' AMi \ ''Wi '■-r ■■■*■{: -K" w>. >^c^- •'***V . *. ._ >aW e^> LIBRARY OF THE Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N. J. C«sc, .^>-'.Srr Division -S/i^'/, <^5^y Sectio. . Book, W». .... \ i^ THE REASONABLENESS CONFORMITY T O T H E CHURCHof EA^GL^A/Z) In Two Parts; With the DEFENSE of ir:' And the Perfuaf've to Lay Conforn^y. The Fourth Edition. To which is added, The brief D E F E N S E o£ Epifcopal O R D I N J T I 0 N-\ TOGETHER WITH^ The R E P LT to the IntroduBion to the Second? art ^ and a Poflfcript rehtlng^ the Third Fart, of MX' Caiam/s Befenfe qf Moderate Fon- conformity. By Benjamin Hoad l^y, M. a. Re£tor of St.Veters Poor, now Lord Bifhop of Bangor. LONDON, Printed for James Kitapton, at the Crown in St. PauVs Chjirch-yard. " MDCCXX.' ■^ J THE Reafonablenefs of Conformity TO THE Church of England, Reprefented to the Difenting MINISTERS. In ANSWER to the Tenth Chapter of Mr. Calamys Abridgment of Mr, Baxter j Hijiory of his Life and T^tmes. IN TWO PARTS. The Fourth Edition^ CorreSed, All this began but in unwarrantable Separations, and too much aggra- vating the Faults of the Churehes^ and common People, and Common* Pray- er-Bnol^, and Mmjiry. Mr. Baxter in his Account of the Seftaries, Ahidg. p. 96. L 0 1 Conformity to the Church 0/ England fro?n allfalfe Reprefentations, andOhjeBions that have no jufi Foundation, IFe whoferioiijly conform a-s Minifters to this Church, cannot be willijig to be accounted what ?/oChriftian ought to be-j ajid cannot be content to fit down, andfuffer our PraBice to be reprefented as a CoinpUcation of the biackeji and 7noft unpardonable Crimes. We owe fometVmg to our own Re- putation ai we are Men ; and more as we are Minifters % as the Succefs of that great Charge we have undertaken depends A 3 ^'^^J The P R E F A C E. tery much upon it •, and as the BlejmJIjes that are cajl upon it, 7'efleB a Dipovoiir upon ReJigiov it f elf. If thofe Accufations whi h Mr. Calamy hath brought agahtji Minifterial Confor- mity he received as hu'ilt upon good Reafons, the Confeqiience will he^ that we mujl he accounted guilty of as many ait d great Crimes as it h well pojjihle for any Men to be guilty of Ida not fay that it was thif A\iihot*s Defgn^in reviving the fe Heads 0/ Nonconformity, to lefj^en the Reputation^ or blacken the Chara&er, of any of his Neighbours : for I have too good an Opinion of him to think him capable of fuch a Dejigu. But I fay that confdering the Manner in which they are reprefent- ed to his Readers, and the Jnfimiatlons often drop^d in thsir Jf^ay, It Is too probable that Multitudes will embrace them as Trutli, and he led by them to judge Minifterial Conformity a Sin of a very high nature : which indeed it muJl be, if thefe Rep refai tat Ions be reafonable. It cannot therefore be thought an unbecoming Attempt, to endeavour to cojivince the TForli that they are not reafonable ^ that fo the Reputation of a whole Society of Men may not fuffer unjujlly hi the tenderej} Pobit : I mean their Honefty and Integrity. Secondly, What I farther propofe by the Fublication of thefe Papers Is, to fatlsfy thofe who Jf III continue to dljfent froin us. I mean fuch of them as Mr. Calamy, andlhofe whofe Caufe he pleads In a peculiar manner : whoje Se| aration, tho* not accompanied with fuch violence and heat:, yet carries along r/ith It more ofMyJlery, and is more unaccountable than the Se- paration of thofe who are at a greater dljiancejrom us. But how unaccountable foever It appear, it cannot but become us to do all we can for their SatlsfaBion. For if we thhik they are very much to blame in continuing their Separation, we cannot but heartily wljl) they would unite with us. And if we heartily TPif} this, we pall not Infult or triu7}iph over them, but e7idea~ VQur to convince them •, to remove what ive judge to be Prejudi- ces, and to fet Things In a due Light before their Eyes . Ihis is what I have attempted : and there is fomewhat both fin the Principles and Practice of thefe Perfons, which fujfers me not to think it altogether an bopelefs Attempt, Thefe The P R E F A C E. Thefe are tie Ends Ipropofe: aftd this is all I have tofayfo^^ the Publication of this Reply. ' In it I have concerned fnyfelf only with the prefent Times % judging this to be the proper eji Method towards the healing oiif Breaches, to fpeak of things as they are now : and leaving to o- thers the Glory of raking into the TranfaBions of former Times^ and heaping together hijiorical Accounts of what figmfes wo- thijig to the Caufe, but tends only to exafperate MensMinds^ to open our T^ounds anew, and make them bjeed afrejl) ^ to raifi the Paffwns, and caji a Cloud before the Judgment, of the Kea,- ders. / confefs I could not anfwer to my own Confcience any fuch Attempt, which naturally tends to perpetuate our Divijions, Characters are eajily given, both bad and good. An Hijiory in favour of any one Party is eajily compiled. It is eafy to pick out aUthe Evil that appears in Men of different Dejigns^ from ourfelvesy aiid to pafs by all the Good. It is eafy to furmifi more Evil than what appears, and to produce thefe Sufpicions where we want better Proofs. And it is eafy on all fides, to make Harangues to move the Pity andCompa^on of the People, But what Wounds can we heal in this way ^ what Advances to* wards Peace can we make while we are produmtg whatmuji in- ce7tfe us again jlojie another ? One would think it were time now to fuffer the Pajions of Men to cool, a7id to addrefs only to their Reafon ajid Judgment, And it is to the Reafon and Judgment of Men I here appeal.* regarding nothivg in Mr. Calamy's Book but the Tenth Chap- ter ; and nothivg in Ihat but what refers to the State of the Cafe as it is at this time, in which only we are concern d 5 nothing but what He hiwfelf, at the end of the Ninth Chap- ter, calls the .Stable Principles upon which Nonconformi'^ ty isjlill bottomed. Throughout the whole t have JlriBly obliged my f elf to fay nothing but what appeared to me truly fitted to the Purpofe for which I produce it. And in all that I have alleged I have had A 4 only The PREFACE. <)nly a regard to rphat appeared reafovahle^ and trite, and apt to fatixfyany Vcrfon'coyicenied. Tfit hefo^ I am not at all folici- tolls about any thing farther. I'defire itfiouldjfand, or fall, as it agrees or dipgrces with Reafon, avd the Gofpel : and ac- cordingly ^ I /I) all be very free to defend it, or very ready to re-- traBit. Ifinfomc injfances Ifeevi tofome not rigid enough, and to others too rigid ^ I defre it viay be rememhred, that my Bitjtnefs -was to confxdci the Terms 0/ Conformity (i& they are in the7?ifelves ; not as this or that Perfon defre s they fwiild be. I have endeavoured to defend them as they are : But I have not dared to alter them upon my own Authority, either in order to make them appear more odious, or more agreeable, to the Dif* fenters. I could 7ievcr permit viyfeKto have any Tart infet- "tivg them at a greater dijlance from the Church : and on the other hand, I Jlwiild judge it but an odd, and very unlikely V^ay, to win upon them,to reprefent the Terms o/Conformity jnore according to their Wifhes, nnlefs I could perfuade them to be Ueve that they w,ere truly what I reprefent them to be. What Errors there are in the Style, {for that there may he fome, lamfenfble) I hope are f mall : fuch as will not di- Jiurb the Senfe, or hide the Porce of the ArgU77ient j and there^ fore pardonable, / have fiothi7ig more to add, hut my Reqiiejl to the Rea- der, that He would bring an honejl Heart along with him-., and 7ny Prayers to God, that he would give a Blejjing to what I have here propo fed, as far as it i^ fitted to the promoting his Glory, and the increafivg peace and Unity awowjy? Chriftians. THE _THSOLOGI05l THE *!!i^ i:>v^_ ;^-r C ONTEN OF T H E Reafbnablenefs of Conformity ; and the Defenfe of it. PARTI. view of the whole T)efign^ Page r, ± I. A Defenfe of the T£r;';«j of THiniJierial Conformity. The j^r/? of the fcntpled Terms of viimjlerial Conformity pro- pofed, viz. Ejjifcopal Ordination. ^ A Confidcration premifed, JWn?* Ae^/(j«j why this may beinfifled on, 4 to lo An Ob]eH'ion taken from the Invalidity of all the JH'in'ifiratlons of the dijJentingMiniflers znfwered^ 10,11 Another from the Succefs of their Mimflrj^ 12 The Refult of what hath been faid, 12, J? The ObjeSms of the dtjjenttng Minijlers againft Epifcopal Ordmtion confidcred, 1. Obj. from the Peace of their Confciences-, 14 2. (9ij. from the Crrrf;f of foreign Churches^ ibid. 3. Ob), from the Scruples ci their Ffo/'/?, 14, 15, i6 XheSumm of the Argument, 16 The Seco7jd of thefcrupled Terms o£ minijierial Confor^nlty, propofed, viz. The Declaration of ^J/^g?/£ and Coftfent, and the Subfcription, j 7 An Oij. from the Ccmprekenfveneh of the required Declaration aa- fweredj. ' 171020 the CONTENTS. Thizth\i AJJent^zndConfent, an he only to thcVfe of the Common'' Prayer- BoqI^, proved, 1. From thaxprefs Woids of the A^ of Parl'iament ^ ,2» 2. From the Authority oi Dr Bates and other Nonconformifts ihid, 3. From the Form of Law Deeds, itid public Declarations ai, i* Of the 5«fi/cf/pr/on required 22» *3 The principal Ob]etiions ot the differing Miniflers againft this Declara- tion and Sub/cript'ion, 1. Oij. raktfn from the Doi^rhe of re4/ Eaptijmd Regeneration, and certain Salvation corjequent there upw, implied in the Office of Bapti/mt and the Rm6k/c followiftg xc 24, to 28 IF. Obj taken from the Vfe oi God-fathers and Ood-mtthers in Baptijm, to tbe Exclufion of Parents^ from _ 28, to ^ I III. IV. V. 06/. taken from the Impoficions, viz the requiring SponfoTS^ and the VJe of the Crojs at Bj;)f//w and Kneeling ac the Commurion, propofed 3^ Aa/4n/iverto their 05>^/ony againfl the 'L'/? of the Crof^, premifed 1 Ob), againfl it, viz. The Mifunderftandings of theVulgar and /«- judicious 3'> 3* 2 c?ij. that it locks as if Baptifm were not complete without it 32 5 Oil; That it fcemeth 1 new Sucrament 35 4 Obj. Becaufe the Pap'ilis ufe ic after ifuperftitious Manner 35 Of the impcfing Sponfors, the Cro/r, and Kneeling^ and the making them Terms of Communion. 1 That the S/7/;o;)f have as much Authority to prefcribe r^je/e, ii other Thivgs which are not fcru pled from 36, to 41 That f Af/f are no more New Terms oi Communion thaa thof c o^/jeri with which fA^y would comply 4«. 4X A farther Defenje of the Cowrnorjof the Church, upon their own l^rin* ciples 42, 45 An Obj. from the difproportionable Penalty annexed, confidered 43> '44- Another Jlrgiment upon tlicir own Principles 4-1, 45 An Ohj. taken from die Numker of Ceremtnies that may be brought in by this Means 45> 46 Of the retaining thefc Impofitions 46, 47 The C.7JC argutd in the name of the Retainers^ upon their own Prin- ciples 47, 48 2. Thjr Sr, Pjm/ faith nothing againfl fuch Impofitior.s in the i^tb Chapter to the Romans ^8, to 5 3 9 That Mr. B.ixtcfs i'raitice, and the Prafticc of the Independents, is /oi, and not. igainll, luch Impofnions 53, 57 VI. Obj Becaufe this Declaration and Suhfcr'iption would be an Approba- baitofi of due Ajprdor,, that Bi(hops, Priejis and Deacons, are three dilVinH Oxdex; in the Church, by Dit^/ne Appointment, arfwered 57, 61 Their Objeilions of /f/Jcv Confid^rution^ againft this Dcvlaration, and Subjcription I Oij. The C O N T E N T IS. I Obj, taken from the Burial Office p ^j .^ ^ 9. Ob), taken from the Rule to find EaflerJay * cl 3. Ob], taken from the Apocryphal Leffons ^g to ^^ 4 Ob'j. taken from the Miflran/lat'wn of the P/^/Z^r 71' to 7- ^ f:)^;. taken from the Athanajjan Crsed 'l 6 Ob], taken from the il«ir/c in the Confirmation Office !j^ T}jeV?hd of the Scrupled Terms of Mlmflerlal Conformity ^J5- The O^f ^ of Canonical Obedience and the Fromid of Obedience to the Ordinary, &c. propofed, 75 r»o Miflakes obferved in the rfr^jv/w^ up of this 03>«»7ion 7^ The Occafton and ytfe^/i/ng of the Oath enquired into 75 to 78 ?hJr '^" '''''• ?"'* "^':'« "''^ >t a p/^/« Obligation to comply r,itb tf^e Canons, without leaving Perfons at Liberty, anfwered 78, 82 The Parallel between the Oath of a 7«^wo/ P^^ce, and this Oath! conuciepcd q * The /«fe;;re/4//o«of this Oath here laid down, and fi&e/r Interpretation of It, compared ^ *»»«"« Ot the Obedience due to the Canons o J Conclufion f? 8$ PART II. >TpH E Defrgn of this F'^. taken from the Infufficlency oifundryoi the Efiabl'tjhed Mmifiers^ confidered 105 to Ii2 7. ^r^. taken from feme Pajfages of Scripture that intimate tlie Duration o£ the Minifterial Office r 1 2, to 119 8 Arg- taken from fome Paffages of Scripture that plead for the iVe- ce]^^; of Preaching when the Magiflrate forbids, confider'd 1 20. to I2t 9 Arg. taken from the D«/> of Praying that C7o<^ would fend faithful Labourers into his Vineyard 122, 1 15 Some farther Obfervations at the Conclufion of this //e4ti 12.3, 114 An Enquiry how far thefe jirguments can vindicate ^Aeir Ordinations fince the /^/iF of Vmformity 125, to 12^ All the Arguments propofed in Vindication of the Dijfenting Laity, drawn up together 125, to 129 Some ferious Reflexions upon the Manner of Writing in this Controverfy^ 129, 1 91 I. >^>*g in Defenfe of the dijfenting Uity, taken from the Bewejff they had found by the Labours of the dijjenting Mmfters, confidered 131, to 155 2 Af^, taken from the /nj«r> done to the Eje^ed Min'tjlers, and the /«- ibw/w^wz/yof forfaking them 1^3, to 137 3 >4rg. taken from the Caufe in which the dijfenting Minijiers are en- gaged, viz. the prejjitig d farther Reformation, anfwcred in $ F^r- ticulars 157 t. That they may conforwy and yet not forfake this Caufe 1 38 2- That they communicate with CA«rc/;ef which need z farther Refor. mation as much 140 3. That to feparate in order to this End, is not a defenfible Thing 1 4^ Some of the Consequences and Circumjiances of Separation and Conformity compared, and an ^r|j/;wfnf drawn from tiience J45, to '5' 4. That chfa Sepavation^and their Behaviour in it, is not a //i^e/y »'<«>' to ob- tain a /.ir?/5>er /ic'/ormu^ww 151, to I $9 5. That this -(4r^w/ie/ir will make Separation alvnyi recejjary j59> ^^ 163 A Recapitulation of the /-nfrver to this Argument i6i, to 1^5 4 -1^''^. taken from the Duti oi i\\ed:ff:nting ^mflers J(55, to i<58 3 /Ir^. taken from their Aj^fr; /ff chufe their own Pajhrs, anjweredin $ Partiailars I, That The CONTENT S. 1. That this Right may, according to themfe/ves, be receded from, upon feme Conftderations 3 and that there are fufficknt Confiderathns in the Eftabli/hment ,58, to 170 2. That in thofe Pari/hes where this Right is continued, there are more Diforders^ and more Dijfentersy thm in others 170 3 That the Conflitution cannot be fo ordered, that every ChriflUn fhall be under the Pajhr he likes beft 171 4. That Mr. Eaxtery Direftions to his Feophy do imply, that they ought not to put this Right in praftice, but upon fome Confiderations only 171 5 Thit the Parijhioners in z Pari/h vihcte there is an unqualified Minijier are not in a defperate Condition ij^ A Recapitulation ,-7- j-^ An Anfweno the Queftions propofed, in the Tenth Chapter of the Jtridg- menty upon this Head j_^ Some material j^Ke/?;onf propofed upon this Head 177 6 Arg. taken from the Want of Difcipline in the Church 179, to I8r 7 Jirg. taken from the Scruples of many of the People 182' to 185 the Reafons of the Diffenters, to prove the Vnlawfulnefs of Conliant Com. muniony from the Circumjiances attending it , notwithflanding the Material Larvfulnefs of ir, confidered, and anfwered under thefc two He'ads 1. That the Circumjiances they have fixed upon Canfiant Communion either do not attend upon it ; or, if they do, that they do not make it un- lawful; and that the like Circumfiances attend upon their Occafmal Communion^ and theh Separation jg^ to 201 2. Suppofing fome inconvenient Circumjiances do attend upon Conjiant Communion^ that, befides fuch Circumfiances, much worfe do unavoidjH biy attend upon Separation^ ^and make it much more unlawful 202, An Argument for the lavofulnefs of Confiant Conformity, notwithftandini theCircumfiances that attend it, drawn from the like Circumfiances which attend fuch a Compliance with the Dijfenters, as they infift upon - which yet do not make it, in their opinions, unlawful And a Parall lei rm between the Denialoi Communion, on one fide, and the Denial of Abatements on the other 2^2 210 An Argument dxiv/nUom the Experience they have had in 40 Years Se- paratm, how unlikely a Method this is of accomplifhing their End- And another, taI^en(rom the Glory oizCompliance^ for the fake of Peace With rAo/e who refufe to comply with them 210 zii Of the Scripture-notion oi Schifm, md the thoughts of the Fathers about k 1\i'it the Moderate- Nonconformijis are condemned by Mr U ales m zil pltifT'^'T'''"' '^"^ ^^'''^ °^ ^•'"^' ^^s °°^ founded upon fuch ri maples as theirs ^r> IhCoiiflufm ' ^J| The CONTEf^rS of the Defenfe, (S'c. y^ HAP. I- 0/ Epifcopal Ordination, Page 215 CHAP. II- Of the Declaration Qi Affent and Confent ; and the Sub- fcription, Seft. I. Of the Subfcription^ 217 Seft. 2. Of the true Interpretation of the '>Declaration, 21 Scft. 3.0fthe Oije^/fl« again ft the Declaradony md Subfcripticn, taken from the Office of Baptifm, &c. 232 Seft. 4. Of thtOhje^iion taken trom the'LTeof Godfathers^ Stc. 241 Seft. 5. Of the o^je^'on taken from the Vje of the 5/^n of the Crofs^ 245 Seft- 5. Of thtOb]e^ion taken from the Office of Ordination, 250 Seft. 7. Of the Objeifion taken from the B«r/.i/ O^ce, 2 5 7 Seft. 8. Of the Objection taken from the l{ule for Ealier-Jay, 262 Seft. 9. Of the Ob]ection taken from the Apockryphal Lejfons z6$ Seft. 10. Of the Objection taken from the Miftranjlution of the Pfakcr, 268 Seft. II.' Of the Objection taken frcm the Athanafun Creed, 269 Seft, 12. Of the Objection taken from the Office of Confirmation^ 270 CHAP, III. Of thc(?^^Aof Canonical Obedience. 271 !rk CONTENTS 6/^ //?^ Defenfe of Epifcopal Ordination. "W Ntroduction, Page gzi Chap. 1. r/jf Argument! for Epifcopal Ordination propojed, Seft. I. Arg. I. r4/(^fn from Prcfcription, and the Lawfulnefs of tbe thing it felf. ?'2 Seft. 1 i4r^ 2. Ttf;(:f« /rom the Inflances 0/ Ordination recorded in tbe New Teftament. 925 Seft. 5. >^r£. 3. TaJ^en from the R\i]es concerning Ordination f« ?/je New Tef^amcnr, 52-? Seft. 4. jirg. 4. r^i^en /rom Apoftolical Inftitution, 325 For the Confirmation of this, I- 71!te Sufficiency and CTed\b\]ny of the concurrent Teflimony 0/ antienc Writers concerning it it eftablifhed, by anjvoering the Objeftions made againft it, viz- Obj. 1. Taken ftom ^ft? Church of England's not follott>ing the antient Church in many points^ confidered, 7,^9 Ohj. z Taken fom the Difficulty of discovering the true and real Scnfc of the Fathers in this Matter^ confidered, 331 Under this the feveral f^afins alleged for this, are anfwered, the Firft Reafon, becauje feveral of the earlicfl Writers have been loft^ ConficCeredt 39 > The The C O N T E N T S. The Second Rcafon, beeanfe many of the Writings n>hich go unJer their Names arei^p\iT\oiis,cotjJi<^ered, page 532 ^n Infinuation againfl the Genuinenefs of many pajfages in thofe Wu- t'wgs tn favour of Ep'\fcopicy, conficfered, 5^5 The Third Reafon, taken from the obfcure, and figurative way of fpeal^- ing ufed by the Fathers, confideredy > 29 The Fourth Reafon, becaufe fame of them often mention the Opiniovs of others, as well as then «»«, without any Diflinction ; and, in writing againii their AdvcrdneSy ufe diffjOMourahle Methods, confideredy 542 The Fifth Reafon, becaufe the Fathers often altered their iMindSf and. might poffibly retract in this Matter, as in others, confidered, 345 The Sixth Reafon, becaufe it is hard to difcover whether the Fathers held their Opinions as tecejfary, or as probable only, confidered, 544 The Seventh Reafon, becaufe we cannot be jure that the Tejlimony of thofe which remain, was the general Scnfcof the Church, confidered, ibid. Ob). J- Tal^en from the Miftakes of the Fathers, and their frequent contradifting one another concerning ApoftoIicaT Traditions, confi- dered, 345 Obj. 4. TaJ^en from the obfcure, and uncertain Accounts given us by Ecclefiaftical Hiflorians, of the fir/l Plantation of Churches, and Succeffion of Biftiops, confidered, sco Obj. $,Taken from the Vixhcxi often condemning tHen unjuftly as here- tical, confidered, 552 11. The Hypothefcs which bavt been oppofed by learned modern Writers, to the Apoftolical Inftitutiono/ Epifcopacy, are confidered, viz. Firft, The Opinion of thofe who fuppofe that the Apoftles ufed different Methods in different Churches, confidered, 55$ Secondly, The Opinion of thofe who mal^e the firft Bifhops to have been only prime Presbyters, or Prefidents in the Meetings of Presbyters, confidered, g^g Thirdly, The Opinion of thofe who found /^e Settlement 0/ Epifcopacy upon the voluntary Compact of the presbyters near the middle of the Second Century, confideredy 361 Under this the Opinion of thofe of the Antients who are alleged as fa- vouring tbis Scheme, and particu'arly of St. Jerome, whom the mofi: learned modern Presbyterians protefs to follow, is enquired inro, and confidered, from 571, to 985 Chap. II. The ^ki% alleged for the Right 0/ Presbyters to ordain, propo^ fed, and examined, Scft. I. The Firft Plea, fallen from the Identity of Biftiops and Pref- byters, examined ^83 Under this all the Texts of Scripture alleged to this purpofe are pa'rti- ticularly confidered, from 391, to 440 Scft. 2. The Second Pica, ta{en from the CommifTion given to Pres- byters, examined ^04 Under this Hkewi fc, I. The Inftanceo/ the Afex«ndrian Presbyters cbufing their own Bi^ fhops, is confidered -, and proved not to imply in it their exercifine* or pretending to the Right of Orda ini ng Presbyters, 418 9, An The CONTENT S. 'i' An Jnfacr is given to thofe Inilzncesand Canons, which are alleged, tofijtw that farm OxA\x\zt\on% by Presbyters were aclijiovpledged valid after the Settlement of Epifcopacy in the Church 425 Seft. 3. The Third Plea fallen from Presbyters l^eeping to the Rule of Sci\p' tme,cotipdered 427 Sefl', 4. The Fourth Plea taken from their anfwering the Ends of Ordination, confidered 4z8 Chap- III. TheVlcgs Lttely advanced^ in favour of the Laity's Right toOi- daio, confidered Seft. I. Arg. I. Tal^en from ?Ae Natural Righr of the Laity, confidered 435 Seft. n. Arg. 2. Tal^en from the Laity's Privileges in the Times of the A- poftles, confidered 455 Under this, T/je Texts which are urged to prove that all Church Power was then in the Laity, are examined 455 The ln(\inces produced out of the New Teflimetity to flievc particularly that theLzhy didin thofe Times appoint^ and Ordain, Eccleiiailical Officers, are examined :.^S The Inrtance of the Laity V affiflirg in thefirfl Council at Jerufalem, is con- fidered 449 T/l^e Inftance 0/ 5"*. Peter*/ giving an Account of himfelf^ and of his Beha- viour^ to the Laity, is confidered 450 T^e Texts urged to fhew that the Office 0/ Preaching in Public AfTentiblies was in common in the Days of the Apoftles, are examined 45Z The Inflances ^'/veno/^Ae Laity's Baptizing in the Days of the Apoftles, are examined 466 What is alleged concerning the PraHice of the Chrifliaa Laity in the firfi: Days, from Pfeudo-Ambrofe, and Clemens Romanus, and St, Cyprian, is confidered ^66 Conclufion 474 ' A P P E N D I X. In which, 1. ^"T* H EOh']t(\.\om,raifedby Mr. dhmy againf} fame former Reafon* X ingsconcerning Ep\icopiil Ojdimt\on, are confidered 47^ 3. The Queftions, propojed by Hm upon the fameSubje&j are anfvcered 482 A Reply to the Introduftion to the Second Part ofMr^ Calaray'f Defenfe 0/ Moderate N>.n-contormity 491 In which, I. What hath been formerly advanced on the Head o/Ecclefiafiical Impofi- tionf, is vindicated, and eftablifhed 491 II. Some Refleftions are made upon t1)e Scheme of Liberty profofed in the forementiened Introduftioa 520 IH. Itis fheven that there k nothing offered in it, fufficienf to prove the Un- iawfulnefs 0/ conftant Compliance w/r/j the tftabliftied Im pofitions, cry which 'rs all one, to jufiify ModenteNonconioTmicy 52.9 POSTSCRIPT. - .'-r-^! R Elating to the Third Parr of Mr. Calamy'j Dcfenfc of Moderate Non- conformity 5^2 THE THE REASONABLENESS OF CONFORMITY T O T H E Church of ENGLAND^ Reprefented to the biffenting Minifters, &c: PART I. ^ TH E Defign of the following Papers is fo jufti- fiable, how mean foever they be in them- felVes, that I need not ufe many Words to engage you to receive rhem with all Candoiir and Goodrtefa. I am one who fincerely deiire a greater Union amongft Evglijl) Protejlayits than we are yet arrived at : And tho' the method in which I now prcprfe to do fomewhat towards this, be perhaps not the moft agreeable to your "Wifhes; Yet it muli: be acceptable to you, as You profefs yoiir felves willirg to attend to any offers that are made this way^ and ready to conform, if your Ohje^iom can be fairly removed. 3 The Redfonahlenefs 0/ Conformity. Now t\ieReafons^ on which 3''our whole Caufe is built J I find collected by Mr. Calamy in his tenth Chapter of th^ Life of Mr. Baxter : And they are thought to be there re- prefentcd with the ntmoft force, and after the moft con- vincing manner polhble. The beft method therefore, I can think of to purfue my Defign in, will be this : T. To anfwer the Ob/e^iom there advanc'd againft the Terms of Mhiijierial Covformhy in ciir Church. IT. Tofhew that the Arguments there propofed, in defenfe of 3^our Selves, are not fufficient to juftify your Separation, even fu p pofin g thefe Ter7}is of Minijierial Con- forviitj to be unreafonable. III. To confider what is there offer'd for the Vindica-; tion of the Dijhitilig Laity. Onl3r I deiire it may be remembred that I confine my felf to the prefent Times -jand fpeak to thofe of You who Continue to feparate from the Church, for the Reafojts there reprefented. I. I {hail confider thofe Terjns oi Minijierial Covformlti/^ ivhich are there reprefented as Ufireafovable. Now, of the five Tsnm there producM, there are but t'hrce which are at prefent the T;w5 oi Mivi fieri alCoii- fortJiity in the Church o^Er^laiid: And they are thefe* i. They that will miniller in our Church muft be or^ dain'd by Bifi^ops. II. They muft declare their vitf eigne d Ajfciit^ aitd Cdt*- fevt., to all avd every thing contain d., and prefcrib'djn^aitd , l)y the Book of Common-Prayer, and adminifi ration of the Sa- craments and other Rites avd Ceremonies of the Church of ^ ^England : together ivith the Pfalter-., and the Form and man- 1 iier of making, ordaining, and confecratingof Bifiwps, Rriefii\ cmd Deacons. They mult likewife make an e(]uivalent»Sw^-| fcri^tiom " '^ '" IIJ. Thefj The Re/ffonahle7tefs of Conformity* 5 III, They muft take the Oath of Canomcal 'Obedience, ind Swear Subjedidn to their Ordinary, according to the dtJWTis of the Church. I. They- that will Mimjlerm this Church muft te ordain'd by Bipops. The Church of England is indeed an Epifcopal Church. We think we can den;onftrate that iii the Primitive times the admin iftration of Eccleiiaftical Affairs was in the Hands of BiJl)ops^ who had Presbyters fubjecl to thern.^ that as the y^pr-;/?/t\ymaintainM a fuperi- ority over the Presbyters of the Churches they conftitute J^' fo upon occafion of their abfence,, they fetled others in this Superiority •, that as thefe thus Succeeding the Apo- ftles had the power of Ordination committed to them, fo their Succeffors in the following Ages claim'd this Power as their Right, and loolc'd upon Ordination to be their Ojjice in the regular Courfe of Tilings. No wonder theA that we require all that come into the Mijiiflry, to come in at this Door, which We think open'd for thatpurpofe hj the Apofiles. _ Nor do I find that any of the Objedi- pns You here urgeagainft this do fignify that Ordination^ in the regular courfe of Things, ought to be adminiftred without EiJIwps. But all that is objeded is a difficulty a^ riling from your having been before ordain'd without BiJI)opS', which Ordination you cannot renounce, as yoa muft do, in e-fteft, if you fubmit to Epif copal Ordination. Taking it, therefore, for granted, beraufe I find nothing alleg'd againft it, that regularly Ordinaticn is not to be adminiftred without the BiJIwp, I (hall 1. Give an account why this is infifted on, 2. Anfv/er your fcruples againft complying with if,"' as I find them eiprefs'd by Mr. Calamy. Premifing on ly this, that fince moft of You came into the Miniftiy iince the reftauration g£ Epifcopacy, and therefore have brought this difticulty voluntarily upon your felves, re { fufing wittingly and confiderately either to conform as Lay-men, or to be ordain'd by BiJI^cps^ itfeems a Wonder B 2 to 4 7/!?^ Renfonahlenefs z?/' Conformif^', to us that you fhould not be more willing to fubmit in this Point, and tom-ike fome recompenfe for this noto- rious negledl put upon the Epifccpal Office, than W fearch out Objections againft it. Much more do we find reafon to wonder that, inflcad of recommending Lcjy- Confonnhy to Thofe whofe Confciences could heartily ap- prove of it, and an Education in another waf, yoti Ifill continue to advjfe, prepare, and ordain others to theMiniftr)^- by that means laying what 3'^ou account an infuperable difficulty, which would othcrwife be wanting, in the way towards fuch an Union as you fay yoii defire. Pardoii us, if we cannot thihk that this praftice is agreeable to that defire of Peace and Concord you exprefs, whicl^ifccms to lis as if You rather defir'd to jjrevent it, unlefs it could be brought about wholly in your own way. But I return I. To give fome account why this Re-ordination is in- iifted upon, and propofc foitie reafons why it maybe fubmitted to. Now the reafonablenefs of infifting up^on this appears from this one piopofition,the truth of which to us is plain, acknowlec^g'd by Mr. Baxter, and not in the leafE called in queltion in any of 3''our reafoningson this Head, viz. Toat Epifcopal Ordination See the Abrh-ig' ;> the regular orderly Ordination fetled in the Eaxcer'f Uje ^'^-"^^'^^^ ^>f Chrifi. This being To : as Mr. p. iz^. ' Baxter judges (in his difpntation with Mr. Jolinfon) that the end why we are obliged tofeek Ordirati^n rather from an Bcclefiajlical Officer than from a Magijlrate^ &c. isj-ecavfc God hath appointed him for order fake^ and to prevent Fntmjiojis and Abiifes •, fo we argue, that the Reafon why we are obliged to feek Ordination from a Bijhop, .ratlier than from Presbyters without a Bi- Jimp, is becaufe God hath appointed Him for order fake, and to ■pvcventLitnifovs and Abufes-^And becaufe the go- ing out of tliis fetled way, though it be into another which polfibly might prevent Intrvjions and Abiifes as well, were it the fetled ^v'ay, gives too much encou- ragement and too much room for Intmf.ons and Abvfes. As The Re^fonablenejs of Conformity. 5 As we think with Mr. Baxter that KeceJJi' ty only can aiiftrer for the vreguhinty o/O;-- ' ' dhiation-j fo we think that where there is no nccelli- ty, or when this necellity ceafes, God gives no en- couragement to fuch deviations-, and a Repijar Ordhia- twn is to be fought for. That, therefore, it is not the folemitity of the wo/% the caretahen^ the fitnefs of the PerfojT^ thefaft'mg and Prayer, that can cxcnfe the negled of this, orbe accounted fafficient without tliis ^ becaufe this is the method deliver'd down to us from the Apoftlcs times, find the departing from this tends to the overthrow of all Order, nor can we fuppofe that Ahnighty God fupplies the want of it, when no necelhty can be pleaded, be^ caufe He is the God of Order^ and not of Confufon. We judge with, Mr. Baxter^ ' ■ that Perfons (let them te never fo well qualified) are tof^eh an orderly admijjion, and make others the Judges of their qvali- fcations:And imagining our method to be the orderly and fetled method from the Primitive Ages, where we feeit neglected,when there is no necejG.lty,we think in Juftice, We cannot acknowledge thofe who depart from it appro- ved of God in fetting apart themfelves for the Minifti)^ "We dare not think that He allows fo great a ncglecl caffc upon the Order fetled in his Church ^ and we dare not in our Confciences give any encouragement to a method which has difunited a whole Nation from their B'lJI^ops-y and fuch an encouragement as would be in efFed, an ac- knowledgment that God approves of Irregular Ordinati' ons upon no neceifity, and would tend to introduce ftill more and more Jyv^^iz/ar Ordinations, when ever any ne- ceffity fliouldbe pretended. This we dare not do. Arjd taking this to be your Cafe^ that j^ou have ncgleded the way fetled in the Church ^ and, when no neceifity urged, put your felves into the Miniltr}'' in another man- ner-jWe cannot think it hard,that you fhould receive Or- ders in aregiilar way. This will indeed bean acknow- ledgment that you have been in an errour : but furely this conflderation will not weigh more with good Mcri d" The Reafonahknefs of Conformity. than the Univerfal good-, and the fervice you may do "by. giving fo publicka teftimon}'' to Order, and Ivjfitutio7(,' and fo great a ftop to irregularity and cojtfufion: Upon' the whole, we think that, atcording to Mr. Baxter, We may infift upon this ^ nay and ought, as long as we are an Epifcopal Church . For it was his opinion (as is plain from the occaiion of that Paper I have nowrefer'd to) that nothing but neceiilt}^ can excufe thofewhonegledtZp/y- copal Ordinaticn-, and that their Irregular OrdinatioTi^wnQn there is no neceiuty for it, is not approved by God. I confefs this arguiTicnt fuppofes You to have no -aeceffity, laid upon you, whirh I Ihall now fay fomewhat to. You know it is an caf}'' thing to plead veceJfity.KvA there is no end oi Irregularities, if any iVt^c-^^r^beadrhittedbut what is mofl- apparent: for it is then only that God can be faid plainly to require Men to go out of the Common way, or to approve ttieir Irregular Proceedings. And if you can prove that any fuch'Neceiiity was laid upon You to have recourfe to irregular ways -^ I promife, for my part, to believe that God approved your ordination, and dres a(;)prove it as long as that necelfity lafts. !£"• You cannot, We cannot believe it-, and are in confcience bound not to prevaricate, and caft the greateft reflexion imckgm^ihX^^ v.-^ow regular Ordination: Let us now,thercfore, confider whether there hefnch an. 'undeniable necejjhy for your help-, wh^ber the fafety of the Church be at Stake, and the Salvation of Metis Souls ; or whether there be any other reafon fufficient tO juftify your irregular ViccQc^m^. And give me leave upon this to afk You thefe following Queftions. ' Are the Terms o^ Mini Jic rial Conformity fo unreafonable in the Church of England, that ver}'- many Confcientious, trfeful, Judicious, Pious, Excellent, Laborious Men have not cont'orm'd, and do not daily conform, as Ministers? "Mr. Baxter acknowledged, and all muft acknowledge, "there are, and have been many fuch Men. Ai^ there any means necelfary to the Peoples Sal- vation wanting in the Church of England? Is there not a piouss The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. 7 pious and ufeful Liturgy to aflift their publiclc Devoti-^ •ons? Are there not Chapters out of God's Word every- day read to thero? Is not the whole Will of God declared to them ? Is there any thing in the adminiftration of the Sacraments, contrary to the main defign of theGofpel, or deftrudtivc of Salvation ? Is there any one thing, plainly declared to te the duty of a Minifter in the Gofpel^and fuch a Duty as is iiecelTary either to the Prefervationof the Churrh,orthe Salvation of Mankind, that a Minifter in the Church of Bvgland cannot legally do? Cannot He exhort, reprove, be inftant,inftrud,admpnifli in private and in publiclc,and refafe the Holy Communion to an)'- fcandalous Chriftians. If there beany thing elfe You imagine convenient, which He cannot do^ Is it fo neccfTary, that the State of Chriftiani-ty, and the Salvatiou of the People depend upon it^ fo neceflar)?", that 3^ou are obliged to be or- dain'd after an irre .^^ular m?.m\t\: to make your felves ca^ l&'pable of performing it ? - Or, Is this the reafon 3^ou put your felves into the Mi- liiftry, becaufe there are very few in the Chuvch o^ Eng- land that take any care of Souls ^ and that there is great occafion for your help ? If it be, why do ye officiate where there is no fuch occafion for you-, where no want of the means of Salvation can be pretended ? Or, if you fay there is need every where of all that will labour in the Miniftry, Coniider whether this will not be a plea for the moft unqualified in the world-, and give occalion, whether Youwill or no, to the greateft irregularities ipna- ginable : for where can W;e ftop in irreghlarities^i^w^ juf^ . tify thofe for which there is no abfolute neceifit}^ ? Sappoiing the Terms o^ Epifcopal Ordination unreafo- 13 able ^ Can the good you propofe to do in an irregular way, countervail the-mifchief of fuch ir?-egularities •, ta- king into th« account, on one fide, the good you could do in your private Capacities, if you remain'd Lay-men-^ and, on the other fide, the dividing" Principles, the Heats, the Uncharitablenefs,the Indecenciesyou encourage,and propagate, whether you defign it or no > Or, 8 *The ReafonahUnep of Conformity. . Or,Mult 70U be ordain'd to the Mimjlry for the benefit pf thofp amongft the People who cannot fubmit to the ad- miniftra' ion of the Sacraments accorcUng to the Ufe of ■^he Courch ofBiigla-nd} And are you forc'd to this irregu- lar w^j^ on this account ? If this were truly the reafon, you would certainly prefs Cqyifomiity upon thofe who can fubrnit to it •, You would receive and encourage no fuch^ you would help in the removal of thofc prejudices and groundlefs fcruples, and teach them how to tolerate what they cannot amend ^ and, agreeably to this, you would receive nonebut fuc^' as had invincible objcd:ions againft CoifimuTi'wn \^ith OUT Church. But not feeing a pradice corrcfpondent to ihisplea, we cannot think this to be the true Reafon. But if it be, we delire you toconlider, whether it'ou do not bv this give too much countenance ^oacontempt ofall EccleliafticalAuthority^whether you cio not give too much encouragement to thofe who fe- parate from us with the rankeft uncharitablenefs • and receive and chcriJli thofe who rail at our whole worfhip ^s IdoUtrom^ Av.tichrijlian^ Popifi, and vitolerable -^ or, V'hether it be fit, that they who think fuch PrejudiG^ groundlefs, fhould be fo fond of adding life and continu- ance to ihem, as, rather than not do it, to tranfgrefs ^he order fetled in the Church. The Qiieftion is, what necelTity is there for yout Or- dination in the Miniftry > and when you have thought of this yietejfityj fee if the fame tJ^ceJfity may not be plead- ed for farther irregularities^, fee if it might Hot have been 3:)lea:;ed in all ages of the Church ^ and conlider whether ifuch vvw^rrnttable o;'dhiatioiii do not tend to the contempt of a il Lifit iit'iom and Ordivajices: as we judge they do. Thefe ^irfaofis^ and fuch like, conlidefed, and an- f\v:er'd,witliali the ferioufnefs the fi.ibje6lrequires,if they clo rot fali:fy you, 3'et they will ferve to give 3''ou fome account why we in "fift upon Epifcopal Ordhation, and dare not give fo open an encouragement to Irregularity as you feem'to espedt. ^' fi^^fio^at Orai)iatioji(riijs Mr. Baxter J is to b» fought ' foF M The Reafoiiahhefs of Conformity;. n for-, and where there is not an abfoliite necelfity, God does not approve of irregular Ordijtatiovs. Yon have not a neceiTity (as we jwdge) fo alfoluteand ib apparent, as will jnftify that neglcft you have put up- on the fetled Order of the Church, and the irregular me- thod you have taken •, Therefore, we dare not ?.6i as if we thought God had approv'd your Ordivatiov, till you (hew us this manifeH- and undeniable neceility ^ and fo dare not acknowledge you Minifters without Epifcopal Ordhtaticn. JVnd we judge it very hard, that this iliould he num- l^er'd amongft the unreafonable Terms oi MiwJterialCon- fonnity-jWhen we think the whole point is, whether the other terjns be unreafonable, and fufficicnt to jyftif}'' a feparatioji, or no. For, if they be, and it can be prwv'dj this will prove fuch a neccllity as will jnftify Irregular O?'- wffrr,you do not argue for many Ignorant Mechanicks,who cannot properly be faid to have had any ordination but a pretend-r ed inward Call ^ and for a great number of Men, of whom Mr. Baxter complain'd long AbYidgmem, p. ago that they made too light ofOrdinatioJU ^^^' One thing more I am led to fay upon this Subje6i:,and that is,fuppofing there was a necelfity of feeking IrrcguUr Ordinations^ fuch a necelfity as arofe only from the bad- nefs of the times, when BiJ/wps were put down in Evgla^id^ which we are allow'd by Mr. Calamy to think was the cafe of the eje^^edMiytiJiers : jtt this necelfity could jufti- fy the Ordination no longer than it lafted-, and when they were reftor'd, the Ordijiationw^s null, and another to be fought for in a regular way. This I fay, fuppofing this truly the cafe, and the irregular jradtice grounded onljr upon io The Reafo7iahknefs of Conformity^ upon this reafon : and this Mr. Baxter lead? P' »^»* Trie to, by the parallel inftances He pro- daces ill his Paper about regular Ordmati-^ ^m. The)r are thefe. hi an affavlt of an Evemy, and the ahfence of a Gnnmander, av experienced Soldier who hr^ vo commil/ion may fi'pply the place of a Commander. Tlie necef- iity anfwers for the irregidarity.\'vYii\t the necelTit)'' lafts^ But would He be aclvnowlecIgM a Comiriandcr, if, when there is no neccflity, He jflionld ftill pretend to that office without another Commijuon in a regular way? Necefity gives a ^'^an a Licenfe to praBice PhyJicK ?« cin extraordinary cafe^ an J when He can have no Licenfe in a regular way. Has H*- therefo.e a Licenfe to pradice when this neceiil- ty is gone? or does that Licenfe which neccflity gives laft any longer than the neceiSity it feif? At a time when it is impoiFible to procure a Commiifi-^. en from the King, fuppofe any Perfon,upon the manifcft danger of that Kingdom, Ihould take upon Him to be. Lord Deputy of Frelavd:, that neccllity would make all his adts valid whilftitlaftcd : but wlien He could have a formal Commijion iiom the King, and would not^ is it fit He Ihould be acknowledged as Governor ? or,Is the Power, which necelTity conveyed to him, after that to be obey 'd? As, therefore, in ihefe cd^cs^NeceJfity given a Commiilion to thefe perfons, and we allow of this necelfity t, as they have ^3 much power toad upon this necelfity, aisif they had a Commiilion in the moil regular way ^ and as they cannot be acknowlcig'd to ad by Commijfion when they may, but will not, liave it in a regular wa}'', and the ne- celfity ceafcs : ^o let it be in the cafe before us. A real neceflity gives you aCommilfion to ad, and to go out • of the regular w^ay. This necelfity makes all your acts valid whilft it lafts: and they remain valid becaufe they ■depend entirely upon the Power you had at the time they were done, and not at all upon the Power you have af- , ^erwards. But if you refufe to take out commillionsin 4 , rirguJar way, when that necefilty is gone ^ you have no , more pretenfe to Power and Authority, than the Perfons in the Cafes before-mention'd. I The Reafanahknefs of Conformity^ 1 1| I Tee not what can be objedted here, unlefs if be this. Since we allow you no Authority in what you do now^ and'do not think that God approves of your Ordiiiatioit, now you may hsive Epif copal OrdiJiatiov, and refufe it^ why do we not infift upon iherebapt'iZ77!g of thofe who are haptizd hy you, ^c.'> why do we allow your ads valid now we grant no neceliity? to which Air. Baxter furniihes us with a reply. If the Lord- ' ^ ^^^' Deputy 0/ Ireland were dead.atid one (Imildfo coiivterfeit the Kivga Hand and Seal, as that the Nobles ar.d People could not difcern it^andjlmiildannex this to a grant for the Flyce^rvd fjjem it to the People, and claim the Power by it-^ if this Man continue 1 he exercife of this Power for a Tear before the deceit he difco- vered^all his anions mufibe valid ^s to the Benefit of the Com- monwealth., tho' they are trcafonable to Hi7nfelf From which it isplain,That asthe honeit People ought not to fijfter for the treafon of their pretended Governor j {o God will take care that the tndy honejl People fliall receive no hurt for the fault of others ^ that, as the ^ingm3.y approve of the aftions themfelves, as they refpeCt the^fop/^- and yet not approve of the Perfons pretenlionstohis authorit^r. fo Almight}^ God may approve of the adiions oi Miniffe?'^ ■as they refpectthehoneft andwell-meaning PcopZc'-and yet not approve at ail of the Minipy conHA^Y' A as fucJi^ that as the Gox;^/"«or's adions were valid,tho' He had reall}'' no commiifion ^ fo the adions of a Minifter maybe valid, and jQiYasOrdination no proper O/'^iw^ffowj which was the thing I delign'd to prove from this inftance. Indeed Mr. Baxter^^tms, juft before, to lay it down for a truth, that if the a^iom are 7iot omll, neither can the ordinations. But, if this inftance do not plainly prove the contrary, I confefs I cannot underftand it, vi%. that the ordination may be noffs- at all, and yet the a&ions not jmll. For it is the inftance ^6f one who has no commiJlion, but is guilty of Treafon 'in what he does ^ and yet the People are not to fuifer for ■this, becaufe it was impoffible for them to difcern it; and, ^fo his adions are not null : and yet he muft have a real ' pommiflion from the Kin^, before He can ad in that poft again. 12 The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. again. The parallel to this Govermvr and his Peoph, is the Mhujler and his Perple. As the Goverrtour has no au-, thority, and yet his acts arc valid : ^o the Minifter may have no authority, from Godson his part and yet his ac- tions may be valjd as to the people -^ Almighty God not permitting them to fufFer for the fault of others. This too may ferve to give fome account of the hlejjivg cf Heaven attendh^ your facred Mhi'iji rations^ which you feem to us to fpeak of, too often ^ becaufe if this may be allowed as an argument that God approv'd your ordiva-. tion, all Parties in the World v"i*-ill claim it^ and the moft irregidar w'lW plead it, and patronize under it thegreateft irregiilarhies imaginable. Pray confider this, Here is a prstCTided Goverroiir with no Comvnfion : many of his adti-' oHs are perhaps for the good of the Common-v/ealth^and yet this is no argument that he had a Commifion^ or that the Kmg approvM of his ailing in his name. So here. The Actions of a Minijler may be for the good of many honeftPerfons^and yet thisis no Argument that God approves his IrregnUr Orihtation^ The Bleffing, when- ever it is, is a reward to the Honefty of the well-mean- ing People •,and ought not to be interpreted as an appro- bation of the Authority ohhe Mhufter : as the King's per- mitting the adions of that pretended Governour to be valid, is due to the Honefty of the People who could not find out the deceit •, but cannot be thought an approbati- on of the pretenfes of that Perfon, who was guilty of Trejfon, in counterfeiting his Hand and Seal. The refult of what 1 have faid is this. Thofe of you who were ordainVi by Presbyters^ without Bifiops, becaufe Epifcopal Ordination could not be had, (which }Ax.\Cala- my gives us leave to take for the true reafon,) we ac- jknowledge to Jiave liad a real Ordination ; and yoitr Authority to have lafted as long as that neceiUty lafted^ and confequently, all your A<3:s valid, even as to the authority cf them •, this wcejjity making them fo, as effedually as if you had hadre^ularOrdinationBut when that necejiity cegs'd, we dar'd no more acknow- ledge The ^'eafonahlenefs of Conformity. i ^ leclge an authority founded only upon a cafe of neceifity, \Vithout a regular Commijion, when it might be had- thari we dare acknowledge him to be truly the King's Vicege- rent, who, becaufe, in Cafe of abfolute Necelfit}?-, he hai the Command of a Country without a regular Conmifion^ therefore when he can have this regular CommiJjion^xtiu^Q^ /to take it, Thofe of you who have iince the Re-eftablifh- ment of Epifopacy refus'd either to conform as Laymen^ or to enter into theMiniftr}'' at this Door ; after our mofl: ferious Conlideration, we cannot but judge to have put an open and vifible Neglect upon Regular Ordination^ without an apparent Necelilty •, giving occasion by this means to more grievous Irregularities. And therefore, tho' we think your A6tions valid, thro' the Mercy of God, to honeft and well-meaning People 5 j^'etwedarenot fay that God approves your Ordination in a way we take to be ir) egular ^ nor can we confent by our Adtions to give Encouragement to fuch Viodn'mts 2iS this, To at Regularity is jiot to he regarded, whenever any Perfons will pretend a Ne" cejjity : for thither this tends, how little foever you defign it. Coniider this, and fee if there be no reafon why you. Ihould comply in this Point ^ at leaft, if there be no rea- fon for us to requeftyou not to go on to lay this umiecef^ faryBarin the way of others. 2. Having thus given fome Account of the Reafons of what we require in this Point-, I will now coniider thofe Objections I find offered in your Names againft it. A* mongft which I do not find any taken from the Unrea- fonablenefs of Bpifcopal Ordination -, or any thing faid againft it ^ but all that is objeded is drawn from that un- happy Circumftance of an Ordination before. And this being ftill the Cafe-, I (hall endeavour, if what I have faid before benotfatisfa6tory,to remove theXe Scruples. What t find urg'd is comprehended under thefe Three Heads, I. The Peace of your awn Confciences. 2. The Cre- dit of the Reformed Churches abroad. 3. The Scruples of your own People. For, as to 7mUifying your pajl Ordi* Nations, I hope I have faid what is fufficient* ■ " ■ " I. As ^4 T^"^ Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. 1. As to the 'Peace of your Cottfcmtces ^ we are not for perfuading 3^ou to ad: againft jour Confciences ^ to pre-, yaricate orp/^)! ivf/fe /jo/); Thhigs. But, if what I have laid down before be true, that an irregular Ordinatioii is none at alt, when there is no abfolute NecejTity • and, fuppofing there was an abfolute Necellity, that it lafts, no longer than that Neccffity lafts •, here can be no playhrg with holy Tbhigs, to feek it in a regular wzlj ; becaufe. according to this .Reafoning, you are wholly unqualify 'd to a6t as M'lnijlers without it. And we prefs it upon you feriouHy toconlider,if thi^ be not a fair and reafonable Account of the Matter. .. , ' 2. As to the Credit of the Refoniid Churches ahroaJ; we think it lioPrefumption, as wecenfurenot them, wlio in a Cafe of Necellity went out of the ordinary Methodj fo to expert they will not cenfure us for not approving Irregiilarhiesj when there is ho fuch Neceiiity for them. And we judge that you your felves adl as you think juft and reafonable, Vi^ithout that Regard to them here pre- tended ^ and fhall judge fo, till we fee you remoi^e, alter, and reform, every thing amcngft you, which the Re- form'd Churcheis abroad difprove, either in their Decla- rations, or their Practice. Nor do v/e think you would, allow it a good Argument for our infifting upon this, if we could produce Reform' d Churches abroad of the fame Opinion with us in this Point; unlefs yoU were other- ivife convinced. 3. As to the Scruples of your Teople-^ we defire to know, whether you Will allow it a good Argument for our in- jlfting upon this, that, if we ihould admit you into the Miniftry without it, this will raife eyidlefs Scruples in the Mind3 of our bell and moil underftanding Pfople ^ to fee Men admitted, and acknowledged as Miniftcrs, who have, without an abfolute Necelhty, as they think, de-. parted from the fettled Metliod q{ Ordination, and wil-j fully fou.g]itf;rf^n/ar Ordinations. Now iinccF-^i?, as wellj jis Tow, liavethis Plea^ isit not more fitting that this! Plea ihould be laid afide, than urg'd as an Argument 2l^ gainft Us ? is it not more becoming, on each lide, to ar- gu«1 The Reafojiahknefs of Conformity. i^ gue from the RejfovahUnefs or Unreafonahlenefs ot the thing it felf, than from the Scruples of the people ? unlefg perhaps it be worth while to enquire, v/hether the Scrii^ ptes on the part of Regular Ordhmtiom be not to be much more regarded, than the Scruples on the part c{i;re;^jthr Ordinations. Wedefireyou to coniider, whether, ifyOii your felves were fatisfy'd of the ReafonabUnefs of this- you have not Influence enough upon your People to per- fuade them againfi: iiiireafovahle Scruples. A thing, which if you had ferioufly undertaken, how much Good might you have done ! how much Evil might you have pre- vented! Now, if jrou cannot agree to this, becaufe the thing is unreafonable ^ why are the People\t to return to the Point we are now upon •, I muft entreat jou to conflder, T. That we are cominanded to confine this AJfevt, and Covffvt, to the t/j^ of all Things contained, and prefcrib d, in this Book, by the exprefs Words of the A^ it felf ^ and forbid plainly by it to refer the Covfent to the Ufe of all Things, and the Apntto the Truth of every Propofition, as vou do •, as plainly forbid as we can be. For the A&. it felf applies both thefe Words to the Ufe, and the Ufe 6nly-, injoiningthe Minifter to declare hu Affent and Covfeut both, to the Ufe of all Thhi^s in this Book. "Who- ever, therefore, declares his Ajfent to the Truth of every Propofition in it,andhisCo7//^wt,tothe LJ^ of every thing prelcrib'd in it •, tho' he do not do more than he himfelf may think lawful •, ^^et he certainly does more than thfe AB requires, and muft be at fome Pains to reconcile it with the Intent of the Act plainly declar'd. You fhall declare both your AJfcut^ and Confevt^ to the Ufe of all Things in this Book, fays the AH eiprefly. No, fay fome, Rather than we will do this, we will makea Diffi- ctilty here, and fay that we are required to confeott to one thing, and affcnt to another. By what Authority, I pray 3^0u, can this be done ? You can plead no Foundation ifor this in the Intent of the AB, as far as it is declar'd ^ becaufe that determines one as well as the other, Ajfe7itan well as Confent, only to the Uje of the Book. So that the Act does not leave you at Liberty, if you would never fo fain, to make this Declaration in your hard Senfe; for it requires you not to do it, but to give both AlJhit and Covfent to one thing, even the Ufe of this Book. Kow We entreat j^ou not toperfifl in creating moreDif- iiculties than there really are. And that what I have faid upon this Head may have the miorc Effeft, I fhall ^ropofe to you, 2. The Example of Dr. Bates, andfundry V '5/5?^" ' other No-nconfo? vi'ifs, to the Nujnber ofTwen^ t) •, who took an Oath that they would not at any The Reafonahleuejs of Conformity. 21 M^y time endeavour avy Alteration in the Government ehher m Church or State^ as foon as ever the Lord-Keeper had declar'd openly, that by £77 Jf^wir/* was meant unlawful Endeavour. The Lord-Keeper then did in efteft fay thus to themyToitfiall fwear that you will not unlawly endeavour an Alteration in Church or State ^ in thefe Words, I will not at any time endeavour any Alteration of the Govern- ment either in Church or State. And the AcSof Unifor- mity fays, Ton fi all declare your AJfent av.d Covfevt to the Ufe of all Things in this Book, in thefe Words, &c. If, therefore upon the Authority of one fingle Perfon, they thought itreafonabie to confine the AVord Endeavour Xo Ttnlawful Endeavour ^ much more muft they think it rea- fonable, upon the Authority of that A^ it felf which re- quires this Declaration, to apply both AJjhit and Con- fent, only to the Ufe of this Bonk. In the one Cafe you have only the Opinion of one learned Lawyer that it was meant fo- in the other you are left at no Liberty, but are abfolutely determin'd by the very Farliament that made the A^, that it was meant fo. But I argue further, fuppofing th^ABix. felf did not determine both Afent and Confent to the Ufe of the Book, yet 3> The Nature, Manner, and Form of all Law-deeds, sind puhlick Declarations^ require this way of Interpreta- tion, and condemn the other. This is drawn up accord- ing to the Manner of our Law, in which nothing Co com- mon as to gather together Words of very little or no dif- ference in their Signification, and to apply them all to one thing. Thus, to give and to grant, tho' there be feme fmall difference in their Signification, to renounce aiid abjure, and thefe very Words, Ajfent and Confmt, with a Hundred other difi^erent Terms, are found to be applied to one and the fame thing. And, therefore, if the Aii had only faid, you. Jlmll declare that you agree to the Ufe of all 'Things in this Book, in thefe IFords.t, yet I fliould have thought it much more reafonable. from the conftant Form of exprdllng fuch Declarations, to have applied both Words to one thing ^ than to have argu d the con- C 3 trary 2 2 77?^ Reafo7iablenep of Conformity, trary way, from the Ufe of Two different Words. Axid^ therefore, had not the AB done it for us, we think it' needs no Evajioii, or DiJl'inBmi., to determine both Affent and Coiifent to the Ufe of the Common-Prayer Book-^to the Ufe of all Things contain d in, and p.refcri(?'d by it. But the y^has really done it for us. JSuppoiing, therefore, that fome of the firft Promoters of this AB had evil and pernicious Defigns ^ yet fince it is a moft ufual thing in our Legjl Forms to appl3r Two or more Words to one and the fame thing •, and iince we are all agreed that one of thefe Words ought to be applied to the life of thisBook5j I think we may,without theleaft Violence to the Words, or pur own Confciences, apply them both to that only, there being nothing againft it in the AB it felf. Having therefore, Ihewn that this Declaration may fairly and honeftly be made with refpedonly to the Ufi of this Book, fuppoiing the AB had not fo plainly deter- mined it ^ having prov'd from the Pradtice of fome Emi- nent Men amongft )^our felves, that if one lingle Perfon ofA^^thority in the State ^ determine any irord in an Oath 10 one certain Signification, which is not fo plainly determin'd to it in trie Oath it felf, the Oath may be lawfully taken •, having plainly demonftrated, that this AB it felf (the grealeft Authorit}'^ we could havej has de- termin'd exprefly both Affent and Confcnt to the Ufe of this Book^ and is fo far from making i]\\^ Declaration re- fpe6l xhtTnith of every Fropojition iv it, that it never men- tions the thing, but fays, in efre61:,what utterly excludes this Senfe of the Words ^ we humbly hope, that we Ihall ^lot any more hear of ftretchijtg our Confciences in this Point •, and that Tou will not continue to maintain Pre- 3'udices againft this AB, which it gives you not the leaft pccalion to take up. As for the Siihfcription requir'd, I never heard that it was efteem'd any confiderable Difficulty ^ nor do I fee how it can be, if it be explain'd according to its Origi- nal Defign^ which appears plainly to be none but this, that all who nmijier in this Church Ihould be under an The Reafonabknefs of Conformity. 25 OMigation to ufe this Book. Accordingly Three Things they are requir'd to fu'^icribe. t . That the Book of Com-r 7no?i-Prayer, attd of ordering Bifiops, Priejis, a-nd Deacons, contahieth in it nothing contrary totheWordofGod. 2. TIjat it may lawfully fo he vfed. 3. That they thejnfelves will ufe the Form in the faid Bookprefcrib'd^in publick Prayer, and Adminifiration of the Saraments-^ and none other. Where it is plain, that this Book is conlider'd only as a Book fram'd to direct the Behavicur of thofe who officiate in publick ^ what Prayers and what Ceremonies they are to ufe • without having any Regard to every particular Sentence inferted in the Prefaces, or Rubrics, which do not refpe^t, or direct, the Behaviour of the Minijier. I fay not this,becaufe I think there are any fuch Sentences in the Prefaces or Rubrics^ which are contrary to God's If'^ordy for I know of no fuch : but only becaufe I am perfuaded this was the Original Delign of the Subfcription. Nay, thofe few Sentences, not relating to the Ufe of the illiwi- fler, which you except againft^ cannot be thought contra- ry to God's Word, even by you who think them not true -, for granting them falfe, I do not fee how they contradid: any thing in the whole Bible. I have been the more concern'd upon the Matter of this Declaration and Subfcription, becaufe (tho" I be con- vinc'd that it is a great Crime for any one to pofefs his Senfe of any thing in Words not confiftent with it^ jet, on the other hand) I am fo far from thinking it a Virtue, that I cannot but account it a thing of very ill Confe- quence, and a piece of publick Diflervice, to deal very hardly with Declarations and Subfcriptiojis ; to ftretch them beyond what the Original Delign of them, or the Words in which they are exprefs'd, will fairly and ho- neftl}^ bear, in order to make them appear as rigid and unreafonable as polilble. What I think, and hope, I have provM, under this Head, may be reduc'd to this : That the Declaration of Afent and Confent cannot poiiibly be extended to anything but the Ufe of this Book : and that the Sub fcriptio7t concerns this Book, oiily as it is a Book C 4 di- 24 The Reafonabkjiefs of Conformity.* direding the Mhiijier what Prayen and what Ccremouks to ufe^ and has no reference to any thing in it that doe$ jiot concern the Mihifter who is to itfe \t. And from hence it follows, that whoever thinks this Book fit to be ufed i'i the Service ofGod,niay very fairly make this Declaration and Suhfcriptioii, without putting a StretcH either upon the Words, or upon his own Confcience. And I think it cannot be thought unreafonable, th^tall who minifiier in this Church te oblig'd to ufe this Liturgy., and publickly to declare they will ufe it. I proceed now to examine the Reafnnx, given in your Names, why you think this Sithfcription and Declaration unlawful, aud not to be coniply d with. I . This Stihfcription, arid Declaration., woJild be an Appro- bation of the Doil/im of real Baptifmal Regeneration, and certain Salvation confeqiient thereupon. For, it would he an. Approbation of that Rubric., that it is certain by God's Word, that' Baptiz'd Children dying before adua^ Sin,arefav'd ^^wJif woitldbe an Agreeynejttto ufe conjlant- iy after Baptifm a Thankfgiving to God., for that it hath pleas'd him to regenerate the Infant with his Holy Spi- rit. This is your firft Reafon. The former part of this relating to the Rubric, I de- ny ^ hav.'ng, as I think, fhewnbefore, that both the De- cU ration and Subfcription., concern only your Ufe of the Book •, not your highejl Jtifification, and Commendation, of ^very Point and Syllable, every Matter and Thiiig, contain d in the whole Book, and in every Page and Line of it. But I need not infift upon this. For all the Difficulty here is, that of a real Baptifmal Regeneration ; and not oiSalvati- on confequent thereupon. Suppofing this, it is true- and you fa}'', the 'Office does fuppofe it. But, in my Opinion, this is undoubtedly true, as it wasdefign'd a-part by it ielffura general Propoiition: nor could I ever have caird it intjueftion. For is it not true, and what every Body doubts nOt to fay, that B:rptifm admits Perfons into a S:ate of Favour with Qod? and would any one fcruple tofublcribe this Truth/ b.ecaufe there may be a Perfoii .. , . -_ .. . . .^^ ... -.^.._ -. __ ....... ^.^^ Tl^e Redfonahhiefs of Conformity. 2 J cllpt in Water, whom God does not accept to Bapiifm ? I believe not, becaufe the Proportion fpeaks only of Perfons duly Baptk'd. And, does it not folic w from hence, that if they die without having done any thing to put 'em out of this State, they ihall be fav'd? You niufi: be fenfible that there is no want of Texts to prove the former ^ and that the latter is as plain a Confecjuencei from it as one would wilh. Pray coniider if it be not very hard to deal as you do with this general Sentence. Confider that there is a great deal of difference between thefe Two Propofitions, Every individual Chilis whom the Mhtifier receives to Bjptiftn, whether he is a qualify d SuhjeS of Baptiffnor not, dying after this^ without actual Sin, tsfa- ved, and, Children which are Baptized according to God's Jford, dying withiut aBiial Sin, are faved: and remember, that you can never prove the Words to be incapable of thisSenfej or that any other was ever intended, or fo much as thought of by thofe who plac'd them here. And that you your felves fometimes underftand it without reference to this Church, or this Office, is plain from your fuppos'd Inftance which follows. And fure you cannot think, if this was faid o£ Baptized Children in ge- neral, without refpett to the Prefcriptions of this, or any other Church, that any Children were intended by it, i)Ut fuch as are duly Baptized, and admitted into the Church accordfing to God s Will. Indeed if you demand fuch a Text of Scripture for the Salvation of fome whom, you fay, our Church admits to Baptifn, as you produce for their Damnation-^ we acknowledge, we fhall never be "olicitous to produce one. We freely confefs our Ignorance -, ind own that we ?.re fo fooliih as to think that, in the jSccond Commandment, Almighty God, neither by Children jinderftood Irfants dying before aBual Sin -, nor in the P«- mJl)7nent\\Q fpeaks of there, had the leaft refpe6: to their ^ondixiow in aiiotherJFof^ld'^ nay, we judge it contrary his Nature, and all his Declarations, to determine e future Eftate of any Perfon by the Behaviour of ano- e^. If this be all that mi^ht waks ths Matter dubious^ '"' "' ^ ■ ^" "' " '"~'"" I'm 2 6 The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. I'm fure it may be as true a Proportion as eyer was laid down for all this. And when you can fhew that this Text ought to be underftood either of fuch Ivfavts^ or of the Pimij})me'nts oi another World, I will undertake to pro- duce as many as you can demand for the Salvation of all hifants. What is farther objecied is taken from fome fup~ pofed Cafes, deiign'd to prove that according to this Bo- dtrine it in in the Power of Men to give Salvation. We muft confefs that we are utterly at a lofs what to fay to fuch Objections ^ and utterly furpriz'd, when we meet with fuchdiftant and extraordinary Suppofitions drawn in to prove the Falflioodof a Proportion fram'd for a Chri- jftian Country, and relating only to Children duly Bapr tiz'd. But we reply, that this Salvation depends wholly upon GoJ'j accepting the Peifonsf which this Rubric obli- geth us not to affirm he does, in fuch Cafes as you here put) and til at 3'our fiippofed Chrijlian King has no more jeal Power of giving Salvation to Infants (tho' it fhould be true that the Infants he murthers are fav'd) than a Fagan King would have, Ihould he conquer a Country of good Chriftians and kill them all immediately •, and yet it may be true that all good Chriftians are favd: Or no more than every good Chriftian has the Gift of Salvation m his Power when he brings his Child to Baptifm: nay, no more than a Fever, or any Diftemper that kills them has the Gift of Salvation in its Power. Give me leave to tell you, that it is fuch unaccountable OhjeBions as this-, the Strefs that feems to be laid upon them ^ and the Study with which the}'- appear to have been fought for^ that make fome in the World fo apt to fufpedt, and fo for- ward to declare, that no Agreement can ever be hop'd ; for. ; But I muft not forget to fa}?- fomething to this Baptif- ' inal Rege7ie ration wKid^ you objed againft. I am fo little ; acquainted with the Art of dijlingniflmtg, that I know no difrerence between a Regeneration and a real Regeneration. If there be a Regenerati ut, I think it is real : and if there te a real Rcgencrc.tionj it is to be afcrib'd to the Spirit of ', ' .' '" God, The Reafonablenefs of Conformity 37 God* And becaufe it always appeared to me that who- ever was receiv'd into the ChrJjiimt Chirch by God's Mi- nifter, with Prayers di reded by the Congregation to God, and with fufficicnt Security for his good Education, was duly receiv'd, and according to God's Will ^ I never doubted but that God receiv'd fuch to his Favour, and heard the Prayers of his People, and approvd of their Baptifm : ancl becaufe I thought they were duly made Chnjliavs^ I could not but think the Holy Spirit of God refided in them, as they were now the Temples of God, The Scripture leads us to think thus ^ and, confequeni ly, to think that they are regenerated (in the Scripture-iioiion, of that Word) as they are entered into this new Eftate- and that, by the Holy Ghoji^ as they are intituled to all his Influences and Ailiftances, purchas'd by the Blood of Chrift. We know not of any thing in Scripture to in-* duce us to think otherwife ^ and, therefore, we do not feparate what St. Paul hath join'd together, the wajlung of Regeneration^ and renewing of the Holy Ghojf, Tit. 5. 5. in fpeaking of the whole Chrijiian Church. But we can hardly perfuade ourfelves that you believe as you fpeak, when you fay, your Rf afon for not concurring with us in this, h^for fear of contrihiitivgto the hardning cfca;elefs Men in the Opinion that they are regenerate^ and need no far- ther Care. We, on the contrary, think tlie Point now before us a perfuafive Argument to the greateft Care and Diligence. For if Men were rege7ierated by tie Holy Ghnft^ and made the Temples of God by Baptifm, how much does it concern them to live as fuch ^ not to defile the Tejnpla of God, or drive his Spirit from them ? And in this we hatter our felves that we imitate St. Faiil, and the other Apoltles, who in their Writings have faid this very thing, and all the glorious Things imaginable of all pro^ "efs'd Baptised Chriftians in general ^ and yet never :hought them an Encouragement to Security, but always niifted on them as tbe propereft Arguments to the grea- ijeft Care and diligence. And it would be worth while- lb enquire, whether the fame Objedions do not lye a- gainll: 2 8 The Reafbnahlemfs ef Conformity, gainfl: what St. Taul affirms of Baptized Chnjiiam, as da ag^inft what our Church fays of them. The only Difficulty here, as I think, is th^ admitting aU Comers to Baptifm, without a Liberty ofrefiijing the Chil- dren of hijideh^ or the moji fcandalous Sinners^ provided they have hit SpGvfors^ as you exprefs it. Now this Office of our Church was certainly fram'd for a Chriflian Country | a Country where all were profefs'd Chriftians, and re- ifpefts the Children of fnch. And, as for thofe extraor- dinary Caps in which our Church is fuppos'd te allow Bap- tijvi'^ where is the great Fault, and where is the ill Con-^ fequence of thinking that, if any Perfons folemnly un- dertake the good and Chriftian Education of a Child, they have hereby a fafficient Right to devote him to God •, that the Church hath fufficient Reafon to receive the Ivfant -, that God will of his infinite Mercy, in re- gard to their Prayers and good Defigns, look favourably upon him ? I fay, where is the Crime of thinking this^ What great Defign of Chriftianity, what Precept of the Gofpel, does this contradid ? But I know not that Bap- tiim may not, according to the Church of Evglaiid, be deny'd to the Children of Atheijis^ J^^s, Ivfideh^ &c. For the Oj^ce fuppofes a Chriftian Country, and Chriftian Parents. And, as for the Children oiprofejfed Chriftians, I account the ProfeJJi n of Chriftianity in their Parents fufficient to entitle them to Baptifm-^ as I find, in the Apoftles Days, the Profefwn only of Faith in Chrifl^ ^ whether flncere or not ) was fufficient to entitle any to it. To proceed, 2. The Second OhjcBion againft this Afthit, Confent, and Snhfcription, is this, that they extend to the life of Godfa- thers and Godmothers in Baptifm^ to the Exchtfon ofParejits, But here we muft complain that this is not truly and fair- ly reprefented^but exprefs 'd fo as beft ferves toraifeand increafe the averfion of the People to the Church "We elefire you to confider, whether the Parents be not to pro- vide thefe Sponfors ^ whether the Parents, in providing what the CiiuicJi thinks re^uilite, and offering their Chil- : - - - ^^^^ The Re^fonahkiiep of Conformity^ 2^ (ffen to Baptifm, with, this fecurity for their goad educa- tion., do not truly and properly themfelves devote their Children by Baptifm to God ^ whether this be not their own adt and deed as much as if thejr had no Spovfors ^ whether any Chriftian may not engage himfelf folcmnly for the good Education of another -, and whether his own willing- iiefs, do not give him right fufEcient to do this; whether the Pjrerits own aft, where there are Parents, in offering the Child to Baptifm, and providing thefe Sponfors in or- der to it, be not fuppofed in the Office 5 and, confequent- ly, whether their Faith (in all ordinary Cafes) be not the fuppofed ground of the Child's Baptifm (according to our Church) as the Country is Chrifiian, and as the Parents are required to provide for their Children thefc Spcvfors ^ and, laftly, whether the groffeft abufe of an inftitution, which if it were but duly regarded, would be moft ufe-* ful, be a fufficient argument again ft the inftitution it felf Now, if the Parentx he to provide thefe SpoTtfors^ why fhould it be urg'd that they are not required to be chofen with due Care ^ when this certainly will be proportiona- ble to the care and concern the Parents themfelves have for their Children ^ and if they have none, hew will the matter be mended by admitting the Parents without the Spovfors > And we imagine, that if you had been as dili-' Igent in finding out ufeful Cano7is, as thofe you account fo liable to exception,you would have feen One that Ihews, that they who require Godfathers and Godmothers^ require lalfo, that none IViould be admitted as fuch, before they have received the holy Commnmon 5 Can* 2^* bid, therefore, ought not to be reprefented as if they had taken no manner of care about this^ hit ope- ned a wide door to the prof aimtg this Solemyiity. We confefs 3ur felves fo Ihort-fighted, that we cannot plainly difcerii (lowthe method of our Chvrch tends to the Frofmivg this IrdimJice, more than theadminiftring it withomSponfors^ II the next place. If thefe Parents^ in providing what the "hurqh requires '^ i^t offerivg their Children to Baptifm, with 'onfors J do fujlciemly and cffe dually teflify their refohtion to go The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. to devote their Children to God •, andth'n devoting them in this ^jy be their own Aci '^ We defire to know, with what Ju- ftice the Church is taxed with jjiflling Parents out of their ri{^h't ; ?.nd the People incenfcd againilit bj fuch Phrafes gs thefe, as againft an unnatural and cruel Oppreffor? Again, // the Faith of the Parents (in all ordinary Cafes) a7rd their providing thefeSponfo' s themfelves, and offering their Children to Baptifju with thefe^ be fuppofed by our Church i^ and be in truth the ground of the adminijiration of this Rite in a Chrijiian Country •, wh}'' is the Contrary maintain'd and fixM upon the Churchy as if it were the plain declaration, end profefled dodtrine of it ? Again, If ft be agreeable to the Chrifiian Religion^ that a Chrijlian mciy folemnly take upon him the good education of an Infant , What need is there of a jiatural right, or Poftive Law ^ And how comes the want of thefe to be an ohjedion againft a lawful, I may fay a. commendable a6tion ? Laftofall, U the gropjl ahufe\f an injfitution in it felf iifeful (as we take this to bej be not aftiffcient argument again]} the hijlitution ^ what do you pro-, pofc to your felves by arguing from the carlefsnefs ef God-fathers againft the ufe of them at all > Were all the ■ Minijlers in the Land forgetful 6^ their MinifterialObligati' ■ ons •, would it therefore follow that it was not a ufeful thin^ ; for them publickly to own thefe obligations when they ' Were rnade Alinijiers ? Did all who own their Baptifnial Co- venant in your way, prove the moft carelefs and finfuj : Men afterwards^ would you acknowledge the thing it ^: felf ufelefs, or lay it aiide ? Yet in this cafe it might be faid, they were brought to avouch a gre&t Untruth in the fad, of God and his Church, For you can no more prove th^t they areiincere, than we ran that God-fathers are, at th" time when they folemnly profefs themfelves as'ifthe were. But above all, it is very hard that you ftiould fpea, here, as if this encourag\l Parents in a carelefsnefs abou then- Children^ or as if the Chufch took off any part < their duty from them, by providing more efFeftually f< their Children's advantage. Good Parents can never ta' advantage from this inftitution to be unnatural, a carelefi The Reafonahtenefs of Conformity* 31 carelefs of their Children: Bai Parents may, tilt then they would have been as carelefs without it ^ and their Children in a much worfe condition. And though we be- wail the little regard many God-fathers have to the ferious part of their Office (without thinking this an argument againft the Church) yet we hope there are fome fo fen- iible of their obligations, that they omit no opportunity of doing their duty. 3. The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Reafons why you can- not conform as Mimjlers, are, becaufethis Ajfent^ Covftnt^ and Svbfcription, would oblige you to dejty Baptifm tofuch as had not Spovfors, tho' they had a real right to that Ordirtance ; «wJ to the Children offuch as would 7Wt permit them to be fgfi'd with the travjient Jign of the Crofs ^ and to deny the CoM- munion tofuch as would not receive it Kneeling. I put thefe three together, becaufe they come under the common Head of Terms of Communion, and Impoftions, againft which your zeal feems chiefly to lye^ and becaufe the argument man- ag'd under thefe Heads is not fo much defign'd againft the things themfelves, as againft the making them Terms of Communion : the lawfulnefs of which I ftiall now confider ; andfo remove, if I can, the objedtions here brought a- gainft it. Only, becaufe you have advanc'd fomething againft the vfe of the Crofs in Baptifm, as well as againft the impofing it-, I muft take fome notice of that firft, and then I fhall come to the matter of Impofiticvs. All 3^our Arguments againft tliis are at lattrefolved into jthefe three ^ that this feemeth io be anewSacramicnt ^ that iit looks as if Baptifm were not a fufticient Bond without Ijthis ^ nay, at laft we find it exprefs'd thus, that though :he Church hath declared this iign tobezw token theperjhn liall 7iot he afl}a7ned, &c. yet lince the generality are apt :o underftand it, that in virtfie a^td power of this Jign the per* Ton fhall not beaftiamed, 2o« dare yiot concur in giving occa- fion knowingly offucha viifunderjianding to the vulgar and iw- hidicious. But give us leave to examine what is here ob- [edtedmore carefuU}''. Onereafon then againft it, is, that )ou dare not concur in giving an occafon offuch a mi f under Ji and- ing ^i The Reafonahleiiefs ^Conformity. *ytg to 1 7)6 vulgar avd hjjvdicmis. You dare not ufe the word^ in token, becaufe They may be apt to think you do not mean in toke?! of fomething fignified, but in vertue ajtdpow^ er of the fign it felf Now, what end of our differences can we ever hope for, if fach methods be taken ^ if, when there is no reafon againft a thing, what is acknowledg'd tohe it'^reafoitaBle ihsiW be made an objedlion againft it, hy -thofe very perfons who, in many other cales, do them- f elves knowingly give occafion of imf-imderjlmidlng to per- fons fomewhat more judicious than thofe who can under- Hand words in a fenfe, which it is impoihble they fhould be meant in ? I could give many more inftances, but I will mention but one. Dare you mot concur in Occafional Communion^ becaufe fome of the Vulgar and hijudiciousj Yoii very well know, have fad mif-underjlandings about it ? If you dare, why do you argue here, as if Ton dard not concur in this, for that one Reafon ? which we cannot be- lieve, till we fee 3''ou omit all other things which yoii your felves think fit or proper, for the fame reafon. But while yow ufe our Service thus, we imagine you have done' it fome credit, by granting, as you here do, That they are injudicious perfons who can underfland by the words here us'd, that any grace is fuppos'd by the Church to be Wrought by this lign, or the ufe of it •, that the words muft be mifunderjiood before any fuch thing can be made out of them ^ and, confequently, that They muft ht inju- dicious perfons that can think this a new Sacrame7it. Another argument againft the life of this Sign is, that it looks as if Baptiffn, as Chriji had appointed it, were 7tot e- fieenid a Bond fuficiently jirjn and Jlrong. Not by us, who have declared, in exprefs and plain words, ihatBaptifmis com pie at without it, and the Infant a Chrijlian as much be- fore as after it. Befides, we imagine that fuch an objec- tion as this •, as ftrong, and as concluding, may be made againft you, or any who ufe any Prayers at Baptifm ^ or adminifter it with the addition of the leaftcircumftance to the primitive inftitution. For all this looks as if Baptifm, as ChriJl had appointed it, were ejleem d not fufficicnt to en- title The ^enfonahlenefs ainr(la charge againft the Church of jRo7;it' for making NewSacramejits^ upon fuch a foundation as you ftill con- tinue to do itagainft the Church of England? Had they on*^ ly feeynd new Sacraments •, Had the ivjuiicioiis only viifun derjiood their words, and built their reafonings upon luch, ini'f-iinderjlandings '^ Hadthe Romanifts, by public Acts, and by all the writers that handled this fubjed, decla*' red that, tho' they ufed an external fgnifcant Ceremony^ yet, they attributed Yiograce to ir ^ nothing which either they, or their adverfaries attributed to a Sacrament •, which cf our RcformersyN')\\\{\ liave continu'd to have tax'd them with tliis? vv^hich of them would have folHcitoufly drawn up feme obfcure and almoft unintelligible arguments againftfuch proof on the contrary fide? which of them would not have been glad to have drop't fuch a charge upon fuch plain proof ? which of them would have ar- gued againft the ufc of one little part cf their public iervice which onl}?" concerns the Minijier^ becaufe the in- judiciommW interpret a word in a fenfe of which judicious . ' ■ " ■" "' Men The ^ Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. 