of 1'imotheusy^ had Paul an exprefs 
 Command from God for it, or had he not ? If 
 he had, I widi fome of them, (the Diflenters) 
 would be fo kind as to inform me where I fhall 
 
 ^ Jfai.hv. 3. f I Kings xiv. 23. ^ A^s XV. 21. 
 
 n I Kings xvii. 10. w I Thef. V. 23. Rom., xvi. 1 5. 
 
 I Cor. XVI. 16. 2 Cor, xiii. 12. i Pet, v. 14. * Jam. v. 14. 
 J A^s xvi. 3. 
 
 find 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 4^ 
 
 find that Command, and how it came to pafs 
 that that Command was not as well binding in 
 the cafe of titiis ^ j but, if he had not an ex- 
 prefs Command to circumcifc him, and yet did 
 it : either PauVs Praftice or De Laune's Maxim 
 is to be blamed, which of them it is judge ye. 
 
 And once more let me ask them, what they 
 think of PauTs purifying of himfelf according 
 to the Cullom of the Mofaick Law^? had he an 
 exprcfs Command from God for it, or had he 
 not ? If he had, how comes it about that we 
 find him fo vehemently preaching againft thofe 
 things at Antioch and Corinth^ and other Churches 
 where he had preached theGofpel of Chrifl ? If 
 he had not an exprefs Command for ir, and yet 
 did it by the advice of the Council at Jerufalem j 
 either the Council was to blame for adviiing 
 him to do it j or De 'Laune was fo, for advancing 
 this Maxim directly contrary thereto. We fee 
 then, whither this Maxim will lead Men if it be 
 clofely followed, it makes them run counter to 
 Scripture and Reafon, as well as the pradice of 
 the DifTenters themfelves. This (it mufh be con- 
 fefs'dj is much -, but yet this is not all. For, 
 
 Fourthly^ This Maxim rifes up in Judgment 
 againft all the well regulated Churches that ever 
 were or ever will be in the World. " For as Dx.Siil- 
 " Ungfleet obferves, ^ he mull be a great Stranger 
 " to Antiquity, that takes not notice of the great 
 *' diverfity of Rites and Culloms ufed in (the an- 
 " cient) particular Churches, without any cen- 
 " Turing thofe who differed from them 3 or if 
 
 any by Jnconfiderate Zeal did proceed fo far. 
 
 £C 
 
 2 Galat. ii. 3. » AHi xxi. 26. b Iren. pag. 65. 
 
 ' "how 
 
4^ Th^ BuLWARit Stormed. 
 
 *' how ill it was refentcd by other Churches. 
 " As FiBorh excommunicating the ^uarto-de- 
 *' cimaniy for which he is fo fharply rcprov'd 
 '' by Iren<:eus^ who tells him, that the primi- 
 " tive Chriftians who differed in fuch things, 
 " did not ufe to abftain from one another's Com- 
 " munion for them. A mod excellent Temper ! 
 and I would to God our difTcnting Brethren 
 would be of this Mind ! Nay, Socrates tells us, 
 ^' ^ That to pen in Paper the infinite and divers 
 " Ceremonies and Cuftoms through Cities and 
 " Countries, would be a very tedious piece of 
 " Work, and fcarce, nay, impofTible to be done, 
 '' fays hej but notwith (landing this great variety 
 *' of Ceremonies and Cufloms ufed among them ^ 
 *' the fame Author fays, that all thofe Countries, 
 " Nations, (^c. thus varied one from another ; 
 " yet they never divided the Communion of the 
 *' Church, fays he, nor brake afunder the Bond 
 " of Unity. And farther in the fame Chapter, 
 *^ he fays, that every particular Church had fun- 
 " dry and divers Rites and Ceremonies, yet this 
 '' did not make them conceive any worfe of 
 '^ them, than they did of themfclves. From all 
 which (and much more that might be' produced 
 to the fame purpofe, if need were) it appears, 
 that there was great variety of uncommanded 
 Rites and Ceremonies ufed in the primitivcChurch. 
 And truly I think he may be counted a great 
 Stranger to the prefent State of the chriltian 
 Church 5 that does not know, what great va- 
 riety of Rites and Ceremonies is now uled there- 
 in. I fhall not iland to give particulat Inftances 
 
 c Lib. 5. Chap. 21. 
 
 3 of 
 
7he Bulwark Stormed. 47 
 
 of this, but dired my Reader to Roffe' sVicw of 
 Religion for Satisfa61:ion. 
 
 From the PremilTes then, I think I may fafely 
 conclude, that there never was, nor now is, or 
 ever will be any Church, that has not, docs not, 
 or mud not uie, fome uncommanded Ceremo- 
 nies in the Worihip of God : And of Confe- 
 quence De Laune's Maxim condemns all their 
 Pni6i:ice > and their Pra61:ice, his Principle > 
 which is to be blam'd, let the World judge. 
 And now give me leave to oblerve to Mr. De 
 Foe^ and his Brethren of the diflenting Party j 
 that I have according to their Champions {De 
 Launch) Requcft, kept him Company through 
 the fecond Particular I propofed to inquire into : 
 In v/hich Particular (as Ds Laune himfelf ac- 
 knowledges) the Merits of the Caufe does con- 
 fift, it being the fingle point, as he fays, on 
 which the whole Controverfy does depend, viz.. 
 that nothing is lawful in the Worihip of God, 
 unlefs it be in the affirmative expreffly command- 
 ed : Which Maxim does (upon Examination) 
 appear to be in the firft Place contrary to the 
 known Praftice of the DilTenrers themfelvcs : 
 Secondly, to Rcafon, and the Intent of Laws : 
 Thirdly, to what (in point of Fad) we find re- 
 corded in Scripture. And Fourthly, to the Pra- 
 ftice of the Church in all Ages, and therefore 
 in my Opinion is falfe and groundlefs. 
 
 Therefore to ufe De Launch ov>m Words ^ 
 '' What ihall we fay ? when fo great, fo wife, and 
 ^ fo learned a Man as he, does fofar forget him- 
 ^' felf , as to make head and run counter to the 
 *' Difienters own Pradice, to Reafon, to Scrip- 
 ^ ture, and the Practice of the chriftian Church 
 " in all Ages 5 and then put the Ifllie of his Caufe 
 
48 Tlje Bu LWARK Stormed. 
 
 *' on fo weak, fo groundleis, and in ihort, {o 
 '^ falfe an Argument i which indeed is veiy 
 *' ftrange and wonderful. 
 
 Here then our Author has fun himfelf a 
 ground, and woe to him that in fuch a Cafe is 
 alone 5 for when he falls, there is none to help 
 him up : But by good Fortune our Author has a 
 Friend at hand, who, if he cannot help him up j 
 yet will do what he can to help him out : I 
 mean the Ammadverter on Dr. Calamfs Sermon, 
 who tells us ^, he knows of none that think no- 
 thing is lawful in the Worfhip of God but what 
 himfelf has appointed : But iUre that Gentleman^ 
 (whoever he was) took upon him to advocate for 
 a fort of People, he was not well acquainted with. 
 
 For pray tell me, is it not the Cardinal Que* 
 ftion put to us by the Diflenters (and indeed we 
 may with as much Truth and Reafon ask them 
 the fame Queftion) where have you a Command 
 from God for the ufe of this or the other Cere- 
 mony ? Shew us a Command of God for it, 
 or we will by no means allow it to be lawful ! 
 This, I fay, is the common and the chief Queftion 
 put to us by them, and yet this Gentleman knows 
 nothing of it, he faysj but whether he does or 
 not , fure I am, De Laime is as exprefs to the 
 matter as any Man can be j and I am fure, he is 
 not the only one that has faid fo. 
 
 Nay, this Gentleman himfelf immediately adds, 
 " There are indeed fome (a few I fuppofe he 
 '' would have us think) that fliy, nothing is law* 
 " fulinthe Worlliipof God which himlelf hath 
 *' not appointed y which is idle, and fuperfluous, 
 '' and not neceilary to the Performance of it, 
 
 ^ Animadverfions on Dr. Calamy'; Sermon, p. 21. 
 
 '' upon 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 49 
 
 " upon the account of Nature, Conveniency, 
 " or apparent Decency. A very pretty Expoli- 
 tion indeed ! De Laune and others of the Diflenters 
 fay, that nothing is lawful in the Worfliip of 
 of God, but what himfelf has commanded j this 
 our Animad'verter fays he knows nothing of; but 
 he immediately recolle6ts himfelf and fays, there 
 are indeed a few that fay fo : So then according to 
 him, there are a few and none at all 5 and none at: 
 all and a few who fay nothing may be done in the 
 Worfhip of God, which himfelf hath not com- 
 manded, which is idle, and not neceflary to the 
 performance of it, 13 c \ thank him for this learn- 
 ed Diftin6]:ion however j for by it w^e gain thefe 
 two things. Firft, That whatever is us'd in the 
 Worfhip of God, in order to that End, is law- 
 ful, tho' the things thus us'd be not commanded 
 by him : Nay, tho' they have been abus'd to idola- 
 trous Purpofes. Secondly, That whatever Cere- 
 monies or Culloms are us'd among the Diflenters, 
 are us'd with an opinion of Necellity in order to 
 that End. 
 
 Bur with fubmiflion to his penetrating Judg- 
 ment, give me leave to ask, how does he make 
 it appear that the Cuftoms now us'd among them 
 (the Difl^enters) do more naturally ferve that 
 End than thofe now us'd by us? Is there an ap- 
 parent Necefl!ity to fit at the receiving of the Sa- 
 crament ? when kneeling, {landing , or leaning 
 is as apparently decent. Can there be any Ne- 
 cefljty to ufe leaven'd Bread at that Sacrament? 
 when it's certain unleaven'd does as well (if not 
 better) anf^ver the End for which it was inflitu- 
 ted. Can there be any Neceflity to receive this 
 Sacrament in the Evening ? when 'tis certain it 
 may to all intents and purpoies be as well done at 
 
 H Noon, 
 
JO Tloe Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 Noon, or in the Morning, or at Midnight. AncJ 
 in a word, can there be any Neceffity to addrefs 
 our felves to God in an extemporary Prayer ? 
 when it's certain we may as faithfully, and de- 
 voutly, and confequently as acceptably, do it in 
 a Form. If then thofe things may be as well 
 done by ufing different Ceremonies, then there 
 can be no Neceffity for the ufe of thofe now in 
 life among the DifTentersj but the former is true^ 
 ergo the latter. 
 
 If then the Cuftoms now us'd among them be 
 not necefTary to the beforefaid End > how will 
 he be able to make it out that they are lawful ? 
 Since it's a known Rule among Divines, as he 
 bbferves *^ that of things merely inexpedient, fo 
 far forth as they are fo, they are not lawful. But 
 it feems this Rule holds good in every bodies Cafe 
 but their own I however, fince my defign is not 
 to expofe the Performance of this Animadverter^ 
 I fhall leave him and his Brethren to confult on 
 the matter 3 and li they can hit on't, to render 
 me one good Reafon, why kneeling is not as de- 
 cent a Geflure for Prayer, or the receiving of the 
 Sacrament, as fitting or Handing ? Let them telt 
 me, what Neceffity there can be to ufe an Ex- 
 temporary Prayer, when we addrefs our felves to 
 God in publicky if he be as ready and willing to: 
 hear and anfwer the hearty, humble, faithful, and 
 devout Prayers of his People, tho' they be offer'd 
 up unto him in a form of 'words? Leaving him, 
 I fay, and his Brethren to make out this againfb 
 the next timey I fball now return to their Cham- 
 pion Be Laune^ and according^ to iriy propos'd 
 method inquire. 
 
 ^5- 
 
 I'hirdlyj 
 
The ^xjLwhKK Slonnecl. jr 
 
 Thirdly^ Upon what account the Church of 
 Englcuid does appoint the ufe of fome indifferent 
 Ceremonies in the publick Wordiip of God. 
 
 Now in order to do this with the better Suc- 
 cck^ I think it the befl; way to fet down theRea- 
 fons for it in the words of the Church ; for why 
 fhould it be thought another Man knows my 
 mind better than I do my felf ? Taking it there- 
 fore for granted, that flie is the befl judge of her 
 own Intentions, (tho* in difputes of right and 
 wrong, its unreafonable to allow a Man to be 
 both Judge and Party) let us hear what ihe fays 
 to the matter in hand. 
 
 Firll; then, with refpeft to Articles of Faith, 
 flie makes nothing necefTary as fuch, but only 
 what maybe read in, or proved by the holy Scrip- 
 tures ^. And then. Secondly, with refpecl to the 
 Ceremonies of Worihip, fhe as expreflly declares, 
 " s That it's not necefiary that Traditions and 
 " Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly 
 '' like J for at all times they have been divers, 
 '*• and may be chang'd according to the diverfity 
 ^^ of Countries, Tmies, and Mens Manners, fo 
 ^' that nothing be ordain'd againfl: God's Word. 
 And fhe farther fays, " That every particular or 
 *' National Church , hath Authority to change 
 ^' and aboliih, as well as ordain, Ceremonies or 
 '^ Rites of the Church, ordain'd only by Man's 
 *^ Authority, fo that all things be done to edi- 
 ^^ fying. And farther, wc are told in the Pre- 
 face to the Common Prayer, " That the particu- 
 *' lar Forms of Divine Worlliip, and the Rites 
 " and Ceremonies us'd therein, being things in 
 
 f See the fixth ArtliU of the Church of England. 
 g Art tele 34. 
 
 H t " their 
 
5 % The B u lwark Stormed. 
 
 '' their own nature indifferent, and alterable at 
 '' pleafure, and being fo acknowledged, 'tis but 
 *' reafonable, that upon weighty and important 
 '' Confiderations, according to the various exi- 
 " gencies of Times and Occafions, fuch changes 
 *' and alterations fhould be made therein, as to 
 '' thofe that are in place of Authority fhall from 
 " time to time feem either necefTary or expedient. 
 From \vhich it plainly appears, that the Ceremo- 
 nies now us'd in the Church of England^ are not 
 iis'd with an opinion of necejfity^ but for the fake 
 of order^ that both Decency ^nd Peace may be 
 preferv'd in the Church. And as this is the opi- 
 nion of the Mother, (the Church o'^ England) fo 
 is it alfo of the Sons of that Church : For De 
 Laune himfelf tells .us, ^ That Dr. Stillingfleet^ 
 Dr. Moor, Dr. Cala?ny, Mr. Alien, iho, P rot eft ant 
 Reconciler, King James, and King Charles, 6cc. 
 have all declar'd the Ceremonies of the Church 
 to be things in their own nature indifferent, and 
 alterable at pleafure, and confequently not ne- 
 ceflary, as De Laune affirms. If then we can 
 (and I think we can do no lefs) fuppofe, that 
 the Biihops and Do6tors of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and the Kings of England in Communion 
 with her, know the Church's mind in the pre- 
 fent cafe better than De Laune, then the Ceremo- 
 nies now us'd therein, are us'd v/ith an opinion of 
 freedom, not o^ nee effity. 
 
 But let them fay, and the Church declare what 
 ihe will, yet it feems fhe mufl be what De Laune 
 (in great wifdora) is pleas'd to call her 5 and the 
 Kings, Bifhops, and Do6tors, i^c. that fay any 
 thing in contradidion to him (how true foever it 
 
 ^ Phat pag. II. 
 
 is) 
 
The B u LWA RK Stormed. 5 3 
 
 is) are all Lyars and Cheats with him : For having 
 cold us that the beforefaid Kings, Biihops, and 
 Doftors, have all dcclar'd the Ceremonies of the 
 Church o£ England ih'ings in their own nature in- 
 different j he immediately adds, ^ " This we are 
 '' told in words and pretences the better to gild 
 " the Pill, to make it go down the glibber j but 
 " if you look more narrowly into the matter, 
 " you will find, that you your felves, as well as 
 " the Dillenters, have juftly another fenfe of 
 " them 5 and that the Church of E;?^te^ (what- 
 ^' ever fhe fays to the contrary) does both ufe and 
 '' impofe them as neceflary things, whatever they 
 ^' import in their own Nature. Bafe Men indeed ! 
 what the Kings, the Bifhops, and Do6lors, i^c. 
 thofe who by their Office and Calling, ihould be 
 lovers of truth, and haters of every falfe way, 
 are they the Men that premeditate ways to lead 
 us into Sin and Error ? This is an unpardonable 
 Crime ! 
 
 But fuppofe a bold conceited and wicked Fel- 
 low, that had caft off all ihame, and therefore 
 was one who neither fear'd God, or reverenc'd 
 Man y fuppofe, I fay, fuch a Fellow fhould with 
 as much Impudence (as De Laune has done in the 
 before mentioned cafe) tell me, that the Presby- 
 terians, Independents, ^c. did all believe (for in- 
 ftance) the Dodrinc of Tranfubftantiation, or any 
 other Opinion which they publickly difownj 
 might I not juftly call him a fcandalous, impu- 
 dent, and wicked Fellow ? Without doubt I might 
 juftly do it ! Why then may I not fay the fame 
 thing of De Laune ? 
 
 Plea, pag. ii. 
 
 H J Is 
 
54 ^^^^' IHiLwARK Stormed. 
 
 Is it fit to fay to a King thou art 'wicked^ fays 
 Job^ ^ and to Princes^ ye are ungodly ? So fiiy I, 
 IS it fit to fpread falie and fcandalous Reports, 
 and fpeak evil of Dignities without a caufe ? Or 
 2S it not rather fit that thofe that do fo be pu- 
 nifh'd for it ? But Fll let this pafs. 
 
 Suppofe then for Argument fake, that the 
 Church of E?igland does not ufe or iinpofe her 
 Ceremonies as neceilaiy things > what think they 
 of them in that cafe ? Are they then lawful, or 
 are they not ? If they are, why do they then con- 
 demn the ufe of lawful things ? If they are not 
 in that cafe lawful > then no uncommanded Ce- 
 remonies can be lawful in any cafe ! then let them 
 jullify their own praftice if they can. 
 
 But farther, give me leave to ask this Queflion, 
 to which if the Difienrers can give a fair anfwer, 
 it will, in my opinion, decide theDifpute betwixt 
 us : By what Authority do they ufe fome uncom- 
 manded Ceremonies in the Worfhip of God? Is 
 it becaufe God has commanded thtm fo to do? 
 If fo, let them produce that Command, and if it 
 will not as well juftify the practice of the Church 
 o{ England^ as.it does the Difienters, I'll yield 
 the Caufe. Is it becaufe there is a Necefficy for 
 ihern to ufe thofe Ceremonies rather than others 
 of the like indifferent nature ? if fo, then they 
 make it neceflary to do fomethhjg in God's Wor- 
 Ihip, wliich himfelf hath not commanded j and 
 therefore rhemfclves are the fuperflitious Men. 
 Or, Thirdly, is it becaufe the Culcoms thus us'd 
 b} rhcn:, do bcrtcrferve the Ends of Order, De- 
 cency, i;nd i-eacc of the Church? This I have 
 before ihevvn to be falle, and now dcflre them, 
 
 ^ "job xxxiv. lb. 
 
 if 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 5-5 
 
 if they can, to make out by any one folid Argu- 
 ment. If then they can ufe feme uncommanded 
 Ceremonies in the Woifhip of God without blame, 
 why may not we? 
 
 But to give their Argument all the Advantage 
 they can in reafon defirej fuppofe (not granting) 
 it really were as they fay 3 ^nd that the Cuftoms 
 now us'd among them (the DifTenters) did fx)me- 
 what better anfwer the beforefaid end, than thofe 
 now us'd among us j yet they muft remember, 
 it is not fit that every private Man fhpuld take 
 upon him to feparate from, or to reform the 
 things that are (it may be only in his opinion) 
 amifs in the Church j but rather to fubmit his 
 Judgment, at leall to determine his Pradice, by 
 the Cuftoms of the Church in which he lives j 
 and keeping his particular Opinion to himfelf, 
 (at lead not impofing it on others) peaceably 
 conform himfelf thereto, and patiently wait till 
 God ihall afford a favourable opportunity of ha- 
 ying thofe things, fuppos'd to be amifs, reform'd, 
 in a peaceable, legal, and friendly way. 
 
 For I hold this as a fure Rule, when a difpute 
 happens about the Eflentials of Religion, and I 
 cannot enjoy both Truth and Peace j in this cafe 
 I hold it as a fure Rule, I fay, to prefer Purity 
 before Peace : But if the Difpute be about Ri- 
 tuals (things which God has left undetermined 
 in his Word) and I cannot have Peace, and at 
 the fame time pradife according to my own pri- 
 vate Opinion > in this cafe Peace is to be prefer'd 
 before Opinion : If this be not granted, then 
 farewel, not only the Peace of the Church, but 
 the Order too ; if it be granted , then I leave 
 them to draw the Corillquence. I fay then with 
 
 H ^ ' St. Paul^ 
 
5 6 Hoe B u LWARK Stormed, 
 
 St. Paul^ J hafl: thou in this cafe Faith ? Have it 
 to thy felf before God. Trouble not the Church 
 with thy private Opinion j but if thou wilt ftill 
 be contentious, I anfwer with the fame St. Paul^ 
 ^ we have no fuch Cuftom, neither the Churches 
 of God. 
 
 However, to gratify the requeft of a certain 
 Friend flill of the DifTenting Party, I fhall in 
 this place give an Anfwer to that Obje6lion, 
 which, as he fays, has been feveral times made 
 to, but has never yet been fatisfaftorily anfwer 'd 
 by usi tho' by the way this is his great miftakc. 
 However, the Obje6lion is as follows. 
 
 If, fay they, the Ceremonies now in ufe in the 
 Church of England^ be (as you fay) things in 
 their own nature indifferent j why then are they 
 not left as indifferent in refped of Ufe, as they 
 arc in Nature? Why fhould any Man bind us 
 to the obfervation of what God has left free? 
 
 Now in anfwering of this (as it feems to fome) 
 diificult Queftion j I will fo order the matter, as 
 to make the Objeder both Judge and Party in this 
 Caufep and oblige fiii^ to give up his Queflion, 
 or condemn the Dilfenters own Practice. 
 
 Suppofe then I fhould again come back and join 
 with the DifTenters j mult I not then be obliged 
 to ufe fom.e uncommanded Ceremonies in the 
 Worlhip of God, which he has no where ob- 
 liged me to ? Let me then ask them the fame 
 Queflioh? Since God hath left me free, why 
 Ihould they oblige me to receive the Sacrament 
 fitting ? Or in the Evening , or with leavened 
 Bread, £5?^. Why fhould I be obliged by them 
 (fince God has left it free) to ufe an extempo- 
 — i^ ^ — 
 
 * Rom, xiv. 21. m J Cor. xi. 16, 
 
 rary 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. ^j 
 
 riiry Prayer ? And in fhort, why fhould I be ob- 
 liged by them to ufe many uncommanded Cere- 
 monies or Circumllances of Worlliip, which 
 God has no more commanded, than thofe now 
 ufed among us? Let them give me an Anfwer 
 to this, and there is no doubt but they will foon 
 find an Anfwer to that. And though ( I mufl 
 confefs) asking one Qiieftion does not directly 
 anfwer another 5 yet as our Cafe now flands, it 
 will oblige the Objeder to quit either his Opi- 
 nion or his Pra6tice. 
 
 If then they will not join with us, becaufc 
 we impofe, and for the fake of Decency and Or- 
 der, ufe fome uncommanded Ceremonies in the 
 Worfhip of God, which he has not command- 
 ed ; Why fhould not J for the fame Reafon re- 
 fufe to join with them ? Why do they not look 
 about and obferve, how juftly they are condemn- 
 ed by St. Paul " for condemning others, and at 
 the fame time pradifing the fame things them- 
 felves, for which they condemn us ? 
 
 But De Laune farther obje6ts and fays, ^' ° That 
 '' things confecrated and dedicated to holy Ufes, 
 " in the Worfhip of God, ceafe to be indifFe- 
 " rent, Q^c, 
 
 I anfwer, it does fo, though not in the Senfe 
 he intends in the Objection. For it's plain the 
 words Confecrated and Dedicated, import no 
 more (at leall in this Objedion) than to fet a 
 thing apart, or appoint it to an holy Ule : Now, 
 when any thing of an indifferent Nature is thus 
 fet apart or appointed to be ufed in the Worfliip 
 and Service of God, they then ceafe to be in- 
 
 ■ ■» K0777 11. I. o pi^-^^ pag. 12. 
 
 different, 
 
58 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 different, liiys he : That is in plain Englijh^ they 
 ceafe to be lawful. 
 
 But they muft remember, faying does not 
 pais for proving among Men that dilovvn an in- 
 fallible Judge : No, the Proof it feems comes af- 
 ter j but when may we expe6l it ? Alas, as to 
 hope without a Promife is Prefumption3 fo to 
 expe(9: things impouible is fooliili. 
 
 But for Argument fake, fuppofe the Diflenters 
 and we fhould (in point of Ceremonies) change 
 fides : And (to fay nothing of their Praftice 
 in that Cafe ) fuppofe the Church of England 
 infiead of the Common Prayer, that is to fay, 
 inflead of a Form, fhould ufe an extemporary- 
 Prayer: Infiead of kneehng, fhould fit at the 
 time of receiving the Blefled Sacrament, t^c- 
 Let me ask, what think they ? Would it be un- 
 lawful for us in this Cafe to comply with, and 
 pra6i:ife according to the Determinations of the 
 Church , or would it not ? If in that Cafe it 
 would be unlawful for us : Let them tell me 
 then if they can , why it is not now ( in the 
 fame Cafe) as unlawful for them ? But, if on 
 the contrary it would in the before mentioned 
 Cafe be lawful for us : Then confequently to 
 appoint the ufe of fome indifferent things in the 
 Worfhip of God, does not alter the Nature of 
 the thing fo appointed 3 it does not make them 
 ceafe to be indifferent as T>e Laune afiirms : But 
 the former is true, ergo the latter. But perhaps 
 a Scripture Example or two may be more taking 
 with them . I'herefore, 
 
 In the Book of Efther P we have an account, 
 not only of the Jews intended Ruin by, but alfo 
 
 ? Efib. ix. 
 
 of 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 59 
 
 of their wonderful Deliverance from the Con- 
 fpiracy of wicked Haman : In Memory of which 
 Deliverance, they of their own Accord kept Fefti- 
 val the fourteenth and fifteenth Days of the Month 
 ^^ar: Which Feail (though at firft a voluntary 
 Undertaking) was afterwards by the Edi6t of the 
 King made perpetually obligatory to them and 
 their Poflerity : Here then we fee thofe Jews 
 bound by humane Law , to the Obfervation of 
 a Cuftom in it's own Nature indifferent : Though 
 by them at firll, and by the King at lad intended 
 to a Religious End and Purpofe : Now , what 
 did the Jews do in this Cafe ? Did they tell the 
 King (what our Diflenting Brethren in effeft tell 
 their lawful Superiors ) if you leave us to our own 
 Choice, whether we will obferve this Feaft or 
 not 'y we'll fay it's lawful to obferve it j and (ic 
 being a thing in it's own Nature indifferent, 
 and left fo to us) perhaps we may fome time or 
 other when we pleafe make ufe of it : But if 
 you make a Law to bind us to the Obfervation 
 of this Cuilom j be it known to thee, O King, 
 it alters the Caie, (this Cullom now ceal'es to be 
 indifferent) and we will not obey ? Did thofe 
 Jews fav any thing like this ? Not a Word, but 
 diredly the contrary ! For the Text tells us they 
 took upon them, and upon their Seed, and upon 
 all that joyried themfelves unto them, fo that ir 
 Hiould -qpt fail, that they would keep thofe two 
 Days, according to the Writing (of the King) 
 and according to the time- every Year. Now 
 this they could not have lawfully done, had they 
 known any thing of this Maxim of De Launch. 
 The fit me thing may be obfcrved with refpe6t to 
 the Fcvdl of Dedication, at firfl inllitutcd by "jn- 
 
6o The Bulwark Stormed, 
 
 das Maccabeus % but countenanc'd by our Saviour 
 himfclf ^. The like Obfen^ation might be made 
 on the Determinations of the Council at J era- 
 fale?n ^, if compared with what St. Paul writes 
 to the Romans S and Corinthians " > one did not 
 bind at Antioch > the other did not bind at Rome 
 or Corinth -, and confequently neither of them 
 were ftanding Laws for all Chriftian Churches 
 to walk by 5 but were pofitive and prudent, but 
 yet temporaiy Injundions binding thofe, and 
 only thofe , and yet not always thofe to whom 
 they were at firft made. I conclude then, he 
 that lays an Obligation on me to abftain from 
 the ufe of any thing, which neither God nor the 
 Church has forbid ; does as effedually rob me of 
 my Liberty as he, that obliges me to do any 
 thing, which neither God nor the Church has 
 appointed. Nay, if I am obliged to preferve 
 my Chriftian Liberty in the ufe of things indiffe- 
 rent > and if I cannot do this, but by contradidt- 
 ing in praftice what my lawful Superiors either 
 command or forbid j then pray tell me, why it 
 is not as great a Duty to do what they forbid, as 
 it is to leave undone what they command? Since 
 both he that forbids, and he that commands me 
 to do any thing which God has left free, does 
 equally dellroy my Chriftian Liberty. And this 
 brings to my mind what Bifhop 'Taylor has long 
 ago afterted, ^ He fays, " It is as great a Sin to 
 " teach for Dodrines the Prohibitions as the 
 " Injunctions and Commandments of Men : To 
 " fay we may not do what is lawful, as that it 
 " is ncceiTary to do that which is only permitted or 
 
 q I Maccab. iv. 59. ^ -John x. 22.. ^ A^is XV. 2,9. 
 
 f Rom. xiv. 14. "I Ccrinth. viii. 4, 7. Chap. xi. 16. 
 
 "^ D.-ai. Dub, Lib. 1. Chap. 3. pag. 463. 
 
 " com- 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 6t 
 
 *^ commanded. He that impofes on Mens Con- 
 ^' fciences an Affirmative or a Negative which 
 '^ God has not impofed, is equally mjurious and 
 *' equally fuperflitious j and we can no more 
 *' ferve or pleafe God in abilaining from what is 
 " innocent, than we can by doing what he has 
 " not commanded. He that thinks he feiTes 
 *' God by looking to the Eaft when he prays, 
 *' and believes all Men, and at all times obliged 
 *' to do fo, is a fuperflitious Man 5 but he that 
 '' beheves this to be Superflition, and therefore 
 ^* turns from the Eall, and believes it alfo ne- 
 *' ceflary that he do not look that way, is equal- 
 '' ly guilty of the fame Folly: And is like a 
 *' Traveller that fo long goes from the Eall 
 '^ till he comes unto it by long Progreffion in 
 *' the Circle. If by the Law of God it be not 
 '' iinful, or if by the Law of God it be not 
 '^ neceflary, no Dodrines of Men can make it 
 *' fo : To call good evil, or evil good, is equal- 
 *' ly hateful to God -, and as every Man is bound 
 *• to preferve his Liberty, that a yoke be not 
 *^ impofed on his Confcience, and he be tied to do 
 " what God has left free 5 fo is he obliged 
 " to take care that he be not hindered, but that 
 '' he may ilill do it if he will. That this no 
 '' way relates to humane Laws I fhall afterwards 
 '' demonftrate : I now fpeak of impofing on 
 " Mens Underftandings, not on their Wills or 
 '' outward A<5ls. He that fays, that without a 
 *' Surplice we cannot pray to God acceptably, 
 *' and he that fays, we cannot well pray with it, 
 " are both to blame j but if a pofitive Law of our 
 *' Superiors intervenes 5 that is Confideration, £5?^. 
 All which I leave to be confider'd by the 
 DifTenters 5 and let them iipply it as they fee 
 convenient. But 
 
6t The Bulwark Stormed, 
 
 But De Laune goes on, and in the next Place 
 charges us with adding to the 'Word of God ^ with 
 fVill-njOorjhip^ and with teaching for Doctrines ths 
 Commandments of Men^ &:c. Sure then among To 
 much Smoke, there mud: be Ibme Fire 5 where 
 {o much Dirt is thrown, fome will Hick ! how- 
 ever let us hear how he makes this out. Why, 
 
 Firft, fays he, Mr. Faulkner (one of our own 
 Pens) fays, " That Men add to the Word of 
 " God, when they teach any thing to be either 
 '^ commanded or forbidden by the Law of God 5 
 " which is not there commanded or forbidden. 
 Which indeed is very true ! But how will they from 
 this Definition, argue the Church of England guiK 
 ty of the thing in Queliion ? Does fhe teach any 
 thing to be commanded or forbid, which is not 
 commanded or forbid by God's Word ? Does fhe 
 not declare to all the World, "^ " That (with 
 '^ refpect to Articles of Faith) Holy Scripture 
 " containes all things neceflary to Salvation : So 
 '^ that whaifoever is not read therein, or may be 
 '^ proved thereby, is not to be required of any 
 '^^ Man, that it ihould be believed as an Arti- 
 *^ cle of Faith. So then fhe is in this refpc6t free 
 from blame : And then with refpeft to Ceremo- 
 nies of Worihip, ihe as exprcflly declares >', " That 
 " it is not neceflary that Traditions and Cere- 
 '^ monies be in all Place one, or utterly like ; 
 '^ for at all Times they have been divers, and 
 ^' maybe changed, according to the diverfity of 
 '^ Countries, Times, and Mens Manners, fo that 
 " nothingbe ordained againit God's Word. And 
 farther fays, '' That every national Church, hath 
 ^' Authority to ordain, change and aboliih Ce- 
 
 7- Article 6, y Article 34, 
 
 " rcnionies 
 
7he Bulwark Stormed, 6^ 
 
 " remonies or Rites of the Church, ordained 
 " only by Man's i^uthority, fo that all things 
 *' be done to edifying. If then adding to the 
 Word of God, does confift in teaching that to 
 be either unlawful or neceflary which God's 
 Word does not make fo : And if the Church of 
 England (as appears from her Articles) does not 
 teach anything to be cither unlawfiil or neceflary, 
 which God's Word does not make fo : Then it will 
 of Confequcnce follow, that the Church of Eng- 
 land \s wot guilty of adding to the Word of God, 
 according to Mr. i^^/<^/,(7;t'r's Definition of it : But 
 the former is true, ergo the latter. 
 
 But fuppofe, he that has been fo zealoufly 
 imployed to find his Neighbour guilty, Ihould 
 at lafl: be found fo himfelf .? and for my part I 
 know not how he can be exeufed ! For let 
 me put the Queftion, when may a Man be faid 
 to add to the Word of God ? And now let 
 Mr. Faulkner anfwer, and he fays, when he 
 teaches any thing to be commanded or forbid 
 ( mind that ) by the Word of God, which in- 
 deed is not thereby either commanded or forbid. 
 Has not De Laune done this ? Does not he re- 
 ject as unlawful the ufe of Holydays, Fails, 
 Feafls, Liturgies, i^c. therefore unlefs the Pro- 
 hibition be produced that makes them fo ; Let 
 them take their AfiIi6lion patiently j for it can- 
 not be evaded, their Champion Hands condemned 
 of adding to the Word of God > by the ap- 
 proved Definition gi\Tn of it by Mr. Faulkner. Bur, 
 
 Secondly , Bifhop Sander/on ( another of our 
 own Pens) fays, '^ Men teach for Doctrines the 
 ^' Commandments of Men, when they teach a- 
 ^' ny thing to be abfolutely unlawful, which 
 ^* God has not forbid in his Word> Tpray mind 
 
 « that) 
 
^4 ^^ Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 '' that) and if any Man fhxll wear a Surplice, 
 " or kneel, or crofs, with an opinion of Ne- 
 " ceflity, and for Confcience fake towards God, 
 " as though his Worfhip and Service could not 
 " be rightly performed without them 3 yea, al- 
 " though the Church had not enjoyn'd them , 
 ^^ doubtlefs the ufe of thefe Ceremonies, by rca- 
 *' fon of fuch his Opinion, fhould be Superfli- 
 '^ tion^o him : Which Paflage, De Laune would 
 willingly have his Reader believe, is to none 
 more applicable than to the Church of England, 
 But alas, this PaO'age is ill produced, if deligned 
 by him, to prove the Church of England guilty 
 of teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of 
 Men. 
 
 For, what though it be Superftition ( in the 
 Opinion of the Bifhop) to crofs or kneel, ^c. 
 with an Opinion of Neceffity, and for Con- 
 fcience fake towards God, as though his Wor- 
 ihip could not be rightly performed without 
 them : Yea, though the Church had not enjoyn- 
 ed them, ^c. yet fince as hath been fhewn, the 
 Church does not fo appoint the ufe of crof- 
 fing, kneeling, i^c. they will for ever be to feek 
 for the Minor ^ and confequently can never draw . 
 any fuch Conclufion againlt her. For, accord- 
 ing to the Opinion of Billiop Sanderfon^ the Ar- 
 gument ftands thus 3 whoever wears a Surplice, 
 or kneels, or crofles, with an Opinion of Necef- 
 fity, and for Confcience fake towards God, as 
 though God's Service could not be rightly per- 
 formed without them ; yea though the Church 
 had not enjoyned them 3 he doubtlefs is a fuper- 
 HitiousMau: But the Church of England (as is 
 before fhewn )- docs not fo appoint 3 nor the 
 Members of that Church uie the before-faid 
 
 Cere- 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 6^ 
 
 Ceremonies with any fiich fuperflitious Opinion : 
 Ergo^ What ? When they are at leifure let them 
 tell me : Nay, but in the mean time they will 
 do well to quit themfelves from blame, if Bi^ 
 {hop Sanderfon's Definition of teaching for Do- 
 ctrines the Commandments of Men be goodj 
 ias De Laune fays, it is very good. For, 
 
 When may a Man in his Opinion be truly faid 
 to teach for Do£i:rines the Commandments of 
 Men ? Why, when he teaches any thing to be 
 abfolutely unlawful^ which God has not forbid in 
 his Word : But De Laune and others of the Dif- 
 fenters, reject as abfolutely unlawful the ufe of 
 many things which God has no where forbid in 
 his Word : Thereforeif Biihop6'^«^^r/6>;?fay true, 
 thofe are the Men that teach for Dodrines the 
 Commandments of Men. 
 