5 c Men fay it is uncapable > Not one, I verily telieve* And as we cannot agree with you in thefe Reafons 3- gainft the ufe ofthhjipt^ as it is appointed in our Church ^ fb neither do we think it a fufficient one for the total ne- glect of it, tfcdft we 7?iay vntnefs our dijlike avd detejlation of the vajjilyofthe Papijls herein. We imagine that we whvefs our dijlike aJiddetcJlation of the Sitperjlltinn of the Piipifs, by negleding That ufe of it, they plead for ; hy reducing it toafober and fingle ad: ^ by guarding it from all poiiibi- lity o( Idolatry and Superfitioii •, by making it wholly dif- ferent from what it is amongft them. And we are unwil- ling to give them fo great an advantage againft us, as we verily think it would be, if weihould, in reforming from them, not only rejed and condemn the abufe of a thing, but the thing it felf, merely b.ecaufe they ufe it after a fuperftitious manner. AVe are of opinion that this prin- ciple hath been the caufe of great deformities, and irre- gularities in the Church : and when it is obferv'd that we run from a Cufi:om,cr a pofture, or a ceremony, not becaufe it is likely now to be abufed,but becaufe the Papifs have ufed it in a fuperftitious manner ^ not only the Papjls, but others are apt to think, That it is Humour, and not Reafon, that directs us. Nay, we cfteem it more reafon- ably to iniift upon an innocent ufe of fomething theyhavQ' abufed, left we fhould encourage a principle as fiiperjli- tiom as their pradice •, and a principle that hath led fo many already to neglect nfeful things without any rea- fon •, than to take away the ufe of it wholly, becaufe they ufe it after an ill manner. In a word. We think that the reafon why it was ever ufed amongft Chriftians, is not fo wholly ceafed, but that it m.ay ftili be ufed once in this folemn ad of Religion. We think that we have always teftify'd our diflike of the Papifts, in every thing in which they are departed from the Gofpel, as eiFedually as any of our Brethren of whatfoever deno- nination-, and much more reafonably than thofe who lave run from the extreme they are in, to another. We :annotanfwer toour felves the condemning of a thing D 2 merely , ^6 lbs Reafonahlen^fs ^t^ Conforfnlty, merely becaufe the Fafiji% ufe it after another mannefi We hope wehcire taken fuch care, that it is almoft im- poifible that the ufi of this fign, as we retain it, fhould minifter to idolatry or SuperJ}itJo7t -^ and, upon the whole,' wefee not that any ofthefe arguments Ihew that it may not lawfully he it fed. ^ • Havnig thus confider'd what I find bffer'd againft the life of Godfathers • and the vfe of the C ofs in Bapifm ^ and finding nothing ailed g'd againft hieelivg at the Co?n- mujiion^ but rather a great deal for it -^ I return now to that which makci,' up the greateil: and moft terrible part of your charge, and that is the Tmpnftioiio^ thefe tiings^ the making them Terms of Commmiion ^ which you call, a rnamfefi encroachmevt iipoii the Kingly Tower of our S.iviour ^ a waking New Term^ of Cojnmiivion ^ ct cojitradiiiivg Chrijl's appointed Tenns •, a Jifiig that power to deJlruBion^ which was given to he vfed to Edifcatioti. "With what juftice you have fo hard thoughts of the Churchof iiw^/aWin this particular, I fhall now freely examine-, wifliing you could be as impartial in confi- dering what can be olrer'd in defenfe of this, as you have J been foUicitous in drawing up this accufation agairii it. , What I have to fay on this Siihjed: fhall be under thefe following Heads. T. That the Bifiops^ who are tlie Governovrs of the Chitnh^have authority to order fuch things as thefe which; you fo grievoufl)'- complain of. 2. That St. Paul fays nothing againft this in the four-' teenth Chapter to the Rojnans. 9. That Mr. Baxter s pradice, and the praBice of the^ Independents, \s for Impoftions. Thefe Confderations will,- I think, contain a fufficient anfwer to all that hath been objedcd on this account. . I. That the Bijhops have authority to prefcribe thefe- things which are fo gricvoufly complained of This au-, thoriiy, we (ay, they have, as they received the care off the church from their. PrcdecefTors-, as they are obliged t take the rnoft effectuiil mtthods for th© x:)refervation o: Order, The Reafonahlenejs of Conformity. 57 Orhr^ and Decettcy^ in the public,worfhip of God ^ and as it refults from the nature of all Societies^ that the Go- vernours of them fhould have a power of ordering what feems to them moft for the «bcauty and advantage of them ; that they fhould be the judges of what conduces to this end, and fhould have a title to the obedience of the people under their care, in whatever docs not con- tradidt the Laws of that Society by which they are all to be governed. Nor do I find but that you would have joined with them, in the impofing and prefc; ibing fome things. Now then, if I can fhew that the very fame ob- jedions may be fram'd sgainft prefcnlnng thofe things which you could have complied with, that are brought in your names againft thofe other things which give yoii fo much offenfe •, this I fhall account a good argument to you, that the BiJJwm have authority to prefcribe in the one cafe, as well as the other. I inftance in thtir prefc rip' tions about Tme^ Place^ and Liturgy. For this particular f/w^, and pZcrc^, in exclufion to all others, are not abfo- lutely necefTary ^ and fome honeftMen will pretend they are fhut out from Comvntmon by impofing them. And as for a pnhlic Liturgy^ That you 3^our felves think it tin- ■Meceffary, is plain from your not uiing one in the Public Worlhip of God: And that you think it lawful tojoin with thofe Goventours who impofeouc^ is plain from your de- claring your readinefs to comply with our Covimon Prayer, were it altered as you would have it. And now let us con- jfider, if this be not exaftly parallel to the cafe before us. ' "Whoever will not have his Child baptiz'd with fitch Prayers at the time of Baptifm^ is as much excluded as he jthat fcruples to have it baptized, hecsLuCti the Jign of the Crofs is ufed after Baptifin : He that refufes to communi- cate with us, becaufe the M'mijler ufes this Form of Prayer t the Comnmmon^ is as much excluded as He that refufes |o communicate with us, becaufe He muft Imeel. As ma- y an honeft man may fcruple the one •, fo many n honeft man may fcruple the other. If an honeft n may be excluded for fcrupling the one ^ why not for D 5 fcrnpling 59 The Reafonahlenefr of Conformity^ fcruplingthe other? li Regularity and Decency m^ij in ihts. cafe be prcferr d before theiatisfaction of the fcruplcs o£ ignorant, and injudicious, tho' honcft men •, then, why is^ it urged as an infallible trutli, that exchidhig a MyXii, fup- pof;:d to be an honeft Man, for his fcnipks, is a moft un- pardonaWe, and intolerable crime in a Church ^ But to be more particular •, fuppolingthe Liturgy were made according to your minds, and jou fnould comply with this impojition, v/hich 3''ou were ready to do ^ We defire you to consider, if they who ftill thought fit to re- main NovcoTiformiJls^ might not read this {^mtfevere Lfc- tnre againft you:, and give in^hefe fame reafons for their Noncovfonnity. Jfe dare not cavfekfy deprive Sculs of vi- fble Chrifiatiity for want of art hnnave, mniecejfary, ifvot corrupt invention. We d^re 7iot make a Covenant to rob Chriji and the Church ofvijiblc member x for nothing-^ and confgn thofe over to the uncovenantcd mercies of God^ whom He (we well hr.ow) is ready to receive as his : and fo concur in fetting the jyill and advice of Man againjl Chrif, who faid^ Forbid them Y\oi.^andwas angry with ihafe who forbad them to come to him. Might not one of them thus exprefs himfelf, as well as one of you ? ShoU a Mijiijler dare to with-hold fo much good from, aud endeavour fo much evil to, the Souls of poor Infants, in denying the?n their Chrijiendom merely upon the ' account of fame accefjories, and fcruplcd accidents, lyivented and impofedly Man, and not at all of the E fence of Baptifni itfelf? &c.p. s'ic. and might not they argue as you do p. 5:19. We, dare not confent to this, becaufe we dare jiot confent to the alteri't^g the Terms ofChriJi's Covenant, and Sacrament '^ and to contradiB one of his fundamental laws. Bap ti%e, faith Chriji, all that are made difiples^ all that re- pent and believe.' i\o,f.uth the Church of England, Bap- 1 tite none that are proposed, tho they have all that is nccefary ' to make them the Difciples cf Chriji, urdefs they, or their Fa- rents, will filnnit to the ufe of this particular fof'm of Prayer at the time of Baptifm, This is a inavtifeji encroachment upo the Kindly p over oj our Saviour, in m.akivg ncwTermsofCotn Tnujiion, which we dare not concur in j a turjiing the Keys upon thofe The ReafonaMenefs of ConFoYmlty, 59 ihofe whom Chr'ifi is ready to receive ^ avd a ^ojitive rejeBin^ fuch as He requires us to Baptize. And tlm (as light as the Church makes of it, and they who canyofw with the Church in this) is in our ejieem a Jin of cm high nature^ and fo would our cojfenting to it too. The fame may be faid with refped: to a particular For^n of Prayer at the time of the adminiftration of the Holy Comm,nion : for a Perfon who fcruples joining in that, is as much excluded from the Coimmnuoiij as He who fcru- ples Kiieeliyjg. But I add farther, Suppcfing the Govenwurs of the Church appoint the Aiormvg^ as the particular time for the receiving the Holy Sacreiment •, and fome fhould fcruple this (as it has adtuall}^ happened j v/e defire you would confider whether the fame arguments may not be ufed againft the impofivg this, (which yet you approve of,) as 3''ou here produce againft complying with the Church that impofes Kveeling^ p. 514. For may not they who fhould wiwi/?^/- to thefefcrupulousperfonsthus apologize for their Nonconformity ^ JFe dare not confent to this, be* caufe this is a depriving Chrijl's jnembers of their light ^ an vfurpatlon upon Meni corfciences ^ and a tearing the Church hy dividing engines-^ hecaufe this would he obliging our fives to deny the Communion to the people^ on the account of their vot daring to go againfi the injlitutlon of Chrifl, the prdBlce of his Apofles, and the primitive univeT-fd Church •, to deny the- Comynunion to fuch as the Holy Ghoft hath required us to re- ceive to it : and hecaufe this is an impofing on the Church things antecedently unnccejfary, upon the hlghefi penalty^ viz . Exclu- f on from Communion '.y a eroding that great lule of Chanty^ I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice ^ and a ujlng that Pow \er to DeJfruBion, which was given to be ufed to Edifcatlojt. \}iven thofe ofiis^ who cannot charge the celebration of the Sa- crament in the nwnilng as fjiful, are yet afraid of excluding o- thers on fuch an account as that^ by reafon it u far from being fo necejfary a matter., but that theChurcJi, and the due ad-. miniftration of the Sacrament may be prefeiv'd without it. Ayid withal., Pcrfons might h^ve a very good reafon to be backward to yield to the altering of that Time at which our P 4 Saviour 40 The Reafin^Menefs of Con^rmity. Sctvlow hjlituted this Rite-^ and to he Jl)y offeeming to fypt' boUzs with Idolatep's, in celebrating it at that time which it is well known fovie have chofe, out of too much Veneration to the Elements them/elves •, which, tho' difclairnd by the Church c/England, yet is apt to be mijinterpreted. Sitppofe a Man fiohldvpon fear chingChxtrch-Hiflory find (ox fancy that he iinds) that the Time of Celebrating the Communion was never determined to the Morning till the Bo Irine of Tranfubfian- tiation was ejlablijl)' d : this alone (tho* he fwuld have nor thing farther to alledge) might be a valid Reafon for his ber hgfiy of that Time. But for Minifiers to enter into atty fvch Combination as to be obliged to tell fuch Mep, when de^ Jiringthe Comjnunion at the Evening^ Truly, while you are under this Scruple, tho' I may pity you for ^our Weaknefs, yet I can't own you for Chriftians, this w^ think hard^ and cannot comply with. All thefe Things may be faid againft this, or any other Prefcription not abfo- lutely necefTary to the being of the Church, or to the due Adminiftration of Chrift's Ordinances ^ and the fame Accjtfation ftands againft them, and againft thofe who fhould approve them. What I obferve upon this, is, that you your felves grant by this, that the Governours of the Church\i2iVG Au- thority to impofe fome iinnecejfary Things-., that it is not un- lawful toprefcribe Things antecedently unjteccjfary, under the highejl Penalty ', that Men, who may be call'd honejl, may fce dealt with after this manner on the account of their Scruples -, and that thefe Arguments, which hold as well againft thofe Impofitions you fay you could comply witli, as againft thofe you fay you cannot, are not fo plain, and fo dem-onftrative, that a wife Man ought to found a Matter of fuch Confequence, as a Separation from afetled Church, upon them. Fpr thus the Cafe fcems to me to ftand. You' grant that the Governours of the Church may impofe a Liturgy, and prefcribe the Time for performing ^religious OfKces ; for you would join with them in thefe iPrefcriptions, and would not ye-p^rii?^ from the Church in order to witnefs againfi thefe Impofitions, The Arguments ■ "" ' ■ • ' you The Reafonahlnefs of Con^oTmixy. # 4j you urge againft complying with the other Imposition? do appear to conclude as ftrongly againft your comply- ing with t^?/^. Therefore I think it follows unavoida- bly, that you ought to be as willing to comply with the pther as with tbefe •, to acknowledge the Power of the Go- vernoiirs inthe other as well as thrfe-^ to withftand a Se- paration founded upon the Impofition of the other, as you would do one founded upon the Impofition of thefe^ and not to inveigh fo bitterly againft what you have al-r low d and approved of, in Cafes exadly parallel, as far as your Arguments are concern'd •, for it cannot be more againft your Confciences to join in impofing the other upon the People, than to join in impofing thefe. Thefe Arguments, if they prove any thing, prove too much^ and, therefore, they prove nothing. Now fince thefe are the only Arguments you produce againft the Impojitiom jn the Church of England •, we think it ought to be a fuffir cientSatisfadlion toyourQiieftion, ^31 what Authority are thefe Things prefcriFd ? to an- Abridgment, fwer, by the fame Authority by which j'-ou P* ' ^' acknowledge the Goi'^n/owr^ of the Church may prefcribe fome other Things, againft which the ve- ry fame dreadful Ob jedtions lye: and we argue, that if, in one Cafe, the Governours ought not to be abus'd and inveigh'd againft, for the groundlefs Scruples cf the people-, certainly in others alfo, Obedience fliould i fometimes be preach'd to the People, rather than a vio- lent Ledure conftantly read againft their Vajlors-^ and that you ought fometimes to confider whither thefe Prin- I ciples tend, on which this terrible itiveBive againft Iwpo" Jitions is founded. I Now, whatever is thus order'd, becomes a Term of Communiov. One particular Time^ appointed •, the Litiir- gy prefcribM J become Terms of Cominujiion-^ and new Terms of Communion, in as much as Chritt made them not fo \ ^nd vnnecefary Terms of Communion, in ^s much as neither % JetForm in Exclufion to free Prayer is fo neceffary, in your Opinion, but that the great Eads of Chriftianjty ' ^ ' - ' may 4^ ^ -^^^^ ^s^fonahle7iefs of Conformity. may "be ferv'd without it- and much lefs the Appoint^ ment of One Hour of the Day in Exclufion to another, as agreeable to the Nature of the Sacrament. Yet thefe you are ready to comply with. From whence I collect that ^'■ou do not eftcem it fo great a Sin to malce new, miTiecefary Term^ of Covummon ^ as People m2ij be apt to tliink from 37'our Writings ^ or to prefcribe Things aytte- tedejitiy iiv.necejfary^ under the Penalty ot wo Conumnnon ■without them; nay, that it is your Opinion that Obe- tlience to the Goventotu s of the Church is reafonable in fach Cafes •, and, confequently, that a Separation founded upon an Abhorrence of fach Prefcriptiojjs (call them Ivi~ po[itioi}s^ or new Terms rf Coinmnmov, or Terms that covt/ a~ dici the lerms Chrift fetled, 05 Trcvifgrejiojts of the Law of Charity, or what you pleafe,) is an ill-grounded and Jui- reafovabU Separation. Hard Names alter not the Nature e£Thi7?gs-^ and for all the hard Names beftow'd upon thefe Prefcripti"7ix you do not li]ce, I cannot imagine them any more contrary to theVill of Chrifl, or: the Nature of his Rclii ion, than thofe which you could have approv'd of, and on which you bellow no hard Jfords. From what hath been faid I think it is plain, tliat ; •thpfe Governours of the Church do not fin, or vfe the Pov.'cr i ^'men them for Edification, to DefiriiBion, whoxlo not clog ; the Inftitutions of Chrift with troublefome and manifold: Impofitions •, who prefcribe what they efteem to be in it,i •felf reaf)nable and becomings wliat is the greateftSecu- ^ rity to Religion, and the Decencies of publick AVorlhip ^ | who have by publick Declarations prevented and an-"i fwer'd all the Objections that the Scrupulous are apt tol entertain againft them. It is plain that, according ta your felves, in the Cafe of a Liturgy, the Scruples of the ^ plumbers that think it a Sin to join with one, are not| ■to direit the Governours in their Prefriptions, or to over- •l^allance weightier Reafons. Here then you do not feem to think them 'chargeable withthe ill Confequences o£| fuch a Command', or- the Cojnviand unlawful, becaufe it will exclude fo many from Chirch-Comminiion, And yet I ve« The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity^.- 4 ? 1 verily think, that all the Arguments produced againft the o^^^r Prefcriptions lye as hard againft this. And I doubt not but many amongft thofe whofe common Caufe you plead, are of this ' Opinion. Butlfpcak to you who .are not averfe to fach a Command ^ and cannot but wonder how you could polfibly agree with cite im- 7ieceffary Impofition-^ and yet argue from fuch Principles againft others, as lye diredly againft all, as well as fovie. Again, Tliofe Govenwiirs who have order'd nothing, but what if all would ferioufly comply with, is certainly for the Gooi of the Church, have done their Duty, and cannot be charg'd with Sin. And fuch we efteem the Things commanded. I do not think that you can name one fingle ill Confequence, fliould all the People of the Land ferioufly endeavour to procure Spovfors for their Children^ comply reverently with Kneeling at the Com- munion^ and fubmit to have their Children fign'd with the Sign of theO'o/} after Eaptifm : and I am fure I could name a great many good ones. Certainly, that ComviancL is not unlawful, which, if it be ferioufly obey'd by all, procures many Advantages, and brings not one Difad- vantage to the Church. Neither is that Ccjnvmvd unlawful which enjoins a thing midci sidifproportionahle Penalty. For if it be, then the Go vernours of the Church can enjoin nothings neither this particular Time, nor this particular Liturgy. But they may do this, as you acknowledge ^ and yet the Penalty to him whofe Fault is only a Scruple about joining with this Form, and communicating at this Time, is no Communion. Therefore you cannot think this fufficient to make a Co7nmand unlawful. The plain State of the Cafe, |in this Point, appears to be this. They, to whom the Government of the Church is intrufted, are to prefcribe what they judge iit in the Service of God, according to the beft Light they have- leaving fuch Perfons to Qod and their own Confciences, as fay they dare not com- p\j with tliefe Prefcriptions. They are oblig'd to refift Irregularity, Diforder, and an ignorant Contempt of all ■" ^ ~ Au- 44 '^^ If they be a fuf- ficient Argument againft Conformity now; why would they not have been, fuppofing your own Ter7ns had been accepted > Nor do I fee any Force in your Objedi- on, that on the fame Reafons the Bif/wps im- Abndgmenti pofe the Crop and Surplice upon Mivijlers^ they P '7'** inight bring in abundance of Ccrenionies of the Church of Rom^, which we have caji out; becanfe t' is will lye againft the Impofition of every thing not abfo- lutely necelTary, as well as thofe Two : and I find you could approve of the Impofition of fome fuch Things. |We think the Behaviour, and Apparel, of the Minifter ho officiates, comes under the Care of the Governors of he Church •, and Prefcriptions about them are a Check ■O the Extremes, both of Indecency and fuperfcitious Pomp. Ve think they have Authority to fence againft thefe, and o impofe Rules of Behaviour in order to it. But then, ►ve think they go bejrond their Authority, when they introduce vain, fenfelefs, indecent Ceremonies ^ or abun- lanceofany fort, to be a Trouble and Burthen, rather han a Grace and Beauty, to Publick Worftiip. "When he Church of England doth this, then it is time to com- ^ain, and open fo vehemently againft the Abufe of Au- hority. And even then, I do not think a Separation can e juftify'd Becaufe a Separation is of a great deal Ij^orfe Confequence to both State and Church, than a Compliance with Authority in what had better not have ?en commanded. The Governor may tranfgrefs his uty in commanding, and yet I may be under an Obli- ^tion to obey. And the Pretenfe of witJtejfivg againft his |wpo/nW is not of half fo much force, as the witnejprg " " ' ' ' agmnf 4(5 The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. gahtfi public Dijlurbance and Diforder. But fince the Church of England hath not burthen'd the Public Wor- ^ Ihip with the abundance of Ceremonies you fpeak of* and fince thefe mention'd wholly refpedt the Minifter 5 methinks an Objedion (hould not be brought againft them, the Weaknefs of which appears at firfr Sight. For how does it follww. If the BiJIxops have Authority to pre- fcribeTwo Ceremonies^ that they have Authority to prefcribs Twenty ? or, if they have not Authority to burthen Goda Service with Ceremonies^ that they have not Authority lil.e~ wife toprefcribe One or Two ? The Fault lyes in the Va- nity, Indecency, or Number of Things prefcrib'd : and if there had been nothing to be objeded againft the Ro- viijix Ceremonies from thefe Topics-, our Reformers would hardly have urg'd an Abufe of Authority which might be in Times to come, as an Argum^ent againft an Autho- rity at the prefent Time. Having faid what appeared to me reafonable in defenfe of the Authority by which thefe things were firft pre^ I fcrib'd, I fhall add a Word or Two about the retainiirg 1 them. The hipoftions on which your heavieft Charge s founded, and which we are now treating of, are Spovfori at Eaptifm, The ufe of the Crofs after Baptifn, and Knee" ling at the Communion. I do not fee but that I have fhewn that the Governourso£ the Church had authority to prefcribe thefe ^ as much authority as they had to prefcribe other things with which you could comply. So then, thefe things were once prefcribed by a fufficient authority- an authority to which obedience in all lawful things was due. The perfons who fucceeded thofe who firft prefcribed thefe things found them order'd, as they thought, upon good grounds- they found the fcruples and prejudices in the people againft them to have arifen fince thefe things were order'd ^ and this without rcafon, and without foundation -^ they found many Men of fober underftandings who had , the meaneft opinion of thefe impofitions^ allowing thera either to be fuch as were lawful in themfelves, or fuch as would not juttify a feparation -, they found that the fame arguments The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. n^f argnracuts that were urg'd to prove it to "be their duty to la\'' afidetZ?^y^,mightbewith as much flrength urg'd againii: others -, and would as eftedtually prove it their duty to part with their Liturgy^ and any other prtfcriptions, upon the fcruples of the People : and not being willing to achnow- ledge, they had no authority, or right to iniift upon any fcrupled thing that is not cflentialto the woiihip or being of a Church, they could not but think it proper to iniiit upon thefe, rather than make fuchan acknowledgment^ they found, after all, that the advantage and union pro- pofedby the alteration of thefe terms was likely to ^^rove ill the ifTue none at all, unlefs other things of greater mx^ meiit, and what they dared not think of parting with, were removed alfo. Thus therefore tliey argued, Jf^s fivdthe removal of three 7??ipoJitio7is deynanded vpcn thefe iwB grounds, Timt We have jio aiithorhy to prefcrihe fiich thhigs 5 avd that many fcriiple to comply with thejn, and therefore can~ not have coinminnon with our Church, We have exami^ied thefe preteifes, and we jind that all the arguments that are vfed agaivjl our aiithorhy in thefe things, lie rjfrongly agahtj^ 2t in other things, which many of the Di fenti7!g Minijlcrs thejn- felves would have co?)ipUed with. We think that if we havt authofity to prefribe what is 7Wt cfential to the ChriJIian Church, We ought not to achtowledge we have not : and ws judge that if the fcruples rf the people, tho' never fo unreaf- nable, be the meafures of prefcribing, and altenvg; there is as much j^eafon, from this aigumcnt, to give up our Li-* turgy, and all Liturgies, as there is to give up thefe o- ther prefcriptions. If to retain the one, though it hin- der many fom Covwiunion with us, be not unlawfd •, 7!ei- teer is it unlawfd orjhful to retain the others. And by re- tainingthem iji oppojition to thofe who argue fo unre^ffnably^ We (hall ajfert that authority we are intrujied with ; We fi)all tejiify againjl unwarrantable feparathn ; Wc fiall give what check we can to thofe principles which have brought fuch cun" fufion and difrder into this Church and Nation r. and we pall rejijithe Dejigns of evil Men, who, as we judge, make life of the ipioranceoffoms honeji Chrifiaru to overturn our whols ' " ' ' covfntution ,4S The Reajonablenefs of Conformity. • co7iJ}hution, and, under their Jl)elter, Jlr'ike at our very root and foundation. Thus, I think, the cafe might be argued r and I lee not what can be replied by Tow, who argue up- on thcjprinciples I have been now examining. But you may now ask, Are you then for no alterations ^ Yes, I am fully perfuaded there may be alterations made for the perfection and advantage of the Church. I profefs, I fliall always plead for fuch as are fo •, and that £o much the more, if they be fuch alfo as are likely to reconcile any Diffenters to it • nay, upon this account, I fhall plead for iiich as are not fo, provided the Church receive no damage from them. But I cannot argue for any upon fuch principles' as appear to me to tend to a furd, and unreafonable altera' tions^ as well as to thofe that are reafonahle. Having thus fliewii that the Governours of the Church have authority to prefcrihe thofe things which you fo highly dillike, as well as thofe which you could have complied with ^ having;fhewrt from your felves that New T(:nns of Communion nvdj \2i\v{\i\\j be made; having re- mov'd your Objedions taken from the penalty annez'di and from that unbounded number of Impojitions you fear may be brought into the Church upon the fame grounds that thcfe are j I (hall now obferve, 2. Tiiat Sr. PtT?//fays nothing againft this in the ^^tb chapter to the Romans-^ in order to remove your objec- tion Taken from thence. I find that you urge the ift ver- fes of this chapter, as an argument to prove that it is un- lawful to enjoin Minijfers to deny the Communion to thofe who will not receive it Kyiceling-^ or, winch is all one, to prcf( ribe ii;:^f/777^fo, as that there fhall be no Communion withoiu it. But, Firjl, It is very unfair to apply what St. Vaul fays in one cafe, to cafes not at all parallel to it. St. Paul fpeaks of fuch groundlefs fcruples, as were deeply rooted and fixed in the Minds of fome Perfons, by the Religion they profefsM before their Converfion toChriftianity : W& fpeak of fuch fcruples as have been infufed into many Mcjf s minds by the common Ejtemy ^, as have been taken up TBe Reapnahlenefs of Cotiformity, 49 Up and hotly propagated, Jince the thirjg it felf was com- inanded,and in oppofition to the Authority bv which it was Commanded. St. Paul fpealcs of fuch groundlefs/crwpZey, and fuch differences of Opinion and praftice as are perftdV;/ confiftent with their joining together in one iinifonnman-' ner o^ public worfiip : and it is a little hard to argue from what he fays offcnlptes of this nature, to what he would fay o£f(:niples which are wholly inconiiftent With it. He fpeaks of perfons who, for what appears, were perfedly difpofed to agree in the fame Ciifloms^ and the fame beha- viour at the Communion ^ and what he would fay of per- fons who are not, we cannot judge from hence : hut wd may guefs by fome other i^laces, thathe was not fo e-iie, or indifferent, in the matter of i)^i;^w<:)!, orO{/?ow, in the public worfhip, as you would reprefefit him ^ and that it was not his judgment, that Decejicy, andO'/^w, Ihould always yield to the weakneiTes of Men ^ but that thej^ Ihould comply with Decency and Qijiom. That He was not ag^mikprefcnptiom relating to the behaviour of Chri- ftians at thepublic worfiip, is plain from tho^e p/'cfcriptioHs He himfelf laid down. Such as thefe •, That Women JImild be filent at public Afemblies, e- i Cor. ii- ven in thofe days when the revelation of the ' ^or, i^. Spirit was common : That Women JJjould be veiled in the Church : merely becauie thefe things Were a- greeable to the notions of Decency, then in the world. That the Frophets^'H^ho had any thing revealed to thejn,fiould wait pith patience, andobferve a due order in their /peaking, mere- ly to avoid any thing that looked like co^ifufion in religious worfiip . and the like. Thefe fhew that it could not be [his Defign, in the chapter now before us, to forbid the making any Cuch prefcriptiojjs • for being a Goveriioiir of the Church, he made fome himfelf: aud that it was his opini^on that Qovernours may prefcribe for decency arid or^ der, is jilain from thence. As you therefore argue, from the example of St Paw/, w]io, being Km f If a Church Governour, commanded not the things AbridgmenP he here fpeaks of, but does iv effeB forbid the P. i^<^- Qovernours of the Church to cojtwiand them, to E Ihc^y 5d The Reafo?iahJenefs of Confbrqiityrf Ihew the unlawfulnefs oicommanilvg thofe things •, fo gi-^€ me leave to argue from the example of St. Paw/, who^ be'-' hig Inmfelf aChurch-Goverrioitr^ did commavd things of the' fame nature with thofe we are freaking of -^ did himfelflay down Rules for regulating the behaviour of Chrijlians in Public Ajfemhlies-^ and doth, in efted:, give leave to Church Gover7wiirs to prefcribe according to the rules of Decency m^d Order -^g^ve me lesivc, I fay, from hence ta argue., that it is lawful ('as far as St. PauVs example can makeit Co) to pre fc'ibe about the behaviour o^ ChriJ}ians at the fole^jivi ties of Religion ^ that He no more thought, in this Chiipter, offcruples relating to Men's behaviour at pub* lie Ajfemblies^ than he thought of contradidling himlelf^ and that the things He here fpeaks of, and thofe TFe are fpeaking of, are fo different from one another, that his rules about them may be, and are, very different too. If therefor^, the example of St. Paul be a good argument a" gainftthe lawfulness of prefcribing what Men fhall eat, and that they fhall not be received to Communion unlefs thfey db eat it : let the example of St. Paul be efteemed a tolerable argument for the lawfulnefs of laying down rules and prefcriptions about the behavzonr of Chrijiiam at public Affemblies. That th.e'^e prefcriptio->ts^o\i\& be laid afide, when they come to be fcrupled as unlawful^ this chapter is as far from faying as any part of the Bible. It fays indeed, Ton ought to receive thofe who are fo little iji* fl/ucled in the Nature of Ch?ijiianity , andfo prejudiced by their former education and principles^ as to fcrupls thiyigs Ti-'hich are lawful ^ fuch things as do vot concern your cujloms^ cr behaviour at the public Ajfeviblies. But it fays not, Tou oiight to recei€>e fuch^ tho^ they fcniple to join with you in your ciifidins and behaviour at religious iForfiip. It fa3^s not, Tou ought to receive juch as have taken np fuch groundlefs pre- judices f nee fuch rules were laid down for their behaviour ; fuch asfeevi to be contentious \fuch as rcfufe to roviply in mere ovpojition ; as too many do. it fays indecd^l^oujhall receive Alen^ tho' they will not lonform to \our prefcriptions and cuf- tuvis in what they eat at their own houfes-. But it fays not, ToiiJhaJl receive Aicn^ tho^ they will not covforvi toyour pre- fripxion The Reafonahienefs of Gonforniitf* 5^ fcripttons and cvftoms in their behaviohr in God's hoitfe. In fine, We may conclude from this chapter, that St. Partly at that time, thought it more prudent to leave Men even to their own unreafonable humours in e^ff?/^ and Jrn//'^- JTJg, than to interpofe his authority to regulate their own Tables •, but we cannot conclude from it, that he thought it a crime to ufe his authority to regulate their demean- our at the Lord's Table •, that he thought it a fin for Govern Tiours to interpofe^ or a duty in them when they had inter* pofed, to give up their prefcriptions, when they come to be fcrupled. If you would argue jujlly againft prefcrip^ tions from this chapter, you muft argue againft prefcribing fomething as little relating to any fundamental dcdrine ofChriftianity, or the behaviour of Chriftians at public Affemblies, as Meat and Drink : and for any other fort of prefcriptions, whatever fervice other arguments may do, I fee not how this chapter can poffibly be to the purpofe. And this will appear more plainly to you from what I have to ofTer farther, and that is. Secondly, that if this chapter prove the unlawfulnefs of prefcribing Kneeling at the Communion, or retaining it when it comes to be fcrupled ; it proves as effectually the unlaw- fulnefs of prefcribing what you your felves muffc acknow- ledge lawful, and what you could have joined with. From whence we may infer that, if it proves not the un- lawfulnefs of one, neither does it prove the unlawfulnefs of the other. Some inflances I fhall give to make this plain. St. Paul prefcribed that Women fiould be pent in public Affemblies, merely becaufe it was decent, and be- coming that ftate of fubjedtion they ought to appear in. Our Gover7iours prefcribed Kneeling at the Communion, mere- ly becaufe it was decent, and becoming the Solemnity of that holy rite : arguing that, as we kneel to our Frincs when we receive a Favour, a pledge of his Love, from him 5 fo it is agreeable to all the notions and cufloms of t)ecency we have, that we Ihould kneel when we receive the moft ineflimable pledge of Love from our great Lord, by the hands of his Minijier, Suppofe now fome Women {hould h^ve been fo weak as to have thought it unlawful E 2 to 52 Ihe ReafofiabIe?iefs ^/Conformity. to have obeyed that injun6tIon of St. PaitVs, thinking the3^wereconftrain'd by the Spirit to fpeak, and judging their illenretobe a crime •, (we have lived to fee this, and many as ridiculous fuppofitions verified •,) would you pro- duce this foiirteemh chapter to the Roma7ts, to prove that St. Paid was againfl: prefcr'ihhg^ or retahnng any fuch nile-j or that thefe Perfons were to be received, and not cenfurcd? and yet their crime is taldvg a lawful thing to he mdawful. If you would not produce it againft the lawfulnefs of pre- fcribing this, tho' fome {hould be fo weak as to think it Hyilawfid ^ how can you produce it againft prefcribing Kneeiiirg,mtrt\j becaufe fome think it ii-nlarrfuU Once more, fuppofe our Governonrs had prefcribed a Liturgy to your Minds, and amongft others a For?}i of Prayer to be ufed at the Comnmnion. Some, youknow, and no in- confiderable number, have fcrupled joining with a Form as unlawful. Now fuch as thefe are as eflpedually exclu- ded from the Coinmuyiion by this prefcriptiov, as if it were faid in ejprefs terms, that none fhall be admitted, who will not join in this Torin. Yet in the i7npofing this, you were ready to join. I ask, therefore, If f^/;/.? chapter com- mand you to receive 2l\\ whofe crime is onl^ the fcruplivg a thivg lawful as unlawful •, with what confcience could you have complied virith this prefcriptiov-^ which, according to you, muft be fatly fiful, avd coTttrary to God\ word, becaufe it doth as effectually exclude thofe whom you ought to ;frmT, as any other pr?/rf7pt2o«.^ If it do not, why could ^•'ou not comply with other prefcriptions, as well as this, ? Why is it produced againfl others, and not againft this ? Is aFor?«of Prayer veceffary to the due celebration of that religious rite? Your pradice fheWs, 3'^ou think it not fo. Is a ftated Form of Prayer not on- ly lawful but decent ? fo is Kneeling. But I w^ill urge no more on this Head. I cannot but think, I have fhewn, both from St. Paul s example, and your own concel^ons, that this chapter fays nothing againft thofe prefcriptions which concern the pucVicJfor/Iup; and that by the weak in faith here is not to be underltood every one who is fo weak The Reafonahlenejs of Conformity, 55 weak as to tale a lawful thing for vvlawful^ iinlefs in cafes parallel to Meat and Drijik I fhall now add, Thirdly, That Mr. ^.rxtf/s Pradice, and the Practice of the Indspende7tts, is for, and not agabif, fuch Impofiti- ons as are the Foundation of your heavieft Charge a- gainft the Church. For the Independent-, take Mr. Baxters Word , who reprefents Abridgtmnt, them as /riBer ahoiit the Salifications of P* ''8. Church-Members, than Scripture, Reafon, or the FraBice of the Univerfal Church, will allow. And if this be not to make new unnecejfary Tervis of Comimntion, a^ii to refufe thofc whom Chriji has commanded them to receive, what is ? Yet we obfei ve with what Brotherly AfFedion 3'-ou court them -, with what Caution you open your Mouths againft this in thejn, and with what Heat you can inveigh againft any thing like it in the Church of England; with what Zeal you yonz with them, and with what Zeal joufeparate from us. But Mr. Baxter hath not only given us this Account of the Independents -, but hath left upon Record fomething of himfclf £0 like what he cenfures £0 feverely in the Church of England, that, with all the Nicenefs I am Mafter of, 1 cannot fee any difference ]?ctween them, unlefs what ferves to make Mr. Baxter much more liable to cenfure, than the Church. "We have it related for his Honour, as it feems, in his Life. A Qeyitleman, againft whom he had no Objedion on any other Account, ( as far Jhndgmenf, as it appears,^ defired to communicate with P- ^^• him ; only he deiir'd to receive Kneeling, and at a dij^ijtB time from thofe others, whom he thought fo guilty on fome account or other, that he fcrupled to join with them. Suppofing this to be a Weaknefs -, one would hardly think it conliftent with Mr. Baxte?'"s way of arguing, that he ftiould be deny'd the Coimminion for it. But let us fee how Mr, Baxter dealt with him. Firfl^ He wojild not give it him at all, unlefs he would fubmit to BifcipUne, and take him for his Fajlor-, fo that his Bap- ti/wiandProfeifionof Chriftianity, it feems, were not E 3 fufficieut 54 7*^^ Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. fufficient to entitle him to t^ieVrlvileges of a Chnjlia)t,x^nr lefs he would fiihmt to what Mr. Baxter call'd Difciplhie, and tah him for hh Pajior. Perhaps the Gentleman was perfiia.led in his Confcience that the ejeded BiJIjop was his ?aJlor ^ tho' Mr. Baxter had Authority to adminifter the Sacrament to him. However, what Reafon was here from his fcrupling this, why he (hould not beacknow- ledg'd a Chriftian ? What was there in this Error, fo con- trary to any great Delign of the Gofpel^ or the Nature of the Sacra7?ient, that he might not be admitted to it > 5^- roiidly. As to the Fofiure, Hewould.not give ithim^ hieeU ing, unlefs He would frji hear his Reafovs agaivji ff, and then prof efs, after he had heard them, that he thought k a Sin agaivjl God to receive in any other Pojlure : both which an honeft Man might fcruple, and yet be fit to be ad- mitted to the Communion. From hence it appears, of what Moment Mr. Baxter thought an Uniformity in the Topircsoitht Receivers, and how willing they ought to te to hear Rtafons to bring them to it. But, Thirdly, As to the Time^ He abffjlutely refus'd to give it him at ^ diJiinB Time from others, tho' he fcrnpled to receive it at the fame time with them. Now here. If I be not mi- iflaken, are to be found the very Crimes which are laid hj you at the Door of the Church of England-, and fome- what more. In the iirft place. Here is an honeft Chri- ftian deny'd the Communion on the account of fome Scruples he might have, about fubmitting to Mr. Baxter as his Pa^or, and to his Difcipline : fuch Scruples as af- fected not his Chriftianity, or his Behaviour at the Pub- lic AVorfhip •, which feems to come very near the Cafe cletermin'd by St. Paul in the Fourteejith Chapter to the Roma7is, In the fecond place. He is deny'd the Recep- tion of the Holy Sacrament in the manner which feems bcfl to him ^ unlefs He will hear Reafons agaijift it, and frofef he caJinot honcjlly take it otherwife : That is, he is deny'd it, if he fliould be fo weak, and prepoffefs'd, as to fcruple what a Man might fcruple out of a great Re- gard to the Prefcriptions of his tjeded BiJIwp, and yet remain The ^eafonahlenefs of Conformity. 5 ^ femalnagoodChriftian. In the third place a Frefcrlpt tionisWiddowTiyToufiaU receive it at the fame time with ibofe others^ the you ejleem them fchifrnaiical^ and difordcrly-^ and the Penalty here is No Comnnmiov. Now, tho' it be ijeceflTary to fet feme Time when the People fhould meet their Minifter ^ yet we cannot fay it is any more necefTa'- ry that all Ihould come at one time, than that all fhould receive in one Pofture • nor do I fee that this Difference of Time can poffibly be the Occafion of greater Breaches ^ndSchifms^ than a Difference of Behaviour at the fame time J nay, I believe there may be better Reafons found out for admitting Companies on fome Occafions, at di- ftinct times, than for admitting different Geftures at the fame time. And, I pray, what great Bi each^ or Schifm, can we fuppofe would have been made, had he admit- ted this Gentleman, and his Family, at one Hour, to the Communion -, and the others at another > What great Schifm, I fay, more than was amongfi: them already > Their Opinions and Hearts were as different already as they could be ^ and there was no Hopes of th^ir com- municating together, without greater Occafion given to Heat and uncharitable Cenfures. Had Mr. Baxter been fure he fhould have fet ^\[ his People in Flames •, I fee not how, according to his Arguings againfi the Church, he could with a fafe Confcience, deny the Communion to this Gentleman, were his JScruples never fo unreafon- able, and weak. Now I have this Charge againft this Carriage of Mr. Baxters. Here was a thing as unne- ceffary as Kneeling enjoin'd^ and that under the higheft Penalty, vi%. No Communion. From whence I colled that it could not be Mr. Baxters Opinion that a Com- mand, by having a difproportio7tahle Penalty annex' d^ beco7?ies wdawfitl. Here v/ere new Terms of Communion impos'd upon a Chriftian, and as contrary to Chrift's as the Im«- pofition of Kneeling can be. Chrifi: fays, as you think. Receive a Chriflian, tho' he be fo weak as to take things lawful for Jtnlawf III -^ yet Mr. Baxter refus'd a Chriftian, whofe only Crime it was to be fo weak, Froiu whence E 4 Icon- 5 6 The Reafonahlenefs of Con form i ty. J conclude that^ when he was a Governor himfelf, it wa§ not his Judgment, that it was unlawful to lay down fuch Prefcriptions, as do indeed become new Tertns of Comiminion ^ that it was not his Judgment that St. Paiily 5n the Fourteenth to the Romans, fpake of fuch Scruples as refped the Public IForJJnp ^ or under jftood by the weak in Faith, every Perfon who was fo weak as to judge a lawful thing to he unlawful. For we fee fuch a JVcak" ?/f/vmaybeof t^at Confequence, in Mr. Ba;cter''s Opi' ni m, as that th^ Perfon who is fo weak ought not to Ve 7'eceivd to Communion, Upon this I cannot help ma-f king this Reflexion, that theDifpute between Us and To« is not, whether there fhall be any Impofitions or no, but jvhether they fhall be fuch as Ours or Tours ^ whether the Bifhopslhallprefcribe what they think fit, or whether every particular Minifter fhall be left to himfelf, to make w'lat lierms of Communion he thinks fit ^ to receive, or rcjed: whom he plcafes, and on what Condition he judges proper. It is too plain, this will be the Confe- quence of wrefting this Power out of the Bifliops Hands •, and that this is the Practice where-ever a feparate Mini- ftry is ereded : and we leave it to all the World to judge, whether the Biihops have not as much Right to make thefe Terms, as every Paftor and Curate •, and whether the Chriftian World be more likely to fufFer by all Mi- jiifters afting arcrrcing to their Prefcriptions, than by their ading according to their own Humours and Opi- nions, Paflions and Prejudices. Thus have T carefully confider'd the Cafe of Impof- tionr, ^i^hich feems to be the great Hindrance in your way to Conformity 5 and have chofen to argue with you upon this Matter chjcfly from your own Conceflions, and your own Pradices ^ which appears to me to be fo con- vincing a Method, that I cannot but hope that you will pncc more review this part of your Caufe ^ and that, in ^rguing againft the Impoftions of the Church of England, jfou will either fiiew us, that j'^ou allow no fuch Jmpof^ pons, either in your Declarations, or Practice j or elfe reafoa The Reafonahlnefs of Conformity. 57 reafon againft them from .fuch Principles, as conclude not againft all as well as feme. Till you do this, we muft think, either that you are not fincere in drawing up this heavy Charge againft the Church, while you al- low and praftice the very thing you condemn ^ or that you are not fenfible whither thefe Arguments tend. But I proceed. 6. A fixth Reafon why 3rou cannot conform as Mini- fters,is, becaufe this Ajfent, Confent.aJtd Siibfcription, would he an Allowance artd Approbation of that AJertion, that Bi- JJwps, Priejls, and Deacons, are three diJlinB: Orders in the Church by Divine Appointment. By Divine Appoint77ient,jo\x add your felves : For all that the Sentence, which you quote, fays, is that thefe Orders have been in the Church from the Apcjlles Titnes : and all tliat you can fhew cer- tainly to be imply'd in any of the Prayers in the Ordi- ration Office is, that God hath appointed divers Orders of Minijlers in his Church. And yon not only add this, but you wholly alter the Form of that Sentence in the Pre- face to the Ordination Office, on which you ground this Objedtion^ and feem to me to mifreprefent the plain Defign and Intent of it. For there is fome difference I think, between thefe Two Sentences. Bifiops Priejls, and Deacons, are Three dijlin^ Orders in the Church, by Divine Appointment •, and from the Apojiles Time, there have been' thefe Orders in Chrifs Church, Bifiops, Priejis, and Dea- cons. The former of thefe is yours •, and leads People to think, that the principal Intent of this Sentence you fcruple, was to lay it down for an undoubted Truth, that Bifiops, PrieJls, and Deacons, are Three diftind Orders, (in the moft ftridt Senfe of that Word, and in Oppofiti- on to thofe Epifcopal Men, who did not approve of that "Word taken in foftrict a Senfe,; and that by Divine Ap- pointment. The latter is the Sentence, as it is exprefs'd by the Church it felf •, and the Defign of it is plainly no more, but to lignify, that Bifiops, Priefs, and Deacons, have been in the Church, from the very beginning, di- ilinguifti'd from one another by their i:)eculiar Offices, But 5& The Reafonablenefs of Conformity, But if youtalce a Pleafure in reprefenting, and under-f ftanding every thing, in the way v/hich to you carrier moft Difficulty along with it, we cannot help it. Thus, another Difficulty is made, that thefe Orden are fpoken of as fever al Offices • tho', how Bifiy.f, Pri^fts^ and Dea- cons, if they be fpoken of, either as Three Orders, or as Three Degrces'm the fame Order -^ how, I fay, they can poiTibly be fpoken of any otherwife than as feveral Offices, I fliali never apprehend. But I hai'^c Two Things to an- fwer to this Objeftion. 1. 'i or that any thing more was defign'd, than toiignify that it was a plain Truth? Should we deal thus with all fuch Expreliions, what could we hear that would pleafe us > Suppofe it Ihould be faid. It is evident to all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture, that oitr Saviour exijled before he was horn of the Virgin Mary ^^ would you fcruple to fubfcribe to this, becaufe the Socinians, who have diligently read Holy Scripture^ fay they cannot find it there, I believe, the Objedtion would never have enter'd into your Heads. Nothing is more ufual than fuch Forms of Speech ^ and nothing more unreafonable, than to pafs by the principal thing intended by them, and to argue againft the manner of exprefling them talcen in a lite- ral Senfe, when it is always figurative. We muft be : fenfible, there are many Caufes why very confiderable ! Men fometimes mifs of a very plain Truth 5 and if we ; be afraid of faying, this i^ a plain Truth, becaufe Cj/t^zw, or Beza, or Blondell, or Salmafnis, or Cartwright, or Selden, or any others did not think it plain; and argue from hence againft agreeing to it, we ihew more Regard to i gxeat Names than is allowable. Was this Sentence de- iign d to caft a Reflexion upon any learned or judicious Men? You cannot think it was. Do you make any Scruple of 'differing often from them ? You know you do not*, I'm fure you ought not. Do not you run them down as Novices, and call them Fools as much, and as effedlually this way, as you can do by fubfcribing this ? Yet you do not think That a good Argument againft judging as you think fit. Is not the principal Defign of a Sentence to be regarded, and the Manner of Expreffi- on to be interpreted according to Ufe, and not according to the Letter ? yet here you take the Manner of Exprejfi- on quite contrary to what you do in common ufe-, and draw Objedions from this Manner of Exprejlion fo mi- ftaken. As 65 The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. As to the thing intended in this Sentence ^ it is' plain- ly tliis, that BifJjops^ Pnejla^ and Deacons, have been in thf Church from the Apojlles Day:. Now this Truth hath been very much clear d iince the Reformation-, and the unhappy Necefiity fome Learned Men imagined them- felves under, to contradict and obfcure it^ and the De^ iire they had that it fhould not appear of great Confe- quence, hath htlp'd mightily to the clearing it. Arch- bifhop Uj])er m-dj very well appear in the Head of thofe who have added great Evidence to thjs Proportion. If' he difFer'd from other Epifcopal Men, the DifFerenceJ may well be thought verbal and not real •, if we confider ' the Service he hath done to Epifcopacy, in Oppofition to the Prcsbyterja7i.<:. Bifhop Pearfon and others follow'd. Dr. H-nnmovd's. DifTertations againft Blondell (faith Mr, ChiUhgvorth^ who ufes not to fpeak unreafonably) 7iever were avfwer d, nor never will. Mr. ChilVnigworth himielf thinks the Proof of this Truth amounts tofuch aDemon- llration, as can never be evaded. He produces feveral Preshyteiiam alh wing, that from the Apojlles Days there WHS in every City one Perfon, who had Priority 0/ Order, a?/i Svpcriority of Porper and Authority over other MrUgment, Presbyters. Mr. \Bjxtfr himfelf thinks it, P' *'"^* evident that iwt/;fP;7;;2ftn;^ C/jw/*c^ there was a Svperiority over Pajiors maintaiitd not only ly the Apojlles and Evangelijls, but by other general unfix d Church Ofuers-^ and^ as to f^'dBiJlwps of particular Cbur- ches, fvperior in Degree to Presbyters, that the Reception oj . them iyi all Churches wjs early and general. He is pleas 'd , to add, there is nothing favouiing thefe in Scripture. No\y : an the Sentence before, he acknowledgeth that it appears , from Scripture that there was a Superiority of one over ^ many Pallors •, not only of the Apoftles, but of others j commiliion'd by them. From whence I conclude, that j there is in Scripture a great deal to favour this Superiq- 1 rity (even according to Mr. Baxter) and nothing againft 1 a tix'd Superior. Now the principal part of the Quefti- on here is, whether Superior or no-, not whether fix'dor ; . , • " unfix'd', The Reafonahle7iefs of Conformity* 6 1 ■ nnfixM •, tho' I muft pbferve, upon this part of the Que- I ftionalfo, that this ver)^ early, and univerral Reception ' of fixed Bifhops {w\\ic\\lAi. Baxter confcfTes) is it lelf a I good Argument, that there were fuch conftitutedby the i Apoftles themfelves ♦, and that the Conftitution of fuch i Was judg'd moft agreeable to their Min-l. How elfe Can we imagine that the Reception of them fhould be fo univerfal, andfo early, that you cannot name the Place, or Time, from the very Days of the Apoftles, in which they are not found > Nor, in the Matter before us, doth it lignify much, whether the Scriptures hjlitittei any par' ticiilar Form of Chitrch GoverTtvient^ in ContradlBion to aiiy other, or no : tho', if you will follow Mr. Baxter, you muft think they did. The Point is, whether in Fad there were in thofe early Days, Bifiops ,PrieJls, and Dea- C07IS. Mr. Baxter fays there were. And they were fuffi- ciently diftinguifti'd from one another. As Deacons were not Priep^ fo all Prlfls were not Bijiwps. The BiJIwp Was the Superior, and had his Presbyters under him. Sq that, as to the peculiar Office of Biftiops, in the main here is no difference • and an Agreement in the whole Matter deliver'd in this Propofition, that BiJJwps, Priejis, nd Deacons, in the Senfe that we all underftood thofe W"ords in, were in the Church from the very Beginning, ^nd what if they be c^Wd Orders by others ? If you ac- knowledge the very thing which is meant in this Sen- ence,' why ftiould this Word trouble you > I think it a very proper Word : but if I did not, yet if I acknow- edg'd what Mr. Baxter does concerning Biftiops and *riefts, I could never anfwer to my felf the frrupling :his Sentence becaufe they are calFd Orders. If any o- :her Word had been here us'd, let it be Degrees, or what rou pleafe, the like Cavils exadtb^ might have been nade againft it, by any who would have been at the ?ains to' do it. Thus much for yonr principal Rcafons againft the 4lfent and Confent, and Subfc?'iption,TequiT'd in the Church )f England, Let us now proceed to fome others you pro- pofe ^2 The Reapnahienefs of Conformity. pofe of IclTer Confideration •, yet fuch, as feem to you lufEcient to keep you from conforming, as Minifters. As, I . Tou camiot cottfent to pronounce allfavd^ that are hu- rled^ except the Unbaptiz'd, 'Excommunicate^ and Self-vmr^ theren -, as, you fay, all covformhig Mimjlers are oblig'd . to do. In return to this Objeftion, I {hall not trouble you or my felf with fearching out fome poflible found Senfe, in which fome of tlie PalTages in the Burial-Office, againft which you except, maybe underftood. For could \ I fhew you, that God may be faid to take even a very wicked Man away in Mercy , and that we may give him Thanks for it, in a juft Senfe •, yet I do not love to go againft the iirft Defignoffuch public Forms ♦, and^ ' after all, tho' thofe Exprelfions might polfibly be us'd oi Perfons of whom we had not the leaft reafon to hope well ^ yet thefe Words, As our Hope is this our Brother doth, in the laft Colled;, can in no Senfe be apply 'd to ■fuch. It muft, therefore, be own'd, and it is too plain to be deny'd, that in fuch Cafes as you mention, oi Men cut off iji the 7nidJlof7totoriovsSins, Dninkennefs, Adultery, Murther, &c. this Office is wholly improper : and fure, we need not doubt but that at length fome Regard will he had to the repeated Delires of many of the beft De- fenders of the Church ^ and this Ground of Objection againft it wholly remov'd. In the meanwhile, I have fomewhat farther to offer to you. Only before I do that, I muft take fome Notice ot Two Things which I think unreafonable in your Ma- nagement of this Head of Accufation. i. In that Sen- tence, God hath taken the Soul of our departed Brother to himjelf you will interpret thofe "Words, tohimfelf as if they certainly fignify'd, to Happinefs-^ when they are capable of another Senfe ^ and a Senfe that is juftifiable by what Solomon faith of Death with re- Fed 12.7. fpect to all Men, Then Jhall the Dujl return to the Earth as it was : and the Spirit fiall return unto God who gave it. If i\\Q Spirit of all Men may, in a found Senfe, h^ id.i^toretur7ito God\ then it maV alfo The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. 6^ alfo be raid, in a found Senfe, that God takes to hmfelf the Spirits of all Men, when the)'' die. The fame Inter- pretation that we fix upon the one, we may, with equal Juftice, fix upon the other ^ and if the one be a true Pro- pofition, fo is the other •, the fame Objeaions lying a- gainft the Manner of Expreflion in both. 2. You deal very hardly with this Sentence, Jf^e corn- wit his Body to the Ground, iitjvre and certain Hope of the Refurre^ion unto eternal Life, &c. Thefe are the Words in the Common Prayer Book ^ and if we Chriftians may not be allowed, when we commit a Body to tire Ground, €ven fuppoling it the Body of a wicked Man, to fay- thus, We commit not this Body to the Earth, as Men who be- lieve the Bodies thus laid in it Jl)all remain there for evsr 5 i^m as Pet fans fully perfuaded that there will be sl Refurre^ Bion of the Bodies of all Men at the Ufl Day •, (which is, I am fure, the true Interpretation of thofe Words;) it is very hard. But here I find thefe Words, a happy Refurre- Sion, put inftead of the RefurreBion, for what reafon I cannot certainly tell : and it is affirm'd that this muft neceffarily refer to the dead Perfon, and that fo as to fig- nify a Certainty of a happy Refurreftion to him •, be- caufe, in one of the following Prayers, we pray that ws jnayrejiin Chrijf, as oiir hope is this our Brother doth. We are told, this puts it out of doubt. I can do nothing here but appeal to the Words, as I have tranfcrib'd them from the Common-Prayer Book, and to that Interpretation I have given of them-, which indeed is fo natural, that I never could frame any other to my felf ; and muft leave the Reader to judge, whether this be a good way ©f rea- foning^ remembring that the Word Hope may be us'd^ when we are remov'd many Degrees from Confidence, and are upon the very Borders of Fear ^ but that the Words, fure and certain Hope, cannot be us'd but in the Cafe of a confident Expedation, without the leaft Doubt or Fear in it. This is the Cafe. In a Prayer, at fome liftance from this Sentence, the Church hopes (which, in ;he lowefl: Senfe of the Word, is far from Certainty) that this ^4 '^^^ Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. this Perfnn rejls in Chrijl. Now, hoW doth this put it oUt of doubt, that, in this Sentence, covmittivg hu Body toth& Ground, in fiire and certain Hope of the RefurrcBion to Eternal Life? &c. the Church muft necelTarily refer to his particular Refurrcdion onlv: andfignify by thefe Words a confident AlTurance of his happy Refurreftion ? The ujfing of this Word in the laft Prayer is i^o far from putting this out of doubt ^ that it does not fo much as make it probable: nay, there not being other Evidence f 3r this, it appears to me rather to prove the contrary. For if the Church, where it undoubtedly fpealcs of the dead Perfon, makes choice of a Word which may be us'd where-everwe have not certain Demonftration that he is incapable of Salvation-, this leads us to think that, if Words be here us'd importing no lefs than the high- eft AfTurance and moft confident Expedtation, they Were not intended to refer to the Salvation of this particular Perfon^ the one being applicable to a vaft Number of Perfons, of whom the other cannot polfibly be us'd. But tho' this be utterly infiifficient to put your Interpretati- on beyond doubt- yet I think verily I can produce fome- thing winch, if you be truly willing to acknowledge it, Will put it beyond doubt, that the Interpretation I have given is both agreeable to the Words, and intended by cur Church ; and that is, the Alteration of this Sentence as it is to be us'd at the Burial of the Dead at Sea : and I do not fee how you can deny the. fame Senfe to be in- tended in both. We therefore commit his Body to the Deep, to he tiirjfd into Corruption, looking for the Refurre&ion of - the Body, and the Life- of the World to come, &c. Com- pare the Two Forms together, and fee if this do not plainly flicw, that the meaning which you have fo po- :fitively afHx'd to the other, was never thotight of by thofe' who drew it up. Having taken notice of thefe trpo things, what I have farther to offer upon this Head is this, that I do verily think that a Minijler'm the Church of England is underno obligation to ufe thefe exprejions, which are the ground of Tl^Reafonahlenefs of Con^QXmiiY* ^5 of yoilr o'bjedion, in fuch cafes as you mention ^ ove^ iiotorious, incorrigible, impenitent Adulterers^ Dnmkards, jilafphcttiers, Murtherers^ or the like : nor ever likely to fufter the leaft inconvenience for 077ihti7tg them. I defign hot by this to teach an}^ perfons to play with what ought to be facred amongft Chriftians ^ or to make light of De-^ claratiom and Siibfcriptmis. I hope I am far from it : and. if what I now fay cannot be demonftrated to be perfedlly confiftent with all the obligations a Covformhig Mhufler is under, I here renounce it as foon as I have faid it. 1 defire then, it may be confider'd i. That the omijioft of thefe Sentences, in fuch cafes, is not contrary to the original defign of theC/^urc^in prefcribing this /or?;/ -, but more agreeable to it than the ujijjg them. I find it almoffc iirianimoufly aflBrmed by as great Writers as any that jhave appeared in this caufe, that this O^cefuppofes fucli tpifcipline in the Church, that all notorious and incorri- gible finners fjiould be exco?nmti)ncated, and fo incapable this 0^<7^. if this be fo, and yet no {iich Difciplhte xercifed •, to. what part of his charge, to what*part of his (row is He falfe, who either denies the Office to thofe, of Vhofe acceptance with God there cannot be the leajlhope-^ br omits thefe exprejimts which render this Office fo impro« er on fuch occafions ? I defire it may be remembred, that am not now encouraging any perfons to judge hardly bf their Neighbours •, but fpeak only of fuch cafes, where it is moft apparent, and undeniable, that there is no ground for the loweft degree of Hope. SuppoJing there- fore a Man cut oft in the midffc of fuch fins as Ahdtery^ plafphemy, Streajhtg, Dninkennefs, without the leaft figii pf iif^p ^7/^ jf7/c? or acceptance with God ^ were thefe ^x-* reffions defign'd for him > Can the Ginon which refpedls his, be fuppofed to command the tife of this Form, any itherwife than as it was defigned by the Church ^ Do any \^ om Governors, or did they ever infift upon obedience 0 the letter of thisCrt;;^?^ in fuch cafes ? Not as I know of 5 .nd if they did, I ihould venture any penalty rather than ibey : becaufe my confcience wbiild i>ot let me fay, -f F hoped 66 7 1:)^ Reafonahkfjefs of Conformity, hoped the dead -pennon re [is in ChriJ}, when there cannot be the leaft ground for hope • and becaufe I cannot recon-» cile fuch an obedience with the obligations lam under to the Chvrch. But, as for omht'nig what was never inten* ded by the Church for fuch occafwm^ 1 conld do it witli a verv eafv confcience : having by no vow^ declaration^ or fuhfcription^?.s I apprehend, obliged my felf to the ufe of any thing againft the plain intent of that Church, in which I miniftcr. And did it appear, that it was the defign of this Church, and of the Govenwurs of it, to oblige thofc who viinijler in it, to declare in public, that they hope common Swearers^ Drunkards, Adulterers, Murtherers^ Elafphe7ners', that fuch as the fe, I fay, dying without any ligu of acceptance with God, re]} in Chrijl -, what Man, wJio had the leaft fenfe of Religion, could 6o«/on;i as a Mmftei'? But, 2. You tell us here of fome Conform-* ivgM'inifers who will not allow this Office to Dijjhiters, un- ] :^er the Notion oi Schifmatics. Upon the authority of •thefe perfoiis then, this Office may certainly be denied to fome who are not adually exconivninicated. For, as they ublic mann-er, that in the name of the Holy Scripture w^ do under/land thofe Canonical Books of the Old and New Tefament, ofwhofe authority there Art, 6. never was any doubt in the Church. And in the fame article the Apocryphal Books are numbered up," and call d the other Books ^ and it is profeifed, that the Church doth not apply them to ejfabliji) any doBrine. Now, -can any one fuppofe after this, that this l'Wc/^ reads thefq Books under the notion of Holy Scripture^ Na}^, is it poifi- ;*ble the Church fhould be lb inconliftent with it felf ? You can produce no fentence out of all its public of^ces, or declarations, in which the Apocrypha is called the Hol^ i^ripture. The Order which you cite for this, follows the ' Order concerning the Pfalter, and is intituled, The Order how the r^Ji of Holy Scripture is appointed to be read* And ••-- - F . - - in 70 *lhe Re ^7 fonablenefs of Conformity* in it there is not one word of. any thing l)Ut the Old Tef- lament and the New. The Apocrypha is not nam'd. I grant indeed that in the Rubric the Firjl Lejfon is faid to he a Lejfon out of the Old Teftument^ and yet fome of the F'lrjl Le foils are out of the Apocrypha. But:, becaufe this is thus e^fprelTed, where exaft nicenefs was not at all necelTary •, muft this be the foundation of an OhjeBlov.^ which ^''ou your felves know how fufficiently to anfwer fcom that article of our Church \n which thefe Books are fpoken of deiignedh', and therefore with more exaftnefs? They muft be very fevere indeed, and {trongly inclined to find fault, who can pafsby the plain declarations of tho Church, where it profelTedly fpeaks oith^ Apocrypha-^ and build fuch a charge as this, upon an Or^(?r where the Apocryphal Books are not fo much as named •, and upon a Rubric, in which the greateft exadnefs of exprelhon was neither required not deiigned, It founds very hard too, when ypu fay that theft Books are read in the room of Holy Scripture., and that Jbvie Canoyiical Books are oynitted, curtailed, mutilatedy and the like. Thefe are Phrafes that leave a ftrong ImpreJfi- on upon the Minds of the People-, and you need not doubt of prejudicing them againft our Service with fuck Terms of Accufatioii as thefe. But you muft be fenfible this is not fair, and reafonable: For you know, that there is no Obligation to read ever}'' Chapter , from Ge- Ttejis to the Revelations., in the public Worfiiip of God ^ you know, that fome Chapters, which are call'd Cano- nical, are fuch as may be improper, and unintelligible-, fuch as are of very little Concern to the Chriftian Peo- ple-, wholly out of their reach ^ of little Advantage, ei\ ther to the informing their Minds in any important Matter, or to the raifing their Devotion ^ you know, that many of thofe Apocryphal LefTons are truly of more ufe, and more to the Edification of the People, than any of thofe Chapters which are omitted. And why tlien ihould this always be fpokcn of, as if the People were robb'd of the The Re^fonahlenefs of Conformity.' 71 Xht Word of God, and fabulous Legends were impos'd upon them inftead of it, to be the Rule of their Lives? And as for your Imagination, that the People are led hj this to think thefe Apocryphal Books of equal Authority with the Canonical Scriptures^ how poor an Inlinuation is this! When the Church hath declar'd, and gives Authority to allMinifters to declare, that they are not. This, is a Truth you may as efFeftually convince the People of, in the Church of Em land, as you can do by feparating from it. I mean, if they will hear Reafon J and if they will not, it is no matter what ihtj believe, or what they difbelieve. But that any one of them was ever led by tlie Order about reading the Lef- fcns, to think that thefe Books were of equal Authority with the Canonical Books, is what, I dare fay, you can- not prove. I am fure, I never knew or heard of an In- iiance. And till I do, I (hall hardly think it fo likely to come to pafs as youreprefent it. But I proceed. 4. ToJt cannot covfent to the Miftravjlation of the Ffalter : and therefore cannot confonn as Mimjlers. The Inftance you produce is Pfahn 105. 28. And they were not obedient ■unto hh irord'^ where the Tranflation in our Bible reads, Httd they rebelled not agahifi his J^ord, Now, Firfi^ How can you affent that they rebelled^ and rebelled not? I anfwer, 1. Suppofing thefe Two Propofitions fpeak of the fame Perfons (which you take for granted) I deiire to know where you are requir'd to afetit that they rebelled nut ? to ajfent either to the Truth^ or to the Ufe of that Sen- tence ? Your AJfent can extend no farther than to what is appointed by the Commu7i-Frayif' Book in the Public Service: and I know not, that the Tranflation of the Pfalms, as it is in our Bibles, hath any part in it. And, 2. Suppofing the Subjects of thefe Two Proportions to be different (as indeed they are) were your Affent to be ex- tended to both, it might be given moft readily and fafe- ly. For, cannot I alient that the Egyptians rebell'd, and that Mofes^ and Aaron, rebell'd not > But, Secondly, How -can ypLi fubfcribe that there is nothing iw our Service F 4 ' (ro«- 72 ' The Re^fonahknefs of Cohformit3r. Contrary to the irord of God^ when this is? I anfwer, i. You here take our EvgVifi Tranflation of the Bible to be the Word of God •, which I think it cannot aflume to it felf any farther than with refpect to the main and fub-' llantiai Parts of it. The fame may be faid of all Tran- flations. Kay, it doth not appear that any Copy, ti-\ ther of theOZioriV^n? rf/?^;;/^7/f, preferv'd tons in the^ Orighial Lavg^a^ea in which they were writteu/hathbeea ix) much the Care of Providence in thofe Parts of it which areof no great or general Concern, as that we can cer- tainly fay, this is the true reading, and the Copies that differ from this in thefe Points, are not to be regarded. The great Ends of Revelation may all be ferv'd without this miraculous Providence:, and, as they may, fo we iind they have been. 2. In many fuch Places as this, 3^ou cannot fay the Hebrew muft neceflarily be interpre- ted thus, and no other wife- when you coniider how the moft learned Commentators and Interpreters have dif- fer'd. And tho' the Tranflation of our Pfalter be grant- ed, in this place, to be more conformed to the Septva- gint, than to the Hebrew, as we now have it-, yet, pra)'', from what did the Septnagbit tranllate? and to what did they conform their Tranflation ? Can you certainly de- monftrate that our Hebrew Copy is more uncorrnpted than theirs in fuch PaiTagcs as this? But, 5. Suppoling you were fully perfuaded that the Hebrew ought to be tranflated here, ^7/i they rebelled vot agcmiji his Iford-, of whom do you underftand this ? Of Mofes and Aaron,,{'^y the beft Commentators, who render it thus. The Sep- tiiaght tranflate it, Ajtd they were not obedient unto his Word. Of whom do t/.ev underftand it ? Of Mofes and Aaron? ^o^hMt of the Egyptians. Kow how, I pray, do thefe Two Sentences contradidl one another,' /Mofes avd Aaron rebelled vot, and, The Egyptians rebelled? If you but look into the Synopfis of Commentators.^ you will find that all who render it the former way, underftand it either of iHo/^j and Aaran-^ or of the Signs and Pro- digies: andthat all whofcnder it the latter way, un- derftand The Reafonahlenep of Conformity. 7^ derftand k of the Egyptiaiis. Where tlien is this Con" tradidion? To conclude this Head. The Declaration of ^i^^^«t and Cow/ewt t'oLicheth this Tranflation no farther; than to oblige you to ufe it in the. Public Worfhip. And if a Tranflation, tho' it be faulty, may not be us'd in our Churches •, fliew us a Tranflation that is perfedt •, or one that hath not greater Failings than this 3'-ou have produced. Subfcription obligeth you to fay that there is nothing in this Tranflation contrary to the Word of God: and there are fo many Things required to the proving a Tranflation contrary to the Word of God in fuch Points as this, that I ma)^ fay, it isalmofl: impolfible to do it. 5. Toil cannot affent and confent to tk^ Athanajian Creed: and, therefore, cannot cojiform as Mhtijlers. The Expref- lion you fcruple is this, IVhich Faith e;ticept every oiie do keep whole and intde filed, without doubt he (hall perifl) everlajl- ingly. Here you give me leave to fay, that you efieem this Creed an excellent Explication of the DoBrine of the Trinity. By which you mean, to be fure, agreeable to. the Word of God, and to Truth. From whence I argue ^ If this Explication be true, and agreeable to the Word of God; then] it is a good general Propolition, that whofoever doth rot believe it,JI)aU be condemn d at the lajl Day: which is only the fame thing in other Words. Now, when we exprefs our ftlves thus, we do not mean to condemn thofe who have not plain and certain Means Ol coming to the Knowledge of this ^ but only fuch who have the Means of coming to it, and yet, through fome Fault in i themfelves, refufe to believe it. And you your felves, 1 I doubt not, underfland fuch general Prcpciitions in Scripture with this Reflridion. You would aflent to I this Propolition, Whofever believeth not in Chrift^ Jliall be condemji'd ^ and yet not look upon yovr felves mfofar calVd to judge other Men, as to conclude all certainly damnd for ever who did not believe in him •, but fuch as had Means 'and Opportunity, and yet did not. Make the fame Al- lowance for this Propofition which refers to an excellent Explication of what you acknowledge to be a great and weighty 74 7yj But what cannot Weaknefs and Prejudice lead Men to ? If this Covjinnatkn be not commonly manag'd with a becoming Gravit}'' and ferioufnefs, ajj Tou infinuate, it is the Fault of the Bifhop who offici- ates-, for I am fure it may be managd mofl grarely and feriouily, becaufe I know it hath often been fo ma- iiag'd, and with great and vifible Advantage to many. And what is there in it that a Chriftian ought not to comply with ? And why muft this be call'd a Diocefan Cetemonjy v/hen anefTential part of it is the mofl folemn Profeifion of Chriflianity, to be made by the Perfons to fce confirm'd ? Beiides, I have fhewn before that you could have join'd in impofing fome Things upon th^ . ' People, The Reafonahlnefs of Conformit}% 75 People, which would have excluded many fcrupulous Perfons from Communion ^ and therefore, this cannot bean Argument to you againft conforming asMinifters. Thus have 1 gone over all your Reafons againft the fecond thing required of Minifters in the Church of £w^ /e ieafonabknefs of Conformity. ^t is exprefs'd in "Words which give as much Latitude,^ and as much Liberty to them who take it, as the moft confcientions Pcrfons upoil Earth could defire : Nay, I would gladly know in what Words you would rather chufe to prdmife Obedience to your Bifhop • and what Form 3''ou can dcvife, that coitld imply abfolute Obe- dience lefs than this doth. But I noW come to your Ob- jeftions againft it. And here I do not find, th^t you attempt to prove that the Words of the Oath do plainly iignify an abfo- lute Obedience to every one of the Canons not abrogated by fome Public Aft^ or that any Public A6t of the Church declares, that Minifters are underftood by this Oath to fwear Obedience to all Canons not fo abrogated: tho' fomewhat like this one might jiiftly exped. Nor do I find that you judge thus of this Oath from the Word Canonical^ inferted ill it : for you fay the fame of that Promife of Obedience to the Ordinary requir'd of Perfons to be Ordain d^ in which no fuch Word is made ufe of* What then are the Reafons why this Oath is not to be comply 'd with > I. The FirJi\s\h\S'^ hecauCe as all Obedience hath a re- lation to the Mandates of thofe who are to obey : fo the Canons of the Church arc the fated Laws of the Ecclefiajlical Go- ne niment : and therefore the Oath of Canonical Obedience Tphich hath a reference to thefc Canons^ carries in it a plain Obligjtion to co7npIy with them, without leaving Perfons at Liberty which to obey, and which to refufe, &c. I have fhewn before that this Oath cannot poJiibly refer to the Canons, but as they become the Injundlionsof one par- ticular Bilhop : and that it not only permits, but obliges all Minifters, ineffedt, to refufe Obedience to any of his Injunctions, when they appear not to them to be lawful and honeft. When I fwear Obedience to one particulac Perfon (as the Cafe is here) this Obedience hath no rela- tion to the Injundions of any Perfons in the World ex- cept this one : and when I fwear Obedience to him only in Things lawful and honeft, I oblige my felf to Obedi- mc9 The ReafonaMenefs of Cofiformity. ^^ e\ice\\\ nothing but what is to me lawful and honeft. Nei- ther the Canons of the Church, nor any Things antece- dently requir'd have the leaft relation to this Oath. Nor is the Queftion here, whether the Canons be without fault •, but whether you will obey this particular Bifiop in all lawful and honejl Th'ivgx. Let itie put a Cafe now which appears to me to be ex- adly parrallel •, and which may ferve to explain yet more fully the Point now before us. Suppofin^ you were now coming into this City, to ad in fome hrferior Qfce under the Infpedtion of the jLo;-J-yl^a}'or (who is one of the chief Officers under iiis Prince, as the Bifhop is un- der Jefus Chrift ) in the Execution of which Office you might often have occasion to confult him, and he often find occaiion to fend his Directions and Injundions to you. 4 Suppofing you were oblig'd upon your coming under his Jurifdidion, and within the Bounds of his Government, to take this Oath, / /wear that I will yield true and legal Obedience to the Lord Mayor^ Sec. in all law- ful and hon^Ji Things^ I defire to know, i . Wliether this Oath can have a reference to all the itated Laws by which the Lord-Mayor is to govern, any farther than as .they are the Matter of his Commands to you ; Or, whe- ther it can poihbly refer to any thing but this particular Governour's future Commands > conlidering that the on- ly Reafon why you are call'd upon to take it is, becaufe you are now coming to ad under his Eye, and in an inferior Office, in which you are often to have Diredi- ons from him ? 2. Whether a Legal Obedience to the Lord-Mayor can fignify any thing in this Oath, but fuch a iincere, honeft, fubmijlive Obedience as the Laws re- .quire of an inferior Ojfcer to his Superior, under whofe In-fpedion he is to ad ? confidering that the AVord Legal is join'dwith Obedience^ as the Word True is, to explain what fort oi Obedience is expeded : and as for the Extent of this Obedience, there are other 7/^o/'^i purpofely added (to reftrain it to /an/w/, andhoncjl^ Things only. 3. Whe- ,ther you might jiot, any thing in this Oath notwithftand- %o The Reafonal^knefs of* Con^ormhyl ing,refufe Obedience to any Ccvmjnailds of the Lord'^ Mayor that you apprehend to be unlawful, without en^ quiring whether thcfe Commands be according to the Laws of the Land or no > coiihdering that this Oath re* lates to nothing but the Injunctions of this Governour. 4. Whether you might not honeftly take this Oath, with- out fo much as knowing what Laws' the Lord-Mayor him- felf is obliged to adl by -, or what Injundions, it is pro* liable, he will lay upon you •, only refolving to yield Obedience to him^ hi all lawful avd honeji things ? confi* deringthat the Occafion of this Oath, and the Words of itreftrain this Obedience to the Directions of this parti^ cular Governour • and that it is time enough for you to judge of the lawfulnefs of them, when they are fignified to you 5. Whether the laft Words cf the Oath do not plainly fignify, that yon your felf are left fole judge of the lawfulnefs and honcfty of the Commands, and S all as well as fome of them ? confidering that there is no Di-ftinftion either made or implied in the Oath^ that thefelaft Words can fignify nothing, and are but a nott^ feiijic'al Addition^i^jou fuppofethat you oblige your felf by this Oath blindly to obey any of the Commands of your Superiour, without leaving your felf fo much tis a judg- ment of Difretion^ whether they be lawful or not. Now, if you apply what I have faid, to the Cafe be- fore us ^ and be but as willing to put a true interpretation upon the Oath of Cayionical Obedience to the Bifiop, as I believe you. would be to put a true interpretation upon fudh an Oath to the Lord-Mayor, I am perfuaded not a word more is necelTary. But I cannot help declaring, what I conftantly find hitherto to be true, that you are more willing to make Nov fence, Ahfiirdity, and Contradic tioni, of any of thofe Declarations, or Sentences, upon v/hich you found your Objections, than to allow them fuch a Conftruction as will make them appear lefs rigid than your Fathers, or you, have reprefentcd them : for feat "( one would think) that the World fhould come at laflt to elteem Minijlerial Conformity to the Church of Bngland a very The Reafonahh'nefs of CorSormity. 8i very pardonable thing. If you Llame me for teilig Co free a? to declare this, I can do nothing but appeal to this Chapter now before me for the proof of it. And I i defire you would confider whejther yoti giVe Us not a juft I occafion of laying this to 3^oui .charge in the Cafe now ' before us. Here is an Oath to be taken : and rather than it fhould not ^Y^-pear Egregious DifimuUtlon (as your words are) to take it, you do indeed put a fenfe upon it which neither the words, nor defign, can admit of. For, tore- turn to your ObjeBioTi, nothing can be plainer than that an Obedience to a Governour^ reftrain d in exprefs terms to things lawful^ can have no relation to any thing but; things accounted by you to be lawful ; yet here we have it affirmed, thsit Rich an Oh^die7fce haih a relation to all the Stated Lciws by which the Governotir is to act, though you account them tudawful. Nothing can be plainer, than that this O^f/^ fuppofes that all his Commands may lie mianful, and leaves you to judge of all as well asfomn, yet here it is affirmed, that it leaves you not fo much as \s1jndg7nent oi Difcretiov, as to fome of them. Nothing is (plainer than that the reafon and defign of this Oath re- _ ftrains it to the Finn re Commands ^of one partiadar Bifiop-^ yet we have it maintain'd that it fuppofes an Obligation to comply with the thiv^s antuedently required hy others. Where, I beleech 3rou, is this fuppofed? What words are here in this Oath that do plainly, nay, that can pnfibly re- fer to any thing antecedently required ? Or, is tlm fuppofed in the Reafono£ the Oath? That,I am fu e, is apparently againft you. ■• If neither in the J?^^/9«, hot the-yWds of it, where elfe can this Obligation be fippofed ? For my part, I am convinc'd that no Arts^ or Mctaphyfcs, m the World can be fufficient to make good this part of your charge. And indeed you feem to me to confute your ipwn Accufation in this place. For after yoii have ac* inowledged that there is in the Oath a Limitation of this Obedience to things lawful and honefi^ you grant this Limt- tdtion is to be extended only to Future Commands. From Hfhence I argue Tand I recommend the Argument to ycur ' o ^ ^ Confide- §2 The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. Confideration) that the Oath it felf can be extended id nothing but Future Commands. For, if thefe Words, all lawful aJid houcjl th'ivgs, refer to Future Commands only, as. you fay they do •, then an Ohedlcvce promifed in all lawful avd hovejl thiiip can refer to nothing but Future Commands. If the Lhflhation extend only to Future Commands-^ then the Obedience promifed with this Limitation, extends on- ly to Future Commaytds. If there be any other Obedience l\vorn in thefe AVords, befides a limited one, let it be plainly fheun. If there be not, let it be acknowledged, that a Limited Obedience, can refer to nothing, but what - the Limitation refers to. "What might have been expfted, if fuch a Lifnitation had not been added ^ when, now it is added in plain Words, the Obedience promifed with a Li?nitafion, is made to extend to IvjnnBions to which the i/w/fiifi&w it felf is acknowledged not- to extend? Nay, befides all this, fuppofing this Oath to refer to Obedience to f/;e Giwo?