 And here again give me leave to obferve, how 
 Very unfair De Laune's way of proceeding is j 
 when ever he is minded to lay any fcaridalous 
 Refleftion on the Church of England^ he puts 
 on a demure Look, and (perhaps with a defign 
 to deceive his Reader) ufhers in the Scandal with 
 the Church of England's own Pens. One while 
 Dr. Stillingflcet pawns the Church's Caufe, and 
 (in his Opmion) turns Advocate for the Diffen- 
 ters : At another time it feems, Mr. Faulkner's 
 Pen is employed, to prove the Church guilty of 
 adding to the Word of God : If this will not 
 do, then in conies Bifhop Sanderfon's Authority^ 
 to prove her guilty of teaching for Dc6trines the 
 Commandments of Men : But if this fhould alfo 
 fail him, he has prudently referved a Friend or 
 tv/o behind, that in his Opinion never fail-, and 
 with them he pins the Basket 5 namely Dr. Pa^ 
 tricky j^nd the Protejiant Reconciler : Both which 
 
 I i« 
 
66 Tloe B u lwark Stormed. 
 
 it feems join hand in hand to prove the Church 
 of £//^/c7W guilty of Will-worfhip : Nay, in this 
 point, they fo fully fpeak the fenfc of the Diflen- 
 tcrs, that there needs no better Anfwer to be gi- 
 ven, fays he ^, than what they (Dr. Patrick^ &c.) 
 have put into their (the Diflenters) Mouths. 
 
 However, fince in this, as well as in other Par- 
 ticulars, I find De Laune a very unfair Man in 
 citing Authors, I fhall in this place tranfcribe 
 the whole Pafl'age refer'd to by him in Dr. Pa* 
 trick's Friendly Debate } that fo I may at once ac- 
 quit the Church o^ England of his (De Laune's) 
 Charge > fhew his miftake, and make the World 
 fcnfible how much his Word is to be depended 
 on. You muft know then, this Friendly Debate 
 is writ by way of Refponfe, betwixt a Clergy Man 
 of the Church of England^ and a DifTenter either 
 real or perfonated 5 which DifTenter tells the Cler- 
 gy Man, ^ " That he had heard fome of them, 
 *' the DifTenters , call the Church of England's 
 *' Form of Service Will-worfhip, which the A- 
 '' poftle condemns Col. ii. and the lafL 
 
 Unto which the Clergy Man (who for diftinfti- 
 on fake is call'd C) replies, " Very like they might, 
 " and not underitand what they faid. 
 
 " Do you believe, fays NC^ (the DifTenter) 
 *' that they would, like brute Bcafts, fpeak evil 
 '* of things they know not ? 
 
 " C. 1 will not cenfure them of that, but this 
 " I can tell you, that one of your Miniiters con- 
 *' fefs'd to a fober Perfon of my acquaintance, 
 '' that he had never fo much as read over the 
 
 Common Prayer Book in all his Life 5 and yet 
 
 2 Delaune'^ Plea, p. 14. 
 a Friendly Debate, /. 113. 
 
 *« he 
 
 (6 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 67 
 
 he was no youngllcr. Perhaps there may be 
 more fuch j and then if they fpeak againil ir, 
 judge of them as you fee caufe. 
 ^' NC. I believe fuch Men dillike it without 
 looking into it , becaufc, as I told you, it is 
 Will-worihip, a mere invention of Men. 
 " C. That's a word of the ApoiHe St. Paul^ 
 whom no doubt they have read, but 1 queflion 
 '' whether they underllood him. 
 
 ^^ NC. Why fhould you doubt it? 
 . " C. Becaufe if we take the fenfeof thewords 
 *' not from Fancy, but from the Matter where- 
 " with it's connected, it makes nothing for, but 
 ^' much againfl: your purpofe. 
 
 " NC. Can you tell better than they? 
 '^ C. I do not fay fo, but I have heard one of 
 " our Minillers give fuch an Explication of the 
 '' place, as (atisfy'd me that you ufe a Weapon 
 '' that wounds your felves. 
 " N C. Let's hear it. 
 
 '^ C. Ifyou look a little back, you Yxnll find the 
 Apoftle forbids worfliipping of Angels, ('ver.i 8 .) 
 ^^ as a bold invention of Men, for which there 
 '^ was no Revelation. And then he fpeak s again lb 
 ^' fuch fuperftitious People (whether Jews or o- 
 " thers he could not tell us) as made it unlaw- 
 ^' ful to marry, to eat fome kind of Meats, to 
 '^ touch or come near fome Things j none of 
 " which God had made finful, but they were 
 " the mere commandments of Men j (-ver. 21, 
 '^ zz.) now thofe that were of this humour, he 
 '^ immediately after (vcr.n,) charges w^xih^Ftlh 
 " ivorjhit'y which mufb therefore, one would 
 ^^ think, confiil in thefe two things. 
 
 " Firll, In giving the Worfhip due to God to 
 *'^ fome Creature or other. Secondly, In enjoy n- 
 
 l z [' ing 
 
 u 
 
6% The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 '' ing that as a thing necelTary, and commanded 
 '' of God as a piece of his Woriliip and Service, 
 '^ which he has left indifferent 5 or in, other 
 ^' words (of which De Laune cites a part) when 
 '' any thing is enjoyn'd to be either done or not 
 '^ done (pray mind that) as if it were the Will 
 ^' and Command of God he fhould be fo ferv*d, 
 *' when it is a mere conftitution of the Will of 
 *"' Man, then a Will-worihip is ereded. Here 
 De Laune breaks off, and it was well he did, for 
 bad he gone on he had difcover'd the fecret : 
 However, tho' he will not go on, his Author 
 does 5 "and now, fays he, lam fure you will 
 " not make us guilty of the firft fort of Will* 
 *^ worfhip, becaufe none are more againft it than 
 " we. And as for the fecond, our Church has 
 *■' declared to all th€ World, that none of the 
 " things you boggle at are imposed under the 
 '' notion of Necejfity^ or rehgious in themfelves, 
 *' or as commanded of God 3 but are of an in- 
 ^^ different Nature, and only us'd as decent and 
 '^ comely in the judgment of the prefent Gover- 
 *' nors, who can alter thefe things, and confti- 
 '' tutc fomething elfe in the room, if they fee it 
 *' fit J which they could not pretend to, did they 
 '' think them necejjary. But then, as our Church 
 *' is not guilty of Will-worlhip in the Apoftles 
 *' fenfe > fo on the other fide, I know not how 
 '' to excufe thofe from that very guilt, who op- 
 '^ pofe what is ordain'd among us as unlawful, 
 '^ and forbid us to ufe thofe Rites and Orders, 
 " becaufe finful things. For they make that ne- 
 *' ceffary to be forborn and left undone, which 
 ^' God has not made fo, but left indifferent 5 and 
 '' fo they in effect condemn thofe as Sinners, 
 " whom God acquits fii'om all blame. As thofe 
 
 « in 
 
cc 
 
 ii. 
 
 The Bulwark Stormed. 6^ 
 
 in the Apoftle's Difcourfe faid, touch not, talle 
 not, handle not 3 fo you lay, kneel not, pray 
 not by a Form, wear not a Surplice, i^c. Now 
 " fince you think (as thofe Men did) to pleafe 
 '^ God by not doing thofe things which he has 
 ^' no where forbidden ; I do not fee but you 
 *' commit the very fault which the Apoftle re- 
 '^ proves -y that is, you make that neceffary not 
 '' to be done (if we will be true Worfhippers of 
 " God) which he has not made neceflary not to 
 '' be done, but left us at liberty to do it if we 
 '' will. By which means you make a Religion 
 " of your own, and ftudy to honour God by ab- 
 " flainingfrom thofe things, by which he never 
 '' faid he wasdilhonour'd. Othat all tender Con- 
 '^ fciences would confider this I for they would 
 " foondifcern that your Minifters, by forbidding 
 " thefe things now in difpute, lay greater burdens 
 " upon the Confciences of their Brethren, and 
 " clog them with more Duties, than God has 
 " laid upon them : Whereas we, who think thofe 
 '^ things may be done, lay no more burthen on 
 " the Confciences, (of our Brethren) than what 
 " God himfelf hath laid 5 which is to obey our 
 ^ Governors in all things, wherein he himfelf 
 '^ has not bidden us to do the contrary. Thus 
 far the Do6lor. But why did De Laune hide this 
 from his Reader? There was, as I faid before, a 
 very good Reafon for it j for had he gone on, his 
 Reader, in all probability, had feen that this 
 Paflage thus produced by him, in order to prove 
 the Church of England guilty of Will-worfhip, 
 did effectually condemn him, and prove the Dif- 
 fenters, not the Church, guilty of it. How much 
 then are De Laime's Word and Citations to be de- 
 pended on? But Ifhall not infift on this now, be- 
 
 I } caufe 
 
yo The B u lwark Stormed. 
 
 caufe I fhall have an occafion to fpeak more fully 
 to it hereafter. 
 
 However, I can do no lefs but in this Place, 
 cbferve how very unfortunate he has been in cal- 
 ling in Church of England Divines to afliil in 
 his Caufe againil the Church, not one of which 
 gives the leail Affiftance to it: But on the 
 contrary , they all in their turns point at him, 
 and fay j thou, and not the Church of England 
 art guilty of adding to the Word of God : 
 Thou, and not the Church of England^ art 
 guilty of teaching for Doctrines the Comnaand* 
 nients of Men j thou, and not the Church of 
 England^ art guilty of TVill-worflnp ^ as is but 
 now prov'd upon you by Dr. Patrick^ one of 
 your pretended Witnefles againfl the Church. 
 
 In ihort, to me it appears very plain, that 
 lince the Ceremonies of the Church are not 
 impofed as neceflary things and commanded by 
 God -y but are profeiTedly ufed as things indiffe- 
 rent, and as matters of humane Prudence > they 
 cannot in Juftice be charged as A6i:s of Will- 
 worfhip. 
 
 But it may be, fome Body will objeft to mc 
 and fay , as De Laune has done to Mr. Allen in 
 the like Cafe ^, that for my better Information, 
 (that they are fo to be elleemed when fo ufed) 
 rhey will refer me, as he did him, to the Prote- 
 fiant Reconciler^ to clear the fame with this Ad- 
 dition to Jeroboam's Cafe : Who, as he fays, va- 
 ried but in four particular Circumftantials of 
 Worfliip, and we have done it in above forty, 
 fays he^, and fo it feems are ten times worfe 
 than Jetohoam , who was wicked even to a Pro- 
 
 b T>Ua, p. 14. c P. 16. 
 
 verb 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. y x 
 
 verb ! May we not then in his, read what is our 
 deferved Punifhment ? But hold a little, if the 
 Cafes are not the fime, why llioukl the Funifh- 
 ment be fo ? therefore before they fix the Pu^ 
 nifhmenr, let them fhew that ( with refpc6b to 
 Ceremonies ) Jeroboam's Cafe and ours is the 
 fame ; For if they cannot make out the one we 
 have no reafon to fear the other. 
 
 Well then in order to do this he (De Laune) 
 tells us, '^ " That Jeroboam (as well as we) kept 
 '^ to the Fundamentals of Religion, worfliip- 
 '^ ping with reverence the God of his Fathers, 
 '' and made Alterations in (but four) things, (and 
 *' they) merely Ceremonial, (as we call our Ce- 
 " remonies) whereof noexprefs Law forbidding, 
 " and being variable, (as we fay ours are) as Time 
 '' and Place, (^c. gave occafion. This is in Sub- 
 '' fiance what he has to fay for it : And if any 
 ask what I have to fay againfl it, they {hall know 
 that hereafter. But fir it give me Liberty to ob- 
 ferve, when he is fpeaking of Jeroboam's Of- 
 fence, he puts very candid Conftru6lions on it> 
 he fays, that he ( Jeroboam ) varied in but four 
 particular Circumflances of religious Worfhip, 
 and they fuch as were alterable at pleafure, being 
 things which God had no were forbid, i^c. 
 And as for the Fundamentals of Religion, he 
 kept Hill clofe to that, and worfhipped with Re- 
 verence the God of his Fathers, i^c. but when 
 he comes to fpeak of the Sei-vice and Ceremo- 
 nies of the Church of England ; why then he 
 divides and fub-divides, and again divides, till he 
 has branched it out into almotl a thoufand Parti- 
 culars } every one of which (if we may take his 
 — _ - 
 
 I 4 . Word 
 
7 1 The B u LWARK Stormed. 
 
 Word for it ) is, as it were a Calf of Jeroboam's 
 Cow ', every Saint's-day in his Opinion is, as 
 criminal as Jerehoam's Feaftof the eighth Month > 
 our Churches and Chapels as fo many Dans and 
 Bethels > and our Clergy no better accounted of 
 by him , than fo many of JerohoanCs Priefls : 
 Now what can he intend by all this, think we, 
 but to defame the Church, and make the un- 
 thinking Multitude believe, that all thofe that 
 are Members of it, are fo many Worlhippers of 
 Baal^ that of right ought to be deflroyed by 
 the religious Zeal of thefe Jehus 7 But, what if 
 Shimei curfe, will it hurt David ? Not at all, 
 for the Curfe that is cauflefs ihall not come. Let 
 them then go on and like him curfe as they 
 go 5 nay, but let them rather take Balaam^ 
 Honefty along with them% and then how can 
 they curfe that which God has not curfed ? Or 
 how can they defy that which God has blefs'd ? 
 He that juftifies the Wicked^ and he that con- 
 demneth the Juft^ even they both are an Abo- 
 mination to the Lord^ fays Solomon^: Whe- 
 ther De Laune be guilty or not will foon appear, 
 if we view the Cafes both of the Church o\ Eng- 
 land and Jeroboam^ as they are reprefented by 
 De Laune on the one hand, and by the Scripture 
 on the other. But firft, what lays De Laune ^ 
 and what fays the Scripture, with refpect to Je- 
 roboam^ s Cafe ? Why, 
 
 Fir ft ^ De Laune fays s, f' That Jeroboam va- 
 ^' ried from the Pattern given to him in but 
 ^' four Particulars, as to the Service and Cere- 
 f' monies of Worihip, viz. Firft, as to the Place 
 
 ^ Numh, xxiii. 8. ^ Prov. x^ji. 15. g pUdy p. 15. 
 
 « of 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 7 ? 
 
 '^ of Worfhip (Dan and Bethel inftead of ^eru^ 
 ^ falem.) Secondly , in the Signs of the Di- 
 " vine Prefence, Golden-calves inflead of Che- 
 '' ruhim.'^.) Thirdly, In the time of the Feaft 
 " (the fifteenth Day of the eighth Month, in- 
 " ilead of the fifteenth Day of the feventh 
 '^ Month.) Fourthly, In the Perfons admini- 
 " ftering (making Priefts of the lowcft of the 
 *' People that were not of the Sons of jlaron) 
 '' all which, fays he, one v/ould think were but 
 *^ Circumftantials about Worfhip, and impofed, 
 '' not under the Notion of being commanded 
 *^ by God, but only (as Mr. Alien obferv^es of 
 " our Ceremonies ) as matters of humane Pru- 
 ^^ dence^ and for which Jeroboam had much to 
 ^' fay to the DifTenters in that Day j as that he 
 *^ made no Alterations in the Suhfiantiah of Re- 
 ^^ ligion^ but kept that pure, and as De Laime 
 ^' fays, worlhipped with reverence the God of 
 " his Fathers, and varied from the Pattern, only 
 *' in four things merely Ceremonial, whereof no 
 '' exprefs Law forbid the doing, and therefore 
 '' might well be comply 'd with, fince.they 
 " were fuch variable things as might be chang'd 
 ^' and altered at Pleafure according as Time, 
 '' Place, and Perfons gave occafion. 
 
 " But however Jeroboam might mince the 
 ^' matter, fays De Laune^ as others do in the 
 *' like Circumllances > yet God being a jealous 
 *^ God, would not admit of fuch Innovations 
 ^^ and Varyings from his pure Worfhip, but re- 
 *' proves theie for defperate Idolatry, and re- 
 *' putcs them no better than the worfhipping of 
 ^ Devils'^. Thus have I given you the Sura 
 
 ^ 1 Cron, xi, i 5. 
 
 and 
 
74^ The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 and Subftance of Jeroboam's Offence, as the fame 
 h reprefented by IXe Laune. And truly, ac- 
 cording to him it was like Zoar a little one 5 con- 
 lifting in no greater Crime, than the appointing 
 and uiing of four uncommanded Ceremonies in 
 the Worfhip of God : Which as they were not 
 commanded, fo neither were they forbid > and 
 therefore one would think, fays he, they were 
 variable at Pleafure. But if any fhould be fo ig- 
 norant as to think fo, they muft pardon me for 
 telling them, there is great Reafons to be given 
 why they fhould think again. 
 
 For I take it from granted, that wherever 
 God has commanded any thing, whether it re- 
 Jpe£ts the Subftance ox the Circumftance of his 
 Worfhip, there Man is bound to obey accordingly, 
 unlefs fome moral or natural Law fhould inter- 
 vene j for Laws natural and moral, take place 
 before pofitives 5 as is plain in the Example of 
 'Dd^id^s eating the Shew-bread in a cafe of 
 Neceility , which had not but for that Reafon 
 been lawful for him to eat 5 and by our Saviour's 
 permitting a Man to labour on the Sabbath-day, 
 if it be in order to take an Ox or an Afs out of a 
 . Ditch J and though it is expreflly faid, ^ that the 
 tmcircumcifed Man-child fhould be cut off from 
 God's People, yet the Ifraelites for forty Years 
 together did not circumcife them ^. However, 
 as Poverty mufl not be ufed as an Argument to 
 juftify Theft, fo neither muft Men make Cafes 
 of Neceflity in points of Religion, where there 
 is none. If God was plcafed to bind the Jew^ 
 both with refped to the Subftance and Circum- 
 
 i Gm, xvii. 14. ^ Jojh, v. 2-— 10. 
 
 fiances 
 
the B u LWARK Stormed. y S 
 
 ftances of his Wovfhip, no doubt but they ought 
 to obey accordingly : But if he has not bound 
 us fo, it's plain he has allowed us a greater Li- 
 berty. • 
 
 However, I fhall not now infift farther on 
 that, becaufe I fhall have an Occafion to fhew 
 it in Particulars hereafters therefore give me 
 leave to go on, and (according to the Method 
 propofed ) in the next Place, fee what account 
 the Scripture gives of 7^r(?/'(?^;;^'s Offence. 
 
 And here I find him charafteriz'd, Jeroboam 
 the Son oi Ncbat that made Ifrael to fin 3 Firfl, 
 by rebelling againfl Rehoboam their lawful King, 
 when he was young and tender hearted and could 
 not withfland them ^, for which Reafon (as I 
 take i-t) they are there call'd vain Men and Chil- 
 dren of Belial, that is of the Devil > for he was 
 the firfl, and according to the Dodrine of the 
 Church of England^ is the Father of all Rebels. 
 Nay, it's obfervable, that the Prophet Hofea"^^ 
 (fpeaking of this Revolt) fays, Ifrael hath cajl 
 off the thing that is good^ the Enemy Jhall purfue 
 him. But how had they done this ? Why, it 
 there follows, Verfe the fourth, "they have fet up 
 Kings ^ hut not by me : They haie made Princes^ 
 and I knew it not^ &c. Nay farther, Jeroboam- 
 himfelf does in efFed confefs the illegality of this 
 Revolt : For fays he, " Now pall the Kingdom 
 return to the Hoiife of David ( that is , to Re- 
 hoboam his lawful Heir) if this People go up to 
 do Sacrifice in the Houfe of the Lord at Jeiu- 
 falem , then floall the Hearts of this People turn 
 again unto their Lord^ even to Rehoboam King of 
 
 1 2. Chron. xiii. 7. ^ Hof. viii. 3. » i King. xii. 2.6. 
 
 Judah s 
 
76 The B u LWARK Stormed. 
 
 Judah J fo jhall they kill me^ and go again to Re- 
 hoboam King <?/ Judah. You fee then, Jero- 
 boam himfelf acknowledges, that Rehohoam was 
 the People's Lord and King > and if fo, then 
 was not he a Rebel ? But, 
 
 Secondly^ He made Ifrael to fin^ by revolting 
 from God's pure Religion and Worfhip. And 
 truly I am of Opinion, we fhall ever find it true 
 jki Experience : ihat thofe who take upon them to 
 turn things up fide down in the State j will not much 
 regard the Peace of the Church. When Jero- 
 hoam had prevailed with the People to rebel 
 againft their King, and by that means to dif- 
 quiet the State : How long was it before he fee 
 them up Golden-Calves, to woriliip as the Gods 
 that brought them out of Egypt 5 When the 
 People were once prevailed on to caft off their 
 Allegiance to their King, and to think him a 
 Tool of their making, and fubjed to the giddy 
 Mob 5 who (like Nebuchaduezzar) have Power 
 to fet up and pull down whom they pleafe: 
 When once the People are prevailed on, I fay, 
 to believe this y how long is it before they call 
 off their refpe<5b for God's Worlliip and Priells? 
 Truly not long ! I mud confefs, it pafles v/ith 
 me for a prov'd Cafe, that whoever is an Enemy 
 to Monarchy, is no hearty Friend to Epifcopacy : 
 If Jeroboam's Race prevailed, how long will the 
 Tribe of Levi Hand ? There did God's holy 
 Religion never flouriih, where his Prielb were in 
 Contempt 5 and contemned they .were always 
 where the Succeflbrs of Korah and Jeroboam 
 prevailed. But not to infift farther on this, but 
 to return to the particular Cafe in hand j with 
 rdpeft to that I fliall, 
 
 thirdly^ 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 77 
 
 thirdly ^ Obferve that J er oho am in matters of 
 Religion, went diredlly contrai7 to the Com- 
 mand of God. 
 
 Firft 5 with refpeft to the Place of Worfhip, 
 God appointed Jerufalem for that purpofe j Je- 
 roboam on the contrary appointed Dan and Bethel. 
 Secondly, he (Jeroboam) appointed Golden- calves 
 inrtead of Chcrubims j for the Signs of the di- 
 vine Prefence. Thirdly, with refpe6t to the 
 Time of the Feaft, God appointed that it fhould 
 be obferved on the fifteenth of the feventh 
 Month 5 Jeroboam on the contrary appointed it 
 to be done on the fifteenth Day of the eighth 
 Month. Fourthly with refped to the Perfons 
 adminiftring, God had appointed the Sons of 
 jiaron^ Jeroboam on the contrary made Prielts of 
 the loweji of the People^ which were not of the 
 Sons of Aaron , i^c, fo that in each of thofe 
 particulars, Jeroboam went dire6bly contrary to 
 the exprefs Command of God. 
 
 But becaufe Be Laune pretends from this in- 
 fiance of Jeroboam's Cafe , to fhew that the 
 Church of England is chargeable with PFill-'wor^ 
 Jhip : I think it may not be amifs in this Place, 
 to give the four Particulars before mentioned, a 
 more particular Examination. 
 
 Hr/then, to begin with the Place in which 
 God's Worfhip was to be performed. We read 
 " that when Mojes the Jews^ great Deliverer and 
 Law-giver had travailed up and down with them 
 thirty eight Years in the Wildernefs, they ac 
 lafl came to a Valley over againll Beth-peor in 
 the Jmorites Countrey j at which Place Mofes 
 called all Ifrael together and faidP, Hear ^ O 
 
 o BeutAi. 14. cow^'orsd with Chap. iv. 4(5. 
 
 ' IJ*«^ V. I. Ifrael, 
 
78 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 Ifrael, the Laws and the Ordinances 'which I pro" 
 fofe to you this I>ay^ that ye may learn them^ 
 and take heed to ohferve them, i'he Lord our 
 God made a Covenant with us in Horeb. ^he 
 Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers on*- 
 ly^ hut with uSj even with iis^ all here alive this 
 Day^ 6cc. But the Law here fpoken of being 
 purely Moral, and what therefore fpake nothing 
 of thq Ceremonial or Circumftantial part of God's 
 Worihip, he puts them in mind of another Law 
 to be obferved by them, when they were got 
 over Jordan^ and were in Pofleflion of the pro- 
 mifed Land. Then fays he, i Take heed that ye 
 do all the Commandments and the Laws which I 
 fet before you this Day. And what they were 
 he tells us, fo far at leaft as concerns our prefent 
 Inquiry , ^ Take heed to thy felf^ fays he^ that 
 thou offer not thy Burnt-offering in every Place that 
 thou feeft^ hut in the Place which the Lord jhall 
 choofe in one of thy Tribes j there thou ' JJjalt offer 
 thy Burnt'oferings^ and there thoufhalt do all that / 
 command thee. From this and many other Text^ 
 of Scripture that might be produced, (as chap. xvi. 
 II, 1(5, £57*^.) it appears that a Place of Woriliip 
 was to be appointed \ and when it was j the 
 'Jews were commanded to come to that, and 
 forbid to go to any other Place to worfhip. 
 For then ye fiall not do after all thefe things that 
 we do this Day ^ that is every Man whatfoever 
 feemeth him good in his, own Eyes % but to the 
 Place which the Lord Jhall choofe to put his Name 
 there ^ thitl^er fh alt thou come. Nay, the Scrip- 
 ture admits of no excufe for the omiffion of this 
 
 •1 Dtut* xi. 32. I Chap. xii. 13. « Chap. xii. 8. 
 
 Duty 
 
7he Bulwark Stormed. y^ 
 
 Duty : For if they lived a great way off from 
 Jerufakm^ yet flill they mull go 5 they mull not 
 fay, as Jeroboam did, it's too much for us to go 
 fo far to worfhip 5 no, this will not excufe the 
 mattery for it is expreflly faid ^ If the Place which 
 the Lord thy God Jljall chufe be far off from thee^ 
 (fo that they could not conveniently carry an Ox, 
 or a Sheep, (^c.) then thou Jljalt turn it into Money^ 
 and bind up the Money in thine hand^ and JJjalt go 
 unto the Place which the Lord thy God fjj all chufe ^^c. 
 So then, the only thing now wanting proof is, 
 whether God (\n the Days q^ Jeroboam) had chofcn 
 any fuch Place, and where it was. 
 
 To make out which, let us obferve, that Je- 
 roboam did not make this Revolt till after the 
 Death of Solomon-^ who built the Temple at Je- 
 rufalem^ unto which the beforefaid Text of Scrip- 
 ture alludes \ as all know, who are but tolerably 
 acquainted with the Scripture j and therefore it 
 would be loll time to multiply Texts for the 
 proof of it. However, if any llill doubt of this, 
 let them read 1 Chron. vi. f, 6. where it is faid. 
 Since the time that I brought my People out qf E- 
 gypt, / chofe no City of all the bribes of Ifrael 40 
 build an Houfe in^ that my Name might be thei'e 5 
 neither chofe I any Man to be a Ruler over my Peo- 
 ple Ifrael 5 but I ha've chofen Jerufalem, that my 
 Name might be there^ and have chofen David to be 
 over my People Ifrael. So again, ^ And the Lord 
 appeared unto Solomon by Nighty and faid unto 
 him^ I have heard thy Prayer^ ^^ and have chofen 
 this Place to my f elf for an Houfe of Sacrifice, And 
 ver. 16. For now have I chofen and fanclified this 
 
 ^ Chap. xiv. 23, 24, 15, 26. » Chap, vii, 11. 
 
 ^ Chap. vi. 17, 18, 19. I Kings viii. 17, 
 
 Houfe^ 
 
8o Tlje B u LWARK Stormed. 
 
 Houfe^ that my Name may he there for evefy and 
 mine Eyes^ and my Hearty Jhall be there perpetually. 
 
 Is not this a fufficient proof? if not, let the 
 DifTenters fhew me a Reafon why it is not j if it 
 be, then (if they can) let them jufHfy De Laune*^ 
 Application. For, if under the Gofpel Difpenfa- 
 tion there is no particular Place appointed by God 
 for his Worfhip, as there \vas then j then the 
 cafes proposed are not, in this point, parallel j and 
 confequently, the application made by him, is both 
 unjuft and unreafonable. But, 
 
 Secondly^ Jeroboam offended in appointing (and 
 made Ifrael to fin inworfhipping) thegolden Calves^ 
 inftead of Cherubims^ for figns of the Divine Pre- 
 lence, which was direftly contrary to what Mofe's 
 had appointed." For when he, ihzi \s^ Mo fes^ (by 
 thefpecialdire6lion of Almighty God, Exod.xxv.) 
 had given inftruftions to the Ifraelites for making 
 the j^rk^ the Mercy Seat, and the Cheruhims > and 
 having in ver. 20, zi. of that Chapter, likewifc 
 told them how each of them were to be plac'd, 
 viz. that the Mercy Seat Jhould be plac'd on the 
 Ark^ and the Cheruhims over the Mercy Seat. He 
 then tells them, ver. 22. that there^ that is, as it 
 there follows, from above the Mercy Seat^ between 
 the two Cheruhims^ which are over^ or upon the Ark 
 of the I'efiimony^ I will declare my felf unto thee^ 
 and there will 1 tell thee all things which I will 
 give thee in commandment unto the Chrildren of 
 Ifrael. Read alio Chap.xxyL. p, 36. Levit.xvi. 2. 
 and you will no doubt be convinc'd, that it was 
 not an indifferent matter, whether golden Calves 
 or Cheruhims^ were appointed as the Signs of the 
 divine Prefence. 
 
 Having now taken a View of the Precepts of 
 
 Mofes in relation to this particular, kt us in the 
 
 3 next 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed, 8 1 
 
 next place fee, how his and other holy Mens 
 Pradice did agree therewith. As for Mofes^ we 
 find that he frequently went into the Tabernacle 
 of the Congregation to fpeak with God-^ > and 
 that God was gracioufly pleas'd to anfwer him 
 from betiveen the tivoCheriibims^ according to his 
 Promife. We find the Royal Prophet David 
 likewife praying unto God and faying 7, Hear^ O 
 thou Shepherd of Ifrael 5 thou that leadeft Jofeph 
 like a Sheep 5 Jhew thy hrightnefs^ thou that ftttefl 
 befijueen the Cherubims. So again, ^ 7'he Lord 
 reigneth^ let the People tremble j he fittcth between 
 the Cherubims^ let the Earth be moved. Nay far- 
 ther, God is (aid not only to fit, but alfo to dwell 
 between the Cherubims ^ j perhaps to teach Jero- 
 boam and his Adherents, that it was in vain to 
 fcek him at Dan^ or Bethel^ or any other place, 
 but that which he had appointed and promis'd 
 to be prefent at. And fo we find the good Heze- 
 kiah praying unto the Lord and faying, ^ O Lord 
 
 God which dwell eft between the Cherubims^ 6cc. 
 
 Now if what I have faid be (and if it be not, I 
 know not what is) a good proof, that not the 
 Golden Calves^ but the Cherubims^ were appoint- 
 ed by God, ror the Signs of the divine Prefence j 
 then it necefiarily follows, it was no indifferenc 
 thing, as Z)^£<^w/^ intimates, whcthei' Cherubims 
 or Golden Calves were appointed as Signs of the 
 divine Prefence. So then I muft again fay, fince 
 in this particular likewife, our Cafe and Jerobo' 
 am's is not parallel, De Laune's Application is both 
 unjull and unrealonable. But, 
 
 ^ Numb. vii. 87. 7 Pfal. Ixxx. i. 2 PfaL xcix. i. 
 a I Sam. iv. 4. ^ xxxvii. 16. 
 
 K Thirdly, 
 
^^ Th& Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 , ..^.f^ifiydly^ Jcvohcam Q^^fzn^^tdi in appointing, ai^d 
 ipade Ijrciel to fin in obicrving the Feaft qf Taber-, 
 nacles, on the fifteenth Day of the Eighth Month, 
 ^nficad of the fcventh, fays De Lannc\ they are: 
 jiisS own words, and therefore mind them j Do 
 not ,t;bo,fe, >vojrds (inllead of the feventh) imply a 
 confwiiion , thf\t this Feafc (of right) ought to 
 {lave been obicrv'd on the fiiteenih -Day of the 
 jivemh Month ? But whether it be allow'd to do 
 fo or not, I fiiall take it for granted that fo it 
 was 5 not only becaufe Jofepbus does afTert it ^y 
 ^ut ajfo becaufe the Scripture feems to intimate 
 as much ^^ where it is faid, that Jeroboam offered 
 upon the Altar isohich he had jnade in Bethel, the 
 
 fifteenth D^.y of the eighth Month^ even in the month 
 ^^hifh he had dcvis'd of his own Idcarty &cc. From 
 which I obferve, he is blam'd for appointing the 
 wrong Month, not the wrong Day of the Month j 
 for 'tis not faid in the Day^ but in the Month 
 which he had devis'd of his own Heart -y which, 
 plainly intimates, that it was the Feail of Taber- 
 Eacles which he appointed to be obferv'd on the 
 fifteenth Day of the eighth Month, which was 
 clire<^l:iy contrary to what God had appointed, 
 Levit. xxiii. 34, ^9. Numb. xxix. ii. how then 
 could De Laune tell his Reader, that this circum- 
 iknce of Worfhip was a matter of indifference, 
 that might be us'd or not us'd, as every one 
 thought good 5 when 'tis a plain cafe, that God 
 h:id ^x'd the time for the obfervation of that 
 Fealf on the fifteenth Day of the feventh Month ? 
 if then under the Gofpel Difpcnfation there be 
 no parallel Cafe 5 then (with refped to this par- 
 
 c In his eighth Book of the Jews Antiquities. 
 ^ I Kings xil. 33. 
 
 ticular 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 83 
 
 cicular alfo) De Laurie's Application is both unjuft 
 and unrciiTonable. But, 
 
 Fourthly^ Jeroboam offended in makings and 
 made Ifrael to Sin in joyning^ with the Priefts of 
 the high Places^ which were not of the Sons 0/ Aa- 
 ron 5 and this thing became fth unto the Houfe of 
 Jeroboam, even to cut it off^ and to defiroy it from 
 off the face of the Earth ^. What, would God 
 thus cut him off from the face of the Earth, for 
 varying in a particular Ceremony or Circumilance 
 of Worfliip ? No fuch matter ! it muft be a grea- 
 ter Crime than this, againft which he will pro- 
 ceed with fuch Severity! 
 
 It's true, God is great as well as good ; and as 
 he is to be lov'd for his Goo.dnefs, fo is he to be 
 fear'd for his Greatnefs j as then it's a great folly 
 to hope in his Goodnefs, when we do not obey 
 his Commands i fo is it likewife a great impiety, 
 to reprefent him as an auftere Being, who takes 
 pleaiure in punifhing thofe that do not tranfgrefs 
 his Precepts. If then Jeroboam be punifh'd by 
 him, it's becaufe he has greatly offended againft 
 him ! God had expreflly commanded or appoint- 
 ed, that Jar on and his Sons lliould do the Ser- 
 vice of the Tabernacle : Nay, that was not all, 
 but he had as expreflly forbid any Stranger (that 
 was not of that Tribe) to meddle with it, as all 
 know who have deliberately read over the fix- 
 teenth, feventeenth, and eighteenth Chapters of 
 the Book of Numbers. Was it not then as high 
 provocation in Jeroboam to call them out, whom 
 God had plac'd in the PriefVs Office ? And to place 
 them in, whom God had call out ? Nay, was 
 not jD^ Laune ukewife greatly to blame, for exte- 
 
 I Km^s XUl. 33, 34. 
 
 K z murmg 
 
84 ^he Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 nuating (as he did) the Sin of 5'^ro^(?^;??, who really 
 was n very great Criminal 5 and at the fame time 
 multiply ii'ig Tranrgrellions upon the Church of 
 Er/gl.md j when ll;e is really innocent of the Charge 
 by him brought againll her? He doubts not, he 
 fay? ^, J?ut the judicious imll apply this pregnant in- 
 fiance of Jeroboam\f cafe \ and where then will 
 the Sjionc hit does he think? on the Church of 
 England ! Nay, but let him rather look to it, that 
 it do not fall on his own Pate. For, I muft ccn- 
 fcfs, I am not judicious enough to make any bet- 
 ter application of it than this j That as Jeroboovn 
 was for dellroying the Order, and the original 
 Conllitution of God's Church j for depofing, nay 
 lx)r deRroying of King^, and making Majeity fub- 
 jcct to the -Subjccl : So was De Laune^ and fo are 
 our Dilfenters s 3 nay, fome who call themfelves 
 Members of the Church of England^ alfo think it 
 an Honour, it feems, to ride in Jerohoam'^'Vxoo'^s 
 ;i];d much good may it do them 5 they have pro- 
 posed to themielvcs a worthy Pattern ! 
 . I have now done with our Author's pregnant 
 Inlhnce, and (as I think) have fairly fhewn, that 
 the fame does not prove the thing for which it 
 was brought, 'ci;2. That the Church oi England 
 v/as to be charg'd with Will-vjorjhlpy becaule fhe 
 appoints the ule of fome indifferent things in the 
 Worihip of God, which he hath not expreflly 
 commanded. Having done this, I fay, I hope I 
 may now go on, and according to the method 
 proposed. 
 
 Fourthly^ Shew from plain Fa6i:, that thus to 
 appoint the ule of fome indifferent Ceremonies m 
 
 * Plea^ pag. 16. 
 
 g See Two Sticks made one ; and :h? Judgment of whole 
 Kingdoms, c?t. 
 
 the 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 8 5- 
 
 the Worfhip of God; is not deftriiftivc. Ox^ the 
 true Nature oFChrillian Liberty. 
 
 Liberty, Imuftconfels, isaverydefirablethlng, 
 but it is too frequently us'd as a cloke of Ma'lici- 
 oufnefsj and if apretcnceof Confcience be ioyn'd 
 with th's ill us'd Liberty j what is there that cin 
 fland before it ? It conquers all, binds Kings in 
 Chains, and Nobles in Fetters of Iron ; it over- 
 turns Church and State; it plunders and kills, 
 and all for the fake of Liberty and Confcience. 
 Are thofe Libertines in Power? then they count 
 it Soul-murder, and putting a Sword into a Mad- 
 man's Hands, to grant an Indulgence to tender 
 Confciences. Nay, an appointing of a City of 
 Refuge in Mens Confciences for the Dcvii to fly 
 to ; and a proclaiming Liberty to the Wolves 
 to come into Chrifc's Fold to prey upon his 
 Lambs, 13 c^. But on the contrary, are they out 
 of Power, then they fee it's very agreeable to 
 Chriiban Charity, to allow them a Liberty of 
 Confcience, i3c. with refpe6i: to the Rites and 
 Cultoms of the Church, ^c. and perhaps it may 
 be fo with refpe6b to fome, but generally fpeak- 
 ing, grant them an inch, and what fays our Pro- 
 verb ? 
 
 What Liberty was there granted them by t he- 
 Royal Martyr King Charles the Firil ? And,: 
 if we may believe Hillory, what a blefTed ufe did 
 they make of it? TheKmg himielf, we are told, 
 who had (before the Day of thpir Power) grant* 
 ed fo much Liberty to them, could not obtain fo 
 much from them, as to have the Converfation of 
 his own Chaplains, and the ufe of his Commou- 
 
 h See the Argutnent for Union in the London Cu.es; and 
 Schijm try d and condemn d. 
 
 K 3 Prayer 
 
8 6 The B u l wark Stormed. 
 
 Prayer Book. A hard cafe ! but as hard as it was, 
 I can't fee how it could be otherwife 5 for thofe 
 Libertines had enter'd into a Solemn League and 
 Covenant, by virtue of which,, they were obhg'd 
 to endeavour the extirpation of Epifcopacy and 
 the Common Prayer » 5 and therefore they could 
 not grant him this, unlefs they had a mind to be 
 allperjur'd^ efpeciallyconfidering they had, (with 
 Hands lifted up to the moll high God) expreflly 
 fworn, not to fuffer any Defeftion to the contrary 
 Party, or give themfelves up to a dcteftable indiffe- 
 rency or neutrality in this Cafe. Nay farther, I 
 am well afTur'd there was another Ordinance of 
 Parliament made on the twenty third of Augufl^ 
 i(54f. which effeftually guards all PalTes to the 
 Comm.on-Prayer : For it is therein ordain'd, that 
 if any Perfon or Perfons be found guilty of this 
 great Sin of ufing the Common-Prayer, they ihall 
 pay for the firft Offence five Pounds, for the fe- 
 cond ten > and if they offend a thud time, no- 
 thing lefs than a twelve Month's Imprifonment, 
 without Bail or Mainprize, v^ill excufe. And 
 farther, if any Perfon or Perfons, either wrote, 
 preach'd, or printed any thing againll their Di- 
 rectory, or any part thereof, or againft any thing 
 therein contain'd, ^c. he or they who ihould thus 
 offend, was liable to pay fifty Pounds for their 
 Offences. Does not this fliew what an ad of 
 Chriftian Charity it is (in their Opinion) to grant 
 a Liberty of Confcience .^ Nay, was not their 
 Directory well hedg'd in? And Pll warrant you 
 they look'd after the Hedge fo well, that a Church 
 of England Man could by no means get over it ! 
 
 » See the Solemn League and Covenant; and, the Ordi- 
 nance oj Parliament of the third 0/ January, 1644. 
 
 Is 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 87 
 
 Is there then nny Rcafon to be given, why the 
 Church of England fhould not keep up as good 
 a Fence about the Common-Prayer'?* IF not, then 
 what Name muft we give the Sufferings of D\i 
 Laune^ and thofe who fuffcr'd, as Mr. De Foe fays, 
 in the Reign of King Charles the Second ? Miift . 
 we call them Martyrs or Malefa^ors? If the for- 
 mer, it was for the good old Caufe, to depofe 
 Kings, and murder Biihops ; without which, 
 good Men, they cannot fei^ve God in Purity! 
 witnefs ihtix Solemn League and Coz-enant^ and the 
 Hiftory of Forty One : Witnefs their fetting up 
 publick Declarations that Charles Stuart was no 
 longer their King, and therefore it was the Duty 
 of all Men to kill him and all fuch as own'd his 
 Government. And it muft be confefs'd, their 
 Pra6tice (in this cafe) was agreeable to iheir Prin- 
 ciples j for they met the King, and gave him an'd 
 his Armies battel, firft at Pentland HlUs^ and thcii 
 at Bothwel'bridge. Nay, witnefs too, the inhu- 
 man Murder of the Archbifhop of St.Jlndfew's, 
 and the fhooting the Bifhop in his Coach in the 
 Streets of Edenhorough -, as iikevv'ife the Mobbing 
 of three hundred Epifcopal Clergy in Scot land ^ 
 not only out of their Lroings^ but fome of thcni 
 out of their Lives too, in the Years 1680, and 
 i68p. Nay farther, witnefs Ukewife th^t Dicckf,- 
 an ufage, which the poor People ofGlenco met with 
 from thofe Zealots about that time : And that 
 which is as bad, or worfe than all the reil, they 
 kiird and deftroy'd, and (Papift like) thought 
 they were ferving God all the time. Moil into- 
 lerable ! how prepollerous it is to hear Men plead 
 for Liberty of Confcience as a Virtue, who yci 
 (when in Power) condemn it iis one of the greateii 
 K 4 Vices? 
 
8 8 The B u lwark Stormed. 
 
 Vices ? But that Glove fits no body's Hands but 
 their own. 
 
 But as there is no Seft of Men fo good, as to 
 be in all refpefbs free from Exceptions 5 fo neither 
 is there any fo bad, as not to find fome Friends 
 and Advocates : Some therefore there are who tell 
 us, it's now unjuft to charge the Diflenters with 
 what was done in Forty One, ^c. that we ought 
 not any more to ufe that Proverb, fhe Fathers 
 have eaten fowr Grapes^ and the Childrens ^eeth 
 are fet on edge*, and the reafon, as they fay is, be- 
 caufe now the time is come, when the Wolf 
 may dwell with the Lamb •, and the Leopard, the 
 Calf, and the Lion, all lie together ; and there- 
 fore £/?^r^/;;^ fhould not Qxwy Judah^ nor Judah 
 vex Ephraim: But I think they have miftook ei- 
 ther the Text or the Time 5 for where fhall we 
 find the Men that are fo gentle, that a little Child 
 (as it there follows) may lead them ? I beheve we 
 may look long enough (among that fort of Men; 
 before we find them ! 
 
 They fay it's unjuft to charge the Children with 
 the faults of the Fathers •, I fay fo too, it the Chil- 
 dren forfake their Fathers Principles 5 but have 
 they renounc'd their Fathers Tenets ? Are the 
 Children any better Friends to Epifcopacy and 
 Monarchy than their Fathers were? Do they af- 
 fi^6t the Church of£;^^te^ better ? Nay, let their 
 own Pens declare, whether they are not much 
 wprfe afFeded to it ! for inftance, 
 
 There was many of the old Non-Conformifts, 
 that thought it no Sin to joyn with the Church 
 oi England 2ls Hearers, tho' they could not do fo 
 as Teachers -, they thought the Church of Eng- 
 ^land a true Chriftian Church, tho' they fepara- 
 fcd from her on a pretence of greater Purity : 
 
 Bu^ 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 89 
 
 But was Ds Laune of this Mind when he wrote 
 his Plea ? Lee the World judge by his Words 
 and Adions ! And if De Foe be not as good a 
 Friend to it as he, I am miftaken. If then they 
 have not declined from their Fathers Principles, 
 what Crime is it to charge them with their Fa- 
 thers Fa6ts ? Thofe Facts indeed were a6hially 
 done by their Fathers, but intJ^ntionally by them j 
 for they publickly approve of what was done, 
 and fo manifefi themi elves the Children of them 
 ■zvho killed the Prophets. Since then the fame 
 Caufe produces the fame Effeci:, why may not 
 the Effed be charged in the Caufe ? He cannoc 
 be counted a juft Man, who does juftly for no 
 other Reafon, but becaufe he has not an Oppor- 
 tunity to do otherwife: No more is he a Friend 
 to Epifcopacy and Monarchy, who deilroys them 
 not, for no other Reafon, but becaufe it is not in 
 his Power. 
 
 Suppofe then a Man is fo far given up, of 
 God, as to think it lawful, nay in forae Cafes 
 neceflary to depofe Kings , and fet up a Commor.- 
 "Wealth 3 to difplace Bijhops^ and (cz up Presby- 
 terian Church-government 5 to extirpate the 
 Com?}? on- Prayer^ and fct up a Directory it its (lead y 
 and withall, fuppofe him to believe the former 
 Anti-chriihan and Popifh, the latter purely Chri- 
 itian and reformed 5 and then allow him to have 
 a fmall matter of Zeal for his Caufe, (and what 
 is he good for that has not that) and withal allow 
 him to have full Power to eflablilh that which 
 he thinks beft, and can we then beheve he wfil 
 not do it ? If we can believe this, we may then be- 
 lieve any thing ! They may wheedle and talk of 
 Love and Friendfhip ro the Church, Kings, 
 Bifhops, and Common-Prayer, (^c. but if there 
 
 be 
 
po T^^Bulwark: Stormed. 
 
 be not a good Fence kept up againft them, they 
 \^ill go over and deftroy them all. I heartily 
 wiih i may fear th^ word, and in this point be 
 niiftaken : But li the State of things be duly 
 confidered , I believe we ihall find too great 
 Reafon for this Imputation. 
 
 For let us but obferve, whenever thofe Men are 
 out of Power, the firft Hep they make to twifl 
 themfelves in, is to get an Indulgence for tender 
 Confciences 5 grant us this, fay they, and we 
 ask no more ! O that there were fuch a Heart 
 in them ! This indeed is Jacob's Voice, but 
 they have Efau's Hands ! And I wifh fome of 
 them at leart, do not make ufe of this Pretence, 
 as Jacob did of the Skins of the Kids, to de- 
 ceive his Father, and fupplant his Brother. 
 
 They fay they defire no more than Liberty to 
 ferve God in their own Way : This is freely 
 granted them, let them v/ith all my Heart en- 
 joy it, in the large ft Extent the Law allov/s, 
 provided they .will be therewith content. But 
 when they have this granted them, are they 
 content with it ? Nothing lefs ! Now they muft 
 have Liberty to print, pubHfh and fpread abroad 
 their fcandalous Libels, to bring the Church and 
 Clergy into Contempt, that fo they may bring 
 about their own concerted Ends. They fpeak 
 much againft Popery, but we may obferve by 
 the Application, that their Eye is on the Church 
 of England all the Time : And if they can im- 
 print an Idea in the Minds of the People, that 
 the Do6lrines of the Church of England are po- 
 pish and fuperftitious , the Clergy loofe and pro- 
 phane, (and how fuccefsful have they of late been 
 in this 5 for were they ever more indecently 
 treated than now?) then the Work is done : 
 
 They 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. p i 
 
 They get themfelves a Name among the un- 
 think'ing Mob, who Iwallow the Bait, as if thofc 
 were the only good, fober, and pious Men, that 
 were againll Popery and Superltition : And all 
 that do not joyn with them, mull: certainly be 
 either Fools or Atheifts. Now they mult have 
 Liberty to fet up Schools in order to propagate 
 and perpetuate their Schifm ; i\nd in a Word, 
 they mud have Liberty to divide the Church in 
 order to (trengthen the Protcliant Intereft, and 
 to deny them this is called Pcrfccution. What? 
 dees the Protcftant Interelt indeed depend on a 
 caballing Gang of Presbyterians, Independants , 
 Anabaptifrs, Quakers, (^c. Will they now go 
 about to perfwade us, that Fa6lion and Anarchy 
 are the fupport of the Proteilant Caufe ? If this 
 be fo , we are near Popery indeed ! But let 
 them lay , and others think what they will to 
 the contrary 5 I am really of Opinion, it will 
 ever be true, that thofe Men who bell: affed the 
 Faith , ' and moft conftantly and. confcientioully 
 hold Communion v/ith the Church of England^ 
 will be found the bell Friends both to the Church 
 and State of this Kingdom. For, 
 
 Firll, If we view our Anti-epifcopal Men, 
 can it be thought that they are good, much lefs 
 the beft, Friends of the Church 5 when their 
 Principles are , and no doubt but their Pra6i:ice 
 would be (had they an Opportunity) to dellroy 
 her Conilitution and Government? When more 
 than forty had bound themfelves in a folemn Oath, 
 to eat nothing till they had killed Paul \ then 
 there is but one ftep betwixt him and Death \ 
 
 k A£ls xxiii. xi. 
 
 they 
 
p2 Tloe Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 they then want nothing but an Opportunity to 
 execute the Villany ! If they can obtain the chief 
 Captain's Promife, to have him brought forth, 
 (under a Pretence of knowing fomething more 
 pcrfe£lly) they will be fure to kill him, and fo 
 lend his Knowledge and him away together. 
 Will you now call thofe Men Pauls bed 
 Friends ? So (with Sorrow of Heart I fpeak it) 
 there were, I fay not forty, but perhaps more 
 xh'cxn forty 7'houfand who had bound themfelves 
 in a Solemn League and Covenant to deilroy the 
 Church's Conltitution and Government, and they 
 only wanted an Opportunity to execute the De- 
 fign. Will you then call thefe Men the bell 
 Friends of the Church? Are they the Men that 
 guard her Conilitution ? Then give the Wolf 
 the Lamb to keep ! Paul was fafe in the Caftle, 
 but in all probability he would not have been fo, 
 if he had been delivered up to the Will of his 
 Enemies: So the Church is fafe, when under 
 
 the Government of Epifcopal Divines : But • 
 
 I leave the Application to the Reader, and fo 
 pals on, 
 
 Secondly^ To obferve that Ant i -epifcopal^ are 
 generally if not conRantly attended with Anti-' 
 r,ionarchicc.l Principles, although in the folemn 
 League and Covenant they pretended otherwife. 
 They faid indeed, nay (which is more) they 
 fwore, " That they would in their ieveral Voca- 
 " tion?, fincerely, really, and condantly endeavour 
 " with their Eftates and Lives, mutually to pre- 
 " ferve the Rights and Privileges of the Parlia- 
 ments, and the Liberties of the Kingdom : And 
 to prefervc and defend the King's Perfon and 
 " Authority (pray obferve, how he was defended 
 '' and prcferved by them) in the Prefervation 
 
 " and 
 
 u 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. pj 
 
 "and Defence of the true Religion, and Liber- 
 " ties of the Kingdom, that the World may 
 *' bear Witnefs with our Confcienccs of our 
 " Loyalty, and that we have no Delign to di- 
 *' minifh his Majelly's juft Power and Greatnefs: 
 Loyal Men indeed I And do not our Whigs pre- 
 tend the fame thing : But fince Men's Aclions 
 bcft demonflrate the Truth of their Intentions ; 
 let me ask, did they do all this? Did they de- 
 fend the King's Majefty, the Rights of Parlia- 
 ment, and the Liberties of the Kingdoms ? No- 
 thing lefs, for they deftroyed them all ! If this fcl! 
 out contrary to what they intended, it demon- 
 llrates however, how unskilful they were to re- 
 form things amifs ; and withal, it fhews the Ob- 
 fervation of King James ( in the Difpute at 
 at Hampton-Court) no Bijhop^ 7io King^ to be true: 
 for fo it fell out, whether it was intended or nor. 
 The Peace and well being of this State, docs 
 in a great meafure depend on the Peace and well 
 being of the Church , and fo on the contrary : 
 The Church commanding Obedience to the civil 
 Magi Urate, and the civil Magi Urate commands 
 that Peace and good Order be kept in the 
 Church : The belt way then to keep the Faith 
 found, and the State quiet, is by any means 
 to prcferve the Church's Peace > and confequent- 
 ly, whoever is an Enemy to the Peace of the 
 Churchy cannot be a good Friend to the StaAe. 
 For Inilance, the Church of England does aflert ^, 
 and all the Clergy fwear to the Truth of it. 
 That it is not lawful to refift the fupream Power 
 on any Pietence whatfoever : Contrary to which, 
 
 1 Horn xiii V xxi, 
 
 :: WC 
 
p4 7^^ Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 we have among us a complicated Se£t of Whigs 
 and Dijfenters^ who (like G^^^/ and Ammon^ and 
 Amalek^with the Moabites^ Hagarenes and others of 
 old) have confederated (as they then did) again ft 
 the Church, and condemn this Doftriqe as po- 
 pifli : And this has of late caus'd great Difputes, 
 and been the Shibboleth by which to diftinguifh 
 Party from Party j and it's hard to fay, whether 
 the Church or State hath fuffered moft by this 
 Diftindion. 
 
 But be that as it will, our IVbigs fay, they 
 love the Church and its Settlement as v/ell as the 
 beft 3 nay, that they are her heartiefl and befk 
 Friends : ^hen Lord^ ifs time thou have Mercy on 
 Sion^ yea the time is come ijuhcn her Friends are 
 turned to he her Accufers ! Is he a dutiful Child 
 who calls his Mother Whore ? No more is he 
 a Friend, much \dis> a Son of the Church, who 
 condemns her Do61:rine as popifh and fuperfti- 
 tious, which is fpiritual Whoredom. Doth the 
 Whig fay, that the Church's Doctrine is popifh, 
 and all thofe popifhly inclined that believe it? 
 The Did enter indeed fays fo \ but v/hat, are Herod 
 and Pilate made Friends ? Yes truly, Simeon and 
 Le'vi are Brethren in Iniquity i the Whig and 
 Dijfenter embark both in a Ship, they ileer to the 
 fame Point of the Compafs, and it's probable 
 their Port lies in Latitude Forty -one. \{ they 
 have not the fame Interefl in Viev/, why fhould 
 they fo conilantly club together in all Ele6bions, 
 and by the fame artful Inlinuations endeavour to 
 make the World believe, that whoever is not a 
 Whig or a Dijfenter , is certainly a Papift / 
 But, if the Dodrine of the Church be popiih, 
 as they would willingly have us believe, why 
 then are our Clergy oblig'd to fubfcribe to it ? 
 
 If 
 
7Pje Bulwark Stormed. ^y 
 
 If it be not popifh and fuperftitious, why do 
 they thus reprefent it ? Why are fo many Men 
 charged as being popiflily affe6bed , for no o- 
 thcr Reafon but bccaufe they beheve what the 
 Church has enjoyn'd, and all her Clergy have 
 fworn to maintain? 
 
 But as Men in danger of drowning will lay 
 hold of any thing to fave themfelves, fo our 
 Wbigs to avoid this Imputation (of condem.nin^ 
 the Doctrine of the Church ) tell us, that the 
 Clergy do not fubfcribe to the Truth of the a- 
 forciaid Do6trine in the Senfe the mofl take it : 
 But how (hall we be fure of this, was it ever 
 put to a Poll ? If they do not fubfcribe to the 
 Articles of the Church in the Senfe that mofl 
 take them, in what Senfe do they fubfcribe to 
 them ? In the Senfe of the Impofcr^ or every 
 Subfcrihcr in his own Senfe ? If the former, then 
 whoever cannot fubfcribe to them in the plain, 
 literal and grammatical Senfe, cannot fubfcribe 
 to them in tlie Impofers Senfe j and confequently 
 are not dulv qualified for the having any Bene- 
 fice in the Church > and if without this Quali- 
 fication they could not have any Benefice, 1 fee 
 no Reafon why without it they fhould hold any. 
 But if we admit the latter, then the Church 
 has only propofcd Articles, and left every Sub- 
 fcriber to put what Comment he pleafes bn each 
 of them : But this is dire6tly contrary to v^'hat 
 is faid in the Declaration prefixed to thofe Ar- 
 ticles 5 for according to that, no Man may put 
 his own Senfe or Comment to be the meaning 
 of the Articles, but is to take them in the li- 
 teral and grammatical Senfe. Nay , the very 
 Reafon of the thing fuppofes this. 
 
 For 
 
^6 Tloe Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 For how is it likely there will be any Uni- 
 ty in the Faith, (which is the thing intended 
 by thofe Articles, ) if one whimfical Expoliror 
 be allowed to cry out, Lo, here is the true Ex- 
 pofition of the Articles of the Church ? Why 
 may not another fay, Lo, it is here? One fays it 
 is to the Right, another fays it is to the Left- 
 hand, £s?r. and then which of them inuft I be- 
 lieve V Muft I believe them all ? Then I mull 
 believe Contradiftions ! Muft I believe this, not 
 that Man? What Reafons docs he give for it ? 
 Muil 1 believe none at all ? Then to what Pur- 
 poie have we Articles? But if after all, we muft 
 have Expoiitions as v^ell as Articles, whither 
 muft we go J to what point of the Compafs 
 muft I fteer to find them ? Muft I afcend up in- 
 to Heaven, or go to an infallible Chair for this ? 
 But may I not as foon find Articles of Faith as 
 Expofitions ? In ihort, this is fo far from ex- 
 cufing, that it's in Reality bantering the Clergy, 
 for fwearing to maintain and defend the Dodrine 
 of the Church, and yet (according to thofe Men) 
 the moft part of them know not what her Do- 
 (Sirine is 5 and their Oath (if thofe Men fay true) 
 is like the Romijh Tranfubftantiation 5 an Acci- 
 dent without a Subje<5i:. 
 
 According to the thirteenth Homily of the 
 Church* of England^ wicked Rulers have their 
 Authority from God, and fo are in no Cafe to 
 berefiftedj the fame is aflcrted in the twenty-firft 
 Homily : And if any of the Clergy refufe tofub- 
 fcribe to the Truth of this, they are (according 
 to the Ad: of Uniformity) deemed incapable of 
 any Place or Benefice j what then is to be done? 
 Why fir ft fubfciibe, that it is not lawful to re- 
 fift the fupreme Power on any Pretence whatfo- 
 
 ever 3 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. ^7 
 
 ever 5 and then there is work for the Whig\ now 
 let him explain, and he'll tell you thus, 
 
 If things go well^ then muft you he 
 SubjeB to Supreme Majejiry : 
 But Majefty is but a Na?ne^ 
 ""Twas we confefd it^ he's to blame 
 If he abuje his T^ruft. 
 
 But he's a Man as well as we^ 
 IVe were not made his Sla'ves to be. 
 If then he does his I'rufi abufe^ 
 Well teach him better how to ufe<y ^ 
 
 And not abufe his frufi. 
 
 Ifs true indeed he is our King^ 
 jind that's a "very facred Thing : 
 But if he's mind Jo to remain^ 
 He mufl^ nay fhall our Se6t maintain j 
 If not^ we II him Refifi, 
 
 Is not this a very fineExpofition on the before- 
 faid Articles and Homilies? What, firft fwear^ 
 and then forfwear? If this may be call'd explain- 
 ing, what is concradi6ling them? Nay, then let 
 the Whig (if he can) tell me, what is Trealbn and 
 Rebellion ? Does not an univerfal Affirmative, de- 
 ilroy a particular Negative ? If it be true that all 
 Men are reafonable Creatures, then it is falfe that 
 fome Men are not fo : So likewife, ii it be true 
 that in no cafe we may reiift, as the Homilies de- 
 clare j then is it falfe that in fome cafes we may 
 relift: If the Church oi England allows this Li- 
 berty in explaining her Articles, 1 think I have not 
 departed from my Subie6t*, if fhedoes not, I am 
 fure I have made good my Argument, that fome 
 
 L Men 
 
^8 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 Men ufe their Liberty as a Cloak for maliciouf- 
 nefs. 
 
 I mud confefs I have made a large Digreffion 
 from that which I chiefly intended as the Subjecl 
 of this Enquiry j but being now returning, and 
 withal, being upon the Object of Liberty, 1 hope 
 I may be excus'd, efpecially conlidering, I have 
 not digrefs'd, farther than others take liberty to 
 tranfgrefs. But to return to our Queftion, vvhich 
 was to enquire, Whether the appointing the ufe 
 of fome indifferent things in the Worfhip of God, 
 which he has not commanded, does deftroy our 
 Chriftian Liberty. 
 
 Now, in order to clear this matter, and give 
 fuch an anfwer to the Queftion as is fatisfactory to 
 my own Confcience^ I think it may not be im- 
 proper in the firil place to inquire, wherein Chri- 
 llian Liberty is, and wherein it is not founded 3 for 
 I conceive if this can be once well fettled, the 
 Anfwer to the beforefaid Queftion will be plain 
 and eafy. 
 
 Firft then I take it, that Chriftian Liberty is 
 founded in the Judgment, rather than in the 
 Pradicej that is to fay,, in thinking thefe things 
 free, which God has left fo, rather than in do- 
 ing, or not doing, what we think expedient > and 
 if fo, then may Chriftian Liberty be prcferv'd 
 whxxc it is reilrain'd. But to give you an in- 
 ftance. 
 
 It's generally thought the Liberty of the Will 
 lies in the Power of determining its felf cither 
 way i and that the adual determination of it does 
 not fo take away the internal Power of the Soul, 
 but that there may ftill be a pofTibility of doing, 
 where there is no poffibility the thing can be 
 done, becaufe it is othervvife determin'd by fomc 
 
 divine 
 
Tl:fe Bulwark Stormed, 99 
 
 divine Decree j as in the cafe of felling Jofeph in- 
 to Egypt ^ and the not breaking the Bones of Chrift 
 on the Crofs, (^c. the cafe is the fame with re- 
 fpe6t to Chriftian Liberty, which may be preferv'd, 
 tho'it bereftrain'd. But, 
 
 If any do ftill doubt of this, I would ask them, 
 whether they think St.PauI^ for inftancc, under- 
 flood wherein Chriitian Liberty did conGit? And 
 knowing it, whether he a6led according to his 
 Knowledge or not ? If he did, then it's plam from 
 undeniable Fa61:, that Chriftian Liberty is founded 
 in freedom of Judgment^ rather than in freedom 
 of Practice 5 as will appear very plain to any Man 
 that will take the trouble to obferve^ how ready 
 Paul was in complying with (rather than offend) 
 the Judaizing Chriftians in many things, when 
 done with an opinion of freedom, as in circum- 
 ci^xvig Timothy ^ Atfts xvi. 5. in obferving or not 
 obferving of Days, in eating, or not eating fome 
 kind of Meats, ^c. But the fame Apoftle would 
 by no means circumcife 27/^j, Gal. ii. 34. Why? 
 becaufe there were fome who would make it ne- 
 ceffary to ciirumcife, whom Paul withftood, and 
 would not have the Church brought into Bon- 
 dage j we fee then Paul could circumcife, or he 
 could let it alone: He could obferve fome Days, 
 eat fome forts of Meats, for inllance, fuch as had 
 been ofFcr'd to Idols, or he could let it alone j 
 neither of thofe things (in themfelves confider'd) 
 deflroy Chriftian Liberty: No, it's the doing, or 
 not doing them with an opinion of necejjity that 
 does that : He that makes it neceftary not to touch, 
 taft:e, or handle thole things, does as efte6tuaUy 
 deftroy Chriftian Liberty, as he that makes it ne- 
 ceflary to do fo > which things being premisVi, 
 let 1J& now draw the Parallel to our prcfent cale. 
 L z Let 
 
loo The Bitlwark: St or me J. 
 
 Let us luppofe it now as lawful to kneel or ftand 
 when we pray, as it was for the primitive Chri- 
 liians to eat, or not eat, fome Jdnd of Meats j to 
 obferve, or not obferve, fome Days : And in a 
 word, that it now is as lawful to kneel or fit 
 when we receive the Sacrament, to ufe or not ufe 
 a Form of Prayer, i^c. as it then was for Paul to 
 circumcife I'imothy^ and purify himfelf after the 
 manner of the Jcws^ &c ^. Let us fuppofe this, 
 I fay, and then it will necefTarily follow, that I 
 may now ufe a form of Prayer, and yet preferve 
 my Liberty Hill : I may receive the Sacrament 
 kneeling, or in the Morning, or at Midnight, 
 with leaven'd or unleaven'd Bread, &?r. and pre- 
 ferve my Chriftian Liberty ftill j and the reafon 
 is, becaufe Chriftian Liberty is founded in free- 
 dom of Judgment , not in freedom of Pra^ice : 
 Since then I do thofe things (as Paul did thofe 
 before mention'd) with an opinion o^ freedom^ 
 with refpe6l to the things themfelves > and only 
 with a confequential neceflity of obeying thofe 
 whom God hath fet over me in Church and State, 
 and who have commanded, that I fliould fo do 
 thofe before mentioned things 5 for my part I can- 
 not fee, why one fhould not be as lawful as the 
 other. 
 
 For certainly, if Paul could (without breach of 
 Chriitian Liberty) comply with the advice of the 
 Church at Jerufakm^ and purify himfelf feven 
 Days according to the cuftom of the Mofaick 
 Law J if he could circumcife Timothy^ and have 
 his Confcience fo flexible, as to become a Jew to 
 the Jew^ and a Greek among the Greeks^ and yet 
 
 a Acls xvi. 3. and ^-n, from 20 to zS vzrfe, 
 
 preferve 
 
The B u L WA R K Stormed, i o i 
 
 prcferve his Chriftian Liberty: Why may not I, 
 or any other Perfon do the fame thing? 
 
 I make no doubt but Paul thought it a matter 
 oF Indiffcrcncy whether he circumcis'd or notj 
 whether he purify 'd himfelf or notj whether he 
 eat or eat not Tome fort of Meats ; obferv'd or not 
 obferv'd fome particular Days, 13 c. But when he 
 came to Jerufalem^ the Church there (leaving his 
 Judgment free) determined his Pra6tice to pu- 
 rify himfelf as is before faid. So likewife, I be- 
 lieve its lawful to ufe an extemporary Prayer j- to 
 receive the Sacrament fitting, or in the Evening, 
 or at A'lidnight , with leaven'd or unleaven'd 
 Bread, ^c. but fince thofe things are not com- 
 manded, nor the contrary Culloms forbid, why 
 may not I, or any other Perfon (after the Exam- 
 ple of the great St. Paul) determine my Pra6tice, 
 by the Culloms of the Church m which I live ? 
 Sure [ am, (ifjwe may believe Hi Itory) it was the 
 advice of St. ^mhrofe to St. y^ugtifim^th^t heihould 
 (with refpect to Rituals) obferve the Culloms of 
 the Place or Church where he came, if he was 
 minded not to give or take offence. Which 
 things being preaiis'd, I conclude (and as I think 
 juftly too) that it is not the determination of the 
 Pra<5iice -, but the confinement of the Confcience, 
 to or from the ufe of thofe things, that deilroys 
 ChrilHan Liberty. 
 
 Thus have I done with this Liberty j and tho' 
 I have faid nothing to it but what is fatisfadory 
 to my own Confcience j yet I leave every Man 
 to himfelf to judge of it as he fees caufe j and fo 
 ril proceed according to my proposed method. 
 
 Fifthly^ To enquire, whether the Ceremonies 
 now us'd in the Church of England^ were like- 
 wife us'd in the primitive Church. 
 
 L 3 But 
 
102 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 But before I come to the Examination of Par- 
 ticulars, I think it may not be amifs to obferve, 
 that De Laune and I agree about the Age of pure 
 Antiquity, and indeed till this be determined, we 
 call never be certain what was, or what was not 
 thePradice of it. It's agreed then, whatever (in 
 the enfuing Difcourfe ) comes within, or falls 
 without the Compafs of the firfl four hun- 
 dred Years after Chrift, is to be accounted either 
 pra6tifed or not praclifed in the Primitive Church, 
 But, 
 
 Secondly^ Let it alfo be obferved, that (in this 
 Particular) our Queftion is not De jurt but De 
 faUo^ not whether the primitive Church did well 
 in appointing the Ufe of fome Ceremonies, but 
 whether ihe did appoint any well or ill. But then, 
 
 " If, fays he", the Pattern (for ufing our 
 " Riles and Ceremonies) be fetched from thofe 
 " primitive Times, we would enquire into thefe 
 " two Things: Firfl, by what Rule or Reafon 
 
 they fhould be a Pattern to us, fo as to have 
 
 their Rites and Services impofed on us for our 
 '' Ritual? Secondly, whether there were not 
 " great Errors and Superftitions in thofe Times, 
 '' as well as in the fucceeding Ages ? And then 
 '^ after he has made a Recital of fome of thofe 
 " Errors, he concludes thus% fo that from the 
 '' Confideration of the Errors and Superftitions 
 *' abounding in thofe Times, there is no ground 
 '' why our firfl: Reformers fhould propofe them 
 *^ for our Pattern j for if in one thing, why not 
 ^^ in another, fiiys he ? Very divertmg indeed ! 
 What firit deny, and then own the Fad ? If 
 the Church of England be fo contrary to the 
 
 » FUa\ pag. i8. o pica^ pag. 26. 
 
 primitive 
 
 ic 
 
The ^xM.y^k'^Y. Stormed. 103 
 
 primitive Pattern as he pretends, why does he 
 condemn her, for not agreeing with a Pattern 
 he does not approve ? If the ancient Church 
 were wholly cortupted , then why does he find 
 fault with us for not agreeing with it? If it 
 were not wholly con-upted, what Fault can there 
 be in agreeing v/ith it in thofe Things in which 
 there is no Corruption? Indeed the Antiquity of 
 a Cuftom that is pleaded in bar of Truth, as one 
 well obferves p, is of no Force 5 but if a Dif- 
 pute happen about Rituals, and what Ceremonies 
 are decent, i3c. I know no better Way to de- 
 cide this, than to refer to the Praftice of the 
 primitive Church. But then, if we agree with 
 them in one thing, fays he, why not in another? 
 What, if with Origen I believe that the Wicked 
 ar^ punidied in Hell, muft I with him alfo b^ 
 lieve, that that Punifhment fhall not be eternal? 
 If with St. Peter I believe that Jefus is the Chrift 
 the Son of the living God^ inuft I with Peter alfo 
 deny him ? This is fo extravagantly foolifh, as 
 not to need more Words to confute that, which 
 <."!oes fo apparently carry its ovi/n Confutation'with 
 it. But then. 
 
 Secondly^ He asks what Rule or Reafon there 
 is, for impofing theirCuflomson us? To which, 
 
 1 anfwer, there's juft as much Reafon for it, 
 as is to be met with in his Queftion, and that 
 is juft none at all. For certainly he was not ig- 
 norant of what the Church of England aflerts, 
 " 4 That every particular or national Church, 
 " hath Authority to ordain, change, and abolifh 
 " Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, £5;^. if 
 
 p Pellens Good old Way. % Article 34. 
 
 L 4 " then 
 
I04 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 *' then it be not necefTary (as this Article fays it 
 *' is not) that Traditions and Ceremonies be in 
 " all Places one or utterly 'like, becaufe at all 
 ^' Times they have been divers , and may be 
 *' changed according to the diverfity of Coun- 
 " tries. Times, and Mens Manners, £5?^. If it 
 be To, I fay, What Reafon is there in his De- 
 mand ? If every national Church have Autho- 
 rity to ordain, change and aboliih Ceremonies 
 or Rites of the Church, i^c. thenfure the Church 
 of Englayid among the reft has fuch Authority : 
 If then fuch Authority fhe hath , then fure fuch 
 ihe may ufe , and confequently may choofe her 
 own Ceremonies : But if in choofing llie pay a 
 due refpefl: to the Pradice of the ancient Church, 
 and takes in fome of the ancient Ceremonies j yet 
 it muft ftill be fuppofed that in fo doing, fhe a6ls 
 confiftent with her own Liberty j and confe- 
 quently does this willingly ^nd not by Conftraint, 
 being under no Obligation one way or other. 
 Thus having removed the Objeftions caft in my 
 way by De Laune 5 and having likewife propofed 
 the fhirty-fourth x^rticle of our Church as a fure 
 rule to walk by in this prefent Enquiry : I fhall 
 now defcend to Particulars, and as I go take the 
 Advice of Dr. Calamy ^ and not barely rely on 
 theAuthority of onefide or the other, but when 
 I have equally heard both fides, ihall determine 
 my Pradice to that, which I fee the beft Rea- 
 fons for. 
 
 Firft^ then he tells us ^, " That kneeling at 
 the Altar, or at the Sacrament of the Lord's- 
 
 (C 
 
 ^ Plea, pag. .22,. 
 
 « Sup- 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. lo y 
 
 ^ Supper, is but a novel Invention, never known 
 '' in the World before Tranfublkntiation, ^c. 
 " That Pope Honorius in the Year 12 14. or- 
 '' daincd Kneeling at the Sacrament, and his Prc- 
 '^ decefTor Innocent the Thud "Tranfubjiantia' 
 " tion^ l^c. 
 
 Well, fuppofe I fhould grant all this (as in- 
 deed I fhall not till I fee it better proved) what 
 is the Confequence of it ? Why then Pope Ho- 
 norius decreed it, and confequently it was not in 
 ufe in the primitive Church. Well, admit all 
 this, yet how does it appear that it's unlawful 
 to ufe any thing that the primitive Church did 
 not, or that Pope Honorius decreed ? If every 
 national Church has Authority to choofe its own 
 Ceremonies, as the Church of England fays it 
 hath y and if kneeling at the Sacrament be only 
 a Ceremony or Circumftance of Worfhip, as no 
 doubt it is, then it's no great matter whether 
 the primitive Church ufed it or not, or whether 
 Honorius or Innocent^ i^c. decreed it or not : 
 For be it either or be it neither, we are under no 
 Obligation to do or omit, what has been by 
 them either practifed or decreed. But for Argu- 
 ment-fake, pray how does it appear that Pope 
 Honorius decreed it .^ We are told fo in the De- 
 cietals, fays he j and Peter Martyr fiys, that to 
 maintain Tranfublkntiation and real Prefence, it 
 was brought into the Church : But there is 
 very Httlc Reafon to believe this! 
 