/5 already fettled- can you pollibly invent a better Argument to prove that an abfolute Obedience to every one of them not abrogated is promifed in it, than the laft Words will afFbi'd us that it is not > All you can fav is, that fu rely whatever the Church Reprefentative re. quires cannot be fuppofed tinlaivful by t ho fe jvho prof efs fa great a Reverence for all its diBates as fome do, which is rather Banter than Argument : but we can produce the very "SWords of the Oath fuppofing that every one of them may be.fcrnpled by yoii unlefs you your felf judge them lawful ai\dhoncJi : and we are not now enquiring what I, or any other private Perfon, think \ but what this Oath fuppofes, or implies. N®'v\', if the account of this Oath which I have now laid down, be a true one, as I verily believe it is^ it is *)lain that all your Objections drawn from the Canons,\ct the Obedience to them be never £o much antecedently J-equired, are no more Objeftions againft the taking this Oath, than they are againft taking the Ozthoi Allegiance. And, therefore, I need not trouble you, or my felf with any thing particular in Dcfenfe of every G?/o?r youobjedt againft J The Reafo7iahlenefs of Conformity. g^ againft 5 though, I afTure you, I could iheW that you put moft unreafonable Interpretations upon many of them 5 and reprefent their Senfe very unfairly ^ and ar- gue unjuftly againft them. If I have proved that this Oath cannot refer to any ahfohte Obedience to them, 1 have done what is fufficient to remove this Reafon againft y^our conforming as Minijlen. From what hath been faid It appears alfo, that the Cafe of a MiniJIer, in this mat- ter, is not the fame with that of a Ji(liice of Peace, as you reprefent it to be •, unlefs the Oath a Jttjlice takes, be an Oath of Obedience to the Future Commands of one particular Perfon, under whofe infpeftion He is to execute his Office : and unlefs the Obedience be limited to latpful and honejl things •, and a liberty left him of de- murring upon the Commands of his Svpe/iors. But fup* poiing this Oath of a -MiwT/?^/" had been expreffed after the fame manner with that of a jfnpce of Peact-^ do you really think that a Jupce binds himfelf to execute every j)articular Law of the Land not publicly abrogated when called to it > Do you think that a Gentleman might not honeftly take upon him that OfRce, tho' He did not fo much as know all the Laws He might poffibly be cal- led, one time or other, to execute-, nay, tho' there were Laws, not abrogated, which He was refolved never to execute-, provided they were fuch as His Prince neither at prefent requires Him, nor Would, in all probability, require Him to execute during his whole Life ? Such as were grown to be univerfally difafed, and that difufe con ftantly connived at ? This would be no very grateful LefTon to many of your own Friends^ or indeed to any Jujiice in the whole Land. But I do not believe you think hardly of any fuch Gentlemen j and yet none of their Superiors would let them openl)'- explain their meaning, and fay, Thefe Laws t will execute, and thefe t vill not. They certainly adl iincerely and honeftly, in taking fuch an Oath, if they fatisfie their Confciences as to thofe Laws which they themfelves may probably, in I the prefent State of things, be called and required to exe- G 2 cute. 04 7^^ ReafonahUneJs (!?/' Conformity', cute. KoW, I fay, fuppofing t]\h Oath o^ Mint fl era to })€ parallel to that of Jvftkes^ joxx are obligt^l either to Ihew that, a ynjiice binds himfelf to the Execution of eve- ry particular Law not abrogated, (which you cannot do,^ or to make the fame allowances for Mhijlers as you can do, u^oxi occajioir^ fo?' others '^ and not to think harder of i/;^7w than yotiufually do of rtt/jer^. But, 2. A)wtJ?er Capital Reafon (as you term it) why this Oath is fcrupledis, hecatifi the Epifcnpal Government hma- va^ed by Chavcetlonr\ Courts, tihere Laymen excommu' mcate^ avdabfolve, &c, I need only mention this. For I have before ihewn that there is nothing promifed in this OAh but an Obedience to the Fittitre Commands of one particular Goveriwvr, limited only to fuch things as you your felf judge to be lawfitl : and therefore need not go overall your fad and unjuft Aggravations of this. Em- ploy all your Art and Rhetoric!: to malce this as foul as you would have it appear •, Call it by what names you plcafe •, I fee not how it touches the matter before us -^ for, let the Cafe be never fo bad, and your Reprefenta- tion of it never fo true •, ( which indeed it is notj this Oath obligeth you to no Obedience but what vou your felf Ihall think lawful. It binds 3rou not to a& Blindfold •, or to overthrow the FaJloral\ Ojfice ^ or to approve offacrilegions Prcphanenefs •, or to trvjlyour Confciences with Lay-men ^ or to-be the Ivftnnnents of violejling^ worrying^ and /iiining as Religious Perfons as any in your Parif/jes ^ but only to obey your BiJI)op in all lawful things. Look over thefe PafTages again •, and fee with what Confcience you can thus re- prefent either this Oath, or the promife of Obedience to the Ordinary ^ both of which can relate to nothing but the Tutuie Commands of fome particular Men, and are drawn up \\nt\\ fuch a Liinitation plainly exprejfed, as you ar'e forced to under Jl and m almoft every other Oath you take. I do not den)?- that it is pojjible you may fufter fome In- tonvenience for refujing Obedience in fome Cafes. But it is but poffible • and 1 do not think you can produce any Inftances of Minijlen who have fufFered any thing confi- derablc ' Tlpe Reafonahlenejs of Conformity. 85 deraMe for it. But this is not the Point, what polihf Inconvenmices a Mimjler is liable to : but what Obedievc^ heobligeth himfelf to, by the Oath we are now coniider-: ing : and to fay that he obligeth himfelf to any blivdfold, a&iftg, is to fay what is diredtly contrary to the JFords and Dejign of it. I fhall only now fet down the Oath be- fore the Reader sTace, and with it the Tjpo Interpreta- tions •, that which l^ou have fixed upon it ^ and that which' I apprehend to be the only one of which it is capable ; that fo he may the more ealily judge between us. The Oath is this, I fwear that I will yield true and Cavovical Obedience to the Bifiop of N. in all lawful avd hovefi thingx. Your Interpretation of it is this, I fwear that I will obey every one of the Qirwm, (not publicly abrogated) ^s being antecedently obliging •, and fvppofed to contain nothing but what is lawful and honcjl : and alfo that I will obey the Future. Commands of this BiJI)op in all lawful and honejl things. lit which you are forced to make the Oath confift of two Parts, to one of which you apply the laft Words-, and to the other you do not :' in oyie of which jon promife a limited Obedience to the Commands of the Bipop •, in the other an abfoUite Obedience to fomething elfe : whereas the laft Words do manifeftly reftrain all the Obedience -pi'o- mifed : and the Oath refers to nothing but the Commands of onePerfon. The Interpretation I apprehend to be the true one, and that of which alone it is capable, is this •, I 710W coming to aB under the Eye and TnfpeBion of this par^ ticular Bifiop, do fwear ^ that I will yield a true Obedience to Him^ and fuch a fncere^ ?'eady, arid fubmijive Obedience as^ hy the Laws of the Churchy is required of a Presbyter to his Bijbop^ in all things, that according to the bejl light I have ^ lean apprehend to be lawful and honeji. This is the Oath^ andthefe are the Two Interpretations • and let any one \\i the World judge, which is moft agreeable to the Deiign and words of it. From what I have faid on this Head, give me leave to conclude, that it is fo far from being Egregious Diffmiilation to take this Oath with a Refervc to. demur upoji the Commands afterwards given, let them be '^ , G 3 what 86 The Reafo7iabIen8fs of Con form ity# what they will •, that you cannot polTibly take this Oath ih the plain Senfe of the Words in which it is framed, without this referve^ unlefs you make two Oaths of it, and make a diJlhiBion out of your own Heads inconfiftent with the Words of it. But I have done. Only I defire it may be obferved, that for all thefe long and tragical Exclamations upon this Oath to the Bijhop, and Fromifc o£ Obedie7tce to the Ordiriary, we have only Mr. Baxter^ and one of his laft Books quoted ^ though for the other Heads of Accufation many others are added. Not that I think that what is here faid is ever the more to be reje- cted on this Account, if it appear reafonable •, but yet, this is a prejudice againft it, and a prefumption that the matter may be miftaken, and his terrible Invedtive mii^ applied. But you will fay, What then ? Is no Obedience due from a Mimjler to the Canoyn? Yes, certainly^ but not by this Oaf /?, unlefs as they become the Covunavds of his. Bifinp •, nor then, any abfolute Ohediejice. Not by this Oath^ I fay^ and that is what we are now coniidering. JBut I add, that whoever deiigns to officiate as a Min'ijler an any Church, certainly a6ts not fairly and honeftly, if he do notfirft fatisfie his Confcience about the lawfulnefs of Obedience to fuch Rules and Prefcript ions as have been laid down and agreed upon by the Govemoiirs of this Church, for the regulating the Behaviour of all who mi-» nifterinit^ andrefolveto obey them. But then the Rules and Prefcrijptiotts he is to fatisfie himfelf about, can be only fuch as concern his own Behaviour and Condudt in his Office ^ And of thcre,only fuch as he is fuppofed by the prefevt Govervours of the Church to be obliged and . ready to obey. For it is very plain, that I am concern- ed onlv in the R efent Time ^ and obliged to Obedience to no Rules but thofe to which Obedience is itow required ; thofe which are now efteemed to be obligatory. Concern- ing the Canons therefore againfi: wiiich youobjedl (thofe, I mean, which concern the Conduct of Minijlers} I ask, Are they not fuch as arc altered and repealed by any fubferw5 of Mimfterial Conforviity have been miftakeii, and mifreprefented ; and that I have faid already what may make it needlefs to add any thing more upon this Subjed:. But this I muft leave to your own Confciences 5 and amoblig'd to proceed, in the Method I at firft pro- pos'd, to confider all that I find alleg'd in Defenfe of Nonconformity^ that fo the Merits of this Cavfc may be fairly and thoroughly tried, and nothing be left un- touGh'd in a Matter of fuch Confequence. I Ihall now therefore endeavour, II. To {hew that the >4/-^«7«e«tx proposed by yix.Calayiy in Defenfe of Your felves, are not fufficient to juftify your Behaviour^ even fuppofing the Terms of Mhiijlerial Co7iformity to be unreafonahle. By unreafonable here, I mean iinreafonable in your Opinions, futh as You could not with a fafe Confcience comply with, fuch as You coulc! not, after all your Confideration, heartily approve of, or fubmit to, without Sin. If you could have join'd with them without finning, You acknowledge that You ought to have done it, and you profefs that You would have done it. But not being able to mhiijler piiblidy in the Church oi England without a6ting againft Your Con- fciences, You mhijier publicly in a feparate way. After therefore that Mr. Cala7?iy hath produced, in your Names, the Reafons why You think the Term.': of Minijierial Con- formity unreafonable, and a Compliance with them fin- ful ^ He advances the Arguinents which induce You to fninijler publicly in 2. feparate way. Accordingly, I now fuppofe his Reafons to be fufficient to prove that a Com- pliance with thofe Terms had been finful in Tou - and come to examine his Arguments for your Public Mini- Jirations, \/Vnd in order to do this diftindly and clearly, I ihall, - I. Confider \ht Arguments offered in Vindication of thof& amongft You, who were in the Minijlry before the 93 The Reafonahlenep of Conformity. M ofUMformity,mid have ever iince continued the ;7»^- Ih: Exercife ofit^ and examine whetTier they be fuffi- cicnt to defend your Prailice in fo doing. And, ^. I fhall Confider how far thefe Ar^v7nevts can vindi- cate the Pradtice ofthofe amongft Ycu, who have ordain- ed others, and of thofe who have hee\i ordained to the Mimfiry^ iince that A^. Under the former c{ thefe, that I may the more efre^ dlualh^ compafs the End I propofe, I judge it to be the properefi: Method, //■/, to draw up the Arguments I meet \Vith fairly and honcftly, in fuch a Form that every Bndy may presently fee their utmoft Force •, and then to return what appe.rs to me to.be a/i/^czVwt Avjwer to Jhem. ' • , .TheFf;/and 5^co,wiare built upt)ri the f^me Princi- ple, andmay betjnited together. The Import of them is thiij, We dare not lay afide the nvhltc Exercife o^ our Mi- tiijlry^ becaufe we cannot do it without being guilty of pcrfdions breaking our Ordination Vow^ by which we obliged our felves to the diligent Ferformance of our Minifiry-^ and o^ Sacrilege J in alienating Ferfom who have been confe crated to God. .•.■■: This Reafoning^ "vye fee, is founded upon that Vow you had before made, and that Dedication by which 7b« had fnlemniy given your felves up to the Service of God in the Mivijiry. Now, I confefs J know not what it was that You expJicitely proniifed, when You devoted Your felves to the Service of God in the Minijlry ^ but I am fure nothing ought to be Implied in fuch a Vow^ and fuch a Dedication, that is contrary to the Service of that God to xvhom You dedicated your felves, or inconfiftent with the Good o^theChnpan Church, in which You obliged ybur felves by Vow to viiv.ifter. This, I believe. You will eafily grant me, if I mal'e'You Judges in the Cafe, that no Vow to fcrve God in any particular way (let it be never fo folemnj can be fuppofed to oblige, when the performance of it v/ill tend to the Dijfervics and Dif^o- Ttohr The Reafonahlemfs of Conformity. 99 'novy of God- and that no Dedication of your felves to the Service of the Chvrch of ChriJ} in one certain \va.jy can bind 3^ou, when that particular way proves (in its Confequences j a Prejudice and Difenncc to the G.urch of Ojnft. For this Vow and Dedication were founded upon the Suppofal of doing Good, and were determin'd to one particular way, confider'd as the way in which you could do Service to the Church. But when the Time comes that you cannot keep in this way without doing Hurty and being the Occafion o^Mifchiefto the Chu/ch of God -^ this Vow and Dedication are fo far from obliging javi to continue in this particular way, that they do really oblige you to forfalce it, as they are founded upon the general Obligation you, and all Men are under, of doing what is moft for the Honour of God and Se?'vice of the Church. The Vow was, to promote the Glory of Go J, and Goodot that Society to which you belong : and you had not determin'd your felves to one certain wa}'^, unlefsin order to thefe Ends. Now, if thefe Ends may be bettef promoted by you in forfaking this way, than in conti- nuing in it, you are neither p?r/f"aVo "5, nor facrilcgious, if you defert it: but rather, if you contiJtite in it. For by continuiyig in it, if the Cafe be fo, you adt againft the main and manifeft Deiign of it. Remember therefore, that you may he perfidious Breakers of it, whilft you keep to the Letter, and ncgled the Intent-, SLnd facrilegious De- ferters, whilfi: you continue the P:iblic Exercife of your Minijlry, and refufe to promote the Honour and Service of that God to whom you dedicated your felves, by lay^ ing it afide, and ftudying to do Good by other Methods^ He is not perfidious who atts againft the literal Senfe of his Vow, becaufe it is agreeable to the fir ft and original Delign of it, that he ihould do fo : nor is hefacrilegiou-, who withdraws from the Sacred Ofiice to which he had dedicated himfelf, becaafe he can now no longer do that Service to the Church he once propofed to himfelf, in this Station •, but can do much more by betaking himfelf 'to another. On the contrary, this very /";;zp«f^t*zo?/ will be found, 94 The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. found to lye heavieft upon thofe, who are refblved to come up to the Letter of their Vow^ and to keep tof the Office to which they have dedicated themfelves, tho' they do jWfchiefhy fe doing. As for the Sacrilege they are guilty of, who would alienate You horn the Service o] God in a mivijlerial way, which you fpeak of in this place ♦, Every Man fiall bear his own Burthen. That any Perfon knowingly, and wil- lingly defigned to rob the Church of the Labours of any truly good and iifeful Men, it fhocks me to think. But if they did, the Faults of others are neither our Faults, nor Excufes for our Faults. And this is of no relation to the Point now before Us. What I have faid is fuflicient to fhew, how little this Vow and Dedication, when You were Ordain d, have to do with this ^ueflion. Whether you ought to continue tha Public Exercife of your Minijiry, or no ? For this Vow can oblige you to it no farther, thail as it is for the greater Good and Service of the Cljrijlian Church ^ and whether it be fo, or no, depends wholly upon other Conjidera" tions. If upon Examination, it be found to be fo, I grant indeed this Soleynn Vow will aggravate the Guilt of thofe who defert it, becaufe then they defert it againft the hitent as well as the Letter of this Vew. But if it be not found fo, this Vow is nq> Argumejit^ as it ftands by it felf, for the Continuance of your Public Minijlry, but indeed againji it. The right way therefore muft be, firft to fhew from other Arguments, that it is for the Honour and Ser- vice of God and his Church, that you fhould publicly execute the Office of Minijlers -, and then to argue from your V^jw, to the Continuance of your Public Miniftra- tiom. But your Vow alone can never prove it to be your Duty to continue them, becaufe it was not, in the Defignofit, abfolute, that you would publicly minijler in the Church, whether it fhould be for the Good and Service of the Church, or no -, but wholly conditional, and refpedting the Good and Service of the Church, We mufl therefore conlider what other Reafo7i5 there are for your Beha" The Reanahfoknefs of Conformit}^ 05 Behaviour, and what other Arguments fufficient to vindi- cate your Praftice, that is, fufficient to prove it your Duty to continue the 'Puhlic Exerdfe of your M'nujiry, I proceed therefore to The Tlnrd Argument, which is this, We cannot lay afide the Piihlk Exercife of our Miviftry without the Sin tfUitfaithfubtefs, Cruelty, and Umnercifuhtefs, and witliout incurring the Guilt ofruinivg Souls by flopping our Mouths. ' There is another Argument to this purpofe, taken from the Necejitiex of the People, which I ftiall have Occafion to confider prefently. But This now before us is foun- ded, not upon the real Neceffities of the People, and the real Danger they were in without your Aiiiftance, but upon the Entreaties, and importunate Requefts ^^ fome of the People, the Care of whofe Souls you had undertaken, and upon their declaring that they would charge you with the NegleB of their Souls, ifyouforfookthem. And yourZ'fiw^ fought to for Help^ is made the Argument for your afford- ing your Help in this public manner, I do not doubt indeed, but that many of your People might be induced hy their own Affedions to you, and many by your DiC^ courfe with them, to requeft you ftill to minijier to them. But how doth it follow from thence, that therefore yo« ought ? Are the People fit Judges of your Duty, and Directors of your Practice ? Nay, Have youafted, or do you aft as if You were guided by this Conliderati- on -, as if it were your Judgment, that You contrafted fuch a Relation to the Flock in which You once minifter, that a Removal becomes unlawful, if any cf them reqwelt your Stay ? Did you never remove from thefe People, who thus entreated you > Do you never remove from one Congregation to another ? Or, Are the P^op/e always content to part with You, when You would have them fo ? and, Is this Argument onlv good when You are Suc- ceeded by a Minifier of the EJlablifyd Church, and not when You are fucceeded by one from amongft Your lelves ? Are the People fuch Excellent Difcerners, that their Judgment is brought into the Account > And have ?V ~ ~ " not 96 The Reafonahlenefs of Confbrinity. not' You had reafon Your felves to complain fometimei of their want of Judgment? Did they make this Requefi only where Your Siicceffors were really infufficient ? and, 'Was it regarded by You only in fuchGafes .^ I cannot but wonder to fee fuch infignificant Arguments advanced for fo very material a Point of Pradice. It would be Prefumption indeed for me to pre- tend to advjfe You •, but had I been in your Cir-- cumftances, and had any of my People been fo im- portunate with me to continue my l?iihlic Minijl/y amongft them^ tho' I know not what Anfvi/er I fhould have given them, yet I know what, I verily think, I ought to have given them. And that is fomething like this;; I have indeed contracied a Relation to yoii^ and am obVged to 77iimjle7- to you in holy Tlnngs as long as it is bej}^ upon aU^ Accounts, that I Jljould dofo : but 7iov;>^ Jince it is more for- the Peace and iiniverfal Good of the Church, that I fiould. fiot execute 7ny Office publicly ajnongfl you, I think viy felf obliged not to do it. Indeed if there tvere any NeceJJity for it •, if there were any danger of your lojing yow Souls for want of my public Affijlance -^ if your own Care, together with the legal Provifonfor them, and the Grace of God, were not fuf- fcient tofecure your Salvation, I would run all Hazards ra* thsr then forfake you. But I cannot think the Cafe is fo bad. Tou who make this Requejl to 7He are Perfovs who ar^. C07icer7ted for the Salvatioji of your Souls, who talk much of the Care ofthe7n • ayid therefore I cannot but tlmik that you a?'efe7ifble what you owe to your felves, and refolved to do your own Duties. And if you be, I muft teU you that the Church of England 25 a Church in which there is excel- h7it Provifon for your Edification, and Increafe in all truly Chrijiian G/'aces. Tou have a good, or, at leaf, a tolera^ hie Lhm-gy,to afijl your united Devotions, and that more ft for the Sole77inities of Public "Worfhip than many oj the fuddcn Effvfions you have heretofore joi7ied with. In this Church 710 part of God's TFill is hid or ohfcured, or e7ier* vated and rejiderd ufelefs -, and you 7nay be fure of hearing Jeyeral Portions of his IFord whenever you attejid Jtpon the Services The Re^fonable?iefs of Conformity. 97 Services appoijited ink. A>'dyoii veedTiot dotiht^nphatevcr : mySiicceJfor be^ hit that you vray jnah coyijiderahle Prnfci- i S)icy htthe Paths of. the Gofpel, uvderfnch a Drfpcjtfatioii^ I if you be 'not wavtirg to your felves •, rA I believe you vill vot^ I 7f t may judge by this Conce^ft yon mv? expref fo?- your Etey- 7hil luteref Tou can hardly live under fo bad a Aiinifter, but that He will be able to teach you many a ufeftil Leffoft. But however that be^ there is Excellent Food provided for yon by the very Conjiitutioyt of this Churchy which he- cannot keep frorn you j what will nottrifi you unto Eternal Life^ if \you hinder not the EjfeB of it your fives. Tour Salvation depends not upon his Abilities, nor are you to entrufi your felves to the Guidance of him or any Man upon Earth : but your Belief and PraBice is to be built 071 another foundation. '\Tbe Care of your Souls lyes chiefly upon your felves, and if you do your part, and attend fericjijly upon the Public Ser- |vice, and do 7Wt place Edi^cation in ai\y thing, but an /;;;- Iprovement in triig Qdodnefs and Piety, the means of thii afe not wanting in the Church cf England, 7ior will ynur ^alvatio7i beinuch enda7}gerd in fuch a Conflitution. If L dill live Amo7tgfl youhi another Capacity, I may be vfeful to mr Souls without the Public Exercife ofjfiy Miniftr7. Aitd if I do not, it is a falfe Notioyt, that your Cafe is de- sperate ^ and it is what I thiitk iny felf ohligd to declare to \oii, that the Provifwn Tjiade for you in the Church of Eng-' and is what ycii ought to be very thaitlful to Almighty God for. Reme7nber that you are to regard the Peace of the Church, as well as your own Humours and Fancies -, and :o confult it, 7vhenever your own Salvation u not in danger : phich I know 7wne will affirm it to be, in the Eftablifh'd church, but the mofl violeyit and 7nofl: uncharitable Separa- Iilts, of whom you ought to beware. j This, I think, is what might moit jaftly be returned fi AnfW-er to thefeunreafonable Demands, and Threat- lings of fome of your People. This is what f jme of you, lay, all of you with whom I am now chiefly concern- d, could with a fafe Confcience havefaid: and what, 4^.r.e fay, you have not fcrupled to fay on other Occa- -^ ■ H iioiis ^ Ihe Re^fonal^/enefs of Conformhj, iions. AikI, if th^smay juftly be fai-l, then the Ar^it^ vievt talcen from the Reqnejls o^ fome of your Teoplc cant fignif".^ notl^.iiig to 3^.onr liifi-ification. For it appearsi from hence, that their keqnej}.^ might have been anfvvcr-. ed another way, andthaf tlicjdid not ncceffarily oblige you to the Contiviiaricc of A'our Public Minijl/y. But here you fpeak as if the Authonty of the Magijlrate, were the onl}'' Arpmevt to engage you to Silence, and talk of a fnlemn Obligation you were under to a higher Avl- thori y^ to fulfil your Mhujlry^ as you were ablc^ whev fought to for yielp. For my part, I urge not the bare Authority of an}^ Earthly Power, for indeed I have but a mean Opinion of the Argumeitt drawn from thence, in the ^»g- Jlion now before us. But I urge this, which is included- in whar I jiave already advanced. That you are under tio Obligation to God to continue the Public Exercife of your Mini fry, be you rever fo much fought to for Help, tifhen h is more for the Honour of God, and the Good of the Chri* Jian irorld, that you fwuld not-, when the Necejities ofthefe Pi'ople, who have fuch a Concern for their Soulx, as to de- wand your Hip, viay be fervid without your Public Mini- i ftrations :i' when you may promote the Peace of the jrorld^- and Salvation of your Neighbour sin other ways\ and there- fore, that this i?^(r/o?/f;/^lignifies very little. Sothatyour ■ aggravating this part of your Caufe tvith comparing' theKcglec of thefe Dt'w.-i?;^.? of your People, with the neglecting to feed your Children, or to relieve the Poor and Dijircjfd, upon X.]\Q Command of the Magifrate, fhews on- ly lioir. wdling you are to fay what may move the Affe- Bions rf the World about you, not wh^t may convince the Judgments of A'tcn of TJiought and Confidcratioi\, If thefc Cafes be parallel, it is plain from your Praftice, cither that you jadge it not to be ijihumaiie and barbarous to ncg\etl.to feed yuur Chi! dren^ when they are otherwif^ provided for, and it is expedient for you to remove from them^ and to relieve the Poar in oie particular way, when there is no danger of their ftarving for want of your Relief, and fomc Confidcrations make it better that you Ihoul^ Tl^e Re a fonaMenefs of Conformity. ^g (hould not your felves relieve them in this partiathr Way: I fay, it is plain from your PraiSlice, either that you judge not fuch Ncgle^is^ in fuch Clrcumftances, to be hihumane and barbarous^ or that you have been, and are fometimes guilty of Barba?hy^ and Inhimavity. For you do not fcru])le to remove from one Conp-egation td another (tho' it be a Venture who fhall fucceed you) up- on Confiderations of much lefFer moment than what might have induced 3'-ou to lay afide the public Ex- enife of your Mimjlry feme Years ago. Nay, I doubt not, but that you may have removed (at leaft, that jo\x efteemed it not unlawful fo to do) from thefe very peo-' pie, who fo importunately demanded your Stay amengft them, to exercife your public M^uftry in fome other Congregation, and contra(3: a new Relation to arwther People : And yet by this Removal you are ejeBed, and Jileitced as far as they are concerned. And if fo, where is the Force of this Argument,, on which fo great Weight feems to be laid. Some of the People, the Ca7'eofwhofe Souls we had imder- iaken, declared, thai they would charge its with the Negleci of them, vnlefs we covtimid publicly to minifter amovgjl them. Therefore it is ovr Duty to fnivijler publicly, not only iyi this place, and among thefe Perjons, but in whatever other places, and amongji whatever ether Perfons, we tlmtk ft, throughout the whole Nation ? , You may fee from hence, now few, hoW very few of you who continued to vmijier publicly, this Argume7it will excufe, and that it was hardly worth your while ta mention it, fuppofing it to have that Weight in it you imagine it to have : Much lefs, conlidering the Weak- [ nefs of it in its utmoft Force. I ihall add but orie thing more upon this Head, which you need not me to put Vou in mind of. That fuppoiing a7ty had perifi'd, nd heen loft, whoin you were able to have cjijlcd and ivftruBcd, you are not chargeable with this fad Confeqiicfice of your 5'f- l^nce -^ lince this muft have come to pals thro' their Ne- H 2 gle^t lOd The Reafonablenefs of Conformity. lect of their own Souls, thro' their not regarding the Lc^ 9cii Prov'ijwn made i'oY them, their not attending upon the puIAic Sen-ice o^ the Churchy their not 'receiving the Por- tions of God's "Word read to them, and the Inftrnftions given, witli a ferious and religions Frame of Mind, and u Defire of profiting bv them ^ in cne A\^ord, thro' f^m' cTTj/ Fault, not thro' vo7/;x And therefore, their S'ouh 'vronlJ Go'd have required' at their oivn Hands', ^nd n'ot at yoiin. The fourth A^'gumcnt in D'efenfe of your Conthntance in the minijlry after apn/'Z/cmannner, is this. IFe cavvot lay afule the public Exercife of our vmiijflry, without incurring the Guilt of hiding our Talevt^ and ex- pofvg our feives to a like Trcitvievt nnth that of the iniprof- tatle Servant hi the Gofpel, Matth, 2y. 50. Therefore vvc dare not do it. In anfwcr to this, 1 deny riot, but that many o£ yotf TTiight have been very useful and profitable Servant < (in the Office of the viinijlry) had you thought fit to continue in the E ft alTifi'^d Church : But I deny that you would have been judg'M and condemn'd as unprofitable Servants^ had 3'ou laid down the public E^icrcife of that O^cf, when you could not join with the EJlabliJlid Church. And my Reaion is this, Becaufe Bv doing fo 3'ou would have confulted tlie Peace o^ the Church, and the Honour or God, without putting your feives oitt of all Capacity of doing Service to the Souls of Men. Your Examples might ftill have continued to finvic before Men as much as ever •, youx Converfation might have been inftrudlive, and of great Influence upon vour Neighbours ^ your JFritivga mi^ht hare pleaded the Caufe of true and ferious Religi- on in the "World; your Covfonmty as Laymen to the Church f'f Eiigland, would have given a Check to the Spirit of violent S par cit ion t^'^tw reigning, would have done much to the prorUicin^ Peace and Harjuony in the Tempers of Men, would have reflcded no Dilhonour upon the Go/pel (I yefus Chriff, nor, confecjuently, upon your own Cha>-*' '*' railcrs, as you ^re Chrifiiam. And, mider fuck Confi-*'* derations. The Reafoiiahlenefs of Conformity'. lOi derations, what Danger there could be of 3''our hinirrhi^ the Guilt a'ni Doom of the iivprojitahle Scrvaiit'in the Go/"' pelj I cannot fee. That wicked and Jlothful Sei vavt, acled jiis Part upon a quite different Principle. Heconfolt- .ed not the Honour of God, regarded not the Impro"i'e- ment of thofe Abilities and Opportunities he had of do- ing Good, but determined to live idle and ufelefs in the World. Whereas your .Cafe, as I fuppofe, would h'7/-.e Jbeen quite otherwife. ilad you laid down the puhlic Exercife of 3'owr mimfln, it would have be&n out o.f Kegard to the Honour ui God ^ and Good o^ his Chtrch; ■out of Refpect to your great Lord and Mafter ^ with a Refolution of doing all the -Good poinble to the World ;about you in other Statioin\ and of carrji'ing for^\^ard the Salvation of your Neighbours in the ways of Peace ^ Vnity^ mid Concord: And how different is this from the •Cafe of him, who had Opportunities and Abilities of •promoting the Service of God, and abfolutely rcfaftd to make ufe of them? Nay, God knows, whether, in •Xhe Rigour of Juftice, 3^our Pra^ice be not more paral- lel to t'at of this miproftahle Servant, than your Silence would have been. It will all turn upoij this one Point, whether cf the Two, confidcring all-Circumftances, had hQQW more for the Honour of God your Majier, and your Judge. If it be found at laft, that the Advantages of your Silence, and your hearty endeavours to do Good in a more private way, would have been greater, than the Jidvunta^Qso^ yoiiv piihlic ??iiniJJrations -, and that the Confequences of the latter have been more pernicious XQ the Chrijlian World, than the Confequences cf the for- mer would have been •, then it will be found that you Jiave been unprof table Servants, and incurr d the fame iGuilt bj your PraHice, which you were fo afraid of in- curring by your Silence ^ that you have refufcd to pro- mote the Honour of God, and Good of his Churchy whejj it was in your Power to do it. And it is a very v/cigh- ty Matter, and worthy of a moft ferious Couiidcration, whether the AfV^^nents on the fide c>f your PraMice be H 3 j)lainl/ 102 The Re a fonabknefs of Con^oxmiiy, Plainly and evidently Superiour to thofe on the other iide. That they are fo, I hardly believe I fhall ever fee clearly demonftrated. And till I do, I cannot poiTibly think the Argument now before us fufficientto vindicate the Contmiance of your public vnn'ijlratmis. The Fifth Argument is this, "We judge it to be our Duty to continue the Tublu Ex ercife of our Miviftry, beraufe of the Necejflties of the Pe pie ; w.a-r.y Aiiviifers in the pM- lie Churches having more Souh to look after than fever al would be fujjicient for, 'f 1 nnderftand this Argument 2in^t^ You do not mean bv it, that the Private 'are of thefe Minifiers cannot be fuffi'int for their J^op?*?; for though this might bean Argument for your Private /jffance^ yet you could not produce it as an Argii.nent for your Public Aii7iiJ}ratio7is, But what You mean by it muft be this, that there arc more People in f >me Paripes than can poffibly enjoy the Fnbllc Care o^thcn EJiahlif)ed Mini Jlery than can have the opportunity of Communion in the Public Ajfemblies^ ^ and the Ofices of Religion, and that it is for the fake of ihtfc that You continue your public Minijlrations. This, I fay, iswh:>t muffc be meant b}'' it, as it is ur- ged in Defcnfe oiyQUX public not private Minijlry ^ and in anfwer to it. You muft pardon me, if I tell You, that it IS not iincere in You to allege, in Vindication of 3^oui;^ public Mini fi rations, what, You know your felves, is not the t7-ue Rcjfon of your continuing rhem. And tho' what Yen here urge may, in your Opinions, reflect upon the BftalliJJjed Church -, yet fuppoiing the matter to be true, it muft a little reflect upon jrour felves, when it appears that fuch a Pra&ice as yours cannot pojTibly be founded iipon fuch a Reafon as this. Not that I grant the Necejfities of the People to be fo great, and preihng, as You would have the AVorld be- lieve them to be ^ for the Churches, and other places for Religious yljfcmhlies annexed totlicm, in which they may meet, and jnay, and hear God's Word, arc not fo little in many of thofe Parif:cs^ which liave given occafion to "■ . ' .• thi^ The Reafofiahlenefs of Conrjrmity. 105 this Flea, but that they will hold many niorePeople than ordinaril}'" frequent them, and vi^ith no gr'^at Inconve- nience. And fiippofing they will not, the Feoph nf thefe Parlfhes may as eafily frequent the Churches of their Neighhoiirhig Fanfies^ which are not fo large, as many from thefe Neighhourivg Farif/^cx frequent your Separate Ajfemhlies. And if fo, where Ls t his undeniable Neceuity for your Fuhl'ic Mhujlratiovs ? But what I now infill: up- on is this, tliat thiscannofbe the true Re afon of your Fraliice, and therefore ougiit not to be alleged in Juftifi- .^ationof it. You know very well, that as confiderable Perfons as any amongftYou make no foruple of fettling in Far[fJ)es of as little extent as any in London : that thofe of You, who fettle in the largeft Farijhes^ receive wiihout diftin- ction. People ffom all quarters -, as well thofe whofe Pa" r'ljl) Churches are able to contain them, as thofe which, You pretend, are not : That your Covgregatiovs are -r ade up, not of thofe Perfons whom their EJlahlified Mivijler is not able to take care of, but of thofe who will not let him take care of them •, who would not come to the Worlhip and Service of the Church of England, were the Places of Affembly ten times more capacious than they are, and the fetied Mhtifer never fo able and ready to inftrudt them. And if I Ihould fay that there is not a fingle Per.- fon in all your Congregations who applies himfelf v-" Ton purely becaufc He hath no opportunity of public If or- fnp^ SiXi^ Attendance upon Gods Ordinances^ in the Efta- blijb'd Churchy and becaufe it is not polfible for the Mini- Jler of the P^nj^ to take care of Him ; I hardly think I fhould go beyond Truth. And if this be true ( as I have Reafon to think it is ) how can You allege it as an Argume^it fov y out public Pra^ice^ that the PLOple f your Congregations have no opportunity, in the Efla'rliJI^ei Church of attending upon God's Worlhip •, when none (f .your Pe'op/^ will give this as the Reafon of thtir atten- dance upon You ? We have not the ieaft Reafon to think, that You wduld lay a'fide die pK^ip E.\crcfe of H 4 jo^"^ 104 The Re/rfonablenefi of Conformity f- your MijijJlry^hadaW our People iheCa Opportunities yoij fpeak of. We find You all generally as little fcrupuloUsV; of mhnftr'irg pitblicly where the EJ}ahUfl)ed Mimjicrs are atle to lake care of the Souls in their Par if) es^ where the Churches ftand very thick, and' are capacious enough to hold many more than thofe that belong to them, as of mhiJfirhig in the moftpojjzr'.o/w Parilhcs. "We fee You but' little concerned that the Feople fliopld make ufe of the Opportunities they have in the wslj EJlcxbliJJid : and not at all backvvard to receive and encourage anj^ though under no fach Neceffttles as Yoii here rcprefent tliem. And while we fee and obferve thefe Practices, we cannot but wonder at the mention of this P/iiiciple -^ and there- fore appeal to all the World, if this be not very odd reafjniijg, . The feople in many PariJI^s have not the polTibility of reaping any Benefit from the public ]|^abours of their Se:leci M'niijier, that is, of attending upon Qod\ piihlic Worjbip^ and of hearing his Word, .' There f)re. We think it our Duy to fettle our felves in thcfc K7/'7'/7;t'.y, to inirijt'r in public^ not to thpfe Perfons who come to us becaufe they have no opportunity of attendance Hpon God's Ordinances in the EJiablified Church; hilt to thofe, wlio v/ould never attend upon the xvoriliip of God in their Parijb-Churchj thougli they could doit with the greate'ft Eafe^ to tliofe Who come from other PariJJjes where they lie under no fnch Difficulties j Jn a word, to a//, who v/ill attend upon us, let the Mo- tive be what it will. And, what is more, ' • 'Therefore, we think it our Duty not only to fettle our felves in thefe Parijbes^ but in any others, v/here wo think fit, as opportunity offers it felf. ' I hope I have not mifreprefentcd j^'our Pra^ice^ the Reafons for which we are now enquiring into. And to advance in Defense of it, the Nccejfit'm of a few Parifljes, is to advance a I lea, which, when wc compare it with your Iraliice, we find utterly infufRcient to defend thofe of You who h^ve fetled in thefe very Parifjes ; much - ■ - ''^' • ■ •" , • • • more. The Reafonahknefi of Conformity:, xo^ tiore, thofe oF You who have not fcrupled to. mhijlcw publicly, where-tver an opportunity hath offered it (elf; A Flea utterly inconfiftcnt with tht:. praBke of an}'' a- mongft You, that have either encouraged Others who vihnfter where no fuch Necejitics can be pretended, or, have Jinriijlred there Tour felves^ and therefore, utterly infufficient to defend the praBice of any one of You all that I ever heard of. This You n^uft be fenfible of your jTelves, tinlefs You ma)^ he fuppofed ignorant of your own cpnftant and profeffed Practice. And therefore, I jfay again that, how plaufible foever this Arguvmit fceai, and how full of concern for the People^ jet, it is not fair for You to urge it in Defenfe of your PraBice, whilft it is fo manifcft that your PraBice cannot be defended by it. The ^'/xf/' Argument in Defenfe of Youv Public Mini- JJrations is this. We think it our Duty to continue the public Exerdje of our il^i?;i/?/}', becaufe/f/jzJ/y of the EJlablified Mijiijhrs fire i7ifu^cieiit and iijiqualified. [, I confefs I know not well what You mean in this Place by iJifufcicnt, and iniqualified. But I "think You cannot mean that they are Evil or JFicked -^ becanfe it is your Opinion that the Mimjh-y of fuch may be ufed both in hearing the IFord of God, and in receiving of the Sacramejits, and that with Profit, if the People be not wanting to themfelves. And if their Alivifiry may be ufed with Profit ;, then the Cafeo£ the People under fuch Mivifiers is not, in your Account, ^o defperatc, as to make your public AJi fiance a neceflary Remedy. And if it be not neceflary, it ought not to be continued. That this is your opinion, I conclude horn jour fvbfcribing, amongft otljers, tlie Twenty fixth Article of our Churchy Entituled, Of the UnworthinefsoftheMinifiers, which hifi" dersnotthe Ejfi'B of the Sacraments-, and from your fo frequent inveighing againf} any, whom You imagine to nave viade light of suid to have played with, Siibfcrip- ■tiofis. h By; ! I o6 The ReafojiaMfreCs of Con for m i i)% By wfuj^cient and unqui^lifed^ I think, therefore, that You nuift mean Ipiorattt, and unable to teach and inftrudt the People. And I fuppofe, that Y ou do not here fpealc of the ivfuj^cievcy oi Mimflen^ with refpect to thofe pri- z'ate Labours which are necefTary in aParifh (becaiife this- can be no Argument for any but Private Labovrs in your felves) bi^t with refpedt to their Public Labours and In* itruclions : and that what You would have us under- iiand here, comes to this, That the infujkiejtcy of fomc PariJJj-MiniJfcrs is fo great, that the Souls of the People ; '^Te endangered by their attendance upon their public j Mhtijlrdtiom^ and tliat it is neceffary, on this Account, ^ to minijler publicly m a f'pctrate \vd}\ Aud if this be what You mean, I have Three Jhivgs to ojfiPer in anfwer to this Argument -, not denying but that there may be wimjlers in the Eflablified Church, in this Senfe, iiifujici' €7it. In the firft Place, This is not a fufficient Reafon for the people to join with Mimjlers of Chnxchts feparated from the Church oi England'^ and confequently, it is not a fiifHaent Reafon for You to continue your feparate i piblic Miwjlratiovs for their Advantage. Secondly, In • the Places where this Plea can be urged with the beft Grace, it is very great odds whether the People get any thing by going over to thofe Mivijlers who feparate from ihe EJlabliJhed Church. Thirdly, As I told You under the laft Head, fo I teWYoM freely under this, That, hov/ ^ooJ a Reafon foever this may be, You know that it is not the true Reafon of yoiu public Alivijl rations. Firjl, Snppoling it true, that there .are fmidry Mini- jters in the EJl a blijl)ed Churchy ivfiifficient^ that is^giiorant, and notable to teach and inftruct their People-, 1 fay, ibis is not a fufficient Reafon for the People to forfake the Church cf Evplavid^ and betake themfelves to the helps of SI Separate Minijlry, and form themfelves into Churches di- ftincr from it. And if it be not a fuffivuent Reafon for the People to do this, Yoa ought not, in Confcience, to ■encourage them in doing it ^ and therefore, this cannot be a fufficient Juftification oi yom public iniivjl rations. No The ReafonMiefs of Conformity. 107 Ko Ch'trch upon Earth, in which there are fome Thov^ fands of Mhtifters, can poifibly efcape this Unhappinefs : And it is a little hard indeed, if, upon an unhappinefa wholly unavoidable, new and diftindt Churches, with diilering Modes of Worfhip, muft be ered:ed, for the improvement of the Knowledge, and the deftrudion of the Love and Charity of the Chrifiian People. But if ever any Church upon Earth may be faid to have taken care that the People Ihall not fuffer conflderably, or their Sal- vation be endangered, through this inconvenience, cer- tainly it muft be granted that the Church ufEngUttd hath effedually done it. Were the piblk ^pmblics indeed left to the fole management, and guidance ci x\\q Mhiifier pdhc Parifi; were the P^op/u to be ferved with nothing but what lie could, and would, afford them -, were they to be entertained with Prayers wholly according to the Abilities, or the prefent Phancy, Invention, and Dif- poiition of their Mhiifler ^ were He left to his Liberty, whether He would read to them any part of God's Wordj or not-, whether He would ufe the Lord's Prayer, tlie Creed, the Ten Conwiandfneytts, or not ^^ were the poor peo- ple in fuch a Cafe, under the provifion of the ( hurch of Evgland, then, indeed, t\\e Ignorance of their Mhiijler might be a dtfplorable Misfortune to them. But God be thank- ed. The Cafe is not fo, in the Church of Evgland -, thougli it be, in tne Churches tet up in oppolition to it, and under pretenfe of greater Purity of Worfliip, and Edification of the People. But in our Church, the People have nn Necelfity of departing from the mofl: infu§c\ent Minifter You can eafily find. For the decencies, and effentials of public JVorjbip are fecured to them. They have Prayers. pre^-)ared for them, ferious and pious-. Prayers, which, if a Man bring a good Heart along with Him, will be nei- ther ufelefs, nor infipid -, fuch as are fit for the public Addrefles of the Church to God, and fuch as You your fclves will allow to be tolerable. They are fure of hearing the pure Iford of God, in the reading of which they may join, and from which, by a ferious Attention, they may '; ' r«ap 5 o8 The Reafonahienefs of Conformity. reap (I hope^^ as much Advantage as from any Humane Comporure whatever. The Lord's Prayer^ The Crced^ X\\cTcn Couimandmenfi, are conftantly part of their En- tf r.talnment on the Lords Day ;, which are Inftriictionsto them, what is proper for thern to aikof God, what it is Ticcrdary for them to believe^ what it is their Duty to facjif'., in order to Salvation. Thefeareno fmall, nor contemptible Advantages. And, I believe, You could ?iot but beftow a very good Character on that Minifte?\ who fnould provide fuch VvnTolfomc Food for his People^ as a Ai'imfti'r in tlie Eft hUftjed Church is under an Obliga- tion to bring forth to his Co Are none of their neighbouring EJlabliJI>ed Miyiijlerx [iifn- -cisnt Preachers enough for tliem? jCan they find none Jhat teach found Dodtrine ? And, Is Preachivg in fuch a Jilefpcratc condition in the Church of Evgland, that a f'pa- f ate M'niijlry muft be fet up, and continued, for fear the Truth of God, and the Ep^itials of Salvation fliould pe- rlih from the Earth ? If it be not, and if thofe who com- plain of their Mhiljlcj-s hifnficimcy, can be fupplied at a neighbouring Church, with as little pains as many are at to go to fc par ate Covgregatiofis ;, and as much to their Ad* vantage as at any of thefe fcparate Congregations -^ then there is no Neceility for the continuance of j oui pub' f/6- Mhup-ations on this Account. And tJiat they may he as well fupplied^ is what, I believe. You vpHI vot, ' an4. The ReafonaMenefs of Ccnformity. iOq snd, lam fure, You caviwt reafonabl}'", i]ev\y. Kay, I otfer it to your conflderation, whether it be not credible, what I have ventured to fay. Secondly^ That in the ^hcei Wiiere this Vlea can be urgec! with the beft Grace, it is very great odds whether the Feop'C get any thing by forfaking their Par'ifl) Mivljler^ and attending upon thofeil^n/f/fr^whofeparate fromthe Efiahl'ijhed Church. You muit be very ignorant of the State ot' the Nation, or very much miftaken in your Notions of true Chnfi'ian knowledge, if You think that thisyt^;j- rate Minijlry which Yon have encoaraged throughout tne Nation, and now are pleading for, hath this Advantage over the Efiahlifl)ei Mhifiry You would here give it. If I judge aright, the Coimtry^ and the Pa;//;^.; at the grea- tcft diftance from London, and other conliderable Towns, are (generally fpeaking) the places in which the People are moft likely to fufrer under ivfvficimt Mivifter^^ and in which they can with the beft Face cry out upon the Ig~ voravce of their Teachers. What excellent judges the P(?op/^ in thefe places are, cfthe Knowledge and Abili- ties of their Mhiijiers^ I need not fay. But however. If they be rcfolved to forfake their own Mivi/cr and not to be contented with Him, nor any other of the EJijblificd MimJIers about them, I may appeal to your felvcs, whe- ther it be probable, that they will meet with more Know- ledge, and greater Abilities, in the fiparate A'hiifiry com- monl}'" found in fuch places. You muft be very partial to your own caufe, if You think fo. "Were You to hear but fome part of what might truly and juftly be affirmed t)f the grofs and intolerable /j^7/o;vn/te of many who are fet up for Preachers in afeparate IFay^ in the places I am fpeaking of ^ fuch an Ignoraytcc as fills their Prayers (as Mr. Baxter defcribes tJie perfor- Abridgment^ mances of fome in his time) with Carnal P^S- S^'* PaJio7i, Self (live fs^ FaSlmi, Dif order, vain Repetitions, imfoiind and loath fome ExpreJ/ions -, and tlicir Do&rhe with Err ours and Confvfion •, You would be fcnhV Irle^ that fuch a general Encouragement ouglit not to be • - - - - - ^iveii ito TheReafonahlenefs of Conformity. given to the Teoph \o'^ox^-akcih<^\tMimJlcrs, whenever they pleafe to think them infufcient. And did You but call to mind (what You know to be true) how much the moft hifiiffdent are followed, and before what fort of Men tlicv are often perferr'd. You would be more fenfi- ble of this. And did You but confider (what is mattef of Fact) that the mb^fufficiejtt o£ the fcparate MinifirysLre generally found Where the moft fiifcknt of EJlablipei Mhiip-y, are fettled, and as it Were oppofed, and con- fronted to them , and that the moft ivfvfirAent and moft ipioravt of the feparate M'miftry are found where the moft ivfiifficient and moft ignorant of the Efiablified Mhiijlry are pretended to be, where there is moft occafion for the able and knowing', You Would blufh to put us in mind of this, by urging fuch a Pica in Defenfe of that feparate Aiinljlry You have fet up, and continue to plant, and encourage, throughout the Land. But I muft not be fo imjuft to the EJlabliJl)ed Churchy as not to obferve the lit- tle likelyhood of any Advantage to the People, in forfa- king their Pcr/f/; Churches, and frequenting feparate Con-- j^reyalions'jtven fuppoling their Eflabliped Minifter, truly hffiifident. For, Ab they leave an hfitficlent Mimfter, fo it muft be remembered, that they leave a public Service excellently fitted for the IForJInp o£God (thechief End of priblic Affemblies) and their own improvement in Know- ledge and Piety. They leave 2l public Service made up cf fcrlous and devout Prayers, and Praifes ; Sentences and Hymns in the very Words of Scripture-^ LeiTons out of the Old and Nev Tejiayjient -, the Lord's Prayer, Creed, and Ten Gimmandments. But, it feems, the People muft be encouraged to think this but a heavy, inlipid Service^ of little Profit, and little Edification-, eafily to be difre- garded, and to he left upon any prejudice, and upon the leaft ground, the' never fo foolifh, and unworthy of a Cliriftian. Whether they be lenftble what it is they leave, 1 know not- and I doubt, you do not care much. they fhonld be: But this I know, that they are not very likely to meet with ^public Service, in any Separate Con- gregation^ The Reafonahknefs cf Gonformlty, 1 1 1 ^ye^atiott^ more fitted either for the worjinp of God, or their own Edification •, efpecially, in thefe parts cf the Land, where the infujiciejicy o£ ih^ix Minijlen may with pioft Rcafoti be urged. But, Thirdly, This Plea, how good foever it he in it felf, yet, is not the trw^ Reafon for your continuing your pub* lie Mimfirations, The World can eafilj fee wliat your P;-^^f '^^ hath been, and is-, and, fay what you pleafe^ will judge of your Friv ciple s ^lom it. The very men- ti n of this muft refledl upon your ftlves, when it is fo plain fas I ohferved before) that the mo^fiifficient of Ton plant yi:ur felves where themoft/w^czV?;? of the EJlahlijJ}- cd Cle/gyave to be found, and that the places which firft gavvi occaiion to thispretenfe, are left to the moft ivfiifi- dent, and moft unworthy of you: which looks as if more rt gard were had to the n;aintaining the Credit, and fupporting the Intereft of a Party, than to thefupplying the Keceiiities of the People, or making up the Deficien- cies of the EJlablified Mivijfry. Could we but fee you heartily concerned (as Mr. Baxter was once, if not al-" Ways) that the People ftiould attend upon the mnijler, when He is ^fit£icie7it Man -, as much concerned for thisj ^s you are to gain Profelytes, and increafc the number' of your own Followers -, Were you. as ready to- encou- fage the People to keep to their Efiahliped AliniJIerwhom you know to be fufficient, as you are to receive any that leave ihe mo^ fnfcient of them all : Did you act as if you were willing that the People (hould feparate only ppon good Grounds, and not upon Phancy ^ that they .flioul i know what a public Service tliere is fetled in the Church of England, and how fufEcient for the purpofes of )^ublic Worjhip, before they forfake it • could we fee the moft able and ufeful amongft you fetled where you .iiiiagiiie there are not able Minijlera already -, and could W'z fee that in all other places, you exhort and advife the J^pple, and prefs it upon their Confciences as their Duty, to attend upon the mirilirations of thofe who are fetled .'Siiv,.'i*,>5ftthcrij by Lav/ ^ were there ?LY\y thing like this apparent tT2 The ReafonaMenefs of Con^oimky. apparent in your Praftice, we might then begin to thifilc tliat the hifvficienr.y offmidry PanJI) Mhiijlerx was the true K^^^ow^ox yonv public Mhnp'atiovs. But, as things ap- pear to us, we. are fure, that were all the EJlahljJIied Clergy through the whole Lafid/z/^tzVwf beyond Exception, j'-ou would, notv\''ithil:anfling this, keep' on foot your Separa- tion, and continue j ouv public Pradice. What I have faldto this Argiime7it,may he reduced to this. You fay, you minifter in public becaufe of the ivfiijjiciency of fit v dry of the EJlablified Clergy. I anfwer, .SuppofTng it true, that there are fome ivfitfciejit^ We can- not think this Plea of force enough to excufe the People who fepafate upon it, or Ton who minijler to them, for thefc Reafons: becaufe the public Service of the thurchia not irfvficicvt 5 becaufe the People., if they will not attend iipon their own Mir.ijler., may fiiid thofe that are fiiffi- cievt amongft the EJl a blijlied Clergy about them •, becaufe in thofe Places where the moft ivfufcievt are .to be found^' t\e mc{t i7ifj(fficieitt alfj o^ the Separate Miitijlers are to be found •, audit is a great chance if they do not go from an ijifiijicient Preacher, to one wzor^Infufficient- becaufe, taking into the Account the whole public Service of the KJI a blified Churchy they cannot mend the matter by fre- quenting any feparate Covprgation •, and laftly, Becaufe your Practice afliires ils, that this is riot the true Reafon for the contiiiitavcc of your Mivijlry. The Scvcjtth Argitment for the continuance of your j?tf^- I'lc minijiratiovs is tiiis, Some pafj^agcs of Scripture intiviate the duration of the Ml* ftillcrialO^ce^ where there is oiice u conveyance. The PaH fages you cite, are as follow, Mat. $. 13, 14, &c. Mat, 28. 19, 20. Eph. 4. 10, Sec. I Tim. 4. 15, 16. Mat. 24. 47, 4^, 48. ^ . Therefore, it is our Duty to continue the public Exe r- life nf our Minijlry. What jny thoughts are about your Ordinations^ I have freely let you know- in x\\e former part of this Reply^ as the Argument oblig-ed me to do. What I have there faidy The ReafonaMenefs of Conformity. 1 1 5 faid, is founded upon Mr. Baxtej-^ Principles, and muft be thought moft true, and reafonable by me, as long as I think Epifcopal Ordhation the fetled method in the Chrijiian Churchy and your Separation unnecelTary. I fhall not now repeat any thing of it, but, under the pre- fent ^rgumem, Ihall take it for granted, that there was once a Conveyance^ as I know there certainly was to fever al^ of you •, and ftiall endeavour to (liew, That there is nothing in any of thefe pajfages, which doth intimate this duration of the Minijierial Office which you are contending for : That is, in other Words, that none of thefe 'Paffages do exprefs, or imply, that a perfon who hath Authority once given him to i7iinijler publicly in a Chriflian Congregation, may not, upon fome Conliderations, lay afide the puh^ lie Exercife of his Minijlry. This is what thefe Texta muft prove, if they prove any thing to our prefent pur- pofe. If they do not prove fuch an ahfohite Duration, and n ahfohite Obligation to minifter publicly, the Argu- nent taken from them will iignify nothing, but will wholly turn upon a very different point, viz. whether ''our Minijlration be necejfary. And, I fuppofe that if hefe Texts had not been thought to imply fuch an ahfohts Obligation, they would not have been produced by you, s containing in them an Argument fufficient, of it felf, ^o defend your Praftice, and diftindt from thofe others rawn from the Necejjitics of the People. Now, before I examine them, I might venture to af- irm, that it is impoifible, or, at leaft, highi}^ improba- . Ae, that there (hould be any thing of this ahfohite Obli- ■• ;ation in any paffage of the iV^jv TeJ}a7?ient. For it is : trtain. That the Cafe may fo happen, that the Silence I f a Perfon, who had once a Commijfion given him to offi- iate in Public, may be of much more Advantage to e Chrijiian Church, than his public MiniJIrations -, and' at when the Cafe doth fo- happen, this Silence becomes is Duty, and is to be preferred before the public Execution hisO^c^-, as he is under a general and indiffolvible llligation to behave hirnfelf alwavs as the Good of I ' the 114 ^^^ Re.'ifotiaMenefs fl/ Conformity, the Chfijllnt Church, and the Honour of God require.' This I have obferved. under the Firjl Argiutmit^ which was taken ^^omyouxOrdincttmi-Vow. That this Cafe hatli adually happened amongft us, I cannot expect you fliouid grant, till you are convinced that it hath. But that it may portibly happen, you cannot deny. And if it may happen, I am fure. We nuifi: fix a vcr}^ great Ah- furdity upon the Inftitutioii of Ch/ijl, if we fuppofc, that He confuited the Peace and Advantage of his Church, and yet appointed r;)me O^'av.? in it, and obliged Them to execute their Ofcc publicly, whether it fliould be for the Peace or Difturbance, for the Advantage or Difad- vantage of his Church. This I fa 3^^ I can bt fure, with- out any farther enquiry, that He could not do : And yet this he muft have done, if there be this abfolute Obli* gation intimated in thcfe Text.-. And if there be not, t)iere cannot be 2L\\y Arguvievt in Deftnfe of your FraBics drawn from them. But it will not be amifs to examine thedeilgn, and.meaning of every one of them. The jir} is Mat. 5. i ^. 14, &c. The Words are thefe, 7e are the Salt of the Earth : hut if the Salt have lofi its favour, wherewith JJ)all it he fait ed? It k thenceforth good for nothing, hut to he cajl out, and tu he trodden under foot of j j\'I n: 2e are the light of the irorld, A City that isfeton a \ Bill cannot he hid. Neither do Men light a Candle^ and put \ it undtr a BuJJ)d, but on a Cavdlejlitk, and it giveth light un- to all that are in tJbeHoufe. Let your light Jo fiine before AT.'n, that they 7Nay fe your good IFcrks, and glorify your Fa* ther which is in Heaven. Thefe are all the Verfcs that can j^oifibly have the leaft Relation to the matter in hand; And that any one could liave thought that thefe have the leaft Relation to it, I could never have imagined, unlefs you had here exprefly faid fo. For what is here, like any abfolute Obligation upon thofe, who once had Authority given them to mivijler in Public, always to do fo? What is liere intimated, like a duration of the ininijlerial Offict, and the public Exercife of it where there is once a Convey" (ince? Or, what is there, either exprelfed, or implied, but 1 The Reiifonahkyiefs c*/" Conformity. 1 1 5 ^utan Obligation upon all CZ)/-//?/jw.y to be eicellent iii ^ood jyorh^ to be cojifpuvoiis amongft the refi: of the "World, by their dijferencefrom them hi Dn&n7!e and L^fe ^ as Mr. Baxter explains the Words, by their Hclivefn to Gody Sobriety to thenifelves^ and Jvjl'ice and jr^rh of Love to o- tUrs: which, he faith, are the good Ifnrh meant here? Indeed, if it could be proved, that your pnhlic Miiiiftra- tioiis are nccefTary, and for the Glory of God ^ that his honour, and the Credit and Intereft of the Oirjftian Caufe could not be preferred without them^ thefe Text% do certainly demonftrate an Obligation upon you to continue them. And fo do m?.nj more, that you r, ight produce, prove that all Chrijliajn muft do whatever is neceflarv for the Glory of God, and the Honour of Cbrijliayiity. All fuch Texts refer to jom public Mijiifira- tjom as much as thefe-, if Mr. Baxter interpret them a- right, or if I do not miftake him. But then, If it can be proved, that there is no Neceffity for the continuance of your OJice-^ and that the Glory of God would be more promoted, by your doing good in a more private Way-, then, I fay, thefe T'xti lignify nothing to your Juftification and the whole Qiiellion turns upon another Point. In fhort, if thefe Texts do prove it to be your Duty to continue the p»^/zc£x^;'67y^ of your Minipy, I fee not, but that they will defend, and patronize as effe^ dually, any perfons at any time, who have fo good an Opinion of themfelves as to think xYitv: public Labours ufeful,^ or for the Glory of God. For they refped: all Chriftians as well as fome, and are an Obligation upon all, as well as fome, hot to loft the Savour, and not to bide their Light. And] if they patronize all fuch, they will patronize all the Diford^r and ConfuHon ima- ginable. Thefeco7id pajfage you direct Us to. is Mat. 28. 1 9, 20a' I'he fgrjner parr of this pa/a^^ contains in it nothing but the Commijion of Chrif to his Apoftles, Go ye, and teach all j Nations^ that is, Go, Teach, and Propagate my Religi- on throughout the Worlds make Nations viy Difciples, as I 2. Mr, ii6 The ReafofiaMenefs ^/Conformity. Mr. ^j.vf^;- paraphrafcs it: Baptizhg them in the Kafnd of the Father, and of the Son^ avd of the Holy Ghofl v teaching thc?fi to obferve all things whatfocver I hjvc com- vianded you. Now, fuppofiiig this Commijjion given to yoit as well as to the Apoflles, in what Senfe would you have it uiiderftood ? It was given to the?n^ for the propagating the ChriJIian Faith in unbelieving Countries, and for promoting the great Ends of the Gofpel amongft thofe that did believe. Put the Cafe, that, in any place, their public Preaching, ov o\.\\ex Miniji rations, would have had I'ery badConfequences, and have reflected a dilhonour, and mifchief upon the ChriJIian Caufe-, and would have been, not only not neceifar}', but prejudicial to the Inte- rcflof Chriltianit}^ : And do You think this Commijfion obliged them to officiate in public, in lucll Places, and in fuch Circumftances? Do you think they would not have thought themfelvcs obliged to f knee-, and have re- joja-ed at all oppertunities of doing goed in a more pri- vate way > Jf Ycu do, how can You think that this Co7nmiJion to You is abfolute, and conveys an Obligati- on to You to exercife 3^our Minijiry in a public manner, let what will be the Confequence? This is what I under- ftand to be your meaning, when You fpeak here of the duration of the minifierial Office. If it be not your mean- ing, then I confefs I do not underftand it. The Latter part of xKis parage, viz. Lo I am with Tou to the End of the irorld , is nothing but the Promife of Chrijl, to aifift his Apojlles and their Succe (fours, in the work of converting Unbelievers, and inftrudling his Church: and no Argu- ment can be drawn from hence to prove, that no confi- dcration ought to prevail with any one to lay afide the public Exercife of his Mini fry . For the Cafe may fo happen, t^^at to contiuc it may be againft tlie Intcreft r»f the Chrifian Church, and confequently againft the will i^^ 0)rijl. And, therefore, He cannot mean this, as an encouragement to all, in all cafes, to minijler publicly, whether the Church receive advantage, or difadvantage from if: ^ - ' The The Rsafonableiiefs of Confonnity. 1 1 7 The Third pajfage^ You cite is, Eph. 4. to. Sec. m which there is nothing declared, but that Chrift gave foj?ie Apoftlex^ ariifomc Prophets^ and fome Evangelijfs, ard fome Paflours aitdTeacher.1, Sec. i, e. that, for the luftru- dion and Edification of the C??A7/ijK PeopZ^, and for the good of the Chrijllan Church, he hath appointed divers orders of Men, to minifter to this Church according to their feveral Offices. But how doth it follow from hence, that thefe Teachers may not, in fome Cafes contribute more to the Edification, and building up, of his Churchy in Love and Peace, by their filence^ and private endea- vours, than by their pz/Z^ZzV Labours ? And if thej may, it is their Duty • And if i^ be their Duty, there is no- thing in this Text that forbids it : but the whole Propofi- tion, and all that St. PawZ intended in it ftands as firm, if fome lay afide the pM/^/fc Exrrcife oi their Office, as if every individual Perlon for ever continued it. The Fourth pa If age \s iTim. 4. I^ 16. where St. R^irZ charges 7 i;«o/^)i thus, Meditate upon thefe things, give thy felf wholly to them ^ that thy profiting tnay appear to all. Tal^ h'ed unto thy felf , and unto the DoBrine •, continue in them - for in doing this, thou f) alt both fave thy felf and the?n that hear thee. Which Words , it is plain, are onlj'' a direction to a Minijier of Chrift, whofe labours were necefTary to the very being of the Chrift ian Church, in the place where He was, and highly ufeful to all the Chrijiians there : but contain not in them the lead infinuatiun, that who- ever hath once an Authority given him to minifter publicly in the Chriftian Churchy is under an Obligation never to ceafe doing fo, whether his Labours be neceilary, or for the Advantage of the C/;/77?Zi3;/ Ci^wrc^, or no. When You will (how me, that there is any thing of fuch an ahfolute Obligation implied in thefe Injunftions of St. Paul to Timothy, I promife, not only to review, but, wholly to give up, this part of the Caufe. The lafl place of Scripture You mention, for the dura- tion of the minifterial Office, where there is once a Conveyance, that is, for the public EKercifa of the viiniftcrial Office » I 3 .-- ~- (which J 1 8 ^h^ ReafinMnefs of Con form i ty. ^which is the onl)^ point we are now upon) is M t. 24^ 4S, 4% &c. The Words are thefe, Who theith a faithful, ard xvife Sej'vattt^ rrhom his Lord hath iiiade ruhr over his Hoii{l)old^ to give them meat in due Seafon ? Bleffed is that Servant^ whnvi his Lord when He covieth J1)aU find fa doirrg, 8cc, Mr. Baxters paraphrafe upon tliem is this, Thofe that are faithful and wife Teachers, avd Rulers of his Church, to ^ive thetn meet, and feafojiable Ivfiru^ion, as food for their Souls^ Pall be found at their Lord's coining, Ble^ed Perfovs^ avdfijall he abundantly gainers by their Labours and Sufferings. They plainly fignify, that Faithful and good Paflours Ihall be rewarded at the Day of Judgment. And the following "Words declare the intolerable Punifliment of thofe who make it their bufinefs to moleft and ruine their ■FeUcw-fervavts ^ and who give themfelves up to Luxury, and Debauchery. But neither thefe, nor the following Words, do give the leaft hitimation, that there may not lie, at any time, coniideraiions fufficient to determine a very faithful and wife Teacher, to lay afide the publici jF.vercT/Z'of his Fundion ^ or that there is an indifpenfa- ble Obligation, in all circnmftances, upon all who ever' devoted themfelves to the AIini[iry, to continue the opcu perforraance of their Office. They do not fay, or inti- mate, that he is no faithful and wife Teacher, who, for the fake of the Peace of the Church, and the Edification ; cf Chriftians in Lox'-e, leaves them to that Provifion [ ivhich is certainly fufficient for them -, and rather fubmiti? j tohefilcnt in public, upon fuch Confideiations, than to! give the leaft Encouragement, by his Practice, to a SepaA ration which miifr neccffarily divide the Hearts of Ghri-| •jlians from one another, and unavoidably contribute to* the decreafe of Charity, and the abounding of Strife, and Variance, and Emulation, and all the inftances of Uncharitablcnefs in the World : rcfolving to do all in his povi^er, for the promoting Godlinefs, and true Religi- on, in his more private Capacity. And iince thefe Texts fay nothing againfl the Principles, or Practice of fuch an pne, I fee not how they come near ,t)je matter we are •■■'-■ - - - - ■ ■ • jio\y The Reafonahlenejs of Conformity. 1 1 9 now conlidering, which, I muft again tell You, is no- thing but this, whether there may not he Times, and Circumftances, in which the piHic Labours of very good Men may not prove a greater difadvantage to the Ovi- fian Ch tirch, than their Jilevce in public, joined with their hearty Endeavours to ferve the intereft of Religion m private •, and, if there may be fuch Times, and fnch Circumllances, whether it be not, then, the^ Euty of every good Man to lay afide the public Excrcife of his Mhnftry. , If the whole matter turn upon this ("as it molt appa- rently doth) then, what fignifies it to produce luch ?aj- fages o£ Scripture as thefe, which import nothing but that Chrif} hath appointed Fapurs in his Church ^ That there is abuty incumbent upon them, viz. the feeding of his Flock •, that the Reward of fuch as are Good and Faith- ful, fhall be great, and the puniftiment of the Slothful and Faithlefs intolerable -, or the like > Who denies all this ? Or, whoever denied it ?. But doth it follow from hence, that a PaJIonr, for the advantage of the Chriftian Church, and when there is no Neceffity for his public Per^ formances, may not turn all his thoughts upon more private Ways of doing g-od, without incurring the guilt o^Perfidioufnef,, and Sloth fuhiefs ? Not in the leaft, as I fee. And indeed, the very mention of this Cuulidera- tion had been a fufHcient return to your Argument taken fromthcfe Pafages of Scripture. But I was willing to examine particularly into them, That the Reader might fee what was in them, and be the more capable of judg- ing whether they intimate fuch a Duration of the vnnifie- rial Offce as you contend for, vi%. an abfolute Obl.gation upon Alinijlers, to exercife the Office publicly. I have placed the Words before his Eyes, left He fnould think either that there was more, or lefs, in them, than there is ; And fo leave him to determine, whether I have dealt fairly with theni, or no. I4 Tha 120 The Re afojiahlejiefs of Conformity. Tlie Eighth j4rgmnevt in Defenfe of your Pradice, is this, Some Paflages of Scripture plead for the Necejjity of 'P;-eaihivg even when the Mjgipate forbids '^ as A^. 4. 19. 5. 28. T Cor. o. 14, 16. A^. 4. 29. iTim. 4. i, 2. I 'Tim. /^. 1 9, 14- Therefore, it is our Duty to continue the pihlic Exer- tife ot'cnxMinip-y. ' I fli:-'.ll not be fo particular under this Argument, as I have been under the laft, becaufe there is no need of it. I know none who maintain, that the meer Com-/ mand of the Magifirate is fufficient to oblige a Minifter lolaA^aiide the public Exercife o( his Ojice. But then, I know none that think, there may not be Confiderati- ons fiifhcient enough to induce a Minijlcr of Jtfus Chijl to comply with fuch a Command of the Magijlrate. And therefore, I fee not to what purpofe it is to produce fuch Texts as have nothing in them againftthis. For ftill we ?.re where we were before, and the Queftion remains the fam.e. Is yourPradice for the Advantage of the Chri- ftian "Church, all Things confidered ? And, Is there a Neceirity for it ? If there be, in God s Name let it be continued. But, as long as there appears to me no Ne- cefTity for it, and no Advantage to the Church of God, comparable to the Difadvantages of it, I cannot think it reafonable, or agreeable to the Precepts of the Gof- pel. Whether it be fo or not, nothing can be gathered from thefe P^;(lages. Your Obligations would not have been Icfs, had there not been one of thefe in the whole New Teftament •, nor would they be, in the leafl degree, -^rcater, could yew produce a Thoufand more to the Ame effed. You will harnly fay, that in a Chrijlian Country, where there is a Churchy in which are all things fufHdent for the People's Edification, and Salvation, and nothing dcfcriidive of them (fuch, if I be not miflaken. The Reafonabknefs of Conformit}^^ 1 2 ^ St. P^^^r, and St. ^o^w, St. P^m/, and Timothy^ their pro- pogating the Gofpel^ as there was for their preaching Jefus Chnjl to thofe who could never have heard of him without them, and looking after thofe Churches of con- verted Peribns, which mull have perifhed, and vanilhed without their C^re. You will hardly fay, that hecaufe there was a Neceifity upon St. Paul, and St. Peter, to plant the Chriftian Religion, where it would not have been without their Preaching •, therefore, there is a Ne- ceffity upon you to preach, where it is as well, and as efFedtually taught as you can teach it. You will hard- ly fay, that God commands you to continue your pI/^- I'lc Labours^ as much as he commanded thofe, who had immediate Revelations from him, and were affifted with a fupernatural Power from above, of working Miracles, to demon ftrate to all the "World the Neccjfity they lay un- der. And if you will not equal your Neceffity to that they lay under, you cannot think that the fame Texts which Ihew tlie Necejfity of their public Miniftrations, will convince us of any fuch Neccjfity incumbent upon Toil : becaufe what proves a Neceffity in fome certain Cir- cumftances, cannot prove a Neceffity in Circumftanccs wholly different. St. P^r^r, St John, St. Paid, and Time thy, lay under a Neceffity ot preachivg^hecauCe there could have been no fuch thing as Chrijlianity, or a Chrijlian Church in the "World without it ^ but the Texts in which their Neceffity is declared, can never prove a Neceffity of your Preaching, without whofe public Labours, Chri- Itianit}^ can very well fubfift, and the Chriftian Church be edify 'd in Truth ; nay, without whoCe public Labours, Chriftians can be more effectually edify 'd in Love, and Peace, and Concord, than with them. I am fure, there- fore, I do this Argument no Wroug, by negledling any farther Examination of the Texts on which it is built. The Ninth , and lafi: Argument, in Defenfe of the Continuance o[joui: public MimJlratioTts, is taken from' Matth, 9. 38. Luke 10, 2, and runs thus : We 122 The Reafonahknefs of Conformity. IFepidltto he our Duty to pray for the fendivg in of faithful Labovrers into God's VineyarJ, and, Jf^e judge the feiuiiyif vp fuch a Requejl to God a mockbtg of hm^ while fjtch a^ We are ceafe to labour, who have been called, and qualified, evened and fucceeded. Therefore we dare not lay afide ilie public Exercife of our Min'ijlry. I have often wondered, to find that wife, and conli- dering Men, when they are aggravating their Adverfa- ry'sCaiife, or defending their own, can often fo far for' get themftlves, as to prefer the Number before the Jf^ejght of Arguments • and, infteadof infiftin'g upon what muft at laft fupport their Caiife ( if it be to be fupported ) to chufe to add to the Heap, tho' they do their Caufc an Injury by it. I do not deny but that many of you were faithful Labourer!:, and fincerely endeavoured to promote tho. Salvation of Souls in the Execution of your Office. Butfuppofing that upon ferious Confideration, being fenfible that there was good and fufficient Provifion for the. Souls of the People in the EJlahlificd Church ; being perfuaded that the Good you could do in your private Capacities, and the peaceful Confequences of laying afide the public Exercife of your Mimjlry, would more than <:()unter-balance the Advantage of your public Mijuftra- tiom: j I fay, fuppofing You had, upon fuch Confidera- tions, ccafed from your Labours m public, what is there in this Petition, which You could not fay without mock- ing God ? Could not you beg of God to fend ufeful and laborious Piv/?«'''i' into his Church, to ininijler publicly in it ^ tho' You thought it more for his Glory, and the Ad- vantage of his Church, that You your felves Hiould leave off to jmvjjler publicly ? Or, if You fay, that You could never be of this Opinion, lanfwer, then this is the ^eafon of tjie Continuance of your public Minif rations, bec^u fo You imagine it more for the Advantage of Ctrijl X Clnirch^ than the laying them afide •, not becaufe You cannot put up this Petition without mocking God, if ^Ypa ihould lay them alidc. This indeed is the Confe- quence The Reafonahlnefs of Conformity. 'l2^ niienceoftheotkr. But why is not that which Is the only material Point, infifted upon and clearly demon- ftrated> Why are we amufed with fo many Aggravati- ons of the Guilt of ceafmg your puhhc Lahovn-^aW which Assravations import nothing, witliout fuppoling this thStyom public Labours are necefTary, and more advantageous to the Church, than your Silence would be ., and this not clearly proved, but very little done towards it > Befides, you are as fenfible as any Perfons whatever, that thefe pvblk Labours are but part of the Office ot n Mivifter . and not the only beneficial part. Now you Icnowthatit is about thefe pH/^?fcL^^oi//-5 we are Ipeak- ing, and your CelTation from them. You may itill be very heneficial in ^ your private Labours-^ and methinks, yoM m\?hthe private Labourer s,2iX\A do what Good yoti can in the way moft conducing to the Increafe of Peace and Love and not be faid to have ceafed even your mi- wfterial Labours for the Salvation of Manknid^^ or, con- feqnently, to mod God, when you pray to him to fend faithful Labourers into his Vineyard. But I have faid enough of this. If your Caufe were to be fupported by fuch Arguinevts as thi^ you might add a vaft Number more to thofe you have already ofrered. To conclude this Point, Having maturely weigh d the whole matter, and confidered every ^/-^imzn/ta Hedged, I cannot apprehend it to be an indifpenfable Duty^ lying upon you as Men and Minifters, either by the Obligation oj God s Law of Charity, or by the binding Force of your own Vows at your Self dedication to the Service of God in his Houfe, to' continue the public Exercife of your MmiPy. I grant indeed, that it is your Duty to do your hefi in the hxercife vfaUyour Talents, to feekto fave Peoples Souls: and it is a good general Rule, That every Perfon, as well as you ought to do fo. But for all this, it is as certainly true (mid I believe you will acknowledge it to be lo) that manvaMan, who may have a good Talent at public preaching, and may do fome Good by it, may yet be un- |er an Obligation not to do it. It may be, that tne 124 '^'^^ Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. Good he can do this way, will be very little more, than what he can do in a more private way-, it may be, that his SilcjicewWX be more for the Increafe of univerfal Love and Peace amongft Chf iftians ^ it may be, that the Ne- CjciUties of the People may be provided for in other, and more regular ways •, and the Thoughts of a gi eater Good in another way will certainly lay an Obligation upon him, to omit this one particular way. I have done what I can to fhew, that the Kecejities of Soiih calls you not to it ; which is the only thing that can defend your Pra(ftice. But if you ftill think fit to periift in this, I ffiall only ask, Do the Necefities of Souls call you to it, in every place wliere you have fetled your felves, or in fame oTLly} If info7ne only, then what pretence have vou for your public Mijujiratrnta where the People's Ne- celfitics do not require them? And why are the chief of rour Labours employ'd where there is leaft need of tliem ? l^'mevery place, then you muft maintain, I think, that the Neccpties oi the People cannot be fupplied in any ejlahlijlid, way, and that there cannot be fo much done towards this, but that there will be always room for more. And then the Confequence is, Bivifon, and iS»/?ifi;f/i'o7i without end, and no hope of Unity and Con- cord. There was a Time when fuch Arguments for a fcpjrate Mimpy were rejected, and exploded by 3''oiir felves. And, indeed, if this be retained, and iniifted on, as reafonablc, I fee not, "but that it muft follow, that there is agoot!, and reafonable Ground for Eternal Thvijion in the Church of Chrift ^ which I hardly think there is. Having thus confidered the Argument!: offered in Vin- dication of thofc amongft you, who were in the Minijiry before the Act of Uniformity, and have ever fince conti- nued the public Exercip of it ^ and examined, whether they be fufficient to defend your Pradtice in fo doing : I come now to the other Point I propofed, of very great Concern to the Caufe, as it ftands at prefent. Ai;d tixat is, 2. To The Reafonabknefs of Conformityi ^25 2. To confider, how far thefe Alignments can vindicate the Pra6tice of thofe amongft you, who have ordained others, and of thoje who have been ordained, to the Miviftry^ iince that AB. The Confideration of this will take up very little Time : And a very few "Words will ferve to determine this Point. No Ordhiatlon Vow, and fale7nn Dedication to God, can here be pretended ^ andfo, the great Crimes of Sacrilege, and Perjury, might have been avoided with- out this. The People had never experienced the Labours of thofe of you, who have fince taken the MimJ}ryu])on you- they had never contrafted ?.ny Relation to you 5 and, therefore, it cannot be fa id, that they requeued your piblic Labours, or declared that they would charge you with the Ruiite of their Souls, if you did not take it upon you^ and fo, yoii could not do it for fear of the Guilt of U71- faithfulnefs. Cruelty, and Unmercifuhiefs to the Souls whofe Care you had undertaken. Nor do I fee, that the Curfi a7id Doom of the unprofitable Servajit could have moved you, either to ordain others, or to be ordained to the Miniftry. The Pajfages of Scripture which (you fayj 2w- timate the Duration of the minijierial Ofice where there is once a Conveyance, have nothing to do, where no Convey- ance is. And thofe which plead for the NeceJJity of preach^ ing, even when the Magijirate forbids, can be of little mo- ment to this part of the Caufe. The Petition {01 faithful Labourers might have been put up, with as good a Grace, and as great Sincerity, without your new Ordinations, as with them : And you feem your felves to apply that Ar- gument only to fuch as had been before called, and qua- lified, owned, and fucceeded. Granting all thefe Arguments their full force, and as much Strength as you your felves imagine to be in them, they will not, in the leaft, vin- dicate the Behaviour of thofe amongft yen we are now fpeaking of. And thus we fee, the greateft Aggravations of the Guilt of your Silence, and thofe which you lay moft Weight upon, are of no Confideration in this Point of your Practice, There remain Two of the Arguments here 126 The Reafonahlenefs of Confdfrmityrf here alledged, and thefe only can have any relation to it : the o>fe, taken from the Infuficiency of fujid/y of the Panffj Mivijiers ^ and the other ^ from the Nee eji tie. of the people hnno ft parts of the Nation^ votwlthftanding the Legal Provifwnfor thevi. The latter of thefe I cannot but ac- knowledge a fuffitient Ground for yoar Practice, if it can be fairly and clearly made outj and, I'm fure, it is the only Argument that you ought to lay any Weight upon. But then it is my Opinion, that it can never be made out •, fo made out, I mean, as to be a good Rea- fon for your feparate Miniftry. Why I think that neither this Argiment, nor the other, can do you any Service, I have given a full Account before, in the Conlideration of them, as they prefented themfelves under the fornier Head. And the fame Reafons which I produced, to prove that they were not fufficient to juftify the Contimiaiice of your public winiftry^ will, at leaft, equally prove, that they are not fufficient to juftif)?-, the other part of your Condud, your new Ordinations, for the perpetuating a feparate miniftry in the Land. And to thefe I muft refer you: Thus have I endeavoured to fatisfy you, Firft^ That theTt?;'7«^ of ininifterial Conformity ?iXt not fo unreafonable, and unjuft, as3''ou have imagined, and reprefented them, to be. Secondly^ That the Argnnmits you have alledged, upon Suppofition that they are fo imreafonahle, are not fufficient to vindicate your Pradlice, in the Continuance of your public 7fmiiftratio7is. There remains yet the ^/[?7Vi thing I propofed at lirft, which I now come to, viz. Ill, To confider what is offered by Mr. Calamy, in Vindication of your People. And what I have to fay un- der this Head I ihall addrefs to Tou (tho' it do not fo im- mediately refpedtlon, as the former Two) becaufeTow, indeed, are the chief Maintainers of the Separation ^ be- caufe Tou have pleaded the Caufe of the People^ and put thefe Arguments into their Mouths ^ becaufe Tou have furnilUed them with their Obbjedions againft Cojiforwityi, and The Reafonablenefs of Conformity. . 127 Rnd kept up their Prejudices againft the Church of Ev^* land ; becaufe Ton have very great Intereft with them, and a very great Authority, and Influence over them 5 and, confequently, as You have been their Guides, and Supports, in their Departure from us, fo you maj, upon maturer Conlideration, prove fuccefsful, and happy In- ftruments in the uniting them to us again, to the Glory of God, and the Increafe of Peace, and Love amongft usj and, laftly, becaufe many of the Argtments offered for them belong in common to You both, and, under fome of them, I ihall haveoccafion to fpeak to you, and your own PraHice. I {hall take the fame Method under this Head, which I did in the laft- and firft, draw up all the Arguments I meet with, in Defenfe of your People, in their full Strength : and then, conlider them feparately, and exa- mine into the Strength of every one of them. The firj} is taken from the Benefit the People had found by your Labours, and is thus exprefs'd, Mmy of the People had fomtd Benefit by the Labovrs of the ejected M'mijiers, Therefore, they were obliged td flick to them, and to prS" fer their Labours before others^ Sec. The Second is this, Thefe Mimflers were cafl off^ without having avy fiiitabh Crime alleged again fl them^ Therefore, it had been iyihmnane^ and barbarous in the People to defert them. The Jhird is taken from the Caiife you are engaged in, viz. the prejjivg a farther Reformation in Ecclefaflical Mat' ters ; and ftands thus. This CaJife is a good and y 7// Caufe, Therefore, it is the Duty of the People, in their placc^ to efpoiife it, and adhere to the fame Principle, §cc. The Fourth is this. It is the Duty of the Bijfenting Miniflers to continue in the E^ercife of their Miniflry^ tho'filencd by the Magiflrate^ There- 128 Th€ ReafonaMenefs of Con^onmty* Therefore, the People are therein obliged to fupporf, aftd encourage thevu The Fifth is taken from their right to chtife their ofpn Fajior. The Veople muft often p^/t with this Right, if they fub- mit to the Legal Provijion for them, Therefore, they cannot live in Conformity to the Church o£ Evglaiid. This I find a little afterwards thus cxprefTeJ, in a manner fomewhat differing from this. Without fiibmittiitg in 7ndny Parijbesto vvqualified Guides, there is no room left by the Law, for minijlerial Injlru^ion, undpajloral Help, Therefore, it is the Duty of the People to provide for themfelves in afeparate way. The Sixth is taken from the wajtt of Difcipli7ie in the Chnrck The DifcipUne of the Church is ftill bad, and infuffi- cient, notwithftanding all the Calls for greater StriSnefs and Care, ever fince the Re forviatioii from Popery, Therefore, it is the Duty of the People to feek for better Churches in afeparate way. A Seve7ith Argument is this. Many of the Laity are afraid offnning, in baptizi7tg their Childr€n with Godfathers aJid Godmothers, and the Sign of the Crofs -, and many of them quejiion the Lawfuhiefs of kneeling at the Connnunion, Therefore, it is their Duty to feparate from the Church of England. The lajf Argument I find propofed (if that may be called an Argumcjit, wh^ch is nothing but InveBiveJ is this. Some of the Church Party ('j^'ou fay) were obferved to lay a greater Strefs upon their CeremoJiies, than upon Kjiowledge^ or Faith, or real Holinefs -, and to inake li^ht of Oaths. The ruling Clergy, and their Patrons, ^rnmed feveral very trou- blefome A&s. The People /owwi themfelve: wretchedly ham- per d, and enfnard by Fetters of the Clergies jnakijig. And they who were fa fond of their own Conjiitution, had fa little Charity The Reafondtenefs of ConfonrHy* 129 Chmty left for thofe whofe Senthmtt^ cljfferdfrr^m^ theirs* rj^ to qnejlion the Validity of their Mhtiflry and Ordiv.ajicesi fiay, and eve7i the Pojilnlity of their Salvation, 8cc. Such Oh" fervations as thefe, made many of the Laity think, that^ therC was 7TofmaU Danger of encouraging them in their R:gniirs, tend aptmijig Pretenfons^ by an Adherence and Submijion t6 thejn. Therefore, it was their Duty to feparate from them into diftinft Churches. I fhall not think this laRPlea worthjr of a Repetition^ or a fecond Thought ; and, therefore lliail here ('before I refume the Confideration of the other Arguments) only ask the Perfon who hath thought fit to load the Caufe with this Ijive&ive, Is this an Argument fit to be urged ill \T>ei^Qnreo£ a Separation, or not ? If it be not (as, I verily I believe, he thinks it is not) Why is it produced by one that pretends to ftudy Peace, and Reconciliation > why is it propofed as a ftrong and fufficient Reafon ? Why is it urged without any Confideration, or any Reflexion upon the Weaknefs of it, and without any Antidote a* gainft the Poifon of it > lis it no matter upon What Grounds the People divide into diflindl Churches ? Are they to be fupported and careffed in all their moflun- reafonable and foolifh Prejudices? And is it laudable to multiply ObjeBions againft the Church, tho' at the Eipence of Charity and JLidgment ? If this be ^houghta ^ood Reafon for Nonconformity, then I fee no Hopes of jver putting an End to it, even upon the Grounds youT pur felves defire. For n6 Abatements, or Amendments n the Church, its Difcipline, Government, or Liturgy^ ran poflibly prevent, or remove fuch Objedtions as this^ !«Jor can there ever be revived a Spirit of Love, and a defire of Union amonglt us, whilft little Confcience is nade of putting the worft Conftrudion upon the ASd* >ns of others, and then bringing their Perfons into the Juarrelj of prejudicing Men againfl a Caufe, by what lath no more relation to it (i\\ Truth) than the moft di* ;ant tJiin§ in Nature. Suppofing thefe Accufations of I go *lhe Re/ifonahknefs i?/' Conformity. the Clergy true, and fuppofing the Crime as great as yoii pleafc •, doth if folloWj becaufe fome of the ndhig Clergy have been rigid Tiisk-maJIers, have been Men cf ill Tem- pers, or fevere in their Attempts to bring Men to Con- fofmity^ therefore the People ought not to conform > Or, was it ever thought, that Cofijonjiity obliged Men to ap- prove of the Tempers and Anions of every Man that conformed ? and would not the Covforinity of the People have been fo far from eiicoiiragivg them iw their Rigours, and ajfumivg Pretevjiovs (as you fay) that it would wholly have put an End t« tliem ? And were not thefe Perfons, who were thus hamper d 2iX\d. fetter d^ Difleiiters (^and re- folved fo to \>e) before thefe Ohfervatioits made upon the Clergy ? How then \vere they Noiiconfonnijis in Confi* deration of thefe Rigours, avd a^Umiiig Pretevjiojis, when^ rather, it is plain, thefe Rigours were ufed, becaufe they were Nonconforjuijls ^ But I haVe faid too much upon this Argime7it, Would Men that Write in fuch Caufes but confider, i that they write in the Prefence of God, and that they I *.re to anfwer for every Iniinuation, and every uJireafona-; | ble Aggravation ^ for every thing they fay that may blind* the Eyes, and prejudice the UnderJftandiHg of their Rea#' ders •, for every Hindrance that they lay in the way to Peace and Union ^ for every Word and Sentence that may incenfc the divided Parties of Chriftians againft one another ^ xve fhould not fee fo frequently in Boold ofControverfy theMarksof P.T^oM 2ind Jiubborn Prejudice^ where nothing ought to befeen but Reafon and ^ooi Net- tiire, and a Difpoiition inclined to put the moft favour- able Conftruciions upon the Deiigns o£ others , where no^ thing ought to be feen, but wliat tends to the compoiing the un]"tappy Differences between Men of the fame Na- tion, and the fame Profeilion. We all pretend to lament \ our Dinenfions, and to wifh for a perfect Union ^ but, ij when will it be feen, that we Ihall ftudy not to offend, j, or incenfe thofe we differ from? When Ihall we learn to I, argue without Reflexions, or Railing? When ihall the! Conteft !' The Reafonahkfiefs ^^^^ Conformity". 131 Conteft between nste, not, who (hall fay the bittereft Things i who ihall ufe the moftfcvere and cutting Lan- guage •, who fhall vex and irtitate his Adverfaiy moft^ or, who fhall keep up his Party moft efFedluallj : but, \vho ihall reprefent Things with moft Truth and Can- dour J who fhall contribute moft to the fetting Things in ia due Light •, who ihall moft efFeduaJly pave the Way to Peace, and Concord, remove Mens Prejudices, fweet- en their Tempers, and draw their Aftedticns nearer to one another > But what End is thereof Divifion and Ha- tred, when Men cannot be contented with the beft Rea- foning their Caufe will bear, but are ever lurthening it With Aggravation'!, which always work more than Argtt- pients, and never fail to deftroy Chriitian Charity in the World > This Thought hath carried me a little beyond due Bounds : but it hath its ufe in all Controverfies, and efpecially in this. I heartily wiih it K^aj have the fame Effeft upon all others, as, I hope, it will ever have up- «m me ; and fo return to thefe Arguments in Vindieatioii of your People, as they lie in their Order. TheJi'iW^isthis, Many 0] the People had found Benefit by the Labours of the ejeBed Mimfters^ Therefore, they were obliged to Jlich to them ^ and, as it is exprelTed prefently after. They could not forbear pre- jerring the Labours of thofe Minijiers, the Sultahlenef of iphofe Gifts, and whofe Rcadincfs to watch for their Soulsy they had experienced, before others that came in their places^ to whom they were Strangers^ and as to .whom they were, at the beji, in great Uncertainty. Of how very little Account in the Caufe before us,' thisConfiderationis, and to how little Purpcfe this Ar- \^ment is produced (unlefs to m'ike up t)ie Number) Ife plain. For how few of the eje^ed Aiimfiers confined Ithemfelves to the very Places whence they were ejeBed^ How few of the Diffenting Laity make any Scruple cf forfaking a Fajlor on the Account of any little Difter- cnce, orgroundlefs Diftatisfaction, how fuitabls foever K2 they tg2 The Reafonahlenefs ^/Confornrify. they have found his Gifts, and how much foever the^ have experienced his Readinefs to watch fo?- their Soids ? How' few do we find, that exprefs the leaft Readinefs to con-* form to the Church of EvgUnd, any more after the De- part are, or Death of their ejected Minijler, than before > And when do we find any of them that are not more ready, at fuch a time, to truft the Care of their Souls Sj all not the Gov^rnonrs in Church and State ? Is it not their province, and muft not they give an Account to Gc>d for it > If there be fome Perfons, who cannot come in to the Mhnjiry, or remain in the public Exercife of ir, upcnt'-ff ^icrms. Can this be remedied? Or, muflf thefe Perfons pre for ily begin, and encourage the Divifion of theKation, ai-d fet up Churches againft the EJlablip d C vrch^ Metr'inks this ihould not eafily be affirmed. Thus, in the Cafe before us, you would at that very, time, if I miftake you not, have had fome Ter7ns impo.- fed upon fuch as fhould continue in their PariJJ) Miviflry. Supp(^ling therefore thefe Terms had been exaftly whaC'. would have contented 3^ou, you cannot imagine but that for all this n any a Man would have been ejeHed, ami for ought I can judge, the Number of fuch might have come but little fliort of what it is repret'ented now to be.' >Jow I would ask, whether would have been better, and morereafjnable, all Things coniidered, that the Prop/* fhould liave united with their Fanjl) MiriJIers, or witli thefe ejeBed Ferfojis-, whether they fhould have been e» ftecmcd barbarous and hhwnane, if they had dcferted thepi^ and ferioufly attended upon the public irorjlnp in their Tar'if) Churches-^ whether it might'not have been the Du-. ty of tht people to leave them, tho' they were ejcflcd witJw.it The Reafonahlnefs of Conformity. 135 mthovt havivg any fitlt able Crime aUegd agamjl them. For obferve, if you grant that at that time fomeT^r7«5 might be impofed very lawfully, nay, and fuch T^nns as would infallibly exclude fome, you muft grant, that there was no NecelTity then of allegmg any fuhahle Crime againjl them and that they might be lawfully turn'd out, be^: caufe they did not think it lawful, or proper, to come up 1:0 thofe Terms. Why then are the People taught to follow them, becaufe they were caft o^'irhhout the AUe* gation of any Crhne, by yoa who can teach them, that fuch Tfi^'OT^ might lawfully have been impofed, as would unavoidably have caufed many to have been caft oif, without fuch a Ceremony ? Why is an Argument built upon this, by Ton who know it will not bear one ? Who kmrti this, I fay ^ for I fuppofe you will give me leave to fay, that had thefe Terms been to your Content, you would not have cenfured the People who conformed to the Church of Evgland, as barbarous, and hihujnane, in de- ferting their former Minifter y but rather, have rejoiced at it, as what would have tended mightily to an entire and univerfal Concord. And now, methinks, tho' the Terms were not exadtly what you wifhed them, yet fince they were fuch as your lawful Governours then thought' fit to impofe, and fuch as many excellent, pious, and ufe-- ful Men thought fit to comply with ; you ftiould not make fo vaft a Difference in your v/ays of arguing •, and now, move the Compaluon of the People with the Thoughts of the hihv7?ianity and Barharny o^ deferting you; when, if you had not been of ^he Number of the Eje- Bed, but had thought the T^n»5 large enough, you would, -I doubt not, have pleaded another Caufc •, and have ar- gued, that fuch a Defertmi, for the fake of the Peace and Quiet of the Church, is neither inhuviane nor barbarous 5 aiid perhaps farther, that to ftick to the eje&ed Mhnjlers, ^nd carry on, with them, a formal Separation from a good and found Church, is, in its Confequences, and ill EfFedls upon the World, a much greater Inftance of Bar-. harity, and Inhumcinity. This is really as if you fhould K 4 %, t ^6 The ReafonaUenefs 0/ Conform ity, fay, if the T^n«5 had been fuch as to take in vs, then. the P^cp/^ migit have covformei w^ithout hihumanity, or Barbarity, notwithftanding the EjeBion of many others would have been unavoidable : But fince they were fra- med fo thai We could not come up to them, the VeopU juftly feared the Guilt oilnhumayiity in deferttug us. And, whether it be reafonable to argue at tlus rate, I leave you to judge, BeiTdes, I muft obferve that this Argument fignifies ve- ry little to our prefent Times, unlefs you will fa}^^ that, whenever any Perfons have prepared themfelves for the Minip-y^ and cannot come up to the Terms of the EJla": llif/)'d Churchy it is hihimam- and barbarous in the People wot to ficli. to tt( w, and encourage them.^ And perhaps you will fay this. For, if this be fo mighty an Argu- vient in the Behalf of the ejeBed Mimjfers, it fhould be of fome force in the Cafe of thefe others. TIjey were adlually indeed in the.VffM7/;7,and thefe have thought fit to prepare themfelves for it. They would have come up to the Terms of the Eftabliihment, if they could have done it with- out Sin, and thefe profefs themfelves moft ready to do it but that it is againft their Confciences.T^^ were eje&- ed becaufe they could not fubmitto theCeTerjns^ and thefe are kept cut on the fame Account • and both without ha- mng any finable Clime alleged agauifi them. I fee not, but that you may as truly tax the Pc^ople with Inhumanity and Barbarity in not attending upon thefe^ as in deferting ihofe. And then, what a Foundation is here laid for con- ilant Diviiions from an EJlabliJl/d CJmrch, tho' never fb perfect. It is but for any Perfons to pretend, that they have prepared themfelves- for the ^fwi/r)', and that they are ready to viivifter in this Church, but that they can- not with a fafe Confciencc fubmit to {kt Terms required d Minijiers in it ^ and prefently it Ihall be inhumane and barbarous in the People not to give Encouragement to them, and fo it fhall be made their Duty , to divide from the EJlalVJly'd Church, and to promote all the fad Con- fcqucnces of fuch a Divifion, In the mean while, thefe ConT The Reafonahlenefs of ConfoxmiiY. 137 Conrequences are not confidered, and it is not remem- bred, what deplorable EfFedts have been caufed by fet- ting up Church against Churchy and IForJlnp againft Wor- Jh'ip \ it is not remembred, what lythiimamty and BarbafVy this hath already occaiioned, and may again occalion in this Nation ^ what Prejudices, and PalTion, what Emu- lations, and Oppolition, what Hatred and Malice, what Jealoufies and vile Surmifes, what Difturbances, and UnhappinelTes, this naturally tends to produce in the World. And now. As to this Inhiimamty and Barbarity^ upon the Confideration of which only this Argument is founded, let any one of common Senfe judge, 011 which fide the greater jB^rWft^y lies, whether on the part of thofewho would not defej-t the feparate Mhiljlry^ tho' the Confequences of it muft be acknowledged very pre- judicial -, or on the part of thofe, who, in Confideration of thefe evil Confequences, and of the Advantages and blefTed Effeds of a wwii;(?/"yaZ Conformity, X2ithex chofe to defert the feparate Minijiry, than the EJlabliJh^d Church. The Third Argument in Vindication of your People, is taken from the Caufe you are engaged in, thus. The Caufe in which the Bijfenting Minijlers are enga- ged, is a good and juft Caufe, Therefore, it is the Duty of the People zw their place toefpoufeitj and adhere to the fexme Principle, &c. The Caufe you are engaged in, you fay, is, the prejfmg a farther Reformatiojt in Ecclejiaflical Matters, as nece^aiy in order to the more general reaching of the great Ends of Re- ligion. This is the Principle the People are to adhere to, in Oppojition to thofe who reckon the Church fo perfect as to need no Amendments. Thjs I find frequently mentioned by you, and there- fore I Ihall endeavour, under this Argument, clearly and diftindtly to fet down my Thoughts upon this part of the Caufe. And it will be, I conceive, a fufficient An- fwer to what is advanced upon this Pretence, if I can make out the following Particulars. ^:That 1 3 S The ReafonMnefs of Conformity, T. That Tom, and your PeopU, may continue in 'Cow* nttnionwith the Church o£ Ejigland J without thinking it fo perp[l as to need ftp Ameiidmenta, and without forfaking the Caufe, yon fav, you are engaged in. ■ 2. That you have not attained to perfe3ton^ or a grear ter degree of it^ in the feparate Churches which you have erefted. ^ 7,. That to feparate from a Church, in order to obtain a farther Reformation, is not reafonable, or defenfible. 4. That the method you have taken, is not a likely way to make the Church of EnglaJid one degree more per- feB than it is already. ^. That if this be a good Argument for a Separation, there will alwa3^s be a Necefllty for one, and that your own Ameytdments would not make the Church fo perfeS, but that this fame pretence for Separation would re- m.ain. T. That Tow, and your People, may continue in the Communion of the Church of England, without thinking. it foperfeB a-s to need no Amendments, and without forfa- king this Caufe in which, you ^d^y. you are engaged. It is none of the Terms of Communion in our Church, as I know of, that we Ihall think it in ev'ry rcfped perfect ^ that nothing is wanting, to make it compleat, either in its Government, Difcipline, or WorJInp : Nor is it con- trary to the Principles of Hoyiefy and Sincerity, for any one to minifter, or communicate in a Church, tho' He think fome- thing or other in it may be made better, and more a- dapted to the ends o^ Religion, and the Intereft of Chri-. fianity. Almighty God, tho' without doubt He would have his Church as perfeB in all refpedls as poffible •, yet without doubt alfo. He would not have us upon every defed we imagine to be in it, withdraw our felves from the Communion of it : becaufe at this rate we muft not communicate at all, but live Separatijli from all the Churches in the World. Peace, and Unity, are the con- cern of all ChriJIians, and the breaches of them, all are anfwerable for ^ but the Conjlitution of a National Church. is The ReafonaMenefs of Conformity, i g 9 is not the concern of every Chriftian, fo as that He be- comes anfwerable for the defedts of it. If He can him- felf, with that care which every Chriftian ought to exer- cife, live in the Communion cf it, righteoitjly, foberly, mid ^odly \ enjoy God's Ordinances without any linful mii- tures,and be in a fafe and fecure way to Heaven ^ whence, I befeech you, can arife any Obligation upon Him to break the public Peace and Quiet cf this Church ? Can you imagine it fufficient for him to urge, This Church is 9wt perfeB enough, it wants fomethivg in the Ad^iiinijlration of its Govennnent ^ The DifcipUne of it is loofe and defeaive ; ThifBxpjeffwn^ or th'u Word, in its Liturgy, is improper? What if it be > and what if thefe Things be not amended, juft when He calls for Rcforjnation ? Muft he therefore difturb, and ruinethe Quiet and Charity of the Nation? And will thefe Pretences anfwer for fuch evil Confe- quences, which are what He knows to be unavoidable > I think it is plain they will not. Suppoiing therefore, tYit Church It founds but indifferently to fay, We leave the Church of England be- caufe it is imperfcd, and we communicate with Chijr-ri ches The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity* i^t ches as imperfed ^ we leave the Chnrch oi England be- caufe^we are engaged in a Defign of preffmg a fanher Reformation, and for fear we fhould contribute to the ftrengthning the Opinion cf fome that it is perfeB^ and yet we conltantly communicate with Churches which we know to be imperfed: •, We forfake the EJjablljlci Chttrch in oppolition to thofe who think it per feci, and tve join with Churches of whofe Ferf^ion there is as lit- tie hope. But I pray, until this Refor^nation and Perfe- 3ion be accomplilhed. Is not Communion with this 'tir.per- . feS Church as laudable as Communion with one \Av.± is no better? And fuppoling two Churches equally imper- fcdtj doth not the Obligation to Communion, on many Accounts, lie manifcftly on the fide of the EJ}ahliJ1)e3, Chnrch^ Nay, doth it not manifeftly Ije on that fide, even fuppofing the feparate Church fomewhat the perfedter of the two ? Permit me to afk you one Queftion more, and that is this, If the Caufe you are engaged in, the prelling Reformations and AmendiJients, be a good Reafon for Separation, or lay an Obligation upon you to fcpa- rate, why do yoU not /t?p,3;-ai-e from your own Churches, in order to hxiu^them to perfeftion ? Either your Chur- ches are perfeB, or you make a Itrange difrerence in your behaviour towards the EfiahliJI^ed Church, and towards them. If you fay not that they are perfect, it muft re- main ftill unaccountable, that you Ihould make that a Reafon for joining together in feparate Churches, whicli is as much a Reafon for feparating from thefe fparate Churches, as it is for your feparating from the Church of Ejfgland. If you will fay, that the Churches you join with are perfect, or any thing more perfect than the Church oi Eng- land, this I grant to be confiftent with this Argument, but not with Truth ; And I deiire you to fhew us plain- ly, in what it is that this gre.ter PerfeSion is mauifc ft. Is it in t\\t Government of youx Churches? What is that? Prefbyterian, or Independent ? And in what doth it exceed the Epijcopal Form? Is it more antient, or more benefi- cial 142 The Reafonahldtiefs of Conformity. icial to thePloclc of Chrift? You cannot fhew a Churchy before thefe late Times, in which Bijfjops^as Superiour to Prepyters^ did not prefide^ nor can you fliew any ad- vantage to the Chiirch in any other Government, which that of BJJImps is without. Is this pre-eminence in the Difapline of your Churches ? Where is it to be feen, and how is it cxercifed? I cannot fay that you are without it, becailfe f am not well enough acquainted with th6 prefent State of your Churches to be able to fay it-, but I cannot hear that you can boaft of any reguhrjhene^cial^ and truly Chriftian DifcipUne ? Or, Is this greater Perfc" Bion chief!'/ vifible in j onr public IForJlnp^ and your Ad* miniftratioil of the public Offices of Religion? Is a Jlatel Liturgy, compofed of Sentences, Lcjfons, Pfahns, and Hymns taken out of the Scripture, and of pious and pro- fitable Prayers, an impcrfeB and low Difpenfation,wheii compared with the performances amongft Ton, which muft wholly depend upon the Preparation, Abilities^ Temper, and prefent Difpofition of the Perfons whoaro- to Officiate > And, Is it more for the Honour of God, for the Decency of piihlic WorJJnp, for the Edification of iheCbriJiia-n Church, that a general Encouragement fhould be given to this, than fuch a Liturgy be joined with > The bcft and molt complete way of determining this, would be to procure a true Copy of all the public Prayers ufed in all the Covgregations throughout the whole Land, on ;any one Lord's Day, by thofe who have thrown off the Ufe of the Liturgy ; and to compare thefe, with the Ser- vice in the Commoii-Praycr-Book Efiablilhed. This would clearly demonftrate, which is moll: for the Honour of God, and the Decency of his Worfhip ; which gives mofi: occafion to improprieties, and irregularities in his Ser- vice :, which is, univerfally fpeaking, mofi: for the true and Chriftian Edification of the People -^ the method you tave cr.ofen and encouraged, or the imperfect difcarded Liturgy of the Church of EvgU'nd, But alafs! this is im- practicable. However, Enough is known of the JTorpip in the Dijfentijtg Covgregations to make me think, thatJ- your The Reafonablenefs of Conformity* 143 your felves will not affirm the iphoh of it ('as made up of SiW.thtfeparate Performances throughout the Land, on any one Lord's Day) to be more free from Imperfections, and Indecencies, more fuitable to the Nature of God, or more fit for the Inftrudion of his CbJirch, than the Efla- 4?liJI)ed Liturgy. Nay, I hardly thinlc, that you can pre- fer any one iingle performance, in all refpedts, before iti 3ut if you could, and if we (hould fuppofe (for Argu- ment's fake) that Mr. Baxter, and a few more, could, •in their way, exprefs themfelves very happily, and en- tertain the People with apiiblic Service much better than the Liturgy •, yet this would not prove that your Churches are more perfed than ours in this refpedt. For it is not from what this, ©r that particular Man can do, by the help of Nature and Art, that we muft draw our Judg- ment in this point. But if you would prove youi Churches mor&perfeB in their l^orfiip, than the Church of Evgland^ you muft prove that, generally fpeaking, they are fo* and that your method tends to make them fo ^ or ra- ther, that, upon comparifon of the whole Service of eve- ry one of them Tn the Nation, with that of the Church Eftablified, it appears, that there are fewer, and more inconiiderahle ImperfeBions in it, than in that fetled by the Law. How fecurely might we put the whole matter upon this liTue, without fo much as defiring that you ■fhould be as fevere, and hard, in the Conflrudions you •put upon your own PerformaJices, as you have been in thofe you have put upon our Liturgy ? But I will forbear faying any more upon this Hi?ai,becaufe I think it need- lefs •, there being nothing plainer, than that it is unac- countable, and inconfiftent, to feparate from an ijiiperfeB ■Church, in order to prej^ a farther Reformation-^ andcon- ftantly to join with another Church as imperfeEl, and which wants Reformation as much. 3. I Ihall endeavour to fhew. That to feparate from a Chirch^in order to obtain a farther Reformation, is not in it felf a reafonable, or defeniible thing. This Argu- 'ipent, asitfeems tojue^ fuppofes that the Cbiir<:h isto- ^- ' ~ ' " . ' '" leralle. 144 T^d ReafonSlenefs of Cor^fovmity. lerable, only that it hath fome Defers, and ftands hi need of fome Amendments. If it were httohrahh, then that would be the Reafon of your Separation, and not the profpedt of Amendment and R^forrnation. This is the fame Church with whjch the OUPuritam thought con- jlant Communion to be lawful, and neceffary. What there- fore this Argument, as diftind from all others, intei ds, IS, not that you cannot communicate with this Church, as the OW PKrzVajM did, but, that finding no likelyhood o^ com.'^^L^wi^Si farther Reformation mil by commmiica- ting with it, you feparate from it as the moft likely way to obtain this Reformation. Kow fuppofing this to be the likelieft Method of bringing this to efFeft, yet it feems to me to be a Method not allowed by Reafon, or Chriftianity* I will not be pofitive in the matter, but, according to the beft of my underftanding, and the pre* ient vieWj I have of it, this is doing evil that good may come. Suppojfing a Government to be tolerable, and tore^ iquire nothing but what may lawfully be complied with ^ tho' it have femething in it which you could wifh a- mendedj yet would it not be Rebellion, and a finful Bif obedience, to rife up againft it, and fill the World with confufion ? Or, would it fanftify fiich a Pra6tice, to fay. That this is done in order to make it more complete and perfeft? So likewife, fuppoiing a Cfe«rc^ to be tolerable (as this Argument gives us leave) and nothing to be re- quired in order to Communion with it, but what may law-^ fully be complied with : tho' it be not fo perfed as it might be, and as you wifh it, yet, will ifnot be finful to feparate from it, and difunite Chrijlians from one ano- ther? Will the End propofed fandtify an evil which hath fo very pernicious, and fad confequences ? And will it be fufficientto fay, We feparate in order to bring this Church to greater PerfeSions ? When the Queftion is put, l^hy do yon divide from a Church of Chrijlians already fetled? And why are you the occafion of fo much Variance "and Strife in the Land ? Will it be a proper Anfwer, Not becaufe we cannot join in Communion with jt (fpr this we can do as The l^eafomiUm^fs of Con^^rmity. 145 Ws well as our Vhm Progenitors) }i\ii becaufe we hope b^ this means to brin^ this Church to a better Eiiate, arc] a greater degree of Perfedion ? Is Separation then io in o- cent, and harmlefs a thing, that any good propofe:! ^X a diftance, fhall juftify it, and make it eligible? No Man hath inveigh'd more againft it than 7011, and i^our Pre- decefTors : No Man hath loaded it with more Aggrava- tions than Mr. Baxter : And yet indeed itmuftbe a moft trifling and infignificant Matter, if fuch Reafons as this can change its Nature, and diflblve the Obligations Men are under to avoid it. We are obliged not to feek the jGlorjof Godin allways-: And it is unlawful to endea- vour or defign the Amendment, or Advantage of a Church by all Methods : And therefore, to feparate from a Church with wliich You can hold Communion in all Chriftian Offices without finning, under pretence of bringing it to more perfedtion, is unlawful. If ypii :ould not join with the Church of Enghyii in the Offca ■iXReligmi without finning againft your Confciences, this turns Separation from a Sin into a Virtue, by making it I necelTary Duty : But fince you can communicate with- )ut finning, andyet fepjrate^ t fee not what can make ^ t neceffary, or eicufable. But I find that you are often endeavouring to avoid his difUcuity, by faying thus, // we JIwiiU co?nnmmcate ^onftantly with the Church £jlahliJJ)ed^ we Jlwuld 7wt indeed m iJt the aHion it felf^ hut in the Circnrnftancex or Confc' mncea of it w^ pould. Vor: thisjcojijlajtt Co77nnunion would le a praBical Concejfion that m^ Church is perfe£l, and vould tend to confirm many Church-men in their Opi- ;iion that it was fo. This I find you frequently^ men- ioning, and therefore give me leave to examine it tho- joughly before I proceed. I have' juft now (hewn that •^our Communion with the Church of England would imply ;n it nothing like this, and have alleged the example of jfrfeat Numbers who conftantly communicate with it, and : 'ire far from thinking it perfed, and thefe not, pply of, me, but of all forts. - Communicating with a Church L cannot 14^ 7he Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. cannot be ^praBlcal Bedaration that it is fo coftiplete fij^ to need no Amendments^ but can only fignify that we judg^ it to be fo perfecl, that we can very well communicate with it. When you conftantly keep Company with any Perfons, would you have this fignify that you imagif^e them to be abfolutely without fault ? And can it fignify any more, but that you judge them fit for your conftant Converfation ? So likewife let it be in the Cafe before us, t)ecaufe it can be no otherwife • and becaufe, if it were* other.tvife, there would hardly be a covjiant Communicant left in this Church • nor could there be one in any. Church in the World. Is yqUr conjlant Communion witi: your o'Wn Churches a praBkcd Declaration that they ar< perfed? If not, Why fliould. it be more fo, when it f eicercifed with the Church of England^ than, when wi,t ^our o^ri ? But It will confirm fome Church-men vt an op iiion^ that the Church is pe?-feti. None, but fuch as w^ think fo, whether you conjmunicate with it or not, al very few there are who do think fo, at Icaft, who w:^ fay fo. But fuppofing it Would fettle them in the belie that there is no need of Amendments^ there Would be thi advantage in it, that as they would refift Alteration which you think for the better, fo they Would likewi any for the worfe ^ and yoU might be fecure the Chun would Hot prove worfe upon your Hands thro' their meaiis : which, confidering all things, is a very happy Security. But farther. Would this coi:|feqUence of your covfi ant Communion (fuppofingit certain, whereas it is no- thing but imaginary ) be g, f eafonable and natural Inter- pretation of your Pradice, or not ? It is plaiii from what I have faid, that yoUr Practice cannot reafonably be fo ]nterpreted • nor 13 th^i practice of many conjlant Comma- 9//atwtj fo interpreted. If then thefe C/j«;t^-7«^« will fo interpret it, whofe fault is it ? and who is to anfwer for it ? Are you accountable for all the ill confequences of your A before us, fuppoiing Conformity to have thefe ill Confequences you have menti-* bn'd, and Separation to have thofe I have produced, the h 2 put/. 1 48 The ReafonahleneJ's of C onfor mlty. Tuty of a Chriftian is certainly to chufe that way of* Adion which hath the fcweft and moft inconfiderable Inconveniences, and the lighteft ill Confequences to the Chriltian Church, Since therefore, he muft either com- vmmcate with this Church, or feparate from it, let any re.fons judge whether it be worfe to give Occafion to fm e Perfons to think an imperfedl Church perfed, or to give Occafion to DifTenfion and Uncharitablcnefs aniongjft Chriftians -, to do what may pollibly (but not certainly) induce fome to think wo Ameudmenta in this Church to be rcafonable, or to do what will certainly, and unavoid- abi}^, lead to the producing all the Hatred, Strife and Violence imaginable ; to do what injudicious Men only can fo nniinterprct, and make fuch an ufe of^ or to do what will infallibly liclp to (\Q{txoy Chrijllan Chanty in the World. What greater Obligation can a Chriftian lie under, than that by which he is bound to avoid eve- ry thing that tends to mine the I'cace^ and ^'let of So- ciety ? Is his Obligation to look after the Coimitution of a Church, and to fee that every thing in it be as eia£l:- ly and nicel)'- order'd, as he in his private Judgment wilhes it to be-, I fay, is this Obligation ever to take place of the other ? And would he that readsthe Go/pel ferioufly, imagine it to be the Duty of a.Chriftian, or worth hi-s while, to quit his Regards to J77/27j> and Lov0, in orc'er to redify fomewhat that he thinks amifs in a Church, in which He meets with all Things necelTary to his Salvation, and nothing deftrudlive of it, and in the Coimmimon of which, He knows He can live and die a good Chriftian? Can any Cb/iftian that is fenlible what a Strf fs is laid upon Charity, and Peacc^ in thi.t Law by which he isto be judg'd, induce himfelf to negledt the Promotion of thefe, even for one Day ^ and think it Re* compcnce enough to his Lord, that He hath fome Hopes this w-ay of-addirg to the Perfection of one particular Church > What is move edifying to his Church than C/; j;-i-v ty ? And ivhat more condaceth to the Beauty and Splen- dor' f it thail the Joving and peaceable Difpeiitions. 06 his The Reafonahlenefs ^/Conformity. 149 his Difciples > Without Peace and Love, all the Perfe&i- ',•071 in the World is not lovely in his Eyes,^ and with ; the?n, Imperfedion is by him accounted Perfedion. They : are the chief and principal Things that compofe the Beauty and exa«5? Symmetry o^ a Churchy and in vain do we talk of making a Church perfecl, whilft we are doing what muft inevitably mine that in vWiich its greateft Glory muft confift. I fay not that all who fe- pa/ate are Kficharitable, but I fay, that they give cccafi- on (and fuch an Occaiion as never fails ) to all the In- ftances o^Uvcharitahlenef^ and Pafrn amon?,ft Perfons of the differing Parties : And this, I lay, all Chrifliaiisare bound indifpenfably to avoid, and more ftrongly obli- ged to avoid it, than they are to ftudy the Perfedion of the outward Forms of Church Goveniment, and VorJI'/ip^ fuppofing them but tolerable. And this the OU Puritans feem highly fenfible of-, and have left behind them no- thing that gives us any reafon to think, that it was their , Opinion, that either Length of Time, and waiting for Aniendments, or any faint Hopes of bringing them to paG by Separation, could diHolve the Obligation Chri- ^'mns are undei to preferve the Unity of the Spirit in the pond of Peace. Pardon me, if I feem a little troublefome, or tedious on this Head. I confefs, my concern here tranfports me a little^ and it grieves me to fee a Church torn to pie- ces, its Members divided from one another, Diicord tri- umphing upon the Ruines of Unity, and Uncharitable- jiefs reigning without Controul i and all thjs brought about by Men cf Serioufnefs and Conlideration, Men that profefs they defire nothing more than the Edifica- tion, and Perfection of this very Church. Had you ask'd the Enemies of this Church and Nation, thofe whom it hath fo gloriouUy and fuccefsfuUy oppofed, which way youlhould take to ruine both Church and Nation, they would have thought of no other, but the encouraging fuch a Scparatim: and they may well be pleafcd that you think Reparation your Duty in order xo a farther Re- L 3 formation^ i 56 The Reafonahknefs of Conformity. fof-ynation, becaufe this Thought will help more effe£lu^ ally to bring about their "Wimes. You aje as far from defiring that their Wifhes'may be accomplifhed as any I'erfons living, but you know fometimes- good Men have given an unhappy Occalion to what h'kth produced Ef- feds quite contrary to their Defigns ^ fuch EfFefts as they Would afterwards have given all the World to hinder, Lut could not. This hath been experienced in this Nation, and Experience fViould teach us all "Wifdom. The Church of Evglavd is a Church, with which yoit ' aclcnowledge covjiant Communion to be necefTary in places where you have noOpportunitiesDfy^par^f^ Ccvgregatiovs. By this ^'^on acknowledge conjlatit Commwmn with it tQ be lawful. If it be your Duty therefore to communi' atd , \v\\}\ the Church o^ EnzJaJii^ where no other Church call | be communicated with, certainly it muft be your Duty ^ to communicate with the Church of Evgland, where no | other Church can be fet up, or communicated with, with- 1 out giving Occaiion to Divifion, and Animofities, and!. Malice, and Hatred am.ongft Chriftians. And as, on the one fide, you fay, we cannot coinvmnicate with this Church without confirming fome Men in the Opinion that it is perfedt ^ fo, on the other fide, let me argue, you cannot fcparate from this Church without encouraging D'lfcord, and Pcifion amongft Chriftians, and fowing the Seeds of Hatred in the Land : and let this have its due Weight with you, becaufe I have fhewn, that Communion with the Church is not a Declaration that it is perfedt, and that there are very few or none who have fuch an Opi*' iiion, or, if they have, who will be confirmed in it by any thing you can do or fay ♦, and becaufe I have proved that, fuppofing this would be the Conftquence of youi" covjiant Coinmuviov^jct the Confequences of your Separa- tion are far worfe, and much more pernicious to the Hd Hour, and Life of Chriftianity. And confequently, it is not a reafonable, or defenfible thing, to feparate from a Church in order to a farther Refo?7nai'inn. And as I am (deeply touch'd with thefe Thoughts my felf, fo I cannot help The Reafonahlnefs of Conformity. 151 help befeeching God, that, if they have any Weight in them, they may likewife afFed you, and forcibly move you to do fomewhat towards the reviving Chriftian Lov^ 2Lnable Prejudices of the People Lgainft it. You have feparated from it, as f-om 2 Church with which covjlant Crmmmiion is not tolerable ♦, 3^ou have drawn many 1 eople from it, as you have had- Oppf rtunity ♦, you have chofen to join, and unite with]v the molt irregular, and imperfed Churches, rather than^ with this, and to make your Intercll: one with theirs, ra-' therthau to be thought to prefer this before them ^ you have written for many Years with fuch a Concern and' Heat againft it that you could hardly write with more pgainft the Church of Rome it fcdf ^ you have hlacken'd 7/:imJlerial Conformity to it with fuch a Number of Aggra- . ' - VHtiona The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity, 1 5 3 vations, as muft make it a Complication of Sins of the moft horrid, and unpardonable nature •, you have done what tends to alienate the Minds and Hearts of the Ka- tion from the EJlahl'ip^d Chvrch, and thofe that viimjier in it. And vou cannot think this the likelieft way to bring thofe from whom you differ to fuch a Te7f:per of Acconimodation^sudiiich a yieUivg DifpoJItioJi.as 3"ou wiih, and as there muft: be before this farther Reformation can be accomplifhed. Granting therefore that feme AjiiencL- ?«£'«/■.? are highly reafonable in themfelves, and that fome Alterations which. yovL (^dmowsfi. others) have contended for, w'ould make the Church more perfeB than it is ^ yet, before this be done, Mens Minds muft be difpofed to it, and made eafy and yielding. They muft be void of Paflion and Prejudice, for fear they ftiould make fuch Alterations as are not reafonable, or relift and prevent fuch as are. Nothing of Hatred, or the leaft Degrees of private Refentment and Anger, muft have place, where fuch a Deiignis on foot. And yet your Method tends to Paffion and Prejudice, and Refentment ^ but can never have the leaft part in making Men pliable and eafy, in difpoiing them to recede from any thing, to make the fmalleft Concefllons, or give up a Point of the leaft Im- portance. It is true, that, upon the Snppojition that the Church may be made more perfect, nothing will hinder confidering Men from promoting fuch Alterations as will do it. No Unreafonablenefs, of unaccountable Beha- viour, no Aggravations, or Invedtives, no Violence or Heat, in any who differ from them, ought to have fuch an Effed upon their Minds, as to render them unwilling, or indifpofed to encourage fuch a farther Rejorination : becaufe their Failings belong to themfelves, and not to the Caufe in hand, and can make that neither better, iiorworfe. If it be reafonable in it felf, it will be fo, whoever efpoufe it, or by what Methods foever they at- tempt it : And. the Perfeciion of a Church is a thing of that moment, that nothing ought to divert us from pref^ |ing towards it. But then, on the othey ii^e, would any 154 The Re afonahlenefs of Conhtmity. whoferioufly deiirethis Accommoiatlon^ andwifh for fuch Oonccirions, take fuch Methods to procure them, as, in the ordinary and confl-?.nt courfe of things, muft refill and hinder them ? Would jqw anger and incenfe thofe whom you would have yield and comply > Would you provoke and irritate Men whom you would difpofe to agree with 3^ou ? Would you, in any Affair in the World, he ever inveighing againft the Caufe or Behaviour of Perfons, \vith whom 3^ou defire to fettle a lafting Con- cord,and from whom you hope for fome favourable Con- ceflions ? I believe not •, yet here you aft after that man- lier. For there is hardly any thing that hath the leail Tendency to obtain this defired Union, and in order to it, to foften the HardneJGTes, to cool the Heats, to engage ihe AfFedions of any on whom this Concord muft de- pend ; there is hardly anything of-this nature that ycu have thought fit to do. But there is hardly any thing that tends to keep us at a diftance from one another, and hinder this Agreemem, that tends to inflame the Paffionscf thofe you differ from, to make them jealous and fearful of a clofcr Union with you, to render them fufpicious of your Tempers and Defigns, and difengage their Affedions from you, but that you have thought it worth your while to pradife it, in the way of your Se- p^ratio7J, and in the Methods you have taken to begin, arid confirm it. As if it had been your Bufinefs to do xVh a t 3''ou knew would be moft grievous in their Eyes, and your Rcfolutiori to vex them as much as poffible, iince thev would not agree with you •, and as if the in- terchanging of fuch good Offices were likely to prove the rcadieft way to fettle a good Correfpondence between you, or to bring you one Step nearet to one another. In ^ne Word, let whowill believe, that can, that your S<>- faratwv^ and the Methods which have been taken to up- hqld it, can haveariy Tendency towards the procuring, theie Aheratiors which would make the Church perfect enough for yon. Common Scnfe contradicts this •, and the more I conlider it. the more I am confirmed, that - . . tho' The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. '15^ tlio' it were never fo lawful to ufefuch Means for the Ac- complifhmeut of fuch an End, yet this End cannot be ac- complifhed by fuch Means. If either Reafon or Experi- ence be to be regarded, it is certain, that from hence have produced the greateft UnwillingnefTes, and ftrongeft Averfions to fuch an Agreement. And if fo, the Confide- ration of obtaining thefe Alterations ought not, in the na- ture of it, to have induced you to begin your FraSice^ and cannot in reafon induce you to continue it. Befides. were you certain that the Method you have taken is Ijoth a lawful and likely way^ to the procuring thofe Abatements, and Amendmenta which would content you, and fuppofing that the affeding them ftiould bring in many of you, who are Mijiijlers •, yet God only knows, as theGiwp hath been unhappily managed, whether this would fo mightily contribute to the miiverfal Union of .this Church and People, as one would wifti, or as fome expedt. For it is notorious, that thefe Ahatentents and Alterations are not the Matters which the Generality of your Veople concern themfelves about ^ or whichjin their Opinion, make up any confiderable part of the Caufe. Ko, I doubt, thefe would move them but little, and bring them but a very little way towards the Church, For the moft unfortunate thing of all is, that you have fetled them in a way of Worfhip wholly different from what ours is, and mvj} be. You have difufed them to Liturgies, and effectually taught them to efteem a Jiated Form of Grayer, as a dry, infipped, heavy Difpenfation, unable to raife their Affedions to a due Pitch, unquali- fied to raife any Tranfports of Devotion, or to kindle any fort of religious Paflion in their Breafts •, not to be compared with the meaneft extemporary Bjfufwn, fo it be but utter'd with Vehemence and Zeal •, and therefore not fit for their Entertainment in the Worfhip of God. You have laid afide Epifcopacy, as an inconvenient, or ufelefs, or, at leaft, as a very indifferent Form of Church Govern^ went, and your Feople can hardly, by this means, beat the Thoughts of a Church in which fo much as the Name . - - t> _ . ^^ 1 5^ The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. e^B'iP'ops is Found. Thcfe, and the like UnbappinefTes,' have iieceirarily followed from your manner of Beha- viiour/and therefore, if 7oh fliouW come in your felves to a Crdrch m wWich Ep'fcopacy and a Jiated Liturgy are re- tained, ( as you will do, I hope, if ever you conic, into this) let them be never fo well regulated, and never fi>; excellently framed, your People perhaps will rather chufe^ theway you havealreadv engaged them jn, and fooner." forfike you, than thofe Fancies in which you have efta--^ biilhcd them. And if this fhould prove fo, what great' Prc^grefs fliall you have made towards the Ferf&Binn ota, Churvh by this Method, when tho' it fhould gain-your^ Toint, and help to efted thefe delired 'Alterations^ yet it hath, before this be accomplifhed, laid the Foundation of perpetual Divifion in the Land •, hath prejudiced the" ' People againft the EJiabVjfl^^dJV'ay^ tho' 3''ou join with it^ hath tauglit thenito relifh, and to value beyond meafure a way diftinctfromitjandoppofiteto it j and to be Proof againft all Arguments taken from the univerfal Good, and Peace of the C/)m/"cZ> and the common Intereft of Frotejhmts. Indeed I would gladly hope (^as I have before, faid) that you have the Intereft and Authority with 3''our People, and that your Example and Perfuaflon, will have that Influence over them, that, if ever that happy rime iliould come when 3^ou fhould think fit to fubmit to the ejlahlijiid Terms ^ and conform to the Church vt JSnghnd, your People will be induced to follow you, andco7;/orwalfo. Siiine, I doubt not, jj^f//; But this Se-' }> aratioji and J OUT Behaviour in it, will have no part iu periaading them to it. And for the Generality pf the People, my Fears are, that it hath eftablifh'd, and har- den'd them in another Courfe, and fo inured them to it, that nothing at laft may be able to remove their Preju- dices, to convince their Judgments, or draw their Alfc- Ctions to Conformity. We know not the utmoji Force of Prejudices once entertained, encouraged, and flrength- tncd by many Years Pra&ice : But we know the Force of them to be great, and almoll uncon(|uerable j and this ought The Reafonahlenefs ^/ Conformity 15.7 ouglit to make us always afraidj left for the fa^e of a- voiding a little prefeiit Inconvenjcrice^ .or the obtaining a little prefent Good, we Ihould prevent a much greater Gocdiii Times to come, and run into a much greater In- :convenience. It fhould make us afraid 'of doing anjr thing towards the cheriftiing, and fttengthening fuch un- reafonable Errors, and wrong Notions in a Multitude of People, as may, one time or other, ftaiid in the way t» Union, and be the greateft Bar to that Happinefs which Vve our felves delire, and the very thing that hinders it, when we ..moft wifh, and moft hope to efFed it. Thiit your felves obliged £0 to do, and yet, that ftill a farther Ref or }nation would have been wanting ^ it ap- ])cars from hence, that the want of this farther Reforma- tion is iiot a fufRcient Ground for a Separation •, and that,- ill your own Accounts, you may be obliged to commu- nicate with a Church which is not fo perfc^ as to need na A}ncndinents. If I liave advanced, under thefe Heads, any thing of Reafon, and Truth, let it have its due Weight witli you : and, if you be convinced your felves, fulFer not your People to think that the Caufe you are engaged in will }wit\fy Separation either in yoii, or them. I mean, if tliere be. any of your Fcopic who feparate from the Churchy TJoe Reafonablenefs of Connor mty. i6$ 0jurch^ and follow you upon this Principle. It is time now to proceed to the Fourth Argument, in Vindication of your People, which is this. It is the Duty of the Diffentivg liTiniJiers to covthme in the Exerdfe of their Mimfiry^ tho" fileucd by the Magiftrates, Therefore, the People are therein ohligd tojupport, avi fncovnjge them. But, if I have before fhewn, that it is not the Duty of the Dijfeittivg Miuiferx to contivue in the Exercife of the'ir Minijlry-, then it will follow, that the People are not therein obliged tofupport and evcovrage them. Whether I have or no, I mult leave to others : But the Duty of the People feeming to depend upon the Duty of the M'lni- Jferx, jn this Argument, what 1 have advanced againft the Necellity of their public Minijfration^, will equally deftroy the Obligation of the People to fupport and encou' rage them therein. Suppoling therefore tiiat this CoJidufion isjuftly drawn, yetif the Propofition, on which it de- pends, be not true, it mufl* certainly fall with it. And fo I might fairly leave this Argument, with an Appeal to what hath been already difcourfed. But I cannot difmifsit without obfervlng to you, that it appears to me to be full of Fallacy. For, if the People be not, on otkr Accounts, obliged to attend upon yoiir Mijiijl rations, you cannot fay, that they are obliged to it niprely to fipport and encourage yoit-^ nor vyould they ever do it for that Reafon only. And if they be rot_ oWiged to it merely tofupport and encourage you, then this Argu- ment fignifies nothing to their Juftification. }s'ay, you know that they do, and always did, attend upon you on oth^r Accounts,and you know that they are worthy of Blgrpe, if it were otherwiie. Again, your public Mhii- f rations are not abfolute, but bear a Relation to the Peo- ple •, and therefore, your Obligation to them cannot be abfolute. And fo, you cannot prove any Necellity upon your felves to minijler, but upon Suppofition of the Ne- cellities oftheP^op/f, and their Readhiefs to wait upon you : Confequently, if it had fo happened, that the Peo- M 3 P^^ l66 7 he Reafonabknefs of Conformity. pJe had thought their NecelTities fully fupplied in other ways, and had not been ready to attend upon you on other Accounts,it cbuld not have been their Duty to have attended upon yoa merely on this Account, tofupportyon hi your Duty •, becaufe, upon this Suppoiition, it could not have l:ecn your Duty to mhiijier publicly^ even tho' we fhould grant it to be your Duty to be ready to vihiijie^ if the People would attend upon jou. And you might have been ready to mhiiJler publicly^ upon this Suppofition, without adually doing it •, and that is all your Ordlna- tionVow con\Ao\)\\gQjQ\\ to, no Man being obliged to Impoiribilities,or Abfurdities. Suppoling therefore, that • it is your Duty to be ready to* vi'nnjler piihllcly, if the people will attend upon you (which is the utmoft that can be faidj yet, if they attend not upon you, they hin- der not you from doing what yew are obliged to do^ your Read'mefs to minifter, in this Cafe, being your wliole Duty. Befides, 3^ou your felves will grant (at leafl:, you of- ten argue fo in 3'our ownCaufej that if they think their Neccliities can be better fupplied by others than by you, they ought to follow thofe others. This your People are taught to think. From hence, therefore, it follows, that they are not obliged to attend upon you, in order to fiipport avd ejjcourage yon in your Duty, I entreat you to thinkof this, and, if you will deal fairly in this Caufe, you are obliged plainly to deny the one, or the other. For, if it"be the Peoples Duty to Jupport, and encourage you, then it is not their Duty, nay, it is not allowable for them, to go where their Neceflities can beft be fup- plied. But, if it be their Duty, or allowable for them, to leave you, in order to have their Neceifities better fupplied, then it is not their Duty to fiipport and e7irou- rage yon hy their Attendance upon you ^ becaufe thcfe -areinconfiftent one with another. Either therefore re- linquifli tin Argument, or give up that popular Flea of Edification ^ and the'natural, and unalienable Right of every The ReafonahJetiefs ^/'Conformity. 167 e^ery Man to chufe his own Pajlor ^ or {hew us how to leconcile them. Father, you cannot be fo little concerned for the Na- tion you belong to, as not to think it would be a very confiderable Happinefs to it, did all the Ppo/'^^ferioufly . attend upon the piihlic IForJlnp in the EJiahliped Chvrrh •, were they all perfnaded that the NecelTities of their Souls could very well be fupplied in it, and all refolved to unite, and purfue their Duty in one way. You cannot lay, that this would endanger their Salvation, or hinder their own private jfeWz/c.'rh'o?/, if they be not wanting to themfelves : You cannot fay, that this would not be a mighty Advantage to the Chriftiini Religion, and the Fro^- tejiajit Caufe in particular : or, that it would not very much conduce to the univerfal Edification of the Church of God in Love and Unity. Nor will you, I prefume, put youT own Support and EiicoM?'tige?fie)!t into theBallance againfl fo great and public a Gc-id. Far be it from me to think, tJiat you would not be willing to purchafe fuch an Advantage to the Chrifiian Churchy (lich an Honour to your Lord and Saviour, fu^h a Foundation of Happinefs to your Native Country, at the deareft Price ^ that you would not be ready to facrifice all yoyr own private Fortunes to it, and to buy it at the Expenfe of your own Reputation, and all thCiSH/'po/t and Encouragement you could hope for in the World. This I cannot but think 3^ou would be willing to do, fcven though it were to be done by the Peoples Conformity to the Church ot England J becaufe it is certainly the Duty of cver)^ ChriJIiau • wluit every good Man ought to do^ and what is but agreeable to that Senfe You have frequentl)^ exprcrs\i, of the mife- rable Confequences oireligioiis Divifiom^ and tlie unfpeak- abie Advantages of Concord and Unity. And if this be fo, it appears, that your private Support and Encouragement^ ought not to hinder the People from pnrfuing a greater Good, the univerfal Advantage of the Protcjiant Churchy and EngliJ/) Nation^ by Conforjnity to the Church of Eng- land J and therefore, that this Argument cannot prove it M 4 to 1 6 8 The Reafonablenefs of Con for m i ty. to be their Duty, to adhere to You inthtfeparate Exer- cife of Your iKi?;?/?/-)!. I leave this to your Coniidera- lion, and proceed to The Fifth Argument, in Defenfe of Your P^opZ?, which is taken from their Right to chttfe their own Pajlor, as follows, The People muR of^ttu part with this Right J if they fub- mit to the legal P/:ovzJw7t for them ^ Therefore, they cannotlivein Conformity to \\\t Church of Eii^lavd. This I find, a little afterwards, thus expref- fed in a manner fomcwhat differing from this •, jrithout fubmittiifg, ijtmany Paripes^ to Jinqiialified Guides^ there is -no roovt left by the Law for Mimjierial IvJlruSion, -i afid Pii floral Help, Thertfore, it is the Duty of the R-op/ff, to provide for thcmfelvesin ^feparate wav. Upon this Head I fiiid You copious, and pathetical : and I do not wonder at it, confidering how popular a Flea it is •, and how much it muft ingratiate You with the People^ to plead their Caufe,and defend their Rights and Privileges againft Invaders and OpprelTors. I Ihall, in anfv\^er to what you have advanced upon this Sab- jcd, endeavour to Ihew, that there is nothing included in this Ris,^t, or in all You have faid concerning it, fufncient tojuftify a Separation-^ which, I think, is the Point now before ns. And this I hope to do, with lb much Plainnefs, that the People themfelves, who are moft concerned, may be able to judge in this ^pjlion. I de- iireYou, therefore, to confider, I. That this Right to chufe their own Bt/?^;' doth not, according to your felves, fg belong to the People^ that they may not very lawfully recede from it, upon fome Conllderations ^ na}^ that they ought not in Duty to do it. Parify Order, we are told in the AiriJgment, Kame of your People, hath its Advantages, P' 5-^6. and is to be p re f err a when ?nore weighty Rea- funs do not offer. Give me leave, then, from this to infer that there may be Reafons fufficient to move the I The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. 169 the People to recede from this Right, fo vehemently con- tended for, and to acquiefcein the way ejlahliped. And, as this is granted to be their Duty, on fome occasions, fo we find it pradtifed by many of thofe who make up yonx omnCovgregat'iom^ who often, for the fake of P^jf^, and Love, and Order, think it their Duty to acquiefce in the Perfon chofen by the major part of the Covgrcgatlon -, and yet this Majority hath no more right to impofe a Vajior upon the other part of the CoJigregatioii, or upon any one fingle Perfon in it, than the Magijlrate, or the Bijhop, or any Patron hath. This then we lee accounted by them a fufficient inducement to relinquifh this R'lgl^^y that by fo doing, they Ihall contribute to the increafe of Love, and Quiet •, and confult the Feace, and. Order of that Congregation theybeJong to,tho' they be not fo hap- py as to enjoy the public Labours of the Perfon by whom they could edify moft, and whom they would chufc before all others. From whence I think it will fol- low, that if they would ad with refpeft to the Church of* England, agreeably to their own Maxhn, and their own PraBice in their feparate Congregations, they ought, in Confcience, readily to recede from this Right (though it be never fo truly their Right ) and Conform, For if any Reafons in the World be weighty enough to engage them to do this, certainly thofe taken from Peace ^ and Order are fo : and this their Behaviour (hews us to be their own opinion. And certainly, if the Feace^ and Order of one particular Congregation be of force enough to move them to this -, much more ought they to be moved to it by the Peace, and Or^^rof a whole National Church, and hy the confideration of Univerfal Concord, and U7tity. Were their Salvation likely to be endangered by their Conformity ^ or, could they not covfo7"m without giving themfelves up entirel)^ to the guidanceof one who would miflead them, and hazard their eternal Happinefs, I would not argue thus -, but own, that they had a Right to confult their own eternal Intereft in a Jeparate If ay. But I have before obferved, that; the Salvation of any ferious 1 70 The Reafonablenefs of Conformity. ferious Perfon is not endangered by Cow/orwizV}!, and you your felves will not fay that it is : and that they may covfonn without fubmitting themfelves to the'iT PliM-Mi- mjlc?\ after the manner Youfpeak of, I fhall fhew by and by. AVhat I now fay is this, That they ought to re- cede from this Rnht^ upon weighty Coniiderations -, that public leace and Order are confederations weighty c nough to induce them to do it ^ that it is plain from their PraBicf^ thatthey often think fo themfelves •, that, there- fore, flnce they may do it without endangering their Salvation, they ought to covfonn\, though, by this means, they recede rften from this Right. .^ 2. I muft obferve to You, that in Paripts^ and places I where the Veo\ih chufe their own Minijiers, there are the greatefi: Divilions, and Quarrels, the greatejR; Feuds, andPaihons remarkable ^ as Unqualifcd Mhnjlers^ as in other pl?xes ^ and, perhaps it maybefaid alfo, the grea- teft number of^ Dijfcnters from the EJiahliJJid Church. No- thing hath been the Caiifc of greater Variance and Strife, and ill-will amongft Neighbours, than this Choice, and the timeofi:7t'(??Z{?7/ is commonly the time of Heat, and Anger •, and it ends often in a had Choice ^ and in the alie- nation of the Minds of many Men from their Brethren^ and from their Mhnjler^ worthy, or not worthy. I v/ould not have you think, that I argue barely from fuch ill confequences as theie, to fhew that 3.nj Right is to be given up \ for I am fenfible, at this rate, We might ar- gue our feh/es out of all Right^^ and this would be of the worfb confeqaence imaginable. But I argue thus ^ Thefe confequences of a general Enjoyment, and exercife of this Right, are worfe than any, which will follow upon a general acquiefcing in the J^ay now fetled , taking this into tht Account, that there is fuch a Provifion for the Souls of Men in'the Church o^ England, that they are not in the leafl Danger, or, under the IcaftNecelfityof fcek- ing any farther Aififtances in afeparate Way ^ which, I hope, I have already proved, and fhall fay fomewhat more to, prcfcntly. And from hence it appears, that this The Reafofiahknefs of Conformity. 171 this Right is not of fuch mighty Advantage to the Chri- JHan Church, or to the People's Souls, or, of fuch NecelFi- ty, coniidering the Legal Frovijwi for them, that You ftould be fo concerned to maintain the People in theadnal exercife of it, and they he fo often, and vehemently al- larmed with the fear of lofing it. And then, If in thefe Parijhes, where the Minifier ischofen by the Votes oi the People, there be no fmaller a number oi^ Dijfenters than in others ('if fo fmall) this doth not look as if the People dif- fented becaufe they cannot, in the Eftablifi'dJTay, Vote for their Mhnfter, but upon fome other Account •, and that if they were univerfally reftored to this Privilege, this would put no ftop to their Sepa?'ation. And, if Parifi-Order be at all to be regarded, as You fay it is, this Right of Voting for theiv Minifler is all that your Peo- ple can polfibly claim. For I obfervc, 3. That the Conjlitntion can never be fo ordered, or fo happil}'' contrived, that every particular Chriftian Ihall be under the i^ify/Z/r)! of the Perfon whom He would chufe before all others. Your own People can acquiefce when they fee fit (tho' every one cannot be pleafed in the choice' of a Paftor) upon the Motives of Peace, and Unity. If this, therefore, cannot be, and yet the People are pre- fently to alTert their Title to this Right, and not to fuf- {ex a Paftor to be impofed upon them by any Perfons in the World but themfelves, in whatmuft this end? There muft be Diviftoiis, and Schifms numberlefs, and the blefled confequencesof them-, and the Church and Nation muft be torn to Pieces. If the People be not obliged to alTert this Right when the Peace and Unity of your own Congre- gations are concerned, but only inoppofition totheCJj^rch of England, why do not You fpeak out, and fay fo ? If there may be confiderat ions fufficient to induce them to relinquifh it, why is not this inculcated upon the People ? If there be not confiderations, on the fide of the. Legal Bftahliftjment, fufficient to do this, why is not this proved ? If there be, why is it not fairly, and honeftly granted ? 172 The Reafonahknefs of Conformity. If it be onlr in the Cafe of UitquaUfei Mimjlers, that this Kight is to be afierteri, why is it not faid in the plaineft "Words > Why is not a full Account given, ivho are truly Unqualified ? And why is not one very material Point proved, l^hat a. fcp a rate 7rt?j> muft neceffarily be fet up on this Account, that is, that there are not in the EJfar (■UJJj'd Churchy within the reach of the People^ any Mim- fters qualified lo guide ?.nd inftruft their Coniciences ? Have You never obfcrved how rea ly the generality of the People are to prefer the worft Preachers before the bcft, and how univerfally they leave the moft qualified Guides, as v/ell as the rr.OiiU'Ti qualified ? And did it not pity You toobferveir, and move You to thinlj: that fuch a gene - ral, and loofe Encouragement as this, ought not to be given to that fpreading Humour > No flop can ever be ymt to Separation^ if it "may be lawfully built upon fuch Foundations as this •, ?.nd therefore, this Priyiciple is not what GoodChriftians fhould ufe in Defenfe of their Pra- viice. But that your People may not be wholly at a lofs to know how the exercife of this jRi^kliath been reftrain- ed upon fbme Occasions, and that they may be fenfible hov/ very few of themfelves this Argument will defend, I obferve, 4. That Mr. Baxter had fuch a Senfe of /hiJgment, the Advantages of Parochial CommumoTt^ that P-^S 573- He advifed his People of Kedenninfier to at- tend upon their Parifij-Aiinifier, and not to abjhtt themftlvcs fiom his Afinifiratiojis^ unlefs in three v'afes. jrhtn the Minifter was one that was utterly infvjfici' eiit •, which He is careful to explain in the following Words, as not being able to teach the^n the Articles of the Faith^ and Eft ntials of True Religion : Or^ when the Mini- fiir preached any Herefy^ or Doclrine which was contrary to any Article of the Faith^ or neceffary part of Godlinefs : Or, when in the Application He fet himfclf againfi the Ends of his Office, to in,-;he a Holy Life fcem odious, and to keep Men fomit, andtnproinotetheinterefiofSatan. Kay, lo foli- citous is He in this matter, that He adds farther, Tet not to The Reafonahlenefs of Conforitiity. 173 tb tale every bitter Reflexiojt ttpon theinfelves or others, octa- jotted by difference of Opinion or Interejl^ to be a fuffciej/t Caufe to fay. That the Min'ijler preach 'd againfl Godlivefs^ or to withdraw themfelve:s. So then, when the Pari/I) MinJ-> fer is not utterly in fuffcient •, or doth not preach any thing contrary to the Faith, and P/acliceof Chrijlianity ^ or doth not fet himf If to oppofe ferioiis Godlinefs^ the People^ if they will follow Mr. ^^xt^rs Judgment, ocght to attend upon Him, and ought not to aflert their Right to chufe their own Paftour. Now which of your People will be judged by this Rule ? And where is that lingle Peifou amongft them all, that hath a6ted upon thefe Principles, and left his Pari fl)- Mini fier, and chofen another for his Paflour, only on thefe Accounts >• Hardly to be found, I dare fay, throughout the Land: For it is too manifeft, that they run, without Diftinftion, from all as well as fome . nay, that multitudes of them have never fo much as endeavoured to hear their EJlablified Miniver, or to fatisfy themfelves whether He be qualified, or not. AncJ- fo it appears, that the PraBice of your People is fuch as cannot be defended by this Argument -, and tl\erefore,that this Argument lignifies nothing to their Vindication. Efpc- cially, confidering that it is their Separation, their pro- viding for themfelves in a way diftind from the Efijblijb- ed IVay, you are now defending. For I ask, Suppofing that they may upon thefe Accounts, or any other, leave I their Parifi-Minifier, yet where is the Neceflity of leaving I the Church of England ? How doth this Argument prove I that they ought to betake themfelves to Separate Congre- j ^«tfow5, with new Modes of Worfhip, and new Forms of I Government? Is theie no Minifieroi^ the EJlallified Church \ near them, to whom they can refort, fufficient, and qua- I lified enough to inftrud, and guide them ? And, Is it not as eafy, and as lawful, for them to go to fuch an i one, as to one of the Separate JFay ? Or, Muft we take your "Word for it, without the leaft fhadow of a Reaf(:>n for your faying fo. That without fubjnitting in many PariJ/jes to unqualified Guides^ there is no room left by the Law jar 7ninifierial 174 ^^^ Re a fon/iblenefs of Confovmlty. viiviftcrial hiJlriiBlon^ and pafloral Help ^ Which one thing if you will prove, I promife to become your Convert. But you cannot, and you know you cannot, and there- fore you ought not to have faid it. And if there be no Necefity for Separation on this Account, granting it true, Thatfiind/y of the Parifi-Minijiers are hifufc'ient ^ then the VraBice of your People ft ill remains without a Vhidicati- vn. And that Tom, and Thcy^ may be ftill more fenfible, that there is no fuch Necejfity on this Account, I fhall obferve, 5, That fuppoiing an miqualified Mhnjler fetled in a Farifl)^ His FanJImners are not prefently in fo defperate a condition as you reprefent them to be in. They are not * obliged to give up themfelves blindly to his Diredion^ and to receive whatever He Preaches, or Teaches, with an implicit Faith. This is a PopiJJj, and not a Proteftant Doctrine, nor ever yet taught, or admitted in the Church of EvgUnd. His People (as I have had often an occaflon to obferve j are fecure of a Liturgy adapted to all the pur- ■po^^eaof public IVorfiip, and cf many Portions of God's "Word delivered to them in it, by means of which, theyvj may attend upon God to his Glory, and their own Edi«' fication. So that, in this Church, The great buiinefs of' Religious AffejjMies is rendered much more ufeful to the People^ and much more agreeable to the Nature, and De- fign of them, than it can pollibly be in that Por7noipub- lic WorJJnp \v\\'\c\i you have encouraged in the Land. And 3''ou your felves cannot pretend a defeat, in this con- ftant appointed Service, of any thing necelTary to Salva- tion •, or any thing in it deftrudive of it. And this ia their certain Entertainment, however infufcient their Mi- riji'^' be •, which is a great, and unfpeakable Happinefs to a Lanc^l, how lightly foever you teach ^rour People to think of it. The main Point between us relates to theif . conftant attendance upon the public WorJInp in the EJia- hlilh'd Ifay : And we fee. They may conitantly attend upon it without endangering their Salvation, if they be truly ferious themfelves : And if they may, why ihould. they The Re^fonahlenejs of Corrfbrmity. 17^ they not.'' For private Helps and Affiftances, none are forbidden to them, as I know of. They are not confined to the "Writings, or Advice, or Diredion.s, of any parti- cular Man, but are at liberty to apply themfelves to whom they fee fit. But, if they will not be content with this, but will leave the public 'Mh'ijlratmts of their own VariJI)~M.lmJier bccaufe they think Him iniqualified, iiill here is no NecefTity for a ScparatioJi. It is one thing to leave the teaching of one particular Man, and another thing to leave the Church in which He miniftcrs, and to fet up other Churches in oppoiition to it. It is to he hoped, that there may be Alinijlers of the Eflablificd church, within fome convenient 'Diftance from them, qualified to preach to them. And Mr. Ca- lamy tells us, That if they go to another Pa- Abridgment, rifijy the inconvemeitcy is 7iot great •, not fo P- 5^7- great, I am fure, by many Degrees, as what mufl follow upon their fetting up feparate Churches. Whence tlien arifes any NecefTity of afeparate MijiiJIry, ^nd fep a rate Churches, and difiiind Modes o£ public WorJInp, if it be fo, that the People may attend conftant- ly upon the Service in the EJlabliJhed Church, and yet nei- ther hazard their Salvation, nor fubmit to uyiqualifed Guides ? And confequently, how little doth this contri- bute to their Juflification ? I have alread}'" fpoken fome- thing on this Argument, taken from imqiialified Minijiers, when I confidered it with relation to your own PraBice : And fo, fhall add no more here, but argue a little with you upon^ what I have nowlaid down. ' If, then, this Hight, we are fpeaking of, be a Right ^ith which your People not only may, but ought in Du- ty to part, upon weighty Confiderations, (as I have mewn from their own Pradice, and your own Conceill- ons) why ought they not to part with it, as well in the ]Sfiablifi)'d JFa , as in a Separate If^ay ? Or, what Motives are there to induce them to it, in their Nonconformity, which are not more flrong on the fide 0^ Confortnity ? If, where the PeopU enjoy this Right, there are often more incon- iy6 The Reafonahknefs of Conformity, inconveniences feen, than can be fhewn where thejr do" not, and more mifchiefs than can follow upon the not enjoying it fconfidering how fufficient to all the purpofes o^ public irorfiip the Legal Provijion for them is) then it is not worth contending for, nor ought it to be aflerted at the expenfe of greater Matters. And if in thefe places there be as many Dlffenters as in others, (if not more), it is plain, that the alteration of this would not contribute to the uniting us, and that this is not the reafon of their Non-coufonnity. Both which I have fhewn to be true. Again, If no Conftitution can be fo contrived, that every Perfon in a Pttrifi fhall live under the Minijlry of the Fajlor whom He himfelf would chufe above all others, ?.s I have obferved ^ then this Principle ought not to be inlifted on, becaufe it tends to the utter abolifhing of all Parochial CoimniimoJt, and to eternal, and infinite Diviji- ens. If Mr. JSrtxt^r's Advice to his People be founded on good Reafon, and contain in it the only true Grounds for leaving the Miniflrations of their Eftahlijl)ed Minijler ^ then, the People ought not to alTert this Right of chufing their own Pajiors, but upon thefe occalions which He mentions ^ and if fo, your Argument taken from this Right, will not excufe any of your People who univerfal- ly forfake all, as well as fome of their PariJ1)-MiniJ}ers^ without ever regarding, or thinking upon their ^ali- f cations. Once more, If there be no NeceJUity that the Peo* pie {hould betake themfelves to afeparate IFay, even fup- pofing their own Parifi Minijler infufficient, and vnquali- fed'j and if they may have the beft Affiftance of all forts without leaving the Cittz-cft of £w^Zawi, or going to thepparate Miniflry, as I have fhewn ^ then it follows, that this Argument can do nothing towards the Juftifica- tion of their Pracfice, and ought not to le alleged in their Vindication. From what liath been faid on this Head/it is alfb very eafy to fatisfy the ^lejfions you have propofed upon it , which I am the more willing to take notice of, becaufe we arc told, That the iv fufficient anfwers vfuaUy returned to fucb The Reafonahknefs of Conformity. 1 77 fuch ^leries confirmed many of the Laity in their inclinatioH to JSion-confonnlty. A few Obfervations will effeaually do this, which I recommend to you, and which you will not deny to be true. The Firji is, That there is fufficient Provifion for the hopU in the EJlablified Church. The Second is. That the People ought to part with this Rtght, upon fome Corifiderations : or in other Words, That they have no Right to chufe whom they pleafe for their Pajior, when their Neceflities are provided for, in an EftahliJh'dWay, and the Confequences of their alTerting that i^f^fec will be much worfe, than the Confequences of their acquiefcing in the EJlabliJJment. The Third isj That they may have the fame Opinion about their ori- ginal Right to chufe their own Pajiors, and yet molt heartily conform to the Church o^Ejigland. The Fourth IS, That the ^tejiion between us is not, Who have this Right? And how came they by it? But the ^lefiion is, Infuch a Conftitution as ours, in which this Right is ge- nerally fetled in the Hands of a Patron, without f egard to the People, and in which there; is fufficient Provifioii made for them, what ought the People to do ? Whether, ij to acquiefce in the EJlahliJJjed Way, which I have IheWn I they may do, without endangering their own Salvation, andto theuniverfalencreafe of P(?aceandioi;^, and O;*- der '^ or, to feparate ^xom the EJlablified Way, to afTert a Right, not to be aflerted in this Method, without the Deftrudion of Chrijtian Charity, and the Subveriion of public Peace and Order ? And UoWj Let me ask you the following ^ejiions. Do you think that in a Chri^^ jlian, and Protefant CoUntry, \<^here the Bible lies open to all, and where there are as excellent, and ufeful Books for the Edification of the People, as can be -, or in this Church, in which there is fuch a public Service appointed, and fo many abU Teachers, to whom the People liiay upon alloccafions refort ; Do you think, I fay, that in fuch a Country, and fuch a Church, the Salvation of the People is hazarded by their attendance upon the pitblic WorJInp, tecaufe their own PariJ/j-MiniJier is not qualified (as they " N think) 178 The Rgafonablenefs (?