 For, if we may believe Dr. Horneck'xx\^ others, 
 it is a plain Cafe that Tranfubdantiation was in 
 vogue almoil ifo Years before Honorius'^ Days, 
 and confequently if that Dodiine could fubfift 
 ifo Years, without being fupporred by the 
 
 kneeling 
 
io6 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 kneeling Geflure, I think there is little account 
 to be taken of what Peter Martyr aflerts. And 
 jis for Pope Honoritis's decreeing the kneeling 
 Gefture, that (as the fame Dodor obferves ^, 
 is alfo manifeftly falfe j for all that he ordained 
 was, that the Body fhould be decently bowed, 
 when the holy Symbols were lifted up by the 
 Priel?. Nay farther, if they will believe Mr. Prynne 
 Dr. Burgeffe and others, mentioned in the Cafe 
 of Kneeling in the London Cafes "" ; Kneeling in 
 the a6t of receiving the Sacrament, was never 
 any inllituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome. 
 But if any defire farther Satisfaction in this Point, 
 let them at their Leafure confult the before-fiid 
 'JLondon Cafes^ and I doubt not but they will find 
 "whzt Be Laune afferts, (with refpeft to this Par- 
 ticular) to be manifeftly falfe and groundlefs. 
 But, 
 
 Secondly^ '' As for the Surplice^ fays he ", the 
 '' Fathers ufed it nor, though it's clear the Pa- 
 " gans did 5 from whence thePapifts had it, and 
 ^' we from them. Well, the Fathers ufed it not, 
 what then -, it's but a Circumftance of Worfhip, 
 ^nd therefore may lawfully be ufed by us upon 
 the before-faid Principle, though it fhould be 
 granted the Fathers ufed it not. But how does 
 it appear that the Fathers ufed it not ? Why, he 
 fays, they did not: Well, then it muft be fo ! 
 he fays indeed, that Pope Adrian brought in the 
 ufe of it Jnno J9^. but that is a great Miftake if 
 we may believe Mr. Pellen^ Mr. Hooker^ Dr. Cave^ 
 Dr. Stillingfleet ^ and many more who might be 
 produced j who have ( from good Authority) 
 
 r • ' ■ ' ... I I . I . . I 
 
 f Cmcified^efus, p. 598. ^ p. 3-7, 38. u p^a, p. ii. 
 
 prov'd 
 
Thii Bulwark Stormed. 107 
 
 proWd it to have been in ufe foo Years and more 
 before his Time. 
 
 However, fince it is but a Circumftance of 
 Worfhip, and fince our Church has exprcffly 
 declared^, " That fhe means not to attribute 
 ^^ any HoUnefs , or fpecial Worthincfs to the 
 '^ wearing of the faid Surplice or any of the 
 ^' Priefts Garments, but appoints them only for 
 ^' the fake of Decency , Gravity, and Order as 
 " is before exprefled : Since this is fo, I fayj 
 one would think no fober Man (that was well 
 inllrufted in the Nature of Chriftian Liberty) 
 could doubt about it. But if after all, there be 
 any (as I hope there be but few) that doubt of 
 the Lawfulnefs of it, all that I fhall fay to fuch 
 is, to advife them to read the London Cafes ^ 
 Dr. Stilling fleet" % Unreafonablenefs of Separation^ 
 the Friendly Debate or Hooker's Ecclefiaflical Poli- 
 tic^ ^c. and I doubt not but they will find fuf- 
 ficient Reafons to convince them. But then, 
 
 Thirdly^ " As for the Sign of the Crofs in ( I 
 '' fay after) Bnptifm upon the Forehead only, 
 ^^ we read of no fuch Rite among the Ancients, 
 '' fays he, i^c. but why then does he tell us in 
 the very next Paragraph, that the Ancients after 
 Baptifm, did fign the Baptiz'd with a Crofs up- 
 on the Head and Bread } What, did they ufe a 
 Cuftom they knew not of ? But why does he add, 
 upon the Forehead only ? Should we pleafe him 
 better, if we fhould Crofs the Breaft too ? If not, 
 why is this added ? If we fhould, the Argument 
 according to him ftands thus : To crofs the Bap- 
 
 ^y Canon 74. 
 
 ti2'4 
 
I o 8 The B u L WARK Stormed. 
 
 tizM on the Forehead and Breaft, is confonafit to 
 the primitive Pattern j but to crofs the Forehead 
 only^ is popifli and fuperftitious : If thea in this 
 Particular we are to be blamed, it is becaule we 
 are not fuperftitious and popifh enough. 
 
 " The Ancients did indeed fign the Baptized 
 ^' with a Crofs on his Head and Breaft, fays he, and 
 ^' anointed him with Chrifm as a diftindl order 
 '^ from Baptifm : But they us'd no fuch figning 
 '^ in the a6t of Baptifm as part of that Ordi- 
 " nance. Pray obferve by his own ConfefHon, 
 there was fuch a Rite ufed among the Ancients, 
 and yet there was not according to his Aflertion. 
 How fhall we reconcile this Difcord ? Why 
 thus, ^' They ufed this Rite as a diftin£t order 
 " from Baptifm, but we ufe it in the a<^ of Bap- 
 *' tifm as part of that Ordinance : What will he 
 not fay that will fay this ! Does not the Church 
 of £«^/^;2^ plainly and exprcflly adert^, " That 
 " the Child is fully and perfedly baptized before 
 " the Sign of the Crofs is made ? and fo, it 
 " being ufed, adds nothing to the Vertue or 
 " Perfection of Baptifm : Nor being omitted, 
 '' detrads any thing from the EfFed and Sub- 
 '' ftance of it ? Nay farther, it's obfervabie 
 that the Sign of the Crofs is mentioned (in this 
 very Canon ) among things indifferent and alte- 
 rable : And confequently, is not counted as a 
 part of that Ordinance, which is of perpetual 
 Obligation in the Church of Chrift. Nay far- 
 ther yet, if Baptifm is the Door, that is to fay, 
 the initiatory Sacrament^ by which we are ad- 
 mitted into Chrift's Fold, and fo counted among 
 
 3f Can. 30. 
 
 the 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 109 
 
 the Number of his faithful and elcft Children 5 
 then may we obferve , ( for it's a plain Cafe ) 
 both from the Office of private as well as of 
 pubHck Baptifm, that the Child is received in- 
 to the Congregation of Chrift's Flock, before 
 the Sign of the Crofs is made: How then 
 could he have the Face to tell the World , 
 that the Church of England ufed the Sign of 
 the Crols, as part of the Ordinance of Bap- 
 tifm ? will you call him a Gentleman, a Chri- 
 ilian and a Scholar, who fpreads fuch falfe and 
 fcandalous Reports ? Yes , for we mull ex- 
 cufe fmall Faults, in a Man guilty of fo many 
 great ones ! However, he goes on and tells us, 
 '' That the Reformers in Edward the Sixth's 
 '' Time, did as the firfl: Service-book makes 
 " mention, lign the Elements three TimiCS with 
 '' the* Sign of the Crofs, and alfo the Child on 
 '' his Forehead and Breaft, but all this is laid 
 '' afide (he fhould have excepted the crofling 
 '^ of the Forehead) and a new thing taken up, 
 *' which is neither to be met with in Anticjuity, 
 '' nor the firfl Pattern of our Reformers. ' 
 
 As to vvhat is to be met with in Antiquity 
 concerning this Ceremony, he gives us but a very 
 imperfect account of it. He fays indeed, we read 
 of no fuch Rite among the Ancients, and that 
 it feems m.uft pafs for Proof: But if this Rite 
 was not in ufe in the primitive Churchy as he fays 
 it was not 3 why did he not acquaint us with 
 the Pope's Name", that firfl: brought it in ufe in 
 the Church ? But if he did not know, it's not 
 to be wonder'd at why he did not name him! 
 
 It is I muft confefs fomewhat difficult to tell, 
 who firfl brought it in ufe in the Church, if it 
 Was brought m at any time fincc the apoflolick 
 
 Age, 
 
no The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 Age. However, this is certain, it was in ule in 
 the Days o^ fertuIUan and Cyprian^ as is confefs'd 
 by Mr. Stenet Y and others, who were no Friends 
 to the life of it; and confequently was in ufc 
 within the firft four hundred years after Chrift, 
 (which is the time by him fix'd for pure Anti- 
 quity) as might be made good in many particu- 
 lars, i-f I thought there was any occafion for itj 
 but finding this aheady done to my hand by 
 Dr. Cave ^, Bifhop Taylor % the London Cafes^ 
 Mr. Hooker^ Ecdejiaftical Polity^ and many others 
 who have wrote on that Subjeft, Ifhall, for bre- 
 vity fake, omit citations, and refer my Reader 
 to the beforefaid Books for more ample Satif- 
 faftion. 
 
 But then, why does he call the croffing the 
 Child on the Forehead a new thing, not to be 
 met with in Antiquity, nor in the firlt Patttrn of 
 our Reformers, when at the fame time he con- 
 feffes both ? For if the Ancients after Baptifm did 
 fign the baptiz'd with a Crofs on his Head and 
 Bread > and if the firft Reformers in Edward the 
 Sixth's time, did (as the firft Service Book makes 
 mention) fign the Child on the Forehead and 
 Breaft, as he afierts they did> then fure it can be 
 no very hard matter to find this Ceremony in ufe, 
 not only among the firft Reformers > but alfo 
 among the Ancients too. But to proceed, 
 
 " Fourthly^ As for the Order and Office of 
 '' Confirmatioj; in the Rubiuck and Liturgy, it is 
 " another thing, fays he, than the Ancients us'd. 
 " How docs this appear ? Why firft theirs was 
 *' done with Chrifm^ ours not fo j theirs was dong 
 
 y In his Anfwer to Ruflen, J>. 75. 
 
 * In his Primitroe Chrili. p. 112, 213. 
 
 * In his Dh^L Dab. Lib, 3. p. 327. 
 
 3 " only 
 
7 he B u LWARK Stormed, i n 
 
 " only by the Hands of a Bififop^ fo is ours; but 
 " they us'd to do it immediately after Baptifm was 
 " admifiifier'd^ as a diftin6l Ordinance from it j 
 " and is it not diftindt with us too ? but they 
 ^' us'd to do it "with two Crojfes^ one on the Fore^ 
 " head^ the other on the Breaft^ 6cc. It fcems 
 then (if in this particular we are culpable) it is 
 hccaufe we ufe not fuperflitious Ceremonies enow. 
 As for Croflcs and Chrifm in Confirmation, it's 
 true we ufe them not, neither is there any occa- 
 fion for us fo to do, if we refpe6t either the thing 
 it felf, or the Practice of the ancient Church m 
 this particular. '' For if we may believe Dr. Cave ^j 
 '' thofe who had (in the primitive Church) re- 
 " ceived compleat Baptifm, were not afterw^ards 
 " anointed at their Confirmation, for which the 
 ^' Council of Orange ^ is mod exprefs and clear. 
 '' And indeed, fays he, that Confirmation was 
 " often adminifler'd without this Un<5tion, no 
 '' Man can doubt, that knows the flate of thofe 
 '' Times, being done only by folemn impolition 
 " of the Bifhops Hands, an4 by devout and pi- 
 " ous Prayers, i^c. Dr. Wilkt fays the fame 
 thing ^ \ and to omit many others that I could 
 name that have {q aflerted, Vix. Perkins tells us ^, 
 ^' That the Chrifm or anointing the Baptiz'd, 
 " which was us'd in Antiquity, had its inilituti- 
 '' on from Syl-vcjler^ as Platina fays in his Life. 
 " He it v/as that firil commanded the ufe there - 
 " of, which before was free to be done or not, kJc. 
 " And indeed, fays he, in Jujlin Martyr's time, 
 '' there was no ufe of Chrifm in Baptifm ; -and 
 " a little after he fays, it was not in 'TertulUan^s 
 
 ^ Pr'tmhi'ue Chrijl. Part r. Chap. lo. p. 2x9. 
 
 c Can. I. <^ S^jncp. Papifm. p. 813. 
 
 « In his Demonjiration of the Problem, Lib. 2. p. 652. 
 
 " timej 
 
Ill The B u LWARK Stormed. 
 
 " time J and Si. Jugnfiins fays, Impofition of 
 '' Hands, what is it but Prayer over the Perfon ? 
 So then, our Confirmation Hands not in need of 
 CrofTes and Chrifm, to make it correfpond with 
 that which was us'd in the primitive Church, 
 becaufe it does that much better without them. 
 Well, be that as it will, he tells us however, 
 " Th'at Archbifhop Cranmer does fully acknovv- 
 *' ledge, that there is no diredion in Scripture 
 **• for Confirmation. I have not the Manufcript 
 *' he fpeaks of by me, and fo muft take his word, 
 that the Citation is fair, tho* at the fame time I 
 have very little reafon to do fo, having fome Rea- 
 fons to beheve it was the popilh Sacrament of 
 Confirmation the Bifhop was fpcaking of 3 but 
 whether it were fo or not, it is of no great mo- 
 ment 3 for fince the Scripture is of no private 
 Interpretation, I may well oppofc him with the 
 Authoritv of Bifliop i'ayJor^ Dr. Hamomiy Mr. Bax- 
 ter^ and many more who are produc'd againll him 
 by Dr. Ca^je and others, particularly in the T>i- 
 ipute at HamptoH'Cfiurt . 
 
 But this is only oppofing one Man with the 
 Authority of another 3 therefore for a conclufion 
 of this Particular, Ifhall advife all who are againll 
 our manner of Confirmation, to take their own 
 time, and anfwer (if they can) Mr. Sayweirs Ar- 
 guments for the divine Rite of Confirmation ^ j 
 and when they have done that, it may be time 
 enough to diied them to fome others. But 
 then, 
 
 " Bfibly, As for the Office of Baptifm of In- 
 " fants, as enjoin'd in the Liturgy forRegenera- 
 I 
 
 ^ Ina Ser,-n on jireach'd at Huntingdon on the loth c/ June, 
 1700. 
 
 cc 
 
 tion 
 
Tlje B u LWARK Stormed, 1 1 3 
 
 '^f 'tion on the Deed done, fays he S, and to be 
 " performed by GoJJips who are to profefs Faith 
 '^ and Repentance in the InHmt's name and Head, 
 *^ it's generally fcruplcd and difown'd by the Dif- 
 " Tenters, (as favouring too much of Popery) tho* 
 " the greateft part of them do baptize their In- 
 '' fants. Well, who can help it, if they will do 
 what is generally fcrupled and difown'd by them ? 
 Nay, who can help \vhat they will fcruple and 
 difown? 
 
 But what does he mean by all this confus'd 
 Jargon? Baptifm of Infants, Regeneration, Deed 
 done, Liturgy, Gofl^ps, Faith and Repentance, t> r. 
 had much Learning made him mad ? Or was it 
 much Ignorance that had made him fo ? For 
 whereabouts in the Liturgy may we find, that 
 Baptifm is appointed for Regeneration on the 
 Deed done ? According to the Church of Eng- 
 land's notion of it, Baptijm is an outward and vi- 
 fible S'tgn^ of an inward and fpiritual Grace^ gi' 
 ven unto us^ ordain' d by Chrift himfelf as a means 
 whereby we receiz-e the fame : Here then is an 
 outward and vifible Sign, the application of Wa- 
 ter to the Perfon baptiz'd, but the inward and' 
 fpiritual Grace by which we are regenerated, is 
 (in the ufe of this Ordinance) given unto us by 
 Chrift himfelf Agreeable to w^hich, theMinifter 
 is direfted to piay, that the Perfon baptiz'd may 
 receive Remiflion of his Sins, not by the Deed 
 done, but by fpiritual Regeneration 3 and again, 
 Grant ^ fays he, that whojoever is here dedicated to 
 thee by our Office and Miniftry^ may alfo be endu'd 
 with heavenly virtues^ &:c. And a little after, 
 San6tify this fVater^ to the fnyjiical waflnng away 
 
 8 P/p<7, p. 24. 
 
 M «/ 
 
114 ^^^ ^ ^ Lw ARK Stormed. 
 
 of Sin^ 6CC. From all which it's plainly intima- 
 ted, that the outward and vifible Sign (that is, 
 Baptifm with Water) may fometimes be, where 
 fpiritual Regeneration, or the Baptifm of the Spi- 
 rit, does not take place. But it^s objedted, Does 
 not the Church o^ England look on Infants (be- 
 fore Baptifm is adminifter'd to them) as Children 
 of Wrath, as Aliens from the Commonwealth of 
 Ifrael^ Strangers to the Covenant of Promife, 
 without hope, and without God in the World 5 
 but no fooner is a little Water pour'd on them, 
 but the Mini Her gives God thanks, for that it 
 hath pleas'd him to regenerate the Party baptiz'd 
 with his Holy Spirit, and for receiving him or her 
 for his own Child by adoption, l^c. Nay farther, 
 if the Child had dy'd before it had been thus bap- 
 tiz'd, it would not have been allow'd Chriftian 
 Burial, fay they> but being fo, (if he depart this 
 Life immediately, before he has done either 
 good or evil) ye pronounce him happy and blef- 
 fed, i^c. Now to this mighty Objedion which 
 fo much puzzles fome, (and I muft confefs it was 
 formerly my own Cafe) I iliall return this fair, and 
 as I think, full Anfwer. 
 
 With refpe6t to the firft part of the Obje£i:i- 
 0TI9 I fay with the Church of England ^, " That 
 " original Sin llandeth not in the following of 
 ^^ Jdam^ (as the Pelagians vainly talk) but it is 
 ^^ the fault and corruption of the Nature of eve- 
 " ry Man, that naturally is engendred of the 
 " Offspring of jidam^ and for which every Per- 
 *' fon fo born into this World, deferveth God's 
 " Wrath and Damnation, which none can efcape -, 
 but by the alone Merits of Jefus Chrift, made 
 
 *» ArtnU the gth. 
 
 over 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 1 1 jT 
 
 6vcr to them by a moft gracious Covenant j the 
 vifible Sign of which (under the Gofpel Difpen- 
 Tation) is Baptifm only. So then (if we proceed 
 by the Rules of Judgment and Charity) we muft 
 at leail fuppofe him to have the thing (ignify'd, 
 who is vouchiaf 'd the Blefling of the Sign. And 
 fo on the contrary, there is no Rule for us to 
 judge him pofTefs'd of the thing fignify'd, who is 
 lb unhappy as to be deny'd the vifible Sign : I 
 fpeak in a Covenant way, and judging by Ru!e> 
 but far be it from me, to limit the holy One of 
 Ifrael'^ who is not, as we are, ty'd to Ordinances > 
 which being premis'd, I fhall now proceed to the 
 heart of the Objedion. 
 
 If Baptifm is not appointed for Regeneration 
 on the Deed done, why is it, nay how can it be 
 faid (in the Office of Baptifm) that the Child 
 which but now (before a little Water v/as caft 
 on it) was a Child of Wrath, is become a Child 
 of Grace, and regenerated by the Spirit? Why 
 v^ry well, and very truly it may be laid fo ! but 
 that I may be as intelligible as is pofllble 3 rU 
 give the objetStcr an initance in a like cafe, and 
 then proceed. 
 
 Let him then confider, that Adam's Tranf- 
 greflion has the fame evil effe6t on the Jew than 
 it has on the Gentile : But under the Mofaick Di- 
 fpenfation, God was pleas'd to make a Covenant 
 with the former, not fo v/ith the latter j unto 
 which Covenant he w*as likcwife pleased to add a 
 vifible Badge or Seal > obliging all that expe6ted 
 benefit by the one, to partake, of the other : 
 So then, whoever was of the Jezvs Pofberity 
 coming to be eight Days old, and was not cw- 
 cumcis'd, that Soul was to be cut off fromi Ifraeh, 
 and tho' he had not in a£l done cither good or 
 
 M z evil^ 
 
ii6 The B u lwark Stormed. 
 
 evil, yet he hath broken my Covenant^ fays the 
 Text, Gen. xvii. 14. until he was circumcis'dj 
 he was not counted of the. number of God's Peo- 
 ple, but as a Stranger and Foreigner ; one that 
 did not belong to the Houfhold of Faith j one 
 chat was no Son of faithful Ahraha'm^ and confe- 
 quently had no privilege in the Covenant made to 
 him aiid his Seed •, and in /hort, (to ufe the Apo- 
 iHe's words Whilft in this uncircumcis'd conditi- 
 on) he was without hope^ and without God in the 
 World. A moft deplorable State indeed ! but 
 now take the fame Perfon, and the fame day cir- 
 cumcife him, and what then ? He has done nei- 
 ther good nor evil indeed j but is he in the fame 
 itate 11 ill ? No, for now he being eircurncis'd, 
 is no longer to be counted common or unclean^ 
 but as one of theT/r^^/, one of the adopted Chil- 
 dren of God-, one unto whom belongs thefatnefs 
 of the Olive Tree j that is, all the bleflings pro- 
 mis'd to faithful Abraham : May we not now ufe 
 a facramental Metonymy, and fay, he is regene- 
 rsited, or in a Covenant way re-efhablifhed in the 
 I'avour of a merciful God ? Before he was cir- 
 cumcis'd, (and by that means in God's favour 
 through Covenant) before this, I fay, being by 
 the fin of Adam put out of God's favour, he was 
 no better than one dead in TrefpaOes and Sins 5 
 but being circumcis'd, he is thereby made a Mem- 
 ber of the Jewijh Church, unto whom pertaineth 
 the adoption^ and the Glory ^ and the Covenant y 
 and the giving of the Law y and the Service of 
 God^ and the Promifes^ dec. If any Man there- 
 fore ask, what advantage had the Jew ? Or what 
 profit was there in bemg circumcis'd ? I anfvver 
 with the Apojlky Rom. iii. 1. Much every way y 
 chiefly becaufe they were by it initiated into the 
 
 Jewijb 
 
T'he B u LWA RK StormecL 1 1 7 
 
 Jewipj Church, unto whom the Oracles of God 
 were committed j which being premised, let us 
 now draw the parallel to our prcfcnt cafe. 
 
 As then under the J czuifi axonomy, none were 
 admitted into the J C7vi/b Church but byCircum- 
 cifion: So under the Gofpel Difpcniation, none 
 can in a regular (that is in a Covenant) way be a 
 viflble Member of the Chriflian Church but by 
 Baptifm: The Jcwifi and Chriftian Church dif- 
 fer in outward form and manner of Administra- 
 tion j but the fubllantial Privileges are the fame 
 m both, in fubilancc they differ not. As the 
 y:iv and Gentile have in Subflancc but one Faith, 
 lo in Subftance they have but one Church j built^ 
 as the xApoftle fays, on the foundation of the A- 
 fofiles and Prophets -, Chrift himfelf being the 
 corner Stone : I'he Chriftian Church fas you may 
 obfen'c) is not built on theApolllcs alone, or on 
 the Prophets alone, but on the ApolHes and Pro- 
 phets y and it's obfervablc, that the Apofrle (fpeak- 
 ing of the rejection of the Jeivs^ and the calling 
 in of the. Gentiles) fayt?, Rom. xi. 17. If forne of 
 the branches be broken off^ and then being a ivild 
 Oli'vc Tree^ that is^ one that art not a Jew born, 
 ivert grafted In among them (the believing Jezvs that 
 were not broken off) and ivith them partakeft of 
 the root and fatnefs of the Olive Tree : That is to 
 fay, if thou art grafted into the fame Church, 
 and by that means made a partaker with them of 
 the fubftantial Blefnngs of the Covenant made 
 with Abraham as the Father both of the Jewiffj 
 Nation and Church > boafl not againfl the branches 
 thus broken off^ for they are the natural branches 
 fill: From whence obfervc, it was onlyfomc of 
 the Branches that were broken off', the Olive 
 Tree was not cut down, neither were all the 
 M ^ Branches 
 
1 1 8 The B u lwark Stormed. 
 
 Branches broken off, for the wild Olive Branches 
 were grafted into the old Stem, together with 
 the natural Branches that were not broken off j 
 and with them partook of the fame Root and 
 Fatnefs 5 we fee then the Jewijlo and the Chriili- 
 an Church are nourifli'd from the fame Root j there 
 may be fome difference with refpe£t to the man- 
 ner of being in the Tree, but they are both in it, 
 and both draw Life and Sap from the fame Root. 
 If then the initiative Sacrament (Circumcifion) 
 under the Mofaick Difpenfation, could (in one 
 hours time) make fuch an alteration as is before 
 exprefs'd, v/ithout any concurrent Acl of the Party 
 circumcis'd : Why may not Baptifm, (the only 
 initiative Sacrament) under the Gofpel Difpenfati- 
 on, do the fame thing ? efpecially if it be true 
 w^hat Mufcidus and others have faid concerning 
 this matter. " \Ve fhall define Baptifm aright, 
 '^ fays he ^5 to be the Sacrament of Regenerati- 
 ^^ on. Purgation, Profefiion, Sandification, Con- 
 ^' fignmenr, and Incorporation into Cbriil our 
 " Saviour : For all thofe things are wrought by 
 " the Spirit of Chrifl in the ele6l and faithful, 
 " of which Baptifm is the Sacrament : So that 
 ^' it may be truly faid, that the fame is wrought in 
 ^' it Sacramentally, which is done fpiritually by 
 '' the Spirit of Chrifl, either before, at, or after 
 " Baptifm is adminifler'd. And a httle after he 
 fays with St.^-j/g///?/>nnfubfl:ance thus, that in ^- 
 hraham the Juflice or Righteoufnefs of Faith went 
 before, and Cncumcifion the Sign or Token of it 
 follow'd after : So in Cornelius the fpiritual Sanfti- 
 fication went before, and the Sacrament of Re- 
 generation (Baptifm) came after : But as in Ifaacy 
 
 i In his Comment Place; ^ Vol, p. 2.82. 
 
 Circum- 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 1 19 
 
 Circumcifion, the Sign went before the thing fig- 
 nify'd 5 fo in the Infants who arebapriz'd, the Sa- 
 crament of Regeneration goes before y and if they 
 hold on in aChriflian godly life, there follows af- 
 ter that Converfion in their Hearts, the Sign of 
 which went before in Baptifm. TjvJVillet^ Bi- 
 ihiop Taylor^ Bifhop UfJjer^ Bifhop Ridk\\, and ma- 
 nv more, fay the fame thing in Sublf ance, as I could 
 fully fhew, were there an occafion for it. Bur, as 
 I think, what I have faid is a fufFicient anfwer to 
 the beforefaid Objection j and {ince my defign is 
 not to inquire after the Truth, but the Antiquity 
 of Doftrines j I ihall not only omit that, but allb 
 fin this place) pa{s by that part of the exception 
 which relates to GoJJlps and the Liturgy^ well 
 kowingllhall meet with them again in their pro- 
 per place. Having difpatch'dthis, I lay, and, as I 
 think, fairly and clearly fhewn, ;in oppoiition to 
 hisfhamelefs alTertion) that the Church o^Efiglatid 
 does not appoint Baptifm for Regeneration on the 
 Deed done : But contrarily, that tho' Baptifm 
 (the only initiatory Sacrament into the Chrillian 
 Church) may be call'd Regeyieratior.^ Titus iii. f . 
 and fo the Party baptized may by a Sacramental 
 Metonymy) be faid to be regenerated > yet fpiri- 
 tual Regeneration (of which Baptifm with Wa- 
 ter is the vifible Sign, Seal, or Pledge; is wrought 
 only by the Spirit of God y and that there is no 
 more Phyflcal virtue in the Water of Baptifm to 
 cleanfe the Soul, than there was in the Waters of 
 Jord.in to heal Naaman of his Leprofie. Give me 
 ieave then to go on to that which he chiefly in- 
 tended by the exception j and that which I am 
 chiefly concem'd to anfwer, ^jiz. How long has it 
 been a Cuilom in the Church to baptize Intrints? 
 Why truly I think there has been no time lince 
 
 M 4 the 
 
I20 The Bulwark Stormed: 
 
 ^he apoftolick Age, in which it was not pradis'd 
 in the Church. 
 
 " He fays>^ that Bifhop !r^j7or afTerts, that the 
 '' Tradition oF baptizing Infants rehes on but two 
 " Witneflcs, OrigennndJugHpn-^ and the latter 
 '' having receiv'd it from the former, it relies 
 " wholly on the fingle Teflimony of Origen^ 
 '' wKich, fays he, is but a pitiful Argument to 
 '' prove a Tradition ApofloUcal 5 and to the fame 
 '' purpofe he cites Vroes^ Gratius^ Daille and 
 '' others. 
 
 As forBifhop T'aylor^ I mud; confefs when I faw 
 him produced as a Witnefs againll Infants Baptifm 
 I was furpriz'd, well knowing how llrenvioully he 
 has pleaded for itj and in his Great Exemplar fills 
 fevenreen Pages to prove (from the Writings of 
 Iren^us^ "Tertullian^ and Juftin Martyr^ who all 
 precede Origen) that Infants not only were, but 
 ought to be baptiz'd: And in his Du5i. Dub. ^ 
 fays, that he fhall there take it for granted that 
 Infants are to be baptiz'd, becaufe he had elfe- 
 where fufficiently prov'd it : And as for what he 
 cites out of Vives^ Grotius^ and others, I ihall re-r 
 fer 'my Reader to Mr. Wair% Hiitory of Baptifm "^ 
 for fatisfadion. Whether thofe Citations be ge- 
 nuine or not, I will not difpute \ be that as it will, 
 I think they all came into the World too latej, 
 and went out of it again too foon, to be unex- 
 ceptionable Judges in this cafe. Sure I am, there 
 appears to be as good Authority in the Writings 
 of the Fathers, to determine the point that Infants 
 were baptiz'd in their time, as there is to deqion- 
 flrate what Books are, and what are nor canoni- 
 cal Scripture. If then our jinabapifls can in a 
 
 k Phay p. 24. 1 Lib. 2. Chap. 3. ;>. 545, »=» Pag. 271. 
 
 point 
 
The B u LWARK Si or me d. 1 1 1 
 
 point Dc facfo^ and of that Importance depend 
 on the Church's Evidence, what Reafon is there 
 for them to rejcCl it in the other Cafe? Nay, and 
 unlefs they think there is lefs Danger in rejeding 
 (upon their Evidence) fome Ecoks as ^por/jfhai^ 
 which (but for that Reafon) may not be fo, 
 and on the fame Foot, receive others as Ca-ao- 
 nical^ than there is in baptizing or not baptizing 
 Infants: For my parr I can't fee, vhy they 
 fhould not in point Be jure too, as readily admic 
 the latter as the former. But thus much only by 
 the way. 
 
 However, if we confider Infants Baptjfin as 
 a pubhck Fact, I fuppofe no Man of Reading can 
 doubt, but it was the current Practice of the 
 primitive Church in the Days of St. Cyprla^i^ Or':^ 
 gen^ and Thtulliany this being acknowledged by 
 Mr. Tombs-i Mr. Blackwood^ Mr. Stenet ^ and 
 Mr. Galc^ the moil learned of the Anabaptifli 
 Party which I have yet met with : And it's ccr~ 
 tain that TertuUian ( who was the eldeft of the 
 three) expreffiy fpcaks of it \ not as a thing then 
 in difpute, but as the common Pra61:ice of the 
 Church in his Time : And not to infill on what 
 is produced by Mr. IVall and others, out of the 
 Writings of irenceus^ Juftin Martyr^ and Her- 
 mes (which Arguments remain in Subftance un- 
 ihaken, by what Mr. Gale fiys to the contrary) 
 not t;o infill on this, I fay, the other being mere 
 exprels and clear, and hvmg not above i fc. Years 
 cilhnce from the Apollohck Age j can it be 
 thought that they who were not above two or 
 three removes from the Apoftles , ihould net 
 know what was (in point of Facl) the Practice 
 of the Church in their Fathers or Grandfathers 
 Days ? Nay farther, if the baptizing of lofant^ 
 
 hau 
 
lit The Bulwark Stormed, 
 
 had then been thought fo defl:ru6i:ive a Practice, 
 as it is now a-days pretended to be j I cannot 
 imagine how it came fo foon to prevail in all 
 chriltian Churches both Eaft and Weft. Can 
 we fuppofe that our Saviour Chrift who had 
 promifed to be with his Church, and unto the 
 end oi the World to lead it into all Truth : Can 
 it be thought, I fay, that he fhould fo foon be un- 
 mindful of his Promife , and fuffer the whole 
 chriftian Church to run into fo great an Error 
 as Infants Baptifm is now thought to be 3 and 
 not preferve unto himfelf one Church as a Mo- 
 nument of ancient Purity ? Nay farther yet, if 
 the baptizing of Infants be an Error that crept 
 into the Church at any time fince the Apoftles 
 Days J it's very ftrange, (and indeed I think it next 
 to an impoffibility) that it fhould fo foon, and fo 
 univerfaliy obtain in the chriftian Church, and 
 no Father oppofe it, or Council condemn it, nor 
 Hiftorian take Notice of it as fuch. Did the 
 chriftian Church at once agree to admit this fup- 
 pofed Error ? Or can it be fuppofed that this 
 Error had better Fortune than all other popular 
 Errors, to be received without any oppofition? 
 Had the Churches err'd, fays an ancient Father, 
 they would have varied : Since then they have 
 not in this Point varied, what reafon is there to 
 believe they have err'd? 
 
 Mr Gale indeed tells us", he might produce 
 fcveral Inftances againft Infants Baptifm out of 
 Irenaus^ Clement of Alexandria^ {3c. but if he 
 could, why did he not do it ? did any Body hin- 
 der him? or has any of his Friends faved him 
 
 n In his Animadverpons on Wall"; Hificry oj Baptiftn, 
 
 4 the 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed, 123 
 
 the Labour ? If fo, why did he not tell us, who 
 they arc, that we may know who to apply our 
 fclvesto for better Information ? If he could have 
 done what he pretends to 5 then was the time 
 when he was highly concern'd to have done it; 
 therefore fince he has not ( when it fo highly 
 concerned him to do it) I'll venture to gueis at 
 the Rcafon. 
 
 But fays a Friend of mine a Teacher among 
 the Anabaptifts, and a great Admirer of Mr. Gah'z 
 performance 3 I doubt not, fays he, but Mr. Gale 
 has made out what he pretends to. Why truly 
 I mufl confefs he does make an Attempt to do 
 fo ; but ril undertake to fliew from a PalTagc 
 or or two cited by him for this Purpofc, (and 
 in which he feems to place his chief Confidence) 
 what excellent Proof a Man may find in Anti- 
 quity againft Infants Baptifm. 
 
 The fir A Teflimony then produced by him, 
 which I fhall take Notice of, is part of a Letter 
 which was fent by Pij/y^ri^j;;^^!, the chief Bifhopin 
 Afia^ to /^i<$?or then Bifhop of Rome^ concerning 
 the Obfervation of Rafter: who fays °, " And 1 
 " Polycrates , the meanefl: of you all, do retain 
 '^ the Tradition of my Fathers, of which alfo 
 ^' I have imitated fome3 for there were {^wtn 
 " Bifhops before me, and lam the eighth, which 
 '' always have celebrated the Feall of Eajlcr on 
 '' that Day, in which the People remove the 
 '^ Leaven from among them. I therefore (my 
 " Brethren) which have now liv'd threefcorc 
 " and five Years in the Lofd, l^c. Well, what 
 is there in all this againil Infants Baptifm ? Why 
 firlt Mr. Gak obferved, that although Polycrates 
 
 o 5"/?f Eufeb. Exrclef. Hill. lib. 5. chnp. 22. 
 
 was 
 
114 ^^^ Bulwark Stormed, 
 
 was born of chriftian Parents, and in all probability 
 the Son of a chriftian Biiliop •, yet was he "not 
 baptized in his Infancy, but when he was capa- 
 ble to anfwer for himfelf j as he (begging the 
 Quellion) fays the Cuftom of the Church then 
 was : And then to fet the better face upon this, 
 he obferves, Secondly, that Poly crates makes a 
 plain Diftin6lion betwixt his naturcil "scadi fpin- 
 tual Age i and then concludes, he thinks there 
 IS no need of proving any part of this : Truly I 
 think fo too, if he had the good Fortune to be 
 credited without it. But pray, Sir, why is there no 
 occafion of proving in this Cafe ? Suppofe we 
 admit that Poly crates was the Son of a chriftian 
 Bifhop, yet pray pardon me, 1 fee no Reafon to 
 believe he was not baptized in his Infancy. 
 
 But for Argument fake, let us fuppofe (what 
 this Gentleman takes for granted ) that Poly-^ 
 crates did intend by thofe Words In the Lord^ to 
 divide the Period of his Life into two dillin6t 
 Conditions j that is to fay, from his Birth to 
 his Baptifm out of the Lord, though he was 
 born of chrillian Parents , and from his Baptifm 
 to the time of fending this Letter, ( which he 
 takes for granted was 6f Years) in the Lord : 
 And indeed we mull fuppofe all this, or elfe 
 there is nothing in the Diilindion. For if he 
 ( Poly crates) was in the Lord, in a Covenant- 
 way, from his Birth to his Baptifm : From 
 whence comes the Diftin6lion of his natural and 
 fpiritual Age ? taking it therefore for granted , 
 that in the Lord ilgnifies (in Mr. Gale's Senfe) 
 a Perfon baptized, and out of the Lord one un-r 
 baptized: Taking this, I fay, for granted, I 
 can't fee the leail appearance of Reaion for his 
 Conclufion. 
 
 For 
 
Yhe B u LWARk Stormed. 1 1 ^ 
 
 For pray tell me, how docs it appear that Fo- 
 Jycratcs was at the time of fending this Letter 
 more than (5f Years old ? Nay, let him read on, 
 and the Conclunon of this Letter will inform 
 him, that (if there be any thing his Dillinclion) 
 Poly crates was baptized in his Infancy, as fay I 
 the Cuilom of the Church then was. " For 
 " they all know, fiys he, that I bear not this 
 " grey Hair in vain, but always (mind that) have 
 " had my Converfation in Cbrifi Jefns. If then 
 there is any thing in his Diftinclion, this Infcance 
 is fo far from being a Proof againil, that it real- 
 ly is a Proof for the Antiquity of Infants Bap- 
 tifm : And if Mr. Gale or any of his Friends think 
 this Paflage favourable to their Caufe, I can at 
 any time when they pleafe to demand it, dire6k 
 them to more of this kind of Proof. 
 