/ Conformity. thinkj to inftnid: them > Or, that their Souls are aa much in danger from Him^ as the Health of their Bodies from a bad Phyjician, whom tliey are entirely to truft, or from their Diet, or the like > Do you think, tha,t they cannot find out qualified Guides in all the whole EJlabliJJment ? Do you think tha*:, fuppofing there were an Efiablifiment, in which tliere were provided and fetled, able Phyjician's, good Tutors^ proper Trades, wholfome Dietf fu^Hcient Cloathiiig (oT your Children, fuch as you yourfelves fhouH judge to be fo ^ and fuppofing th| Corrfequ'ences o^fcparatitig from this EJlablifiment, in ^r- der to' take care of themfelves, were as pernicious as the Confequences of fepdratiiig from the EJlablified Church j Do you think, that it would not be their Duty to recede from their Rf^/;t to chufe for themfelves, and to reft fa- tisfied, and happy in the public Erov'ijion? Again, Do you think that you fhoilld not blame your Children, if, ivhen you required them to attend, with you, upon the public Service of God, in a Church, in which they could not pretend there was any thing deftrudtive of their Sal- vation, they fhould beg your Excufej and claim a Right to look after themfelves ; and one follow one Pajlor, and ■ another another, and fill your Family with fuch quar- rels, and fuch hatreds, as Separation introduces into the Chrifliaji Church ? Would this be amiable in your Eyes ^ And would you judge them to be then in the way of their Duty > I am fare, you would not know how to bear with it. Now I defire you to turn to the ^efiiom propofed in the Name of your People upon this Head, and take a review of them, and apply what I have here faid to them ; and then judge, if they have that mighty weight in them they are here fuppofed to have. In fine, This is the Anfwer I give to your Argwnent from the People's Right to chufe their own Fajlors, as I iave drawn it up in Form. Tiiey may, and ought to partynihit (be it never fo much their i^i^/;tj lince they inaydoit without any hazard- to their own Salvation, for the f^ke of Pcctce^ and Order •, and tli^refore need not _ feparat^, th^ Reafdriahtenefs of Conformityi i^^ feparate on this Account. They may conform mtboiit ' fubmitthjgtovftqtiaiified Guides '^ nay, They may conform, I and enjoy all the Aififtances neceffary to their Salvation, i and all the belt means of Edificatio7i ^ and therefore need \ fiot feparate on this Account. And becaufe they 7;^?i wot, 1 therefore they ought not : and confequently this Argumekt I cannot defend their P/<«:7f6-^. I come now to I The Sixth Argument in Vindication of yoiir Veople^ which is taken from the tPa7tt of Difciptine in the Churchy thus. There is a defe6t in the Difcipline of the EJiahliped Church, notwithftanding aW the calls for greater JlriBnefs^ and care^ ever Jince the Reformation from Popery \ and no grou7id of hope^ that ever any fuch thing as a regular Difci" pline will ipillingly, and out of choice be broUght in : . Now it is the Peopled Duty publicly to bear their Tefii- inony againji this fatal NeglcB, Therefore, It is their Duty to feparate it om this Church, What co7tfequence there is in this, I cannot apprehend. Becaute the Church ought to be, as it were, the Porch of JHjeaven, is therefore a «S^paratfow necelTary, which cannot poffibly contribute to the making it fo ? And which is not allowable, fuppofing it could efredually make it fo ? Becaufe there are Prophane Perfons, who profefs them* felves of the EJiabliped Church, ( as Men of ne Religion moll commonly will ) is it therefore neceffary to depart from it, though You can live in the Communion of it without hazarding your own Salvation, or being defiled hy their Wickednefs^ andtho'in the Churches You fet up in oppofitionto it, there will certainly be, as Yoit I your felves know, Men of as bad Principles, and as bad ! Deligns, carrying forward their own private Ends under the cloak of Separation, and the Colour of greater Purity than they will allow their Neighbours ? Would You have a National Conjiittition, or riot? Or, would your own A7nendnientsm2ik.t it ^operfeB in its Jbifciplitie, that ^ere ihould be none feen in it but pious and devout Per- N 2 fons, iS6 The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity.' fons, and fucTi as have renounced a fle/l)lyy and fenfual, a worldly aytd prof ane Life ^ fo perfe6t, that hone that deferve Cevfire lliould be sheen d, and non^ that defcrve Encou- raiment {hould be cenfured^ Can You undertake foi" this ? And can You undertake that your People fhould think 1 0 ? For if theyfliould not be fo perfuaded, they lie under the fame NecelTity of Separation ftill. If youii^ own Amendmejits tt^'ould not do this (as I dare fay they will not) then You do ill, to produce that as a conjidc- r able Flea f ox, ybm People^ which You would not think fiifficient to keep y our felve a {rom coiformingto theChurcb of England, and thus to perpetuate theCaufe of Divtjion among us. Again, Becaufe the People ai^ obliged to dif- approve this J?/u(3 in the Chvrch, and to hear Tejlimoiiy agahijl this fatal NegleB of fome in it, which thejr muft doif they join with the tomfHoit-Prayer-Book -, are they therefore obliged to feparat^ from this Church, when this Separation is no,greatcr a Demonftration of their dif- like (truly fpeaking) than what they might give, and ftill I emain Cow/on;/f/?.T ^ when this Separation cannot be without fad, and unchriftian Confequehces, and can- not promote this Reformation ? This ivant of DifcipUne^ Y'ou tell us, if as what the Old Piiritans groan d nndeti^ aitd. yet they were againjl a Separation m long as there ivas any hope of Amendment. I. am not perfectly read in their "Writings, but muft defire to knotv of Yoti, whether they have left . any thing behind them, from which You can fairly colledt it to have been their Opinion, that, though a St- paratiok was unlawful in their Days, yet, it would be lawftil, and jtecejfary in your Days, if an Amendineiit tvefe not made ^ and where this is to be met with : becaufe, if they have, they are either very much inifreprefented, or notoriouHy inconfiftent with themfelves •, and if they have not, they are wholly forfaken by You, who pre- tend to tread in their Steps, and yet oppofe fome of their main Principles. I think I co«ld produce fome Propofi- tions out of them, laid down without any Reftridions, wholly iireconcileablc with what You here feem to lay to T})e ReafonaMenefsofCon£ovmky* iSi to their charge ^ and I have too good an opinion of the beft of them, to think that they could in fo material a Point contrail id: themfelves. Once more, where is this Regular Bifcipline to be found, for the fake of which. Peace, and Unity have been difregarded ? Where is this Power allowed by the People to the Paflors, which here, in the People's Name, You claim to the Payors ? Give us fome diftindt Account of this matter, that, if You have it, we may not tax You unjuftly with the want of I ivhat You have : for we are, as yet, in the dark, not I knowing whether any fort of you enjoy this regular Dif- dpUne^ and be free from the mixture of profane, and TFickedMcn '^ or which fort of You is thus happy, and j which not. But then, if this Happinefs be not to be I found amongft You ; only anfwer us, what mighty ad- vantage have you obtained hy feparativg from the Churihy i on this Account > And why ihould You not as well join with the _EftahliJI)ei Church, as vfixh jomx own Churclies ? I am almoft afhamed to fay any more upon fo weak an Argument, and fhall only refer you ('if any thingfarther be needful) to what I have more largely difcourfed upon the Third Argument, with which this may be ]oii[ied, for it muft ffcand, or fall with it In Anfrcr to that, I have fhewn, That your People may be ot the. Church o£.England, and ftill think the DifcipJine of j it defeBiv£, and ftill continue to prefs for a Kefo?'7natio7t iof it^ That you live in conjl ant Communion with as im- perfed: Churches as that EJlablified -^ That to feparate in crdeT to a farther Refor?7iation, is not reafonable, or al- >lowablc; That your Separation, and the Methods taken i in it, are not likely Methods of bringing about the I Icaft of your defired Alterations ; and that, if Separatioft, ' on fuch Accounts, be necejfary, or lawful, there muft be a jerpetual ground for Separation in the Chrijfian Church. And I hope you will find fomewhat fatisfadtory on thefe Heads, and what is fufficient to ftiew the littk force of this Afptment, , N 3 The i83 The Reafonahknefs ^/Confonnlty, The Seventh Argument in Defenfe of your People, ftands thus, Many of the Laity are afraid of finning in Baptixing their Children ivith God-Fathers^ and God- Mothers^ and with the fign of the Crofx ^ and in kneeling at the Conummion -, and YOU might have added joining with Forvi$ of Prayer and feyeral other Scriiiples, which generally go together. Now they cannot conform without fubmitting to thefe IpipofitionSy Therefore, they are obliged to feparate^ in order to enjo}^' thefe Ordinances, (^c\ This you do not advance in the name of thofeyou call the Moderate Nonconformifis, or Occafional Communicants i Vox jovL acknowledge the Lawfiihiefs of thefe things in themfelves, and have advifed your People, on fome occa- sions, to fubmit to them. Therefore I am the lefs con-* cerned about this Argument, becaufe it relates not to thofe Perfons for whofe Conformity I am now chiefly plead' ing. But I do not Defign wholly to negledt it. For the Uwfulnef of the things themfelves, I recom- mend the People to you-, and do claim it of you, as a piece of common Juftice to the Efiablijhed Churchy that you be always ready, and free to declare your Minds, and to afTure your People, that it is your Opinion that thefe things may lawfully be complied with. If you had upon all occafions been difpofed to do this, many violent Prejudices, and Heats might have been pren vented. But, if there be Perfons who will be perfuaded hj no Arguments, that a compliance with thefe Terms is in it feif lawful, I confefs, it is my opinion. That, whilit they are thus perfuaded, it is as much their Duty to fepa- rate from i^s, as it is our Duty to feparate from the Chw'ch of Rome. For, Ihey, as much as W^e, are obliged, not to do what they judge to be unlawful : and They, as , mi|ch as Jfe, are obliged to afTemble themfelves together g| for the ?/Vj7;ip oi God, and the Enjoyment of his Ordi- ^qpges. And, as long as I am perfuaded that nothing The Reafonahlenefs 0/ Conformity. 185 can excufe th^m from performing all the Offices o^Chri- Jiian Ajfemblies, fo long I muft think fo. But then, I muft leave this upon their Minds, that the}^ are to be ac- countable to God for the Errors of their Judgments, as well as for the Vices of their Practice ; efpecially for fuch Errors as carry along with them fad and pernicious Confequences, and tend to difturb Society, and deftroy Chriftian Charity •, and that, therefore, they will moft certainly be punifhed, as Perfons guilty o!l a vecdlefs &• faratmi, if it be found at laft, that Prejudice, or PaiFion, or Hatred, or any worldly Delign hath blinded their Eyes, and hinder'd them from feeing the Truth, or atr tending to it, or embracing it. And I muft intreat them to conlider. That they ought not to facf ifice the com- mon Peace to their own private Humours, or Fancies ^ that nothing can excufe them, but a Confcience that they have been moft willing and ready to Ijften to all Arguments that can be offered, and to yield to them, if they appear convincing j and therefore, that, as they love the Honour of their Mafter, and the Peac^ of the Society they belong to •, as they hope to anfwer for them- felves at the great Day of Accounts, and to be acquitted before God and the World ^ they are moft ftrongly ob- liged to feek for Conviction, to wifti, for Satisfaction, not to acquiefce in the Principles they have been educated in, or have once embraced, as if they were nnqueftion- able -, but to free their Minds from all Prejudice, and PalTion, and candidly to receive whatever is advanced to prove a Compliance with thefe Terms to be lawful. The Effects, and Confequences of Separation are difmal, and horrible •, the EfFefts of Uiiity and Conformity^ Bleifel and Glorious : And therefore it is that I fay, they ought not to acquiefce in their former Judgments, tho' never fo fetled, and eftabliftied ^ but to be difpofed to alter them, when Reafons are offered againft them. They are bound to incline to Unity ^ rather than Divijion ^ to Cojifor- mity^ rather than Sepafation 'j and therefore, are bound never to be averfe to i^'onviBion^ nor to be afraid of jsj 4 what 184 7^ From hence, therefore, I "in- fer, that this Argument cannot prove covfiant Commmnon with the Church oi Evglatid, unlawful. Let us oioceed* 4. Coytjiant Cojnmiimon, you argue, reprefevts Chrift's ow7t Infi'itittion as def'&ive^ aytd vot orderly or decent, without the Addhiom to Divine Iforjhip, brought Into the Church of E]\^* land. And , therefore, it is unlawful. I need not t^U vou, that Chrifs own Inftitution, whether you mean, of Bap- tifm, or of the Lord's Supper, or of public and United Pray^ er, is as perfe^, as he defigned it to be, and no perfe&er: And that you do not think, your felves, that he deligned it to exclude Additions, and the coirjiant Ufe of Additiois in any of the A^iof religious If'orjlnp^ your oWn Practice is a clear Demonflration. For, you never Baptize with- out the ufe of fomewhat which is an Addition to Chriji\ Inftitution 5 you never celebrate the CofHrnitnion, you never Tneet for public Prayer, without the ufe of fomewhat which is an Addition to Chrift's Inftitution. The Communi-' on is a main part of public iforftnp, and therefore, I fliall inftance in that. And I argue, as I did under the laffc Head, that conftajit Communion with your own Churches^ or with any others in the World, doth as much reprefejit Chrift's Inftitution to be defBive^ Sec. as conftant Commu - ftion with, the Church of England can do. Chrift's Inftitu* tion of the Eucharift, was only. Eat this Bread, and drink thisjrine^ in rejnembrance of me : Not in this particular Pofture^ any more than at this particular Ti^Jie-^ the Ge- Jiiirc being no more a part of the hiftitiition, than the Time. Yo\u conftant Vfe o? any Pofture (whether it be ftanding, 01 fitting) is as much a Reflexion upon the Df different Nations. And, in the FJnumc- rarion of thefe ClrcumJIances^ 1 think, I have often, in my reading, found yoj^r own Mr, Baxter mentioning Gcjlure^ as well as Tifue and Place, and the like -, and affinning, that it comes within the Bounds of tlie Authority of our Governor Confiaiit Covimimion with the Church of England,. ' ',''/ efntr, the Fnjlitiition of Chrifl as defeclive, only in fuch Cir- The ReafofiaMenefs of Confonmty, 197 C^raimflances as he purpofely neglected to determine, and left to be determined by fnvre Governors, ^rjiis Repre- fcjttation of Chrifs Ivfilmion is not only vot unlawful, but necejfary^ and unavoidable in all religiom Affemhlie;;. And, ^therefore, covftant Comimmion with the Church of Englavd is not U7ilawful on this Account. Befides, it^is wortli while to consider, whether your occcafional Commwjion with the Church efiablified, do not as truly reprefent Chr'ijTs Injlitiitloji as defeBlve^ as your cci^Jlavt Comviiinion can do ; only with this difference, that the o^/f^reprefents it fo, lefs frequently than the other. But ftill, if it be njilawful to do this (^fuppofe in the Celebration of the Covivmnio^u which muft her-|be meant hj you) twelve times in a Year, it is unlawful to do it ovce And if the comviimcctting with our Church ome in a Year, do not reprefejit i hnjl's Jvfihiitioyi as defe^ive^ I cannot fee how the communica- ting with it twelve times in a Year can do it. But, what I have already faid, together with what I have obferved under the preceding Head, which is of the fame nature with this, I judge to be a more than fufficient Anfwer to this Reafon againft covjlant Covnmimov. 5. And laftly,co;//?^rwt Coimmmon^ according to you, ' is a coufiiwig your Charity to a Party -^ avd a praBical dif- owving and condemning all other worjinpping A^emblies. And therefore, is unlawful. To this I anfwer, I. Coirftant Communion is not a confining our Charity to a Tarty. For, I dare fa}^, you cannot name any one Imglc Inftance of Chrijlian Charity^ due, by the Laws of the Gofpel, to any Pcrfon, of what Denomination fbever, which a Man that lives in covftc^it Communion with x^q Church oi England cannot perform as well as any of Toit, who occajionally communicate with it. And if you can- not name any one fuch Inftance, ^hen this part of your Charge cannot be true. Conjlant Communion breaks not in upon anyone fingle part of Chrijlian Charity : but it is the Negle^ o{ conjtayit Covwiunion^ that hath been tJie De- ftrudion of Chrijlian Charity in the Land, and the En- couragement to all inicharitahlenefs. This is i\ terrible O 3 ^>- 198 Ihe Reafonahknefs of Conformity. C'.rcinnjiance of the Neph^ of conftant Commumoyi : but t^^ is weighs nothing with you, on one fide, whilft the lighteft Feathers weigh down the Scale, on the other. Did ever any Perfons fay, till now, that the joining in the external Jcls of Communion^ is a neceffary part of Chrijihm Chanty, due to all Parties of ( hnjliatia ? and therefiire, not to be covfved, without iS/w, to any one Church ? You may as well fay, tliat the conftant joining in the outward A~^s oi Comviuvion with one Parijl) c hurch, is the corfvihig our Charity to this particular Pto be more par- ticular on this Subjedl : And the thought of it makes me the more earneftly entreat You to confider , whether any Separation can be more unnecejfary than the Separation of thofe, who acknowledge all things required of them to be ynaterially lawful : and a Separation founded upon a few Circumjlances, which, if they belong to covjlant Covi- vmnion with this Church, belong to conjiavt Lommujiicn with all other Churches -^ and, if they prov^, a Separation from this Church 7teceffary, prove a Separation for ever, from all other Churches, to be neceffary. Reflect, there^ fore, on the \NOX^CirawiJlances that cm\poJ^bly attend up- on covJ}antCon:miiviGn^2i\i.A the worft of thofe Cinvmjiancef: which will certainly attend upon Separation-, refled upon the beft coiifequences of3'^our confiant Cormniinion, and the bell confequences of your Separation ; and, if the circtim- Jlances of both be to determine your Choice, I fhall jiot doubt of your conftant Coimnunion with the Church Eftablipd. To conclude this Head, If the Circvmftanees You have mentioned, do not make conftant Cominunion iinful, as I .verily think, I have jliewn j then You profefs, that You think, 204 -^-^^ Reafonahlenefs of Conformity, thinlv, You ought conflantly to communicate,as You now do occafionally. And therefore, I hope, you will ad agreeably to that profeffion. And again, The cert ah and unavoidable ronfequences of your Separation, are worfe tJian thepq^//'/^confequences of your covjiant Co?n- ?«««fon ^ and therefore, I hope, you will prefer covjiant Commit Ji'ton^ fuppofing there be iome pofible inconx-eniences in it, before Separation ^ the inconveniences of which \^c all agree to bemoft certain^ and moft pernicious to the i Chrijlian Caufeiw^Qiiti'dX and to the Reformed Religion in | particular. I have heartily endeavoured tofet this mat- | ler in a due light, and fo leave it to your own Con- ^ fciences, whether your Pra&ice be to be defended, or reformed. Bur, if all that I have faid will not move You ^ at leaft, confider, whether you do well, to proclaim to the World, fo often, your readinefs to conform ^ and to ap- peal to all Mankind, to judge how zealous you have been for Feace and Unity ^ when, here it ftands upon Re- cord againft you, that you will not fo much as do what you lawfully, and with a fafe Confcience, may, towards | the glorious End, which, you fay, is always in your Eye : And, that you. have been fo far from being in- clined to Conformity, that fnot being able to deny it to be viaterially lawful) you have cloathed it with fuch Circum* fiances ( in order to make it appear unlawful another ' wayj as are a contradiction to the 'Principles, and Pra^ice ■of your Pjedece (fours -^ a Condemnation of the prefent Be- haviour o£ your felves, who feparate, and yet occafo7ialh communicate •, a terrible charge againft thofe numbers of your Brethren, and People^ who never do ^ a prejudice to ail the Churches in tlie World ^ an eternal Bar to our own Unity and Concord ^ and a loofe Encouragement to all Difcord, and the moft groundlels Separations. But I hope that neither )n)ur being alrcad}'' engaged in thjs Caufe, nor any other motive in the World, can prevail 'With you, to n< gleft fuch confiucrations as thefe. You The Reafonahlenefs ef Conformity. 205 You are very free in declaring, that the whole guilt 0/, bur Divijions muft lie irxni thofe w\o have im-pofed Terms ){ CoJtmmn'wn^ and ftill adhere to the Impofitions of thetn. jBut, fuppofing iht hnpojitio^ix of thefe Terms to be blaine- lable, let all ihe World judge, whether as great a part of the guilt of our D?7j77''o'/5 be not juftly to be laid upon hofe, who acknowledge the things hnpofed to be, in ithemfelves, lawful ^ and yet love not Tcace and Uv.ity fo ^vell, as to fubmit to them. For, As, on the one fide, '^hey prefer the Ifijiiv^ion o£ fume things of lefs moment, ibefore Cowcori- fo, on the other fide, Tbw prefer Oppof- ijon to the htjtinBwn of what is not finful, before Concord. lA.s T^hey refufe to lay afide what tbtj acknowledge to be, in it felf, winecejfary^ for the fake of a clofer Umoii amongft ?roteJlaiits ^ fo, Ton refufe to comply witii what You acknowledge to be, in it felf, lawful^ for the fake of that o much defired Unmi. As they bear their Teftimony igainft all Di [order, and mmeceffary. Separation^ by adhe- ing to their Impofitions^ at the expenfc of Love, and "eace •, fo Tou bear your Teftimony again ft all umieffary mpojitmis, by forming a Separation, at the expenfe of the ame precious, and invaluable Goods. And, where is he mighty difference between your Friyiciplex andt^ieirs^ )r, between the ConfeqUences, in which both end •, or the R-eafons on which both are founded ? They will not unite with yoii, unlefs you will come up ;o thetn ^ and yott will not unite with the??j, unlefs they yill come down to you : whilft, in the mean time, They acknowledge it materially lawful to yield tayon ^ and you acknowledge it materially lawful to comply with Tbem. (This, then, is the profefTed Principle both of Them, and , Toll, That it is not reafonable to do a thing materially law r«/, for the fake of public Cojicord, and Unity, And, if here be m\j guilt in this Frinciple, you muft both equally !hare in it. As for the Confeqiiences, in which both yovr Principle md theirs naturally ends, they muft be the fame, becaufe ihe Principle is the fame. There can be no U7non 5 There muft 2o6 The ReafotjaMenefs of Confonmty. muft be Divijion •,unlefs this Principle be given up, either by Thejn^ or Ton -, and the only way left by which the World can be determined, whether of you have the grea- ter regard to Peace and Ujiion, is by obferving, which of you will firft recede from this Vrhciple. If The^ fhould recede from tiiis Frinciple to meetToK -, you have no way, left, in which it is polTible for you to convince th( World that you defircd an Agreement, as much as they did. And if Ton recede from it to join with Thein -A all the World muft own, that Tour Love and Delire ofi Concord is greater than Theirs. And you cannot provej this bv any other Argument imaginable. And fo the'' Conteft now between you feems to be this, which of you fhall moft ftiffly adhere to thefajne Prhwiple ♦, and which of you fhall moft obftinately refift all hopes oiPeace^ and Unity. Proceed in this glorious Strife •, and guide j^our Prak'ice by the Principle you fo much hate, and condemn in others-.^ and fee what will be the blefTed Fruits of it, and who will moft rejoyce at it : But remember, that you can no more defend it in your felves, than 3^ou can bear with it in others. And coniider, what a wretched Eftate a Church and Nation are come to, when they that Z7.if£' the Peace and Prcfperity of them will compafs Sea andLand, and do all unlawful things to difturb and mine them •, and they that pretend moft to Love^ and defire their Peace, and Profperity, will not do all lawful things to purchafe them, or facrifice the leaft part of their own S.heme to them. What is Chriftian Moderation, unlefs it be a Temper of Mind, difpofing us to yield up Matters of lefter Coniideration, to the great Concerns of Lov6 and Unity ? Or, Is it only a W^ord^ to be ufed, by fome^ vv'hen it will ferve a purpofe ^ and, after that.^ to \tt ridi- culed, andexpofcd : And by others toamufe the World in a Dirputation,and make People think them the only Moderate Perfons : whilft neither the one fort, nor the other \vi\\yiQ\di<\\\ Inch of their ground? What a Me- lancholly Profpect muft it afford us, to fee the faint Dif-. poljtions there are, on all fides, to this Chrijtan Qra^ e 5 when The Re^ifonahlenejs of Conformity* 207 when we confider, that nothing but t/.'/.? can reftore tln'it^ and Happinef', to a divi led Churchy and Nation ? And, that you m^y be the more ready to incline to tb(nights cf t/j/fow, and to reap the glory of fuch a Com- plumce^ as I am now preilingupon you .• I fhall put 3'^ou in mind, that, as the Prhiciple^ on wliich your Separation is founded, is the fame with that^ on which others found their Refolution of not yielding, in any thing, to your demands •, and as the CovfeqiieTices of it are the fame ^ fo the Reafons for their not yielding to Tou^ are much the fame with your Reafo7is for not covfia^itly covnminicating with them ^ and are taken, not from any thing unlawful in it felf, but from fome Ciraimjlavces attending upon it, exa6i:l3r anfwering to thofe Circuwjlavces which you have fixed upon confiant Commumon. And this may help to make jon fenfible, that They have, at leafii:, as much Reafon to expedtyour Compliance^ and conjlant Commimion, as Tou have to expedt their Compliance and Acceptance of jouT Propoftio7ts. For inftance. As, c en fiar.t Communion^ reprefents the TVorJInp of the Church of England as eligiile^ and preferable^ which u contrary to your i7,ward Senfe-^ and therefore, is unlawful : fo, their Compliance with you, would rep refcvt the Church of Englsind as wanting Reforma-' tion in all thofe particulars which you infjl upon, which is con- trary to their inward Senfe'^ and, therefore, is unlawful. As, coj^jlavit Communion praBically betrays your Liberty, in compliance with rigorous Impofers, and appears to acquit Ecclefiajlical Ajfumers '^ and, therefore, is unlawful: So, their compliance with you would p radically betray the Autho- . rity of Goverjwurs, in compliance with Unreafonable Separa- tijls, and^would appear to acquit thofe that had before fepa^ rated fro7n th Church • and, therefore, is unlawful. As, conftant Commumon intimates, as if Divine TFoj-flnp were 7iot acceptable without the Forjfialities ejijoyned in the c hurch of England, and, i-eprefents Chrifi^ s own Injlitution as defective, and 7iot orderly or decent, without thefe Additions-, and, therefore, is unlawful : So, their compliajice with you, in the Alterations of thefe Formalities, and Additions, would ijitimate. 2o8 The Reafonahlenefs of Conformity* ivthnate, a-s if Divhe jrorpip were not as acceptable witli theyn^ an without them^ and, as if Chrijl'a own Ivjlitiitlon had receivd fojne hijiiry from them, Hjid been depraved by them ^ which is not true •, and, therefore, their Compliance is as Unlawful^ as your covjlant Co7nmtinioiu As conjlant Communion is a praSical difowning, and condemning other worJI/ipping Afjl'mblies •, and therefore, is unlawful : So their Compliance withjoH, in j'-our demanded Alterations^ would be a dijowning, arid condemniiig the Church of "Eng- land, as it was before, and, an acquitting other wor{lnpping A[fcmblies that had feparated fro?n it, as if they had had Reafon on their fide •, and, therefore, is ujilawful. And if thel'e (^ircumftances, as you fay, make conftant Covununion unlawful • though it be materially /fljr/7agraph but one, that every Perfon who fiall hereafter be collated to any Bene- fee. Sec. fiall declare his unfeigned y^ent and Confent, (both) to the Ufe of all Things, 8cc. I know not what can be more evident than this, and yet I fee jou. think your felf obliged flill to oppofe this Senfe ^ not by denying that thefc Exprelfions are in the Ad, or that they do not fo confine the Declaration o^ Affent m^d. Cojtfent -^ for" thefe Things are too plain to be denied : But by other Arguments. Before, therefore, I proceed to confider your Rcafonlni^s againft this Scnfe of the Declaration, I lay down this, which you have not yet in the leafl endea- voured to contradict or difprove, vi%. That the Ad: it felf, which requires this Declaration o£ AJfent and Confent, doth, in plain and exprefs "Words, and fuch as are not capableof any other Interpretation, confine this A fent and Cojfent, both, to the t^^of the Common-Prayer-Book ^ and that in the Two principal Paragraphs of the whole AS, the o7ie immediately going before the Declaration it felf, and the other prefently following it. Who would not Reafonahknefs of Conformity. a 2 1 not think that it were fiifficient Satisfadion to anj^ 1111=^ derftandingMeiitofee this with their Eyes ? Or, who ivouM think it worth any Perfons while to fearch out any Arguments againftfo plain a Matter? But I come now to examine of what Force your Objedhons are, 111 comparifon of the Weight of this plani Propofition. Your M OhjeBion is, that it u fcarce fuppofable that thisDJ^;^t207^wasdefignedtorefpeathe Ufi only of the Common-Prayer-Book, becaufe the covJiantUfe oj it was required long before the AS of Uniformity w^s framed. But What can it avail, to argue from a Probability ^gmiite x- vrefsWords? Or from what we think o«^/;t to be done inanyCafe,towhat7>aaually done? I will give you an Inftance out of this very AB, and fuch an one as was never contefted by you, to put it paft all Doubt that this Argument of yours is of no force. Conjiant Conformity to the Common-Pmyer-Bool, yfus required long before this ABo} Unifor7nity was framed ^ and yet one thing required of Mz- nifiers by this AB, is to fubfcribe this Declaration, that they mil conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England^ it is now by Lam efiablified. What will you fay therefore > t\^2itXo conform to t\\Q Liturgy, muft not refpeft only the Ufe of it becaufe this was required long before ? Or, that the Parliament hath adually required it again the it were required before? If fo, then the Bechration otApntand Confent may as well refped only the Ufe, notwithftanding your Argument. Nay, you tell us your felf in this Book, V. 124. That a Confent is fuppofed to have gone be- fore ; and that the Subfcription is an Engagement to ufe the Common-Prayer, And yet you acknowledge that thii tn^ s^ctgement is here repeated, and required fo to be m this Word Confent, Why, therefore, may it not be repeated in the Word Ajfent alfo? Or why will you argue from hence that fomething more muft be intended, when you muftown your felf, that notwithftanding the Engage- ment by Subfcription to ufe the Liturgy, the Parhainmt hath enforced it in this ^£? by ^wolhtx Subjcninion, and a Declaration of Conformity to it, and by Confent to it ?^ i 2 2 A T)efe7ife of the Is it not probaWe from hence, that Affent alfd may inean the fame thing, (^nothing being pretended from any plain "Words in the AB to the contrary j rather than that fomething farther is meant by this fmgle Word. But it rather feems to have been the Defign of our Lcgijlators^ when all things had been out of Courfe, and Alterations Were made in the Liturgy^ to bring Men linder greater and more folemn Obligations to a cdnftant Ufe of it. And as long as I think the co)ffta7it Ufe of it lawful, I Ihall be ready to promife to ufe. it, as often, and after as different Manners, as my Governors ace very likely to oblige me to do it. One thing more I have to offer up- on this Head, that 3'"ou argue from the Subfcriptioniequi- redbefore, that this Declaration muG: intend fomething more than Ufe : From whence I collcft, that it is your Opinion that that Siihfcription extends to nothing but the Ufe of the Comvion-Fraycr-Book, and not the Approhation of it, as diflinct from the Ufe. For if it extend to t]ie Approbation, then your Aigument here will extend to it likewife, and prove againft your felf, that the Approba-- zion o^ihe Co7?wio7i~Prayer-Eook, cannot be intended in this Declaration, becaufe that tpos required long before the AS" • of Uniformity -n- as formed. So that, whether the Siibfcrip- tion, before required, extend to the Ufe only, or to the Approbation alfo of the Cornmon-Vrayer-Book, here is a plain Anfwer given to your Argimcnt taken from thence : And fo I leave you to anfwer for yoni Reflexions upon our LegiJIators. Your Second Argument againft confining Afent and Covfent to the Ufe only of the eflahliped Liturgy, is this, that the LegiJIators thejnfelves have declared againfl this Senfe. My Propolition before laid down, is this, that the}^ have, themfelves, fo confined them, in the Two principal Paragraphs of this very ^4^, in which chiefly we are obliged to look after their Senfe. But who would not think b)r what you at firll allege here, that they had in as public a manner- revoked and repealed thefe Pa- ragraphs^ and declared, by A^tt of Parliament, that, whereas ReafonahUneJs of Conformity. 22^ tvliereas they had formerly fo confined this Declaration^ they now ena£t the contrary, or fomething like this ? I am fure nothing lefs than this can excufe me from not confining it after the manner, in which I am command- ed to doit foexprefly in thofe P I do not think that LeBurcrs were defigned to be more hardly put to it ^ as youexprcfs it, than others v but I think, that, however the difference of Exprelliod came in, what is faidof thejnox^'^W. to be interpreted by the more principal Paragraphs in the Act, rather than the principal Paragraphs hj othtxs. And be it fo, that fome- thing befides AJfent and Confint to the Ufe is required of LeBurers, can you give any tolerable Reafon why this Affent and Confent fhould be fo exprefly confined to the Uj'c only^ in thcprincipal, and moft important Paragraphs of the whole Ali ? Or, if fomething farther be required of LeBure?-s^ then Lc&iirers only muft regard it ^ for, as for others^ itisimpoiiiblethey (liould interpret what tne Ad: requires of them, by what you fuppofe it to require of Ledlurers •, it being exprefly required of every PerjoK put into any Bcclejiajlical Benefce^ or Promotion, to de^lar^ his unfeigned Affent andConfent, fboth) tothe Ufe of the Book of Common-Prayer. And, laft of all, fuppofing the Ati had exprefly contradicted it felf^ if it had not been after fuch a manner, as exprefly to repeal what had gone be- fore, it is impoJlible almofl: for you to fuppofe AV^ords, which would more plainly lignify the Senfe you contend for, than the Words I have now produced, lignify, that we are to confine both Afent and Confent to the Ufe of thcjBoo^ And what muft we do, fuppoling fuch a Contra- di&ion-j fuppofing that in the principal Paragraph wa Q ihonld 2 26 ABefenfe of the fl^ioiild be commanded to give AJfent and Cotifejit to the Ufc^ and in another, lefs principal, to give Co7tfentto the Ufe and Afent to fomething elfc > I fhould tliinlc that anyfincere Perfon may fatisff his Confcitnce, though he Ihould chufe the foftejl t-nterpretation ^ naj, tho' he fhoHld endeavour to perfuade others to do fo too. Bat this isf far from being the Gr/tr. As to Jour Fourth Ob fervatio^i, it is only this^ that a' Perfon who gives his yife7it and Covfevt t6 the Ufi of thig Book, muft be fatisfied of the Truth and lFarrantablevefs\ of wliat is prefcribed in it 5 And I know no Perfon who contradids this. Thus have I examined your OhjcBloTis ^^^.m^ my Renfe <^f the DcclaratioTf, i. e. the Senfe which the A} it felf puts- upon it, in the Parajiraph immediately going before it,? But fince you defire farther that the jrords ht which this famous Declaration niiis, Tfiay he co7i(idered^ I will follow you, to fee if yoti can offer any tiling agaihfi: the Lawful"' 7iefs of it. I. You obfcrve, it imijl he aft unfeigned Ajfejit and Con- fcnt ^ and, not content with obferving this, you give us a pretty Story in the Margin, of a certain Diifenting Mini- ftcr, which I will not repeat, but muft be fo free as to let you know, that I wonder how you can anfwer to jour Covfcievce^ the bringing fo ludicrous and bantering piece of "VVit, (if I maybe pardoned for calling that io^ which hatli neither iStv?/> nor ^ooi Manners in it) into fo' fcnousa Cofitraverfy '^ and to inform you, that I cannot think it for the Credit, either of the Perfo7i who was fo face'tioTfs'j ov of^jouT Cavfe, to vent what tends only to very badConfeqUences. But who could think, that when Though I kno^w^ not why I fhould wonder at this, when I remember you reprefent it as a difficulty that the Siih- fcrit)tic7iwas required to be ex aninm^ i. e. U7ifeig7ied. This \y 01 diotfeig7ied feems to you to have a RetrofpeBio7t to former Times^ and to be infeited againft the Old Puri- ians /? eafomhienefs of Conformity^ o^'^j kam who complied heretofore : And it alfo proves, ac- cording to _yo«, that this D^c/a;*(2ffo?i refpedls not the 7//> only, becaufe the guard of fucha Word would not thtil ^ave been needful. Now, what Fence can there poifibl/ be againft fuch Comments, and fuch ftrange Suppojitiot^s as this? Doth this look as if you were willing to put, any interpretation, that you think tolerable, upon the Tenns bi Covforinity ? However, your B"^Jfc'c^j7on are obliged to you, for leading People to think that they were not here-= tofore hearty and iincere. When they made rolemh pro- mifes of Co wp/za wee. For if they were, then, the word itnfelgned cannot regard them. Nor indeed can it polTi- bly be a difficulty to any Perfoh who could declare his Afent and. Co7tfeitt without thisWord^unlefs there be any tvho could folemnly declare them, without Sincerity, or an intention of regarding fuch, a Declaration : And if there be any fuch, no Form of Words can hold themi But what you can mean, when you fay, that the guard of this Word would not have been needful, had the iifs only been here intended, I am utterly at a lofs to know -, iinlefs you would have People believe that it is nonfenfo to make an intfeigned Promife to vfe this Book, For the word unfeigned is joined to AJfent and Covfent: And the meaning of the Declaration is plainly this, I do here de- clare my iincere or H77/(?z^w6rJRefolution to ufe this'^oo^. But let us fee, how you argue in this place. You your felf join the word mifeigved to Confent^ as well as Ajfeyit. If, therefore, it may be joined to Covfent, which you fay regards the Ufe • then Ajfent alfo may regard the Ufe, tho' linfeigned be joined to it. You your felf fay the Siih- fcription i>as ayt Engagement to ufe the Com7non-Prayer-Book ^ and yet this Suhfcription (as you obferved heretofore) was required to be made exanimo, i. e. unfeignedly •, notwith- ilanding that the FraQue of the Subfcribers would have betrayed the?n^ if they had not kept their iford. If there-^ fore unfeignedly may be joined to the word/HyiriZ?^, when that refers to the ufe ^ unfeigned may alfo be joined to AJJhit and Confent^ when they refer to the Ufi. Aftd Q. 2 wh/ 22 ^ A TJefenfe of the why theil ma}'' we not declare our uvfeigved ox Jivcere Re-^ fohition, to life the Commo')i-Vrayer-Book^no\\wit\\9i2Ln^i\'\^- that ourF/aBice mil betray ws ? If we were to make only a promife,. would not this bind us > Is not a Promife al- ways uiiderftood to be a Jhtcere Promife ? And is it a Crime, or a Blunder, to annex that word to it ? This Argument -Ivi]] prove that rib F/eclaration is required of us' concerning the Ufe of the Liturgy •, becaufe there needs. Only an Injunction of Authority, and our Pradlice will betra3>'usif we negled it. And fo the Suhfcnption, the Declaration of Covfevt^ and of Covformity- to the Liturgy,- muft neceflarily be interpreted of Fomething c':fe. Butk isan ama-zing thing to find it here infinuatcd, as if itr ■iVereabfnrd for our Legijlalor.': to oblige Mhujlers to de- clare their /n/ctv^ Refolution oico7nplyhtg with a Liturgy,' in an A^.thc defign of which is only Uniformity in pub- lic If^nrJInp : And I am forry to find that you can think it i^orth your while to invent fuch Obiervatioiis as this. 2. You obferve, There 7}iujl be both aii AfTent and a Con- ; ; fent. Now the only Point here is, whether both thefe i "Words may not fairly be applied to one thing-, the Ufa / only of the Liturgy :, not what the figuification of thele r "Words- is, which cannot be determined without knowing ■ what fhey relate to. "What I affirm here is, that they aie/'b^!' iii thi-s very y^(f?, feveral times, applied to one , tiling, and parti'cularljr to the ufe of this Liturgy. Two Paragraphs I have produced already, in which they are loth exprcfsly confined to the ufeoi the Common- Pr ay er- Book • and thefe the two moft material Paragrjphs in the Aii. In this fame A6t, in the Paragraph which you al- 1 geaboat theCr/^' oi LeStirers^ thtwox^X Alfejit (about which onl}' Tvc difpute) is by it felf applied to the vfi of all things prefcribed in this Eooh And in the Para- ^^/•i>p/j before that, AlJhrt 2ind Confent, both, are firft ap- plied to the Book it lllf, and then to the nfe of it. All which plainly Ihews, both that they may fairly be ap- pired to o?r^ and the fame thing.^ aaid that they are both ' ■ applied Re^ What if Affe lit and Covfevt difFer ordinarily in their fig- nification? This v/ill not prove that they may not be applied both to one tlmig^ or, that they ougl;it not to be fo, when the A& it felf hath fo applicdthem. I muft obferve here, that you wholly neg- P ./ p. i9- left what I have before offered, concerning the Cuftom, in FoJins of Law^ of applying two or more Words, v/hich have fome difrerence in their Signification^ tooneand the fame thing. And I am fure J may fay, that it is much more probable, at leajft, from the num- berlefs Inflanccs of this Nature, that thefe two Words were defigned to be applied to one thing, than it can be that they were defigned for two : For I believe joxi -would find it hard to produce any Inftances, where two "Words, thus joii:ked together in a Foyvi of Li^w^ are ap- plied to >two differing things. 5. You obferve that this Ajf^nt and Confent mujl be to all^ xind every thhrg, i. e. to the Uje of every tiling in the Com- moji-Frajcr-Book ^ as I have already fufficientl}^ proved,. And in this I am no farther concerned. And now from the whole let the Reader judge, whether I had not reafon to fay what I did on this Head. But I v/onder you ftill ;go on to pro-pagate unreafonahle Hyperboles ^ fuch as you will not lay plainly you ca^i defend, or approve of, in a Booli. in which 3'"ou undertake to give us the Stable Fdnci- pleso^ Non-covformhy ^ without putting any plain mark of dillike upon them, or warning your Readers llifficient- ly againft them. Are you obliged in an Abridgme7!.t of the Reafonings of the Ejcded Minijlers to give us every thing they fay, or the molt unreafonahle part of it ? If not, why fhould it ilill Itand in yonx Book, fhat Words could fear ce be devifcd by the IFitof Man more full avd fig- mficavt, Sec. Or, why Ihould you not plainly profcfs your, felf againft fuch Aggravations ? But if you look into m.y Book again, you will find that you had no R<. tfon to fini fault with me for calling this pnrCormnenc:: For y-u. 2:?o A Defenfe of the will fee, that it is a miftake of your own, and tliat I fpcak not to you, hut to the EjeBed mul Dijhjting-Alhii' fiers, and mean a Comment made by one of them •, and that when I fpeakof you particularly, I fpeak moft com- monly \n the thir^ Perfon. I did blame you indeed very feverely for r. I. p, 52. your quoting thofe ridiculous PafTages out of Dr. Swadlin, a poor neglcfted ^uthor •, and for drawing an Argument from his Frenzy againft Ajfent ?ind Coufejjt, to the Co^mnon-Prayer-Book-^ bccaufe fu h Stoiics fo brought in, are nothing to the CaJife, and ow/v tend to vilify and ridicule the Common-Frayer-Book, and to fetus at an ir reconcile able diflancQ from one another, and the like. And is it not indeed an inexcufable Fault in one, who frequently alkges in his own defenfe, that he was only an Abridger of the Senfe of the EjeBed Miniz jlers^ himfelf to draw in fuch a ridiculous <^uotation out ot'a diftraded Author -, to comment upon it -, to argue againllthe Approbation of the Com?no7i-Prayer-Book, from it ; and to talk as if the poor Non-co7iformifls had been ejeded/or «ot having the Spirit to difcern the Divine Infp- ratiov of the Covimon-Prayer-Book f* Whoever looks into my Book will find that this was what I blamed in you. And now, without either defending or retracing, this fo unjuft paid unbecoming a Behaviour, the fame Paflages are Reprinted again without any token of diflike upon them. However, two things I find faid in Vindication of your felf EirJ}, if the flotation be ridiculous^ why was not the Autho?^ cenfured, and his Bookfnpprejfed f* As if fcvery extravagant, diftraded Man's Writings were worth the looking after •, or, as if, bccaufe the Author was not cehfured, and his 5oofc fupprefTed, therefore it were be- coming or pardonable in you to draw in thefe Paffages in an Abridgment of other Men'sAVritings ; in an Argument againft y^^^tJMt and CowJ^wt •, and to plead from them a- gainlt approving a Book, in which there is no fuch thing to be found. Secondly, You allege, that if extravagant Flights on aUJides were more freely expofed, it would fooner ^ '. , i^f'ivg Re{7fonahlenefs ^y^ Conformity. 251 bring Men of Tern;: er together, thanfet themvwre afimder* Now, who would not think from hence, that the only thing I blamed ;n you, was the ridiculing thefe PaiTages out of Dr. Swadlin-j M^hereas y/hoever looks into my Book, will fee that I fay the fame thing in other \V0rd5 •, nay, that I advife you, to ridicule ctttd expofe them as Vitigh asyoupleafe in their proper Time and Place ^ and that I blame you not for that (any otherwife than as it is very inopportunely introduced) but fox what is utterly indefenfible, 3'^our arguing from fach poor IFritcrs againft Jjfent and Corjevt to the Conmon-Frayer-Book^ and tlie like, as mentioned above, ^nd therefore, you did wifely to miftake the Point, and overlook all that I faid upoii that Head. But furely RetraBpition {hould not be fo difficult ,?. Pradice to a Chrfftav and a Divine ^ and if you now underftand my meaning, you cannot avoid it. Though as for the lafl Apology you make, Tou, of all Men living, have no Title to it, how frequent occalion foever yoi| have for it. ^or you cannot but remember hpw you have joined in feverely ?-e'/;/A«iz7/^ a Perfon, who hath little dt'fcrved it ai your Hands, for endeavouring to cj^t pofe fome Extrav^andes on your fide ^tho' it: was his profefied Defign to do fo) notbecaufe Menof r^?«pt'/' and Religion would hefet more afmider by fuch Methods ^ but becaufe the Irreligious and Prophaiie might be ipduced by them to deride ferions Religion and the Worihip of God. You are therefore nov/ obliged, either to retrad: this publicly, or to acknowledge it to be a b^r againil your own making ufe of this Flea. Yon go on, after this, and cite two more Authors, who magnify the Com- nton-Prayer-Book more, than jou think it deferves : The one indeed, a Perfon dicellent for Learning and Piety •, the &th€rl]Qio\v nothing of, but from the Sentences you have here quoted, which I think fo much a-kin to the Paflages out of Dr. Swadlhi, that you might well have fparedthera. But what can this, andanhimdrcd more fuch Inftances figtiify, to the Declaration o^ Afffvt and Confent. about which only we ate concerned i* And lup- ^ CI 4 Po^"3 5^2 ■ A Defejife of the poilng you cannot have fuch an Opinion of the ExcelleMy oF the Com7no7i-Prayer-Book,2is to think that the Compilers pj It had the extraordinary Aid and Ajjijldvce of God-^ yet, imethinks you might leave toothers the libeity of afcri- bing what they efteem excellently good, to the great Fountain of all Goodncfs, fince they require not yon to think or fay fo : at Icaft, you fhould forbear to argue from hence againft approving it, and conforming to the ?(/l' of it. Should I argue againft efleeming or valuing the ejecied Minijicrsy bccaufe it is your Opi- y-'br'm'gmcnt, nion that they were aBcd by the Divine Spirit P" ^57., in the Grz/Zf they efpoufed^ would you not eafily fee the Fallacy ? And this was what I ccnfured injio??-, the making the private Opinion of iome particular Perfons, an Argament againft the Decla- ration o^ Ajjent 2i\iACn'nfent , which includes not in it any thing of the fame nature. But the Defvfe of this you wholly avoid. Upon the whole Matter, I cannot fee tliat I have any reafon to recede from that Senfe of this Declaration of Afent and Confent, for which I contended ^ or to beafha- med of having been poftive in this Matter ,as you exprefs jt. But whether you have not given me a juft Occalion, to put 3'^ou in mind under every Head, of fparing your Cenfures upon the conformingClergy^ I mufl leave to all to jud^e, who have ever read your Tenth Chapter-^ and your .p^/>7;/L^of it,and what I have iieretofore remarked of this nature out of the^u. Sect. 7. Oi^ the OhjeBion aga'inR the Declaration and S^th-* Jlriptiou t'ukeuiwm the Office oi Baptifm, 8cc. AS to the Rubric, at the End of the Office: of ^aptifvi, fcrupled hy you and your Brethren, I endeavoured to IheW that it m.ight fairly be upderftood only of Inch Children as are duly Baptized ^ upon fuppofition only that the Declaration and Subfcription extended to this Propo- ftio:t, which I deny that they do. I obferved tJiar you "' "'■ ■• ■ "■ ' ' ^ " could Reafonahknefs of Gonformity. 333 couM not prove the Words incapable of this Senfe ♦, and tliat, if they were fairly capable of it, there was no need ofa'/Vxtof Scripture to prove the Salvation of fuch In- fants, All the Reply I have to this, is in the Words of Mr. Baxter. And all that I can colled from them, is, that Bifhop Sander fo7i^ and Bifhop Gmmng did think that the Children of Heathens had a Title to Baptif?n, provided they had Sponfors. But how this proves that the Rubric can be interpreted of any but fuch Infants as are di{ly Baptized, I fee not. If fome Perfons extended the Rubric to the Children of Heathens , it was, according to this ve- ry Account,becaufe they were of Opinion, th^t fuch had 3.Tit\QtoBaptifm: not becaufe they thought that any Infants werefaved, but fuch as were d^ly Baptized. The ObjelUon taken from this Opinion of Dodtor Sanderfons would be the fame againft the Truth of the Rubric (about which only we are now concerned) were it ex- preiTed plainly, of Infants duly baptized. It may be a very true Propojition, that all regenerate Perfons are faved : And yet the feveral Perfons who fubfcribe this may have very di&rentlS^oiions'ahout Regeneration, and the Per- fons who aye truly regenerate. And I think it far from being evident, that 1 4m obliged to underftand by ChiU dren Baptized, all Children Baptized -^ or all Children Bap- tized by any Minijler, according to this 0§ce, becaufe Bi- fliop Gunning perhaps thought all fuch duly Baptized. All Children Baptized c^wnot neceffarily be underltood here : For Bifhop Gunning himfelf, and Bifhop Sanderfon, fpoke only of fuch as are Baptized with Sponfors : And yet your fuppofed Cafes under this Head, extend to all.^ as I obfer- ved beforp, tho' you take ho Notice of it. Nor can I be obliged to underitand it of every individual tyfant Bapti- zed according to this Form : For Bifhop Sa7tderfon, &c- cannot be fuppofed to fpeak of any fuch Infants but what have Sponfors ferioufly undertaking for them ^ nay, it is plain, they included fuch in this Rubric, nqt becaufe they thought it reached to any but fuch as are duly Bap" tiZ'Sd, but only becaufe they thought /wJ; to be duly Bap- '■' *" '~" '"^ ' tized. «^4 J Defenfe of the tixfil. But, fuppofing that Bifhop Gunnhig did mean hy this Rubric, that all Ivfants materially Baptized^ are cer- tainly faved by their beingBaptized/v/hich isincredible,) yet ♦here are fo many, befides him, that joined in the Impojition of this Rubnc, that we are to have fome regard to them alH) : And it would be too great and fruitlefs a Task, to fearch out what ^as intended in this Rubrichy a Majorit}'' of them. So that I gave Two Anfwers to Y-our Obje^ion taken from this Rubric. Firji^ That the. Declaration and Subfcription, reached it not : Secondly^ That, fuppoling they did, it might fairly be underf^ood only of Children ditly Baptized y as we find that Bifhop Sanderfon and Gunning themfelves underftood it only of fuch as were, in their Opinions, duly Baptized. Nor do I fee that an}^ thing is advanced againft this. And to this I added, that there was no need of a Text of Scripture to prove to you, th^t Children duly Baptized^ are faved. But what you here call z piece of UTit' (a Word which you feem very fond of, when you have little elfe to fay) is as ferious, and as far removed from what you fix up- on it, as any Sentence that you can pofilbly name. You cited, in the Name of the ejeHed Minijiers^ the Second Ccmma^idment, as an Argument that we hadnot a poftive Cer^ tainty, its to all that were Baptized, and taken out of tho IFo/ld in their Infancy^ that they were accepted of God unto Solvation. This is your own Account of the Purpofe for which you cited it. But you are very angry with me for faying that this Te:^ was produced by 3''ou, to prove the Damnation of fome Infants received by our Church. The Words are thofein which God declares, that He punifies the hiiqitities of the Fathers upon the Children unto the Third and Fourth Generation, And if thefe Words be not intended by you, to refer to the Condition of Infants in the other World, they are nothing to our prefent Pur- pofe. Fori could not pofiibly fuppofeyou to argue thus, Almighty God puniped the Children often with fotne Tempo, ral PnniJImients for the fake of their Fathers Wickednefs ^ therefore, wecamtotbe certaijitbut God will not punif} In- fants Re/tfonahknefs of Conformity, 235 fantswith the Lofs of Eternal Happhiefs, for their Father x Wickednefi. I fay, if yonr Argument from this Text be thus framed, nothing can be farther from concluding: and even then, I may very well fay, that you produce it to make it probable, that God will punifh Itifavts in the other World for their Father s Crimes. But it is plain from your own Reprefentation, now reprinted, that this Claiife oi the Seco7td Coitmandmtnt wsLS produced in order to make it appear as probable, that God would punifh iTtfants (in their Eternal Concerns) for the Sins of their fathers, as any other Text of Scripture could make their Salvation appear to be : And confequently, was produced by 3''ou as a probable Argument for their Damnation. You produce it, by your own ConfeiTion, to prove that we cannot be certain of the Salvation of the Infants of wi- ked Parents, And how can you fuppofe it to prove this, unlefs you fuppofe that it makes it probable that God will punifh them in the other World , for their Father's Wickednefs ? And this Ftimjlmient in the other World is, in other Words, their Damnation. Your Words were thefe that follow. Now how could they (the ejedted Minifters) pretend to hefureby the Word ofGod^ that all fuch Infants went to Heaven, when God fopojitively declared in the Second Commandment^that He would pujiiJI)^ &c? This Text is here produced by you, as an Argument by it felf, that God will not make eternally happy the Infants of wicked Parents. And though ycu attempt to foften the Matter now, yet this was vifibly the Meaning you had fixed upon it .* which makes me wonder that you fhould now endeavour to alter your Argument taken from it, after fuch a manner as to make Your Application of this Text to this purpofe,appear to be without the leaft Ground. Your Argument from the Second Command7nent, you have now thought fit to defend thus. For if God in fome Cafes was fo difpleafed with Pojierity, for the Jin s of Progenitors^ CIS not to admit them into the Congregation of his People for fome Generations (as in the Cafe of Bajlardy, Deut. 2?. 2.) H01P doth it appe^ir, thjt the Application of the outward Seal of '^^^ A lL)efenfe of the of the Covenant, would certainly have entitled to the fpiritual Ble[finp of it ^ I anfwer, i. It doth not follow that, be- caufe God forbad a Baftard and his Pojlerity, to enter into the Congregation, therefore we cannot be certain that they fhall notfufFcr in their Spiritual and Eternal Con- cerns for the Fault of others. The Certainty of that may appear from othqr X^xts, and other Confiderations, not- withjftandiiig this^ for as much as their Eternal Happi- siefs doth not appear to be, in the leaft, afPedted by that Prohibition upon them, .and the .Caufe of it, which was wholly involuntary in themfelves. If they had a Title to the oiittvard :Seal, (which they might have had notwith- flanding this Prohibition) then we may be certaiai, not- withftanding this, that they had a Title to the »SpfWrKa/ Blefingsoiii alfo. And, by the way, we may obferre that how much foever the Poflemy of wicked Jcwi were threatned withPunifhment, yet their /;zfawt5 were never fuppofed to be out of the Covejtant, or to have loll their i?i^/;^ to the Seal of it. 2. It maybe certain that they were entitled to the Spiritual Bleflings of Circumcifion, becaufe they were not prohibited from that Rite • not- vv'ithftanding that they were prohibited from coming in- to the Congregation-, which hath nothing to do with Spiritual and Eternal Bieifrngs. 3. The Cafe you inftanee in now, can never fhew, that the Second Commandment proves any thing againft the Certainty of the Salvation of the Baptized Infants of wicked Parents, which was the Point now before you. 4. This Cafe doth «ot appear to touch our prefentPurpofe : for the Prohibition doth not feemto be merely on the Account of the Fathers Wicked- n^efs; but rather on fome other Account, as in the other •Cafes which it follows. And therefore you may as well argue from that C^^pr^A againft our being certain that Perfons, who had any accidental Imperfections in their Bodies, had a Title to the Spiritual Blejjingsoi God's Cove- fimit, asagalnft fuch a Title in the Children oi wicked Pro- ^evsitors. ' 1 fee not, therefore, how any thing here proves^ either that you did not produce the .Second Commaud- Hient, ReafofiaMmefs of Conf orml ty • 237 ment, for what I faid, you did ; or that there is any thing in that to iwcline us to think, that Infants may fuffer in, their Eternal Concerns for the fake of the Wickednefs of their Parents. What follows is onl}^ true, upon Sup- pofition that the Infants Baptized have not a Title ta Baptifm: And I have before given my Reafons, why I think thQRuhric cannot be extended to fuch. The Cafes fuppofed by 2om, in order to fliew the A])- furdity of this Rubric^ did indeed furprize me : And that Surprize ftill remains, notwithftanding your Endea- vour towards the Abatement of it. Doth it follow that the Children o^ChriJiianPare7its, when Baptized, are not faved after Death, becaufe then it would be in the Pow- er of any Perfon to fend them to Heaven, by killing them <^ Doth it follow that, the Primitive Martyrs did ^ot go to Heaven, upon their Dilfolution, becaufe then it would be, in fome fenfe, in the Power oi Perfccittors to fend Men to that bleffed Place ? But certainly, as their Title to Heaven is founded upon the Terms laid down .by Almighty God 5 and not given them by their Perfe- cutors : fo it may be in the Cafe ofChildren. Their Title to Heaven is founded upon God's Will : And the Tyrant that kills them is only an Inftrumentof p)utting an End to their Abode here, as any Diftemper is. And jtt fure- ly it would be very improper to fay, that a Fever hath a Power o£ procuring Eternal Happinefs ; or to deny that a Child killed by a Fever is certainly faved, becaufe this would be giving to that Difeafe a Power of Salvation. A good Chrijlian (as I bejfore put the Cafej hj bringing his Child to Baptifm, fecures its Salvation, provided it die before a6lual Sin. .This, furely, you cannot deny, if you hold that any Infants have a Title to Baptiftn, or any Benefit from it. A good Chriftian, therefore, accord- ing to your way of argui g, hath the Power of Salvation in his Hands-, which it is abfurd to think : And confe- quently, fuch Children Ajm2^^ are not faved, becaufe this IS ^wiwg to Mortals a Power of S ''ids. Now, if this Ar- gument will not hold here ^ if, notwithfcanding this. Child/ en 2^8 A hefenfe of the Childreyi baptized may bejaved-ythen it is alfo evident, thzit the Children in your fuppofed! Cafes may be alfo faved, notwithftanding it be fo far in the Power of Men to pro- cure them Salvation, as to be Inftruments of fending them to that Hdppincfs procured for them by Jefus Chnjl, And in this Senfe, all Parents have Salvation in their Power, as they are inftrumental in bringing their Chil- dren into Being ^ and in putting them into a Method of obtaining Happinefs. Be pleafed to obftrve, that your Argument taken from thefe Cafes, is not founded upon any antecedent Proof, from the Will of God, that the tfif ant ^ yon fuppofe, have no Title to Baptifm^ or Heaven 5 hut only upon,fome Abfurdities confequent upon the contrary Do61:rine. To this I anfwer^ that it cannot de- ftroy their Title to Baptifm, and Heaven, to fay, that upon Suppofitiori of fuch k Title, it will be in the Power or Men to procure Salvation for hfants, l)y killing them as foon as they are Baptized : becaufe you acknowledge, I think, that fome Childre-n have a certain Title to Bap- tifm, and Heaven 5 and yet the fame Abfurdities will fol- low upon Suppofition. of their Title. And as ftrong a Proof may be drawn fromthem, againft the Title of a7iy Children, as againft the Title of all Children. I do not fay, that all Children have fuch a Title •, but I fay, that their want of it cannot be proved from fuch Abfurdities, 1 call them Abfurdities, according to your Suppojitioftonly y for, in Truth, it is no Abfurdity to %iYt fuch a Poiper td Mortals, as is included in thefe Cafes-, that is, to main- tain, that Men may be the hflrumeiits of fending Ivfants to Heaven , notwithftanding which, their Tit/e to Hea- ven, may be founded entirely upon God hiaifelf, his Will, and his 7 £■/ w.v. Yoii cannot fay it is impoifible, in the nature of Things, that Godfhould promife Salva- tion to innocent Children, for the Sake of his Son, and upon their being baptized : And yet thefe Suppoftions will as well prove the Impoflibility of this, as what they are brought for. Tlie Rubric we are concerned about, is far from faying, that all Children have a Right to Bap- tifm 5 ReaJbnaUpnefs^f Conformity* 259 iifm •, tut it fays, tl^at all Children baptized, dying before 4tciital Sin, are faved/ : And this Bifhop Gmnting himfelf never underftood 0f any but fuch as had a Title to Bap- tifm, tho' he migh^ diiFer from others about the Suhje&s of Baptifm. And,t]itrefore, I fee not what k fignifks for jou to allege Dr. Combers Opinion, that all Children are alike, &c. When my Wonder was not, that you fhould deny that ('for I may deny it m}'- felf, notwithftanding this Rubric j) but that fuch diftantand Arrange Suppoii- tions fhould be brought in, which prove nothing againft this Right in all Children • and are much lefs proper to he brought againftan Office framed for a Chrijtian Comi- try^ and the Children oiChriJiian Farejits. Dr. Comber, as far as I fee, might be otherwife interpreted than he is by you. But I am not concerned, as I know of, fo much as to know his Opinion about the Subjeds of Baptifm : And think it very hard that any Perfons private Opinio on, fhould be made the' Standard of mine 5 or the Rule f ox mj mttx^xeX'm^ pzihlic Declarations. I cannot there- fore but fay, again, and that with great Concern ^ that fuch 1171 account able Suppofitions as thefe, have contributed ^ery much to the hardning fomeagainfl all Thoughts of Agreeinent. That there is a true Regeneration in fuch Infanta.^ as have a Title to Baptifm ( and ot fuch only I fpokej is what I endeavoured next to clear : And if I dif- fer from yon about the SiibJeBsof Baptifn, you have there my Reafons for it. But finding nothing here againft what I alleged, but only that I am refe^x'd to an Expofi- tinn, which contradifts me not in the leafl, I have no Occafion given me for adding any more Words upon this Head : Only to vindicate. \\\j Reafoning againft your Argument againft this Dodtrine of Regeneration at Baptiffhj taken from the evil Confequences it may have in contributing to the hardning of Men in Sin. Your Argument was this, We canjtot concur in thanking God for having regenerated the Infant, for fear of co'ntribiitlng to the hardning ofcarelefs Men in the Opinion, that they need 710 Ca/e after £a£iijm, I anfwered tiiat the fame Objcdion ' would 24c A Defenfe of the would lie againll many Exprelfions in St. Vaid^ (^^^y, the Dodrine of Juftification it, felfj from which many did adlually take occafion to continue in Sin ^ And yet thefe Exprejiions were good, and fit to be ufed, and great Arr guments to Care and Diligence in Chriftians. And I added, ih?.,t ,it is rather an Argument. for the greateft Care, that we are admitted by Baptjfm to glorious Pri- vileges, and are made the Temples of God, than to the contrary. And certainly there need not man}^ Words to prove, that it is not a fufficient Objection againft the ufe of any Expreflion, that wicked Men may, abufe it to carry forward their evil Purpofes, which they are refol- i-ed upon without the help of fuch Expreilions. But, be- fidcs all this, do not you your felf gTvant, that many are regenerate by Bapt'ifiH •, and will you not fay this, for fear- they fhould make an ill ufe of this, and fall away ? If you will, notwithftanding this •, then this 0^/V^iow alone is of no force againft the Exprefion in our Ofce. Do not you here own, that it is a perfitajive Argument to a gooi Life, to let Men know the Privileges their Baptifm enti- tles them to, provided they live according-to that Reli- gion they profefs ? And doth not oflr Office, through- out the whole, fuppofe, and ptefs, the NeceiTity of this.? Doth it not fuppofe that they may ,fall, notwithftand- ing this Regeneration ? Are not the Prayers in it,defign- ed to create in all who are concerned, the greateft Care, Siud D}lige7tce -y and all the Circumftances of it vifibly framed to this End ? What Ground, therefore, for, this Objedtion here, where the "NeceiTity of a conftant Holi- nefs in our future Live^, is fuppofed and inculcated .? And how you can fay, if you ever read the Office, that all promifcnoujly^ bccaiife baptized, are ajjured of the Bhfin^a of Baptifm : or that there is any thing in it, which af- firms, or implies, that a real Regeneration isneedkfs in a Perfon baptized-, I muft leave to your own, Confcience : being unwilling to fay, what fuch a Reprefcntation juft- ly c'efcrves -, contrary, .not only to Candour, and Equity, but to exprefs Paftkges in the 0/ce it felf. I Ihall only add,^ Reafonahlen^fs of Conformity. 241 aid, that we are not here difputing, what Difficulties a Minifter may come under, by following his own Judg- ment in extraorditiary Cafes •, hut what Obligations he brings himfelf under by Declaration of Ajfent^ and Cojije'nt^ and Suhfcnption : andfo I difm'if this Head. Sed:. 4. Of the Obje6tion aga'nif AfTent avd Consent -, and Subfcription ^ tahenfrom the Ufe of Godfathers, &c. Godfathers were reprefented by ToU, in the Name of the ejeBed Mbnjlers^ 3sjiijllhig out the Varents Right to devote their Children to God, and the Ufe of them as opening a wide Door to the profanivg one of the mojl awful Solemnities of Religion : and the like. To this I anfwered, to this effect : That the Parents themfelves areto provide thefe Sponfors ^ that by providing thefe Sponfors, in or* der to dedicate their Children to God, they make the Dedication of their Children, their own A6t -, that the Care in chufing Godfathers, will be proportionable to the Concern of Parents for their Children, &c. Your Reply^ to what I urged , I fhall now examine. Firji, you deny, that the Fareyits do properly, p. i6\. in this way^ devote their Children to God by Baptifn. But I wonder very much at your denying fb plain a Matter as this feems to be. For when a Parent provides all Things that are required, in order to the Dedication of his Child to God, and knows that it is in order to this Dedication that he doth this ^ is there any need of an Argument to prove, that he himfelf properly dedicates his Child to God? And is not the Adminiftra- tion of Bapiipn^ to his Child, to be ultimately refolved into the Parents Refolution, that the Child lliall be devo- ted to Almighty God > But- again, You deny that this Dedication is as much their p. 162. own AB and Deed, as if the Children had no Sponfors -, i. e. you deny, that their providing Sponfors, in order to devote their Children, is a fufficient Proof of their Defire, and Refolution fo to devote them. And your R Re a f on ^42 Ahefenfe of the J^cafon for this is, that if they had m Spovfora.a folemnex* ^licit covcnaMthig would he required of their P.xrents^ &c. To the like purpofe, in the next Page. By which Reply, any one would imagine that I h?\d faid, that their providing Sponfors, was as much a fole??m explicit covenavting for their Children, in their own Perfons •, as if they did ex' plicitly coveiiaiit^ themfelves : when all that I faid, was this, that their devoting their Children to God, was their own A6I:, tho' done by providing Spovfors to devote them, as truly, and properl)'', as if they did it without Spovfors. And the Truth of this is plain from hence, that a Perfon may very truly devote his Child to God, without an explicit covenanting^ov it, in his own Perfon 5 only by providing all Things required in order to its Baptifm, And, as for what you add, that many provide Sponfors, who know nothing of the coteiiavtivg part, and as a mere piece of Ceremony ^ you may have full as much Liberty of making Chriftians fenfibl^ of their Du- ty in this Point in the EfabUJJ)edChurch,asin a Separation from it. Tho' I confefs, 1 fee not, how low, upon your new Sett o£ Principles, can impofe upon Chrifians, at this Solemnity, afohinn explicit coveuantivg in the Name of their i Children-^ or refufeBaptifmto the Child o£ z prof fed \ Chrijlian, for the want of it. And if you may lawfully BaptizeC/jz/J/-^;/ without this, then it will be no fuffici- ent Objection againft complying with our Ofce, that this explicit covenanting is not there required* Nay, if it were -, the Ordinance might eafily come to be as much profaned, as it is now: if this be a Profanation of it, that many Parents have not a due Senfe of their part in it. For I fee not, but that they may, in our prefent Cir* cumftances,be made as fenfible o{ that ^ and that they , might have as little Senfe of it, as Godfathers are faid to have now,were the whole to betranfadtedby themfelves. But who would charge the Ignorance or Carelefnefs of 'Parents, upon the Office it felf, which is as folemn as pof- iible •, and tends not, in the leaft, to fuch Ignorance or Carelefnefs i Beiides that fuch Stupidity in Parents may as well Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. 24 3 Well be cured, in our way, as in pvrs. Kay, I fear, you may come, after this manner, to charge the Carejef- nefs of Men, upon mzxij Texts in the Scripture it il^lf: And particularly, to charge the InftitutionandP/'^cf^o/fs o'FBaptifjn, found in the Nevjejlament, as not Including in them explicit Vows and Cautions, fufficient to prevent Miftakes, and Carelefnefs, in fo folemn a Matter. Again, What you cannot iinderjiaid hi this Matter, is this ^ that any ^ Perfon can have a Right ^ one while toperfonate me the Father^ 'as dedicating my Child to God -^ and another tphile to reprefent my Child, believing, and engaging a Jincere Obedience. 1 an- fwer, that as there is no natural Right, or pojitive Lat» pre- tended for this ^ fo none ought to be required: becaufe the Willingnefs of any Perfon to do this, is fufficient with the Parents Confent, which is always fuppofed. If any Perfon be willing, and receive Power from the Fa- ther (who can give it) to perfonate him, and to perfo- natehisC^zW, fwhich is your own Account of the Office of Godfathers j then furely, that Perfon hath a fufficient Right to do it. Once more. It is not clear to jou, that the Faith of the Pare7tt is, in all ordinary Cafes, the Ground of the Adminiftration of Baptifm to the Child, according to the Church : Tho' you have no reafon to allege, but that you cannot reconcile this, with the Ca* 7ion that fays, nO Parent fhall be admitted to anfwer as Godfather for his own Child. As if you Ihould argue, the Churh requires Parents to provide Sponfcrs for their Children, diftinct from themfelves ; fv/hich very thing fuppofes the Parents to be Chrijiians -, ) therefore it is not clear, that the Faith of the Parents is the Ground of the Baptifm of their Children. But I fee not any Shadow of a CoJifequenre in this Argument. Laftly, you fay, that where an Ivjl'itnt ion purely Hitmajie, is ordinarily fo 7nanaged ■ as to interfere with what is really Divine, you ought not to caTiphMvitb it. This I fuppofe, youmuft mean by the (jbligaiinn you fpeak of, to declare your felf agaivjl it ; be- caufe if you mean any thing lefs than this, it can be no Reafon againft your minifterial Conformity, But now, if R 3 there 244 ^ Defenfe of the there be no Necclfity to your felf, of maiiaghig It Jo, nl to interfere with any thin^ really Divine ^ I think, you may fafcly comply with it ; For you may declare, as much as 3'ciu pleafe, againfl: the Mifmanagemtnt of others, with- out refufing Compliance for the fake of what you have no Concern in. \{ other a fliould accept oi Athe'ijls^ or De- ijlsj or J<^ws, or Mahometans •, I fee not what this is to 2ozr, who may conform as a Aiinijler, without bringing- your felfunder any Obligation to admit of any Godfa- thers^ but ferious ProfefTors cf Chrijliamty. I am fure the Declaration^ and Subfription, which we are now confider- ing, rather bring us under a facred Obligation to admit none but fuch, than the contrary. And a Minijler that a6ls by this Rule, may anfwer it in the Court of his own Confcience, and of his great Mafter •, and I believe, I may fay, in the Co«rf5 of this "U'orld alfo. But, if it ihould not befo^ I cannot underftand, that the poilible Incon- veniences that may attend a Alinifler's doing his Dut}', carry with them any Argument, why he fliould not un- der cake that Office. The Canon I referr'd you to, fliews that the Church took fome Care about the Admilfion of Gadfnhers, and required all Mivijler: to do fo. And fuppofing the Neglect of this to-be univerfal, and con- nived at by all in Authority (which I ver}'" much doubtj 3'"et the Rule which I laid down about our Obligation to obferve the Canons^ will not at all ferve your Purpofe here. For tho' it will follow from hence, that a Miiiijler is not abfolutely obliged to obferve this Canon j yet cer- tainly a MiJiiJhrnvdY obferve it, if he fee fit : And that with more Commendation info ufcful a Point, than he canexpcdfor the Neglect of it'. That tlie requiring of Sponfors tends to the profaning of this Ordinance, I cannot yet fee: becaufe the Carelefnefs of the Generality o^ Sponfors, (which is the only Argument you allege) is not the Icaft Proof of it , fince this doth not follow at all, from the Church's requiring Sponfors, but from the Barents little Care, which is no ways encouraged by the Church, and need not be countenanced by any Mijiijler in Reafo7iahknefs of Conformity. 24 5 in it : And therefore, tlio' Guilt may he covtraBed hy more Perfim, in this Method, than if Spovfors were never re- quired ^ 3^etthis cannot be diarged, as any wa3^s caufed by the requiring Spovfors: Nor can this ( of it felf ; bea greater Argument againft requiring Spoijfors, than the Carelefnefs of Parents themfelves would be, againft requi- ring/o/pw« Promifes from them, on this Occafion : for wore Guilt might be contra^ed this way, than would be, were this not required. And, indeed, in this whole Mat- ter, J find very lit! le, but what muft fuppofe it true, that a Minipr in the EJlablified Church, brings himfelf under an Obligation to admit any lerfom for Godfathers, tho' never fo unqualified ^ and tho' hwwn to be unlikely to fet themfelves to av fiver fnch Obligations i, before it can be efteemed ^wj Argument againft this Declaration, and Sub- fcriptioit, we are confidering. And, as far as I know any thing of the Tf/'7;2j of Conformity, this Suppojition is whol- ly groundlefs. But you are not content to vindicate what you had advanced before, againft the Ufe of Godfathers and God- 7nGthers •, But are pleafed to add fomething new upon th« <^ieJlions, put to them in the Form o^Baptifn. But I fee nothing here fufficient to prove any Abfurdity in thefe ^■ejlions '. fince it is evident from the Church Cat echifm, that the Avfwers to thefe ^uefions, are intended only as Fromifei of Faith, and Repentance, made in the Name of the Infants, by their Sureties •, Promifes of what they are bound to do, when they come to the ufe of their Reafon. That oi defringtobe baptized, feems the moft improper : And 3''et, even that ma}^ by a candid and equitable Perfon, be interpreted fo, as to fignify no more, than what the hfajit ought to do, were it capable • and judg- ed to be founded upon a good Bottom, viz. that every one ought, when he comes of Age, to be fo afredled, as !to profefs, that himfelf would have defred Baptifm, had he been capable of doing it. /;/ fiort, I am no more averfe, than you, to BiOiop Stillingjleet's Dijlincfion, of admitting fome Infants to Bap- R 3 tifm Q^6 A Defence of the trfm, ht the Right of their Parents^ and others h the R'tghlf pf the ChurLh : or to a Diftindlon oi Ofi^e. for thefe Two different Cafes. But I think, wc have Reafons good enough, to promife, and fubfcribe to, the XJfe oiowt Ofice^ as it is now : And, I hope, I have faid what is fufficient to fatisfy, even thofe who are no more willhig to bcfatisfedy in this Point, than all of us ought, in rea- foii, to be. Sed. $. Of the Ufe of the Sign of the Grofs in the Office of Baptifrn. TH E next thing in which I am concerned, is the Ufs of the Sign of the Crofs. Amongft the Argun.ents produced by 7oit againft the Ufe of it, this was one, that you durft not ufe it, as prcfcribed in our Liturgy, for fear of giving the Injudicious an Occafion of Mifunderftand- ing, about the Power, and Virtue, of the Sign of thq Crofs •, tho' the Word Power be not in the Office, but the Infant be faid to be figned, in Token only, &r. Upoi^ which I thought I had a juft Occafion of asking, what End of our Differences we could hope for, if fiich Methods were taken : if when there is no Reafon a^aivji a thing, what > is acknowledged to he mireafonable^ Jhall he made an OhjeSjon, again Ji it. In which I thought not to imply, that the diffenting Minijlers, did not fuppofe that they had any jReafons againfl the Ufe of it, as you are willii^g to under- hand me •, but that it is very unhappy, that fuch Argu- ments fhould be ufed againft the Lawfulnefs of the Ufe^ of any thing, as are of force, as much in Cafes where there is no abfolute Reafon againft the thing, as in Cafes where there is. That the Ufe of the Crof fhould be re- fufed , for fear injudicious Perfons fhould underftand Words in a Senfe of which they are not capable, is, I conffefs, tome a wonderful thing: And fuch in Argu- ment,as if purfued bj'- you, muftprove thellnlawfulnefs of many of your own Pradices. I did fay, that it was impoiiible the Words in Token, fwhich mult refer to what ; .,.. _.^. . _.^....,__, _,_ , ..., . follows) ReafonaMenefs <9/*ConfbnnIty. 247 follows) ihould be meant, hi Virtue and Forve)\ fwhich muft refer to fomethivig going before: ) and I gave you afterwardsmy Interpretation of the Words, which you have not thought worth your while to confider. But, in anfwer to this Affirmation of mine, you sslc, /'vd doth Mr. H. really thivk it ivipofible for Verfons to apprehend this to he the vieaning of the Words ? which is fuch a f rt of a Reph^ as I have been too much ufed to, to be much fur- prizedat. 'W'ho cannot fee, that there is a great deal of difference bet ween faying, that it is iitipojjihle^ IFords JJjoidd be meant in this Sevfe, and fa3^ing that it is impojfille for Pcrfovs to appreheyid they were fo vieavt ? For my own part, J never knew any one yet, whether learned, or unlearn- ed, who did apprehend thefe Words to be fo intended, as you fay, fome may interpret them. Your Quotati- ons out of Mr. Hooker, and Dr. Comber, whatever they {hew about their Opinion of the Sign of the Crofs fand that is no more but what may be faid about the Word Crofs, pronounced by the Mouth, fuppofing the baptized Perfon were only pronounced to be a Difciple of the Crof) they fhew not that they ever dreamt that thefe ?/^o/-Jj attributed any Virtue to the Sign of the Crofs ^ any fuch Virtue as we difpute about. Befides, every Mini- ster that ufes this Office, is left at full Liberty to explain any part of it: And need not baptize any one Child, before he have endeavoured to remove fuch fort of groundlefs Scruples out of the Minds of his Audience, if he fufpect any iiichConceits to be among them. Tho', as far'as 1 know any thing of the World, he that fhould go about to mention fuch Conceits, might probably be the firft Occahon of raifing them in the Minds of moil: Men : So far do I look upon it, from being probable, that the Generality are apt to underftand Virtue to be here attributed to the Sign of the Crofs. But fjppofing Mr. Hooker did attribute Virtue (in'yourSenfe) to this Sign, what the unhappy Confequences of fuch a Mifah in him, were, I know not, till you difcover them. The Conwxion between this Argument ^ and that which I took K 4 from 24 8 -^ Defenfe of the from yonr occafional Communion, yon fay, is hut odd : But Hook upon it^obe lb plain, that you. cared not to fay I any thing farther about it. For if you pra6ticeow£? thing, k iiotwithltanding that the Injudicious are apt to have \j Mifunderftandings about it, it cannot be an Argument againft the Practice o^ another thing, that the hijiidiciovs are apt to have Mifunderftandings about it. Trie next OhjeBion was, that the Ufc of the Crofi, loo Is (IS ifChriJ}\ ivjiltiition were ejleemed a Bovd not fvffdently frm^ and Jlrovg,Scc. lanfwcred, "The Church hath declared the contrary. The tnore iinac count able ^ you repl}'', that Mi- jiijlcrsponld Icfiifpendedfor omhthig the Crofs. But cer- tainly, if j^ou delighted not in the Remembrance of fuch Thing, and thought them not likely to move the Peo- ple, where you have nothing elfe to fav, you would not introduce this Subje6l fo frequently, after fo unacccunta- ble a manner. For may not a AliniJIer be fvfyended for not anfwering thefe Obligations,which heharh folemnly brought himfelf under ^ becaufc wha: he omitted, is not an effential Matter ? May he not be fufpended, for wilful- ly neglecting to ufe the Prayers prefcribed, becaufe they are not cfe]itial> One would think, that you could not think this either good Reafoning, or a proper Method of putting an End to our Differences. I obferved to you, upon this Head, that t]ie Addidon o^ Prayers^ looked as if Chrift's Inftitution were not fufficient -, and yet I added, you know., thjit Baptifm is fujlcient without eve Prayer : by which, all miuft know that I meant, a regular ^ vocal Prayer ufedhy the Minijler. And all miift perceive, that my Argument was this, that if the Sufficiency of Chrift's Inftitution, confidered by it felf bean Argument againft the Crofs •, then it may be alff) againft the Ufe of any P/ayers a.t the Solcj?i7!ity o^ Baptifn. Here you acknow- ledge, your felf, that Eaptifjtt may be ftifficient without the verbal uttering of a regular Prayer, by the Minijler ^ which is all I contended for : And yet yoii amufe j'-our j^eader, with a Difcourfe about the Parents Prayer at the Dedication of his Child j and the Expediency of Prayer at Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. 249 at this Solemnity. As if I had equalled the £//> ofthe Crofs, to the ufe of Prayers,, at Baptifm ^ or as if the Ar- gument, which was wholly taken from the Svffciejicy of ChrifsbiJiitJition, required me to prove, that the Crofs was as expedient as Prayer. But I mull deiire to be excu- fed from aflerting what I am as far from holding as your felf: And think it fully fufficient, to have fhewn, that your Reafoning taken from Chrifs Ivjikution holds a- gainft the Ufe of Prayers (which are highly expedient) as well as againft the ufe of the Crofs at this Solemnity : and therefore cannot he juft. But I am concerned to find, under almofl every Head, my Arguments fo reprefented, and altered by 3^ou, as often to tempt your Readers to think very ill of me, and to give me frequent Occafions of renewing my Complaints of you. Another Argument produced by you, againft yourCow- pllance with the ufe of the Crofs, is to wltnefs your Difike of the Vanity and Idolatr\^ of the Papifs. I anfwered, that this, in it felf, was no Argunmit againft the Ufe of this, tho' an Humane Inftitution^ becaufe we ufe it not after their Manner, or for their Purpofes. And certainly the true Reafon of difcarding any fuch thing, is, that it is abufed among ourfelves ^ not that it is abufed in another Country. And that it is ufed after an idolatrous man> ner by us, I do not fee that you endeavour to prove. If you know any, who do abufe this Sign, it cannot be from any Encouragement the Church gives them : And the Alteration of this at Baptifm, tho' it might ferve other good Purpofes, could not fecure thofe from abufing it, who abufe it now •, unlefs you ihew, that their Abufe of it is founded upon our Ufe of it at that Solemnity. The hnpoftion of this belongs to another Head. As for kneeling at the Communion •, when I faid, that I found rather a great deal in you for it, than any thing agaivjl It ; had you any Inclination to underftand me, you might eaiil 7 have feen, that I meant this only a- bout the Lawfulnefs of the thing it felf- tho' Mr. Baxter (whofe Abridger you are) hath mentioned the Decency of 2 ^o J Defenfe of the it al fo," Andlfuppofe, what you have added here in this laft Performance upon it, may ferve to excufe my faying fo. Se£l. 6. Of the Ohjeftion a^ahft the Declaration avi Sub- fcription, taken from the Office of Ordination. TH E Paffage fcrupled ty you^ 'and ^'•our Brethren, is this, in the Preface to the Ordma ion Cffiie. It U evident to all Men diligently readings, the Holy Scriptures^ and ancient Authors^ that from the Apo files Times, there have been thefe Orders inChriJl's Church, BifI}ops, Priejls, and Dear com : To which I oblerved that you, in your Reprefen- tation of it, added thefe Words, by Divine Appointment j which, I ftill think you ought^not to have done. For, in treating of the Terjns oi Conformity, the naked Propo^ iition to which our AJfent is required, ought to be let down, and every one left to judge for himfelf what is implied in it, or confequentupon it. i In anfwer to your Ohje^ion taken from this Sentence, | mid the Prayers in the Ordination Ojice, I obferved, that the Declaration of Affent and Coifent, and the Sub f crip: ion^ i touched only the life of the Book, and not this Sentence, ? in the Preface. And for farther Salisfadtion in this, J inuft refer the Reader to what I have again faid, in Vin- dication of^ this, againft your OljeBions. I obferved alfo, that, fuppofing the Siibfcription to refer to fuch Sentences ; yet this could not be afFedted by it, becaufe here is no- thing in it contrary to the Ir^ord of God : And, that the Prayers to be ufed in the Ordination Ofce imply not any thing plainly, but that God hath appointed divers Orders pfMiniJlers in his Church. And to thefe Two Obfervati- ons I find no Repl}^ that fo much as fhews, that yoi; j your felf think otherwife. * In the next place I obferved, upon Suppoiition, that 'Affent and Confcjit, do refer to this Scritence, that the In- tent of it is only to exprefs, that we our felves think it an evident Truth. And this I obferved, becaufe I found ^ I Reafonahknefs of Conformity, 251 a great Strefs laid upon the DifTent of fome great Men, and diligent Readers-^ and the Sentence interpreted, as if the Deiign of it had been to fay, that no diligent Readers could poilibly doubt of the 7)'"^^ of the Aprtion.^ And here you are pleafed more than once to argue with me, as If I had been perfuading you to ajfent to the Tyuth cf it, whilft you are dubious about it , or to fay it is very pjident, whilft you think all alleged for it to 'be only P/O" hability, firengthned by unproved Suppojitions •, which, (you knowj I am very far from doing. In order to ihew how fuch Expreilions ought to be interpreted, I inftanced in the Exigence of ovr bleJfedLord, before he was born of the Virgin Mary ^ and obferved, that we might declare, that this is evident to all Men diligently reading Holy Scriptures^ notwithftanding that fome learned and conlidering Per- fons have denied it. To which you reply, that the Cafe is not parallel, becaufe you hope you can prove this by better Evidence than hath ever yet been alleged for the other. Now, 1 doubt very much, whether you can prove any thing, of that nature, with greater Evidence than hath been al- leged for the dij}i7t[i Offices of BiJJ?ops, Priejls, and Dea^ cons, from the Apojiles Days. But let this be as it will ^ the Cafes are exactly parallel : For if you can fay, that it is evident, &c. that our Saviour exifted before his Hu- mane Birth, notwithftanding fome fober, learned, and conlidering Perfons have doubted of it ^ then, were yoa your felf convinced of the T;«f/? of the other AlTertion, you might affirm it to he evident. Sec. notwithftanding thofe great dilTenting Names mentioned by you. And this was all I intended by this Inftance ; to ftiewhow un^ reafonable it was . to lay fo great a Strefs upon the ?» And who doth not fee, that there is no fuch thing implied in this Sentence, as that our Bifiops^ Pnejls^ and Deacons^ are exadl}'', in every refped, the fame with the Primitive Bifiops^ Viiefis, and Deacom ? What fignifies it, therefore, to allege, that Preaching Deacons were iniknoivn in theApofiles Times ? DotJi Preaching deftroy the EJfentials of a Perfon's Deaconfiip ^ If it do not. It is not at all inconliftent, that a Deaton Ihould be allowed to Preach. Nor ihould Ton object this, who allow fuch Liberty of Preaching, to any Per- fons as Probationers ^ efpecially, when you conlider, that He is not impowered abfolutely by his Ordination to the Office o^RDeacony to preach, but only conditionally^ 5f He be called thereto. But, if St. Stephen were a Dea- con, in the Apojiles Time, we read immediately after his Ordination by the Apofiles^Ad. 6. that his Enemies vercnot able to refijl theirifdom and the Spirit by vhich He fpake : So that his attending upon meaner Offices, did not at all hinder, but that He might lawfully Preach, as cccafion offered. It is not needlul, for the Proof of this j^ffertion now before us, to \\\qw, that there have been Deacons from the Apoflles Days in the Church, with all the dijliyicl Powers now ajigned them among its, Pag. ai5. as you fjem to demand^ but it is fuffici- ent, that there was fuch an Inferior Office m tlie Church from the beginning, with thofe dijlin [I Powers^ which have ever been efteemcd amonglt us to be effential to a DeaconMp : And this I believe, can hardly bedenied. But, Iconfefs, I thought not here of any Pifpute about Dt\T60775 ^ but only about the Superiority of Bifiops over Presbyters, from the beginning, invefted with inch dijiintl Powers, as the Church makes epntial to Epifcopacy. And this you might have feen, had you been but willing, from every thing I alleged under this Head. Reafonahlmefs of Con form I ty. 555 Head. And if there have been BiJIwps over Presbyters^ with fuch diJlhtB Offices, as we malce elFential to each of them, you muft acknowledge the Difpiite about the "Word Order and Degree^ to be needlefs. This was what I aimed ar. And I fay again, that Arch-BiJJwp Ufher hath added great Evidence to this Propofition, in his Writings upon this Subjcd. BiJ/^o]) Fearfonl alfo alleged, as one wlio had aibfted mightily in the fame Caufe. But 3^ou fay. He ca??ie not out till after the Minijlers were Ji~ lencd. Why may not I fay, then, that if his Writings had been publifh'd before tliat, they would never have been ejcBed for not affenting to this Propofition •, as you are pleafed to iniinuate, t]iat if Mr. ChilVivgworth fwho declared Dr. jf/aww/owiunanfwerable in this Point) had lived to fee Mr. Baxters Difpiitations, he would not have thought Dr. Havimmd unanfwerable ? You might as well have added alfo, that he would have difclaimed his own Demonftration of the Apojlolical Ivjlitiition of Epifcopacy 5 for at this rate, we may fay any thing of the greateft Men that have gone before us. But I find not one Argu- ment here advanced againfi: his DemovJIratmi : Perhaps you may think you have fiifficientl}?- guarded againft that, in the firft Part of your Defeiife. Ko, Sir, you thought it more worth your while here, to take up your Reader s Thought with another Bulinefs, and to charge me with a Crime, which I ever abhorr'd. You tell your Reader, that I am wt over fair here^ in citing Mr. Baxter : But I think my felf obliged to vindicate my Reprefenta- tion of Mr. Baxter's Opinion in this Point. I faid, there- fore, in the firft Place, that Mr. Baxter hiyufelf thought it evident^ that in the Frimi^ Reafon ef tive Church there was a Superiority over Ta~ ^-""M- ^' !• Jlors, maintain d not only by the Apojlles and ^' °' Evangel} fs, but by other general unfxed Church-Officers, And can you fay, that this is not truly, and fairly, his Senie > But it feems, his Words are over BiJIwps and HJiors^ which, you fay, with hi?n were all one: And you add, that toferve my own Fiirpofe, I leave out the Iford Bijoops, and 2 54 ^ ^ efenfe of the avd mention only Vajlors, Now, if you cannot give the leaft Shadow of a Proof, that viy Pvrpofe is at all fervcd by this OmilTion, or that his Senfe could be more intel- ligibly exprefled, fo as to be more truly underftood by my Reader, than as I have exprefTed it •, you muft ac- Icnowledge, that you have done me an Injury in this Charge againft me. I can folemnly profefs, that I liad no Delign to ferveby leaving out that Word .• And it ii plain I could have none, becaufe the putting it in doth not in the leaft alter the Senfe of the Propoiition. For tvhat was I enquiring after ? Was it not a Siipenority over Vajlors of y articular Covgregatiom, and Mr. Baxter^ Opi- nion concerning, this ? If he call thefe Pajlors BiJIjops alfo, doth that alter their Nature? Or is there any need of adding that, which is only another Word for the fame thing ? But truly I thought that the Reader might better underftand his Meaning by the Word Paflors only, be- caufe he ufes that Word in the ordinary Senfe of it j and that the Addition of the other Word might rather con- found, than explain his Meaning, becaufe he ufeth it in a Senfe, different from that in which it is ordinarily meant. Let us fuppofe, therefore, that I had faid a Su- periority over BiJIwps or Pjjiors, where would have been the Alteration in the Senfe ? It is nothing more than a Superio7-ity over thofe we call Pajiors • tho' over BiJIwps in his Language per-aps: But they are nothing but Pajlon in our Senfe, not B'iJl)ops, as the Word is now conftantly applied. What Purpofe, therefore, could it fcnie to omit this Word, unlefs to render the Senfe lefs liable to Mi- ftake ? And how can 3''ou anfwer this Charge againft me, when you cannot but be fenfible, that the leaving out of the Word alters not his Meaning, and that the inferting it would not add a Tittle to it ? If Mr. Baxter call thofe Bipops^ whom others call Pajlors, and thofe Jr(:h-BiJf)ops, whom others call Fifiops ^ then, if he ac- knowledge Arch-Eifiopsover his Bifiops^ he acknowledges a Superiority over Paftors. This was all that I laid to him in this Sentence, tliathe acknowledgeth, in the Pri- mitive Reafonahlenejs of Conformity. 255 mltlve Times a Superiority over Pajlors^ 7naifitaind by ge-^ 7ieral mfxei Church-Officers. Doth he acknowledge this, or not ? If he do not, I confefs my felf miftaken : If he do, by what Law of the Gofpel do you give your felf this ftrange Liberty of accufing me ? This was the /// thing I afcribed to him. The next thing was, that ay ta fxed Bifiops of particular Churches, Superior in degree to Presbyters, he thought the Reception of them in aU Churches^ was early, and geyieral. The Words in jout Abridgment^ from whence I took this, arc, fa early, and fo general, that, he was fee to admit thejn, and refolved never to oppofe. But the Matter hath quite another Turn in his Life written by himfelf. And lince you have been fo hard upon me for leaving out a Word in reprefenting his Senfe, tho' I gave you the whole of his Opinion in the Point I was then upon •, it is but fit you fhould be called upon, to juftify your felf in this Matter, for omitting a very confiderable Part of his Sentence ^ and, by this means, defrauding the Reader of a confiderable Part of his Senfe. His own Words, in his Life^ are thefe — , — Ifaw that ths Reception of them in all the Churches was fo timely (even in the Days of one of the Apoftles I*ag. 143. in fome Churches) and fo general^ that I thought it a mojl ijnprobable thing, that if it had been con- trary to the Apoftles Mind, we JI)ou]d never read that they thejnfelves, or any one of their Difciples that converfed with them, no nor any Chriftian, or Heretickin the IForld^ ft}ould oncefpeak, or write a Iford againft it, till long after it was generally fetled 171 the Churches. This, therefore, I refolved Ttever to oppofe. Certainly if you, by Yinue of being his Abridger, can leave out furh material Pafiages as thefe, in favour oiEpifcopacy, without which we cannot know the whole of his Opinion ; it may be very allowable in jne, when I am reprefenting his Senfe, to do it in as few Words as i pleafe, provided I defraud not the Reader of the leaftTirtle of it. I am fure you have put into your Abridgmein Paffages of much lefs Imporiance than this : And upon what Cirounds you thought fit to leave out all a 5 6 ^ Defefip of the all this, I cannot tell-, and will not fo much as fa/, that It was toferve any Pvrpofe of your own. But, not content with this, you defire the Reader to oh- ferve^ that the' Mr. Baxter exprejly fays, that there is nothing in Scripture favouring the Superiority of Bijliops over Presby- ters, yet he is drawn in by me in this very Pajfage, as avert- ing, that it was evident to all reading the Scriptures, that, there werefuch Bipopi and Priefs, from the very Days of the Apoftles. Now, if there be any thing like this in my wTiole Book, that Mr. Baxter ajferts, that this is evidcjtt to all reading the Scriptures, ('which is the thing you here lay to my Charge) I defire to forfeit my Credit for ever : But if there be not, I pray God forgive jou. this licenti^ ous way of handling your Adverfary. I am fure, this is fo far from being true, that I here exprefly fay, that Mr. Baxter aflerts, that there is nothing in ^eafonablenefs Scripture favouring fuch Bifiops : And it is of Conformtty, very incredible, that I Ihould fo foon for- p. 1. p. do. gg^ ^yy ^gjf^ ^^^ bring him in afTerting, that it is evident to all reading Scripture, that there were fuch. And I cannot imagine from what Paf- fage you could polfibly raife this Accufation, unlefs it be from this (p. So.) in which only I introduce Mr. Bax- ter as afTerting any thing concerning BiJJjops. The Point js,whether in Fadt there were in thofe early Days, (viz.) fo7?i the Apoftles Ti??ies) BiJJwps, Priefts, and Deacons. Then follows, Mr. Baxter fays, there were. Thefe are my Words. T^^iw, concerning Deacons, I imagined no Controverfy^ as appears by my alleging nothing at all relating to them. So that taking it for granted, that all allowed fuch an Order, what I intended to build upon the Sentence of Mr. Baxter's going before, was this, that in thofe early Days, (viz. from the Apoftles Times) there were fixed Bi- fjops, fuperior to Presbyters : But not a Word do I men- tion of his alTerting, that this was evident to all reading the Scriptures. As for what I afcribed to him in this Sentence^ furely what I have now quoted at large from him, will eafily juftify me. For if there were Biftjops fuperior to Presbyters Reafo7inhlenep of Conformity. 257^ Preshyters (and fuch muft have had diftin6t Offices from ordinary Presbyters) in one of the Apofiles Days-, then Mr. Baxter (kjSj that there were, in thofe early Days^ Bifiops and Priefs : AVhich is the whole of what I fay Mr. Baxter afTerts, How he came to judge fo,and Upon what Grounds he took up this Opinion, I pretended not to examine. And noiv I leave you to conlider of this frefh Inftance of your Candor towards me : And only afTure you, that it is a great Concern to me, on your Account, more than my own, that you can indulge your felf in fuch a Li- berty of fixing your own Inventions upon me, and ex- pofingme, this way, to the Averlion and Indignation of 3''our Reader. Sedl. 7. Of the Objedtion again j} the Declaration ajtd Sub- fcription, taken from the Burial Office. TH E next Reafon why you cannot comply with the Declaration and SUbfcriptioTt, is, becaufe you cannot tonfent to pronounce all faved that are buried^ except the Un- iaptized. Excommunicate^ md Self-murtherers ^ i. e. you Cannot confent to read the Burial Office over thofe who have been notorious, profligate, unrepenting Sinners. As to the frfi Ground of this ObjeBion, I ftiil fay, that it may be \'ery properly faid, that God takes to himfelf the Souls even of impenitent Sinners •, which Phrafe I confi- dered by it felf, becaufe I found you did fo, in your Re- prefentation of the Arguments of the ejeked Miniflers. But I acknowledge that it cannot properly be faid, that jhe doth this of his great Mercy. And, as to the third, I acknowledged before, that we could not, in the loWeft Senfe of the Werd, declare any Hope Goncernii]g fuch Sinners 2LS you mention. But I ftill adhere to my fieafons, why a Minifter in the Church of England brings not him- felf under an Obligation to ufe this Office in all Cafeswith" out Variation. And becaufe you have giv ei!i the World la Story about AnMiffiop Sancroft, the fruth of which 1 find much queftioned, I will alio oppofe to that the S Judg- 258 A Defenfe of dj€ Judgment of the fame great Man •, for I am credibly in- formed, that he gave it as liis Opinion to a Minifter of' a Parifh, who confultcd inm upon this Occailon, that he was left to his Difcretion in fuch Cafes, and acted not againft his Obligations, when he denied any part of that Ojice to fitch as all the World agree it was never delign- ed for. And tho' it may appear from the Story wliich you relate, fuppofing the Truth of it, tliat he might not have been fond of a FariJI) Curs -^ yet it doth not at all appear from it, that it was his fetlcd Ophiion^ that Mi- j////^/ .J bring *hemfelv£s under an Obligation to ufe that entire Form in all pollible Cafes ; for he had himfelf f ib- fcribed and declared his Ajfent and Covfent , which he could not have done, had he thought that it was necefla- rily implied in them, that this ejitire Foim was {it to be iifed over the moft notorious and iwpen'itent Shmers. And this is fufHcient entirely to overthrow the Ufe you make ef this private Story. But before I come to defend the .Reafojis I advanced for this, I mufl; obferve, that the fecovd Ground of your Objedion, taken from thefe Words, in furc and certain Hope of the RefurreBion, &c. can never ftand good. When you reprefented this, you ought certainly to have tran- scribed the JFords from the Ojice it felf, and not from ,an3r other Book-, and when you refolved to defend the Scruple founded upon this Sentence, you ought to have confidered the Interpretation I gave of the whole, and to have fliewn that it was not jull and fair ^ which you wholly negledt. Nor do you confider the Reafons I give, x^hj the laft Collet cannot interpret thefe Words ^ but only fay, the Ofice is all cf apiece, the fwic as to the ivic- kedeJlMan living, as to the viojl \nom, tho' certainly it was never defigned for the rcicliedefl Men. But you take no- tice that I omit yomfirji Proof, thjit thefe Words mitjl re* fer to the foregoing Declaration. Now I omitted this only, bccaufe it was an Argument without the leall Appear- ance of Strength ; and bccaufe I faid what was fufficient to Reafonahtenefs of Conformity^ 259 to overthrow it, tho' I mentioned it not : For any Per- ton may fee, that tht^Q fcrnyledVords are not a Continu* ation of that Declaration, hut a Sentence plainly diftind from it •, and any Perfon m2iy fee, that it doth not fol- low, that hecaofe the htterrd Perfon is fpolcen cf at the beginning of this Fara?raph,thevetoYe the latter part of it may not refer to all c^her irterrd Ferfom. And befidesj I obferved, that this fame Sejttevce^^s it is altcr'd for ^^u- riah at Sea, muftbe interpreted of the^^^jeraZ Refurre^'ion^ which will prove, that it may alfo very fairly be fo in- terpreted in our ordinarjrQ^'t^^ notwithftanding that the Verfon htterrd is fpoken of particularly juft before. But I come now to vindicate my Reafons for alTerting that a Mhnjler is under no Obligation to ufe every Word of this O^f^ over ^\ic]\ impemtent Shmers as you menti- on. Thefirft is this, that the Omiflion of thefe Senten- ces in fuch Cafes, is more agreeable to the Defign of the Church, in prefcribing this Form, than the ufing them, and therefore more agreeable to the Obligations of one who minifters in this Church. This is apparent from the Suppofition of DifcipUne in the Church, and from the Opinion of all who have written on this Subject : Aii(i fometimes you build mightily upon Quotations out of private Authors, tho' here, I am afraid, you will be backward to admit them. It lies upon 3^ou, therefore, to fliew, againft fuch Teftimon}^, that it was the Defign of the Church, that this entire Office fhould be ufed pro^ mifcuoufly over all ^ or that a covforming Mimfier brings himfelf under a Promife, or Obligation, to ufe it fo. This is a very material Point, and what I account all co7iformhig Mhnjler s very much concerned in ^ and there- fore I fliall carefully confider your Arguments to prove thefe Two Things. I. You urge the Qinon^ which requires all Mhnfiers to bury any Corps brought to the Church-yard, accordhig to the Formprefcribed hi the Comnion-Prayer-Eooh, fee. In an- fWer to this, I acknowledge, that a Mhi'ifter is obliged to obey all fuch Canojis as the prefcnt Governors of the S 2 • Church 26o A Defence of the Church declare, or fiippofe to be in force. But in the firft place, I do not think, that that Itrift Obedience to this Cavov^ about which we are difputing, in the Cafe o: iynpeintent Sinners^ ever was, or is now, or ever will be, iiififted on, by the Governors of the Church. And I tliink, that where a Ca7io7t hath been publicly neglected, with C]onniva)ice, or Approbation, or wi-thout a plain Injun- ction to reftore tlieUfe of it, there it cannot be fuppofed to be obliging, any farther than the private Opinion of fome Pcrfons may judge it fo. And that this hath been fo, I can give you many, and very remarkable Inftan- ces, andthofenot clandeftine, but approved of by our Superiors. And therefore I cannot fee what it can im- port, to fay, itispoifible that our Governors m2Lj come to infill upon our ufing every Word of this Ofice over the moft profligate Sinners. They never did yet, as I know of-, and I tliink it time enough to confider what to do, when the Ter7?is of Co7ifo?'?nity are publicly alter- ed. But, in the next place, I anfwer, that thi^ Ca7wn may oblige in the Senfe intended in it, and yet not ob- lige in the rigorous Senfe j^'ou have put upon it. It can- not be fuppoled, that it can oblige to the Ufe of this en- tire OJice in Cafes, in which it is manifeft, the Church originally defigned it not to be ufed ^ and the Allowance in it, for fuch exe}?ipt Cafes as are mentioned in the Ru- bric, leaves the Minijler as much Liberty as the OJice it felf fuppofes : And indeed, itfeemsto me to be deligned for nothing, but to prevent the indecent Delays and Negledts which might othcrwife be made in the Cafe of burying the Dead^ atleall, it maybe fo defigned, for any thing you have ihewn, or can fhew, to the con- trary. 2. You fay, that a A^inifler who omits any of thefe Se7ite7ices^ in the Cafes before mentioned, afts not agree- ably to his Sulfcription, and Declaratio7i oi^ AJJ'ent^ ami Co7tfe7it. In Proof of this yon allege, that his Sulfcription, that he will ufe the Book of Conunon-hayer, is as much as this, that he mil ufe it mthout aiiy Variation. In which I agree Reafo7mhlenefs of Conformity. 261 I agree with you thus far, that it is a Suhfcription to the Ufe of it without Variation, in all fuch Cafes in which the De/ign of the Church is anfwered without any Varia- tion. But in extraordinary Cafes, in which all in the Church agree, that every" Tittle of it cannot be ufed, without adHng againft the original Defign of the Church ; inthefe Cafes it cannot oblige to the vfe of every Tittle of it : and in Cafes, where they who require this Sub- fcription allow, and permit fuch a Latitude. Nor doth this OmiJIion imply in the leaft, that there is any thing'in the Co7mnon-Prayer-Book contrary to theirordofGod^when it is ufed, as it was defigned it fhould be : And fure, in interpreting any Book, we ought to confider the Dejign of thofe who compiled it. Now there is no Argument to prove, that they thought of ufing this entire Form over profligate, impenitent Sijinera. And then, as for the De- claration of Affent, and Confent, to the Ufe of the Conmon- Prayer-Book ^ this certainly cannot be meant of uling e- very Tittle in it, in Cafes, for which it was not delign- ed, but of ufing it honeftly and iincerely in all Cafes, agreeably to the original Defign of the kveralOjfices in it. This Lite rp ret ation is far from 7naking light of Decla- rsitions : Nay, the rigorous Interpretation contrary to it, and the fuppoling that it extends to the nfe of it in Cafes^ for which it was not defigned, is really very injurious to the Nature and Ufe of fuch puhlic Declarations. Before any of thefe Arguments can take place, you ought to have Ihewn, from other Reafons, that it was the Defign of the Church, and of the Governoiirs of it, that this Oflice fhould be ufed promifcuoufly over all •, and that the con- trary to this hath never been allowed. But I find no- thing like this in any thing alleged by you. 9. You argue from the Inconveniences a Minijlcrm^y ■ ^ bring upon liimfelf, by omitting, in the Cafes before men- I tioned, the leaft part of the Fonn prefcribed. All I can fay as to the F.a^, is, that I know my felf many In- 1 ftances of fuch OniiJJion, but not one of any Inconveni- ence confequent upon, it. But fuppofing thefe Inconye^ S ^ niences 2^2 A Defence of the ni'iicrs poflible, (for they are not fo much as probable) this is nothing to our Purpofe •, for this will not proi^e, either that it was the Defign of the Church, that this en~. tire ForjH fhnuld be promifcuoufl^ ufed ^ or that a cow- fo Diiiig Mijnflerhnngs himfelf under any Obligation fo to ufeit ^ and therefore it touches not the Confcience at all. If a Man conform fincerely, and fiiffer fome Tem- poral Incon^ enience for doing his Duty in Coiiformhy, he may have as great inward Satisfaction in this, as another may have in viivip'hig in a Separathv, for fear of thefe Temporal hiconvejiiences. My other Argument for omitting thefe PafTages, was wholly dcfigned to fliew the Reafonablenefs of fuch O- nnlhon to fome Church-men, upon their own Principles ; and not to convince Ton any farther than as it fhews, that in fome Cafes this 0§ce may be denied (notwith- ilanding the Canon) upon the Principles of the greateft church-men amongft lis ; And fometimes 3''ou feem very fond of appealing to their Opinion in this Controverfy. This once, therefore, I hope, we agree ^ and fo I leave the Reader to judge upon the iv^hole, what juft Reafon you had, under this Head, to exprefs your P/t)" forthofe 327^0 (^in your obliging Language you fity^ a?-e in an Ec- clefiaftkal Found -^ whom if you did truly pity, you would not have laboured fo much, to have made it ftraiter than their Superiors have done. Se(3:. 8. Of ths Objection taken from the Rule io find Eafter-day. ' TViis Rule, rightly underftood, I told you, neither contradiSs the Tlthle in the Covimon-Prayer-Book, nor the cojjimon Almanacks, which agree with the Table : And I ftillfay the fame. Th.Q. Rule (as hath been known and underftood for many Years paft, by all Conformijls, who thought it worth while to enquire after it j hath reference to the frji Column, printed in many Editions of the Com- viQn-Fray»r-Book, which was inferted cliiefi}^ for the fake of Reafonahknefs ^_/^ Conformity. s^^j of this Riih'^ and the meaning of it is manifeftly this, and could be no other, Bajler-day h always the frjl Sunday after the frJl Full-Mcon, (which Full-Moon is to be found out by the Kalevda;\ in which there is a Column for that purpofe) which happens, &c. I fay, this is the meaning of the Rule, and ever was known, by Perfons who un* derftood the Kalendar, to be {o : And this neither con- tradicts the Table, whicli was framed by this Rule : nor Eafier-day in the Almaiiacls, which is always the fame that it is in the Table, Now in order to prove this falfe, you interpret it thus : Eajler-day is always the firft Sun- day after the firll; Full-moon, according to the Reforma- tion of the Kalendar. Now, if you had no mind this Rule iliould be falfe, and we fhould endeavour to prove it fo by the Moon in the Heavens ^ I doubt not you would lay, this muft be judged of as it was originally intended •, and that it is unjult to interpret it otherwife. To fay, that the Moons in the Almanack are more exacl, is no- thing againft the Truth of this Rule. Is it not true, that this is fuch a Day of the Month according to the Old Stile, becaufe it is not the fame according to the New Stile ? Is it not truly faid, that ^this is fuch a Year of our Lord, by thofe who are known to go according to the v%dgar jEra -, becaufe it is not fo, perhaps, in Truth^ andexaft Chronology? and may it not be true, that Ea- Jler-day is the firft Sunday after fuch a particular Full- Moon, according to that Column in our Kalendar -, be- caufe it is not fo, according to the Full-Moons in the Hea- vens, ill Truth, and Philofophical Exaftnefs of Speech > But, 3"ou fay, it is no longer fit to be a Rule, becaufe it is mtintdligille. And again, (p. 241.) It cannot be a Rule to find Eafter /flr ever, becaufe it depends upon a way of Cal- culation not now in tife. Now it is never (as I know of^ called a Rule to fnd Eafter/or ever, which I fuppofe you took up (as 3^our worthy Friend alfo hath done) from others, without looking into the Comvion-Frayer-Boch And as for its being unintelligible, I cannot help yourUji- derftanding ^ but I d^ire fay, you could eafily undeilland B 4 " ' it**' 264 -^ T>efenfe of the it, did you think it worth your while : And you fee, it is not fo umntelligihle^ but that the Table was made by it, and all our Eafier-dayx are obferved according to it •, and any one that pleafesmay underftand this way of Calcula- tion. At prcfent, indeed, I fee plainly, that you under- ftand it not; for otherwlie I cannot imagine, that yon Ihould undertake to prcfent the ReaJer with an Account of Seven EaJIer-days, according to the Rule ^ and at the fame time reprefent the FuU-Moom mentioned in the Rule, according to the late Reformation of the Kalenlar\ and not according to that Kalendar, to which the Rule refers. I pra}'', by what Rule was the Table in the Connnon-Prayer- Bool, drawn up?" If by this fame Rule, then it is evident, that the Rule is intelligible, and doth not contradidt the Table : And if it was drawn up according to the Fulh Moons in the way T have now mentioned ^ then it is plain alfo, that the Full-Moons mentioned in the Rule, are not the Full-Moons you have here fet down from the conimon Almaiiacks •, but thofe which are to be found according to the firft Column in our Kalejidar. Biit, indeed, at your rate of arguing here, you may prove any Proportion in the World fa Ife ; for it is but refolving to take fomc principal Word in it, in aSenfe different from what was intended ;, and after that, it is cafy to prove the Falfhood of it. But how unmanly is it in Tow, after you have confefTed that you do vot know whether it be true, or vo, if rightly underflood, to cry out twice in the fame Words, lamforftandingby the Moon in the Heavens, and let the Moon in Mr. Hoadly's Kalendar, or according to his Rule, fiift for it felf: as if the Covtroverfy had been, not whether the Rulc^ interpreted as it ought to be, were t/ k^ ^ but, whether the Full-Moons in our Kale7idarani\vei''dc^~ gdly to the AIoo7iin the Heavens. Thus have I endea- x'oured to fet this Matter right once more : But as for your worthy Friend, who hath been called in to this weigh- ty Point •, hemaA'- afTure himfelf, whoever he be, I fhall have nothing to do with him, till he learn moxt Manners (not to fay Religion) than to ridicule and infult the Com- Reafonabknefs c/ Conformity. 265 fno7i-Prayer-Booh '^ and more jrit, than to meddle with what he underftands nothing of. Seel. 9. Of the Objedion taleji from the Apocrypha^ Leflbns. UNderthisHead, Itoldyou that I would not plead for retaining any thing juftly fufpedted to he fabu- lous, in the Service of the Church : But I made feme ^«07Vi about the £^d/w/«^/v of reading thefe Leffovs, as they are appointed in our Church ; which Lavfuhief is, of it felf, fufficient to make it lawful ^ov any Mhufer to promife to doit. To t\\Q^t ^leries 3^0^ refufe tu give a dired: Av fiver : But inftead of it, you aslc me, whe- ther it had not been more fithig, to liave appointed none but Lejfons out of the Caiwmcal Books ? for this is all I can make of your ^lejiion. To which I anfwcr, that, considering all this, I think it had been better to do ^o. And now I have anfwered this, I hope 3^ou will an- fwer mine, whether it be not lawful to coviply with the prefent Order, tho' it Ihould be our private Opinion, that a better might have been made > But 37-ou fa 3^ again, the Church, by appointing Apocryphal Leffom in the fame. Kalendar, in which fhe appoints Cavoiiical, takes a Method to abate that peculiar Veneration for the Canonical Books, that ought to be mojl carefully hightned. Now certainl}^ anyiWi7/?/'t7'in the Churchoi England, may take fiich Care, that this peculiar Veneration fhall not in the leaft be aba- ted: And all in the Church cl England, that knew any thing, know the Difference that is made between thefe Books, and the others- and that it is exprefly declared, that they are not to be applied to eftablifh arn^ I)o£lrine. And I fay it again, that I never yet heard of an Inftance, of any Perfon who loft any part of his Veneration for the Canonical Books, by the reading of others in our Church. The Story you relate of the Man in the late TempeJ}, that had recourfe to the Apocrypha, under the Notion r?/ Scrip- ture, is nothing to this Purpofe j uiilefs you can afTure .' ' "■' ■ ' . ' ■ ■■: " '"'■ ■ • us, 266 J Befenfe of the us, that he w^as a Co)ifonniJi^ and one in his right Senfes^ that he ran into this Miftake,b}r frequenting the Prayers of our Church on Week-days, when every Body knows we have few in our Covgregatiom, of thofe \vho are moft apt to he thus impofed upon •, or that he was led to it by nicely ftudyittg our Rubric : For by what appears here, we know not but that he might have been a BJffeiiter^ and foolifhly led into this Miftake by nothing but having a B'lble^ in which both Canonical and Apocryphal Boohs were bound up together. But to whatever you have faid upon this Head, I think it a fufficient Reply which I gave _ before ^ that if it be no Sin to readthefe Booh, it is much better tofcomply'in this, than to divide the Church for the fake of this Order. To which you anfwer, this of di- vidivg the church is a groundlefs Charge • for they are the Z)i7;zV^rj who impofe this: As if ic were not plain, that what I intended was, that Compliance in what is not finful in your own Accounts, is better thaiifcparati^g from the Church on this Account ^ and as if it were not plain, that in order to Peace in this "World, it is the Duty o[ In- feriorsj to comply with what they account Weakiiefs in their Superiors, as well as of Superiors to yield to Inferiors - But this belongs to another Head. And I fhall add iiere, that you mi^t,wiihmix.feparating, take as effedtual Care, that no People fliould confound the Apocryphal and Ca- Ttonical Booh, as you can do in your own Method. As for the inipofing thefe Leffom, or retaining tliem, I have no hand in it j the Compliance in reading them is tlie Point: And fince you cannot fay, that you think that Jinful in it felf, or prove it to be fo, I think you might have fpared the Pains you have here been at. And for %vhat is here faid of my felf, I have been fo accuftom'd to fuch fort of Ufage, ever iince I had any thing to do with you, that I am not now at all folicitous, what Opi- nions you entertain, or exprefs, of me. I faid it was hard, that you Ihould reprefent it as in- jurious to the People, or as unjuftifiable in it felf, that thefe Apocryphal Lcjfons in general, fhould be read to them-, Re^fonabknefs of Conformity. 267 them ; and fome Cmiomcal Books omitted, curtaiVd, and vnitiUted: And I gave you my Rcafons for this, viz. that there was no Obligation to read every Canonical Chapter, in tht public TForJInp of God ♦, that fome of the. Canonical Chapters may be improper, unintelligible, of ve- ry little Concern to Chriftian People, wholly out of their reach, of little Advantage, either to the informing their Minds in any important Matter, or to the raifing their Devot207ts ^ and that many of the Apocryphal Lejfom are more for the Edification of the People, than any of thofe Chapters which are omitted. And can you fay, thatnone of the Canonical Chapters, or any part of them, can be. improper for a popular Chriftian Congregation -, or unin- telligible ; or of little Advantage ? Let any one perufe your own Lift of Chapters omitted (which I do not now examineany farther than to remark, that you have in- ferted fome Chapters which are not omitted -J and he will find, how many concern the Jewifli Rites and Ceremo- nies -, how man}'" aire full of difficult Places, and hard Prophecies, not to be accounted for by the moft learned Men amongft us -, how many are Repetitions of the fame pieces of Hiftory that have been read in other places -^ and will judge himfelf how pardonable at leaft it is, n&t to infert fuch into the Tiiblic Service, but to leave them to the private Studies of Chriftians. I am fure, I have faid nothing, however jo\x would reprefent me, to infi- nuate that the Canonical Chapters omitted were not ex- cellent, according to what they were defigned for ^ but only that fome Canonical Chapters might not be proper for popular Congregations of Chriftians afTembled for the Worlhip of Go J •• And againft this, you have not advan- ced one fingle Argument ^ but only endeavoured, after an unmanly manner, to expofe me to your People, as one, vv^ho had infinuated, that 'P. 254* there were none of all the Chapters o?n2tted, but what were impj-oper, tinintelligihle. Sec. which you know I have not done ^ and as one zealous for reading the Apo- cryphal Lejfons, which I have not at all pleaded for, in general. 263 A T>efenje of the general, tut as for a lawful thing. And how you can anfwer it to God and your own Confcience, twice under this Head, to produce out of my Book, the fame Sen- tence, and to raife Indignation againft me, without at- tempting to prove the Falpood of it, I leave you to con- lider. If it be not true, that jnany of the Apocryphal Lef- fons are of jnore jtfe fw a public Congregation than any of the Chapters omitted : You fhould have Ihewn it plainly by Inftances ^ but furely, a Man of your Latitude can- not think the bare Name of Canonical fufficient to make a Chapter ufeful in a Chriftian Congregation. This is no more than what I think I might have faid, of many mo- dern Chriftian Writings, and of feme of Mr. Baxter\ pradtical Pieces : And if it be true, it deferves no fevere Cenfure at all. But, not to be content with one fingle and fair Reprefentation of this horrid Tenet P. 25^. of mine ^ but, in the very next Page, to in- troduce it again, not to confute it, but to abufeit, by leaving out the Word 7;z^w)', and fo repre- fenting me as faying that of the Apocryphal Lejfom in ge- neral, which I fay only of foine^ and have exprefly de- ified, of others. Give me leave, Sir, to tell you, this is unworthy of a Man •, aind what, it is beyond the Power of you , and all your Friends, to reconcile, I will not fay with Chriftian Candor, but with common Honefty: Unlefs 3''ou can fincerely fay, you forgot that ^\^ord which you had inferted but the Page before ^ and ftiew your felf readj to do me Juftice in this Matter. SjeQ:. ic Of the Oh jeOiion taken from the Miniftration of the Pfalter. YOUR Objedionwas, That the dijfentin^ Mhufters could not declare and fitbfcrike, that the Pfalter, ap- pointed to be iifcd, hath nothing in it contrary to tlu- Wordof GoJ, bccaufe of that Paftage, Pfal. 105. 28. They were not obedient to his Word^ which is contrary to the Hebrew, They were obedienp ■ . r* " ■ ' In Reafonahknefs of Con formi ty. 3^9 III anfwer to this, I fhewed, that thefe Two Sentences, manifeftly underftood of different Perfons, contradi6ted not one another. This you own exprefly •, and yet fay^ that the Difficulty ftill remains. The Difficulty was, as you have again printed it, that this PalTage in the Pfalter was contrary to the IFord of God 'j as it was contrary to the Hebrew. I fhewed, it was not coittrary. You acknow- ledge it : And how then can the Difficulty ftill remain, unlefs you point out other PalTages which j^-ou think con- trafj to the Iford of God ? For if there be no others, which you think fo^ you may with the greateft Solem- nity fubfcribe, or declare, that there is nothing in the Pfalter contrary to the Word of God : Which can imply no more, but that this is your ferious Judgment. Sed. II. Of the Objedion taken from the Athanafian Creed. UNder this Head 1 argued, if you acknowledge that this Explication of the Dodrine of the Trinity is true, and agreeable to the Word of God ^ then you ought to acknowledge it a good general Proportion, that who- foever doth not believe it, Ihall be condemned at the laft Day. To this you reply, That you may own a great mayiy Truths as agreeable to the Word of God^ and yet 7iot think an explicit Belief of thejn necejfary to the Salvation of all Perfons in all Capacities and Circumfances : Which I fee not how you can think a fufficient Anfwer to one who' made not an explicit Belief of this Explication necefta- ry to any but fuch as had Capacities, and Opportunities, of knowing it to be agreeable to the Word of God. Thus I explained the damnatory Seritences in the Creed : And thus have all the conliderable Perfons in the Church, who have applied them to this particular Explication, interpreted them, as far as I can find. But you quite miftake me, when you think that I compared this Matter with Faith in Chrift, in the Senfe you oppofe ; For I on- ly argued, that if yon could fay, that all who believe not 5 7 <3 ^ -D ^finfe of the not in him, Ih all be condemned, without including any tut thofe who have Abilities and Opportunities of be- lieving in him : You might alfo fay, that they who be- lieve not this Explication ( which you own to be agree- able to the Word of God j fhall be conde?mied, without including any but fuch as have Capacities and Opportu- nities of perceiving it fo be. But I find, not a Word againft this. Se£t. 12. Of the Objection taken from the Office o/ Con- firmation. WE now come to the laft of your OhjeBlom againft the Declaration and Subfcriptio7i, taken from the Ritbric in the Ofice of Confrmation, which orders, that none be admitted to Covirmm'ion before he be confirm- ed, &c. Now, in anfwer to this Objedion I faid, that it was a very becoming thing, that all Perfons fhould in the mofl folemn manner take upon themfelves their Baptifjnal Covenant : And furely, it cannot be an Excep- tion againft this (which you allow highly reafonable) ei- ther that this is to done in Prefence of the higheft Officer in the Ci^Hrc/? : or, that the 'Perfon who officiates nfes a Prayer, in which there is an ExprelTion which you do not like, tho' no part of what is there prayed for. Could I not free the Form ufed from all Exceptions, yet this could not be a Reafon for a Chrljlian to refufe to be covfrrned^ becaufe an improper Eiprelfion is ufed by ano- ther in one part of the Office, unlefs he be either a rpeah ox prejudiced Perfon : And I cannot think, that you your felf can judge it a fufficient Ground of fcriipling the thing it felf, becanfe the ^//Z'op's Prayer hath a PafTage in it you do not like. As for my faying, that you, d'lf- fevtirg Minijlers^ would have joined in impofing foii.e Things upon the People, &c. as far as CojnpUancc with the ufe of them is joining in it: that belongs to ano- ther place: And I hope it will not be faid again to be an ii?wroved Affertioyt, CHAP. KeafonaMejiefs of Conformity* 2^ i CHAP. III. Of the Oath of Canonical Obedience. W^ Hat I /rj'? obferved under this Head was, that in drawing up this Article^ you fa \r, that Mi; ifters in the CJmrcb ofEnglartd are required to fwear SubjeBion to their Ordivary, according to the Canons of the Chunh-^ and that you fpealc as if no one could, be ordained in the Church oi England^ without talcing the Oatho^ Cano7iical Obedience : Whereas, the "Words, according to the Canons of the Churchy are not in that Form of Words, in which the Ordained promife Suhjedtion to their Ordinary •, and Perfons may be ordained in the Church of England^ with- out taking the Oath of Canonical Obedience. > To which you anfwer, thefe Words, indeed, are not.jn the Oath^ but the Word C^wo«fcaZ implies as much. Now, i. Sup- -pofin^ you were never fo certain of this, yet in repre- fentingthe T^n«\ required, you ought not to infert your hiterpretations of them ( which are controverted ) as the very Ter7ns required ^ efpecially in this place, before you have fomuch as attempted to prove yours to be the on- ly true Interpretation of the Oath o^Ca7to7tical Obedience, But, 2. I was not fpeakin^r of that Oath^ but of the Pro- mife of Subjeftion to the Ordinary, in the Ojpce of Ordi- 7iation ; and in this there is not Co much as the Word Canonical to excufe your Addition. But this Promife, you fay, is liftiited to a certain Senfe by the Oath that came af- ter. So that I fee, you are refolved to leave us no room to make our Efcape •• For tho' the Word Canonical be not here, yet it is in the Oath to be taken afterwards ^ and therefore, it is implied here, becaufe that Oath was de- ligned to explain this Promife. Now, I fee not to what purpofe it can be, to give a fecond Reply to one, who is fo ready to give us any Invention of his own, rather than he will appear in the leaft miftakcn. But at the fame I ^ 7^ J Defenfe of the fame time yon flioiild have confidercd, whether 3''oit needed to have alleged the Word Cditon'ical in your De-^ fenfe: Since the Reafons againft taking the Oath^ as they arereprefentedby you, in the Name of the cjeBed Mi- vifters^ appear to be equally ftrong, whether the Word Cavonical iiad been'inferted in the Oath^ or not. You fay farther, that )'o7< never thought, much lefs afTirm'd, that Fe/fons were obliged to take the Oath of Canonical Obedi- ence ^t the time of their Ordination. Let any one judge of this from your Reprefn'natinri of this Matter now re- printed, in which yOu give this Account. In the Form of viakiiig^ordaiinng. Sec. this ^iiejlion is required to he pit to Tricfs and Deacons^ at the time of their Ordination, Will you reverently, &c. T^he Anfwer to be returned is^ I will do f), &c. An O ath alfo is adininijlred to the Ordained, ofthisTenour,Scc. Had not I reafon from hence, to fay what I did? But let us now come to the Oath it felf, a- gainft which you fay the ObjeBions lie. In order to enquire into the true Signification of this Oath, I firft fet doWri the Reafon of its being iinpofed, vix. becaiifc a Perfoh is noW coming into the Diocefe of one particular ^?/7;ci^, to aft under his Eye and Infpedi- on : From whence I argue, that it can refer to nothing but the Injundions of this particular Eifiop. To which yon anfwer, 21jis is not to be fo far extended, as if it were wholly at the Bilhop'.s Fleafure, what to require of his Cler- gy. I never faid,"that this was wholly at the Bilhop's Pleafure : But you acknowledge, that it is thus far true, that this Oath refers to the Injunctions of this particular Bifhop, that a Clergyman is not bound, by p 291. this Oath, to obferve Canons, which he himjclf dijiikes, if his Biftiop do not call upon him. From whence it follows, that notwithftanding this Oath, a Clergyman is not obliged to obferve any one of the Ca- tions (if he iliould dillil^e them all) antecedently to his Bilhop's Commands. If this be fo, how can it be true, that this O.tt/-' carries in it a plain Obligation, to comply with theCmgns, andftibmitto them in their fated Fra^icc, vjilcjs Reafonahk?iefs i?/ Conformity. tSy^ iiyilefs a Minifter have a Difpeitfatioit to the contrary ? ot that an Oblipation to comply with the Thhgs required by th6 Canons, a-^ lawful and hovefi^ is tahen for gra^ited in thU Oath, avtecedevtly to the future Coynmaiids of the Bllhop, as it isfaid in your Reprefentation? If a Clergyman be not obliged to obferve Canons which he di Hikes, unlets commanded by his Bifhop •, then how can this Oath im- ply in it an antecedent Obligation to obfc;rV'e the Canons ? or how can it refer to any thing but the future Commands of this particular Bifiop ? After this, I propofed an Interpretation of this Oath iii thefe Words, Ifwear that I vAUyield fuch an Obedience as u due, according to the Laws of Chrljl's Churchy from ait inferior Presbyter to his Bilhop, viz. a fincere\ ready, aitd. fubmijive Obedience, in all lawful and honej} things, \. Q.pro* vided he enjoin nothing but what I apprehend in my Confr.i- ence to be lawful ajtd hone ft. "Where it is plain, that I in- terpret the Word Canoiiical, as joined to the Word Obedi- ence, after the fame manner that the Word true is •, and as fignifying the Nature and Quality of the Obedience re- quired, not the Inftances in which it is to h6 exercifed : And yet this Interpretation, you fay, yields what Mr. B'dX- ter pleaded for, ttnlefs Mr. H. mean fomething different front ancient and modern EccUfaftical Canons, by the Laws of Chriffs Church which he mentions. If all that Mr. Baxter contended for, were this, that a Minifter promifed in this Oath, a lincere and ready Obedience ^ fuch an Obedience as hath always been efteemed due from an Inferior to a Superior ; and this only in fuch things as he himfelf ftould judge to be lawful : I am heartily glad to hear it 5 and not only yield that this is what the Oath obliges to, but contend, that nothing elfe can be meant in it. And whatever Laws or Canons of the Church yoa underftand, it will come to the fame : For I liDeak only of an Obedi^ ence of flich a nature, fo ready and Uncere, as is due from a Presbyter to his Bijbop. But in reprefentirg niy Inter- pretation, 3^ou leave out, for Brevity's fake, thcfe Words, vh. afncere, ready, and fubinijjive Obedience 5 by which •f nieans 274 A Defenfe of the neans yom Readers cannot fo eafily fee my meaning, or judge of the difference between the Two Interpretations. If you grant that this is all intended, that I will pay a iincere and ready Obedience to my B'lfiop in all things which I think lawful •, then this part of cur Difputeisat an end. If you do not j then you cannot fay, I have 3"ieldcd all that Mr. Baxter pleaded for : For this is di- reftly contrary to what Mr. Baxter pleaded for ; who made the Oath to have reference to the Canons, and to be an Oath of Obedience to them, and not only to a par- ticular BiJImp. But you fay, If the Oath refer to what the "hi^Q-^ (1) all fee ft to require^ ^tls merely within the Compaf of the Canons. If it be, this will not prove your former Reprefentation of this Matter to be reafonable : for, not- withftandiijgthis, it may not touch the Canom^ but as they become the Injundions of the BiJI)op j and then alfo the "Words, in all lawful and honejl Things^ leave afufficient Power to demur on any particular Canon enjoined. But who doth not know, that knows any thing of our Church, that there happen frequent Occaiions for the Bifop to in- terpofe, in Cafes not touched by the Canom ? and who would not rather think, that this Oath was defigned with a View principally to fuch Cafes ? Again, I fay, that the lajl IFords, in all lawful and honefl things, refer to all the IvjunBions of the Bifliop, and dofuppoje, that every Injun- [}Jon he lays uponyov^ may p of illy be unlaw fid, and difionefl : But it is hard in me to fuppofe this, you fay, becaufe the Bilhop is confined to the Canons, &c. Now, this is the fameMiftake repeated : For tho' the Bifiop may be fo confined, as that he cannot enjoin things contrary to the Canons ^ yet he is not fo confined, but that he may often enjoin things not contained in the Canons. But fuppofing it true, that he is fo confined •, yet it may be alfo true, that it is fuppofed poifible in this Oath, that every one of his Ivjunilions may be unlawful^ even tliofe that concern Things enjoined by the Canons. This, you fay, feemsto argue a Forgetfiilnefs of what I had [aid a little ahove^ viz. That ni tliis Oath Men fwear an Obedience according to the Reafonahlenefs of Conformity. 275 the Laws of Chrlft's Church. But cerrahily, you are re- folved not to underftand my meaning, or to let your Reader fee my own Words : For, all that I fay is. That in this Oath' Minifters fwear fuch a ready and fincere Obedience, as the Laws of Chrift's Church require f omi a Presbyter to his Bifliop •, but this is to be pradtis'd only in fuchlnftauces, as they themfelves think lawful. This I have plainly and frequently exprefTed : And how doth this contradict what I afterwards fay, that thelaft Words of the Oaih fuppofe, that it is poifible all the Bifhop's Injundions may be vnlaivful ? Cannot I promife fuch a ready Obedience to him, in all lawful Things ^ and yet fuppofe that he may enjoin unlawful Things > But fup- poUng all Minifters Judges of the Lawfulnefs of all the Injundions of their Diocelans, you fay, this will not re- concile you to the Oath, becaufe the Rules they ordina- rily go by, are enfnarmg and uvjujiifiable, and you Icnow no Warrant they have to require fuch an Oath. Now you have often acknowlcged Epifcopal Government to hclajpfiil: and how that can be exercifed without the SuhmiiTiono£ Presbyters, I know not. And if Submiffion may be praftifed, in all Cafes which you think lawful ^ certainly it may hepromifed in all fuch Cafes. And there- fore, whilft you avoid the fpeaking to this Point, this is all unneceflary j and tends only to make your Reader believe, that there are frequently fuch Grievances in the Church, as they that minifter in it know little of. We think it fufficient to' refolve to defjmr, when any thing is enjoined, which we think ttnlatpful • and not dare to enter into other Pathe, for fear only that fuch Things fhould ever be enjoined. I fav, indeed, that this Oath can refer to nothing but the future Commands of one Bi- fliop, and have proved it at large ^ and find not any thing advanced againft it, but the fame Miitake of my I Interpretation of the Oath. I have acknowledged, you fay, I that the Oath refers to Obedience, according to the Laws of ' Chiiji's Church. I am afhamed fo often to put you in mind, that my Interpretation doth in fo many Words T 2 declare, 27^ ^ J^^finfe of the declare, that the Intent of the Oath is to promife fiich a ready Obedience as the Laws of the Church require from a F/-^.s^;'t^;' to his Bifhop, in all Things which he thinks lawful. And may not this ready Obedience be promifed to the future Co??imands only of the Bifliop ? Why Ihould youfo often argue, as if you had never your felf read my Interpretation? for one would think if you had, you could not make fo ftrange an ufe of thofe Words ( according to ths Laws of Chrifl's Church ) mentioned in it. The j)arallel Cafe , I propofed, I cannot but think very much to the purpofe ^ which was only to fhew, that an under Officer may take an Oath o ' true and legal Obedience to the Lord-Mayor in all lawful things, without concerning himfelf with any thingbutthe future Commands of the Lord^Mayor, and m.ay demur upon any of his Injundions, notwithftanding this Oatli : And fo likewife, xh^Lt^iVreshyter may lawfully fwear true and Canonical Obedience to his Bifliop, with the fl^me Con- ditions, and upon the fameT^n;;.?. And it is fufficient, that you acknowledge a Sulnnijion to Bifhops lawful ^ without proving in this place their Original Right to 1 y any Injunctions upon Presbyters, Againftthis, as I have thus again ftated it, you have alleged nothing to prove! that a C/c/'^>'wuwpromifes, in this Oath, Obedience to any Commands, but what he himfelf fliall judge lawful j and this is all I am concerned about. As for my charg- ing you with Prevarication, I can find no fuch tiling in my Book •■, and if you will point m.e to the place, I pro- mife you to expunge it. My Harangue, as you ftile it in the following Pages, had but too jult a Foundation : And I appeal to more unprejudiced Judges than your lelves, if your Management of this Head gave me not a fair Occafion of" faying fomething againll fuch hard and: unjuft Interpretations. B^t Hill you iiilift, that according tomy own Interpretation, aMiniJleris bound to obey the Canons, when called upon by his Billiop : And I again anfwer, that, according to my Interpretation, lie cannot be obliged by tliis Oath to obey any Injundlions, but what Reafonahknefs of Conformity. 277 what he himfelf thinks lawful. Yoii'ftill mlfunclerftaiW me, and applj thofe Worcfs, accordv-g to the Larva cj ChrifsChvnh, to the Inpncesoi Obedience, which I ap- plied only to the nature of it. I may promife fuch a read 7 Obedience as the Laws of the Church require from a Presbyter to his Eilhop, in all lawful Things -, and yet demur about the Lawfulnefs of any of his IvjunBiovs, tho' they be the fane with the antecedent Injundions of the Church. I fay, I may demur, notwithftanding any things in this Oath, in which I only promife a ready Obedience in all lawful Things. But it isan unaccount- able thing to me, that you fhould allege hardly one Confidcration under this Head, but what is founded up- on your own Miftake ^ and that you cannot underftand that Obedience to the Canons, antecedently obliging, cannot be Obedience to a particular Bilhop •, and there- fore cannot be promifed in an Oath which wholly re- fpeds one particular Biiliop. I have faid, and ftill do fay, that Obedience is due to thofe Canons, which are fuppofed to be in force, without this Oath ^ and that Obedience to the Canons is not promifed in this path, but when they become the Commavds of my particular Bilhop : And that then no ahfolute Obedience is promifed in this Oath, becaufe the laft Words give you a Liberty of judging about the Lawfulnefs of any of his IvjunBi- ens. And this is not to fay and tinfay, or to run backward ?.nd fornhtrd, as you would make your Readers believe •, for thcfe Things are perfedtly reconcileable. And me-. thinks , you , v/ho have acknowledged , That a Clergyman Is not bound, by thh Oath, pag. 291. to obferve Canons, irhlch hhnfclf dljllkcs, If his Bifnop do not call upon him, might eafily acknowledge, that this is no Oath of Obedience to the Canons, but to a particular Biihop •, and that fince the Limitation, in all lawful and honcfl Things, reftrains the whole Obedience promifed in this Oath, it cannot but belong to every par- ticular Injunction, of what nature foever, and give a Liberty, and a Right to demur upon any Command laid T 5 upon $78 ^ Defenfe of the upon us, unlefs we be otherwife obliged not to demur upon fome particular Commands. Now, if there be any Matters of Practice to which we are otherwife obliged, the reafon of our not demurring upon them, is not be- caufe they are the Ivjiinlilom of this particular B'ljhop ; but becaiiif- we are, on other Accounts, obliged not to do it. I fa}r^ therefore, that no ahfolute Obedience is pro- mifed in this Oath to the Canons^ even when they be- come the lyjun&ions of the Biihop •, becaufe this Oath promifes no Obedience, but one limited to fuch hijmiBi* cm only as we think lawful •, and our Obligation to obey the Canona refults not from this Oath any farther, than as they are enjoin'd, and as we think them lawful IvjiinBwns. Ai^id it is your own Willingnefs to find out Contradidtions where there are none, that makes thefe. Things unintelligible to you. But, becaufe I acknowledge that one who deligns to minifter in this^Church, ought firft to be fatisfied about fuch Canons as refpedt his own Behaviour, and are fup- pofed to be now in force ; and refolve to Pag. 29^. conform to them ^ you fay, you dejire no more than what is contained in this Concejfion^ and sajily to be inferred from it: For if this will hold, then itfolloTPS, that you fioiild not aH: honeftly and fnrlyin taking this Oath \ and that others who take this Osth, ( which vas dejigned to give the Church AJfurance en this Behalf ) before they are fo fatisfied, 7nay be charged with Diffimu- lation •, andfo, every thing that you aim at. But let us a little coniider this. I acknowledge, that a Minifter ought, on other Accounts, to obey the Canons now in force, without any refped to this Oath-, therefore it follows, that this Oath was dcfgned to give the Church AJfu- rance on this Behalf-^ therefore it follows, that he is obli- ged to obey them by this Oath ^ therefore it follows, that lie cannot honejly promife to obey a particular Bifliopj 7n all lawful Things, without being fatisfied about the Law- fulnefs of the Canons. You acknowledged but now, that this Oath obliged not to the Obfervation of Canons, un- lefs a Perfon be called upon by his Bifliop to obferve them i ReafonahJejiefs Some few, it ma}'^ be, imagine themfelves polTeffed of a true Chriftian Temper ; But of how fmall Importance is this to be efteemed, when we confider the great Nunibers of thofe who are wholly unacquainted with it 5 when we daily fee how much Heat and Violence is entirely owning to our religimis VA- ftinftions ^ and what a Handle they give, as well to de- igning Men at Hom.e, as to our profcfled Enemies A- , broad, to inflame us againft one another, and to make us thelnftruments of bringing about their Defigns > Since, therefore, this is fo very evident, and open to the Obfcr- ration of all ^ and iince youivill all agree, that it is the indifpenfable Dntj of us all to do whatever lies in our Power towards an eftablifhed Peace and Umty -^ confider whether the way to accomplifh this, be to look after our own Tempers onl}^, without regard"ng,t]]e evil Effects ' our Pra&ice may have upon others ^ or to confult the na- tural Tendencies cf our Actions, and to guide our Pra- ttice, in all lawful Things, as we find it m.oft conducive to the public Pfttc^, and leaft likely to prove the Occafi- on of Heat, andDifcord, and Variance, toothers. This feems to me plainl_y recommended to all Chri- fiavs, by the Law of Nature, and the Gofpel of Jefus Chrift ^'tho' they could be fccure cf prefevving their ov/11 Tempers and Falhons, within the Bounds of Regularity and Deccnc)% without this. For this refults evidently from that Obligation ChriJiLiv^ are under, to regard con- fcientipufly tlic Good of their Keighbour, the Honour of their ho\y Proreilion,and the Intcrcft(/f that Society they belong to. But indeed, were they only to confult the Happinefs of tiieir ov/nBrc?.Il:s,andhadthey no Concern with A Verfiiafive to Lay-Conformity. 69! with any befides themfelVes, this would certain!)'" be the fecureft Way of confulting and eftablifhing their own Quiet, and good Temper ^ to avoid whatever might pro- biibly , or could polFibly, tetid in its Nature to taint theit Hearts with Sourncfs, or Malice, or Paffipn^ as all will acknowledge, that Divijiojis do ^ pf what fortfocver they be. However, I put it not upon this, at prefent, becaufe fome may evade this, and pretend to the greateli Securi- ty of their own Qjarity, and good iCe?nper : And becaufe t write to thofe, who muft be fenfible, that we haVe all jf us a folemn Account to give of our Behaviour, as it refpedts the World about us •, and that we are all feverely [to anfwer for the evil Eitefts of our PraBhe upon Humane Society J if it be found atlaft that we might have preven- ted tliem, and would not ^ or that we might have {een the w-ay to Peare, and yet wilfully Ihut our E^'^es againft ;the Light. This, therefore, I lavdoWn as a certain Rule to dired us all in our Conduct, That it is ourindifpeiiJahU puty to chiife that Method of PraBice^ which tends moft to }khe Happitiefs of that Society to which we belong -^ provided it pe covfijlentwith that Duty we owe to God j and with our owit Eternal Salvation, IV. This being a certain and undoubted Maiim, it bllows from hence, that it is! your indifpenfable Duty :o pradtife 6-ow/^);t Confonnity to the Efiablil/jed Churchy as long as you acknowledge, that nothing is required of you in it, which is iinful or unlawful : for this lies within prour Province ^ and you cannot poihbly aft a better part^ Sowards the re-uniting the divided Hearts of this Nation* 5rou muft either conform, or feparate : And if your Choice |be to be determined by the Maxim now laid down, it is impoihble 3^ou fhould rcfufe to conform. For all the World knows, and we daily feel, the miferable Confe- Iquences of religious Diftindions and Divilions. It being therefore fo evident, that your Co77/o;7wjt_7 would tend to the removing thefe Evils, and to the Unity of this Nation, I ihall not labour to pro-ve to you, w]^at you muft be al- I U 2 ready i 2^2 A Pc^fuiipve to L^v-Conformlty. ready fuUv convinced of. Biit tho' this be fovcry plain aii.l oper. Lo the Capacities of all ^ and tho' your Obliga^ XiowoCcvfonnhyht, on this Account, fo n^anifeft and ' mvdcniable -^ yet I am fcnfible, that there are fome Hin-J drances and Stumbling-bloclvS in your way to fo good a'. rraclice ^ and that yon appear to your felves to have- Reafons on your llde,fufKcient to incline you againft that Covforyn'uy which would be fb great a Step to Peace a^ i i/>//or araongft us. My Bufinefs, therefore, 'at prefer.: ftiall be, to examine thofe /?f.t/o;/.7, and to endeavour to re.r.ove thofe /i/z«J/"jj/c?5, hoping that you will j'ldge fin- cerely and impartially in a Matter of Co great and uni^ verfal Concern. • V. One of thefe Hindrjnces I talce to be foimd:ed oTi that reafon, you think, you have to exped: that the £/a- hlij!)mcnt Ihould be altered according to your Minds. For' lince our Unity may be effecied as well by the CcjnpUj-:. ^ of the ConfonniJIs with ToUj as by your Covfoi mhy to the' , Church ?(\ic3.dcy eJiAlliJljei-^ yon fecra to imagine, that it ^ is as much the Duty of the. CorformiJ!^^ to comply with 2oH, as it is your Duty to comply with them •, and that it is as rcafonablefor }oato expect t/>t';>Conformit3' to yoif, as it is for them to expect ^owr Confurmit}'' to the/n : And fo not to think your felves obliged to Corjormhy on this Account. Now in order to remove this Difficulty out of your way, I Ihall endeavour to {hew you, 1. That it is not as reafonahle for yoit to expeft their Compliance with vow, as for them to expc*^ yo-ar Confor- mity to the Eftjblijhcd Church. And, 2. That, fuppoiing it were as rcafonable, yet this would be no gcod Argument againltycurCor/orw/fry. T. That it is not as rcafonable for^'ow to expect C Coir.nliance of the Conformifn with yow, as it is for them expect your Covformity to t>:e Church alread}^ eJlMifc And i::deed, I cannot think that ycu your felves c.<:i think it fo : For yon all feem to agree with us in t) great Kecciiltyv or at leaft Expediency, of fome partic lar 11 ji Perfita%e to Lay-Con forinity. 2 9 ? li?r Form of Church Government, and Worllilp, and of the Elhblilhment of this by Civil Laws. Were it in 3-our Power, there is no doubt but yon would think your felves obliged to eftahlifli that particular Form, which to your felves fhould icem moft agreeable to the Nature of the Gofpel^ and the End a^ public Ajfcmhlies. Now you muft be fenfiblc, that an Ejfahlijhneiit can lignify nothing, nor Ibeofany ufe, unlefsU be f^ippofed, either that it is fo I apparently perfed, and ^o fuitable to the Wiflies of all IPerfons, that none can find f^iult with it, or clifcover any 'jthing amifs in the CovJIitnt ion ofit.: Or, that there is an lObligation lying upon every Chriftian to have fo much '?^.^gaTd to pifblic Peace avd D:'ce7!cy, as to conform himfelf to what is efTablifiied, if nothing be rc(]uired of him but jwhat he acknowledges lawful. As to the former of thefc Suppofitions •, it is undenia- ,bly bej-ond the Powerof Manto frame any Conftitution, for draw up any Fan?!, or DireUory for If^orJInp, that fn:-ill "">€ agreeable to allPerfons concerned, or free from De .; efts and Im.perfections. And therefore, were the ejiablif/}^ d Form exadh^fiich as}'03/ could wjfh, there is no Argu- hent 3''ou could urge to prefs others to Conformity to if, but what concludes now for the NccelTity of your Coi.«? formity to what is now cflablifhed -, nor can there be \wj reafcn for \o-iu' expecting nmv that the ejiablifjed Fonn l.hnuld bealter'd according to yovr "VViflies, which would ■ lotequall}^ encourage others to expedt the Alteration of niy other Fftablifiment, had yon oi'derM it exactly as ycu thought beft. If, therefore, jnn JJ^oidd not think it rca- Ibnable in others to with-hold their Covforjfiity till the fflablijhed Form was altered to their Minds, provided it jvere fuclias vo7/ could wi(h it ; you cannot think it rea- sonable in rour felves to cxped the Alteration of what is low ejlablified, merel}'- bccaufe it is not agreeable to your Jefires. And as _yow would, in that Cafe, think it much nore reafonable for thofe others to covfonn to vour Efta- fhfi?nei:t, than to require the Alteration of it to tneir ^inds : So judge concerning your, felves now, who ar- U 5 exadlj 294 APerfuafive to Lay -Conformity. exadlly in the fame Circumftances •, and think it much more reafonable for )ioK to comply with what is alre^y £J}yl'Ujl)ed^ than to infift upon the Alteration of it accor^ ding to yi'Ur Wifhes. For, if there can he no Argument urged now for Separation, under pretence of infifting upon Alterations, that might not with equal force be ur- ged hy n^any others, had Tou 3i^our felves framed the EJia- , blifiment •, and i'iyoit would thinlc it unreafonable in thofe ] others t'.) cxpedt that the EJlabliJIment fhould be new mo- I deird tr, their Minds-, then certainly there can be no j good Argument urged for your felves, in thefe Circum- ftances : Nor can it be fo reafonable for you to expect the Compliance of the Coyifonnijla with you, as for them to ex- n^t&your Compliance with the Chwch cihczdj EJ}abUJ})eJ. And this leads us to the other Suppojition I made, which is apparently the Opinion of all who.deiire any EJlabliJIj- wevt^ as you always Item to do, viz. That there is an Obl'gation upon every Chrijlian, to conform himfelf to what is Eftablifled •, provided nothing , "be required of him, but what he judges to be Lawful, ' This is plain to all who plead f-.r an EJlabliflwient : For otherwife, what can any EJlabliJI)me7it fignify? To v/hat purpcfe fliould we defire or labour after it, unlefs fuch an Obligation be fuppofed ? It is in vain to hope that any EjlabliJImejit can be fo framed, as that m.any Perfons will not imagine fomg Defedls and Imperfedicns in it : And if this Imagination be fufficientto excufe them from com- plying with the EJiabJiJI)7ne7it^ it is wholly in vain to de- 111?, or propofe any fuch thing. If therefore an Efta- hlijlment be neceflary, or expedient, the Rule muft be, that it is the Duty c{ diWChnfiiam to complj- with it, if no linful Terms of Communion be required c.f them^ un- lefs you will lay all EJlabliJlmicvts open to infinite Divi- :(ir,ns, and fruftrate the very Lnd for which alone they are defigned. And if this be the Rule we are to go by, you cannot but think it your Duty to comply with the Church already EJiablifned, For that there ought to be an Eftabli{):iment, is yowr Opinion as well as the Opinion of the I A Perfttafwe to Lay- Con formlty . 2 95 the Covfonnifs. It is plain, therefore, that it is the con- cern of thofe who are in Authority, to frame fuch an one, as they judge moft agreeable to the Gofpelof Chrift, and the Ends of Religions AiTemblies. And it is plain, that nothing remains for others to do, but to enqiiire whether they can lawfully conform to this E^MJ/jhient, or no. And from hence it appears,that itc^nlwfbe as readniable for yott to expedt the Cotnpliajice o^ your Superiors with yow, as it is f T them to expect }'onv- Conformity to what they have £/r/>/;/;?i. For it appears, how meanly foever you may judge of their Efiablifhmevt, that thcj have done their Duty, according to the befl: of their Judgment : And fo nothing remains, but that you fliould do yonr Duty. And if an EfiahtiJIment can fcrve any good pur- pofe, it muft be your Duty to comply with it, if you find nothing in it contrary to your Duty to God. But, 2. Suppoiing it were as rcafonablc for you to expe£l the Comidiavxe o^ joux Superiors with yoii^2.s it is for them to expect jGiiv Covformity to what they have EJhblifljed : yet this would be no Argument at all againil: your Com- fonint ,as long as no iinful Term o[ Cof?imiinio7i is requir'd cf you. For fuppoiing that they do not behave themfelves exadly as you think they ought, and will not comply, juli according to your defires •, I fee not how tliis can poflibly diffolve your Obligation to confult the Peace and Uiiityo'f the Church of Ch/iJL Put the Cafe, that You your felves were in Authorit}'-, and had contrived and eftablilhed a particular Form of Church-Government, and Worlhip, according to the beft Light, and the trueft Judgment of your own Confciences ^ would you think it juftifiable, or tolerable, that a number of Men fnould feparate from your EJlablijhnefjt^ not bccaufe any thing is required of them v/hich they account finful, but be- caufe you would not comply witli ail their Demands, and new model it according to all their Wilhes ? And yet this is juft the Cafe before us. Your Superiors have eftablift-ied a Fonn^ as it was their Duty to do, agreeably to their beft Jud^m^nt. 7ou do not jud^e any thing i^i y 4 their ^9^ -^ Per fua five to Lay-Conformity. their Conftitutinn unlawful, as far as your Compliance is con.cerne(1. But you think it highly rcafonable that they fhould adl according to 3)o«r Judgments, and make Alterations according to your Defires : And becaufe they refufe yo do this, therefore you will feparate from them. Tills, I fay, is what jow could never cxcufe in yourfelves. Thk is what tends to the diffolving all Order^ and Deceyicy, yi the World. For though Obedi- ence be not fuppofed due to the Fcrfovs whom you think unreafonable ^ 3^et certainly a ftrid: Regard is due to public Feace and Unity : And to what purpofe do we talk of fiich an Obligation upon all Men ? Or to what end do we take \.\it£Q facred Words into our Mouths •, if we can difpenfe with all regard to them,'upon fuch Pretences as. thefe? if our Obligation to ComyliancehQ dillolved wheuT ever the Judgment of our Superiors is not conformable to oiir own, it is in vain for us to fpeak of an EftabUfi- we7it : And if there be never any neceility for us to re- gard Ftace2L\\^ Unity ^ but when the EjtabliJIment of our ^S'zr- pi'/'io'sis agreeable to our Wifhes,wedo but profane thofe bleiTed Words, when we moft pretend to exalt and mag' pifre them. Certainly, it is the very Spirit of the Gofpel, lO CO iply even with the unreafonable demands o^ others^ I mean, with what feems to us founded on no gr(3und ^ ratner than to give Occafion to theleaft degree of /)i/lor(^, and Hatred, in the World. It is our Duty, to forgive the Iharpeil" Injuries that can be offered us by our Brethren .* Kor can we difpenfe with this Duty under pretence that it is as much their Duty to make us Reparation, and e. rreai our Pardon, as it is ours to be reconciled to them. Such intcrpretaiions as this would effedlually render vain, and ufclefs, all the Precepts of the Go 1 pel to this purpofe. And if in tht cafi of private Perfons and Equals, we are indifpenfably obliged to regard Tejcc and Concord, even th©' they periift in their unreafonable Treatment of us \ certainly much more, in the cafe of Superiors, are we obliged to have regard to the fame great Concerns, pro- vided nothing finful be required of us .• Becaufe it is their Duty A Perfuafive to Lay-Conformity. 297 . Duty to frame an EJlahViJIment for us ^ becaufe they mull be fuppofed to have framed it according to the heft light the/ enjoyed j becaufe the}^ defign no injury to any pri- vate Perfon ', and becaufe there can be no Peace witJiout iuch an Obligation upon us. Nor can their refufal to do what you think reafonable, any more excufe you from Compliance in all lawful things, th^nyour refufal to do what they judge reafonable, can in your own Opinion, cxcufe ?/;£•«/ from Co»ip/i^?wt:c with \0M. Befides all this •, if we fhould fuppofe it as reafonable for your Superiors to ccmply with you, as for yaii to com- ply with them •, You muft, on the other hand, acknow- ledge it as reafonable for _yoz/ to comply with them^ as for them to comply with you. Now this Argument, it is plain, holds as ftrongly againft their Compliance with you^ as againft )'oz/r' Compliance with them. T: it be good Reafoning on your fide, it is equally good on theirs : And then there cannot poilibly be the leaft ground ever to hope for an Agreement. But how ought {uchdin Arg%iment to be treated amongft Chriftians, as demonftrates the ut- ter impoflibility of Peace and Umty amongft them ? But if }'o« will not allow it to be good Reafoning on their part, as it is plain, from 3^our Expedations, you will not ^ then you muft either fhew us, that it is not the fame Reafoning •, or you muft think it no more an Argument againft 3foHr Compliance with t/;f7K,than it is againft' ^Z^dr Compliance with you. For the matter plainly comes to this •, if this be a good Argument againft your Compliance, it is equally good againft the Compliance of your Supe- riors : And then you have no Reafon to ex-pe^their Com- pliance with you. But if jrou will not allow it to be a good Argument againft their Compliance with you, you can- not think it a good Argument againft your Compliance \vith them : And then you have no reafon from hence againft pz/r Compliance with the?n. And indeed, the only reafon 3^00 can have to expefl the CoJfipliiVice of your Superiors, muft be this ; becaufe it is the Duty of all Men, as well thofe in Authority as in Sub' 298 A Pe.rfuafive f^La^^-Coafonnity. j^w^/V^/o??, to confult, as much as poflibly the}^ can, the Peace ^wA. Concord o{ the Society to which they belong: For the intrinficjiiftice of )'o7/r demands cannot fo eafily appear to them as this : And ought not to move them any farther than it appears to them. And if this be the ground of )'-our moft reafonable Expedtations, this is not particularly thir cafe, but touches your felves very nearly. For if this be the Duty of all Men, it is as much your Duty as theirs : And it will be found a lamentable excnfe, to plead before God at thelaft Day, th?it you neg- lected to promote Concord and Unity amongft Chriftians, becaufe others neglected it ^ andthatj'oH refufed todo}o«r Duty, becaufe others refufed to do what}'07< accounted to be their Duty. I hope therefore, I ma}'' fafely conclude, that there cannot be fo great Reafon for your Superiors Compliance with 3'o», as there is for )'ow;' Compliance with Them : Or, fuppofing the contrary, that it is your Duty, not with ft an i~ ijig, to havejitch a regard to Peace and Unity, as to comply Tpith Them by cojtforming to the Eftablifhment already made by them, VI. The Second Argument I fhall mention, by which you defend your Pradice, and fatisfy your Confciences ivyoui Separatioji, is founded on that regard you are ob- liged to have to your own Edification, in your attendance upon Public Aff'ejnblies. You argue, that jom are indil^ penfably obliged to confult your own fpiritual Profit and Impr vement^ that this you cannot do fo well, by con- forming conftantly to the Church Eflablified, a^ by fre^ quenting Separate Ajfemblies; and that therefore, you think your ielves under an Obligation to feparate from the Church of England^ This I take to be ?lx\ Argument the moft univerfally received, and the moft heartily embra- ced, of any that concern your ASt^/^jmfzow, and therefore, I fhall be the more careful to examine the full force of it, And, under this Head, I hope to ftiew you, I, That there is nothing wajiting in the Conftitution of the Church 4 Perfmfive to Lay -Conformity. 299 Church 0/ England, that you can fuppofe 7tecefary to your private Edification. 2. That after your private Edi{icution is fo far covfulted, it is your Duty to regard the public Edification of the whole Church o/Chrift. 