 However, we may obferve that according to 
 Mv. Galc^ no Perfon can be in the Lord unlefs 
 he be bapcized > if then without this we cannot 
 be either in or of Chrill's Church, let him tell 
 me when he is at leafure^ what Promifes of -Sal- 
 vation Chriil or his Apoftles have made to Per- 
 fons that are neither in nor of his Church. Let 
 him tell me, did I fay ; JSFay, but I mult remem- 
 ber he has done this already ! For P fpeaking of 
 the fignification of our Saviour's Words to Ni- 
 codemus^ Joh ri iii. Except a iMa;i be born again of 
 IVater and the Spirit ^ he cannot enter imo the 
 Kingdom of God. By the Kingdom of God in 
 this Place, fays he, may well be underiiood the 
 Church, or Difpendu.ion of the Meffias^ (j'c, 
 into which he allows none can regularly enter 
 but by Baptifm : Well then, as in the Miniilry, 
 fo alio in Baptifm, if any come not in by the 
 
 ^ Rfjtefflions on Will's HiJioxy^,p,-4M. . .q .V,.'/ 
 
 Door 
 
ii6 Tfoe Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 Door, tliat is to fay, by the regular Way of God's 
 appointment, but climbs in Ibme other irregular 
 Way, he is a Thief and a Robber. So then 
 Mr. GaU^ in denying Baptifm to Infants, fhuts 
 them outj or excludes them from being Mem- 
 bers of the vifible Church 5 how then will he 
 get them admittance into the Church Trium- 
 phant? efpecially confidering he tells us % ^'That 
 " theChurchTriumphant is built out of theChurch 
 '^ Militant ; Can they then make a part of the 
 one, who have not firfl: been united to the o- 
 ther? " If the primitive Church thought, fays hcj 
 " that none could be faved without Baptifm, there 
 " is no doubt, butthetendernefs of the firfl Chri- 
 " ftians, prevailed on them to baptize their Chil- 
 '' dren : And pray give me leave (in a Covenant- 
 way) did they not think fo ? Then it cannot be 
 doubted, fays Mr. Gale , but they baptized their 
 Children ! Well then, let us go on, and 
 
 Secondly^ Let us view a Paflage cited by him 
 out of St. Baraahas^^ who (fpeaking of the 
 Milk and Honey which were wont to be given to 
 the Baptiz'd) lays, " That as the Child is nou- 
 " rillied, firll with Honey, and then with Milk 5 
 " fo we being ftrengthened, and being kept alive 
 " with the belief of hisPromifes and the Word, 
 '^ fhall live, ^c. From which I fuppofe he would 
 have us infer (and indeed according to him wc 
 mull infer much.) Firll, that Milk and Honey 
 were then given to all the Baptiz'd 3 And Se- 
 condly, that they were not then given to Infants, 
 and therefore that Infants were not then baptiz'd. 
 Well, _ 
 
 But if I may be fo free, pray how does it ap- 
 pear in the firll Place > that Milk and Honey 
 
 q Kep^, p. 405. \ p. 400. 
 
 were 
 
'the Bulwark Stormed. 12^ 
 
 were then given to all the Baptized 5 But fup- 
 pofe they were^ yet how does it appear that they 
 were not then given to Children ? Does not St.5<?r- 
 7iaba5^ at leaft plainly intimate that they were, when 
 he fays , that as the Child is nouriflied firft with 
 Honey, and then with Milk, t^c. If Honey 
 and Milk were not then given to them , how 
 could they be nourifli'd by them ? Without his 
 Afliftance I muft confefs I cannot make this out. 
 For if in the primitive Church, Milk and Ho* 
 ncy were given to Infants, as well as to the 
 Adult i I would gladly know how this Argu- 
 ment can be fupported ? In the primitive Church 
 Milk and Honey were given to the Adult 3 crgo^ 
 in the primitive Church Infants were not bap- 
 tized. Excellent Logick ! What Infants in the 
 Conclufion, and no Infants in the Antecedent ? 
 If I may argue without the exclufive Particle 
 only; 1 might as well conclude from the before- 
 (aid PremilTes, that none but Infants were then 
 baptiz'd. For I might retort the Argument 
 thus i in the primitive Church Milk and Honey 
 were wont to be given to the Baptiz'd 5 but in 
 the primitive Church Milk and Honey were gi- 
 ven to Children j ergo^ in the primitive Church 
 no adult Perfons were baptized. I might make 
 the like Obfervation on what is cited by him 
 ^ from the very ancient Nizzachon he there 
 fpeaks of : Which indeed is a plain Proof for 
 the Antiquity of Infants Baptifm j or it is ill 
 produced againft the Cuilom of baptizing a- 
 mong the Jews. The fame may be faid with 
 refped to feveial other Pafiages referr'd to by him 
 in the before-faid Book : But my piopofed Me- 
 
 ■ -- 1 1 
 
 [ Ref.e^, p. 330, 331. 
 
 thoi 
 
i i 8 T'he B u l war k Siormei. 
 
 thod forbids me this, and obliges me, to return to 
 De Lamr^ v'ho ^acknowledges, that it was a Cu- 
 il:om in the primitive Church to give theEucharift 
 to Intiints from the third to the twelfth Century : 
 Andiffo, fure they baptized them firll ! Taking 
 it therefore for granted,- that Infants were bap- 
 tized in the primitive Church : Give me leave^ 
 in this point in which I am chiefly concerned j 
 having my felf been brought up an Anabaptifl : 
 Give me leave, I fay, in ihiort, to fum up the 
 Evidence for Infonts Baptifm, not only in point 
 De fa^fo , but De jure too : And in doing of 
 which, 1 fnall give (in Sub fiance) my Reafonsj 
 why I left the Anabaptiils and joyn'd with the 
 truly apoftolick Church of England. 
 
 firft^ Then it has been proved to me pad all 
 reply, that Infants were admitted into the Jeivijh 
 Church as Members of the fame, by the then 
 facramentai Sign or Seal of Circumcifion. 
 
 Secondly^ That the Je^vijh and chriftian Church 
 are in Sublknce the fame: And as in the Jewijh 
 Church, none could (in a Covenant-way) be ad- 
 mitted into it, but by Circumcifion the Seal of 
 the Covenant and Badge of the Church. So 
 under the Gofpel Difpenfation none can in a re- 
 gular way (as Mr. Gale well obferves) be ad- 
 mitted into the chriftian Church but by Baptifm, 
 the Gofpel Seal of the fame Covenant, and Badge 
 of the chriftian Church. 
 
 Thirdly^ That Infants Church-Memberftiip was 
 a fubftantial Privilege of the Covenant made with 
 Abraham^ and oi the Jezvifi Church which was 
 founded on it. 
 
 ^ Plea, p. 34. 
 
 Fourthly^ 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 129 
 
 Tourthly^ That Chrifl by his coming, did not 
 intend to take away any fiibfbantial Privilege 
 which his Church enjoy'd before 5 but to en- 
 large them. 
 
 Fifthly^ That the Alteration of the initiative 
 Sign, makes no more Alteration in the thing fign- 
 ed or fealed by it, than a change of the Bread in 
 the other Sacrament from unleavened to leavened^ 
 will argue it not to be the fame Sacrament. Or 
 a Man may as well argue, that a circumfcantial 
 Alteration in the Broad Seal of England from 
 what it was f co years ago, argues it to be not 
 the fame Seal, and that a Patent formerly grant- 
 ed under it 5 is not now under the Broad Seal of 
 England. 
 
 Sixthly J That by an equitable Interpretation 
 of many New Tellament Texts 5 it appears , 
 that Infants have now (under the Gofpel Dif- 
 penfiuion) the fame Privileges continued to them^ 
 that they had under the Mofaick Difpenfation j 
 and therefore there is now, the fame equitable 
 Reafons to be given for their Baptifm, that therd 
 then was for their Circumcifion. 
 
 Seventhly^ That in the Je'vuijh Church before 
 our Saviour's time. Children and Strangers were 
 baptized as well as circumcifed. Therefore, 
 
 Eighthly^ Since this was a known Caftom in 
 the JewiJIo Church, and lince our Saviour was 
 pleafcd to perpetuate this Cutlom, as the Hand- 
 ing initiative Sacrament of the chriftian Church i 
 It is highly to be prefumed, if our Saviour had 
 not approved their Practice with refpe<5t to the 
 Subject, as well as the Ceremony of Baptifm, 
 he would never have introduced the one, and not 
 at the lame time cxprefs his diilike of the other. 
 Efpecially if we confider that our Saviour i:nd 
 
 N bit 
 
130 Tloe B u L w ARK Stormed. 
 
 his Apo files introduced as much of Judaifm into 
 the chririian Religion, as the nature of the Re- 
 formation would well bear ; as any may fee fully 
 made our, in a Piece called the Chriftian Syna* 
 gogue. And then. 
 
 Ninthly^ If we add this Confideration to thofe 
 before mentioned 3 that is to %, if we confider, 
 that (for what yet appears to the contrary) it 
 has ever (till of late) been the Pra61:ice of the 
 chriftian Church to baptize their Children : I 
 think, I fay, all thefe things confider'd, amounts 
 to a Proof fo demonftrative that Infants have 
 right to Baptifm > that for my part I muft con- 
 fefs, I have never yet feen any fufficient Argu- 
 ments produc'd by others, neither can I frame 
 any to my felf fo ponderous, as to weigh down 
 what I have here produced for itj as I could 
 fully fhew, by a Confirmation of the aforefaid 
 Particulars, if my propofed Method did not ob- 
 lige me to omit this. To go on then, he tells us. 
 
 Sixthly^ '^ 1 hat as for the Liturgy^ it's ano- 
 '^ ther thing than can be found among the An- 
 '^ cients : Is it not clear, fays he ", that in the 
 *' third Century, they had no DvreBory or Book to 
 ** pray by, as Tertullian in his Apology mentions? 
 I anfwer, no, it is not, but quite the contrary, 
 as is fully proved by Dr. Comber in his Hiftory of 
 Liturgies^ and by the Author of the fifth Cafe in 
 the fecond Volume of the London Cafes^ as alfo 
 by Mr. Pelkn in his Good old JVay > and many 
 more that I could name if there were an Occa- 
 fion, unto which Books I refer the Reader for 
 full Satisfa6lion. There they will find all thofe 
 Paflages cited by De Lame (in his Favour) out 
 
 « P. 1-], 
 
 of 
 
Tloe B u LWARK Stormed. 13* 
 
 of I'ertullian^ i^c. fairly reply'd to and confuted. 
 And as for his foolifh Story about Gregory's and 
 Amhrofe's Mafs 5 I can afford it (as it deferves) 
 no other Anfwer than a Smile. 
 
 But he goes on, and in the- next Place tells uSj 
 that Platina fays , the Litanies or Supplications 
 were ordained by Gregory the firfl : But this is a 
 great Mi (lake as the Reader may plainly fee, if 
 he will give himfelf the trouble of confulting 
 Mr. PeIW% Good old JVay ^^.. « The Colkas 
 *' ordinary were ordained by Pope Gregory^ he 
 ^^ made the Nights and Days Anti^hones^ or Sing- 
 " ing-fervice, fays he ^. Well, who could ex- 
 pect to meet with fuch Arguments in a Book ^o 
 much applauded by a Party, as an unanfwerable 
 and finifhed Piece? Suppofe I ihould ask Mr. Dt 
 Foe^ what he has to fay againft the Collefts or- 
 dinary and the Antiphones ? Why truly he fays^^ 
 he can make no better reply than this, Gregory or- 
 dained this, G7'egory brought in that ! excellent Lo- 
 gick! Surel am, Socrates ox^rci^y {^ys'^^ '* That 
 *' the Hymns commonly called Antiphons that 
 " were fung interchangeably in the Church j had 
 '' their Original from Ignatius Bifhop oi Anttoch 
 *' in Syria^^ the third BilTiop by Succeflion from 
 " Peter the Apoftle, ^c. And thofe that will 
 give themfelves the trouble of confulting T>x.Cave\ 
 primitive Chridianity ^ , and the before-cited 
 Book of Mx.PeUen's^ will find that there was a 
 Singing-fevvice ufed in the Church long before 
 Gregory's Days. Let them likewife confult Eu* 
 fehius ^ , and they may fee reafon to conclude, 
 
 ^ P. 99. '^ Ple.i, pag, 30. y Pr^/rfCi?/-:?DeLaaiie'5 
 ■plea, p. 1^. ' Ecclej: Hiji. lib. 6. cap. 8. ^Pait i. 
 
 fhap. 9. b Ecclef, Hift. lib. 7. cap. 8. ' 
 
 N % that 
 
131 The V>\3h\vK^K Stormed. 
 
 that there was a Singing-fervice in the Church 
 of Alexandria^ in the Days of Dionyfms Bifhop 
 of that See, who was near 300 Years Gregory's 
 Senior. 
 
 As for the Epiilles and Gofpels, they are the 
 very Words of Scripture, and I hope they in- 
 tend iiot to perfaade us that it's a Crime to read 
 that ! And as for the Colle6i:s5 they are indeed 
 fhort, but yet very found Prayers perfe6tly agree- 
 able to the analogy of Faith, and expreflive of 
 much Piety and Devotion 3 for my part I cannot 
 fee what Crime it can be to ufe them, let who 
 will firft appoint them. To proceed then, 
 
 He in the next Place tells us, the primitive 
 Church had no Altars : But pray how does this 
 appear? He fays, that Syhefter Anno 334. was 
 the £rft Author of their Confccration : But it 
 does not from thence follow, that they were not 
 before. Sure I am, there is good Reafons to 
 believe they were in ufe long before > but if 
 they were not, let it be remember'd what Be 
 Laune was to prove, viz. that the Church of 
 England in the ufe of her Rites and Ceremonies, 
 went contrary to the Pradice of the primitive 
 Church in the firil four hundred Years aiter 
 Chrift: In order to which, he produces this In- 
 fiance, which comes within the Compals of the 
 firft four hundred Years, which was the time by 
 him fixed for pure Antiquity 5 and confequently 
 thislnftance is produced contradi6i:ory to his Prin- 
 ciple, and fo there is an end of that. Well, 
 
 He goes on however, and fays ^, " That nei- 
 *^^ ther the Apoftles, or any apoftolick Men, 
 
 have given us any Law for the Obfervation of 
 
 Pleat p. 30. 
 
 Eajicrj 
 
 (C 
 
The Bulwark Sotrmed. 133 
 
 " Eafler^ or any other Feaft whatfoever. WelJ, 
 Avhat of that? Our QiieAion is not De jure > and 
 we are aflur'd from Eufch. '^ and others, that in 
 point De fa^o^ if not De jure ^ the primitive 
 Church did obferve, not only the Feafb o'^ Eafier^ 
 but feveral others. ^' x^nd in fliort, fays Bifhop 
 " Racket ^^ the Feafl: of Eaflcr ^ JVhitfontide ^ 
 ^' Chriftmas^ iht Paffion T)'xy ^udj^fcenfton^ were 
 ^' moll anciently kept befoveConJlantine's Reign, 
 *^ when the Church was under Perfecution, and 
 ^' had no leifure to invent fuperfluity of Cere- 
 " monies. Nay, Po/jrr^/^i- (in the before cited 
 place of Eufebius) after having counted up feve- 
 ral of the j^fian Bifhops who had obfervcd the 
 fame Cullom with himfelf in keeping o^ Eajiefy 
 as Philip and John the Apoltles, Poly carpus^ 
 Thrateas^ Papyrius^ Melito^ dec. after having 
 mention'd thofe, I fay, he concludes thus : " All 
 ** thefe celebrated the Feaft of Eafter according 
 '' unto the Gofpel, in the fourteenth Moon, 
 '^ fwerving no where, but obferving the Rule 
 '^ of Faith, ^c. Here then is a Rule of Faith 
 for it, back'd with the Pradice of Philip and 
 John the Apoflles, and all the J[fian Bifliops. 
 However, I ihall not concern my felf with the 
 Argument De jure^ that being remote from our 
 prefent Queftionj but confining my felf to the 
 Argument De fa6lo^ fball not doubt to affirm, 
 that it was obferv'd by (at leall) fome of the 
 Apoftles themfelves. To proceed then, he tells 
 us that, 
 
 ^ Ecclef. Hift. Z/^. 5. Cap.zi. andQ2iStsV\im\t. Chriil. 
 Part, I. Chap. 7. 
 
 ^ In his Sermon on the Church Feji'ivals, 
 
 N J « As 
 
1 34 '^^^ B u LWARK Stormed. 
 
 *' As for Ecclefiaftical Orders and Officers of 
 *' Lord Ji'chhijhop^ Lord BiJJoops^ Dea?is^ Arch- 
 ^^ deacons^ 6cc. and the Supremacy excrcis'd one 
 '' over another in the Church oiEtigland'y they 
 " are fo far from having the Stamp of primitive 
 ^' Antiquity, that they are not to be found 
 " therein, at lead for the three or four firfl 
 ^^ Cefituries. Well, I will net difpute with him 
 about Names and Titles, but level my Argument 
 againft what he intended by the Objcdion y 
 "which was, to poflefs his Reader with an opi- 
 nion, that the primitive Church was not (as oui'S 
 now is) governed by Bifhops 5 which in truth 
 was a deceiving of him y for all that have read 
 over the Epiitles of Ignatius^ Clemens Romanus^ 
 and Cyprian^ or have been the leafl converfant in 
 Eccleiiaftical Hillory, mufl: knowi that the pri- 
 mitive Church was govern'd by Bifhops, from the 
 very firft plantation of Chriftian Churches in the 
 World. 
 
 I am not infenfible, that this is oppos'd by ve- 
 ry many, who fay, that this cannot be prov'd 
 from the Authority of Scripture: Should we, 
 which we by no means do, grant this, what 
 would follow? Why then, fay they, it was not 
 fo from the beginnings but pray why fo? Are 
 no Truths fparingly fet down in the NewTefta- 
 ment? Well, but fay i hey, a Biihop and a Pres- 
 byter, in the Scripture Language, fignifies one 
 and the fame thing, ^ I told my Reader before, 
 that I would not difpute about V/ords5 tho' it's 
 certain, they may as foon prove Prince Eugene 
 to be Emperor bt C^m<^.<^j', as make out this af- 
 fertion. Let us then bring the matter to a point 
 t>f Fadj and then I fhali argue on it thus: Ei- 
 ther 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed, 135- 
 
 ther Chrift or his Apoftles did inftitiite a Form of 
 Church Government, or they did not j if not, 
 then Church Government is left as a thing in it 
 felf indifferent, and confequently, every national 
 Church may appoint what Form of Government 
 they think fit; andiffo, no Man I think can fhew 
 a reafon, why he Ihould feparate from the Church 
 of England on this account. Nay farther, if this 
 Suppoiition be admitted, it v/ill effe61:ually over- 
 throw their pretended divine Original, of Presby- 
 terian Church Government. But if on the other 
 hand, Chrid or his Apollles did inftitutc a Form 
 of Church Government, then I think it could be 
 no other than an Epifcopal Form : For had they 
 fettled any other Form, that, whatever it is fup- 
 pos'd to be, muft neceflarily be laid afide, before 
 Epiicopacy could take place. Well then, ifwc 
 confider Church Government as a publick thing, 
 in which all are concern'd more or lefs ; and ']i wc 
 likewife confider it as a plain matter of Fad:, that 
 the Churches of ^/2/io<rZ7, Jerufalem^ Rome^ Alex- 
 ayidria^ S:c. were all govcrn'd by Bifhops in the 
 very next Age to the Apoil:lcs, nay in the Apoflles 
 days : When we confider this, I fay, how can we 
 fuppofe itpofHble, that fuch a change of Govern- 
 ment could happen, and no Hi ftorian of thofe 
 Times talce any notice of it ? Nay, if Epifcopa- 
 cy was not the primitive Form ; how canwe fup- 
 pofe that thofe who before governed the Churches, 
 fliould tamely fubmit themfelves to be outed by 
 the Bifhops, and the whole Frame of Government 
 overturn'd by a few ambitious Men, and yet not 
 fay one \vord again ft it j or in the lead complain 
 of the Injury? Sure they were very moderate, 
 or very carelefs Presbyterians in thofe Days ! what, 
 fuffer the Church of Chrilt to be fo impos'd on, 
 
 N 4 and 
 
1^6 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 and not in the lead oppofe fuch bold innovations? 
 Very (trange ! Add, that the extraordinary Gifts 
 and Graces of the Spirit were not yet ceafed from 
 among the Governors of Chriil's Church ; and 
 fure God Ahuighty would not by Signs and Mira- 
 cles have confirm 'd the ufurp'd Authority of Bi- 
 ihops, pretending a Miilion from him, which 
 they had never receiv'd. 
 
 • Well then, for a conclufion of this Point I fhall 
 add, if Epifcopal Government were not the pri- 
 mitive Form, let the DifTenter tell me when and 
 how the change was madej if they cannot do 
 this, let them name me any one Church fince the 
 Apoftles, to Calving time, that was not fo go- 
 S^ern'di if it had in it any fettl'd Form of Go- 
 vernment. And if Presbyterian Church Govern- 
 ment were the primitive Form, it's very hard if 
 they can't name one Church compleatly fettl'd, 
 that was fo govern'd before CaMn's Days. 
 
 To proceed then, he in the next place tells us, 
 the primitive Fathers were againft dedicating 
 Churches to Saints and Angels, ^c. and pray 
 who is for it .^ Whoip does he prove guilty ? 
 Well, go on then. 
 
 And now he tells us, Fopc FiUlUanus brought 
 Organs and other mufical Inftruments into the 
 Church about the eighth Century j Pope Zacha- 
 rias ordain'd Priefts, Gowns, Tippets, and four- 
 corner'd Caps, ^c. Can any Man of Reafon think 
 this worth an Anfwer.^ 
 
 The IVednefday^ Friday^ and Saturdays Fafts, 
 were ordain'd h^Voy^^ Boniface^ fays he > butfup- 
 pofe this were really true, (as in truth it is not) 
 is it impofTible to make a good ufe of any thing 
 that Boniface ordained } Nay, but where gre thcie 
 failing days obferved ? 
 
 But 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 
 
 137 
 
 But now for a conclufion he tells us, the Apo- 
 flles Creed (as it now ftands in our Liturgy) was 
 unknown in the primitive Time j for, fays he, 
 the Fathers who give us an account of the anci- 
 ent Creed, do all give it us in a different Form. 
 "Well, a form it feenis they had however ; and 
 what if that and this differ in Form^ fo long 
 fls they agree in Subffance 5 where is the fiult ? 
 Is he now minded to change fides and plead for^ 
 who has all along been pleading agaif^J} Forms? 
 I think it's plain from Rom.xi. 17. z Tim. i. 13. 
 Galat. vi. i5. i Tim. vi. 20. Acls xvi. 4. and 
 Si.Jude 7,. that the primitive Church had a form 
 of Faith y and if we may believe Dr. Comber^ 
 Biihop 'Taylor^ 6cc. it was that which we now 
 call the j4poftles Creed 5 but whether it were or 
 not, I think Prudence will direft us to keep to 
 this, till fome body will fhew us a better. 
 
 Thus have I taken a view of the feveral Parti- 
 culars, in which (as he fays) the Church of Eng- 
 land goes contrary to the primitive Pattern. But 
 in truth this is but a pretence j for upon an im- 
 partial Examination of the matter, I find that the 
 Church of England^ in the ufe of her Rices and 
 Ceremonie5, does agree with the primitive Church 
 in moft of them. And as for the obfervation that 
 the Proteftant Reconciler makes on the words of 
 Dr. Stilling fleets I think I may pafs by it here, 
 having (at the beginning of this particular) given 
 a virtual Anfwer to it. Therefore, without de- 
 taining my Reader any longer on this point, I 
 ihall go on, aud according to my propos'd me- 
 thod, 
 
 Sixthly and laftly^ Inquire, whether it is any 
 Crime in the Church of Englaful^ to fymbolize (fo 
 far as it doth) with the Church of Rome. 
 
 Now 
 
138 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 Now we mufl: confider the Church of Rome^ 
 either as a pure, or corrupt Church > or as being 
 partly pure, and partly corrupt : If ilie is a pure 
 one, then it can be no Sin to agree with her: If 
 fhe is a corrupt Church, then indeed it is a Duty 
 not to agree with her j but if ihe is in part pure, 
 and in part corrupt j why then, as it is no Crime 
 to ditfer from her in thofc things wherein fhe is 
 corrupted j fo neither can it be any to agree with 
 her in that parr, in which ihe yet remains uncor- 
 rupt. 
 
 Suppofe a Man were to fpeak or write againfl 
 the Church o^ Rome , would he condemn all and 
 every thing he finds therein? God forbid! IVilt 
 thou defiroy the righteous with the wicked? fays 
 Abraham^ Gen. xviii. 23. So fay I, peradventure 
 there fhould be found in that Church, fifty, 
 forty, thirty, twenty, or ten good things, ihall 
 they be condemned for lack of five ? God for- 
 bid ! the feven Churches o^.Jfta had in them 
 fome things for which (as St. John fays) the 
 Lord was againd them > but they had alfo fome 
 other things in them, for which they were com- 
 mended by him : Sure then, it could be no Sin 
 to imitate any of thofe Churches in the latter, 
 the Fault was in imitating them in the former j 
 the cafe is the fame with refpe6b to the Church 
 oi Rome : It's no Fault to agree with her in what 
 ihe does well, the Fault is in agreeing with her 
 in what flie does ill : They that make it. the 
 meafure of their Religion , to be as unlike the 
 Church of Rome as they can > and think them- 
 felves fo much the more pure, by how much 
 the greater diftance they are remov'd from her 5 
 fuch Men, 1 fay, had need take care they do 
 not puriue this action fo far as fome in Poland 
 
 are 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 139 
 
 are faid to have done, and under a pretence of 
 Zeal again ft Su perdition and Popery, have con- 
 demned the Dodrine of the Trinity as fuch. 
 *' We may truly fay, fays Mr. Hooker ^, that in 
 ^' Doctrine, in Dilcipline, in Prayers, and in 
 '' Sacraments, the Church o^^ Rome hath very 
 '^ foul and grofs Corruptions : But then, fays he, 
 '' we mull not make her more guilty than fhe 
 " really is 5 we muft not call that a Corruption, 
 '' which is really a Virtue in her, no more than 
 '^ we may call that a Virtue, which is really a 
 '^ Corruption. If a Man would go about to re- 
 '' form the Church of Rome^ ought he not firil 
 ^^ to make a diftin6i:ion, what are the things 
 " that need reforming, from thofe that need it 
 '' noL .^ left inftead of a Reformation, he make 
 '^ a Deformation. Thus far he. From the whole 
 of the matter 1 conclude, it's no Crime limply to 
 fymbolize with the Church o£ Ro7ne 3 the Fault 
 is only in fymbolizing with her in what ihe does 
 amifs. 
 
 " But moft of the Reformed hold, fays he ^, 
 ^' that thofe Laws we have alledg'd out of the 
 " Old Teftament againft the Monuments of I- 
 '• dolatry, fuch as Jer. li. 2.6. Levit. xix. ip, 
 " Zeph. i. f . bind us as much as they did the 
 '^ Jews : From whence he concludes, that all 
 the Relicks of popilli and heathenilh Superftiti- 
 pn, are- to be banifh'd out of the Church- of 
 Chrift. Well, with all my heart let them go 5 
 but this I think is certain', the Texts he has 
 
 f Ecclef. Pol. Uh. a,,-Pag. iCy 
 i Plea, p. 75. 
 
 alledg'd 
 
140 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 alledg'd for this purpofe, will never prove the 
 thing for which he brings them. 
 
 For, \^ in point of Fa6b it c-x\\ be made ap- 
 pear, that the Jews^ as well as Chriflians, have 
 us'd fome things (of an indifferent Nature) in 
 the Worfliip of God, tho' they have been us'd 
 in idolatrous Worlhip 5 then whatever the mean- 
 ing of thofe Texts is, the Superfl:ru6lure which 
 De Laime intended to ere6t thereon, mud inevi- 
 tably fall to the Ground. 
 
 I remember the AJfemhly of Divines in their 
 larger Catechipm ^, lay it down as a Maxim to be 
 obferv'd in expounding the Ten Commandments ^ 
 that wherever any Duty is commanded, there the 
 contrary Sin is forbid 5 and where any Sin is for- 
 bid, there the contrary Virtue is commanded: 
 Well then, in view of this Maxim let us go on, 
 and as we go, let us remember that we are for- 
 bid to fall down to any falfe Gods ^ : If we may 
 not fall or bow down to a falfe, according to 
 the Aflembly's beforefaid Maxim, we are bound 
 to bow down to the true God : But has not 
 that Pofture been abus'd to idolatrous Purpofes? 
 There's no doubt to be made of that ^ ! not- 
 withftanding this abufe, the fame Ceremony has 
 been commendably us'd in the Worlhip of God, 
 as appears from £2:r^ix. 5*. Jt^s xx. 35. 
 
 Again, there was a ceremonial Kifs us'd by 
 thcworfhippers of ^^^/, as appears from i Kings 
 xix. 18. But notwith (landing tiiis abufe, the 
 primitive Chriflian Church made frequent ufe of 
 
 ^ P. 106. i Hxod. XX. 5. 
 
 ^ I Kings xix. 18. Ifa, ii. 9. 
 
Tloe Bulwark Stormed. 141 
 
 it, as appears from i T'heff.y. z6. I'Pet. v. 14. 
 Rom. xvi. i5. I might make the like Obferva- 
 tions in fome other Particulars , but as I think 
 what 1 have faid fufticient, 1 fhall not trouble ei- 
 ther my Reader or my felf with more inllances to 
 confirm this Point. 
 
 Well, but, fays he, we are forbid to take of 
 the BahyJonijh Materials > not fo much as a Cor- 
 ner or a Foundation Stone it fecms may be ta- 
 ken from thence : But againft him I will (in this 
 point) fet the Authority oF the Allembly of Di- 
 vines \ who in their Appendix to the DireBory 
 afTert, " That as no Place is capable of any ho- 
 *' linefs, under pretence of whatloever dedicati- 
 " on or coniecration 5 fo neither is it fubject to 
 *' fuch pollution, by any Superftition formerly 
 *^ us'd, and now laid afidc, as may render it un- 
 " lav/ful or inconvenient, for Chriftians to meet 
 ^' together therein for the publick Worihip of 
 " God. And therefore we hold it requifite, 
 " fay they, that the places of publick afiembling 
 ** for Worfhip among us, fhould be continued 
 '' and employed to that ufe. We fee then, the 
 Ajjmhly gives liberty to take the whole Build- 
 ing 5 and if we may without offence take the 
 whole, fure it can be no crime to take a part. 
 Nay, if we may without offence take theHoufc, 
 what fault can there be in taking the Goods too? 
 He that argues againfl a thing becaufe it's ahus'dj 
 does tacitly confefs there may be a lawful ufe of 
 it : To fay I may not do this or that thing be- 
 caufe the Church oi Rome ^ or the great Turk 
 does fo, is ridiculous, unlefs it could be made 
 out that they do nothing that is good : Which 
 being premis'd, let us now go on to make fome 
 Obfervations on v/hat Ds Laurie fays, with re- 
 * fpe6b 
 
1^1 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 fpe6t to our iymbolizing with the Church of 
 Rome. 
 
 Firft then, he tells us^, " That the Service 
 ** of the Church of England is the fame in the 
 *' main Body and Eflentials, chiefeft Materials, 
 " Frame and Order with that of the popifh j 
 " as that our CoUedls, Mattins, Even-fongSj 
 " Epiflles, Gofpels, Creeds, £5?^. are all taken out 
 " of their Breviary, Ritual, Midal, andPontifi- 
 " cal, ^c. and then to fet the better Glofs on the 
 Matter, he tells his Reader, that v/e fymbolizc 
 with the Church of Rotne : " Firil, with refpe(5t 
 " to the Time in which our divine Service is to 
 '^ be performed. Secondly, in the divine Ser- 
 " vice it felf which is to be performed. Third- 
 '^ ly in the Rites and Ceremonies performed in 
 " divine Service. 
 
 With refpecc to the firil:, he fays, " Their 
 ^^ Breviary and KaJendar divide the Year into 
 *' Feafts, Vigils, Falls and Working-days : So 
 *' do we take ours from them, dividing our Ka- 
 *' lendar by theirs, i^c. It's true, fays he, they 
 *^ have more than we, but all ours are found in 
 " theirs, (^c. What all, Sir, without Excep- 
 tion? No! I'll warrant you a Man may fearch 
 in thofe Books till he is blind, and not find the 
 good Saint, King Charles's Martyrdom there : 
 And I dare be anfwerable for it, he may as fooil 
 find this as the Gunpowder-^reafon Feftival on the 
 Fifth of November^ or that of the Rellauration 
 on the Twenty-ninth of May. Therefore, if 
 any Man ask us De Laune's Queftion, pag. 41 . 
 who has required thofe Days at our Hands ? We 
 
 » Pita, p. 37- ^ ^lea, p. 38. 
 
 cannot 
 
the Bulwark Stormed. 143 
 
 cannot anfwer without lying (as he fays wc 
 mu llj our Sovereign Lord the Pope ! No, if he 
 were once our Sovereign Lord as De Laune calls 
 him, I'll warrant you he would foon require (as 
 the Diflcnters do) thcfe to be blotted out of our 
 Kalendar. However, if the Jews could without 
 Offence appoint Fcafls to perpetuate to Pollerity 
 the Memory of their Deliverances : I fee no rea- 
 fon why we have not as much reafon to keep up 
 the Memory of thofe Days, though they are not 
 to be found in the Pope's^ any more than in the 
 Diffentefs Kalendar^ But, 
 
 What though the Papilb and we obferve the 
 Feafts of Eafter^ Chriftmas^ i^c. at one and the 
 fame time ? Is there any Fault iw that ? If thofe 
 Feafts may be obferved at any Time, why not at 
 this? For, either the Time on which we obferve 
 them is proper or improper > if it is an improper 
 Time, why do they not publifh a Proteft againft 
 the primitive Church who fix'd it fo : If it is 
 obferv'd in a proper Time, why may not the 
 Churches o^ England -Sind Rofne^ be allowed to do 
 things in a proper Seafon ? 
 
 De Laune^ I muft confefs, makes a great flou- 
 rifh upon this Argument that refpeds the Time 
 of Worihip : But in Truth , if we come to a 
 ftrift Examination of the Matter, we fhall find 
 it to be no more than flourifh \ at moft- it was 
 only a deceptive way of arguing, to deceive the 
 Ignorant, or fright the fuperltitioufly Fearful : 
 For fure none but fuch can be prevailed on bv 
 thofe kind of Arguments. 
 
 I remember a Story which Peter Du MouJm 
 tells", of one Zifca a Bohemian Gentlemen, who 
 
 ^ In his Anato?nj of the Mafsy p. 341. 
 
 (by 
 
144 ^^^ Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 (by repeated Vi6tories obtained over the Hun^ 
 
 frarians and Germans^) had render'd his very Name 
 fo terrible to them, that the Emperor Sigifmond 
 fearing theillConfequence that might attend fuch 
 a panick Fear, and withal himfelfdil pairing to con- 
 quer him by the Sword 5 at laft fent to Zifca^ and 
 makes him large Offers of Preferment , if he 
 would come in and joyn with the Emperor : 
 Zijca gave ear to that, fays Du Moulin^ " and took 
 his Journey to meet the Emperor, but he fell 
 fick and died by the Way, being very old and 
 blind. Mneas Sylvius fays, that when he w^as a 
 dying he gave Counfel to his People, to take off 
 his Skin ( when he was dead) and make a Drum 
 of it, aflliring them that his and their Enemies 
 would not fail to run away at the found of that 
 Drum, which accordingly was done and had the 
 intended Effect 5 for their Enemies believing 
 that this Drum was inchanted, as well as the 
 Man of whofe Skin it was made, run all away 
 at the found of it , as if they had been Thunder- 
 Uruck : And much after the fame manner are 
 fome Men affected with the Words Popery and Su- 
 ferftition. What i£ De Laune or DeFoe^ or any 
 other defigning Party-man, .have a mind to dif- 
 grace any thing that their Adverfary does in 
 matters of Religion : Why , let them beat the 
 Drum, and give the Word Popery^ and their Fol- 
 lowers are ready at the found thereof ( as of thofe 
 the Prophet Daniel fpeaks of ^5 to fall down and 
 woiihip the golden Image that thofe Nehuchad- 
 nezzars fet up. Have they a defign againfl 
 Forms of Prayer? Why call it Popery ! Is it the 
 Obfervation of fome Days that offends them? 
 
 ''^''■'^'- TbC. 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 145: 
 
 That's nothing lefs than Super ft it Ion ! Docs kneeh 
 if^g ^z the Sacrament, the Cr cfs ahevBaptifm^ the 
 baptizing of Infants, 13c. difpleaie them ? Why 
 Popery Hill is the Word ! thus have they under 
 a Pretence of avoiding jSuperllition run them- 
 felves into it. 
 
 But fuppofe the Knave by this Triek (hould 
 gain a foolifh Profelyte or two, what Thanks 
 has he for fo doing ? He that begets a foolijh Son 
 does it to his own Sorrow ; and the Father of fuch 
 a Fool has no joy , fays Soloraon^. To conclude 
 this Point then *, if the Jews under the Law did 
 without blame (as well as without a Command 
 from God ) obferve the Feafls of Purim and De- 
 dication : And if the Pharifees had (without re- 
 proof from God for having them) then- iveekly 
 Fafis, Luke xviii. I2. and in a Word, if the 
 primitive Church had (as no doubt but they had) 
 their anniverfary Feafts , ^c. then I can fee no 
 reafon why we ihould be counted fuperftitious, 
 for doing what they did blamelejjly. And. thus 
 much for the Time in which the divine Service 
 is to be performed. But then, 
 
 Secondly, " We fymbolize with them, Hiys he, 
 ^' in the divine Service it felf which is to be 
 ^' performed. For, fays he, the Subftance or 
 '^ Matter of their divine Service confifts in Col- 
 '' le^s or Jhort Prayers, ConjeJJtons, Ahfolutions^ 
 '' prefcript Leffons, in Pfalms, Epi files, Gofpels , 
 '^ Prophets, Apocrypha, Litanies,^ Anthems, Sec. 
 ^' all which is the Subitance or Matter of our di- 
 '^ vine Service, in all parts of it appropriated 
 ^' and apply'd to the feveral and refpedive Of- 
 ^ fices of Baptifm, the Lord's- Supper, Marri- 
 
 ' J, - ' - ' ' 
 
 P Prov, 17. 21. 
 