3. That you camwt covfult the Edification of the Church of Chrifi; more effe&ually, than by promoting Peace and Con- cord amongjl Chriftians. Thefe threeVomts will very much help ^to determine your Duty, as far as the matter of Edif cation is concer- ned. T. That there isnothivg wanting in the Conftitution of the Church of England, that you can fiippofe vecefary to your private Edification. The Ends of all our Public AJfemblies on Religious Accounts, are completely anfwered, ii the Conftitution oF our Public Services be fo framed, as that we can praife Almighty God, and pray to him as we ought •, and be perfectly inftru^led in our Duty, accor- ding to his Will. For the former of thefe purpofes, the Liturgy isdefigned : For the latter, the Serjjions coni\am\y Preached, together with thofe Poniojis of 5(7 iptiire that are ^cad to the People, in the daily Service of the Church. Kow, I cannot but think, that in the ferious Ufe of this Liturgy, you may be more fecure of offering up to God fuchp'raifes and Pra vers as are acceptable to him, and fit for Public and Genej-al Occafions, than you can be in Rnjfeparate Apmbly, where the whole is left to the Difcretion and Abilities of the Minifter. There is nothing in this Service indecent ^ nothing unfuitable to the Ma- jefi:yofhim who receives it, or unbecoming the Charact- er of thofe who offer it. It is compofed of Cojifeffwns -, of Praifes, and Tha77fgivings ^ of Prayers and Inter cejjio'ns •, and thefe very well adapted to the Conditions and Obliga- tions, and Necelfities of the generality oi Chriftians. And what could you wifh for more in a Public Service ? Or, where can you go, where you can be certain of fo good and fo proper Alfiftances ? If you fay, you have been prefein at this Service^ and find little entertainment in f ^ it •, ^oo A ?erjuapve to Lay- Conformity. it^ that it is dry and jejune-, unapt to move your Af- fections, and raife your Devotions ^ confider whence this rnuft^iave proceeded. Have jon come to it with a hearty good Will, and a iincere deiire of- relilhing \X ? Hai'-e you thrown out of your Minds all Prejudices, and en- deavoured to cure all that indifference to it, which a long difufe may have caufed ? Have you attended to it with Application and Serioufncfs ? And, above all, have you prepared your Hearts before Hand, and endeavoured to furnifh them with fiich Thoughts, and fuch Aifedions, as are proper to be exprefTed in all the feveral parts of 'Puh^ He jrorfiip ? This is the main Point of all : And v/ho- ever hath confcientioufly done this, I am perfwaded, will not lightlj^fpeak evil of the EJfaHified Liturgy ^ and will not ealily be induced, either to treat it as a cold and empty Service, or to prefer fuch Compofitiotn before it, as he muft join with as foon as he hears them, and often before he can pafs a true Judgment upon them. This in- deed is true, that the Plainnefs and Simplicity of the Liturgy^ renders it more intelligible to all Capacities,than an}'^ F/ayen fet up in op^wfition to it : But this Plainnefs ,is not fuch as can be defpifedby any ot thegreateft Senfe ♦, and is fo far from being a Blemifli, that it is an Excel- lence in it, and ought to recommend it to the Approba- tion and life of all amongft us. And, on the other iide, it muft be acknowledged by all who have confidered it, that it is fo fram'd, as to be capable of exprelling the de- vout Affeftions of all who briug any Devotion along with them^ and of exciting, and awakening, all fuch Religi- ous PalTionsas are neceffary, or becoming, in their pro- per Places, and upon proper Occasions. If, therefore, you defire any EJlabllJIid Form of irorjlnp^ how much greater reafon have you to be thankful, tliat this is fo well fuited to the End of it, than to feparate your felves from the ufe of it, becaufe it is not, in every Exprellion, what you could wilh it > And as the EJiablified Chv/xh hath thus provided for your worfhipping God, as becomes ChnJUam ♦, fo alfo it is A ferfuafive to Lay-Conformity'. gOi is certain and tevident, that there is no one Point of Duty and Praftice, which you cannot be as fecure of learning, under the Mhnfiry of this Churchy as o!" any other what- ever ^ that y^u may be fare of hearing all the Doftrines of the Gofpel honeftly and compleatly delivered, and all the' Alotives of it fairly and affeftionately propofed.. The Portions of Holy Scripture that make up a coniiant Part of the daily Service, are of excellent Ufe to this pur- 3")ofe : And the Preacliing of the Minijfers in this Church, is, at leaft, as fufficicnt for this End, as a7iy that is oppo- fed toit. ^ Nor need I ufe more Words upon this Head,' becaufe the Matter is too plain, and manifeft, to be de- nied. 7/,What is it, therefore, that can induce you to leave the EfiabViflwd Church, under pretence of Edification ^ Th^ Liturgy of it is fo framed, that you may praife God, andb pray to him, in every refpedl, as becomes the beft Cbri- fiij7ix : And if it do not feem, at firft hearing, fo moving, and a freeing as 3rou could wifh 5 you ought to be wil- ling to think, that it proceeds rather from fome defed: ill your felves, than from the coldnefs of that ^ and to con- lidcr, that it is fully fufficient for the expreffing, and ex- citing, all the devout AfFedions that are necelfary to Chrijiians aflembled together. And the Teaching part is fo managed, that you cannot fear the want of any ne- cefTary and ufeful InJiriiBions, And if you can worfhip God, and be taught to live, in all refpeds, like Chrifiiam^ as well in the Communion of the EJiablified Church, as in any Separate Congregation ; then, certainly, there is jiothing wajiting iii.the Conjiitiition of this Church that yon can flip" pofe necejfary to your private Edification. T]\t fccond Pro- pofitioii I undertook to fpeak to, under this Head, will not reqtiire fo many Words, viz, ■2. Tb~t, after yotir private Edification is this far con- fiilted it is your Dmy to regard the public Edification ofthff whoU C]iurch of Chrifl. This, I fay, will not require much llluftration, becaufe I have already touched upon it i ^nd becaufe all thofe acknowledge the Truth oi it, ' in 502 A PerJuaJ/ve to Lay-Conformity. in other Words, who ever plead for Peace ^ all who ar- gue for Co7icejfto7is^ or for Conformity on any Terms ^ all who acknowledge that Chnjl'iam are concerned in the Good of their Brethnv^ and the Happinefs of the World about them. And who is there fo littk acquainted with the Nature and Defign of the Chrijlian Religion^ that doth not acknowledge this ? And that is not fcniible . what a Strefs the Go/pf/ lays upon the Social Virtues, and with how much Aftedion it recommends to us the Advantage andlntereftof the whole Chrijliayi Church ? Firft, indeed, we are to regard our felves, fo far as to fecure our own Innocence, and to pay that Worfhip to God, which is due to him : But afier this is fecured, he that moft ten- derly regards the Peace of Humane Society, and the Happinefs of his Chrijlian Brethren^ is moft likely to Be high in the Glory of Goi, and in the Favour of his Lord and Mafter. And if the Confiderations of Veace and Love, be not of force enough to induce us to conform to a particular J^?^/^i, or ejlablijl)ed Churchy in which we can worfhip God acceptably, and promote our own Salvati- on ', then certainly. Peace and Love are infigniiicant Tri- fles, and not worthy to be put in the Balance againft the leaft Fancy, or Humour of our own. But this cannot be : And we have more reafon, from almoft every Page of the New Tejlamevt, to think, that one who frequents ihe eJ}abliJJ:ed If^orjljip, not becaufe it is the moft accept- able to him, or moft agreeable to his prefent Sentiments, "but only on the Account of Peace, and for fear of giving Encouragement to fuch Diftiiidtions as may prove the Occafion of much Enmity and lU-tpill amongft Chriftians 5 that this Man, I fay, ftiall never find any reafon to com- plain of the fmall and inconfiderable Defeats of it, and fhall be found at laft . to have confalted even his own pri- vate Edification, much more than thofe who have follow- ed other Methods, and adted upon other Principles. But I am to ihew, ;. That you cannot confult the Edification of the Church o/Chrift vwre effeBually^ than by promoti7ig Peace and Con- cord A Ferfuajive to Lay- Conformity. 905 cord rfwow^ Chriftiaiis. Knowledge, faith St. Vaul, I Cor. 8. I. pujfethitp, Init Charity edifieth. And the Confequence of this is, that every thing that can promote Charity and Concord amongft Chrijliam, is to be the great Employ- ment of their Lives 5 and every thing that tends to de- llroy thofe great Goods, and to promote Strife and Bif- cord, is confcientionfly to be avoided by them. No So- ciety was ever built w/?, and made folid and durable, in any other Methods, but thofe of Concord ^ whereas the moft folid and firm Societies in the World, have been difturbed and diifipated, and totally ruined by Difcord, What then do we think will become of that Chrifiian So' ciety to which we belong, if we thinlc much to difregard our own private Humours and Fancies for the fake of the Piihlic, and go on to purfue fuch Methods, as have already inflamed us againft one another, and daily prove the Caufes of much lU-will and Hatred amongft us > Was the Chriftian Church ever edified^ or built up,by the Strife and mutual Aitimojities of thole who compofed it ? Or, can we hope to deliver it down fecure and unfhaken toPofte- rity, by fuch a Behaviour ? Who would think that Chri- /zW^ihould not be ready to facrifice any private Opi- nion to the Intereft of their common Chrijiiamty ^ And yet, M^e live in thofe unhappy Times, in which Chrijlians are rather labouring to find out Arts to ruine the common Caufc, than willing to bend their own Defigns and Opini- oi^s to the Support of it ^ and are rather Itudious to keep alive the miferable Diftra6tions of the Church of ChriJ}^ than ready to cure and compofe them, even by the ealieft and moft commendable Methods. Nothing adds fo much Glory to the Chrijlian Churchy as the Union of Chrijiians, And as nothing gives more Beauty to it, fo nothing gives more Strength than this. Nothing makes it more firm, and happy, in it felf •, and nothing renders it more ami-* able in the Eyes of others, or gains more Profelytes to it. Nothn:!g conlVquently can more confultthe Edification o^ the Chrijlian Church, than to promote Peace and Love a- Kiongft Chrijiians ^ and nothing can more become yoii, than 364 ^ Verfuafive to Lay -Con form ity. than to make this the great Eiidof your A6tions : efpecl" ally confidering, that you cannot confult the Edification of the Chrifiim Churchy without confulting yoXir own pri- vate Edification-^ an^ that it is impolTible you yottr felves Ihould be more efFedually edified^ than by regarding the Public Good, and by promoting the Practice of thofejpeace- able and charitable Virtues, which m^ke up fo great a part of the Gofpet. And finceit is fo apparent, that your, private Edifica- tion may be fufficicntly promoted in your Cow wmw/ow with the Efiahlifi^ed t htircb '^ that, after that Point is fecUred, it is your Dutjr to regard the Edification of the Church oi Chriji-, and thztyou cannot confult the Edification of the Chrifiian Church more efFedually, than by promoting Teace and Concord amongft C.hrijiiam : I need not tell you what, follows from hence. For if it be your indifpenfableDuty to promote Feace and Concord amongft Chrifiians , then you are indifpenfabb/ obliged to avoid whatever tends to Unchariiahlenefs and T)iJj''ention amongft them. And, if the Method in which you are at prefent engaged, do mani- feftly give Occafion to conftant Difcord and Violence amongft us, remember, that you are to anfwer for it • And what Account will you be able to give of it, when you cannot deny, but tliat you might have been in a fe- cure way to Heaven, without entring upon this Method? Judge therefore, in your felves, whether you can do any thing more worthy of the Nameof C/^ri/?, than to help^o put an End to the Mifery and Shame of this part of the Chrifiian World, by uniting with that Church from which you have feparated. And, from all this laid together, judge in your felves, whether there be any thing in the Argument commonly drawn from Edification^ fufficient to ^ivert you fro^ confiant Conformity to it. VII. But, notwithftanding what hath been hitherto urged, you may perhaps think, that the Toleration, al- ^ lowed by the fameLflir-s which havt efiablifi^ed tht Church of £7;^/c7Wi^ii\ in upon any other Precepts of the Gof^el, A ?er[uafive to Lay-Conformity. 309 Go/p.^/, or upon any of the Dilates of f(iiin_cl Reafoiu And fince it is certain, tliat the Vecicc^ and Bapphicp ofSuiety^ is mnR pairionately recommended to the cnre, and regard of Chriftians •, it is as certain, that Moderation cannot di{^ folvc the Obligations of Chriji'iavs to have a tender Con- cern for the good of the whole Churchy or make it an in- different MaUer to them, which way of Behaviour they chufe : But, whatever the true Notion of it be, it certainly leaves them under the fame Obligations to promiOte Feace^ to which the Laws of their Majler have bound them up. But there is jQi another Notion of this Virtue, accor- ding to whicii it is declared by fomc, to be the Nature, and Office, of Chrijtian Moderation, to regulate our Opi- nions concerning every ^hing, and to teach us not to va- lue any thing above what it deferves, and not to lay a greater v/cight upon anv Matter, than the Nature of it requires. Now, though this cannot be a juft Account of that Moderation WQ find fpoken of in the Nen^ 'Tejlavient, yet it is certain, that it is our Dut}^ to fix juft Notions of things incur Minds, and to value every thing according to its Excellence, and no farther. And if any Perfons think iit to call it by the Naire of Moderation, it is not worth while to difpute that Point. But I muft then ob- ferve, that Moderation^ in this jSIotion of it, hatli not the leaft Tendency, in iLs Nature, to hinder your conjiant Covfonmty to the Church of England, or to induce j^ou to give any Encouragement to a Separation from it. For if it be tlie peculiar Office o[ Moderation, to keep your A^alne for every thing within due Bounds ^ and to regulate it fo, that it being not placed upon an3r Object in an undue Meafiu'c : It will, indeed, teach you to value every thing iefs than your own eternal Solvation : but it cann- 1 teacli 3'-on to undervalue the Peace and Concord of Chrijfian^^ as Trifles of no Importance. No, the Value ofthej'e will be always. great, next to your own everlafling Happinefs ; and cannot be affected, or altered, by Chriftian Modera- tion : Which, if it rightly fettle the due place of every thing, will certainly fix thefe in a very high Degree, and make them fecond to notljing but Salvation it felf. And^ J5 T o A Perfuafive to Lay -Con form ity. ^f MoHercitlon it felf, axordingto this Account of it, will unavoidably lead you to this, how can you fhew this Re- gard, that is apparently due to thefe Goods, whilft you refufe that Cojtformky to a lawful EJIahliJImevt, which would mightily promote them ^ and.givc Encouragement to thnfe Divifions, which are the grcatefi: hindrances to them? And how can you be faid, in this Condudt of jour felves, to fatisfie the Demands, and obey the Di- lates, of that vexy Moderation, which 3'"ou plead in your Dcfenfe ^ unlefs you fuppofe it becomes a Chnjiian to have an indifterent and Moderate Regard, to that Unity, and P^rtce, which are the very Glory and Strength oiChr'i- Jlianity. Indeed, were there any thing in your covjlavt Cojnvm- fiion with. OUT Church, which would ncceflarily oblige you to place a greater Value upon any thing in the Covjlitntmt of it, than it really and truly deferves -^ fomething might be urged from the Virtue of Moderation^ in this Senfe of it, to defend i^ouin 3^our Negledl of it. But corijlant Covforymty implies not in it any thing like this. For if 370U have framed your Opinions fo, as to think meanly of the Public Service of the EJlahliJIied Church, in com- parifon with the ways o^Worfoip fet up in opposition to it ', (which I cannot imagine to proceed from an)'' thing, but Education, or Cujlom ;) covjlant Communion doth not oblige ^''ou to think, or declare the contrary : Nor doth it necefTarily imply any thing in it, but that you do, upon fome Confiderations, prefer i*- before Separation -, whether for its own fake, or the fake of the public Peace, and Unity, no one can judge from the Practice of it. And confequently, the Principles of Moderation, this way ex- plained, cannot reafonably influence you againft cor.Jl nt Covfor^nity -, hecaui^e covjlant Conformity is the belt way of expreihng that Regard which is certainly due to Peace and Concord -, and becaufe it implies notiiing in it, that can oblige you to place an unjuft Value upon any part of our Conjlitution. Whatfoever, therefore, be fuppofed to be the Kature,,'] and OfRce of Chrijlian Moderation, it is evident, that it mult A Per[uafive to Lay- Conformity. 5 t i mult rather engage you to covjlant Comimm'ion with the Church o{ England, then help to influence 3''ou againft it. Having thus endeavoured to Ihew you, with how little Reafon this excellent, and truly Chriftian Grace is urged againft the I^eafonablenefs of your Conformity ^ I come now to ihew, 2. That conftant Conformity w perfe^ly covfifle-nt with a true Catholic Spirit, avi 7;/oj? extenjive Chriftian Cha- rity. And this will appear by confidering what this Ca- tholic and charitable Frame of Spirit is, to which we are obliged by the Chrijlian Religion. Now, it is plain, that there is nothing in the Gofpel of our Saviour^ defigned to Jay an Obligation upon us to approve, or encourage, by Words, or by Prefence, all the difrerent Ways of Pnhllc IForJInp amongft Chriftian Brethren, This cannot be the Duty oi'ChriJiiavs • becaufe the Pradlice of it is impoJli- ble, without the iitmoO: Inconvenience, and Difordcr: Kor did I ever yet hear of any one, who could produce one Text of Scripture to ilicw the Necelfity of this -, or who thought himfelf obliged to give equal Encourage- ment to all n'/Z^zozw Pj/tft'^ Rmongi Chrijiians. And 3'et, if the Encouragement be not as equal as poffible, I ice ^lot how this Obligation is farisfied ^ if there be fiich an Obligation upon us. And we find amongft thofe who fpeak moft of this Catholic Spirit^ that it extends not, in Pradice, generally, to more than Two forts of Chrijii- fiJis • and this, with a veij remarkable, and conftant In- equality. So little do tliefe Perfons themfelves feem to think themfelves obliged to ajuft, and exad: Pradtice, of this imagined Duty, or to tie themfelves up to a rigo- rous Oblervation of it. This, therefore, cannot be inclu- ded in the true Notion of that Catholic and charitable Spirit, which becomes all ChriJIians-^ becaule it is a Pra- ctice no where plainly recommended', and, I had almcft faid, utterly inipqilible •, and, in the leaft Degree of it, highly diforderly, and the Cauie of great Indecencies, and Improprieties, in the Church. And as this is a fufhcient Reafon for all Chriftiavs not tothink themfelves concerned in any Inch Duty ^ X 4 fa ^ 1 2 J Perfuafive to Lay-Con formlty. fo loif, efpeciallr, to whom I now fpealc, arc very pe culiarly obliged to reiift the Progrefs of any fiich No- tions in the World, if the leafl: Concern for Fiihlic Peace, and Uv'ity, remain in your Breafts. For it is often pro- fefTed in your Names, that you defire an Efiahlifimcnt ^ and that "fome Amendments^ and Abatements, would entire- ly reconcile you to the prefent Conjl'itiition. This, the bcft, andgreateftof your Mhnjiers have declared, in their own Name, and in yours ^ and continue to this Day to do fo. IP, therefore, it he a Duty to communicate with all Se^.s of Chrijliam^ how can you profefs your felves ready to communicate conftantly with the Church oi Eng- land, upon fome Terms, and to leave off all fuch Encou- ragement, for the future, to an)'- who feparate from it ? But if youfincerely deiire fuch Alterations as would rcr concile yov, and make you conjlant Confonmjis -, how then can you think this a necefTary Duty oi Chr[ftianlty ^ And ,why do you go on to encourage fuch Notions as mnft ren- der vain all attempts towards our Unity, and Concord ? For if this Encouragement be due, according to the Laws of the Gofpel, and the Nature oiChriJlianhy, to all the dif- fering Parties ofChriJiians ; then what will the beft EJla- hlijlmient in the World lignify towards the Ends of an E^a~ hlijlment ? No Veace can be this way affected -, fince there can be no Obligation upon Men, according to thefe Priur ciples, to conform to it, were it the moft perfect that could poifibly be imagined. Take care, therefore, left your prefent Pradtice oppofeyour profefled Dciign •, and fow not fuch Se.eds of DifTenlion in the Land, as will ut- terly confound all Defigns of Union, and Agreeinent, and render all Accommodations fruitlefs, and ineffectual. If you have the leaft Defire of fuch an EJlahlipment as you could entirely comply with, entertain not thefe Princi- ples, which ftrike at the Root of all Efiablijhments^ and prevent all the good Purpofcs of them. And if you have an)r Concern for Peace and Unity amcngfi: us, encourage not fuch Notions, as areinconiiftent with that Regard to Peace and Unity, which the Chrijlian Religion enjoins. This is another Rcafon, whydt cannot be the Duty of Chrifii- tins A Ferfiwfwe to Lay-Conformity, j 1 5 aW5 to give fiich Encouragement to all the. differing "U'aj^g onforJlniizmoVig'^ChriJl'iami '^ becaufe it is the Duty of Chrijliavs to confult the Feace of the Chrijlian Church. And whether this be molt likely to be done by Conformity to a hwfid eJiabliJJj^d Church, or by an indifferent Encourage- ment of" all the feveral Churches, amongft us, let any one judge. Our Duty is to do all lawful Things, for the fake of Pt'jcf?, and to promote Love amongft Chrijliavs: And yet many amongft us adl, as if they thought it their Du- ty to do ever}'" thing pofiible, in order to encourage Di- vifojis, and Hatred, in the Chr'ifiian Church. V/hy elfc do they rather chufe to find out fuch veiv Duties in tht Gofj e!^ never heard of before in the Chrljiian Churchy than to pra- ftife the old ? And why do they refufe to walk in that Path, which leads plainly, and directly, to greater De-. grees of Umty and Concord ? A true Chrijlian Spirit cannot dire6t us to fuch a Behaviour •, anj'- more than it can di- re6t us to difturb the Peace of Society, and to render ?\\ Deligns of ^aoww/ot/affo?; ineffedual. It is true, that it is our Duty to acknowledge all Chri- jliavs to be fuch ^ to love our Neighbour as our felves ^ to do unto all Men, as it is rcafonable for us to wifli they would do unto us, were we in their Condition ^ to be kind and tender-hearted, one towards another •, to- pra- ftife all Inftances of Humanity and Charity, towards our Brethren ^ to abhor all Thoughts of Rigour, or Inhuma- nity, for the fake of any religious Difference ^ and to do them all the Good that is in our Power, and that is con- fiftent with the Obligations we are under to our felves, and to the reft cf the World. All this, and the like, we are ftriftly obliged to : But this doth not at all bring us under any Neceluty of giving any Encouragement to the Errors of ouv Brethren-^ efpecially fuch Errors as have a bad Influence upon Human Society, . and prove the Oc- calion of much Unhappincfs to it : But Chrijlian Charity rather obliges us to the contrary ^ to endeavour to cout vince them ot their Errors^and to put a Stop to the evil Confequcncesof them. But it is wonderful to hear this pivine Virtue alleged againft the Reafonablencfs of con- Jlant 514 -^ Ferjitafive to L3]^-Conformity. jiant Conformity •, when it is fo very evident, th^t there i$ not one fingle Branch of it, but what may be duly and punftually performed by a Chnjlian in Comviuyi'wn with the Church o^ England. Nay, I will add, that this Grace may be pradlifed, in greater Extent, by fuch an one, than 3t can be by any who give Encouragement to Separation from it : becaufe the former negledls no part of Charity which the other pra£tifes ♦, and befides this, fhews a facred KQg2Lrd to public Peace J hj giving no Encouragement to any thing that is the Occafion of Uvcharitablenefs^ or Di- Jliirhance, amongft Chriftians -^ which feems to be one of the firft, and principal Branches of Charity •, and which the Perfon who thinks conjlant Communion with this par- ticular Church not worthy of his Regard, cannot be faid to do. And indeed, this feems to me fo confiderable a part of Chriftian Charity^ and fo neceffary an EfFefts of ^ truly Catholic Spirit^ that I cannot but think that we may draw a much better Argument from thefe^ in Behalf of your conjlant Conformity^ than any that can be urged againfl: it. For what nobler Inftance of Chrijlian Charity can there be fuppofed, than to regard the Peace of the Chrijlian Church ? And what more genuine and natural Eifeftof a truly C^t^o/zV Sprit, than to endeavour to put fome Stop to the Divifions,and confequently, the un- charitable Heats, among C/;;'7y?itiw5 f" This will fhew the moft Catholic Spirit : And confequently, if an Argument taken from t^^/^, can have any Influence upon 3^ou, it muft determine you to conjlant Conformity. At lealt, I may have leave to fa}^, that it is evident from what hath been advanced upon this Head, that there is nothing in- cluded in thefe, that can influence you to give any En- couragement to inniecejfary Separations from the Church of England •, or that can be fuppofed inconfiftent with tlie ftriftcft Co7?imunion with it. Having thus diftindly confider'd fuch of your Reafons againft conjlant Conforjnity to the EJlahliJJ)ed Church, as feemed to me moft generally, and moft firmly, received among ToH ^ and having offered to your Thoughts fome A Perfu^ijive to h^y -Conformity, 515 Obfervations upon them ; I fliall only propofe a few more Covjide rations to you, and fo make an End. IX. If you judge it unlawful for you to conform con^ flantly, becaufe this would be to approve, and encou- rage, iinnecelfary hripojitions in the ChriJHan Churchy which you are bound to oppofe, andrefift : I deiire you would confider, that this will equally hold againft Covfonnity to all Eftahlijlmienta •, becaufe none can be framed without iimieceffary hupojitiovs •, and alfo againft our own EJfahlifi- vient^ tho' it fhould be amended according to the De- mands which have been openly made, in your Name, as well as the Name cf your Mhiijlers. You profefs your felves ready to join with "this EJlahViJJment fo amended : And yet fome tnniece (fary Lnpojitioits will unavoidably be left in it. How then can you urge an Argument againft Conformity to it, as it is at prefent-, which concludes as ftrongly againft Conformity to it, when jrour Demands are anfwered ^ and you your felves are ready to comply with it. But in truth, conjiant Conforinity doth not imply in it either the Approbation^ or Encouragement, ofwjf- vecejfary Lnpojitions. It implies in it only, as I obferved before, that you think fit to comply with iheUfe of them^ but for what Reafons, it doth not declare. And befides, fuppofing it doth imply in it the Encouragement of tin- vecejfjry impoJitio7is upon Chrifians, which in themfelves are neither good, nor bad : On the other fide. Separation from this Church implies in it, as much, the Encourage- ment of fuch Principles, and Praftices, as make all Unity and Peace impoifible, and imprafticable. The Burden is not fo heavy yet in this Church, as to deferve much Zeal, and Heat againft it : But remember, that if, on the one hand, you give occaiion to the Impofition of more Cere- monies •, on the other hand, you give occafion to much Violence^ and Uncharitablenefs, whether you defign it or not. And which of the two can we think the more ac- ceptable to God •, the Man who rcfafes conjlayit Conformity, forfearhe Ihould encourage the Impofition of fome in- different Things •, or the Man who pra(^ices it, for fear he j" i^ A Verfuafve to Lay- Conformity he fhould encourage the Violence and Ujicharitabkiiefs^that arc likel}^ to accompany all Religious D'lvijiom ? Certainly, it is more Praifeworthy, to fubmit to fonie Impnjitiojis^ which had better not have been ordained, than to do any thing that tends to the difturbanceof theC/j/i/w;/ Church, Suppofing it to be a Matter not Laudable in it felf ^ yet certainly it is our Duty to chufe this, rather than a greedier Evil : And it cannot be neceiTary for a Chr'ijlian to refill fuch hnpojitiovs ^ when lie cannot do it without endan- gering Matters of infinitelj^ greater Moment. For the fuppofed, poilible, Inconveniences of the /o/'w/^r, are not worthy to be put into the Balance againft the vifible, and fenfiblcj evil Confequences o^ tht latter : Kor is there any thing to be dreaded from the o7ie^ comparable to that Tlo- lence, and UncharitahUnefa . and that Difiomitr to Chri- Jf iaJiity J tTi^. is i'een to follow from the other. And how then can you thinkit worth a ChriJ}ian\ while, to teftify againll hnpofitions., not finfulin themfelves, at the expenfe of Public Veace ?i\\{].Umty ? X, Confider that yovr Cafe is very different, from the Cafe of ^Mz7/z/i?/"5.' And therefore, that how hard focver thcTenm of Mhiijier'ial Conformity may feem,this cannot excufej/oK in your Separation. The Terms of Lay-Con for7}ii' ty, in which only you are concerned, are few, and lawful. I need not tell you what they are, bccaufc 3rou know hj Experience, that they are not fo intolerable, but that you can fometimes comply with them, l^or need I add any more on this Head •, and fo fhall only appeal to your Mmjlcrs themfelves, (which I believe, I may venture to do in this Cafe) and entreat >'oi/ to confult the be ft, and moil judicious amongft them, whether They fliould have thouglu themfelves under an Obligation to fiparatc from the F.JlahUJI)ed Umrch^ fuppoling no other Terms had been required of them^ but what are now required of you •, or jather, whether they would not, upon fucli Tcrms^ have judged themfelves to be under an indifpenfable Obliga- tion to hold Covimumon with it, and to give all Lawful £ncoura?-iemcnt to it. Had this been the Cafe. I cannot but J Perfitafive f^ Lay-Conformity. 31.7 "bnt think, if I may have kave to judge from all their Conduct, and all their Propofals, that the Aci of Un'ifor- viity would never have been Complained of by them, or any material Objections urged againft the Tcnns of th-eir Conformity. And if this appear to be fo, fuppoiing them in your Gircumftances, this fhould induce you to think feriouflv of your Behaviour ^ and not to difturb the Vcace cf the Chrijlian Churchy for the fake of thofe Ten?ix of Conmimiion, which you acknowledge to be, in themfel ves, lawful. XI. But if, after all that can be faid, to perfuade you Xocovjlant Omfonnhy^jou fhould be apt to think, tliat our Divijiovs are come to fuch an Heighth, and the Seeds of Difconl^ and Uncharitahlevcfi^ fownfo Univerfally thro' the Land, that your Co7{/b;v7;if}' can do but little towards i^eftoring P(?j6-6 and C/jrr/77}', amongft us •, and is hardly worthy of your Concern, on this Account: Conlider, that tills cannot excufe you from doing what you can, towards that glorious End^ and let tJiis be never fo little it will be accepted b}^ God, as the only Tellimony you can give, how highly you value them. We have not done our Duties, in our particular Stations, till v/e have ^lone all in our Power, to promote Love and Concord ^mongft C/;y?y?iaf7/,y,.- Aiid jf every one fliould neglect to |lp this, becaufe his Influence will reach but to a fmall iCpmpafs, it is impollible they fliould ever be reftored. .The fewer Occafions there be o[ Strife and Variance • the more likely is true Chrijiiavity to fiourifh, and the Gofpel to be well fpoken of, in the World. Ancl iince your l o«- fon?iity will remove many of thefe Occafions at prefent, and is not unlikely, thro' the BleiHng of Gocl, to lay the • Foundation of a lafting Peace, and glorious Concord, a-' mongftus, in Times to come •, how can yon think, that you have that Regard to thefe great Goods, which Chri- . Jliam ought to have, if you ftiil negledt that Conformity, which is the greatellDemonftration jok can give of your Regard to tliem ? XII. If therefore, theT^/-7;/5 of 3^our Conformity to the Efablified Church be lawful ; if you can by this promote Peacs ^ 1 8 A Perfua/t'ue to Lay-Conformity. ^eace and Love, amongft Chrljliam ^ if it be your indlf^ penfable Duty to do what you can towards this End, however others negledt it and difregard it •, if you can, by your Conformity^ highly confult the Edlf cation of the whole Chnjlian Church, without neglefting your own, or endangering your Salvation -, if neither true Chriftian Moderation^ nor a Catholic and charitable Spirit, nor Zeal agaiuft /wpo/tzow.% include in them any thing inconfiftent with covjlant Conformity : Let the Honour of that Name \>y which you are called •, and the Senfe of thofe Mif- chiefs we feel from our miferable Diviiions, and Diftin* ftions, move you to the Practice of it. Call to mind the Beauty, and Glory of a compliant Temper j and think how unbecoming you are apt to judge it in others, that they will not yield up the contefted Points for the fake of Peace. Look out into the World, and fee what Heat and Fury our Religious DiJIinclions add to all other Con- tefts ', how much unbecoming Paifion they caufe amongft IJ^our felves, and amongft others who oppofe you ^ hoW fatally they turn the Edge, and Bent, of Men's Minds, from Concerns of infinite Moment, to Trifles ofnoCon- Uderation ^ how many Opportunities they will ever give our common Enemies^ within, and without us, to carry on their Deiigns •, and perhaps, at laft, to bring about our utter Ruine. Reflett on all this, and much more that might be added •, and then confider ferioufly with your felves, whether it can be enough ioi you to follow your own Inclinations, without any Regard to the World of ChriJlians2iho\i\.you-^ and whether it can become _yo« to refufe to do any thing in order to put an End to thefe Miferies. Laft of all, Think not your own Eternal Sal- vation unconceined in this Matter : For the Precepts of the Gofpel make it the indifpenfable Duty of every Chri- Jlian^to follow after Fe ace-, to avoid every Pra^ice that may prove the Occafion of Uncharitahlenefs-^ and to pro- mote Love, and Concord, in the World. And certainly, there is Force enough in all thefe Co jif derations, to induce Tow to forfake the Separation you are engaged in, and to pradife conjlant Conformity to the Church oi England. A Brief A Brief D E F E N S E O F Epifcopal Ordination. IN WHICH I. The Arguments for it are propos'd. II. The Pleas, for the Right of Presbyters to Or- dain, ar^ examined. III. The Pleas alleged for the fame Right in the Laity, are^. coniider'd. To which are added, A REPLT to the Introduaion to the Second Fart : And a POSTS CR IPT relating to the Third Part of Mr. Cala7ny% 'Dti^niQ oi Moderate Non-conformity, By Benjamin Hoadly,M^. ReBor of St. Peter's Poor. Now Lord BiJIjof \ of Bangor. ^20 To the R E A D E R. THE joJlowh^ Trcatife hi Defenfe of Epifcopal Ox- din^tion, had' lojig before this been pnbU/hed, had VQt Indifpofition, and unavoidable Interruptions p.'"e7;f«f6'f^ it. Such as it is^ I hope it will be acceptable to all who jincerely deji're that Tjuth alone may prevail : aiidthatit viay be fo^ lamfure I havevfed my utmoji Endeavours to re^nder it as imwjfi-jijive^ aiid as void of all Perfonal Matters as an^ one can expecifuch a Debate to be. 7o this I have added, a Reply to the Introdudion to the Second Part of the Defenfe of Moderate Non-conformit)'-, becaufe that touched even th& Lawfulnefs of Conformity to the Eftablifhed Church ^ artd was ejieemed by many Nonconformifts an unavfwerabh Vhidication of their Proceedings. T hope lam now come to an End of my Fart in this Con t rove rfy, in which every Body may fee I have done inore than what I was obliged to do in the Co-wfe-vfit 5 and have refusd no i'ainsyto fet it in as clear a Light as I coUld. I have notMjig more to add^ hut Jolemnly to ajjure the Reader, that in the whole of what I have written mi/;ji Caufe, I have had no Defgn either upon our diffent- ing Brethren, o?/ the ojie hand, but that of convincing their yudgmevts hyfuch foher, and calm Reafonings, as appear d to ?ne tapjuft an^ reafonahle to be negle'Ud i, or upon the Church o/Ergland, onthe other hand, but that of defending its Caufe 7i'J7(77ry7/6./; Principles ^ alone appear'' d to me fufficient to ejla- bliJJ),and luaint'tnn itagaivfi the -BtGaVonm^sof thofewho have Jeparatedfrom it. ihcfe Defgns I hope are pardonable, Jl.wuld they be found to be joined with many Mi [lakes : And if thefif Mijlyikes, or any Mifvianageyfient ojmine do but excite the Zc^l offo7ne abler Pen to do J-uJlice to that Caui^c which I am J'aid by fame to have injur' d ; If Jail think all the Pains I have tah:n well recompenfed by fuch an Event, joined with the Satis- Jaiiion I have ivithin, that it hath been mj fincere Defgn, in wluit Lhave written, to promote Pea6e,Unity, and Charity. A Brief 521 A Brief E F E N S E O F Epifcopal Ordination. INTRODUCTI ON- r I "t H E Defign of the following treatife is to Cet B the Mattet o£ Epiftopal Ordination in i{s due I Light. And becaufe in thefe later Ages of -^ the Church there have been Contelis rais'd, and thefe profecuted even to this Day, concerning the |5roper Minijlers of Ordination • fome pleading in Behalf Ksi Presbyters^ others in Behalf of the Laity ^ for the fame Right which is claim' d by Eifiops, the beft Method I can think of to purfue this Defign in, is, I. To propoie the Arguments for JEpiftopal Ordination : that fo we may judge on what it is, the Claim o^BiJI^ops to Ithe Power of Ordiiiation is founded. II. To eiaitiine the Fleas that are ftill alleged for the '^ight of Presbyters to Ordain : that fo it may be judged iby all^ whether their Claims have any jufl Foundation 5 jandbe feriouflj^ confider'd by themfelves whether they^ lought to b? continued. III. To confider what hath been lately advanced in favour of the Laity s Right to appoint, and ordain Eccleji-- tfiical Officers in the Chrijlian Church, Y chap; 023 A brief hefenfe of CHAP. I. The Arguments /'■ y 4 ^■•■^' 528 A brief Defence of any one of their Difciples, -nor any Chnjliav^ or Heretic in the irorld, fpake^ or wrote a IFord agahtft Epifcopacy, till long after it was generally fettled in the Churches. Which I cannot but think a great Argument for the Apojlolical In^ frtTttion of it in all Churches : It being highly improbable that in their Life-time it flaould be fettled in any without th^ir (Jric;-^ there JKriiTg no Reafon imaginable, why they flionid not make the fame Order for all Churches as occa- iionpfFer'd j there being no pofitii-e Teftimony amongft the- Antients of any Church in which it was not fettled j all-Wa:iters fpeaking of it as univerfally the fame ^ audit bei^g hardly to be thought that fuch a Conftitution ihoult] be fettled in one Church, much lefs in great num" ber^, with out a great deal of Notice taken of it, and a great many Complaints made of it, had it not been known tprbe an Ivfntution of the Apofles. i - So th^t fuppofing there be nothing in the New Tejlament concerning the Superiority of Bi/Iwps to Presbyters t, andno- thiiig of any Confinement of the Power of Ordination to thai fupmor Order ^ yet there may befufficient Evidence of Apojlolical IvfliiVtio7i from thefe Teftimonies. And if there be fufficient Evidence of this, hy what means fo- ever it come to us, it ought to be received. Now that this ought to be' accounted fufficient Evidence by our Brethren in this Cafe, is plain from their receiving the fame Teftimonies in another moft important Point, which is not, and could not be plainly fettled in the Scriptures themfelves. For it is upon the fejiijnojties of antient Jfri- te/*s in all Ages, that They^ as well as Jf^e, believe the Books of the NewTeJlament to have be en extant from xhQ Apofles days '^ and to have been written by the Apofles, or by Perfons approved of by them. And this indeed makes me the more folicitous to eftablifh the Credibility of this Teftimony of the Antient Church concerning Epif- copacy^ becaufe I fear the Oljeciions with great Zeal ad- vanced againft it, by a late Author, will be found at laft to have a very bad influence upon allJFf//?om«/G?;Ww/}', and to reach, farther than they were designed, to th^ prer, Epjfcopal OidinationM 529 prejudice of what is of the kit importance to the Chijllan Church. Now there heing two Methods in which tlie Adverfa- 77V^Gf£/;7*/Io/;^67 have endeavoured to avoid the force of this Argument ^ /// by attempting to invalidate the Suf- ficiency and Credibililjr- of this7V/2V;/07-7. even fuppofing it univerfal and confcant .• and fecondlyhy confronting^ andoppoling to this' concurrent Teftimony, and theCon- clufion we build upon it, feveral moJprn Hypothefes and Schemes ^ I lliall folic w them in both thefe Methods, as far as my prefent Subjed obliges me ^ and, I. I fhall endeavour to eftablifli the Suffdency and C>e^ dihility of the concurrent Tejl'imony of thofc Ancicyit Writers w]]ich are now rem.aining, concerning Epifcopacy. II. I (hall confider the principal Schemes^ and -Hyiiothe- fcs which have been confronted, and oppofed to this i f/i- mo7iy, and to the Conchjion we build upon it. I. As to the former of thefe ^ the only thing neceflairy for the eftabliihing the Sufficiency and Credibility of this Tcjlhnony^ being to remove the ObjeBiojis which have been made againft it^ thisliliall endeavour to do by follow- ing the Steps of a late Author, who hath difcovered a more than ordinary Zeal againft this Teftimony-, andamafs'd together all that can be faid againft it. Cbj. I. The firjl Obje^lon I meet with, is I this, that the Church of England follows 'not Vefevje «/ j the antient Church in many Inflances of Do- ^«^^"*^^ A'^"- jarine, Difcipline, and Ceremony: And j^"^,"^^' * '•.,* from hence it is argued that it is unreafonahle to lay fo great a Strefs upon the Fathers in one cafe, Tphom Tpe negle-f^ or acknowledge to be deceived, in viany other Points. The Anfwer to this is eafy and evident. In Matters which depended upon their Judgment, and Reafoning, we think our felves perfedtly at liberty to determine whether they were in the Right, or not : and fo in fome of thefe Cafes we do not imitate them, becaufe we think they 550 A brief Befenfe of they judged amifs in them ^ in others we are hinder'd L7 feme accidental Circumftances of thefe latter Times, from refembling them. But fuppoling we do not imitate them in all, doth it therefore follow that we do not well to imitate them in any ? Andfuppofewe cannot ordonot retain fome thin "S, which fome few of them reprefent as founded upon A^ojlolkal Tradition, doth it therefore fol- low that we ought not in reafon to retain what their Uni~ verfal Tejlhnony conveys down to us as inftltuted hy tho Apojlles ? But the Point now before us is this, whether it be not reafonable to believe that the Apoflles inftituted Epifcopacy, upon the conftant, and Univerfal Tejlhnony of antimt irriters ? And if this Author can ihew that there is any other as plain a Matter of Fa6l delivered down to us by the fame WitnefTes, which we do not believe upon their Tepmojty ^ I grant this would be a great Advantage over us, and we might well be required either to receive, or reject their Tejliviony in both Cafes. But it cannot be juft Reafoning to argue that we follow them not in Points of Judgment, therefore we ought not to receive their Teftimony in plain Matters of Fa6t •, that we imitate them not in many Pradlices which they founded upon Apojiolical htptntion, therefore we cannot reafonably be- lieve upon their Tefiimony that any particular Matter was oi Apojlolical Injlhiition. It may as well be argu d that we d!o not follow the Antients in all Things, and there- fore cannot reafonably rely upon their Teftimony con- cerning the Canonical Books of the New Tejlament. Hijfo" rical Certainty muft be banifli'dout of the World if fuch Icind of Arptments be once admitted ^ and we muft come to that degree of Sccpticifm as to believe no Matters of Jirff, but what we fee with our own Eyes. I cannot therefore but wonder to find the fore-cited Author tri- umphing in fuch an Argument as this, as if it were the Judgment, and Opinion of the Fathers we depended on in the Cafe of Epifcopacy : Whereas it is only their uni- verfal Teftimony concerning a Matter of FaB. If he will but anfwer to himfelf, how he can reafonably receive the Caito' Fpifcopal Origination, 531 Canomcal Beoh o( the New Tejiammt upon their Tejiimony, whofe Opinions and Pradtices he doth not follow in ma- ny Cafes I the Anfwer will be a fufficient Reply to this Objedtion, which he hath fo largely, and triumphantly yrg'd againft the Epifcopal Divijies. Obj. 2. Ttl'! ttot eajie to difcover the true ani ^ ^^^^ real Senfe of the Fathers in t/jf* Debate about Or- dination : And on this Account the Argiment drawn from them mujl be very mtcertain. Now we fpeak not concerning their Opinion in any Controverfy, but about their Tejii- jnony concerning a plain Matter of FaB : In which Cafe it will appear very eafy to difcover their true, and real Senfe, notwithftanding the Reafons here given to the con- trary. Thefrji Reafonis, Becaife fever al of the earliejl Wri- ters have beev lof^ as Papias, and Hegefippus, in whojn we might have found Accounts of the Church contrary to thofe^ww txtant. But 1. Our Debate is, whether it be not reafonable to re- ceive the Teftimony of thofe Writers who remain, con- cerning a Matter of Fact: And it is ftrangely unaccoun- table to urge againft this, not any contrary Teftimony extant, but a mere Suppoiition that fomething contrary to this might have been extant at firft, tho' now wholly loft, and the very Memory of it extingnilhed. 2. What ftiall become of the Teftimony of all Hifto- rians at this rate, if this once be admitted as an Argu- ment ? For it may be faid in any Cafe, the' hitherto never fo uncontefted, that perhaps there were once ex- tant Hiftories contrary to thefe, tho' Time and the Ma- lice cf Men have devour'd them, as we know they have numberlefs others. ;. It is a melancholly Confideration what an Influ- ence fnch Argum.ents as this may have upon facred Mat- ters. How cafily may the I)eiJls2iX this rate argue againft the Gof pel Hifory, that perhaps in the firft Days there were Accounts publifh'd concerning our BUffed Saviour "^ * " ty 352 -J brief "Defenfe of by good Hands diredly contrary to thofe in the Gofpels now extant, tho' they be entirely loft, as many Books of Xht Adverfaries of Chnfiianhy are known to be ? And how cafily may they argue againft the Reafonabknefs of our receiving the Booh of the New Tejiament upon the Tefti- mony of the Jlrfkry, that we know not what they all thought^ that many of them are loft, who perhaps con- tradi6ted the Teftimony of the remaining part ? W ould it not be afufficient Reply to fuch Perfons, that nothing can be more unreafonable than to rejed the concurrent Teftimony of all or moft of the Writers extant, upon fo groundlefs a Suppoiition as this : Nay, that it 15 more reafonableto think that the JFriters not extant bore Wit- riefs to the fame Things •, and that if they believe any thing upon the Teftimony of paft Writers, they ought in reafon to believe thi«, becaufe the famx Surniifes lie a- gainft all HiJIorians ? 4. How unreafonable is it for the famePerfon to objed the bare PolFibility of a contrary Teftimony in the loft Writings oiPapias, and yet to blame a great Man for de- pending, in another Cafe, upon the Teftimony of PapzW, as it is extant in Enfebius, and to declare him to be a Writer of a low Credit, as he doth, page 171 ^ 5. It is highly probable that were the Writings loft now extant, we fhould find Tejlimonies to the fame pur- pofe with thofe now extant : And extreamly unreafo- nable to fuppofe the contrary. As for the Works of Papias and Hegejippus ^ Eiifehim and many other Writers found nothing againft Epifcopacy in them, as far as ap- pears. St. Jerome when he is moft of all exalting the Presbyters, neither denies Epifcopacy to be of Apoftolical Ivjiitiition ; nor doth he claim Ordinatio7i as the Right of Presbyters 5 nor doth he appeal to one antient Writer, either then extant, or loft, as giving any Teftimony a- gainft the Apofiolical Injiitiition of Epifcopacy. Befides, in many other Cafes we know by the Writers now ex- tant, that there were Perfons who diiFer'd from them in fuch. £pi fecial Ordination, 535 fuch^andfuch particulars who were difapproved and condemned. But in this Cafe we have not the leaft Inti- mation either from the Friends of Epifcopacy, or from thofe who are accounted by fome to have been Enemies to it, that there was any one early Writer of the Churchy who differed from the reft about Epifcopacy, or the Injiz- tution of it. And upon lefs Grounds than thefe I'm fure we often believe, in many Points of Hiflory. The fecov.d Reafon given why we cannot pag. 145. Cafdy dffcover the true Senfe of the Fathers, is this, beeaifc mavy oftheW/ itiiigs which go mider their Names arefpH/iovs^ aitdfiippoftitioiis, either in whole or iit part : So that yon hiow not what is theirs^ and what is not. But, 1. There are Tefi?nonies, fufficient to fupport the Caitfe of Epifopacy, in thofe Writings which were never yet doubted to be the Works of thofe Authors to whom they are afcribed • or which have been demonftrated by the ftrongeft Arguments to he genuine^ to the entire Satisfacti- on of the moft learned, and thinking part of the World. So that take only thofe Parts of their Works about the Gemiinenefs of which there is no Difpute: And in thefe we find the plaineft Teftimony concerning this Point. And what then can it fignify againft this Tejlimony, that other Pieces afcribed to them axQ ftippoftitious and fpnriom ? 2. This Author alleged here that fome have fathered fuppolititious Pieces upon the Apojlles themfelves, much more may they have made bold with the Fathers. But doth it follow that therefore we cannot be <:ertain that the Apojiles wrote thofe Booh we receive in the Church as theirs ? Doth it follow from thence that there are no Rules to go by, fufficient to diftinguifh the genuine from the fpuriom ? If it do not, in the Cafe o£ the Apojlles ^why fhould it be alleged in the Cafe of other IFriters ^ But if this muft be preiTed in the Cafe of the Fathers, let them who urge it confider, whether they do not put Words in- to the Mouths of D^z/j and Infidels, to deftroy all Cer- tainty about paft Matters, which depend upon anciejit Writings, It is not fufficient to fay, that Almighty God is obliged 554 -^ hrief Defenfe of obliged in his Providence to take more Care in one Cafe than in the other. For it is manifefl: that he hath left the Writings, and Names of the Apojiles under the common Fate of other Writers ^o far that counterfeit^ and fpunous Pieces have been adtually fathered upon them^ and Alte- rations made in their Te^t by officious Hands. It is his Pleafure to give fufficient Evidence to what he requires the World to receive : And if he gives in this Cafe what they accept of in other Cafes, he may juftly expect thefe Writings Ihould be received as others are, notwithftand- ing the like OhjeBion. And if it do not follow from hence, that the Writings now received as the Writings of the Apojiles are not theirs ; or that there are not Rules fuf- liciently certain to diftinguifh the gemiinc from the fpun- ous : Neither will it follow from the Suppojititioufiefsj or Spurioufnefs, of fome Works, or fome Sentences, in the Books afcribed to the Fathers^ that others are notge7m7ie ^ or that there are not very good and juil Rules to diftin- guilh the one from the other, 3. To argue from the Poffibility of contriving a Cheat, fo as that it fhall not be able to be detected, ftrikes at all the Writings in the World, facred and profane, as well as thofe of the Fathers • and tends to bring in Scepticifm with refpeft to all Authors in the Ages before us. The bare Polfibility of this is no more an Argument againft the Genuinenefs of Igtmthis's Epiftles, than it is againft St. FatiVs. But we muft difcard all Pretenfes to hifiorical Ce?'tahtty, if we do not difcard fuch loofe Principles as thefe, And farely it is but reafonable to receive that as genuine which hath no Mark of a Cheat upon it. Nay, were it poffible fo to contrive a Forgery as that it fhould not be poifible for the Wit of Man to deted it, it is our Duty to receive it. A Cheat fo contrived is no Cheat to us : And if we receive any WYttirtg as gemihie^ we are ob- liged to receive all which have the fame Marks of their Gemmenefs. Othcrwifc we adl not agreeably to our Prin- ciples, or our Duty. Should we be deceiv'd in the moft important Cafe poifible of this nature, it cannot be fup- pofed Epifcopal Ordination* J 5 ^ poled that God can i:Junifh us for following the bell: Light we have after the beft manner pollible ^ but that he ra- ther will applaud us for adting by thofe Rides which are the only Meafures we have to go by. 4. Could this Author^ or any one elfe, produce any Argument againftthe Gemmtenefs oi ihoitm^wj Sentences^ or PalTages in the Fathers^ in which their Teftimony con- cerning Epifcopacy is contained ^ this indeed would be fomething of an Argument againft the pofitive Proof we allege for it, yet of the lefler Force, and "Weight, becaufe there are no Footfteps of any other Form of Government in the ancient Church. But I believe it never jet was heard of that any Man fhould argue againft receiving their To ftimony, not from the Spurioufnefs, or Forgery of thofe parts of the Works afcribed to them, in which this TeJ^i" THony is found, but from the Spurioufnefs of fome other Works, or Sentences, which have been afcribed to them. What a Blow muft fuch Reafonings give to all hijlorical Certainty ^ and of what fad Confequence, muft that be to the whole Chrifiian Faith ? 5. Some fuppofititious Pieces have been father'd upon St. Jerome. How can they, who argue from hence a- gainft the other Fathers^ be fure that the Pajfages in which Epifcopacy is thought to bedeprefTed, are not of the num- ber > Or why do they talk of his Opinion in this Mat- ter ? According to this Argument it is as reafonable to think that he had no fuch Opinion, as it is to imagine that the other Fathers did not give that Teftimony which is afcribed to them. 6. Since fome fuppofititious Pieces, and Sentences, have been fathered upon the anciejit IFriters, why do they ap- peal to their Tejiimony concerning the Books of the Nevf Tejiament ? Or, why do they not rather rejeft it ? If it be reafonable notwithftanding this Obje^ion to receive their* Tejlimony in one Cafe^ why not in another ? Their lepmo- Tiies where they are equally clear, and univerfal, about feveral Matters of Fa^i, muft ftand, and fall together. The more Care ought to be taken by thofe who, I doubt not. . ^^6 Ahriefhefenfe of not, are hearty Enemies to the Canfe of Sccptldfm, not to furnifli and fupport it with fiich Arguments as thefe, which mult be equally ftrong in all parallel Cafes ^ and are greedily fnatched at by Men inclined to do what Pre- judice they can to the Caiife of Chrijllamty, and the Holy Scriptures. The Author whom I am now coniidering, in order to fh^w fome Ground for Sufpicion of Forgery in thofe Paf- fages of the av.cientlFriters which favour Epifcopacy^ infi- iiuates that tht Support o^ the Ecdejiajlical Hierarchy might induce Men of After-Ages to make Alterations in the Wri- tings of the Fathers. Upon irhich Account he is fo far from VTOJidf ivgtofind, among the Rejnains of Antiquity, fo viuch in favour of Prelacy^ that he rather wonders that all Faff ages in favour of the Primitive Parity^ and the Identity of BiJI)ops and Presbyters are not quite expuiigd. It is very neceilary to give a diftin6t Reply to this. And, I. Suppofing fome Perfons of later Ages have Ijeen fo foblifl'i and bafe as to make Alterations in the Works of ancient WYiters :, J ct this Author himfelf believes many Sentences, and many Pages in fome of them to be truly genuine : And he himfelf muft acknowledge that it is not a fufficient Reafon againft the Gcmiinniefs of any Sentence, that it fupports the Opinions, or Pradices of many in la- ter Ages, and therefore was probably inferted by them. Ko, there muft be other Arguments to prove thefe PalTa- * ges fpurious befides this, or elfe it will go very hard with many Texts of Scripture, and with many whole Booh in the facred Canon. For thus the Deijls may fay, it was for the Interefl of Chrijlianity that there fhould be fuch Tejlimonies in antient JFriters concerning the Four Gofpeh, and their Authors : And from hence conclude, ^that thefe Tejlimoines were foifted in by modern Chrifti- ans. If it be faid that it was as much for the In tereft of the antient Chrijliavs •, and therefore very probably thefe Pairagesare^wj/i?!^ .• It maybe replied, that it was as much for the Intereft of the antient as the miore modem Chrijiiam to affert Epifcopacy fo far as is implied in the Tt'Jlitnony Epifcopal Ordination, 557 Tefihfiony we fpeak of : For they always without douht efteem'd it their Intereft to preferve the Church as they thought the Apojlles left it. Thus the Sochiians fay, it was the Prejudice of the Orthodox to their own Opinions,and their Intereft •, which might induce them to add feveral Texts, and makeffeveral Alterations in the NewTeJlamevt:' And they likewife wonder they find no more there in fa- vour of the Orthodox Docirim^ confidering what Liberty fome have taken. But we fay, this is not fufficient to determine a PaiTage to be fpurious : There muft be other Reafons alleged, becaufe at this rate no PafTage can be genuine which favours any of the differing Parties in Reli- gion. 2. I am not now concerned for any high Flights^ or any Reafomvgs of the Antients ^ but barely their Tejli- inony about Matter of Fadt, that Epifcopacy was the Go- veniment of the Churchy and of Apojlolical hjJlitiitio7t. And I deny that there are any Palfages in the Antients fo much in favour of the Primitive Parity, and Identity of BiJ/)ops and Priejis, as to contra didt, or oppofe this in any one plain Sentence. So that if fuch PafTages were expunged hj Fraud, there muft have been an univerfalConfpiracy, to do it fo efredually as not to leave the Remembrance of any Contradidtion to this Teftimony concerning Epif- copacy : which it is abfurd to fuppofe. But if there be any fuch PafTages left in favour of this Primitive Parity, this is an Argument that there was not that prodigious Liberty taken by any in altering the jr/itinga of the Jn- tients •, becaufe it is incredible they would have left any remarkable Paflages againft themfelves,(when they were once engaged in fuch a Work. 3. But perhaps thefe Paf- fages, if there be any fuch, were forged by Presbyters who affeded an Equality to Eifiops.,and the Reafon why there are no more in favour of ipi/topac);, is becaufe the Ene- tnies of it took the Liberty of expunging Multitudes of Sentences to that purpofeout of the Writings of the A71- tients. The Argunient is equally good both ways, but both ways fallacious, and of dangerous Confequence. 4. Sup- poling a fettled Epifcopacy inftituted by the ApofiUs^ not Z at 5^8 A brief Beferife of at the firfl Foundation o£ Churches^ but at the latter End of tlieir Days ^ how could we know this but hj Icpmovy of cnicient IFnters ? And considering all things, could we well expert a more univerfal Tejlhnovy^ with lefs Contra- didion, or lefs Oppofition, than we meet with in this > Here, therefore, the Argument from Fo;-^?;-)) can have no Place • becaufe this Tejihnonyis juft what wemuft fuppofe it, had there been no Forgery. For according to all rea-* fonable Proceedings in the lilce Cafes^ that ought to be re- ceived as no Forgery^ which is exackij'' what we may rca- fonably fuppofe it would have been, had there been no Forgery. 5. Itmofteffedtuall^y puts a Stop to fuch Inji" vuatiors as this, to obferve that there is as little Ground to fufpedl a Forgery in thefe Tejlbnonies as is well poiTible to be imagined. For the Tejlimony we fpcak of, is not concerning thtApojlollcal Ivjlitvuon of the exorLhavt Power claifn'd by later Bifiops^ orcf any external Eufgvs cS world- ly Grandeur^ or Riches appropriated to them : But merely of the Inftitution of one Perfon to ordain and govern Pref- hyters, within fuch or fuch a DiflriB^ and according to the Deiign and Rules oiChriJliamty. Now this fupports no tyravvical, and excejfive Power in them : Nor any but what carries forward the great Ends of Religion. So that the inferting ofPrt^jjr^jtothis purpofe, doth not anfwer the Defign pretended in this Infinuation, offupporting thePretenfions and Grandeur of more modern Bifiops : And therefore the Suppolltion of it muft be vain and precarious. Had there been any Forgery in this Cafe^ cer- tainly it would have been to purpofe : And frequent De- clarations would have been found in the Jiitioiss^ more for the Exaltation of the Worldly Grandeur oi Bifiops^ than any now extant. But in thefe TeJUmooiies as they now ftand, nothing is to be found that is not agreeable to the ChriJIian Religion, or that can ferve the Purpofes of any but a truly ChriJIian Epi fc op acy. Beiides, the chief Ground o^ Forgery, whenever it was praftiled, was Party, and ContradiBion •, and a Defign to confute the Opinions of Oppofers by fuppolititious PalTages. Now we do not read of Epifcopal Ordination, ^59 cf any ContrailBion to this Teftimony concerning Epifco- pray, of which we fpeak •, or any Party againft it : No- thing coniiderable, granting the whole of what is pro- duced to this Purpofe. All Churches and Chr'ijliayn, as far as we know, feem to have been agreed in this Point, amidft all their other Differences, as univerfally as can well be imagined. But thus much may fuffice in anfwer to the foregoing hijimiation. The third Reafon given why we cannot P- »5o. eafily arrive to the true Senfe of the Fa- thersj is their Obfatrity, and the vehement, and hyperbolical Expreffiojts they often made ufe of. 1. I grant this to be of force with refpedt to many of their Opinions, and Notions : Yet even here there are Rules, and Circwnjiancex to determine us often to their true Senfe. But what is this to their Teftimony concerning Matter of Fact ? Can there be any Sufpicion o^Rhetoric^ and Figure, in their dedariugEpifcopacy to be the Govern- ment of the Church, inftituted by the Apofiles; or in their running up Catalogues o£Bifiops to the Apofiles Days ^ or in recording the Names of particular Perfons made Bi" jJ)ops by the Apofiles I 2. It is an eafy Matter to fee where any Authors fpealc as Hiftorians • and where as Rhetoricians. Suppofing any of the ancient Church-Writers to deduce unreafonable Con- fequences from the Apofiolical htfiitiition oi Epifcopacy'., or to exceed in Rhetorical Flights upon that Subject : We do not build our Belief upon thefe Flights and Reafonings, but upon their plain Tefiimony concerning Matter of Fact: Suppoling the JBs of the Comicil of Chalcedon call the Emperor's Letters @^ov ^faV/iz-^t in a PalTage which niay be eafily underftood to relate to them : Doth it follow from hence that when the Fathers fpeak foof the Holy Scriptures, they mean to give them no higher Authority than they gave thofe Letters ^ Doth it follow from hence that when they afcribe particular iip(/?/^5 to particular ^;7o/?/^x, they fpeak rhetorically hkewii'Q > And muft all their Tefiimony about Xh^Canen of the New Tefiament fall to the Oround Z 2 becailfe 24.0 AbriefDefenfe of becaafe in other Cafe§ they fometimes fpeak ohf.wely, and ihmetimes fiptratively ? ■2,. This Argument will afFedt the Apjlolical Vy'itivgs themfelves, in which theie are ohfcure^ and very hyper- bolical Exprcjjioin. But this never was thought to prove it hard to find out their meaning in PafTages which are not cbfcure, or figurative. Nay, certainly their true Senfe hath been found out by many confidering Perfons in thofe very Places, which have been thought very obfcure and fgurative. This Author can tell us himfclf that there are Circumjlavccs, and Rules to guide us to the true meaning oit\\t Fathers 'm many of their higheft Fliglits. And what then fignifies all this Difcourfe about their manner oi Writing ? 4. The only thing that could have ferved his Purpofe, would have been to have fhewn that the Pajfages^ upon which we build our Belief of the ApoJloUcal Infthution of Epifcopacy, are either fo obfcure, or {^o figurative, that we cannot build any fuch Matter upon them ; But of what Importance can it be, to fliew that other PafTages are ob- fcure, and figurative, upon which we build notliing in this Caufc ^ ' ^ i ' 5. Suppofing that the Fathers, in oppofing their Adver- faries, as others of the beft of Men have too often done, were apt to run from one Extreme to another, and to carry Things to the Heigth in fuch Oppolition^ this can ITenlfy very little to their Tefiimojiies concerning Epifco- pacy. For when they fay that it was the Goveniment of the Church in their Days, and infiituted by the Jpofilcs ^ they cannot be fuppofed to {-pealz rhetorically, or to carry Things to an undue Extremity, becaufe otherwifc there is nothing, no not their Tefiimoity about the Writings of the Apofiles, but what may be faid to be given in Heat, and carried to that Extremity only in Oppofition to fome Adverfaries. And in the Cafe ofEpif cop acy, it is a very material Confideration that we liiiow of no Adverfaries thtsyhad to tempt them to run to any Extremity, none : that denied it to have been always the (jovernment of the \ Courch, and inftituted by the ^poj/?/^i ; iinlefs the mere Supp- Epifcopd OrdinatioJi 3 4 '^ Suppofition of a viodejn Author zt looo Years diftance, that there were Cbnjiicntseven in fyiatim'sAge v/ho looJc d upon Epifcopacy as unlawful, may pafs for an aiitheiitjc ■piece of HiJIory : An Iniimiation which I beheve cannot be parallcrd, unlefs it be by the D'lfcovery made by other viodern Authors, at the fame diftance of Time, of an Al- teration made, after the Days of the Jpoflles, from Pre/- hyteriayi to Efifcopal Government mtlieChurch^ concerning which there is not one Word in any antient irriter. This is a new way indeed of writing H'iftory from one's own Invention, and not from any Records of paft Time : And yet we have feen fuchmere Conje^uresas thefe relied up- on ; and others ridiculed for relying upon the plain Te- Jlhywny of antient IFrlters conceniingxhe- St ate of iht Church in their own Times. 6. Snppofing many very high, and figurative Expref- iions in the Eplftles of Ignatius •, (againft which this Author doth very ill to drop his Iniinuations, unlefs he had an=- fwered thofe Arguments which have fatisfied all the learn^ ed World concerning their Gemiinenefs •, ) let them be ne- ver fo much foftned, and interpreted never fo favoura- bly, the leaft that can follow from them is, that Epifco- pacyvras fetled in his Days, and was at a great Heighth, when neither worldly Advantage could make itfo^ nor was there Time from the Apoflex Deaths for a gradual In- creafe to fuch a Pitch. For he lived in the Apoftles Days, ^nd was at fartheft, the fecond Bifwp of his See : and as much a Mad-7nan and Blafphemer as he maybe thought by fome, he died a Martyr for Chrijlianhy, and was al- ways highly efteem.ed in tiie Cliurch. And it is the moft reafonable thing in the World to fuppofe, that he could not fpeak of Epifcopacy as he doth, had he known it to have been only the Agreement of Presbyters amongft themfelves ^ had he known it to have been an Alte- ration tin the Church from the State in whjch the ApoJIles left it ', as he mufi' have done according to the Conj'edture of fome modern Writers. And the jiiore highly he magnifies it, flill the grc.ater Argument it is, ihat he knev/ it to be fetled by tlie Apojlles in tho Churches f ^3 ^^ 342 A brief Defe?ife of of Chnjf, and that it was their Will it fhould be retain- ed, and efteemed. It is impolTible he fhould fpeak of it as he doth, if he knew it, and all the Church then knew it, to be a voluntary prudential Compa£t amongft the Prefiyters. For what could induce him to do it ? Or what Influence could his high Words ha\'e upon thofe who knew as well as himfelf that it was juft then agreed up- on •, and had no higher an Original than the Coifent of Treshytera ? So that this wholly deftroys the ftrangeSup- pofition before mentioned ^ without which, I believe, a very reafonable Account may be given of his fpeaking after fuch a manner of BiJJwps in thofe Days, and in the Circuwfiancea the Church was then in. The fourth Reafon why v/e cannot eafily come to know the true Senfe of the Fathers is this, p- 15"?. becaufe fovie of them hi their Commeyitaries vientwied the Opimo7i of others an well as their oww, whhov.t any D'lJi'inBion : Avd in their Writing agahiji their Adverfaries^ fome of them ufcd diPonoiirahle Methods. I am indeed almoft alliamed to anfwer to fuch Argu- ments as thefe. For, I. Can it follow from hence that their Tejlimonles con- cerning Matters of Fait in their own Days, are not their own Thoughts > That Ignatius and many others whofe Teftimonies are not in Commentaries^ fpake not their own Mind in what the}'' fay of Epifcopacy ? Or that what they fay who ufe no bafe Arts againft their Adverfaries, nay, who had no Adverfaries in this Point, ought not to be relied upon > ■2. Can it follow from hence, that therefore their un- exceptionable Tejlimojiies concerning the Canon o( the Nev Teftament^ cannot be relied on ? If not, why may not their Tejihnonies liliewife concerning Eplfcopacy ^ 3. If it can be Ihewn that the particular Tejlmonies on which we rely in thefe Cafes, are not plainly their owii Thoughts, but the Notions of others; or that they knew the contrary to what they mtnejfed in thefe Points : This jndeed would be to the purpofe. But it is abfuxd to al- lege Epifcopal OrdhratiO}). 543 lege againft thcfe Teftimonies, that other Paflages are not their own Thoughts ^ or that fome ofi^/'Perfons were not always fair Difputavts 5 or that fome of the Pcrfons who give thefe Teftimonies did not always, in other Points, maintain their own Opinions after themofthor iiourable manner. The Fifth Reafon is, becaufe the Fathers adzhin- p. 153. €6 cL gradually hi Knowledge • and they often alter'd their Minds ^ and who known hit that they retraced in this Matter^ as they did in others f* This indeed is of defperate Confequence with refpe£t to all Wfiorical Certainty ^ that the luiiverfal Tejlimony of many Ages fliould be rejefted upon fuch a ftrange Sup- pofition. Who knows but that they retradted their Te- stimony about the Ifritings of the Apoftles, and Evar.ge- UJis ? And what will become of the Holy Scriptures at this rate, or of all Hijiory ? For who hwws but that all the Hiftorians in the World retraced what is now come to us under their Names > And who knows at laft, but that St, Jerome^ and Aeriiis retraced all that they had faid about the Identity of Eifiops^ and P/ieJls ? This is as much as to fay, becaufe they retraced fome things, therefore they perhaps retraced all things : Becaufe they retraded fome Opinions and Notions, built upon former Reafon- ings of their own, v/hich they found to be falfe, there- fore they retracted their Teftimcny concerning ?i Matter oiFa^-, in which they might be as well fatisfied at Forty Years of Age as at Fourfcore. This was a Point that de- pended not upon their Judgment, and Reafening, only concerning what was in their own Da3^s, or what was iranf iiitted dov/n to tliem from their Predecefibrs : An(J therefore here is not room for the Suppofition of an Alter ration of their Minds. Nor could this be in any number of them without fome notice of it : Nor is there the leaJB: ground to fuppofe it, becaufe we know of noi"ke who were of a contrary Opinion in the firft Days coiicernirg the Government of the Church. I think thofe who rea{()n at this rate, may as well go a little farther j and i'dj.per- Z. 4 ' %" - 4 4 -^ ^rzV/ Defenfe of haps there never were any fiich Men as thefe Fathers j and perhaps we are all in a Dream. The Sixth Reafonis, becaufe it is hard to difcover how the Fathers held their Opinio7is, whether as jtecejfary^ or as •probable 07tly, &c. But it is evident at iirft fight that this cannot touch their Tejliynony about the Books of the New Tejlamevt, that they were extant in their Days, and that they were written by the Apojlles-. Or their Teftimony about Epifcopacy, that it was the Government of the Church in their Days, and inftituted by the Jpojlles. However they exprefs themfelves in many of their No- tions, and Opinions ^ we know that when they fay, the Apojlles inftituted Epifcopacy, the Words are not capable of any Senfe but ojie^ and cannot bemifunderftood. The Seveyith ^nd. laft Reafon is, becaufe we cannot be furethat their Teftimcny (^who are now remaining) was the general Senfe of the Church. But this is much the fame with the firft Reafon, which fappofes many Writers loft who perhaps contradicted this Teftimony: To which I have given a diftincl Reply. I ftiall only add, that there can be no Hijlorlcal Certainty at this rate : For what Ihall we do, unlefs we will depend upon thofe who are extant • and acquiefce where there is no Footftep remaining of any Contradidlion from good Hands ? For why is it that any Hijlorians are depended on, but becaufe they are efteemed as faithful Reprefenters of the Senfe of all thofe who had opportunity of knowing the Things related > But who knows but that many in their Days contra- dicted their delations, tho' we have no Account of them ? Who knows but that many in the Da3^s of the Fathers dif- fer'd from 'em about the Canonical Boohs of the New Tefta- ment? Whoknoxvs but that ?na7iy inight oppofe 'em, and not write ^ or that they may have written, and their Jfritivgs have been devoured by tiine, or fupprejfed by the contrary Party ? And who knows, laft of all, but that there were many more good Writings, and Tcftimonies in favour of Fpifcopacy once extant, and afterwards fupprefs'd by the fuppofed Lnemies to it ? To what a degree oflncrer dulity Bplfcopal Oidination, 545 iiiVity may we come by fiich Steps as thefe ? And whither will the love to a particular Caufe fometimcs carry Men ? Thus have I gone over alltlie Reafons alleged b.yalate Author, to prove that it is not eafy to come to a know- ledge of the true Senfe of the ^wtzV77t Church concerning Epifcopacy : And have, I hope, faid what is fufficient to Ihew the little force there is in them, in the Cafe now before us. I proceed now to the next OhjcB'ion againft the Authority of the Fathers in the point of Epifcopacy. Ohj. ^. We canvot Ted{onab\y depe7id 071 the Re- port of the antientChuYch-WTitci's, 271 this Cafe, p. i$6. becaufe we find thejn guilty of fo mavy Mifiakes, a7tdfo ofte7i cofitradi&i7ig one a7iother, concerning Apojloli- cal Traditions. I anfwcr, 1. They do not contradid one another in this Point : But are as generally agreed, as it is well pollible to ima- gine, that the Gover7nne7it of the C/;w;'<:/; in their Days was Epifcopal ♦, and that this was of Jpofiolical Irjlitution, And I add, that their contradicting one another in other Points, is fo far from being an Argument againft their Teftimony in this Cafe, that it adds a Strength and Force to it : It being always efteemed a good fign of a true Fad, that Perfons, who are very free in contradiding onea- nother in other Matters, confent and agree in it. 2. Suppoiing their contradidingone another, and their Miftakes in other Points, an Argument againft their. Tefiiniony concerning Epifcopacy^ it is equally an Argu- ment againft their Tejlimony concerning the Booh of the New Teflame7it, and the Authors of them. And ihofe who receive their Tf/iwow)' in 077^ Cafe, notwithftanding this Argument, ought in Juftice to receive it in ajwther. But to clear this Point more thoroughly, which fo nearl/ touches the Holy Scriptures themfelves, lobfervc, 9. That there is no Cafe produced by thofe who have laboured moft to do it, in which thefe a7itient Writers weie 7?iiJ}aken, ox contradi^ed one miothev, parallel to that Tejiimony concerning Epifcopacy we are now confidering : And confequently none which can afFe6t that Point, foas to 5 4^ A brief Defetife of to invalidate their Tejlimony concerning it, as will appear fcy confidering particularly ever}'' Ivjiaiice alleged. ^ Papias reported the Thoiifavd Team bodily Re'ign of Chrift vpon Earth, for a-n Apoftclical Tradition, But, I. This might be merely a Miftake of his Judgment, putting a more literal Interpretation than was defigncd upon fome obfcnre Saying of one of the Apojlles - or de- ducing fome Confequences of his own from it : For it is by thefe means that a Docirhte is moreeafily liiifreported, than a fettled vifibleAlatter of Fact. 2. Here is no In- fiance given of any TeJIi7no7iy that the contrary was taught hj the Apojlles : And fo, for ought appears, the Do^lrhie ivhich he might thus interpret was truly, as he faid, an ApoJloUcal Tradition. Thus many at this Day think this Millemilal Rclgn oiChrlJl an Apoftollcal DoSrhie : And it is certain that the Words, upon which they found it, are Apoflollcal. 9. Suppofi)^g Papla-s had born Teftimony concerning the Apofiollcal bijlltiitlon of Eplf;opacy,l can- Hot fee how his Millake, Aippoiing it one, in the oth:r Cafe can invalidate his Teftimony in this: Becaufe that is a Point very capable of Miftake, and very probably mixt with his own Rcafovwg -, and this concerns a plain, fettled Matter of Fact, in which there is no room for Reafoning, or for the Miftakes of his own private Judg- ment. 4. If any think othcrwife, I think it is but rea- Ibnable that only Paplas fhonld fuffer for the Miftakes of JPaplas. And therefore fuppofing him one of th« If it- neffc^ for Eplfcrpacy-^ his Miftakes can only invalidate his own Tijlimony, not the 'TeJHmovy of others, who in great Numbers witnefs to the lame thing. But fuppofing his Works were now extant, and he Ihould be found to bear Witntfs to the Apojiollcallvjihittion of another For^ of Church Goveryime'fit^siccord'm^ to the unreafbnable Fancy ibf tht .Author I am now confidering, the fame Author hath here deftroyed his whole Credit at one blow, and i^roved him a mcft incompetent Witnefs in any fuch Cafe. So that I hope th-e fuppofed, loft Teftimony of fuch a AVit- iicfs will be 210 longer of any force. But, 5. What %nijivs "it "jP^T^, Epffcopal Ordination, 547 it to ufe words ? Paptas is not one cf the Writers upon whofe Teftiniony Epifcopacy relies •, and therefore hh Mi- ftakes fignifie nothing to their Tcftimony •, unlefs it he a good Argument that one Hiftorian ought not to be be- lieved in one particular Story^ becaufe another Hijlorian was miftaken in quite a different Matter. The next Injlavce^ and that the mofi fartwus one, p j^g. oi Mijiah, and Contradi^ion amongft-the Anti- ^ ents concerning Jpnjlolical TraSitiovs and LiJIitiitiojts,^ is the Covtroverfy about the Obfervation of Eafler : In which Polxarp pleaded that St. Jolm was for one time, and Ani- cetus^ that St. Peter was for another. And indeed this is a fad Inftance of thePronenefs of the beft of Men, to aft with an ungoverned Zeal, and to come to Extremity againft one another. But I fee not what Argument can be brought from hence againft their Tefiimony concerning Matter of Fali. For i. It dothnot appear but that both thefe Perfons were in the right, as to Fa[i. It is well known that it was theconftant Cuftomof th.e Apoflles, in all indifferent Matters, to com.ply very much with the Humours and Cuftoms of the Place where they reiided : Which mkes it very highly probable that Polycarp might have known St. Johjt for one time, at gjw Place, and Arii- cetus St. Peter for another time, for different Reafons, at a7tother Place. This is agreeable to their Pradlice in all other like Cafes .• And therefore here is no Mijfale^ or ContradiBion concerning FaB. 2. All the Miftake here is in Point of Judgment •, arifing from their not confide- ring the prudential Maxims by which the Apoftles guided their Pradice. The very Apofile who had appeared zea- lous for one time at one Place, would without all doubt have been as zealous for another time ., at another Place, where the Cinvwjfances of things were different. But thefe Men not coniidering this, were fo weak as to think, that in fo indifferent a matter as this/ all Chriftiajis in all Places ought to comply with what each of them knew to have an Apojlles Example on it's fide, and this only at one certain place, and amongft one particular fort of ' • . " People. ^38 • ^ ^^^^f ^<^fi>ife of People. Now this Error of judgment in them, (tho' much to be lamented; becaufe it was purfued to the great Scandal of Chriftianitj -J can never prove them incom- petent iritneffes concerning plain Matter of FaU^ unlefs it be required that all iritneffes about FaBs be infallible in their Judgment, and Reafonings. 9. Suppofing that Polycarp, and Anicctiis, were Perfons, on whofe Tefti- mony, amongft 'others, we depended concerning the Apofiolical Injlitution ot' Epifcopacy-^ the difference, con- tradiction, and heat which was between them concer- ning the Ob fervat ion o^ Eajier, will be fo far from inva- lidating their confeitihtg TeJIimony in another matter, that it will mightily ftrengthen it : As it is generally thought that the confent of two Perfons in one thing, Wiiom a iharp^Difpute about another Matter of the like nature hath irritated againfl: one another, is of more weight, than the confent of two Friends : It being ufual for fuch Per- fons, to contradift one another out of Prejudice, and in order to fhew that their Adverfary is liable to Miftakes in other Points, as well as in that concerning which their former Conteft had been. 4. But thefe are not the Per- fons of whofe Tejimony we rely in the Caufe of Epifco- ^acy : And therefore a thoufand worfe Miftakes in them will fignify nothing to the Point ^ unlefs it be fair, and juft, that the Credit of one Man Ihould be forfeited by the Mifdemeanours of another. According to whicli Prin- ciple there cannot be a Perfon of Credit in the World. If Po/}'6tr/p have failed in this Point, let him only fuffer for it : And then what becomes of the Negative Argmncnt drawn from his mentioning only two Orders as cf any regard in the Church . 