 Q ^' age^ 
 
1^6 77:)e BvLv^AV^K Stormed. 
 
 '^ age^ (^c. What ? then their Service and ours, it 
 feems, is the very fame in all refpe^ls ! No, not 
 fo neither j for he immediately adds, " It's true, 
 '' there may be fome Variation in the Collets 
 ^^ and Lejfons ^ Litanies and Anthems^ i§c. But 
 fince he fpeaks fo very doubtfully in the matter, 
 I know not how to thank him, for making fuch 
 a Confeffion as is not to be depended on : How- 
 ever, though he would not, yet I will fay, the 
 thing is true without a may be 5 for there cer- 
 tainly are many and great Variations in the Col- 
 le3s^ Lejfons^ Litanies and Anthems j and not only 
 in them, but in all the before-faid Offices, 
 
 However, I will not now infift on fome few 
 Variations, that as he fays, may be, and which 
 I fay certainly are betwixt the divine Services 
 ufed in the Churches of England and Rome : Not 
 to infift on that, I fay, he fays, the Suhftance or 
 Matter of our divine Service^ is contained in 
 thofe Collects ^ Leffbns^ Litanies^ Anthems^ Jhort 
 Prayers^ (^c. Well, the Sub fiance of the Engr 
 lijh Service is contained in thofe jhort Prayers^ 
 Colleds^ LeJ/ons^ l§c. and they being contained 
 in the Scripture^ the Confequence is, the Sub- 
 fiance of the Englifio Service is contained in the 
 Scripture > and is pot that a terrible thing ? 
 
 He fays, we fymbolize with Rome in ufing 
 Jhort Prayers > But if we fhould ufe long one^, 
 we fhould fymbolize with the Pharifees^ who (as 
 our Saviour fays) devoured Widows Houfes, and 
 for a Pretence made long Prayers : Which is it then 
 fafeft to fymbolize with ? The letter being a Ge- 
 neration of Vipers, as well as the former! 
 
 As for the Epiitles, Gofpels, Leflbns , and 
 Pfalms, they are the very Word of God 5 and 
 \o deny People the ufe of that , becaufe the 
 
 Church 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 147 
 
 •Church of Rome ufes it, is not far from a pop'ijh 
 'itenet. And then. 
 
 As for the Litanies, Anthems or Canticles, 6?^. 
 they are either compofcd of Scripture words, or 
 contain fuch Matter as is agreeable thereto : And 
 what fhould make it a Fault to ufe fuch Pmya^s, 
 for my part I know not. 
 
 De Laune^ I mufl: confefs, gives nine Reafons 
 againfl the ufe of them, which (being too te- 
 dious to repeat) I fhall reduce the Subllance of 
 them under thefe two Confiderations : Firli, be- 
 caufe of the Abiifes that is in the Matter -y and 
 Secondly, in the Manner of them.. 
 
 With refpecl to the former, he fays, the Epi^ 
 files^ Gofpels and Pfalms^ are taken out of the 
 vulgar Latin Bible, and fo (as he infinuates) the 
 Expreflions ulcd therein are corrupt. Well, be 
 it fo, he that fays a thing is abufed, does confers 
 the fame may be lawfully ufed, and confequent- 
 ly this can be no Argument againfh the ufe, 
 but only for the removal of thofe Ahufes. How- 
 ever, the Abufes I hope are not great or many j 
 and thofe few that are, may be generally known 
 and avoided without fcparating from the Church : 
 For that is not the bell way to reform things 
 amifs, but rather to make thofe things amifs that 
 were well before. If a Man v/ere diftemper'd 
 in his Body, would it commend the Phyficians 
 Skill, to kill the Man in order to cure the Di- 
 itemper? No more are they to be commended, 
 who feparate from a pure Church, on account of 
 fome fmall circumilantial Mistakes \ efpecially con- 
 lidering, it is not in the Power of every private 
 Man to determine what is amifs in the Church, 
 niuch lefs to reform it j and though I approve 
 not of an mplicl'te Faith ^ yet 1 think there 
 
 O i oueht 
 
148 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 ought to be a due refpe6t paid to the Determir 
 nations of our Superiors in thofe things, which 
 concern not the Fundamentals of Religion. And 
 if in this Cafe, there fhould be fome things ap- 
 pointed by them, which do not in all refpe&s 
 fquare with our Judgments, we may in a friend- 
 ly and peaceable way exprefs our diflike, and in 
 a legal way endeavour the removal of them : 
 And if in this we fhould prove infuccefsful, yet 
 we may ( by keeping our Judgments free ) pre- 
 ferve our own Innocence, the Church's Peace, 
 and not feparate from her. But then, 
 
 Secondly^ He diflikes our Epiftks and Go/pels^ 
 t^c. becaufe they are ufed after our manner, by 
 curtailing and mangling the Scripture, and min- 
 ing the Scope and Connexion of it in divers 
 Places 5 as likewife becaufe they have been the 
 Invention of the Pope^ from whom, as he fays, 
 we had them, (^c. Well fuppofe we had them 
 from the Pope^ what are they the worfe for that ? 
 How foolifh and ridiculous is it to hear Men 
 argue againft the ufe of this or that thing, be- 
 caufe forfooth the Pope ufes it, as if it were a 
 Crime to have or hold any thing in common 
 with the Pope. Suppofe then the Pope believes 
 in God and his Son Chrift, fays his Prayers, reads 
 the Scripture, and in all refpe6bs a£ts as an honeft 
 Man ought to do j fuppofing this, I fay, is it 
 then any Crime, nay, is it not rather the Duty 
 of every honeft Man to imitate him ? Can any 
 Man of Senfe be fo far given up as to think it 
 a fufficient Exception againft this or that thing, 
 to fay this is done by iht Pope ? Or that is found 
 in his Kalendar ? Alas, no, this will not do ! 
 For, fince he does, and there is to be found in 
 his Kalendar both good, as well as bad things ; 
 
 They 
 
The B u L WA RK Sotrmed. r 45^ 
 
 They muft prove that the things excepted againft 
 are to be counted among the latter, or their Ar- 
 gument is produced to no Purpofe. 
 
 As for ruining the Scope and Connexion of 
 the Scripture, I am as much againft it as he or 
 any Man Hving : But why he fhould make this 
 an Exception againft the ufeo{ our Epiflles and 
 Go/pels^ I muft confefs I know not. 
 
 For admitting we did, or do ufe fome Scrip- 
 ture Expreflions in our Service, without a ftridt 
 regard had to the Scope and Connexion of them j 
 yet I cannot fee, how this can make us guilty of 
 the Crime, of which we are accufed by De Laune, 
 For I conceive, there is a great and wide 
 Difference, betwixt citing Scripture for the con- 
 firmation of a dodrinal Point, and ufing fucH 
 Portions of Scripture in our Prayers as fitly ex- 
 prels our Defires : In the former, a principal 
 refpe6b is to be had to the Scope and Connexion 
 of the Place cited or referred to j but in the 
 latter we are not ty'd to this Rule, but only to 
 have an eye to the aptitude or fitnefs of Expref- 
 fion, that is in the Texts for our prefent Purpofe 3 
 and this is no more than what is frequently pra- 
 £bis'd by the Diftenters themfelves 5 therefore if 
 this Argument have any force againft us, it has 
 as much againft them > and confequently this 
 can be no rcafon, why I fhould forfake the 
 Church of England^ and again joyn with them. 
 But then, 
 
 "thirdly^ We fymboUze with the Church of 
 Rome^ fays he s, in our Rites and Ceremonies of 
 Worihip j for do they kneel at Confeffion^ Ah[o' 
 lution^ Pater-nojier^ 6cc. ? So do we. Do they 
 
 q Pka, p. 42i. 
 
 O ? ^^ 
 
J y o The B u lwark Stormed. 
 
 fit at reading the Lejjms^ ft and and repeat tlie 
 Greedy d>cc. ? So do we. That is as much as to 
 fay in fhort, do they kneel when they pray to 
 God? Do they ftand when they confefs or praife 
 God ? So do we, and fo it becomes us well to 
 dO) for fo did the Primitive Church. But what 
 if they did not? kneeling, fitting, and flanding, 
 are allCircumftantials of Worfhip, which God 
 has left undetermin'd, and are fo far only necef- 
 fary, as they are (by the appointment of the 
 Church) made fubfervient to the decent and or- 
 derly performance of the publick Worfhip of 
 God. If then the publick Worfhip of God be 
 decently and orderly perform'd in the Church of 
 Rome-y why may not the Church o^ England ^ym- 
 bolize with her in what fhe does well ? Nay, 
 why fhbuld we (under a pretence of being as un- 
 like the Church of Rom^ as we can) perform the 
 Worfhip of God diforderly and indecently, be- 
 caufe the Church of Rome does it otherwife? 
 Are thefe fome of the unanfwerable Arguments 
 they fo much boafl of? From hardnefs of Heart, 
 from blindnefs of Mind, and from being preju- 
 dic'd in Opinion y good Lord deliver me ! for 
 that will fhut a Man's Eyes, and not fuffer him 
 to fee the clearefl and plainefl Truths. 
 
 Could it be thought, that any Man profefling 
 the pure and peaceable Gofpel of Chriif, fhould 
 be fo far given up, as to think the pofture of the 
 Body makes or mars the Devotion of the Heart ? 
 But if they will flill be contentious about fuch 
 things, my Anfwer is (it was not faid for nothing, 
 1 Cor. xi. i'6.) tVe have no fuch Cuftom^ neither 
 the Churches of God. Infhort, I am really of 
 opinion, that the Liturgy of the Church of^;^^- 
 hnd (which by them is reprefented to be fo ridi-^ 
 
 a CUloUS 
 
Tlfe B u LWARK Stormed, i j i 
 
 culous a thing) is as grave, and as exprellive of as 
 much Devotion, as any one Form of Devotion 
 now extant in the World \ and could we (and 
 O that we could) come up to that meafure of 
 Faith, Love, Humility and Zeal, that Elias and 
 other renowned Worthies had > I doubt not but 
 we might (in the ufe of that excellent Liturgy) 
 obtain as great things from him, who loves to 
 be llyPd a God hearing Prayer, as they did. But 
 alas, inftead of this devout frame of Soul, how 
 fiat and dull is the Devotion of moft Men ? And 
 fince it is common to fee Men corrupt in Prin- 
 ciples, of carelefs and loofe behaviour in the 
 Worfhip and Service of God^ I think it may 
 reafonably be concluded, that this indecent, and 
 as it were lifelefs performance of God's holy 
 Worfhip, is owing, not only to that innate Cor- 
 ruption which indifpofes us to the performance 
 of all good in general > but alfo to thofe too com- 
 mon Prejudices which fome have imbib'd from 
 the Books, and fome from the Converfation they 
 have with fuch Men, as too frequently make it 
 their bufinefs to prejudice the Minds of the 
 weaker fort , againfl the feveral Offices of the 
 Church of Etigland: Whence it comes to pafs^ 
 that one Man likes not this, and another likes 
 not that part of our Service : And fome there 
 are (for inrtance De Laune) who have gone fo far, 
 as to deride the moft facred things. 
 
 For pray nov/ obferve, with what levity he 
 treats thofe facred Exprcflions ^, viz. ^^ The 
 *' Lord be imth thee^ muft the Prieft fay j and 
 ^' ijoith thy Sprit ^ muft the People fay > open 
 
 ' PUay p. 52. 
 
 O 4 " QUt 
 
1 5 2 The B u LWARK StormBd. 
 
 '' our Lips^ muft the Prieft fay 5 and let our 
 '' Mouths jhen^ forth thy praife^ mult the Peo- 
 " pie iay. Nay farthei-, even Lord have mercy 
 '^ upon us^ and Chrift have mercy upon us^ is 
 by him exprefled bandying or tofling of Pray- 
 ers up and down, betwixt Prieft and People. 
 Once more then let every honeft Man pray 
 and fay. Lord have mercy upon usy and fo lead 
 thy faithful People in the way of Truth 5 and 
 froni ail fuch defigning Men, as turn Religion 
 into Rebellion, and Faith into Faftion, good 
 Lord deliver us. 
 
 As for what he fays concerning our fymbo- 
 lizing with the Church of Rome in our Places of 
 Worfliip, I have anfwer'd it before j and have 
 fliewn it to be the opinion of the Ajfemhly of 
 Divines^ that there's no fault in it v and the like 
 has been done in other Particulai-s 5 and there- 
 fore I fhall not now trouble either my felf or the 
 Reader, with any repetition of them. 
 
 Thus have I at laft brought my Reader through 
 the fix Particulars, which I at firft proposed to 
 eonfider, by way of Examination, as well as in 
 order to the confutation of the Arguments con-- 
 tain'd in De Laurie''^ Plea-y which being done, I 
 might now come to a conclufion of this Trea- 
 fife J but being apprehenfive, that fome of De 
 Laune's Friends may think him unjuftly dealt by, 
 if I fhould filently pafs over what he has farther 
 faid by way of Corroboration of that which went 
 before : I muft therefore beg my Readers atten- 
 tion, whilft I offer fomething by way of Exa- 
 mination and Refledion, on what he has there 
 farther to offer, in order to prove us guilty of a 
 finful fymbolizing with the Church of Rome 5- 
 
 whicii 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed, i y 5 
 
 which for brevity fake I ihall do in this follow- 
 ing method. 
 
 Firfi^ I fhall take notice of what he has cited 
 for this purpofe out of popi{h Authors. 
 
 Secondly^ I ihall obferve what has been afTerted 
 concerning this matter by fome of our Kings. 
 And then, 
 
 Thirdly^ I fhall make fome Refle6tions on what 
 lie cites for this purpofe from the Books of fome 
 great Men of our own Party. 
 
 With refpeft to the firffc of thefe he fays % 
 " That the Jefuit, Dr. C^rnVrfays, That the 
 *' Common Prayer and Catechifm contain no- 
 " thing contrary to the Romijh Service. And 
 " Moimtague^ he fays, does likewife afTert, That 
 *' the Service of the Church o^ England is in moil 
 " things the fame with that of the Church of 
 ** Rome y and that the differences are not fo great, 
 " that we fhould make any feparation. Well, 
 and what's the Confequence of this. Sir ? The 
 Jefuits fay, the EngUjh Service differs not from 
 the Romijh^ therefore it muft and it fhall be the 
 fame I for good Men they will not lie ! Well, 
 he goes on however, and in the next place tells 
 us of a " certain Jefuit , who not many Years 
 " fince coming to the Service of Paul's^ declared 
 " he lik'd it exceeding well > neither had he 
 " any exception to it, but that it was not done 
 *' by their Priefts. Jt feems then the £;^^///^ Ser- 
 vice is as papiJJj as the Jefuits themfelves can de- 
 fire. Wonderful Logick ! fure he would make 
 thofe Jefuits to be a very ignorant fort of Men 5 
 to burn and delb-03^, what they pretend to be fo 
 entirely in love with ! but farther, 
 
 « Pkay p. 46. 
 
 « When 
 
154 7^^ Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 " When the Pope had interdidted Queen £//- 
 '' zaheth^ fays he, (upon a falfe information, I 
 fuppofe he would have us think , that the 
 EngUJh Service was contrary to his) " Secreta- 
 « ry JValftngham procured two Perfons to come 
 " into England from the Pope , to whom he 
 *' ihewed the London and Canterbury Service (in 
 " their ^Cathedrals) in all the Pomp of it \ who 
 '' thereupon declar'd, that they wonder'd the 
 *' Pope fhould be fo ill inform'd and advis'd, 
 '' to interdi6l a Prince, whofe Service and Ce- 
 ^' remonies fo fymboliz'd with his own^ and 
 '^ therefore returning to Rome^ they poflefs'd 
 " the Pope^ that they faw no Service, Cere- 
 '' monies, or Orders in England^ but might ve- 
 *' ry well ferve in Rome 5 whereupon the Bull 
 *' was recall'd, fays he. But why did the Pope 
 afterwards excommunicate her ? Why in the 
 beginning of her Reign, fays Camden^ the change 
 of Religion was not fuddenly made, but was 
 done by little and little gradually j for the Ro- 
 mijh Religion continu'd in the fame State it was^ 
 a full Month and more after the Death of Queen 
 Mary-y at which time, it may be, thofe two 
 Men came from Rome^ if there is any truth in 
 that Story. However, the Queen fo accommo- 
 dated matters of Religion to the Romijh Clergy^ 
 (who as yet were inPofTefEon of the Bifhopricks) 
 that for feveral Years, fays Dr. Heylin^ the Pa* 
 pifts continued in the Communion of the Church % 
 but when the Queen had by little and little quite 
 alter 'd the old 3 and by order of Parliament 
 Efiablijh'd a new ^ or rather Reformed the old 
 EngUJh Ser'vice : When ihe had publickly dif- 
 owu'd the Pope's Supremacy, and put that Party 
 out of hope of ever rc-eftablifliing the Romijb 
 
 Religion 
 
The Bulwark Stormed, i^^ 
 
 Religion in England j why then Walfingham 
 fends no more to Rome for any body to fee the 
 London and Canterbury Service; but without 
 more ado the Pope excommunicates her ; and 
 Whig hke, not only abfolves all her Subje<5ts 
 from their Oath of Allegiance, but alfo curfes 
 with Anathema all thofe that obey her. They 
 who are willing to know more of this matter, 
 may, at their leifure, confult Bakefs Chronicle ; 
 where they will find, how, why, and when the 
 change was made. Well, 
 
 " But Curtain fays (fiys he) that he had heard 
 *' a Jefuit fay, he was in hopes our Service 
 " and Ceremonies would return us again to 
 '' Rome. But by this time I fuppofe their hope 
 is turn'd into fear; having by ifo years experi- 
 ence found, how vain a thing it is to hope with- 
 out a prornife. Alas, Sirs, it's not our Ser'uice^ 
 but our Divijtons which give them hopes of in- 
 troducing Popery among us again, as all know, 
 who have confulted that fmall Treatife call'd, 
 Foxes and Firebrands ; and the fecond Volume 
 of the London Cafes > in which we are told that 
 Dr. Bayly the Romanift apenly courted Oliz'er as 
 the hopes of Rome : And farther, that Coleman 
 on his Tryal own'd, that perhaps he thought 
 Popery might come in, ii Liberty of Confcience 
 had been granted ; what reafons they had to think 
 fo, the World is now tolerably well acquainted 
 with. 
 
 For when the Romanifts fee, that the EngUJh 
 are as it were fuperllitioully aFraid of the very 
 ISlame of Popery aud Supcrftition 3 and that it is 
 an eafier matter to get them to accept the Thing 
 without the Name^ than the Name without the 
 Ibing : They cunningly difguife, and then mix 
 
 themfelvcs 
 
1^6 The Bulwark Stormed. 
 
 themfelvcs among our Dillenters 5 and as fuch, 
 plead for a Tckration of all Religions, (except 
 ont) which being obtained under the fpecious 
 pretence of an indulgence to tender Confcienccs j 
 they then divide, and fubdivide us into divers 
 Sefts and Parties 5 each of vrhich brings along 
 with it fome popifh Tenet or other ; So that 
 we feeoi to have well nigh received in the Spe- 
 cies^ what we pretend to rejedb in the Gems ^ 
 and under a pretence of a farther Reformation 
 in Religion, they have fo glofs'd the matter, 
 that many are prevaiPd on to believe tha^to be 
 a Re format ion^ which in reality is a Deformatioti 
 of it : What Caufe this evil Effe<5b is to be a- 
 fcrib'd to, Illiall not take upon me to determine. 
 Therefore leaving that, 
 
 Suppofe I ihould invert the Suppofition of 
 Curtain^ and fay, I am in hopes our Service and 
 Ceremonies, ^c. being fo decent, ^c. may again 
 return the Romanifts to us, of which I conceive 
 there is by fir the greatefl probability > unlefs 
 they have all as fqueamifh a Stomach as Count 
 Gundemore^ (who as the Author of Foxes 2,vA Fire- 
 brands tells us) could by no means be prevailed on 
 to go to the Prayers of the King's Chapel, tho' 
 his Prefence was at that time necefTary, to be a 
 Witnefs of the Oath there taken by the King, 
 with relation to the matter then on Foot, be- 
 tween Prince Charles^ afterwards Charles the Firfl:5 
 and the Infanta Mary^ fecond Sifter to the King 
 of Spain : Now what fhould occalion this nice- 
 ty, if the RomiJJ) and Englijb Service were the 
 fame? 
 
 : '" But Mr. Gage^ he fays, has compared our 
 " Service with that oi Rome j and he finds no 
 " difference, but only one is in Englljh ^ and 
 
 " the 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. 157 
 
 *' the other in Latin. And farther fays, when 
 *' he was at Rome he was told by Father Fitz, 
 '' Herbert^ that the Common Prayer Book which 
 '' was composed for Scotland^ wixs by Archbi- 
 *' fhop Laud fent to Rcrne^ to be firll view'd by 
 *' tlie Po/>^ and Cardinals \ who, upon the peru- 
 " fal, did approve thereof. Very well, then 
 the Pope and Cardinals^ it feems, approve of fomc 
 things that are good I However, 
 - As for Mr. Gage's comparing the Englijh and 
 Roman Service, and rinding no diftercnce but 
 EKgUJJj and Latin-, I anfwer, it may be his Eyes 
 were not very good, and therefore he could not 
 fee dillinctly, or fomcthing elfe as bad was in 
 the way. However, its certain, all the World 
 befide is not blind, but can trull to their Eyes 
 as well as he. Therefore all that I ihall fay 
 farther to this pretence is, to advifc the Reader 
 to do as Mr. Gage has done, and confult the 
 Books themfelves j where they will find a gi'eat 
 deal of difference both m Matter and Form 5 
 but in the want of thofe Books, let me ad- 
 vife the Reader to confult the Cafe of lymbo- 
 Jizing in the fecond \'olurr.e of the London Ca- 
 fes > where they w^ill find many of thofe diffe-* 
 rences colle6i:ed together, and fo 1 ihall leave that 
 matter. 
 
 And as for the Story o£ Fitz Herbert^ I take it 
 to be a lying report for the Reafons which here 
 follow. 
 
 Firft^ Becaufe the Pope's Supremacy was long 
 before caft off in England -, and therefore he was. 
 under no obhgation to do fo. 
 
 Secondly^ Becaufe it appears from the Letters 
 
 of Sir WilUam Bopwell^ and the Book which 
 
 he wrote againii Father Fifber-.^ that he was the 
 
 , greaieil 
 
ijS The Bulwark Stormed, 
 
 greatefl Enemy to the Caufe then on foot againfl 
 the Church and King, betwixt the Papifts and 
 DifTenters. 
 
 'thirdly^ Becaufe it appears from the fame Let- 
 ters, that when the Papifts found they could not 
 gain the Bifhop over to their Party , no not 
 with the offer of a Cardinal's Cap j then they 
 did what they could to incenfe the Scotch againlJ: 
 him. And therefore, 
 
 Fourthly^ It's probable this Story of Fitz Her- 
 bert might be (as many others were) unjuftly 
 trump'd up againft him to bring him to his 
 end. However, be the Relation true or not, 
 let the Pope approve or difapprove of our Li^ 
 turgy, I care not 5 if it be in its felf good , 
 his Commendation cannot make it bad j if it 
 be in it felf bad, his diflike can make it never 
 the better: I am very fenfible he can fpeak 
 well or ill of any thing to ferve his own and his 
 Church's turn. In Queen Elizabeth's Days, he 
 would have confirm'd it, if the Queen would 
 have rank'd her felf and Subjects with the 
 Church of Rome^ and own all from her Autho- 
 rity : Did not that {hew his love to it ? In 
 Queen Mary's Days he was for burning of it ; 
 And you know, the only way to exprefs ones 
 Love to a Friend, is to put hhii in the Fire and 
 burn him. 
 
 From the whole then, I conclude, it's no 
 matter whether the Pope^ and his Party like or 
 diflike, approve or difapprove, blefs or curfe our 
 Liturgy : Since its plain from undeniable Fa6t, 
 their Dcfign is by all means poflible to difgrace 
 it i and could they have an Opportunity , the 
 DifTenters may depend on it, they are ready to 
 joyn with them in a folemn League and Cove- 
 
 nant. 
 
The B u LWARK Stormed. 159 
 
 nant, and with Hands lift up to God, will 
 fwear (with as much Truth and Honefly as 
 they once did) to dcllroy it. In fhort, if Bi- 
 ihop Laud did fend the Book to Rome as is 
 (with very little Reafon ) pretended, it was an 
 h^ of his done contrary to the La-ws of the 
 Land and the Canons of the Church , and fo 
 he only was accountable for it : And if the 
 Pope and Cardinals did then and there approve 
 the fame ; it was done with a politick Defiga 
 againft their own fettled Principles, and there- 
 fore no Notice is to be taken of it. But then. 
 
 Secondly^ Let us take a view of what is pro- 
 duced by him for this Purpofe, from the Say- 
 ings of fome of our Kings. And the firft that 
 he produces, is King Edward the fixtb, who 
 in his Letter to the Devonfiire Men, tells them, 
 that the Englijh Service is Word for Word the 
 fame with that of Rome-y for nothing is altered 
 fays he, only a few things taken away (which it 
 fcems were lefs than nothmg) which it would have 
 been a ftiame to have heard in Englifi-y as if it 
 were a greater Fault to have found things in 
 Englijlo than in Latin ! But if there was no Al- 
 teration, why did the Devonfiire Men complain? 
 Why thenfhould the King himfelf fay, there was 
 a few things altered or taken away, too fond to be 
 heard in Englijh ? However, De Laune fays, there 
 were fome more Alterations made in the fecond 
 Year of his Reign , and fome in Queen Eliza- 
 beth'sT>2iys'y but the Corruptions, it feems, were 
 like the Widow's Barrel of Meal that wafted 
 not, though there was daily fome taken from it : 
 For notwithftanding thofe before-mentioned Re- 
 formations , yet he tells us , that King James 
 (aid it was an evil faid Mafs in Er.gViJlo^ and 
 
 wanted 
 
i6o The Bulwark Stormed, 
 
 wanted nothing of the Mafs but the Liftings : 
 But this he fpake it feems when he was in Scot- 
 land^ and fat as he elfewhere faid ^ among beard- 
 lefs Boys, who made him believe that the Eng' 
 lijh Men worfliipped their Wives : But when he 
 came to England and fat among wife and learned 
 Men, we are fure he was of another Mind, and 
 efleemed it not as an evil faid Alafs^ but as the 
 befl form of Service in the World : And as for 
 the Opinion of King Charles the firll concerning 
 this matter, I think the World needs not now be 
 told it, what he faid in anfwer to a Petition pre- 
 fented to him at Hampton-Court the firft of De- 
 cember 1 641 ', what he faid to his Sons a little 
 before his Death, and what he faid ov\ the Scaf- 
 fold by the motion of Dr. Juxton at the very 
 hour of Death, does fully evince what he thought 
 of the Matter. If thefe be not fufficient Te- 
 flimonies of their approbation, I'll no more argue 
 from Practice to Principle. But then, 
 
 Thirdly^ As for what he cites for this Purpofe 
 out of the Writings of Camhden^ Dr. Heylin^ 
 Burnet J and others > as I fee nothing to this Pur- 
 pofe in them, I fhall filently pafs them over, 
 and leave the Diflenters to make the beft ufe they 
 can of what they have faid : For my own part 
 I declare, I have not willingly paffed over any 
 thing which I could think in any meafure fervice- 
 able to their Caufe > but have endeavoured to 
 make ufe of fuch Arguments to convince others, 
 as have been ufed in the Convidion of my felf, 
 which I in my Confcience believe have in them 
 
 freater Force , than any made ufe of by De 
 ,aune^ or any other againft the Church of Eng-^ 
 
 t In the Conference at Hampton- Court. 
 
 Jand^ 
 
The Bulwark Stormed. \6i 
 
 land. Which Church, that God would defend 
 her as with a Wall of Brafs round about > that 
 he would daily purify her within j that he 
 would fo cloath her Priefts with Righteoufnefs, 
 and each and every Member with fuch Purity of 
 Heart and Hand, that all Men may fee and fay^ 
 doubtlefs fhe is a truly Apollolick Church of 
 Chrill: : And finally, that he Would not only dif- 
 appoint the Defigns, and bring to naught all 
 the Counfels oF her open and feci-et Enemies ; 
 but that he would fo blefs her with all fpiritual 
 Bleffings here, that {he may be the Praife of thd 
 tvhole Earth : And when time Ihall be no more, 
 that this Militant may make up a confiderable 
 part of the 'Triumphant Church of Chrift , is 
 what I moll earnellly with and pray for > and 
 they that can wifh it more Happinefs, let them 
 with all my Heart. 
 
 Thus, dear Reader, have I at laft given you 
 an account, why the Arguments ufed by De 
 Laune and others againfi: the Church of Eng- 
 land^ have not prevaiPd with me to think her 
 (as fhe is reprefented by them ) a Bahylonifi 
 IVhore^ but on the contrary ( for the Reafons 
 before-mentioned ) I verily believe her to be as 
 pure a Chriftian. Church, as any .on the Face 
 of the Earth. 
 
 As for that hideous Image of the Beaft with 
 which he pins the Basket ; I think it to be 
 Very ill drawn j and though I have no greac 
 Skill in thofe kind of Reprefentatiofts, yet me- 
 thinks this Beaft is not like the Dragon he 
 fpeaks of, for there feems to me to be a great 
 deal of Difference betwixt them, both in 
 Heads and Horns : Nay , truly on a fecond 
 View, I much queilion, whether this Beall be 
 
 P mgre 
 
i6i Tloe B u LWARK Stormed. 
 
 inore like a Romijh Whore, that goes from her 
 Husband, or a Phanatical Jilt that continues 
 with, but defiles her Husband's Bed. But be that 
 as it will, it's now time enough for the Reader 
 to judge when he has heard both Parties, let 
 him now determine his Judgment and Practice 
 as he fees Caufe : If what has been faid, con- 
 vince him not, he may fay, he has read my Rea- 
 fon, I'll do as much for him if he'll let me have 
 the fame Opportunity : If what has been faid^ 
 be any way beneficial to thee, it^s what I 
 wifh, give' God the Praife : If any thing be 
 faid amifs, let it be imputed to my want of Skill 
 to do better : Let it be rejeited, but remember 
 me in thy Prayers. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
BOOKS Printed for, and Sold by 
 William Innys, at the Prince's 
 Arms m St. Paul'^ Church'Tard. 
 
 IO. Morinus de Sacris Eccleflae Ordiiiationibus, fecun- 
 dum antiques &rccentiores Latinos, Graecos,Syros,(kc. 
 iintv. fol. 1695. 
 
 Novum D. N. 'ijefu Chrifii Tedimcntiim juxta Edi^Ionem 
 Bibliorum Polyglot. In qua Tcxtus Grsecus cum verlione 
 interlinear!, & Vtilg. Lat. Tranllationes Antiquas Syriaca, 
 Arabica, Athiopica, totius Novi Tellamenti, Perfica, E- 
 vangeliorum & fmguiarum Verfiones Latinae, omnia eo or- 
 dine difpoiita ut Textus cum Veriionibus uno intuitu con- 
 ferri poffint. Cum variis Leclionibus & Annotationibus 
 Graec. Lat. Syr. ^thiop. Perfic. &c. Edidit Brianus Waltonus, 
 S.T.D. Epiic. Geftrienfis. 
 
 Expofitory Notes, with Pradical Obfervations on the 
 New Teftamcnt of our Lord and Saviour Jelus Chrift; 
 wherein the TacredText is at large recited,the Senfe explain'd, 
 (j/c. By William Btirkity M. A. The fixth Edition, fol. 17 16. 
 
 The Works of the mod Reverend Dr. ^ohn Tdlotfon, 
 late Lord Arch-Bifliop oi Canterbury. GoUedled in HI. Vol. 
 with an alphabetical Table of the principal Matters. 1717. 
 
 Thefaurus Linguse Sandlae, five Concordantiale Lexicou 
 Hebraeo-Latino-Biblicum : in quo , Lexica omnia He- 
 braica hucufq; Edita Methodice, fuccincHie &: quafi Sy- 
 noptice, exhibentur; una cum Concordantiis Hebraicis; 
 in quibus, univerfce & fingulae voces HebraRO-Biblicae, (cum 
 locis fuis, quibus, in Textu occurrunt) interpretat« funr, 
 & cxpofitae ; atque etiam, Grammaticas, fub fuis propriis 
 Radicibus quibuflihet refolutae; ad faciliorem, magifq; 
 commodum fludioforum, &: Hebraeo-Philologicorum, ufuni 
 & progreiTum, in Lingua fandta Hebraica difccnda, vel do- 
 cenda. Fer Gut. Robert/on 410 Lond. 16^0. 
 
 Jac. Ujjeri Hiftoria Dogmatica Controverfiae inter Or- 
 thodoxos & Pontificios de Scripturis & facris Vernaculis, 
 cum Notis Hen. Wharton. Lend. 1690. ^to. 
 
 Dr. Maningham'i Sermons on feveral Occafions. ^to. 
 
 Miraculous Works above and contrary to Nature, ^to. 
 
 The Hiftory of the Church ol Malabar ^ from the Time 
 of its being firll difcover'd by the Portngues'in 1501. Giving 
 an Account of the Perfecution and violent Methods of the 
 Roman Prelates, to reduce them to the Church of R<ime, &c. 
 By M. Geddii, %vo. Twenty 
 
Books Trtnted for W. Innys. 
 
 Twenty four Sermons preach'd on feveral Occalions. 
 In z Vol. Svo. 1 710. 
 
 The Influence of Convcrfattoriy with the Regulation thereof; . 
 being a Sermon preach'd at St. Clements D^«^ to a religi- 
 ous b'ociety 13.0. 
 
 An Enquiry after Happinefs. In three Parts : i. Of the 
 Poffibiiity of obtainmg Happinefs. 2. Of the true Notion 
 of Human Life. 3. Of religious Perfedlion. In 2, Vol. Sva. 
 The fiilh Edition 1717. 
 
 The Spiritual Year: Or, Devout Contemplations, digefted 
 into diitind Arguments for every Month in the Year, and 
 for every Week in that Month 12,°. 
 
 The D«fy of Servants : Containing, r . Their Preparation 
 for, and Choice of a Service. 2. Their Duty in Service; 
 together with Prayers fuited to each Duty ; all which may 
 be accom.modated liite wife for the moft part to Apprentices : 
 to which is added, a Difcourfe of the Sacrament, fuited pe- 
 cuharly to Servants." The third Edition, ii^. 
 
 The plain Mans Guide to Heaven ; Containing his Duty, 
 I. Towards God. 2. Towards his Neighbour. With pro- 
 per Prayers, Meditations, and Ejaculations; defign'd chiefly 
 for the Countreyman, Tradefman, Labourer, and the 
 like. The third Edition 12°. 1709. 
 
 Pradical Chrillianity, or an Account of the Holinef^ 
 which the Gofpel enjoyns, with Motives to it, and the 
 Remedies propofed againfl: Temptation; with a Prayer 
 concluding each diftinS: Duty. The fixth Edition %vo. 
 
 Chriftian Thoughts for every Day of the Month with 
 Prayers : Wherein is reprefented the Nature of unfeigned 
 Repentance, and of perfedl Love towards God. izvo. 
 Land. 1705. Thefe Eight by Richard Lucas D. D. late 
 Prebendary of Weflminifier. 
 
 Pradical Obfervations upon the Miracles of our bleflfed 
 Saviour; together with foiiie extraordinary PafTages of his 
 Life. By Tr. Braggy B. D. In 2 Vol. ^vo. 
 
 Pracftical Dilcourfes upon the Parables of our Blefifed Sa- 
 viour, with Prayers annexed to each Difcourfe. In 2 Vol. 
 pvo. By the fame Author. 
 
 The wifdom of God manifefted in the Works of the 
 Creation, in two Parts, inz,. The Heavenly Bodies, Ele- 
 inents, Meteors, Foflils, Vegetables, (Beafts, Birds, Fiflies* 
 and Infet*^ts) more particularly in the Body of the Earth, 
 its Figure, Motion, and Confiflency, and in the admirable 
 Structure of the Bodies of Man, and other Animals, as alfo 
 in their Generation, cr<r. With Anfwers to fome Objecffi- 
 
 ons. 
 
Boook Tr'tnted for W. Innys. 
 
 ojis. By ';}ohn Ray, late fellow of the Royal Society. The 
 Sixth Edition, 17 14. 8^'^. 
 
 Joannis Ratty Synopfis Methodica Avium & Pifcium ; 
 Opus Pollhumum , quod vivus recenfuit & perfecit ipfc 
 infigniffimus Author : in quo multas Species, in ipfius 
 Ornithologia & Ichthyologia defideratas, adjecic: Metho- 
 dunaque fuam Pifcium Naturx magis convenientem reddi- 
 dit. Cum Appendice, & Iconibus, 17 13. 
 
 Three Phyfico-Theological Difcourfes, concerning I. The 
 Primitive Chaos and Creation of the World. II. The ge- 
 neral Dekige, its Caufes and EfFecfls. III. The Diflblution 
 of the World, and future Conflagration. Wherein are 
 largely difculTed , the Produdion and ufe of Mountains; 
 the Original of Fountains, of formed Stones, and Sea-Fiflies 
 Bones and Shells found in the Earth ; the Efiec'ls of parti- 
 cular Floods, and Inundations of the Sea ; the Eruptions 
 of Vulcano's; the Nature and Caufes of Earthquakes, 
 Alfo an hiitorical Account of thofe two late remarkable 
 ones in Jamaica and England. With practical Inferences. 
 By Jolm Ray, late Fellow of the Royal Society, The third 
 Edition, illutT:rated with Copper-Plates, and much more 
 enlarged than the former Editions, from the Author's own 
 MSS, 1 7 1 3 . Thefe three publijled by the Reverend Mr, Derham. 
 
 Minutius Fdix. EnglijVd by Mr. Cembe. 
 
 Chativin de Religione Naturah. ^vo. 
 
 Knatchbull in Novum Teflamentum. %vo. 
 
 Lannoii opera Varia Theologica. ^to. & %vo, 
 
 Leufdeni Compendium Novi Teftamenti. ^vo. , 
 
 S^wifr/c'w de obligation e Confcien ties, &c. ^vo. 1710. 
 
 Spicilegium S. S. Patrum, ut & Hasreticorum, Secuh pod 
 Chriftum natum I. II. & III. Quorum vel integra monu- 
 menta, vel fragmcnta partim ex aliorum Patrum Libris 
 jam impreffis collegit & cum Cod. MSS. contulit, 
 partim ex MSS primum edidit, ac lingula tam Prasfatione, 
 quam Notis fubjuncftis illuftravit J. E. Grabius, Editio fc- 
 cunda audlior. 2 Vol Svo. Oxon. 17 14. 
 
 Andreivs Preces privatae, Gr. Lat. izo. Oxon. 
 
 Clifletti Canones & Decreta Concihi Tridentini. 
 
 Colomefii Obfervationes Sacrae. 
 
 A Sermon preached before his Majefly King George at 
 his Royal Chapel of St. James's on Sunday Feb. 3. 17 16. 17. 
 By Richard Bentley D. D. Mafter of Trinity College in Cam- 
 kridge Library-Keeper and Chaplain to His Majefty. 
 
 The wife Steward: Set forth in a Sermon upon Charity. 
 
 preach'd 
 
Books Trinted for W. Innys. 
 
 prcach'd at ihc Pariftj-Church of Cheljea on Sunday the i^th 
 of July i']i6. Svo. 
 
 Practical Difcourfes upon the Lord's Prayer preach'd be- 
 fore the Honourable Society of Lincoln %-inn. %'vo. 17 17. 
 Both by Tho. Mangc^ M. A. Chaplain ^t JVhhehall, and 
 Fellow of St. John's College in Cambridge 
 
 Le Blanc. (Lud.) Theies Thcologicas, uol. Lond. 1708 
 BibUa Sacra ^olvglotta cum Lexico Cafteih, 8 Vol. fol. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 Cleric! Joannis) Hiftoria EcclcfiaiticA duorum primorum 
 
 a Chrifto 'nato Saeculoruiii e veteribus Moniimentis de- 
 
 prompta, 4f<7. Amft. 1716 
 
 S. dementis Epiftolaeduae ad CoMiuhios, ^vo. Lond. 1687 
 
 Cave (Gul.) Epiftola apologetica adv. ie Clerc, ^vo. ibid. 
 
 1702 
 
 Caftelli (Edm.) Lexicon Heptaglotton, Heb. Chald. 
 
 Syriac. Samarit. iEthiop. Arab, conjuiidtim ; & Periicum 
 
 feparatim. Opus non tantum ad Biblia Polyglotta Lon- 
 
 dinenfia, BiWia Regia Parifienfu, BiMia Regi'<i Antwerpiana, 
 
 Bibliaque Card. Ximenis Complutenlia; led ad omnes om- 
 
 nino tarn MSS. quam impreffos Libros, in univerfis hifce 
 
 Linguis cxtantes apprime utile Scperneceffarium, 1 Vol. foK 
 
 Dale (Ant. van) DifTertatio fuper Ariftea de LXX inter- 
 
 pretibus, additur Hiftoria Baptifmorum, &c. 4?(7. Amft. 1705 
 
 — De Origine & ProgreiTu Idololatriae, ^to. Amft. 1696 
 
 S. Dionylii Areopagitae Opera, Gr. Lat. fol. z Vol. 
 
 Ant. 1634 
 
 Dawfoni (Johannis) Lexicon Novi Teftamenti, Gr. 
 
 Lat. 8t/i?. Cant 1705 
 
 Forbelii (Johannis) opera omnia, 1 Vol. fol. Amft. 
 
 Ferrarius (Bernard) de Ritu Sacrarum Ecclefiae, '^vo. 
 
 Fabricius (J. Seob.) de Unitate Ecclefiae Bnttannicae, 8v<> 
 
 Oxon. 1678 
 S. Gregorii Turonenfis opera omnia, fol. Paris 1699 
 Herodotus cum Notis Gale, Gronovii & aliorum, fol. 
 
 Ludg. Bat. 17 16 
 Huetii (Pet. Dan.) Dcmonftratio Evangelica, fol. Paris 
 
 3690 
 Herbert (Ed. D. Cherbury) de Religione Gentilium, %vo. 
 
 Amft. 1700 
 
 Hody (Humph.) contra Hiftoriam Arifteae, 81;^. ib, 1684 
 
 S. Irensei Epifc. Lugd, Fragmenta anecdota quoe ex BihJ. 
 
 Taur. eruit, Latina verfione notifque donavit, duabus Dif- 
 
 fertationibus de Oblatione & Confecratione Euchariftiae il- 
 
 luftravit, deni<iue Liturgia Grseca Jo. Ern. Grabii & DilTer- 
 
 tationev 
 
Books Trinted for W. Innys, 
 
 tatione de Prejudiciis Theologicis auxit AM. Pfaffius, St;#, 
 
 Hag. Com. 171-^ 
 Jamblicus de Myfteriis Gx\ Lat. fol. per Tho.Gale,Oxon 167}$ 
 
 Leydekker (Sam.)Exercitationes SeletffeeHiitorico-Theo- 
 logicae. i Vol. 1711 
 
 Lilieri (Mart.) In Sandorium deMedicina Statica, 1 1 moloni. 
 
 1716 
 
 Morinus (Stephanus) de Primxva Lingua, ^to Ultr. 1694, 
 Origen Contra Celfum, cum Notis Spenceri , Gr. Lat. a^tt 
 
 Cant. 1677 
 
 Philoftratorum quae fuperfunt omnia Gr. Lat. fol. Lipf. 
 
 1709 
 
 Parker (Sam.) de Deo & Providcntia Divina, t\to Lond. 
 
 1678 
 
 Surenhufii (Gul.) de Theologorum Flebrseorum FormuUs 
 allegandi & modis in^erpietandi tradajus, x\ta Amft. 1711 
 
 Teftamcntum Novum Gr. Wiiiii & Var. Led. ^vo. 
 
 Amft. 17 1 1 
 
 Velthufii (Lamb.) Opera omnia, 2 Vol. ^to. Rot. 1680 
 
 Vita£ Seledoruni aliquot Vi^rum qui Dodrina, Dignitate 
 ac Pietate incUuueie. Publ. per G. Bateiium, ^to. Lond. 1681 
 
 Wilkins (David) Paraphrafis Chaldaica in libros Duos 
 Chronicorum 4^to. ibid. 1715 
 
 Whitby (Dan.) Ethices Compendium in Ufum Academica 
 luventutis, '^vo. Lond. 17 13. 
 
 The Chriftians beft Guide ; or, the Religious Man's 
 Companion. In 3 Parts ^vo. Land. i-jiG 
 
 The Nonjurors Separation from the publick Aflemblies 
 of the Church of England examm'd, and proved to be 
 Schifmatical upon their own Principles. The fecond Edi- 
 tion %vo. Price 6 d. 
 
 A Difcourfe of Schifm dewing I. what is meant by Schifm. 
 II. That Schifm is a damnable Sin. III. That there is a 
 Schilm beween the eftabhih'd Chtirch of England and the 
 Diffenters. IV. That this Schifm is to be charged on the 
 Diflenter's Side. V. That the Modem Pretences of Tole- 
 ration, Agreement in Fundamentals, crc will not excufe 
 the Diffenters from being guilty of Schifm. Written by 
 v/ay of Letter to three dilienting Miniflers in EJfex, viz.. 
 Mr. Cilfon and Mr. GledhiU of Colchejier and Mr Shepherd 
 of Braintree. To which is annexed, an Anfwer to a Book 
 intituled, Thomas againlt Bennet, or the Proteftant DiiTen- 
 tcrs vindicated ^rom the Charge of Schitm, with the two 
 Defences. The fourth Edition Svo. 17 16. 
 
 Diredions for Studying : lil. General Syftem or 3ody 
 
 of 
 
Books Trinied for W. Innys. 
 
 of Divinity, id. The 39 Articles of Religion. To which' 
 is added, St. Jerom's Epiftic to Nepotianus. The fecond 
 Edition, ^vo. 
 
 An Elfay on the 39 Articles of Religion agreed on in the 
 Year 1652, and revifed in the Year 1571; wherein (the 
 Text being firft exhibited in Latin and Englifti, and the 
 minuted Variations of 18 the moil ancient and authentick 
 Copies carefully noted) an Account is given of the Pro- 
 ceedings of Convocations in framing and fettling the Text 
 of the Articles; the controverted Claufe of the 20th Ar- 
 ticle is derftonftrated to be genuine; and the Cafe of Sub- 
 fcription to the Articles in point of Law, Hillory and Con- 
 fcience. With a prefatory Epiftle to Anthony Collins Efq; 
 wherein the egregious Fallhoods and Calumnies of the 
 Author of Prieltcraft in Perfedion, are expofed Svo. 1715. 
 
 The Cafe of the reformed Epifcopal Churches in Great 
 Poland and Polifi Pruffia conlidered, in a Sermon preach'd 
 on Sunday Nov. 18. 17 16. at St. Latirence-Jeivry, London, 
 in the Morning, and St. Olaves Southwark in the Afternoon. 
 The fecond Edition S-v^. 17 16. 
 
 Thei'e five by the Reverend Dr. Bennet. 
 
 Mr. Derham's Phyfico-Theology , or a Demonftration, 
 of the Being and Attributes of God, from his Works of 
 Creation. The fourth Edition, ^vo. 
 
 • Allro- Theology, or Demonftration of the Being 
 
 and Attributes of God, from a Survey of the Heavens, il- 
 iuftrated with Copper Plates. The fecond Edition, %vo. 
 
 The Pofthumous Works of Dr. Robert Hooke ; in which, 
 L The prefent Deficiency of natural Philofophy is difcourfed 
 of, with the Methods of rendring it more certain and be- 
 neficial. II. Of the Nature, Motion, and Effedls of Eighty 
 particularly that of the Sun and Comets. III. an hypothetical 
 Explication of Memory; how the Organs made u'feofby the 
 Mind in its Operation may be mechanically underftood- IV. 
 An Hypothefis and Explication of the Caufe of Gravity, or 
 Gravitation, Magnetifm, c^c. V. Difcourfes of Earthquakes, 
 their Caufes andEffeds, and Hiftories of feveral; to which 
 arc annex'd, phyfical Explications of feveral of the Fables 
 in Ovid's Metamorphofes, very different from other my- 
 thologick Interpreters. VI. Ledures for improving Navi- 
 gation and Afcronomy, with the Defcriptions of feveral 
 new and uieful Inftruments and Contrivances; the whole 
 full of curious Difquifitions and Experiments, illuftrated 
 with Sculptures. To thefe Difcourfes is perfix'd the Au- 
 thor's Life. By Richard Waller, Efq; R. S. Seer. 
 
A Catalogue of BOOKS Printed for and 
 
 Sold hy A. Bettef-jnorth^ at the Red-Lion in 
 Vater-Nojier-Row. 
 
 A I. s. d 
 
 ATalantis, 4. Vol. izvcs. 00 09 00 
 
 Apuleius's Golden Afs, 2 Vol. lives. co 06 00 
 
 Atlas Manuale; Or, A Setr of fmall Maps. By Moll. 8vo. 00 oj co 
 Arhenian Oracle, now in the Prefs, 8vo. 
 Aila Regia : Or, An Abridgment of Mr. Rymer's Fcedcra. Pub _ 
 
 lifli'd Monthly, at 1 s. each. 
 
 Apollo's Feaft, I2.ves. 00 oi 00 
 
 Art of Pleafing in Convcifacion, in French and Enelifh. By Car- ^ 
 
 dinal Richlieu. i2ves. j" 00 03 o. 
 
 Agreeable Variety, 8vo. 00 03 oi 
 
 Art of Thinking. Tranflated by Ozell. i2ves. 00 03 06 
 
 Arabian Nights Entertainment, Complear, 6 Vol. izv«-s. 00 ij 00 
 
 Abridgment Statutes, 5 Vol. 8vo. 01 10 00 
 
 Addifon's Travels, i2ves. 00 03 00 
 
 Works, 3 Vol. i2ves. 00 09 00 
 
 Works, 4, Vol. 4x0. 03 00 00 
 
 Accomplilh'd Conveyancera 3 Vol. 8v»« 00 1 
 
 oe 
 
 "DRidgman's Conveymcer, Folio. 
 
 ^ Biihop Blackhall's Works, 2 Vol. Folio. 
 
 Biihop Burnet on the Tliirty nine Articles, Folio. 
 
 Abridgment of his Hiftory of the Reformation, 3 Vol. 
 i2ves. 
 Dr. Barrow's Works, a Vol. Fol. 
 Book of Homiles, Folio, i/zcJ. 
 Boyce on the Thirty nine Articles, Folio. 
 Burnet's Theory of the Earth, 2 Vol. 8vo. 
 Dr. Bates Works, Folio, 1724.. 
 
 Burnet's ^Dr. Thomas^ Sermons at Boyle's Le^ures, for the Years 
 37H> ^/^J* ^Vol. 
 
 ElTay upon Government, 8vo. 
 Scripture Trinity, 8vo. 
 Blackmorc's (Six Richard) EfTays, 2 Vol. 8vo. 
 
 Creation, a Poem, izves. 
 Redemption, a Poem: being a Supple \ 
 
 ment to the Creation, 8vo. 3 0° °+ 00 
 
 Buchanan's Hiftory of Scotland, 2 Vol. Enelifli, with curious X 
 
 „ o s 00 I I 00 
 
 Cuts, 8vo. _ -* 
 
 Boyer's French and Englifh Di&ionary, 8vo. 
 
 Telemachus, 2 Vol* i2ves. 
 Bailey's Etymological Englifli Dictionary 
 
 Tranflat^onof Erafmus Colloquies. 
 Bruycre's Works, 2. Vol. Tranflated from the French, 8v9. 
 Eetterton's Lite with the Amorous Widow. 
 Bchir's Novels, 2 Vol. i2ves. 
 
 Plays, 4, Vol. i2ves. 
 BoerhaVe's Aphorifms, Tranflated into Englifli, 8vo. 
 Mrs. Barker's Novels, 2 Vol. i2ves. 
 
 Patchwork Screen, 2 Vol. lives. 
 Britilh Apollo, 3 Vol. lives* containing two Thoufand Aiifwerj to 
 Curious QueftioDs ia moft Arcs an<l Sciences, li/ei. 
 
 A 
 
 oi 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 12 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 12 
 
 00 
 
 . 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 vu 
 
 12, 
 
 CO 
 
 QO 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 12 
 
 00 
 
 OI 
 
 07 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 oe 
 
 00 
 
 OI 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 II 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 07 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 OJ 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 07 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 05 
 
 b6 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 °S 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 12 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 05 
 
 06 
 
 3<» 
 
 °s 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 °s 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 C9 
 
 CO 
 
 
 BiiiUk 
 
CO 
 
 ^- 3. i, 
 
 Britini Compenduims Containinji the Defcents of the EngHni,"^ 
 
 Scotch, aid Iriili Nobility, with cheir Arms ciuioully Engra- r oi 02 06 
 veil, 3 Vols. i2ves. 3 
 
 Buiiacrs Diction^iry, 8vo. 
 Dr. Brown oi Cold Baths, izves. 
 Boileau's Art of roetiy, 4 Canto's, izves. 
 
 Lutrin : Au Heroi-Comical Poem. 
 Bulftrode cWhiclockj EfTays, Svo. 
 Bridges of Fra£lions, I2ves. 
 
 Braaiwy's New Improvements in Planting and Gardening, Svo. 
 Bylfte's Arc of Poetry, 2 Vol. 
 
 Bbckmore's Ecclefiaftical Auciquiry, abridg'd from Bingham,2Vol, 
 Ball's Aftrology improv'd 
 Burkett of the New Teftament, Folio. 
 Beveridge's Piivare Thoughts, 8vo. 
 Ditto, i2ves. 
 Prayer, Svo. 
 Ditto, lives. 
 Blackmore on Confumptions, Svo. 
 on the Spleen 
 
 on the Gouc and Rheuniatifm 
 on the Vapours. 
 Binoham's Antiquities, 2 Vols. Folio. 
 Brown (Tho.; Works, J Vols. i2ves. 
 Biihop'b Sermons at La:y Moyer's Lediure, Svo. 
 Baynard of Hot and Cold Baths, Svo. 
 
 C 
 
 CAfTandra : A fam'd Romance, j Vols. i2ves 
 Cook of Foreft Trees, Svo. 
 Bi f;op Cunih^rland, De Le^iihus Naturae, Svo. 
 Cato's Utters. 4 Vols. i2ves 
 Cave's Primitive Chriftianity, Svo. 
 Calamy's (Benj.) Sermons, Svo. 
 ClarrsBodyot Divuury, 2 Vol. Svo. 
 Cocker's E.'giiih Diftionary-, Svo. 
 
 Decimal Arithmetick, Svo. 
 Countefs ot Morton's Devotions, 24s. 
 ' X>r. Comber's CompanioiKO the Altar, 3vo. 
 Chr'fli in Paiteni,Tranllaredfrom the Latin of Tho. a Kempis,249. 
 Ciilpeper's E;.^'ii^' Phyfician Enlarg'd 
 
 Midwite, i2ves. 
 
 Difpenfatory. i2ves. 
 Courtier, Tranfjared trom the Italian. 
 Cap ot Gray Hairs for a Giecn Head, Svo. . 
 
 Croxall's A.fop'3 Fables, 1 2vcs. 
 Cox's Hiftory of Cirolina, Svo. 
 
 Ciufo's I.ile abiidg'd, in a neat Pocket Volume, i2ves. 
 Cambray's Piivace Ti.uUi^his upon Religion, nves. 
 Cornelius N'.pos, Engliih'd by feveral Hands, izves. 
 Cockman's Tiuly's OiSccs, i2V.s. 
 Chrilfiaii's C-ur.panion to iheClolet and Altar, izvcs. 
 Ch valicr de Vaiidray, a Novel, i2ves. 
 Cole's Latin and En.i,liiTDiai'^ivaiy, Svo. 
 Czfar ex Recenfione, Tiio. P..;icll, i2ves. 
 
 CvmNotisDelpKini, Svo. ^. , , » , , 
 
 r^nftiiucions, CiiioLS, and Articles, of the Church of England. 
 Svo* 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OI 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 oS 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 II 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 OI 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 0/ 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 02 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 12 
 
 o5 
 
 00 
 
 OJ 
 
 00 
 
 GO 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 ©0 
 
 IJ 
 
 00 
 
 60 
 
 05 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 GO 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 . 06 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 ot 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 .06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 0^ 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 06 
 
 ^ 00 
 
 02 
 
 Ch 
 
 06 
 
 iil-'s 
 
en 
 
 Clarke Anfwer (O ^he Religion of Nicure delineated, 8va. 
 
 Ditto, againft Hutchinfon's Ideas of Beauty, 8vo. 
 Clarendon's (Lord) Hiftory of the Rebellion, 6 Vols. 8vo. 
 Cafes againlt the Diflenters, 3 Vols. 8vo. 
 Clark, CDr. Samuel^ o" the Attributes, 8vo. 
 
 Seventeen Sermons at St. James's, 8vo. 
 
 ontheGofpels, 2 Vols. Svo. 
 Cheyne (Dr.) on Health and Long Life, 8vo. 
 Congi eve's Plays and Poeins, 5 Vols. lives. 
 Critical Hiftory of England, 2 Vols. Svo. - 
 Chefelden's Anatomy, Svo. 
 Cambden's Britannia, 2 Vols. Folio. 
 Chinches no Charnel Houfes, proviiig the Indecency of Burying in X^^ 
 
 Churches and Church-Yards. -^ 
 
 Carcafe's Book of Rates, Folio. iyi6. 
 Comical Hiltory of Francion, 2 Vols. lives. 
 Chambers's Di£lionary of Ans and Sciences, 2 Vols. Folio. 
 Chiilingworth's Works, Folio, ijiz6. 
 Chandler (Bilhop) Defence of Chiiflianlty, Svo. 
 Collier's 5acred Interpreter, 2 Vol. Svo. 
 Cambray of the Being and Exigence of God, i2ves. 
 Clarendon and Whitlock compared, Svo. 
 Collier's Antoninus, Svo. 
 
 I. 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 ©0 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 01 
 
 10 
 
 '00 
 
 00 
 
 IS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 x>6 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 11 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 0^ 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 11 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 
 CI 
 
 0; 
 
 
 00 
 
 oj 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 12 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 OJ 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 0$ 
 
 DOmat's Civil Law in its Naciual Order, Tranflated by Dr. 
 Strahan, 2 Vols. Foi. 
 Dupin's Method of Studying Divinity, Svo, 
 Dionis's Midwifiy, Engli/h, Svo. 
 Devout Chriftian's Companion, 2. Vols, livcs. 
 Dacier's Abridgment or Plato's Works. Tranflated from the 
 
 French, 2 Vols. i2ves. 
 brelincourt of Death, Svo. 
 Dictionaiium Riiticum &Urbanicura: Oi",ADi^ionary of Country 
 
 Affairs, 2 Vols. Svo. 
 Detoe's n orks, 2 Vols. Svo. 
 Drexelius's Hourly Conjpanion, izves. 
 Derham's Phyfiro-Theoiogy, Svo. 
 AUro-Theoiogy, Svo. 
 Dupin's Hiltory of the Church, abiijg'd, in four neat -Pocket- 
 Volumes, laves. ' 
 Dryden's Plays, in 5 Vols. i2ves. 
 
 Mifcellaiiic'S, 6VAs. laves. 
 Virgil, with Cuts, 3 Vois. i2Vcs. 
 Juvenal, i2ves. "^ 
 
 Fables. 
 Ditton, on the Refurrefiion, Svo. 
 
 on Fluids, Svo. 
 Defence of the Female Sex. 
 Dakoa's Cou itry Juftice, with large Addiiions, by W. Nelfon, 
 
 Efq; Folio, IJ-.6. 
 Danois's Tales of the Fairies, 3 Vol. laves. 
 DitStionary ot all Religions, Svo. 
 Degolls on Worms, Svo- 
 Ductor Hiftoricus, 2 Vols. Svo. 
 
 02 02 09 
 
 00 
 
 0/ 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 y 00 
 
 06- 
 
 00 
 
 oj 
 
 00 
 
 ^ 00 
 5" 00 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 o*> 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 oa 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 oo 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 ^00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 18 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 11 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 05 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 ^5 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 }o. 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 07 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 0< 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 09 
 
 A 2 
 
 •?^Qclaad's 
 
[43 
 
 ENftland's Interefl: ; Or, The Gentleman and Farmer's Friend. oo O' ^6 
 
 Englilh Liberties: Or, The Free-born Subjefts Inheritance. X^^ q, o4 
 
 By W. Nelfon, Efqj 5 ^ 
 
 Effay on the Tranfmutation of the Blood, 8vo. oo oi oo 
 
 Eutropius, in Ufum Delphini, 8vo. oo 02 06 
 
 Echaid's Hiftory ot England, Folio. ox 16 00 
 
 Roman Hiftory, 5 Vols. 8vo. oi oj 00 
 
 Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, zVols. 8vo. 00 09 00 
 
 Gazetteer, in Two Parts, i2ves. 00 03 06 
 
 Terence, iaves. 00 02 06 
 
 Hiftory of the Revolution, 8vo. 00 04 06 
 
 Eiifebius's EcclefiafticalHiltory, Engliih, Folio. 01 00 09 
 
 Etheiidoc's Plays, izves. 00 03 00 
 
 Enelifh^Expofuor, i2ves. 00 ox 00 
 
 Echard's (Dr.) Works, 8vo. 00 04, 06 
 
 England's Black Tribunal, 1 2ves. 00 02 o^ 
 
 Everaid's Gau|ing, lives. 00 Oi 06 
 
 Eikon Bafilike : To which is added. The Life of King Charles *> r. o/C 
 
 theFirft, by Perinchiet. Joo oj oS 
 
 F 
 
 FLavcll's Works, a Vol. Folio. 02 00 00 
 
 Husbandry Spiritualiz'd, laves. 00 02 00 
 
 Navigation Spirirualiz'd, 8vo. 00 01 o^ 
 
 Bl/hop Fleetwood's Relative Duties, bvo. 00 04. otf 
 
 Filher's Arichmetick, i2ves. 00 02 06 
 
 Farrier's and Horlenian's Di£lionaiy, 8vo. 00 oy 06 
 
 Familiar Letters of Love and Gallantry, in Two neat Pocket ") ^^ ^^ ^^ 
 
 Volumes^ 12.VCC. J 
 
 Florus in Ufum Delphini, 8vo. 00 04. 06 
 
 Frauds of the Romiili Priefts and Monks, in Two Volumes, izves. 00 oj o^ 
 
 Fable of the Bees 8vo- 00 0/ 06 
 
 Friend's Hiftory of Phyfick, 2 Vols. 8 vo. 00 lo 00 
 
 Freeholder, i2ves. 00 03 00 
 
 Fuller's Pharmacopoeia Extemporanea, I2VCS. 00 03 00 
 
 Thefame in Englifli, 8vo. 00 oy 06 
 
 Fidde's Sermons, Folio. *>o 17 o-J 
 
 Farquhar's Plays and Poems, 2 Vols. 1 2ves. 00 06 09 
 
 G 
 
 Goodman's (Di:) Penitent pardoned, 8vo. °^ 04, 06 
 
 Winter Evening Conference, 8vo. 00 04. 00 
 
 Old Religion, izves. ®o o^ o^ ■ 
 
 Glanvill of Witches, 1726. 8vo. 00 oj 06 
 
 Gordon's (Patrick) Geograpjiical Grammar, 8vo. 00 o5 00 
 - jorg " " ■ "* ^ ' ^'"' 
 
 Gerhard's Meduado'Iis. By Rowell. ' !!° °? °^ 
 
 Ditto, fmall Edition. ^'^ °^ "^ 
 
 _ Angler, Lives. 
 
 Gaftiell's Chriftian I^ftitutes, izvcs. ^^ ^_^ ^^ 
 
 ; I'atncK) ueograpnicaiuranimiii, ovu. t> 1 -^ 
 
 (George) Introduftion to Geography, Aftionomy, Dyal- I ^^ ^^ ^^ 
 
 ling, and Chronology, ovo. 172.6, -> ^^ ^ ^ 
 
 00 01 00 
 
 A i' 00 or 06 
 Gentleman Angler, ir.ves. 
 
 Gaftiell's Chriftian Ivftitutes, izvcs. °° °^ °* 
 Gentleman Inftruftedy 8vo. 
 
 GuiUim's Difplay of Heraldry, Folio. ^ °^ ^J 
 
 Gentleman Jockey, 8vo. ^ °' ^ 
 
 Gibfon's Farrier's GuL^.c, 8vo. S^ of o? 
 
 Farm^'s Pifpenfatory, Sto. ^'^ °4- 06 
 
 Method of Dieting Horfes, Bva. ^'* °3 °° 
 
C53 
 
 Cay's Paftorals, 
 
 Gedde's Tra«9:s, 3 Vols. 8vo. 
 
 Guardian, 2 Vols. lives. 
 
 Gardner's Diftionary, 2 Vols, lives. 
 
 Gibfon's Anatomy of Human Bodies, 8vo. 
 
 H 
 
 HENRY, (Matthew) on the Bible, ^Vois. 
 Works, Colleaed into One Volume? 
 Hooker's Ecclefiaftical Policy, 1724., Folio. 
 Horneck's (Dr.) Crucified Jefus, 8vo. 
 
 on Confideration, 8vo. 
 Beft Exercife, 8vo. 
 Fire of the Altar, lives, 
 riandley's Mechanical Eflays on the Animal Oeconomy, 8vo. 
 
 CoUoquia Chirurgica; Or, The Whole Art of Surgery ,8vo. 
 HaXVney's Trigonometry, 8vo. 
 
 Ccmpleat Meafurer. 1 aves. 
 Hiftory of England 4. Vob. 8vo. With the Heads of all the 
 
 Kings and Queens curioufly Engrav'd. 
 Howell's (Lawrence; Hiftory of the Bible, 3 V0I5. With ijo 
 
 Copper Plates, 5 Vols- 8vo. 
 Howell's (James) Familiar Letters, 8vo. 
 Harris's (Dr.) Lexicon Technicum, 2. Vols. Folio. 
 Hudibras, in Three Tares j with a new Sett of Cuts, 
 Hiltory and Prefent State of the Kingdom of France, 2 Vols. lives. 
 Hatton's rfaltar, lives. 
 Howard's Neweft Way of Cookery, lives 
 H'ftory of En^liih Marryrs in Queen Mary's Reign, 8vo, 
 nation's Comes Comercii, 8vo. 
 Hiftory of Hungary, lives. 
 
 Hewit's Tables of Intereft, engraven on Copper Plates, lives. 
 Hiftory ot Tryah and Attainders, 1 Vols. lives. 
 Hutchinfon's Enquiry into our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, 8vo. 
 Hanover Tales; Orj The Secret Hiftory of Count Fradonia, and 
 
 the Unfortunate Beri'ia, lives. 
 Henley's Heft Uer, aa Hiftorical Poem 
 Horatius in Ufum Delphini, Svo. 
 Haywood's Novels, 4- Vols, iives. 
 Hook's Experimencs, publilh'a by Derham. 
 Hiftoria Sacra; Or, Hiftory of the Feafts and Fafts of the Church 
 
 of England. 
 Hope's Compleac Horfeman, Folio. 
 Hov/ard's Plays, lives. 
 
 Hiftory of Herodotus, Englifh'd by Littlebury, 1 Vols. 8vo. 
 The Hive; Or, A CoUeftion of Songs, 3 Vols, lives. 
 Hiftory of the Devil, 8vo. 
 
 Johnfon's (SamueU Works, Folio. 
 Jones's Poetical Mifcelianies, lives. 
 Juftinius in Ufum Delphini, Svo. 
 
 Englilh'd, by Brown, lives. 
 J enks's Devotions on leveral Occafions 
 Juvenalis in Ufum Delphini, 8vo. 
 Jenkins of the Cbriftian Religion, 1 Vols. Svo. 
 Journey tlirough England, 3 Vols. Svo. 
 Inquiry intd the Original oi our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, 8vo. 
 
 A3 Jackmaa 
 
 1. 
 
 i. 
 
 d. 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 ^6 
 
 00 
 
 18 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OJ 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 li 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 oj 
 
 06 
 
 06 
 
 oS 
 
 00 
 
 CI 
 
 07 
 
 06 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 c^ 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 oj 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 c6 
 
 00 
 
 0^ 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 }o, 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 oS 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 05 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 oe 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 CO 
 
 05 
 
 0^ 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 q6 
 
 ^•00 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 02 
 
 o5 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 07 
 
 cS 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 10 
 
 oi 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 °s 
 
 06 
 
 CO 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 c6 
 
 po 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 OD 
 
 15 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 04. 
 
 c(5 
 
in 
 
 % s, a. 
 
 Jackmm de vl Confcientiac, lives. oo oj oo 
 
 Independent Whig. oo oj o^ 
 
 Ibboi's Sermons at Boyle's Ledtures. oo. 06 00 
 
 Jones's Canon of the New Teftament, 5 Vol<. co 15 00 
 
 Jurieu's Devotions, i2ves. og Oi oC 
 
 K 
 
 KEtcJewell's Works, 2 Vols. Folio. 01 00 00 
 
 Moft of his Pieces fingle 
 King's (Biftop) Inventions of Men in'^the Worfhip of God, laYCJ. 
 Ken's.(Bp.) Crown of Glory the Rev/ard of the Righceous, 8V0. 
 
 Expoficion of the Church Caiechifm. 
 Kennet's Roman Antiquities, 8vo. 
 King's Heathen Gods, i2ves. 
 Keill's.Introdn£l:ion to Afbronomy, Englift, Svo. 
 King on the Creed, 8vo. 
 
 Conftitutions of the Primitive Church. 
 Kidder, of the Mefliah, Folio. 
 Key's Pradlical Meafurer. 
 Keili'slncroduftion to Natural Pliilofophy, 8vo. 
 
 L 
 
 T OCK's Works, 3 Vols. Folio. 
 -^ of Human Underflandiug, 2 Vol. 
 
 of Education, lives. 
 of Government, izves. 
 Efop's Fables Eng. and LatIn,8vo. 
 Leftrange's Jofephus, Folio. 
 
 yEfop's Fables, 8vo. 
 Erafmus, 8vo. 
 LIttlebury's Tranflacion of Herodotus, 2 Vols. Svo. 
 Ladies Travels into ypam, 2 Vols. I2vcs. 
 Lee's Tragedies, 3 Vols. i2ves 
 Lives of the Englifh Pnets, z Vol. 
 Leybourn's Dialling, Folio. 
 
 Dialliiii:, abridg'd and improv'd, by Wilfon, laves. 
 Littleton's Di£lionary, Englifh and Latin. 
 Life of the Count de Vinevit, i2ves. 
 Madam de Beaumont, '^2ves. 
 of Lucinda, i2Ves. 
 of Charlotta Dupont, i2Ves. 
 Ladies Library, 3 Vols. i2ves. 
 Lewis's Origines Hebrasac, 4, Vols, 8vo. 
 Life of Signior Rozelli, 2 Vols, with Cuts. 
 Lamb's Cookery, 8vo. 
 Lite of Oliver Cromwell, 8vo. 
 Law of Chriffian Perfeftion, 8vo. • - 
 
 Love's Surveying, 8vo. 
 Lucas's Enquiry after Happinefs, 2 Vols. 
 Pra^ical Chriftianity. 
 
 M 
 
 \A O L L's Compleat Geographer, Folio. 
 
 ■^^•* Moral Virtue delineated. Tranflated from the French of ' 
 
 Monf. Gomberville 
 
 Manton on the 119th Pfalm, 1723. or 00 o© 
 
 Montfaucon's Travels into Italy, Folio. ©o 18 00 
 
 Memoirs of Philip de Comines, z Vols. Svc. 00 10 00 
 
 Memoirs 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 otf 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 05 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 0^ 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 0^ 
 
 ot 
 
 iJ 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 01 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 oj 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 II 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 1/ 
 
 op 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 16 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OI 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 PI 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 op 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 eo 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OJ 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 po 
 
 03 
 
 oi 
 
 01 oi o^ 
 01 eo OO) 
 
C7] 
 
 Memoirs of Anne of Auftila, ;V6ls. lives. 
 
 Moyle's Works, 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 
 Montaigne's EfTays, 3 Vols. 8vo. 
 
 Minbn's Travels over Englaiw, 8vo. 
 
 Mauger's French Grammar, 8vo. 
 
 Manial in Ufum Delphini, 8vo. 
 
 Mifcellanea Aurea ; Or, Golden Medley. 
 
 Medulla Hifloriae Ang iicanae, 8vo. 
 
 Morteaiix's Don Quixot, 4 Vol. lives. 
 
 Morgan's Principles of Medicine, 8vo. 
 
 MorelanJ's Vade Mecum, Hvo. 
 
 Mafter-Key to Popery, 3 Vols, izves. 
 
 Milbourn's Legacy to the Church of England,zVo!S, 
 
 Mandey, of Measuring, Svo. 
 
 Maflimei's Husbandry, 2 Vols. Svo. 
 
 Mangey, on the Lord's Prayer, 8vo. 
 
 Mufae AnglicanjB, z Vols. 
 
 Moor (Biihop of Ely) his Sermons, 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 
 N 
 
 'VTIcholls's Conference with a Theift, 2 Vols, with large Addi- 
 / -^^ tions, Svo. 
 New Voyage round the World by a Courfe never fail'd before, Svo. 
 Nelfon's (Robert) Works, Abridg'd and Mechodiz'd, 2 Vol. lives, 
 ^oble Slaves, a Novel, i2ves. 
 New Mifcellancous Poems, with Five Love Letters from a Nun 
 
 'to a Cavalier, and the Cavalier's Anfwer, in Verfe. 
 Nelfon of the Feafts and Fafls of die Church of England. 
 
 Pra&ice of true Devotion, laves. 
 New Manual of Devotions, in 3 Parts. 
 Nuptial Dialogues and Debates, 2 Vols. i2Ves. 
 Nelfon's Abiidgment cf the Law, -j voh. Folio. 
 
 1. 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 00 
 
 ly 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 li 
 
 Oi 
 
 00 
 
 IJ 
 
 00 
 
 CD 
 
 04. 
 
 oS 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 OD 
 
 0^ 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 00 
 
 GO 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 io 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 O^F 
 
 03 
 
 CO 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 07 
 
 c^ 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 ■00 10 00 
 
 00 04 06 
 
 00 06 00 
 
 00 02 oa 
 
 . 00 02 00 
 
 00 oj 00 
 
 00 02 06 
 
 00 03 00 
 
 00 OJ O^ 
 
 'M- 'O 00 
 
 /^Zanam's Courfe of the Mathematicks. Done from the French 
 ^^ by Dr. Defaguliers, and others, f Vols. 8vo. 
 Ovidii Metamorphofes in Ufum Delphini. 
 
 Tranflared into Englifh Verfe, and publifli'd by Dr. 
 Scwell, 2 Vols. 
 Osborn's Works, 2 Vols. i2ves. 
 Oftervald's Caufes of the Corruption of Chriflians. 
 Orleans's Hiftory of the Stuarts, recommended by Echard, Svo. 
 Ovid De Triftibm in EngUfh Verfe 
 
 Ogilby's and Morgan's Pocket Book of the Roads, 8vo. 
 Ovid's Epiftles, Englilh, with Cuts, i2Ves. 
 
 Art of Love, with Cuts, i2ves. 
 ©Idham's Works, 1 Vols. i2ves. 
 
 01 02 o^ 
 00 o/^ o^ 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 00 Oj* 
 00 
 
 00 04. 
 00 01 
 
 06 
 06 
 
 04. 06 
 06 
 00 
 
 00 01 o^ 
 00 03 00 
 00 03 00 
 00 oj 00 
 
 pHilips's Englifh Diftionary, Folio. 
 
 f- Patrick's(Bp.) Devout Chriftian Inftrufted, i2Ves. 
 
 Chriftian Sacrifice, i2Ves. 
 
 Menfa Myftica, 8vo. 
 
 Sermons, on Co'itentnient,8vo. 
 
 Help toYounpCommunicants,24" 
 ?atrick's(Dr.;Pfalms, iives. 
 Potter's (Biihop) Greek Antiquities, 2 Vols. Svo. 
 Pe^ibroke's Arcadia, 3 Vols, by Sir Philip Sidney, itij. 
 
 A4 
 
 01 00 
 
 00 03 
 
 00 05 
 
 00 OS 
 
 00 05- 
 
 CO 
 
 oc» 
 
 00 
 00 
 ^o 
 
 00 00 06 
 00 02 CO 
 
 00 12 00 
 
 ©o 13 06 
 
 Puffendorf'$ 
 
L8] 
 
 ptiffendorf's IntrodiKSiion to the Hiftory of Europe, Jvo."" 
 
 Pomfret's Poems, i2ves. 
 
 Plurality of Worlds. Tranflated from the French of FontencI], 
 
 By Gardner. 
 Poftman robb'd of his Mail ; Or, A Colleftion of Letters, written 
 
 by the beft Wits of the prefent Age, lives. 
 Prior's Poem's, 2 Vols. laves. 
 Paniell's Poems, 8vo. 
 
 Pope's Homer's Iliad, 6 Vols. laves, with Cuts. 
 OdiiTey, in j Vol. i2Ves. 
 Mifcellanies, 2 Vols. i2ves. 
 Prideaux's Connexion' of the Old and New Tcflament, 4 Vols. Svc 
 
 Life of Mahomet, 8vo. 
 Palladio's Architefture, ^to. 
 Pomet's Hiftory of Druggs, 4to. 
 Perfian Tales, 5 Vols. i2ves. 
 
 Patrick's (Bithop) Paraphrafe on all the Poetieal Books of the 
 Old Teftament. 
 
 Commentary on the Hiftorical Books of the Bible, 
 2 Vols. Folio. 
 Pearfon, on the Creed, Folio. 
 Pitt's (Rev. Mr.) Poems on feveral Occafions- 
 
 I 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 00 
 00 
 00 
 00 
 ox 
 00 
 00 
 01 
 00 
 
 s; a. 
 
 06 00 
 
 02 Op 
 
 02 06 
 
 03 00 
 
 ., c6 
 
 03 o<5 
 
 18 o® 
 
 OS 06 
 
 00 00 
 
 03 o^ 
 
 04 00 
 or 00 
 09 00 
 
 00 18 00 
 
 03 00 
 
 12 00 
 03 o^ 
 
 00 
 00 
 
 QUarles's Emblems, i^yes. 
 ^ Divine Poems, i2ves^ 
 
 v^ieen's Clofet open'd, i2ves. 
 Quiney'sPharm. Officinalis, 8vo. 
 Lexicon Medicum, 8vo. 
 San£torius Aphorifms, Svo. 
 Quintm Cuvrins. -J-Vnls- Engliffi- 
 
 «o 04 00 
 
 00 03 00 
 
 00 02 00 
 
 «0 C? 00 
 
 00 OJ o^ 
 
 •o OJ o^ 
 
 00 06 09 
 
 R 
 
 OW's Callipoedia, lives. 
 Richardfon of Painting, 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 Robiufon (Dr.> on the Stone and Gravel, 8vo. 
 
 on Confumptions, 8vo. 
 Royal French Grammar. 
 
 Robert's (Capv.) Voyages to the Cape de Verd Illands. 
 Ray's Wifdom of God in the Creation. 
 rhyfico-Theological Difcouifes,8vo. 
 RatcllfF's Life, laves. 
 Religious Philofopher, 2 Vols. 410. 
 Refleaions on Ridicule, 2 Vols. 
 Ronayne's Algebra, 8vo. 
 Row's Lucan'sPharfalia, 2V0IS. lives. 
 Salluft, Englifh 
 
 00 01 06 
 
 00 10 06 
 
 00 04 00 
 
 00 04 00 
 
 00 oa 06 
 
 00 o^ 00 
 
 00 04 66 
 
 00 oj 06 
 
 00 01 06 
 
 00 1 5 , 00 
 
 00 oj 00 
 
 00 06 00 
 
 ©o 06 00 
 
 00 02 oS 
 
 CElden's Works, 6 Vols. Publifli'd by Dr. Wilkins 
 
 ^ Stevens's En-lifh and Spanifh Diftionary. 
 
 Stanhope ^Dr.) on the Epillles and Gofpels, 4 Vols. tvo. 
 
 Sherloek(Dr.)of Death, 8vo. 
 
 The fame in i2ves. 
 
 on Judgment, Svo. 
 
 on a FutureStatCjSvo. 
 
 on Providence, 8vo. 
 
 of Religious Aflemblies, Syol 
 
 07 16 0.0 
 
 01 01 00 
 
 01 02 00 
 
 CO 03 06 
 
 to 01 06 
 
 00 04 00 
 
 00 04 06 
 
 00 04 o^ 
 
 00 04 00 
 SherloG-k't 
 
C93 
 
 Sherlock's fDr.) Sermons, 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 Secret Hiftoiy cf Whitehall, 2 Vols. i2ves. 
 Scleft Novels, 2 Vols, with Cuts, i2ves. 
 Strothcr's Pharm. Praftica, i2ves. 
 Sydenham's (Dr.) Worlci Englifli, 8vo. 
 Scrivener's Guide, 2 Vol. 8vo. 
 Salmon's Family Diftionary, 8vo. 
 Smith's Art ot Painting in Oil, i2Ves. 
 Symfon's New Voyage to the Weft Indies. 
 Sourh's Maxims, 8vo. 
 Sylvius de la Bore's Practical Phyfick, Svo. 
 Salluftius in Ufum D.lphini, bvo. 
 Sclirevelii Lexicon, Svo. 
 SpeiStator, 8 Vols. 
 
 Seneca's Morals. By Sir R. Leftrange, Svo. 
 Scanhope's(Dr.)Chriftian Pattern, 8vo. 
 
 Paifons Chriftian Directory. 
 St. Auftifl'i Meditationso 
 Epiftetus's Morals, 8vo. 
 Salmon's Druggift Shop cpen'd, Svo. 
 Suetonius, Englifh, 2 Vols. 
 Spinke's Sick Man vifited, 8vo, 
 Steel's (Sir Richard) Plays. 
 Southern's Plays, 2 Vol. 
 Strothcr's EfTay on Heakh, Svo. 
 Salmon's Review of the Hiftory of England, zVols. 
 againft Burnet's Hiilory, 2 vols. 
 Effay on Marriage. 
 Shaw's Pra£l:ice of Phyfick, 2 Vols. Svo. 
 
 Tranllation of Boerhave's Chymiftry. 
 Sutherland's Ship-Building unvcil'd. Folio. 
 Sydenham's Praftice ofPhyfack, Englifh. 
 Shaft^bury's Charafteriflicks, 3 Vols. 
 Stanhope's (Dr.) 12 Sermons on leveral Occafions, 8vo. 
 Swinden's Enquiry into the Place of Hell. 
 South's Sermons, 6 Vols. Svo. 
 Shaw's Edinburgh Difpenfatory. 
 Sharp's Sermons, 4, 'V^jIs. 
 
 T 
 nPAylor'fi (Bp.) Life of Chrift, now in the Prefs.. 
 -1- Rules for Holy Living and Dying, 
 
 Contemplations on the State of Man. 
 Golden Grove, i2ves. 
 Tyrrel's Bibliotheca Politics, Folio. 
 Toui-nfort's Voyage into the Levant, 2 Vols. 4.10. 
 Tatler, 5 Vols. j2ves. 
 Tacitus, Enoliflh, 3 Vols. i2vcs. 
 Terentius in Ufum Delphini, Svo. 
 
 Englilh'd by Echard, I2ves. 
 Travels of an Engliih Gentleman from London to Rome on 
 
 Foot, i2ves. 
 Turretin of Fundamental Principles in Religion, Svo. 
 Turner's Surgery, 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 
 Difeafes of the Skin, 8vo, 
 Syphilis, Svo. 
 Temple's Works, 2 Vols. Folio. 
 Tillotfon's (Bifliop) Work?, 3 Vols. Fojio, 
 Tale of a Tub, iives. with Cuts. 
 
 1. s. d. 
 
 00 09 CO 
 
 00 oj 06 
 
 00 o^ oa 
 
 00 03 06 
 
 00 04. 06 
 
 00 II 00 
 
 00 06 00 
 
 00 01 00 
 
 00 oj o^ 
 
 00 01 06 
 
 00 04, 00 
 
 00 04. 00 
 
 00 06 96 
 
 01 00 00 
 00 oj 00 
 00 04 06 
 CO 04. 06 
 00 04. 06 
 00 04, o5 
 00 07 o^ 
 00 qs 0f> • 
 €o oy 03 
 CO 03 00 
 00 06 00 
 CO oj oS 
 00 10 09 
 00 10 00 
 00 04. 06 
 00 09 00 
 
 18 op 
 
 IS 00 
 
 00 05 oS 
 
 00 !*:> oo 
 
 00 oj 06 
 
 00 oy o^ 
 
 01 10 00 
 
 00 04 09 
 
 00 iS 00 
 
 00 
 00 
 
 00 05 o» 
 
 00 02 otf 
 
 CO 01 00 
 
 00 18 00 
 
 01 10 00 
 
 CO 12 oS 
 
 00 09 C9 
 
 00 oj 06 
 
 00 oz 06 
 
 ^ 00 01 ctf 
 
 00 01 09 
 
 OQ II 09 
 
 00 OS 06 
 
 00 04. oS 
 
 01 12 09 
 
 02 10 00 
 00 02 o(5 
 
 Vauba. 
 
L'io3 
 
 W 
 
 TTAuban, of Fortification, Svo. 
 ^ Vida's Art of Poetry, in Engllfh, i27es. 
 Vertot's Revolntions of Rome, z Vols. Sv». 
 of Sweden, 8vo. 
 of Portugal, 8v0. 
 Vanbrdgh's (Sir John} Plays, z Vols. 
 
 \V 
 Hearley on the Common Prayer, Folio. 
 Whitby, on the New Teftament, 2 Vols. 
 Difquifuiones Modefta:, 8vo. 
 Ward's London Spy, in 6 Vols. 8vo. 
 
 N. B. Moft ot the Pieces may be had fingle. 
 Nuptial Dialogues 2 Vols. i2ves. 
 Webftcr's Arithmetick in Epitome, i2Ves. 
 
 Book-keeping, 8vo. 
 Wycherley's Plays, 2 Vols. i2ves. 
 Ward's Young Mathematician's Guide. 
 
 Woodward's ElTay towards aNatmal. Hiflory of the Earth, 8vo. 
 Wifemau's Surgery, 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 Week's Preparation to the Sacrament, i2Ves. 
 Wood's Inftitutes of the Common Law, Folio, 
 of the Civil and Imperial Law, 8vo. 
 Wake's (Abp.) Genuine Epiftles. 
 
 Commentary on the Church Catechifm. 
 Warder's Monarchy of Bees, 8vo. 
 
 Well's Sacred Geography of the Old and New Teftament, 
 8vo. 4. Vols. 
 Courfe of the Mathematicks, 5 Vols. 8vo. 
 pacta's Aftronomy, 8vo. 
 Logick, 8vo. 
 Sermons, 3 Vol. i2ves. 
 Pfalms, i2ves. 
 Wingate's Arithmetick, 8vo. 
 
 y 
 
 •yOUNG Clerk's Tutor, i2Ves, 
 * Young, (Dr.) on the Laft Day, lives. 
 
 Poem on Lady Jane Gray,8vo. 
 
 } 
 
 PO 
 
 oS 
 
 0» 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 «)0 
 
 OS 
 
 GO 
 
 00 
 
 18 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 07 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 0^ 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 0^ 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 0+ 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 04 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 0^ 
 
 Loi 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 18 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 ©0 
 
 04 
 
 od 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 0$ 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00' 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 Libri in Uf^m Scholarum, 
 
 "DAiley's Ovid's Metamorphofis, Svo. 
 •^ Ovid De Triftibue, i2ves. 
 
 Phsdrus, Svo. ^ 
 
 Cato, i2ves. 
 
 txcrcifes, EnCTlIfh and Latin, i2ves. 
 
 Exercicia Latina; Or , Latin for Garreifoii's Exerclfts, I2yes, 
 Busby's Greek Grammar, Svo. 
 
 Engllfli Introduaion to the Latin Tongue. 
 Syntaxis Erafmiana Conltriftior, Svo. 
 Ditto, Conftrued, Svo. 
 Beta's Latin Tellament, i2ves and 249. 
 
 . Clavis 
 
Clavis Homeiica, 8vo. 
 
 Clark's Incioduftion co ihe making oi Latia 
 
 Flonis, 8vo. 
 
 Nepos, 8vo. 
 
 Eucropius, 8vo. "> ah • u r • 
 V r /All v'uh Literal 
 
 Erafmus, i2ves. >- " «• n • 
 r-^ J • \ Tranllations, 
 
 Corderius laves. J 
 
 Caftalio's Latin Bible, in 4. neac Vols. 
 
 Latin Tellament, izves. 
 
 Cornelius Nepos, i2ves. 
 
 Celfar, i2ves. 
 
 Demofthenes, i aves 
 
 Pyche's Vocabulary, 8vo. 
 
 Youth's Guide to the LatinTongue,iivev 
 
 Engli't Particles Latiniz'd, 8vo. 
 
 Phsedrus, izves. 
 Elefta Majora, 8vo. 
 Minora, 8vo. 
 Eurropius, i2ves. 
 Epigrammatum Deleftu5, izves. 
 Eralmus, Dublin, i2Vcs. 
 Familiar Form, J2Ves. 
 Farnaby's Rhetorick, 8vo. Englifli and Latia. 
 Garretfon's Engli/h Exercifes, lives. 
 Gradus ad Parnaflum, 8vo. 
 (Gregory's Nomenclatuia, 8vo. 
 Hederici Lexicon, 410. 
 Homeri Ilias,Greek and Latin,8vo. 
 Helvici Colloyuia, i2ves. 
 Hoadley's Phaedrus, izves. 
 Horace, izves. fine Nocis. 
 King's Heathen Gods, lives. 
 Lock's yEfop Interlinear/, EngliA and Latift. 
 Leed's Greek Grammar, i2ves. 
 London Vocabulary, by Greenwood, izves. 
 Leufden's Compendium, 8vo. 
 
 Martialis Epigrammata, izves, ^ , ^ « t. , o. 
 Mere's EngUih Examples, for the Ufe of Bury Sckool, 8v7. 
 Pantheon. By Tooke, 8vo. with Cuts. ' 
 Phasdrus Delphini, 8vo. 
 Ray's Nomenclatura. 8vo. 
 Royal Grammar, i2Ves. 
 UrmftoD's Help to the Accidence, 8ro. 
 London Spelling Book, I aves. 
 
 Walker's Art of Teaching, i aves. 
 Engl. Examples, i2ves. 
 Particles, 8vo. 
 Wectenhall's Gr. Grammar,! aves. 
 Well's Dionyfius, 8vo. 
 Ware's Pradlical Grammar, 8vo. 
 . Xenophon de Cyri Inftitutione, Greek «nd Latin. ^ 
 
 Moji of the Clajjlcks in Ufum Delphini, 
 
C 12] 
 
 BOOKS lately fuhU 
 
 1. »TnHE Entertaining Novels of Mrs. Jane Barker. Containing, i. Exilfus? 
 
 i- Or, The Banilh'd Roman. 2. Clelia and Marcellus : 0;-,The Conftanc Lo- 
 vers. 3. The Reward of Virtue; Or, The Adventures of Clarinthia and Lyfan- 
 der. 4.. The Lucky Efcape: Or, The Fate of Ifmenus. y. Cbdiusand Scipia-na: 
 Or, T/ic Beautiful Captive. 6. Pifo; Or,The Leud Courtier. 7. The Happy 
 Reciufe; Or, The Charms of Liberty. 8. The Fair Widow; Or, Falfe Friend. 
 J. The Amours of Bofvill and Galefia. The zd. Edition. In 2 Vols. Price _fs. 
 
 II. A Patchwork Screen for tlie Ladies: Or, Love and Virtue recommended, in 
 a Colle£lion of Inflru£tive Novels, related atter a Manner entirely New, and 
 iuterfpers'd with Rural Poems, dcfcribing the Innocence of a Country Life^ 
 Price 2S. ^d. 
 
 III. A Lining for the Patchwork Screen : Defigned for the farther Enteitaiit- 
 jnent of the Ladies. Price is. 6d. Thcfe Two by Mrs. Barker, 
 
 rv. The Life of Charlotta du Pont, an Englifli Lady, taken h'om her own 
 Memoirs ; Giving an Account how /he was trapann'd by her Step-Mother to 
 Virginia 3 how the Ship was taken by fpme Madagafcar Pyrates, and retaken by 
 a Spanilh Man of Warj of her Marriage in the Spanilh Weft- Indies, and Adven- 
 tures while fhe refided there, with her Return to England j and the Hiftory of 
 fcveral Gentlemen and Ladies whom fhe met v/ithal in her Travels, fome of 
 ■whom had betn Slaves in Barbary, and others caft on Shore on the Barbarous 
 Coails up the great River Oroonoque; with their Efcape thence, and fafc Return 
 to France and Spain. A Hiftory that contains the greateft Variety of Events 
 ever yet publifli*d. By Mrs. Aubin. Price zs. ' 
 
 V. The Tragical Hiftory of the Chevalier de Vaudray anri chc Countefs de 
 Vergi. J :i Two Parts. To Avhxch is annex "<J a ihoit Novel, entitled, The In- 
 human Husband. Done, from the French oy Mr. Morgan. Price 2 s. 
 
 VI. The Agreeable Variety ; Being a mifcellaneous Colleflion in Profe and 
 Verfe, from the Works of the moft Celebrated Authors. In Two Parts, viz. 
 Part I. Containing luftruftive Difcourfes on the moft ufeful Subjects, lor the 
 happy Conduct of human Life. 2. Charafters of the moft Illuftrious 1 erfonages 
 ot both Sexes, of our own, and ocher Nations^ paiciculaily the remarkable 
 Manner of Life of the excellent Princefs ot Parma. Wrirten by herfelf, and 
 found among her Papers after her Deceafe. 3. Choice Poems, and Seleft Paflages, 
 extracted from the moft Celebrated Poets. Part II. Containing Original Poems ; 
 Sixty familiar Letters upon Education, Love, Friendfliip, &c. none of which 
 evb beiure Pubiifh'd. The Whole Collefted and Pubiiih'd by a Lady. Price 
 3 s. 6 d. The 2d Edition. 
 
 VII. Mifcellanea Aurea; Or, Th^? Golden Medley. Confiftingof, i. A V-yage 
 »o the Mountains of the Moon, under the iEq^uator ; Or, Parnaflfus reform'd. 
 
 2. The Fortunate Ship-wreck: Or, A Defcr'ption of New Athens, being an 
 Account of the Laws, Manners, Religion, and Cuftoms of that Country. By 
 Morris Williams, Gent, who refuied there above twenty Years. 3. AlberonirOr, 
 A Vindicati Ml of that Cardinal. 4,. The Secret Hiftory of the Amours of Don 
 Alonzo Duke of Lerma, and Grandee of Spain. 5. Ttie Garde;i of Adonis ; Or, 
 Love to no Puipofc , bcin^^; about twenty Copies of Verfes and Love Letters. By 
 a Lady. 6. Mahomet no Impoftor j written in Arabick, by AbduUa-Mahunied 
 Omer. 7. An Account ot Bad and Good Women, antient and modein. With 
 feveial other Epiftolary Effays in Profe and Verfe. By Mr. Milton j the Lady 
 W - - - - -J Mr. Philips, aiKl feveral Others. In Oftavo. Price 4. s. 
 
 VIII. The 
 
[in 
 
 VIII. The four Years Voyage of Captain George Roberts: Being a Series ot 
 uncommon Events , "which betel him in a Voyage to the Iflands ot the Canaries,- 
 Cape de Verde, and Barbadoes, hom whence he was bound to the Coaft ot" 
 Guinea; the Manner of his being taken by three Pirate Ships, Con^,nianded by 
 Low, RuflTel,, and Springs, who atter having plundered him, and 'detained hiin 
 ten Days, put him aboarJhis own Sic op without Provifions, Water, &c. and witk 
 only two Boys,oneOfeigh;een, and the other of eight Years ot Age; the Hardfhips 
 he endured tor above tA\ enty Days, till he arriv'd at the Illand of St. Nicholas, 
 from whence he was blown off to Sea (before he could get any Suftcnance) whbortt 
 his biggeft Boy and Boat, whom he had fent aftiore ; and atrer four Days Diffi- 
 culty and Diltrefs, was Ship-wieck'd on the unfrequented Ifland of St. John ; 
 where, after he had remained near two Years, he built a Veflel to bring hini- 
 felfoif. With a particular and curious Delcription and Draiiglit of the Cape dc 
 Verd Illands, their Roads, anchoring Places, Nature and Produ£iion of the Soil; 
 the Kir.dnefs and Hofpitality of the Natives to Strangers, their Religion, Man- 
 ners, Culloms, and Superftitions, &c. Togerher with Obfeivations on the Mi- 
 nerals, Mineral Waters, Metals, and Sales, and of the Nitre, with which foine 
 of tliofe Iflands abound. Written by himfelf now living at Sliad- Thames, iyz6» 
 Price 5 s. 
 
 IX. The Travels of an Engllfh Gentleman from London to Rome on Foot r 
 Containing a Comical Defcription ot what he met with Remarkable in eyeiy 
 City, Town, and Religious Houfe, in his whole Joiy-ney : Alfo an Accoutre 
 of their ridiculous Puceflions, and Ceremonies, in their Churches, through 
 their Streets, and in the Woods. Likewife the Debauc.'d Lives, and Amo- 
 rous Intriegues of the Prlefts and Nuns : With a pleafant Account of the 
 Opening the Holy Gate of St. Peter's Church. Alfo Reflections upon the Su- . 
 perftition and Foppifh Pageantry of the whole Ceremony of the lafl Gran J 
 Jubilee at Rome. The 4th Edition. Now Publifh'd for the Diveriion zizd 
 Information of che Proteltants ot England. Price is. 6d. 
 
 X. Saducillimus Triumphatus : Or, A full and plain Evidence concerning 
 Witches and Apparitions. In Two Parts. The Firft treating of their PoiTibi- 
 lity • the Second of their real Exiftence. Ey Jofeph GlanvHl, Ch;;plain in Ordi- 
 nary to King Charles II. and F. R. S. The 4.th Edition, with Additions. With 
 fome Account of Mr. Glanviil's Life and Writings. Price 6 s. iyz6. 
 
 XI. The Works of the Honourable Sir Philip Sidney, Knr. In Profe and 
 Varfe. Containing, i. The Countcfs of Pembroke's Arcadia. 2. The Defence 
 of Poefy. 3. Aftiophel and Stella. 4.. The Reaedy of Love. 5-, The Lady of 
 May; A Mafque. 6. The Life of the Author. The i^th Edition. In Three 
 Vols. 8vo. 172J. Price 13 s. 5d. 
 
 XII. The New Defcription and Prefent S.are of the Kingdom of Francei 
 Containing, i. An Hiftoiical Account of its Kings, their Antiquity, Preroga- 
 tives, &c. With a Defcripiion of all the Royal Palaces, and of the Painting's, 
 Statues, and other Curiofuies therein contained. 2. Of the Parliament, a'^id 
 allOtficeis, Civil and Military, belonging to his Majelly, and the Princes 
 of the Blood. 3. Of the Biftopricks, other Church Dignities, Monatferies, 
 and Clergy; of the Univcrfuies, Faculcies therein ftudied, and of the French 
 Academy. 4. The Peerage of France 3 the three Orders of Knighthood ; the 
 Nobility and Marlhals ; and the Coats of Arms of each refpective Family truly 
 Emblazoned, j. A Defcription of the City of Paris, and all the Publlcic 
 Buildings, Churches, Libraries, and (:olle6fion of Rarities, and whatCever 
 elfe is remarkable. 6. The Roads irom one Tov/n to another, with tire exaci 
 Diftauces hom Place to Place, not only in France, but from thciice throu-h 
 Spain, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands, la Two Volumes, izves. 
 The id Edition, 172^, Price 6 s. 
 
 XIII. McdvvAl':ii 
 
Cm] 
 
 XIII. Mechafiica!' Eflays on ■<ht Anlnjal Oeconomy ? wherein ndt only tkt 
 Condu(S of Nacure in Animal Secretion, biit Senfation and human Generatioiij 
 arc ciltin^ll/ confider'd, and AnaroinicalJy explain'd ; as alio the particular 
 Manner of the Operation cf a Medicin® is accounted for, and hiany other 
 Ciu-iou5 and Uncommon Subje£ls are treated oi ; neceflfary for all that ftudy 
 Nacure ^.wi particularly thcTe that make Phyfick or Surgery their Praftice. 
 By James Handley, Surgeon, Author of Colloquia Chirurgica; 8vo. Price j- s. 
 
 X?V. Engknd's Intereft : Or, The Gentleman and Farmer's Friend: Shewing 
 1. How Land may be improv'd from 20s. to 8 1. and fo to 100 1. per Acre, 
 per Annum, with gxeat Eafe, and for an inconfiderable Charge. 2. The beft 
 and quickeft Way of raifmg, a Nurfery. 3. How to make Cyder, Perry, 
 Cherry Currant, Goofeberry, Mull-erry, and Birch WineS) as Strong and 
 V'hollome us French and Spanifh Wines ; and the Cyders and Wines fo made 
 tc b<i fold at 3d. per Oiiar:, cho' as good as Wine now fold for 18 d. 4.. Di- 
 retxi^^' for Brewing the finefl Malt Liquors, better and cheaper than hitherto 
 know-K 5. Inftruftions for Breeding ^oifes. Husbandry of Bees, and order- 
 ing FilL ■M^d Fiih-Ponds. Laftly, Phyfick for Families; containing many 
 lifjtul Meaicines for feveral Dillempers, particularly the Plague. By Sir Ji 
 Moore, lives. Price is. 6d. 
 
 XV. Englifh Liberties: Or, The Free-born Subject's Inheritance. Containing 
 Magna Charta, Charta de Forelta, the Statute de Tallagio non Concedendo, 
 the Habeas Corpus Adlj with feveral other Statutes, and Comments on each 
 of them: Likewife the Proceedings in Appeals of Murder, of Ship-Money^ 
 of Tunnaoe and Poundige, ot Parliaments, of the Three Eftates, and of the 
 Settlement' of the Crown by Parliament. Together with a^ fhort UiAoyy of 
 the Succeflion, not by any Hereditary Right ; alfo a Declaration of the Liber- 
 ty ot the Suhject, the Petition of Right; with a ihort, bur impartial Rela- 
 tion of the Difference between King Charles I. and the Long^ Parliamenr ; 
 of Trvals W Juries, and of the QiTaKdcdi-Iuus of J luors, their Punifhmenc 
 for Misbehaviour, and cf Challenges to them. L^flly, Ot Jullices of the 
 Peace ' Coroners, Conftables, Church- Wardens, Overfeers of the Poor, Sur- 
 veyors' of the Highway, &:c. With many Law- Cafes throughout the Whole. 
 Compiled &i"it by Henry Care, and now continued with large Additions. By 
 W. Nelfon, of the Middle-Temple, Efq; The 4:h Edition. Price 4.S. 6d. 
 
 XVI. A Crown of Glory, the Reward of the Righteous : Being Meditati- 
 ons upon the Viciflitude and Uncertainty of all Sublunary Enjoyments, viz. 
 
 Honour, Riches, and Pleafure. 2. The Nature and Caufe of AiHi£l:ions. 
 0' The great Benefit of Affliaions. 4. Of our Refignation to the Will of God. 
 To which n added, A Manual of Devotions f r Times of Trouble and Af- 
 fliaion ; alfo Meditations and Prayers for the Holy Communion, both before, 
 ar and' after receiving ; with fome general Rules and Directions for our 
 Daily Prkcfit-e. Compos'd for the Uf<i of a Noble Family. By the Right Re- 
 verend Dr. Thomas Kenn, late Lord Bilhop of Bath and Weils. Price 2s. ^d. 
 
 XVII. The Devout Chriftian's Hourly Companion ; Confiftin^ of Holy Prayers, 
 and Divine Meditations. Done into Englilh from that Spiritual Drexelius. 
 The 3<i Euition, in i2Vts. Piice is. 
 
 XVIII. The Gentleman Angler : Containing fibort, plain, and eafy In- 
 ftructions, whereby the moft ignorant Beginner may, in 1 little Time, be- 
 come a perfect Artill in Ar.gling for Salmon, Salmon-Peal, Trout, Pike, 
 Carp, Perch, Barbell, Tench, Bream, Chub, Greyling, Mullet?, Flounders, 
 Roa>-h Dace, Gudt^eo", &c. With feveral Oblervations on Angling, Angle- 
 Rods, and Artificial Flies ; how to choofe the bell Hair, and Indian Grafs ; 
 ©t the proper Times and Sealons for River and Pond Filhing. To v/hich is 
 idJ^d The Anglci's new Song, the Laws of Angling, and che Form of a 
 
 ' ** Lkeace 
 
It 'J ] 
 
 Lfcence and Deputation for Angling. Together with an Appendix : Confafn- 
 ing the Method of Rock and Sea Fiftin^ j an Explanation of Technical 
 Words ufed in the Art of Angling j choice Receipts for drclunu, Fi(h j and 
 how to improve Barren Ground, by turning it ineo Filh-Ponds. r./ a Gemle- 
 inaUjWho made Angling his Diverfion upwards of twenty eight Yck-s, 1726. 
 Price 1 s. 5 d. 
 
 XIX. A Praftical Difcourfe of Religious Aflemblies, under the foKowing 
 Heads ; 1. Of Religion in general. 2. What Religious Worfl;ip is, y of 
 Publick Worlhip, and the Danger of forfaking Publick AHembiiey. .,. The 
 Scafonablenefs of this Difcourfe. j. Concerning Speculative Atheifts* 6. Th« 
 Inclination of Hiunan Nature to Religious Worlfip. 7. Atheilts ffioiild not 
 wholly torfake Religious Affemblies. d. Nor intermedti'.e in the Difpuresof 
 Religion. 9. Concerning the Praftical Atheift. 10. The Danger of IrreligioHj 
 both with refpeft to this World and the next. 11. Concerning Parochial 
 Communion. 12. Concerning the Neglect of the Publick Prayers of the Church. 
 13. Concerning the great Negleft of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. By 
 William Sherlock, D. D. late Dean of St. Paul's. The 4.th Edition, 1726. 
 Price 4 s. 
 
 XX. Spiritual Communion Recommended and Enforced from Scripture, 
 from the Primitive Fathers and Councils, from Reafon, and from Experience, 
 in an Examination and Defence of the Do£irine, Worlhip, Rites, and Ce- 
 remonies of the Church of England. In Two Parts. By a Lay Hand, 8vo. 
 I72J. Price 2 5. 6 d. 
 
 XXI. Arithmetick in the Plaioeft and mofl: Concife Method hitherto ex- 
 tant; with new Improvements for Difpatch ofBufinefs in all the feveral Rules ; 
 as alfo Fra£lions, Vulgar and Decimal, wrought together after a neW Method 
 that renders both eafy to be underrtood in rheir Nature and Ufe. Th« 
 Whole perufed auH approved of by the moft Eminent Accomptants in the fe- 
 veral Offices of the Revennec, vii. Cv>ao»«3, EacITc, Oct. as chc onjy Book 
 of its Kind, for Variety of Rules, and Brevity of Work. By Geo. Filher, 
 Accomptant. The 2d Edition, with large Additions and Iinprovenieuts, izves. 
 17 2 J. Price 2S. 6d. 
 
 XXII. A new Method of treating Confumptions ; wherein all the Decays 
 incident to Human Bodies are mechanically accounted for, with fome Con^- 
 derations, touching the Difference between Confumptions, and thofe Decays 
 that naturally attend Old Age. To which are added, Arguments in Defence 
 of the Pofllbiiity of cuiing Ulcers in the Lungs; as alfo Reafous demonftra- 
 ting that the irregular Difcharges of all the Evacuations in Confumptions, 
 arile horn the Reiiftance of the Heart not decaying in a fimple Proportion tj 
 the Refiftance of the other Parts. 8vo. Price js. 
 
 XXIII. A compleat Trcatifc of the Gravel and Stone, with all their Caufes 
 Symptoms and Cures accounted for. To which are added, Propofitions de- 
 mon.lrating that the Stone may be fafely diflbived without any Detriment to 
 the Bojy, drawn from Reafon, Experiments, and Anatomical Obfervadons. 
 The 2d Eaiiioii, with large Additions. 8VQ. Price ^.s. Thefe two by 
 Nicholas Robinfon, M. D. 
 
 XXIV. An EfTay tov/ards a Natural Kiflory of the Earth, and Terreftrial 
 Bodies, efpecially Minerals; as alfo of the Sea, Rivers, and i'prin^s ; With 
 an Account of the Univerfal Deluge, and of the Effe£ts it had on the Earth. 
 By Jt)hn Woodward, M D. PiujcfTor of Phyfick in Greftiam College. The 
 3d EditioQ. Price 4.S. 
 
 XXV. The 
 
t i6 1 
 
 XXV. The Demoiiftration of True Religion, in a Chain of Cohfequenccs 
 from certain and undeniable Principles ^ wherein the Neceflicy and Certainty 
 ©f Nacural apd Revealed Religion, with the Nature and Reafoii, of both 
 are proved and explained j and in particular the Authority of the Chriftian 
 Revelation is eftablinied, not only, from the Natures and Reafons of Things, 
 but alfo from the Relation it bears to the Scriptures of the Old Tcftaraenc. 
 In j6 Sfimons preached at Bow Chuixh in the Years 1724., and 1725, for 
 the LfC^tire founded by the Honourable Robert Boyle, Efq; In two Volumes, 
 Zvo- Piice 5 s. 
 
 XXVI. An Effay upon Government: Or, The Natural Notions of Govern- 
 jnenr, demonftated in a Chain ot Confeque^ices from the fundamental Princi- 
 ples of Society. By which all the nicefl Cafes of Confcience relating to 
 Government, may be, and many, of them are here refolved, with lefpe^ to 
 the Authority of Government in general, the End and Manner of making 
 and executing Laws, the Meafures of Submiffion to Princes, and the Law- 
 fulnefs or Unlawfulnefs of Revolutions ; in a Method altogether new. Price 
 I s. 6d. The two laft by Thomas Burnett, D. D. Prebendary of Sarum, and 
 Re<5lor of Wefthington in Wikfhire. 
 
 TLATS^ on Elztver Letter^ at One ShiUtfig' each 
 
 A Bramule, 
 -^ AlIforLovCi 
 Anatomift, 
 
 Ambitious Stepmother, 
 Artful Husband, 
 Artful Wife, 
 Beaiax's Stratagem, 
 Beaux 's Duel, 
 Beggar's Bufli, 
 Biter, 
 
 Boarding School, 
 Bold Scr.ke for a Wife. 
 Briton, 
 Bufiris, 
 Bufy Body, 
 Caius Marius, 
 Campaign, 
 Carelels Husband j 
 Caco, 
 Chances, 
 Conjmiccee, 
 Confcious Lovers, 
 Country Wife, 
 Sir Courtly Nice, 
 CruelGitr, 
 I/evil of a Wife, 
 
 EifttefsM Mother, 
 Pon Sebailian, 
 
 Double Gallant, 
 
 Drummer, 
 
 Duke of Gloucefter, 
 
 Earl of Effex, 
 
 ^fop. 
 
 Fair Penitent, 
 
 Fair Quaker of Deal, 
 
 Fall of Saguntum, 
 
 Gamefter, 
 Hamlet, 
 Hob, 
 
 Humours of Purgatory, 
 Jane Shore, 
 Jane Gray, 
 Inconflanc, 
 Ignoramus, 
 liland Princcfs, 
 King Lear, 
 London Cuckolds, 
 Love and a Bottle, 
 Love for Money, 
 Love makes a Man, 
 Love's lall Shift, 
 Mariamne, 
 Meafure for Meafure, 
 Merry Wives of Windfor 
 Northern fleLtefs, 
 Northern Lafs, 
 _, Oroonoko, 
 
 Orphan, 
 
 Othello, 
 
 Phaedra and Hippolitus> 
 
 Pilgrim, 
 
 Plain Dealer, 
 
 Provok'd Wife, 
 
 Recruiting OiUcer, 
 
 Rehearfal and Chances, 
 
 Relapfe, 
 
 Revenge, 
 
 Royal Convert, 
 
 Rule a Wife, 
 
 She Gallaht, 
 
 Sauney the Scot, 
 
 She wou'd and ihe wou'd'nr^ 
 
 She wou'd if (he cou'd. 
 
 Siege of Damafcus, 
 
 Sophonisba, 
 
 Spartan Dame, 
 
 'Squire of Alfatia, 
 
 Tamerlane, 
 
 Theodofius, 
 
 Tunbridge Wells> 
 
 Twin-Rivals, 
 
 Venice preferv'd, 
 
 Ulyffes, 
 
 Sii- Walter Raleigh, 
 
 Wife's Excufe. 
 
 Wonder . 
 
 With great Far'icty of Flays ^ Poetry, Novels, &s*. 
 
f ' 
 
 k o 
 
.yf 
 
/ 
 
#> 
 
 ^J 
 
"*>c-