2. Suppoling we cannot have an exad: 'Account of the firft Settlement of particular Churches t, of their Founders, and of the Lnr^ of ^i/7;op fucceeding in them; this will no more prove that there were no JBifiops in them, than the Difputes, and Differences about the Succeillon, and Years of reigning,of theiCfw^jof any Country, will prove that there were no itzr/^i in thofe Countries. Nay, this will no more prove that there were no Bipops iu-lhofe Churches, than that there were no Presbyters in them. For if this Argument prove any thing, it will unhappi« ly prove too much-, wV. that no Churches of Chrifiavs were fetled any where : It being certainly as concluiivic? to fay, Bijlorians are obfcure, and uncertain in their AC' counts of the Travels of the Apofiles, and the Settlement of particular Churches ^ therefore there were no Churches fettled by thcm^as it is to fay, they are very uncertain in their Accounts of the ^z/tce^o?: ci BiJIwps in particular Churches^ therefore there were none. But what wonder is it that Bijlorians at fome Hundred Years diiiance, fhould not be able to furnilh out exad Accounts of the particular Circumftances of thefe Things? Or what At* gument can this be in either of thefe Cafes, when it is fo certain from other )f^riters before them, that there w^i'^ Churches planted by the Apojlles^ and BiJIwps fettled in thefe Churches. And if, notwithftanding this ObjcBion^ we depend upon iheTeJlimony of the more s.nticnt f/^rhen in the oneC'd^e ^ folikewii'emay we in the ether. ?. The Appeal of the more antient Writers {in iheU Difputes with heretical Pt^rfonsj to the DoBrine of thei^i* Jljops^ whom they affirmed to have fucceded one anotli^r from the Apojlles ^ and this not contracUded hy their v.er/' Adverfaries, b-it, as far as appears, acknowledged b/ al.i ' ui 5 5-2 ^ -A hriefDeferife of in thofe Dajrs when the FalJJ)ood of it might eafily have been detected ^ this Appeal^ I fa}^, tho' it do not fupport theabfoluteNcceillty of an uninterrupted iS/rcrf^ow ^ A^et it proves that in thofe early Days it was known and be- lieved, without Oppofition, or Contradidion, that there was fuch a Succelhon cf Bijhops up to the Apofiles. And this is a \'ery great Argument for Epifcopacy, tho' later Writer a \\<{YQ not been able to furnifh out complete Cata- logjies of Bijlmp^. ^ ,^, 4. The fame Author w\\o alleges thisOb- fcurity of //'[/?o/7\t9/i againft £p7/6(;p«c_y, faith that Billiop StiHvfgfieet hcxth givoti us good Reafon to believe that the Apojiles did not take the fame Method in all Places ^ i. e. that in fome C/?w/r^^^ they inftituted jEpfyZop^r)!, and in others not. The Truth of this I fhall by and by exa- mine. But in the mean while there is this ufe to be made of this Concellion, that notwithftanding the Obfcurit}^ of Eufebivs and oihers about the Succejjioyioi BiJImps, it is rca- fonable to believe that the Apojiles inftituted Epifcopacy m {^ome Churches. From whence I infer, that this L^^c^r- taivty concerning the Lijie of Bifiops^ is no more an Ar- gument againft the Apojlolical Ifijlitiition of Epifcopacy in all other Churches, than it is in thofe Churches in which it is acknowledged to have been fettled. Thus have Ifuf» ficiently anfwered this Author's long Difcourfe about the Uncertainty of the Tables of Succeffion^ and fhewn that it can have no force in the prefent Debate, againft the Apo- folical Injfitittion 0^ Epifcopacy. Much lefs can it fignify in this Cawfe, to eipofe the peculiar Notions of fome mo- dern learned Men upon which no Strefs is laid, or to break J efts upon any Trifles which have no reference to the Point in hand. Ohj. •). TheFRthers,efpecially after ConGiSintine s 7i?ne, often condeinned Men unjujily^ a7id without reafon ^ and there- fore their reprefenting Aerius as an Heretick^ for quefionivg the Difference between a Bilhop and a Presbyter, ought not to weiL^h with conlidering Perfons. Now, I. Our Epifcopat Oniinatlo?u ^S9 t. Our Argument for Epifcopacy is not that the Fathers of later Ages condemned thofe who would level it with Presbytery as Heretics •, but that the Fathers and Writers of all Ages bear Teftimony to it, as the Govervtnev't al- ways fettled in the Churchy and fettled bjr the /fpofiles. Now this Tejlhnovy cannot be weakned by any fuch Alle* gation as this. 2. The only true Reafonforrejefting ^erzVs Opinion, would be the Unreafonablenefs ofit,or the Contradiction of it to the Teftimony of thofe who were better Judges how the Churches were left by the /poflles^than he: Not that Epiphanhn condemns him, which I acknowledge to be no Argument confidered by it felf, 3. It doth not follow thatbecaufe the later Fathers 0/- teji condemned Men unjuftly, therefore they altpayx did. fo : But the Merits of the Caufe are to be judged of from other Reafons. 4. All that I build upon this Condem7mtlo7i fef Aerm^ is that the Superiority of Bijhops over Presbyters, was in that Age univerfaliy acknowledged ^ and a Contradiction to it, in any fort, a new thing, and efteemed of very bad Confequence. From whence I infer that they were not, in that Age, the firft Witneiles to the Original of Epifco- pacy ; nor did the)?' think it a 7tovel CoTtJlitmion ;, nor could they efteem it lefs, than as tranfmitted down to them fojf an Jpoftolical Ivptnion. But for the whole Proof of this we depend likewife upon the Tejiivio'iiy of former Ages. 5;. This Tejlimovy can no more be invalidated by fuch Reafonings as this, than the iiviverfal Tejlimony upon which we receive the Books of the A'^n' Tejlament. For it may be urged hj fome after the fame manner againft that, to fndfome of the Fathers reprcfcvAing the qiiefioymtg any of ihefe Booh as Hertfjr^ will fgnify little to fuch as covfder how unjuftly they often condemned Men as heretical. The An-* fwer is plain, This willfhew that fuch Books were tranf- mitted down to them as Apofolical, and the Tcftiinony of former Ages joned to this will be of Weight, notvv^ith- A a Handing 4^4 J brief Defenfe of Handing any fuch Objeclion as this. And the Avfwer is the fame in the other Cafe as in this. Thus have I cleared the Ti?/?7wc7/}' of the Antient Church- trritcrs in the Cafe o^ Eplfcopacy, from the G7?/V/zo7rv al- leged againft the force of it. Some of them, I grant, i hold ftrongly againft a blind Submililon to their Aiitho- \ r'lty in Matters of i^^i:?/b«zV^ and Jvclgment -^ ^y\(\ fome of them againft building much upon what may be called Avnjlolkal by finglePerfons aii ongft the later fort of them. Let us ufe our own Underftandings in Points in which we are capable of judging as well as they. Let us never depend on any of them in Matters of which they are not competent Judges. But let us not under pretcnfe of Freedom and Impartiality, caft off their univerfal concur- rent Tefiimony about a Matter of Fa[i, of which they are the only proper Judges, left we deftroy all Hifiorical Cer- tainty, and forfeit the Credit even of rhe moft Sacred Ifr'?- tJTigs now extant. And this Tejimony ftanding firm,. I m,ay now infer from hence that Epifcopacy is oi ApoJIolical hftitutioyi-, and likewife that the Bufinefs of Ordination was a peculiar Office of the Bif/wps by that Apofiolical Injlitution. This is but reafonable to fuppofe, that as Ordination in the Scriptjire-Tifnes was not left to the Presbyters of Crete and Ephefus-, but Tifnothy and Titus weie fent with CommilJi- ons to perform that Ojice in thole Churches', fo when the Churches were more univerfally fetlcd, and Bipops fetled in them, a Bulinefs of fuch cbnfcquence as Ordination muft have been entrufted to their peculiar Care-, or at leaft foconfin'd to them as never to be perform'd without their Confcnt, and their Hands. And this Conclulion ought the rather to be allowed, becaufe noneof thean- tient Oppofers of i'^^T/copac)', as far as appears, denied this. .^e'WHi, above 200 Years after the Apojlles, out of - a private Refentment, began to level Bijhops with Pref- hyters. This he did, not by pretending to allege any authenticTeftimonies that the Apoftles did at their Deaths leave the Goverjtment of all Churcha, and thQOrdinationoi New Epjfcopdl Ordination, 355 Nttff Vrepyters in the Hands o^Prepyteries •, tut hy argu- ing from fome PafTages in their Epifiles, that Presbyters were equal to BiJImps in the firftDelign of the Apoftles ^ which PafTages Ihall be diftinaly confidered in the next Chapter. But we never read, I think, that he did ex- prefl/ pretend to the Right oiOrdinatio-n. And St. Je- rome^ near :!ooYears after the y^pojlles, in the place where he moft exalts Presbyters, exprellv yields that Ordination is not theirs, but the peculiar Office of the Bifiops. And for the Modern Adverfaries of Epifcopacy, Blondel^ ^ , thegreateft of them, thinks it highly reafonable j^^^; P' to affirm, that as foon as'ever there was a fuper- eminence of owe over many Presbyters in the Church, (which himfelf affirms his Prime-Presbyters to have had in the Days of fome of the Apojlles -, ) the Care of the Churchy and of Ordination particularly, belonged in a peculiar manner to that one Perfon. But becaufe many things are ftill alleged againft the Apoftolicalhjiitiiticin otEpifcopal Government, and Epifcc pal Ordination, 1 (hall endeavour, as I propofed, to give farther Satisfadion in this matter, II. By examining thofe Hypothefes, and Schemes of learned Modern Writers which have been confronted, and oppofed to the concurrent Tejlimony oiav.tiejit irriters in favour of £p7ycopiicv, and the CoMc/w/ow we build upon it. And, Firfi, It is fuppofed by fome that the Apojlles ufed dif- ferent Methods in different Churches, and in fume infti- tuted BiJIwps fuperior to Prejbyters, in others not. And the Author I am now confidering, feems fometimes to be o this Opinion •, tho' at other times, he affirms the A- pojiles to have left all Prejbyters in an equality. But the unreafonablenefs of oppoling Epifcopacy with this Con- jecture, will appear from the following Coniiderations. I. From hence it appears that the Tejiimonies for Epif- copacy are fo many, and fo Authentic, that learned Men who have been wholly indifferent to the Caufe oi Epif- A a 2 copacy. 55^ ^ brief Befenfe of conacy, have thought themfelves obliged to own that the Apnjlles inflltuted it in Q)mc.Churches. 2. Tho' there may, in many other Cafes, be good Rcafons given for the different Conduft, and Behaviour of the Apojlles, as in the Cafe a'' the CeUhratioyi o^Eiflcrj and other Points of that iudiitercnt Nature ^ yet in this Cafe of the Government of the Churches, when once the number o^Chri/iav^, and of Presbyters came to be con- lid erable, no Reafon can be thought of why tjuir Ordfra and hJlitutioTii Should he different in different Places: And therefore it is not rea finable to fuppofe it v/ithout plain Proof from the antient Writers.. 3. None ofthe /^wfFt'whs, as far as appears, Icnow any j thin^ of this difference : But all who fpeak profeffedly of ': Epifcopacy, fpeak of it as of the Government univerfally ; fetled in all Churches, where-ever there -was a number of | ChriJI'hxvs, and Presbyters. Nav, St. Jerome, the chief i Patron oiPresbyters aniongft thcAvtitvAs pohtively affirms, • that whenever the Injlitiitlon of Epifcopacy was, it wut all j over the C^;-i/?f.77; World at the fame time-, and that before . I that all Churches were alike governed h-y Presbyters. So ] that, as our Author not unjuflljr faith, "with refpecl to \ Dr. Flajjwiojtd's Notion of two Bijbnps in one Ch.urch at the fame time, th^t had there been any fuch thing, it is impoifible that the difcovery of k iliould have been left to the Moder7is -, it may in the fam.e manner be faid of this CovjeBiire^ that had there been anv (uch Variety in theApoJiles Settlement of different Churches, the difco- very of it would not have been left to Perfcns at j6cc Years diftaiice, but the avAicnt "Writers muft have taken Ibme Notice of fo remarkable a Thing. 4. The chief Patron of this Opinion is Bilhop Siill'mg- feet in his Trevicrivi^ p. 325". Sec. where he endeavours to Ihewtiiat in/wii// C^7//'67;e',?, where there r^'/w no ^r eat pro- bability of increafe, there was at frfx only a Pajlorfetled.with Deacons; and in larger Churches a College of Presbyters to govern b}'^ their joint Counfels. As to the former of thefe Pofitions 5 here is nothing alleged to Ikcw, either that thcfe ] J Epifcopnl Ordination. ^57 thefe Pajlorxh^d any right to ordain others-, or that they v/crenot under the Jnfpeftion firft of the Apojlkf;, and fiich Church Ojicej<'s as limothy and Titiis • and afterwards cf fxed Bifiops. Make the moft of it, this doth not prove in the leaft agidnfi: the ApoJloVical Ivjlitntiojt of EpifcGpacy where there was a number of Gvifians^ and Presbyters: Which is all I defire. As to t}\t latter^ that learned Tfrlter alleges nothing in the Proof ^f it, againft tlie fixed Superiority of ove Pcrfon during Life over thefe Freshyters, and his particular Concern in OrdiJiations, and every thing relating to thefe Churches ^ and confe- quently nothing to prove that thefe ver_y Churches were without fixed Bijijops. I am fare, fome of tlie ^n- l^W.y he quotes for this purpofe, are the moft no- ^' '^^* ted Patrons amongit the Ant'icnts of the Epifcopal Power, arid onlv mention thefe Colleges o^ Presbyters as aifift-ing the i?//7;o/7 by their Counfcls, in his Government of the L'-ifrch. But, ^. if it be fiill fuppofed that the' .^'po/Hes infrituted on- ' dy Presbyters for the Goveinment oi fovie Churches, tho' t.hey jiiight appoint Bifiops in others •, how came the for- mer, fo very foon, and Vvqthout an)'' Noife, or the leall ;l/ifturbance, to be fo little fond of Apofidkal hifiitution, as to conform to the Model of the Epifcopal Churches^ and not to iniift in the leaft upon tlie Compliance of the Epif- copal Churches ^Anx.\\ tJiem ? We fee in a leiler matter, the Celebration af EaJIer, th.ey prefs'd after L^?/zyor7/;z7}i, but j^'et iwould not recede one ftep from what tacli fide knew- to jiavebeen ApofloUral Pradiee in different Churches: And of tiiis Qjiarrel we liave a large Account in Hiforians. Is it credible, therefore, tliat we fnouldhave no Account ^fthis Alteration in fo material a Point as the Government pf the Churches:, no Dlfputes raifed upon that Head : iBut a meek Compliance of the PAf^^vK^/;.?;/ Churches with the -Epi/t(5/;,T/,and an Alteration of their Churches, which tthey knew to Itand upon the iameFoat o^ ApojloUcal In- J.ltuticnwkh the others, fo iilently brougiU about, that A a :? ' the 558 ^ ^Kf ^/ Befenfe of the very Memory of it fhould be wholy extiriQ: ? But of this I {hall have occafion tofpeak again by and by. At prefent I fhallonly fay, that either there was no fach Al- teration made in the firft Government of the Churches ^ or elfe that it miift have been made entirely upon very apparent Evidence, that it was the y4po/?/a Will, that at leaft all larger Churches fliould comply with the Epifcopal Form of Goverjimciit. 6. If the Apofiles inftitutcd Epifcopacy in fome Churches (as this Cooyellure grants ) I defire to know whether the Right and Management of Ordbtaiioii^ were not in the Eilhops of thofe Churches. Nay, can it be fuppofed that the ordinary readers and Prejhyters in thofe Churches were dcfigned for that Office by the Jpojiles ? And not being deligned for it, can it be fuppofed that there was any thing in the Commifiov given to them, to empower them lo perform it > If not, then here were Prejhyters by Apo- Jlolical Lijiitutioji without a Right of Ordination. Confe- quently the Arguments alleged for this Right mPrepyters, muft fall, becaufe they prove this Right to have been in the Prefuyters of thefe Churches as itrongly as in any others. Secondly^ Some other Learned Men fee fuch manifefi: Footfteps in the higheft Antiquity of the Supereminency Gf one Perfon in the Churches, that they are o1)liged to own It : But then they fay that at firft this was only a Pritne- JPreJlyter, a Prejident in the Meetings of the Prejhyters, not inveltedwithanv Authority properly fo called o\^er them in their Cures, but voluntarily chofen by them for the better management of their Affemhlies, &c. This hath bepnfaid by the learned Blondel, and others. But I fear this will be found only an Evafion, in order to avoid his scknowledging fuch BiJIwps in the very firft Years after the .'^pojllesas heconfefies to have been univerfally felled in Itfs than Forty Years after them. For, I. The Injlances in Antiquity which he acknowledges to prove this, do indeed, prove a great deal more. The Angels Epifcopal Ordination 559 Joigeh of the Churches in the Revelations, are Perfons to whom the Care of thofe Churches was in a particular man- ner committed ^ and of whom an Account of the Mif- carriages and Defeats in them, is in a particular manner required. Thefe, he faith, were Frhne-Frejhyters, not BiJJwps : Tho' it will be hard to give a Reafon, unlefs he will draw an Argument from hence, that all Parts of the JEpifcopd Ojice are not here eiprefly attributed to them. Audit will belikewife hard to {hew how a Frme-Pref- tyter, by being only chofen Prejident o^theCollege of P/v/- hyters for the more orderly management of their joint- Counfels, Iliould bfcome diargeable with the Faults of their C/jtt;£:/:?c?^, with which, according to thisSuppofiticn, he had nothing to do. For it is manifeft he could be no more accountable for any Congregation but his own, than any of the other Prejl^yters, had he not the Care o^ others committed to him in fnme peculiar manner. And this he could not Iiave, if he were only Prii?ie-PreJI?yter in the College. For as fuch he was only relponfible for his own Failings in his Duty in that Foil : And as for other Faults, an Accouut of them fliould rather hai^e been demanded of thofe ?rejhyters who were tlie Teachers^ and Govenwurs of the particular Congregations. But if a prime-lrepyter wtxe owe wliofe Duty^it was to infped" and take care of thofe Churches in which there were Prepyters alfo fixed, as according to Bhv.del^ he muft have been •, then it is evident that this Prime-Trcjhyter was in truth a Bijlwp with Subjetl Preshyiers under him. And iince he "^ freely grants that thefe Priinc-Prejbyters * ^fo^K' had this Superintendcncy over many Churches |_* %^^[^\\ or Congregations v/'iihiht'ii Prejbyters -^ and was p. 6. after fuch a manner rcfponfible for them ^ and this by the Conftitutionof the Apojiles, or their DJfcipks before the death of them all ^ what is this but to give them the Dominion o^a.BiJI)op over their Brethren ? And what reafon can be given why it Ihould not be acknow- If dged that Epifcopacy was fetled in the Churches in thofe A a 4 early 5^0 A brief D^fenfe of early Day.s > Efpeciall^^confldering that this Pnms-Pref' byter remained in his Office during his Life. 2. As the Inftances he produced for thefe Vnine-Tref- hyters proi'e vevy f^ivourable to E'/ifcopacy, ^o thofe Argu- ments againft the Antiquity of 5i//jo/;.t which are dedu- ced from fome of the antient Writers not mentioning Bifiopin Come Churches 2^"^ well as P/esh\ters and Deacons, hold equally againft thefe Prime-Freshyters, whom he ac- ■ Icnowledgethtohave been at that time in thofe Churches. And this Obfervation is of more weight, becaufe it is ac- knowledged that even in St, J'hns \j^.js the Office of thefe P/ime-Preshytcrx v/as of fachConfideration, that an Account wasjuftly required of them of the Mifcarriages in feveral Churches under them. And therefore fince their Eminence was fuch, it cannoti be fuppofed that St. C/^;7z^7/s would any more have pafs'd by fuch an Cficer in his Letter to the Corhthians.ii there had been fuch an one, than a BiJIwp. And if his Silence be an Argument againft the being of fuch an Officer as a Bifiop •, fo like- wife will it prove that there were no fuch Officers as Prime- Preslyters, But if it be thought that he might be included in the general Word of Preslyters^ or Bipops, fo lilcewife the Bijhop fo called in a peculiar fenfe might be, accor- ding to the Language of thofe earlieft Days, and conii- dcring there was no neceility for a more accurate Diftin- dtion between them. q. Ignatiiis\ Epijiles fufficiently confute this Suppofi- tion, leaving it beyond doubt that in his Time, within Ten Years after the Death oi x\\q Apopc s , the Biffiop of a Church was much more tlian a PriJiie-trcshyter :, fufficient- ly diftinguiihed from other Preshyters^2i'^d. cnnfiderably ex- alted above them : And li'-^-e wife that it w as not a Fancy of his own, or a Novd CovJIituiiov contrived jufc then by the Presbyters. And thefe EpiJlleshcLve been Jcmonftrated to be Genuine by fuch Arguments as all reafovahle Perfons receive other Writings upon: And no one hath advanced any thing againft them-Vv'orthy of regard. * 4. Bloiidd Ep'i [copal Ordination, j 6 1 4. Blovdel t\nr\\s it but highly reafonable to own, that the K^AixoWrdhiatloiihtloyi'gtd. to x]\t^thivie-Preshyteys, at leaft fo far that it was not performM (nor ought it to have been) by any oF the oX-hiixFreshytcrs^ without their bearing the principal part in the Solemnity. And Bifiops in all A^es being at leaft Prime Presbyters^ there can be ,110 Argument dra\\ai from the intriniic i^z^/^f in Presbyters^ in favour of their feparate Ordinatior.s in later Ages, any more than might have been in thoie early Ages. But they muft be defended from other Topics. Thirdly^ Some learned Men amonnfttheiWo^pAwv affirm, in oppoiition to the Tcjlimnnies of the AvLtiems on which the Apojlolical Injlitution of Epifcopacy relies, that the ^^70- Jiles left the Churches under the joynt-Government of Prcf- byters • but that they did all after their Deaths volun- tarily Confent and Agree to alter this Form of Govern- ment, ?i\-\d.Xo c^^hWih fixed Bijlmps for the Government of the C/^rf/- .c/;^.T, and of the Presbyters belonging to them. Nay, fome Men of great Reading have attempted, to con- jedure about what Time this great Change was made, vlx. about Forty Years after the Death of the Apofiles. And this fometimes feems to be the Opinion of the Author 1 am now particularly coniidering. But I delire the fol- lowing particulars may be duly weighed. I. It may reafonably be expefttd that for the Proof of a Change fo great, and fo univerfal, lome plain and evi- dent Teftimonics of antient llYitcrs who lived at the very time when this Change is fuppofed to be made, fhould be produced : And that we fliould not in fo notorious a Matter of Fact, be put offeither with mere Conjectures drawn by Modern Authors from obfcure PalTages of fome ^'f the Antients ^ or with the Affirmation of thole who were not capable of being jriivejjes'm this Point •, or with fuch Rcafoning as cannot prove the Matter here affirmed. It is incredible that fo great and remarkable a Change fhould be brought about without being known tothePerfons of tliat Age in which it was made : And it is as incredible ilui none of them (liould ever exprefly give any Account of 3^2 J brief Defenfe of of fuch a Matter of Fad. I appeal to the Perfons them- felves, who in thefe modern Times fpcak as a^nfidently of this Change, as if they themfelves had been concerned in the making of it, whether they can inftance in anyone fo material and notorious Matter of Fad as this, relating to the State of the Frimltive Church ^which. they themfelves believe withontthe Teftimovy^ I fay, thepZ,«Mand exp/efs Teftimony of good and competent Witncffes. It is a Change in the Church as considerable, according to them- felves, as a Change in a State from a mere Republick to a inix'd Monarchy. And is it propable in the leafl: degree, that fuch aMatter fhould pafs without the exprefs Notice of any JFriters in the Age in which it came to pafs, the' they muft neceffarily be fuppofed to be concerned to ju- ftify it to the World, and to fet forth the great Reafons of fuch an Alteration ? Is it probable that no Writer of the following Age fhould fix the Time, or give an exr.refs Account of it ? Is it probable that the EcclefiaJHcal Hijio- rians afterwards, whofe profelTed Bufinefs it was to relate fuch Matters of Fadt, and who do actually give very prolix Accounts of much fmaller Affairs, fhould give no Account, and take no notice of fo remarkable a thing, as a Change^ which if it had been, muff certainly have allarmcd the whole Chnjlian World ? Again, it is a Change^ according to this Hypothejis^ of an Apojlollcal Ivjlitnion concerning the Government of the Church, a thing which in the fmalleft Points raifed the greateff Jealouiies and Combuflions amongff the Fri77iitive Chrijlians : And is it poffible that it fhould filently pafs, and without any Perfons bearing Witnefs againflit? It is ?i Change which. the adverfe Party moft certainly would for ever have ob- jected to the O^'f/joJo;^, in all their Bifputes, andbyob- jedfing it might have hoped to have drawn more People to their Side than by any one thing imaginable. And is it probable, in the loweff Degree of Probability, that fuch a Change of the Apojlles hijlitution fhould not once be found to be objedted by any Hcretick, or any Perfoii whatfoevcr,?.gainfl the Orthodox ^ Let thofe believe all this. Epifcopd Ofdiimt'ioiu 369 this, who are willing to believe every thing which feems to make for their own Ca»/e .• As for all others, I think they cannot avoid arguing after the following manner. A Change of^n Apojlolical IvJliUitlon, relating to the Go- vernment ofthe Church, is a Matter of Fad very remar- kable, of great Importance, fuch an one as muft have been known and very much fpoken of by the Prmhive Church ; as mufi: have been objeded againft the Orthodox by all their Adverfaries ^ and as muft have been particu- larly recorded and accounted for, by the Writers of the Age in which it was made, and by the profefTed Hijior'i- am of following Ages. But we find no T^/z wo?/)' of any fuch Change made after the A^oJllesBajs ^ no Notice of any Contefi and D'ljitirhance in the Church on any fuch Ac- count, tho' we do upon much lefs ^ and no Objedion concerning any fuch Change, alleged by any of the Pn- whive Writers againft their Adverfaries, or by any of the //'/ Heretich agaiuft iht Orthodox. And therefore cannot but conclude, that there was no fuch Chavge made in the State of the Church ^ not being able to think that fo ron- liderable a Matter of Fad would have been left to the Difcovery ofthe Modervs^ or that the Belief of it can be rationally built upon xh^'ix CovjeBures. 2. There being no exY>xt£sTeJlmo7iy o^ competent Wifnef- fes in any Age of the Church, concerning fuch a Change made afier the Days ofthe Jpojiles, it may with Securi- ty be argued, from the Improbability of the thing it felf, that there could be none. Let any one but coniider the Regards ofthe frft Chilians towards Things ofthe fmal- left Importance, which they imagined to be oi Apojlolical Injlhution ; that they proceeded fo far as to excommuni- cate one another for the fakeofa fuppofed Negledinfo infignificant a Matter as the Time for the Obfervation of Eajier : Nay, that they were ready to die rather than vo- luntarily, and defigncdly to depart from any thing Apo- jlolical ', and then judge whether any Considerations could induce either Prejlyiers, or People, to carry forward, and acquiefce in, fuch a material Alteration ^ or ever to be- lieve 5 '^4 ^ hihf Defe7ife of lieve that the Fonn of Govermnejit, in which the Apo/Iles left the Churches^w^s not as good, and as capable of pre- venting all Things evil amongft Chrijliavs,, as an}^ other that could poihblj be thought of hj any^n after-Ages. I grant that man v Matters of fmall Importance, which might plead Jpajfolital Cujlom^ or P/ffcriptloVj miglit be dropp d and difus'd b}'' Degrees in af.er-Agcs : But that the almoft immediate Succefj/s of the Apojlles fhould pro- fefTedly meet to alter what they knew to be the hijlitutioft of the Apofiles^ in fuch a Matter as the Government of the Churchy is incredible. Again, let anv one coniider the Account and Rf^afons of this Chav.ge given bv St. Jerome^ the firft Author who undertakes to give anjReafon for it, and then judge whether this Change co\i\d be made at the Time fixed by thofe who argue upon his Authority^ in [d- voni of^ Presbyterian Gove r7n}ievt in the Courch or at any time after the Apojlle!;. St, Jerome faith, as a Reaf jn and Qxo\\nAc)£ this Change y that the Laity had multiplied Di- vifions amongft themfelves, by calling themfelves the Difciples of particular Presbyters (to be f^Jre of thofe who baptized them) rather than of C/v7/- and that the Pre^- tyters were fo fond of this,that every one of them elteem- pd thofe Perfons whom they had baptized to be their own Djfciplesy in fuch Senfe to be fare as to make too little Account of their common Mafter Chriji: And that ypon this Occafinn it was decreed all over the Chrijiian World, that Epifcopa y iliculd be brought into the Churches, The Concluiion drawn from this by the Moderns^ is. That , about Forty Years after the Apojlles^ the Presbyters of all Chnrches confented together in the fixing of fingle Perfons in a Superiority over themf dves •, and that the Laity uni- ^verfally acquiefced in this great Alteration^ for the reme- dying the aforefaid Evils : wliich is as much as to fay, that the Preshy-ersWQic univcrfall}'' grown extremely fond of making Difciples to themfelves ratlier than to ChriJl :, and the 7..r2/_y of calling themfelves by the Names oi thofe who had baptized them ^ that the Presbyters whilft they were tlius f nd (jf railing their own Names, met together in "Eplfcopal Ordination. ^6$ in order to remer^y this which they themfe Ires were fond of, and did unanimouHy agree upon a Method to remedy it •, and that the Ldhy, whilft tliey were thus addicted to particular Presbyters^ did quietly, and without any Op- pofition, acqiiiefce inwhat was prefcribed for the reme- dying an Evil which they did not defire fliould be reme- died. A Matter too ahfuTd, one would think, to be be- lieved by any, who know any thing of Humane Nature. I grant thar a Majority oi Presbyters might agree to refti- fy the Mircarriages,and to put an End to the Projects, of a fmaller Number : But this Suppofilion is not agreeable to the forenientioned Account of this Matter, which makes the Argun:€nt univeiTal. A.nd then again it is to be con- sidered that this lefler Number cannot be fuppofed to have quietl}'", and without Reluftance, acquiefced in a Deter- mination, of thofe who had no proper Authority over them, bv which thej were not only prevented from pro- fecuting their own Defighs, but alfo (according to mo- dern Authors) reftrained from the Exercife of Powers^ in the PolTeiiion of which ^according to the prefent Hypothe- fs) they were left by the Apoftles themfelves :, nay, to the careful and confcientious Exercife of which they are ani- m-ated, and commanded to attend in the Apojlolical Wri- tings. So likewifc it may be fuppofed, that fome of the beftof the Laity n^ight acquiefce in a Determination by which the dividing Tempers of others might be reftrained and curbed : But it is not fuppofable that thefe othem fnould, withou*: the leaffcOppofition,agrceto the putting a Stop to. what themfelves were fond of. Erpecially when there lay before their Eyes fo vifible a Plea againft the Method b}'" which this was to be done, vi%. that it was a Deviation from the Inftitution of the v5(pc>/?/£'i.- A Plea fufficient to have dafhed the moll ufeful Determinations at that time, and the rather becaufe the Truth of it could not be denied. Never was any thing known in Hijfory like this, that fuch a Change Ifiould be made by Men a- gainft their own Dc/igns: or acquiefced in by Multitudes \)Ot\i 0^ Presbyters diiid. Ld:5^Nlt\\ovLt making, one Obje^i- ^66 J brief Defenfe of o«, when the falreft and moft unanfwerable Flea in the. "World lay againft it. Never, I fay, was any Matter of Fa[l parallel to this known in Hiftory, unlefs it be that there are many Perfons of /iTt^r Ages, who can greedily believe fuch an improbable Covjeclure as certain Truth, without one competent exprefs Teftimony tofupport it. Let us put any of thefe Perfons themfelves into the Place oit\\e Frhnn'ive Prefuyters^^ovtniing the Churches by their common Counfels •, knowing that they were left in this Office, and direded how to perform it by the Apojlles themfelves ; affcd ing to have Difiples called by their own Name : And we may make themfelves judges whe- ther they would voluntaril}?-, and profefFedly have met together with a Deligncf remedying their own Vanity • whether they would have done this bydivefting them- felves of the Exerr.ife of Powers to which they had been called by the Jpojlles themfelves, or their Difciples: N^y, whether if they had been out-voted in this Matter, they would have lilently yielded, without fo much as alleging for themfelves the juft Plea they would have had againft fuch an Alteration, or making the leaft Oppofition upon this Account, Add to this the Improbability that the fucceeding Prepyters fhould agree to remedy an Evil which I fhall fhew by and by to have been in the ApoJHes Days-, and this by a Method which (according to this Hypothefs) the Apojlles iei\ii^ed to prefcribe for this End, and by Alteration of that particular Method which they left, without doubt, as the beft and propereft they could think of for the remedying this Evil, as well as others, which they knew to be in the Church. This would have been direftly to have oppofed their Wifdom, and Pru- dence, to that of the Apojlles themfelves j ( which I can- not believe concerning them) and muft have fiirnilhedall their Cojttemporaries with an unanfwerable Argument a- gainft their Proceedings. And now, to recapitulate what hath been faid under this Head, That the Succejjlrs of the Apojlks, and the C^rz^iaw People Ihouldfo foon,defign- edly, univerfally, and without any Reluctance, depart from Epifcopal Ordina'cion, ^6y from what they knew to be an Apojlolkal TvJUtutmt, is extreme ftrange ', that they fhould do this in order to remedy an Evil which the ApoJiUs knew to be in their own Days, and thought not proper to remedy in this Method •, that the Prejbyters by doing this, fhould volun- tarily and univerfally agree to reftrain themfelves from the Exerclfe of that Power, and Authority, to which the ApoJIles themfelves declare them to be called, and ordain- ed ; thefe are Suppofitions ftill ftranger : But that this great Alteration fhould be contrived and efteded, and univerfally fubmitted to, by the very Perfons whcfe De- figns, and Humours, and vain AfFedation it was ordain- ed to remedy, and put a Stop to, is the firangefr, and mofl unaccountable thing imaginable. And yet all thefe SiippoJitio7ts muH he admitted as true, and certain, if the 0pi7tJ07t I am now confidering be admitted. But thefe SiippoJitio7!s are abfurd, and impolFible. Therefore, fo is the OpimrAi founded upon them. The only Reply given by a late Author to the Jrpiment drawn from the Improbability DeferfcofMo- that the antievt Church fhould fo generally f^^'J^'p'T have fallen in with Epifcopacy, if it had not p^fg^' ' had its Rife from the J^po/Ze^^, is this, that thix Notion beivg ovce Jiarted, the Fathers may be eafily fup- pofed to have taken it frotn one another as they did the Chili- ajlical Opinion. I have before fhewn the great Difference between their Teflimoiiies, as to Matter of Fa6l, and their Opinions founded in great part upon their own Reafon- ivgs^ andfo refer the Reader to what hath been before faid. I Ihall now add, i. That fuppofing the Fathers ready to deliver any Point down as Apojlolical, this gives no Ac- count how it may be fuppofed that the whole Body of Chrijlians, all over the World, fhould fo foon fall in with Epifcopacy, which was the Matter here undertaken tobe accounted for. 2. The Agreement of fome of the Fathers about the Chiliajlical Opinion, fhews only how fond they were of any thing they had any reafon to think Apojiolp- i-al. ^6S A brief Defenfe of \ cat, tho' mixed with their own Reafoning •, and fo is an j Argument in favour of the Apojlolkal Infiitittjon cS Epif-l Copacy. For if there were fuch a Senfe in the aviient^ Church, concerning any thing they thought Apojlolical^ \ let us confider that accoi^ding to this Author^ the whole '' Chnji'iayi Chnrch could not but know that the Apoftlcs in- \ ftituted the Presbyterian Form of Goverviment^ and then i fee if this can give us aujr Account of their Ealinefs to forfake what they all knew to be ApojloUcal. Had they known the DoBrive contrary to the MillemiiaJ Noiiov to have been ApoJloUcal-^ and univerfally departed from it ivhilft the)"- knew this, fomething might be urged from hence. But at prefent here is no Varalkl. For fjppo- fingthem to be eafy to admit a BoBrlve of no great Mo- ment as Apo/Iolical (upon fome Teftimoyiy) the contra- ry to which they could not direcll}'- ]Tove ^ this will not fhew that they were eafy to admit a Change in that Go' 'ver7i7?ierd which, they knew to be Apojlolical^ but rather the contrary, that they would with the greateft Zeal have adhered to it. 5. How unworth}^ is it in this Author to talk of Be£gns of gaining and fupporting a Gravdeurj, when according to our B/cthren themfelves, Epifcopacy was fixed in as great an Heighth as can be reafonably wilhed, at a time when all the Grandeur of a Bifiop was to he firfi in Labours^ and firji in AIartyrdo7?i ? I find any ContradiBions can be urged rather than fome Truths ad- mitted. But to return. 5. Add to this, that there are particular, and exprefs Tefti?ncjiues to the contrary ^ not onlj^ of St. Jeroiiie h'lm- fcif, on whom it is unjuftly founded, who traces up Bi- Jlrjp'!^ in the Senfe in which the Word was ufed in his own Days, to the Times of the ApoJlUs themfelves ^ not only of profcfTcd Church HiJIoriavs, who all agree in the im- mediate SucceJiionof B'/fhops to the Apo/lUs themfelves in the Govervmcfit of the Church ^ but clJ/^riters in that very intermediate Space, in which this Parity of Presbyters is alferted to have been in the Church. I fhall mention but Two ; but thofe fuch as may juftly be Itiled uncontrol- lable Epifcopal Ord'matlon: 36*9 lable. The] frji is of St. Joht, the laft of the Apojlles, inwhofe latter Daj^'s we may well imagine the Afrairs of the Church began to be in fiich Hands as the Apojllet were mojft willing they fhould continue in after their Deaths. The Angels of the Chjirches to whom he writes in the Revelations, are allowed by Blondel himfelf (the chief Patron of the Opinion now before us) to have been parti-» cular Perfons to whom the Care of the Churches was in fuch peculiar Senfe committed, that they were accoun- table for the Defeats in their Churches. That thefe could not be particular Presbyters, v/ithout any others in any Senfe inferior to them, he likeWife allows ^ 1 fuppofe becaufe it is a great Abfnrdity to fuppofe but one Pres* lyter in each of thofe Churches there fpolcen of. And that they could not be merely pri77ie Presbyters (as he would willingly make them) is as evident, becaufe it could not be the Partof apWw^ Presbyter (according tohimfelfj X6 be accountable for the Faults of thofe Flocks over which other Presbyters were appointed. It remains, therefore^ that they were in Reality, tho' not in Name, 5i/;o;/5, with. Presbyters fubjed to them ^ and confequently that the Churches were not univerfally governed by Presbyters without Bi/l)ops, before the Year of our Lord 140-, and confequently that the Eftahlipment of Bifiops was not made at that time, but before the Death of all the Apo- jlles, as Mr. Baxter thought himfelf obliged to acknow- ledge, with refpedt to fome Churches. The other Tejiiinony I mean to allege is that o£Ignatiiis fiiot Ten Years after the Death of the Apnjiks) who in many places of his Epi', files, makes as manifeft a Diftindtion between Bifiops and Presbyters as hath been ufualin the Ages after him -^ and carries the Epifcopal Dignity to a very great Heigth* Kow becaufe he fpeaks very highly of Bi- fops, who in thofe Days were the chief Sup- D''/? "> of Ma' ports and Ornaments of the Chrifian Caiife, f^^ftyTp-'h as well as Governors in the Church, a late p. 152* Author is pleafed to drop Infinuations a- gainft the Genuinenefs of thefe Epijiles without alleging J B b any 570 AhriefDefenfe of anr fingle Confldcration againft what hatli "been written,' by Billiop Pearfon in that Caufe, fo entirely to tlie Satis- " faction of impartial Judges : which fiircly I may ventare, to fay is a Proceeding not very worthy of one concerned for Truth. Or if they be genuine, he doth, in effect, pay the Writer of them the civil Complement of being out of his Jfits, or a Blafphemer -^ tho' no one had more Ho- nours given him by the Prmitivc Church than this Martyr. I fa3r, he pays him this Complements unlefs his Way, or fome other like it, be taken to foften fome of his Expref- fotis. The Way he propofeth is this. That Ignatius might perhaps jnagnify the Power of a Lifiop above that of a Prei- byter as Divine, 27/ Oppojition to thofe who might perhaps re- prefect any fiich Dijjerevce in Degree^fx'd by Humane Pru- dence to projuote Peace and Order, as uidawful. That is, That Ignatius magnified the Power of a Bijhop as Bivive^ which he knew to be an Ivjlitution merely Humane • that he magnified it to this degree many Years before it was heard of in the Church, unlefs this Author will recede from the Opinion of Blondel, and bring up the Decree for the Inftitution of Epifcopacy to the very Borders of the Apojiolical Age ^ and that he did this in Oppofition to a fort of Men who never were lieard of in the Chrijiian Church till thefe laft Years, either amongft the Hereticks, or Orthodox. Behold to what unaccountable Suppofitions Prejudice and Refolution will carry Men ; Whereas I de- jfire to infer nothing from thefe Epijlles but this, that Ignatius knew it to be agreeable to the Mind of the Apo files that there fliould be Bifiops fuperior to Prejbyters j that this was no new, or fi:range thing even in his Davs ^ and that therefore the fettled Government of the Church was Ep7fcoj)al long lefore the Time fix'd hy Blondcl, and not firlt introduced by the Confent of the Prejbyters of that Age, or indeed of any other. This, I confefs, I can- not but think a Demcnjlration againfi: the Hypcthcfs of that Learned Man : And it ought to have great Weight, bccaufe there is nothing throughout his long, and very cb- Eplfccpal Ordinaticn, 57^ o1>rcure /^po^)! of any force to invalidate this iingle Te- ftimony againft him. 4. Laft of ?.1I, Becaufel have here alleged againftthe Ophioji I am now confidering, that there is no exprefi Te* ! jl'moiiy of any cojnpetent iritnefs to fupport it, which in all i reafonmay he cxpe£ted in the Cafe of an hnportaitt, and ' very remarkable Matter of Fa^ ^ it is but juft that I fhould consider thofe avtient Authors, whom the Vatrons of this Ophuon profefs to follow in it •, and impartially examine ; the PaOages cited out of them, that fo it may be feen how well they can bear that Conchfwn which is built upon tliem, or how effedually they prove p.gainft the Apo* Jlolkai Ivjlitiition of Epifopacy. I. The frj}' who is produced as exprefly opposing the Superiority of BiJ/wm over Presbyters is Aentts. This he j Was led to do cut of private Refentment. But of hoW llittle Account he ought to be in the Cafe before us will i appear from the few following Conliderations : that he I lived near Two Hundred Years af^er this Alteration in I the State of the Church is pretended to have been made^ ' that he pretends not to atteft any fuch Matter of Fact; to produce WitnefTes for it, or to fettle the Time when it Was made; that he affirms not there was ever any Time, after the Apoftles, in which there was not fuch a Stlperi- ! oritjr ; that all he pretends to is to reafon from fome Ex- I prelfions ufedby the Apojlles ^ that their firft Defign was I to make no fuch difference in Ecclejiaji'ical Officers^ which i Rcafonings fhall he examined in their due place ^ and I that he doth not fo much as affirm that they themfelves I did not afterwards find Gccalion to alter their firft De-* ;lign-, that his Opinion was condemned, and accounted ■ extremely ftrange, and wholly new, and himfelf had nd Followers ^ and laft ot all, that amongft all his Pretenfes, and Reafonings, in favour of Prejbyiers,l he doth not lay Claim to the Right oi Ordination •, and that in the midft of all his Refentments he did not attempt to exercifethat Right, which ought to be of great force in the Cavfe I am now particularly concerned in. Let anyone, theref'^re, B b 2 iudge 572 A brit^f Befenfe of judge from all this, whether any thing of Moment cm , be alleged from Aeniis^SLs an authentick Tejlmovy in fa* > vour of this great Alteration in the Church lb much con- tended for by the modern Adverfaries of Epifcopacy ^ or in contradidtion to the concurrent Teftimony of avtiejit l^rhers concerning the Right of BiJI^ops to govern, and ordain^ II. Thech'ef Patrow, amongft the Antiejits, ofthisfup- pofed Alteration in the Church,, on whom the Moderns build much, is St. Jerome, with whom thofe few other antlent tTriters, who {peak any thing after the fame man-, ner, muft ftand, or fail. Let us, therefore, fee of what Weight the PafTages alleged from this Father are in the prefent Debate. I. We muft call to mind that the Alterationwesive now; fpeaking of is a remarkable Matter of Fact, to which we. fnax'- juftly require the Teftimony of competent Witnef* fes^ concerning the Time and Manner of doing it. Now St. Jerome was not fo much as born till Two Hundred Years after this Change is pretended to be made : 80 that what might be expedted from him is that he fhould not only affirm this ; (which iignifieth nothing, becaufe of* himfelf he can be no fufficient Witnefs to it ^) but that he fhould allege the exprefs Teftimony of thofe wha, were Witneftes to it. This he doth not attempt to do >, and therefore cannot be a Witnefs to the Matter of Fad, but only ('if the moft be granted^ one of the fame Opini- on with the inodern AnthorsI B.m nowconfidering. II. It being only the Opinion and Judgment of St. Jc- rome, which can be drawn from the Paflages alleged out of him-, and this manifeftly founded upon his own Rea- fonings from fome PafTagCG in the Writings of the Apo- fiUi, it is not agreeable to the Principles of thofe who follow him initj that v/e ftiould receive it merely on his Authority, but that we fhould ftridly examine the Rea- fons on which he founds it ; which fhall be done in the next Chapter, when I come to confider \.\\e.Pleas in favour of the Rights of Presbyters urged from the New Tejlajnem. But Eprfc op at Ordination. ^73 But In the mean while that we may fee how far this I y-W;^/^ patronizes the Opinion of thofe iWo^^/'w^ who af- 1 firm an Alteration to have been made in the equality of I all Presbyters about Forty Years after the Death of the i Apojlles, and pretend lo be his Followers in this, it is fit i we Ihould examine as carefully as poflible what the Judg- i ment of this Father was, by carefully coniidering what ; it is he affirms, and by what Arguments he attempts to I prove the Truth of what he maintains. \ ' He doth indeed deliver it as his Judgment, that ac- j cording to the original Defign of the Apofilex the Churches I were once governed by the common Councils o^Pres' ytersj and that there was afterwards, upon a juft Occafion, an i Alteration made in this, and another fort of Govern- ment fettled in all Churches. But to thofe very Presby- ters, to whofe Government the Churches were once left, he never afcribes the power of Ordaining others, but de- nies it to all Freibyters. And again, he neither affirms nor implies it to be his Opinion, that this Alteration was made after the Death of the Apojlles^ or that it was made by the Presbyters themfelves met in Confultation, So that thefe things are entirely new, and manifefl: Addi- tions to what St. Jerome fays, nor to be deduc'd by any Rules of rcafoning from his Words. How then can the yiodeni Patrons o{ Presbyters ^2ithei this their beft, and moft efteemVl Scheme upon an Author in whom no fuch things are to be found. On the contrary, that St. Jerome either had no fettled and determined Judgment in this m.atter, or meant to fignify that the Alteration he fpealcs of was made in the Days of the Apoftles themfelves, and ,by their Authority, or with their Approbation, is to me manifeft: from the following Obfervations, which I defire may be regarded. I. I have obferv'd already that he doth not fay this Alteratiov was made by the Presbyters after the Death of the ApoJIles^and the Settlement of the Churches according to their Minds. This ought to have its weight, becaufe it would have been very much to the purpofe he had then B b ^ 'in g-r^ AbriefDefenfe of in view : And that it is incrtdible that he fhould have be 11 of this Opinion, and not have alleged it when he was pi ad^ng for an original Equality of &/'o;;5 and T^ref- hyters I appeal to his Followers, who never have thought . it fufficient to that purpofe to affirm fuch an Alteration to have beer, ma le, without affirming it lilcewife to have been ma le hj M^n after the Jpojlles Deaths. His Defign manif^^ftly was to fay all that he thought true againft the diftindion between B'lfiops Rud Preshyterx : Audit is ofK'n obferv'd, (^and efpecially by the laft Advocate for the Rights oi Presbyters) how eafy the Fathers found it to run things to an extremity in any Caiife they under- torlc. And ye' St. Jerome in all his Zeal againft this DiJlivBion faith only that there was a Time when this JDiJl'niBion was not in being : But never intimates that it was not made and fetled in the Days of the Jpojlles them- felves-, or that the Pr^i^jtj/-^ of After-ages alter'dthe De- j(ign of the Apojlles after their Deaths : "Which fingle Thing, if he could have faid with any Truth, muft have done his Caufemore fervicethan all he hath alleged ^ and therefore, I conclude, he would certainly have faid it, and endeavoured to prove it, if he had thought it true. Bur that he did not think this true but rather that the Apcfdes rheirfelves made the Alterations he fpeaks of, I have not only this Ne gat'ive ^h\it othtx po fit ive Arguments to u ge. 2. I argue from his alleging only fome Expreffions in the Writings o.[ the Apofles and not anyV.'ords, or Te- ftin.onjcscf any Writer after them. For fuppofing his Reafi nings from thefe Eipreffions juft (which indeed they are not) they will not prove that the Alteration fpo- Icen of was not made by the -"^oj^/^^ themfclves after the time in which they wrote the PafTages cited by him : Nor will his alleging them fhewthatit Vv-as his Dcf ign to prove this. And again, if his Defign had been to prove that this Alteration was made fome time after the Death of the ApfiJIles^ hisBufinefs inufl h^vebcen tolhev/, not only Epifcopal OrdinatJon 575 t''^a^ there was a time during the Lives of the ApoJIles, but alfothat there was an intermerliate Space in which there was no diftinftion between Bifl^ops and Pz-esbyters : And this from Pajjage.^ of feme Jf^nters, or Records of fome Churches, m that intermediate Space. But this he doth not fo much as attempt to do : And from hence I^ con- chule that it was not his Dehgn to affirm, or intimate any fuch thing. 9. I argue from his reckoning up Bifiops in the Church of Alexandria to the time of the Jpojlles themrcives,who, after they were chofen by the Presbyters, muft have been, according to himfelf, Bifiops in the fcnfe in which that Word was us'd in his own Days. Thefe BiJIwps muft ac- cording to St. Jerome have been the Governors of the Church, ai d of the Presbyters themfelves -. For He makes all the Care and Solicitude concerning Ecclefajlical Affairs to he devolved upon them as foon as they were conititu- ted. They muft be the Ordairiers of other Presbyters^ even according to Blovdel himfelf, unlefs he deny to them what he grants to his Prime-Presbyters in each Church. So that here are Bifiops with diftind Powers, after their Ele^ion^ fromthofe of their £/^(^or5 (as diftindt as the Powers of a General from thofe of the Ar7ny which chufes him, which is one of the Similitudes by which he illuftrates this matter -,) immediately fucceeding St. Ma;/: in t\-\Q Church Q^ Alexandria : And confequently the like in other Churches, according to St. Jcroyne, who makes all Churches uniform, and the reception of Epifccpacy, whenever it v»'as received, to be univerfal atthcfame tinie. From whence I argue, that the Alteration fpoken of by him from Presbyterian to Epifcopal (J ovcr7ment was thought ' by him to have been made before the Deatli of the Apo- jiles. For the Alteration he fpeaks of is the chufujg oi:c out of the i-V^.v/'v^f/y to be fet over tliem, infteadcf re- maining in their original Equality. This is the Altera- tjon, I fay, he fpeaks of-, and this He afhrms to have been in the Churib of Alexandria without any interruption, B b 4. fiora 57^ ^ ^yi^f ^^/^«A ^f from St. Mark''5 Dsljs, in whole Place thefe Bljfiops arc without doubt, fpoken of by St. Jerovie^sis fucceediiigina much more eminent fenfe than the Body of the Presbyters . For all he here faith in favour of thefe Presbyters is that they chofe thefe Bifiops : But after that Choice he mani- feftly makes as great a Diftindion between thefe Bipops, and the EleBo-n^ the Freibjters, as was between the BiJJwps^ and Presbyters of his own Age. So that it is manifeft that St. Jerome was of Opinion, that there were Bifiops, in the erffinent fenfe of the Word, in the Church of Alexandrlt from the time of St. Marh i. From his ufing the Word Epifc:'pus, which he never intimates to have been ufed for SL Prime Presbyter, or any other Ofcer but a Bifiop emi- iiently fo calFd. 2. From his faying that this Word was appropriated to this Oj^c-^;*, even from St. Mark's Days : For as the confus'd ufe of this Word is his Argument againft the original Difthi&:ion of Bifiops and Presbyters, fo the Appropriation of this Word to one Officer^ infers a Diftindion of his Office from that of Presbyters. How- ever, here is an Argument for the Appropriation of the Word, even in the Days of fome of the Apoftles, contrary to Blondel, and others who pretend to follow him. ■:. From his making this Bipop to anfwer to the General of an Army, whofe Powers after he is chofen are vaftly di- :(Hndt from the Powers of the Jr7ny which chofe him. 4. Fromhis own Account of the introducing Epifcopacy, viz. The chuling ow(? from among the P/-^i-^)'te;"5 to whom the Care of all things fhould in a peculiar fenfe belong. If therefore at Alexajidria one fuch Officer was chofen, then at Ahxafidria there were, according to St, Jerome, Biffiops, in the eminent fenfe of the Word, from St Mark's Days. 5. There is no reafon againft this Interpretation, but his faying that the Presbyters chofe this Bifl}op, which is no Argument againft the Superiority of his Office, even b}^ the Will of the y^pfiy?/^:^, and particularly as to Ordivatiov, after fuch Choice was made •, any more than an Ar}?iy s chufing their General is an Argument againft the Super:- vrh V Epifcopal Ordination, 577 cr'ity of his Ofce^ and his Right to grant all Cowmijiom under himfelt, after fuch Choice. - 4-. I argue from the Abfurdity, which I would not fup^ pofe him to maintain, iince he doth not fay any thing like it, that the Presbyters Hiould immediately alter the ApoftoVical Settlement of their Churches^ and voluntarily, and unanimoufly agree to reform the Abufes, themfelves were fond of, and to reftrain the Exercife of thofe Rights^ in which they knew the Apofiles had left them. But of this, and the like Abfuidities in that Hypothecs which fome would willingly fix upon St. Jerome^ I have before fufficiently fpoken. ^. I argue from the ExprelTion St. Jerome ufeth in the Account he gives of the Settlement of Epifcopacy in tho Churchy viz. Toto 01 be decretwn : Which are not Words of voluntary Compad, and Confent, amongft Presbyters who were to be reftrained, and whofe Abufes were to be re- formed by this Decree. And there being, according to the prefent HypotheJU^ no Authority before this Decree^ fupe- x'lQi to Presbyters^ unlefs t\\2it oi ihQApoJlles themfelves, or fome particular extraordinary Church-Ojjicers appointed by the Apojiles •, this Decree for the EJiablij])ment of Epif- copacy m,uft be underftood by St. Jerome to have been in the Age of the ApoJHcs themfelves. 6. I argue from the fame St. Jerome\ affirming y^w^i to have been made Bipop of Jervfalejn by the Apojiles, Timothy of Ephefis^ Titits of Crete, Poly carp of Smyrna, This is fufFiCient to prove that he himfelf thought that, whatever the original Deiign ot the Apofiles was with rc- fpecr to the Powers of Presbyters, an End was put to it by the Apofiles themfelves, who did in thefe feveral Churches hot only themfelves govern, but appointed others to go- vern, and to Ordain. For what room, I pray, is here for the Jcint-counfels of Presbyters, confider'd by them- felves, when once thefe Perfons were appointed to a fu- "perior Office iatliefe feveral Churches ? If any fay that thefe were only Itinerant Extraordinary Church-Ojfcers^ not defign'dtocontinueintheG«;T^,on the other hand, I ^y2 Ahrief Defenfe of I defire to Icnow how they can prove that the Apojilcs dcfigii'd t/;9/c-' for the governing of the Chnnhc:^ and the jordaining of other Presbyters^ whom themfclves imnie- cliately reftrain'd from thefe Offices. But that is not the Point here. St. Jerojne's Opinion is what we are now enquiring after : And it is manifefl He fpeaks of them as of Bljbopx in the eminent fcnfe of the Word, and confe- qiiently that his Judgment was that the Apojiles them- felves made the Decree concerning- Epifcopacy which he fpeaks of. 7. I argue from thofe Marks he gives of that time in which he affirms the Alteration he fpeaks of to have been made. That the Laity began to forget their great Mafccr Chriji^ and one to fa}^, / arn of Paul ^ another, / ayn of Apollos ^ another, I am o/Ccphas : And that the Pres- byters began to claim thofe whom they baptized, as their own D'ifciples : Thefe two things he faith were the occa- sion of the Alteration he fpeaks of. Now thefe two Murks, we know, do agree exaftly to the time of the Apojlles^ from St. FaiiVs firfl Epijilc to the Corinthians, in the firft Chapter of which he laments the DilTenfions of the Laity^ V. 1 2. and likewife intimates the other Hum.our to have been too muchamongft thofe who baptized the Laity, v, 14, 15. in which he thanks God he baptized but one Fa- inily^moTig^ them, left any fliould tax him with that foolifh A'anitv of endeavouring to obtain many Difci- pics, as it were to himfelf, by baptizing. Indeed it js notneceffary to fuppofe that St. Jerome thought, that im- mediately upon this Diforder ni the Church oi Corinth' this AlteraUo;i was made, but rather when it appear'd that this Humour was not fo check'd by St. Pauls Ex- hortations, but that it crept into other C/?H;c7;e5 likewife. V/hat I would fay therefore is this, that we are affi.ired tliat thefe Marks r'gree to the Age of the Apojlles •, and that it is extremely probable that they would not leave it to furceeding I resbyters to provide Remedies for the Evils whicii they knew to be in their own Times -, that we have nofuch Marks belonging peculiarl}'- to the Af^e after Epifcopal Ordination, 97^ after them, and therefore have reafon to think that the Alteration (if at all) was made before the Death of the Apojlles. I appeal to our Adverfaries themfelves, whether they wonld nor eftcerri fuch an Argument as this a De- monftration of their own Scheme, could the}'- find thefe Marks exprefsly fixed upon the Age after the dpojiles, which the Apojlles therafelves witnefs to haveheloiigedto their own Age : And I appeal to every impartial Perfon, whether it be not a good Argument that St. Jerome un- derftood this Alteration to have been made in the'Age of the Apofiles, that he gives fuch Marks of this Time, when he thought it made, as peculiarly agree to that Age. Or, if thefe Marks can agree to the following ^ge^ can any one believe that the Presbyters then living Ihould pretend, to prefcribe a Remedy for an Evil, which they knew the Apojlles had refus'd to prefcribe for the fame Evil, unlefs it be fuppofed they had Diredions given down from the very Apojlles for the prefcribing it, upon the increafe of that jBt;;/, which will amount to an Apojiolical Tnfitution, and as efpedually reflrain all Presbyters from all Exercife of their fuppofed original Rights, unlefs what is founded upon apparent Neceility. 8. I argue from his calling Epifcopacy one of the Tra- ditions Apojiolical, which he doth in one of the places in which he zealoufly pleads againflthe original Diftindlion between BiJ/wps and Presbyters. An Argument which was never anfwered either by. /?/ow^/f/ or iS'-a;/;;;^/;/;^, tho'it was thought requifite to promife an Anfwer to it. Tlie only Reply that hath been made by any to it is, that St. Je- rome in other places fpeaks of things which were purely Cvjloms Ecclejiajlicalas Apojiolical Traditions, from whence thejr would colled that he meant only Ecclejiajlical Cvjlom in I his place. But they produce no PafTage at all pa- rallel to this to prove the Juftnefs of this Reply. For it is one thing for a Vriter to fay, that for the fake of the Peace, and Good of the Church, People fhould look upon, and obferve, good and innocent Cvjloms as if they were apojiolical J'raditiojis ♦, and another to call any thing ab- foiutely 380 A brief Defenfe of folutcly an Ap')Jlolical Tradition. And again, , it is ver}'- juft to call any matter of Pradlice both an Ecclefufical Ciijtom^ and an .^poJloUcal Tradition, without meaniiig the fame thing by both thefe Teuns. None of their Inftanccs therefore prove that St. Jerome did not here intend to call Epifcopacy an Apojlolical Tradition in the literal fenfe of the Words. In one place indeed he feems to be nioft of all refolved to deprefs the Eminence of BiJIwps, and to •put it upon Ecclefiajlical Oijlum. But he manifeftly avoids oppofing that to Apojlolical hjlitittion, and is contented only to deny that our Lord himfelf made the Diftinclion : Artfully, one would think, at that time avoiding either to affirm, or deny that the Apojlles inftituted this Diffe- rence amongft Church-Offcers. 9. T argue from St. Jerome's not granting to Preshyterx the Right oi Ordination, amidft all his Pretenfions in their Names. It is very remarkable, that tho' in order to equal them to BiJI)ops he gives the Government of the iirft Chur- ches into their Hands, he doth not mention the Affair of Ordi^iation : Which certainly he would have done had he at the fame time thoughtfit had ever belonged to them. For it had been as much to his purpofe, (and he had equal Reafons f jr it) to have affirmed that they originally were entrufted with the Right of Ordination, as it was to affirm that they at firft governed the Churches : Nor can there be any Rcafon thought of why he fhould not ei- prefsly have affirmed the one as well as^^the other, had he thought them both true. On the contrary, what is more remarkable, h:e doth at the fame time himfelf deny to them this Right o£ Ordination. This Right, I fay : For of that his Words muft be underftood, when he asks, in order to carry their Caufe as high as he could, ^lid enim, excepta Ordinatione, facit Epifcopm, quod Fresbyter ronfaciat ? A Bijbop in his Days had many other Powers . to which Prejl>yters did not pretend, befides that of Ordi- nation : And therefore, the ^«^/ioM was not at all to his purpofe, unlcfs he meant to fignify by it, as his Opi- nion, that the Prcfiyters were never entrufted with the Affair Bpifcopal Ordination. 381 Affair of Or^zWzow, tho' they were with that of the Go- venimevit of the Churches of Chnfl by theirjoint Counfels ; by which means he leaves an uninterrupted Svccejfion to Cburch-Oficers fuperior in thix to Presbyters, and fo de- ftroys the Siippofiticn of BhrJel and others, of their con- tinuing in the Exercifa of this Right till near the middle of the Second Century. Add to this, that if St. Jero7nehad deligned, as Blcndel and others pretend, to affirm in this Place that even in his own Age Presbyters did every thing, except Ordination, which Bifiops did, he would rather have faid, ^lidfacit Epifcopis, excepta Ordinatione, qiiod. Presbyter von facit J" I fay, his Deiign would have oblig'd him toexprefs himfelf in the Indicative Mood rather than the SnhjmiB'ive : The ufe of which is a Grammatical De-^ monftration that he intended by this ^tejlion to ask, not what the Bijlwp r of his Age did, except Ordination, which the Presbyters likewife did not, but what the Bifiops did which the Presbyters might not likewife do, lawfully, and according to their Orignial Right, excepting Ordination, And that this was his meaning is plain likewife from St. ChryfoJIom, who follows him in his Opinion of the Original Rights of Presbyters, and owns exprefly, that Bi- JJ)opsave fuperior to them in Point of Ordination, the' in that only : And this when he is examining their Original Rights, andnot theState they were in, in his Days, in .which he knew that BiJ/wps were, in other Refpe6ts,/Kp^-^ rior to Presbyters. At leaft this may be faid, that no one can urge that St. Jerome did ever exprefly patronize the Pretentions of any Presbyters to this RigiA -^ hut that he rather difclaimsit in their Names. 1 o. I could allege many more noted PalTages and Ex» preiuons out of this Father, which do, I think, manifeft- ly fhew that, tho' he might think that there was a Time in the Days oithtApoJlles, in which Presbyters in 2. joint j4jfembly governed the Churches, to be fure under the In- fpedion, as much as could be, of the Apoflles and other extraordinary Chtirch-Ofcers, yet he never thought this , tvith refped; to any Time after the Apojiles, but was of Opinion ^Bz A brief Tie fen fe of Opinion that the Decree concerning fxeS, Eplfcopacy was made in their Days. But if any iliould think to oppofe to all that I have faid, any PafTages in the Writings of this Father, I anfwer, that it muil be granted, either that he was not conftant in his judgment concerning this Matter, or that his true Senfe muft be judged of from the Number, and Clearnefs of the PaiTages alleged on both Sides. If the former be granted, hisAuthority is not worth contending for : if the latter, it muft certainly be yield- ed to be on the fide of the Apojlolical hijiitiition of Epf~ cop. icy. III. If to Jerius, and St. Jerome, any other Authors amongft the Antient, can be added in favour of the Ori- ginal Parity o Ecclefajlical Oncers, this muft be allow'd, that what they allege is either talcen up from thefe^ or founded upon Reafonings of their own from fome Ex* prellions in the NewTeJlajnevt : That none of them all affirm the htfi'itiition of Epifcopacy to have been owing to the Confent and Compadt of Prejbyters of fucceeding 1i7nes ; or that it was not the Work of the Apojiles them- felves 5 or that there ever was a Time, after the Death of the Apojlles, in which there were not Bifiops, properly lb caird, in the Church. From all this laid together, therefore, let impartial Readers judge what anthejitick lepmoriy our Brethren have to produce for fo notorious a Matter of Fa6t as, the Al- teration oFthe Government of the Church near the mid- dle of the Second Century •, or how juftly the Patrons of this Hypothejis fet up St. Jerome as their mighty Advo- cate : Imce we fee not one exprefs Teflimony produc'd for it, and St. Jerome in many PalTages of his IFrhivgs abfo- lutely contradifting their Opinion. Thus much I thought jfit to fay in anfwer to that S:hems, to which the princi- pal, and moft learned Advocates of the Rights ci Prejbyters feem moft fondly to adhere : And I hope what 1 have faid may be thought fatisfactory by the beft and moft equal Jtidaes. ■'' ^ Thus Ep'ifcopal Ordination, 585 Thus have I endeavoured toeflablifh xhcAfoJiolkal In- fituUon of Epifcopacy^ on which the Ri^kt of EiJ/wps to Ordain is founded, as well by anfweriiig the Lbje^io^n which have been advanced againft the Sufficiency of the concurrent Tejlimony of antiejit Chiirch-TFriteis concerning it, as by (liewing the Weaknefs and Unjuftifiablenefs of thofe Schemes and Hypothefes, which have been by lear?ied modem TFriters crnfronted to this Tiejlimony^ and to the . Conchijion we build upon it. I proceed now to examine ; the //t^^xj, and ^/,g»?;/£'>/fs advanced in Behalf of the Right I of Presbyters to ordain. This is the SiihjeB of the next ' Chapter, which I hope, will end in the full Confirmation K of what hath been already faid in this. i CHAP. 11. The Pleas alleged for the Right of Presbyters to Or- dain, propofed and examined. 11. T** H E fecoiid Thing which I have undertaken to do, 1 is to examine impartially the Pleas that are Hill alleged for the Right of Presbyters to Ordain ^ that fo it may be judged by all, v/hethcr their Claims have any juft Foundation •, and be ferioufly confidered by thevijehes^ wliether tliey ought to be continued. Se6l. I. The GiX^Vlea, taken from twe Identity o/BifhopsJ?/df Presbyters, examined^ The frfl Plea is taken from the Identity of EiJIwps and Presbyters : which, if it can be proved in the Senfe contended againft by Epifconal Writers, i^efe-.fe of Mo- I grant, doth certainly demonltrate an Ori- ^^^'''[^ tioncoK- ginal Right in Presbyters to ordain. A late p,"l'(/' ' ' Aiithor, initating this Point, faith that, Jo ibid. p. 71. 77iake good the Plea Two Things are to be clear^ ed^ I, That Presbyters are by Divine Ri^ht the fame as Bi- Jhops. ^§4 ^ brief t)efenfe of JImps. And, 2. That h thence follows that Presbyters may rvarrantably ordain other Ferforis Presbyters. The true mean-*, ing of the //j/? of thefe Poiitions, if he defigns it fhould be of any Service in his Gtt//^, muft be this, That thofe who are now in a peculiar Senfe called Presbyters, have originally by D'w'me Right, ( that is, according to his Proof of it, by the Will of the Apojiles ^ ; the fame Office in the Church with thofe who are now in a peculiar Senfe called BiJIjops, This is the only Senfe of that Poftioji which can be of any Service to his Caufc ; And now let us cxa-v mine the Proof lie brings for it. It appears, he faith, from hence, that fuch as werefolemn- lyfet apart to the Sacred Mhujlry, and entrvfted with the Keys' of the Kingdom of God, and authorised to adviinijier all Or- dina7ices, in the Church, to the Faithful committed to their Care, are in Scripture Jiiled BiJl)ops, and Elders, or Prejby- ters, without any Mark of DijiinBion. In anfwer to this, I freely grant that fuch as were /(?t apart to t\\Q Oficeo£ Prejbyters, and entrvfted with the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (\n the Senfe in which Presbyters were ever en- trufted with them ) and authorized to adminifter the Ordinances of Baptifm, and the Lord's Supper, and to preach, inftru6t, and take Care of the Faithful committed to them, are called in the New Teflament, ^E.'Ts'nw^t Overfeers, InfpeBors, and Curates of the Flock of Chrift, as the "Word Biftwp^ fignifieth. But we are not advanced one Step farther by all this. For this will not prove that thefe very Perfons were not always fubjed to other Church-Oncers, and at this very time to fuch 2isJimothy' and Titus, as well as to the Apoftles themfelves •, this will not prove them to be the fame in their Ofce, with thofe who were afterwards called 'i.'misMTnt in an eminent Senfe • this will prove nothing but that Presbyters are invefted with all thofe Powers which belonged to thofe who were called 'E-o-iVjcoTnx in the New Teftameiit. But what thofe Powers were cannot be concluded from hence. Indeed if our ^/"^?fwffMt ftood thus, that 5f/7;op.«, now pe- culiarily fo called, inherit the Office of thofe who were fome- Bptfcopal Ordination: 58$ fometinies called BiJIwps in the NewTefi anient, the prefent Flea would certainlj be good, that they who are now peculiarly called Presbyters have the fame Offices of Right, belonging to them, which are claimed by thofe peculiar- ly called Bifiops ^hecanfe they are the Officers called Bifiops in the NewTeJ}a7ne7tt. But when our AfTertion is, that Bifiops, eminently fo called, anfwer, not to thofe who are fometimes called fo in the New Tejlament, but to thofe fu- perior Church-Officers, whofe Office we find there to have been to goverii and ordahi • and that Presbyters have no Right originally to exercife fome of thofe Funftions wliich were exercifed bj'-fuch Ecclejiajlical Officers as Timothy and Titus : I fay, when thefe are our Pofitions, it can fignify nothing to allege that Presbyters are the Officers who were called Bifiops in the New Tejlament, becaufe this will en- title them only to the Office of thofe who there called Bipops, not to that of thofe who were acknowledged to hefuperior to thofe there called Bifiops. To allege this can fignify nothing, unlefs it be included in the Signifi- cation of the Word 'E^ffKomi, that all who were ever cal- led fo, were entituled to ordain and govern, as well as to ;tp^67j, inftrud: and guide their Flocks into all necefiary Trutif. But that this is included in the Word, was never fo much as pretended. It being therefore, a fufficient Groundof the Presbyters being called Bipops, that they are in a very proper Senfe, Overfeers, and have the Care of Souls entrufted to them, which is all that is implied in the Word; it doth not follow from their being called fo, that they had other Potj?*?/-^ which are not necefiarily included in that Word. If they have Powers fufficient to make that Name proper to their Office, this, I fay, was a fufficient Ground why that Name was given them, be- fore there was any Defign of fixing peculiar Names to all Ecclejiajlical Officers. But they have Powers which are a fufficient Ground for that Name, without fuppofing them empowered to ordain others ; Therefore it cannot follow from their being called i-TrWKo-^t in the New Tcjlameiit, that they are entrufted with the Ri^ht of Ordivation ; or C c that 585 ^ hrtef Defence of that they are called to all the 0§ces claimed by Bifjops eminently fo ftiled in modern Times. The fixing theNa7?ie oiBlJI)ops upon thofe who are in an eminent Senfe Overfeers, and Curators of the Church, was a Matter purely arbitrary, and now founded mere- ly upon Cujlom : and it is not from the difference of Names we argue to the difference of the Ojjfc^^ ^and there- fore cannot think it of any Importance, on the other fide, to argue from the Identity oi Names heretofore to the Iden- ' tity of Offices. Had there been no difference of Names fctled, but had both Blfiops and Presbyters been called by one common Name to this Day, whether Bifhops, or Presbyters, all the Arguments had ftill flood as firm for Ep2f:opacy. If it could be fhewnthat there ought to be a Bijl'ui^ion in the Offices of thofe called by that common Name •, that there alwajrs had been in the Church Ofucers fuperior to the Teachers of particular Covgregatiovs •, that thefe Teachers had not the Exercife of the Power of Ordi- iiation ever left to them^ and were always under the In- fpedion of fome other fuperior Officers •, the Caufeof £pf/^ copacy muft have flood firm. And yet it is from this dff- ference of Names now fetled, that this Argujrient now drawn from the Identity of Names in the New Tejlainent took its Rife. Let us fuppofc, therefore, that this differ- ence of Names were removed, and it were now ufual to call both Bifliops and Presbyters by one common Name, this Identity oiName would never prove that therejwas no difference in their Offices even at that time when there was no Diflindlion in their Names. Much lefs can it prove that Presbyters have the fame Rights which are claimed by thofe now called Bifhops, to allege that they were once called BilTiops ^ unlefs it can be ihewn that thofe who were fo called in tlie Apoftles Age, had adtu- ally then all the Bcclejiajlical Power of thofe who have been called fo, in a peculiar Senfe, in after Ages. The Argument founded upon this Plea, if ftatcd truly, can amount to no more than this ^ Presbyters are called likewife Bifhops, or Overieerg in the New Jejiament .: Thcie- Ep'jfcrypal Oidmatmu 387 ! Therefore, certainly they muft juftly claim all the Righta ' belonging to thofe who are there called BiJIwps. This I 1 heartily acknowledge. But what thofe Rights are we are I ftill as much at a lofs to know as ever. That this A/git- I me7it will not of it felf prove Ordination to be one of them \ is very evident, becaufe that can be done only by produ^ icing fuch Texts as declare this to be one of the Rights and iFrivileges belonging to thofe f/;(?H called by that Name, JWhereas this Flea pretends to nothing but that Presbyters arc called Bi[/:iops in the Nerp Tefiavwiit •, from whence it can never follow that they are entituled to the Powers of thofe who have been, fince that Time, called in a peculiar Senfe, Biihops. On the contrary, I have this Argument to urge. Presbyters have a Title to thofe i?i^/?t5 only which v/ere enjoyed by thofe C/?wrc/7-0#t'i:rs who are called Bi^ JJjops, or Overfeers, in the New Jefiainent. But the Power of Ordination was never allowed to, or claimed by thofe who are there called Bifiops. Tlierefore, it is not one of thofe Rights to which Presbyters have a Title. The Force of this ^r^nm^wt the Author I am now confidering is fo fenfible of, that after all that he hath faid on this Head, he thinks himfelf obliged to yield, p. 85. that it is not fufficient to fhewthat the fame Perfons were called Pref- byters and BiJ/wps at firft ^ and that, if it can be made out that SLSttperiority^VikQ to that of '£i7nothy and Titm, was hy Divine Jppohit7nejit(l fuppofe he means by the Will of tlie Jpoftles) to continue in the Church ^ or that the Power of Ordination was not conveyed to thofe who were at firft called Bifhops, the Identity averted will not fiipport the In- ference drawn from it. The former of thefe I hope I have not in vain attempted to prove in the foregoing Chapter^ as well as to fay fjmething fufficient to make the latter appear much more probable than the contrary. But I muft here remind this Author of Three Things, i . That the P/00/ ought to lie on their fide, who have gone out of a long eftablifiedCourfe^ and pretended to exercife a)i Original Rights unheard of in former Ages of the Church, 2. That this Idejithy of Natnes will Itgnify nothing, even C c 2 i«p- 388 A brlefDefenfe of fuppofing we could not prove this Negative, that the Power of Ordwation was not in the Cmmnijion of the firft Presbyters -^ which it is very unreafonahle to require at ouf Hands. For unlefs, on the other fide, the pojitive part can be proved that the Power of Or Jiwatzow was actu- ally in the CojnmiJ/iojt of thofe Presbyters who are likewifc called Bifliops in the New Teflamevt, all this Plea muft ne- ceiTarily fall to the Ground. And whether St. Paul dealt with the Presbyter., of Ephefi^s, and Crete, as if he kne\^ any thing of fuch a Coyjimijjion, let any one judge. 3. Suppofiiig fuch an Original Right granted them by their Comm'iffion^ it doth not follow that modern private Preshyt ters can he juHified in the Exerdfe of it, when by a fo^ lemny^i of their own, and upon juft Reafons, their Pre-* decejfors throughout the Chriftian World unanimoufly consented to debar themfelves of the Exercife of it, if we will believe the moft learned and zealous ^ii^o^rates foir the Presbyterian Cavfe. .: ^^•\\;'. For my own part, therefore, I grant to this Author all that he contends for, when he fums up the Premifes from which he draws his Concliifion, p. 87. I grant that the Navies o/Biihop and Presbyter are iipd fo promifcuoujly in the New Teftament as to leave no BifiinBion of Ojice. I know not. how it fhould be otherwife, when Presbyters were called Bifiops. I grant to him that there are as many Bif/wps in the firft Senle of the Word as Presbyters in the moft early Churches : For every Presbyter was called I Bipop, 01 Over feer. l^x?.ntx}\2itwe can fnd'm t\].Q New Tefafjient no Presbyter who was not a Biftiop, i. e. called by that Name. I grant that we read not there of any Con- fecration of an Ecclcfajlical Ojficer called a Bifhop, differ- ent from the Ordination of a Presbyter, i. e. we read not of any Ordination oi Presbyters different from the Ordina- tion oi thofe who were then called Biftiops, i. e. Presby- ters. I grant the Duties and ^lalif cations of thoCe call'd Bifhops in the NewTeJiament, and of thofe called Presby- ters, are the fame, becaufe they are the Duties and ^ua- iifcationsoftheisimeChufch'Ojicer called by both thofe Names. Epifcopal Ordimition, ^^9 Names. I grant to him all thefe things, that is, indeed only one lingle Point thus varioufly exprefTed, v'i%.^ that Presbyters are thofe Chiirch-Ofcers who are called Biftiops in the New Tejlament. For any after all this to Jay that they who are called Bifliops, and they who_ are called Presbyters i» the New Tejlament, differed originally in the "Power of Ordination, or indeed in any fingle Circumftance, is in Truth not only 7wtto derive their Notions from Scrip- ttire, as this Author T'aith, but to fpeak abfurdly ,and in- confiftently : For it is to fay that the fame Perfons dif- fered from themfelves. But tho' I have granted to him all this, yet I hope I may without Abfurdity maintain, ithat the Powers of thofe who were called Bifliops in the \New7efla7ne7it, were not the fame with the Powers of thofe who were called fo afterwards in an eminent Senfe ^ or in other Words, that thofe Chiirch-Offcers who are ftiled Bifhops in the New Tejiament have never received, or ex- ercifed the Right ofordaining others-, but that this Right was always in the Hands of Officers fuperior to them. To conclude this Head, let us conlider once more the Plea here advanced,and what is to be replied to it. The Argument, To much applauded by the aforefaid Author, is this. Presbyters are by Divine Right the fame as Bifhops ^ \iherefore they may warrantahly ordain other Presbyters. His Proof of the former partoFthis Reafoning is drawn from hence, that Presbyters are the fame with Bifhops in the New Tejlament. So that the Argument is indeed this, Pref- byters were called likewife Bifhops in the firft Days ^ therefore they may warrantably claim the Right of Or- dination, which is acknowledged to be the Right of thofe whohave been called Bifhops, in a peculiar Senfe, in la- tter Ages. The Anfwer is, that this will entitle them to ttio Rights but fuch as were enjoyed by thofe who are cal- led Bilhops in the NewTeJiainent. And again, fuppofing piis Right of 07'dination to belong originally to thofe who jvvere called Bifhops in the ApoJHes Time^ this will not (prove that modern Presbyters may warrantably exercife this Right J which according to themfelves was univeifal- c c 3 ' iy. 5 90 ^ ^yi^f Definfe of iy, maiiA^ Hundred Years agone, given up to another Raul of Men on good Grounds, and for juft Reafons. So that here is a double Deff6t in this Argument : For grant- ing that Presbyters were called Bilhops by the Jpojlles^ this will not entitle them to any Rights but what were enjoyed by thofe who were then called fo : And granting to them an Original Right to ordain, this Original Right, confldered by it felf, will not warrant them in the Exer- cz/^of it, when it hath once beenimiverfally, and upon wife Reafons given up. This Author muft excufe me if I wholly pafs over his Authorities, that is, if I do not receive his Reafoning, becaufe it is the fame with that of many great Men. If he could produce Thoufands of greater Names than he: mentions, I fee not of what Importance he him.felf could i allow this to be, who hath, even in the Cafe of a Matter of Fa^, rejeded with Contempt the Teftivioity of the moft coniyetejit Ifitneffcs we can have, and hath faid what is. enough to teach any one not to be born down by great Kames, in a Matter which is in them purely Opinion, and depending upon their own Reafoning. The main Argumejtt made ufe of by all that have appeared in the fame Caiife^ is talcen from the Identity of Names, which I have now examined, and have, I hope, evidently fhewn, that there is nothing to be concluded from thence in fa- vour oi Presbyterian Ordination. But tho"" I have owned the main Point for which this Author produce th feveral Texts of tne New Tefaynent, vi-z.. That Presbyters are there called Eifnops, or Over- feers • ftill denj^ing that it ff ilows from thence, that they had the Powers of ihofe who were afterwards called Biihops in an eminent Senfe, or, which is all one, of fuch Church-Offcers as'jtijnothy and 'ifi?^ in thofe very Days: It is fit I {hould particularly conlider the Texts them- felves, becaufe he doth at large reafon from, them to his ownPurpofe, and fom.c may think it a blameable Kegled to pafs them over. I- St. 'ffi Epifcopal Ordination 391 I. St. Paul writes to the S-mits at Philippi, rpith the Eifhops and Beacons. I have no Difpute with him here : But freely own that the Ofcers called B'lpoj):^ here, were Presbyters and Teachers •, which is all he here exprefly con- tends for. I fhall only remind him, that his Bufinefs un- der this Head fhould not have been to confute the odd Notions of Dr. Hammond, who is hardly followed in them hy one Epifcopal Divine of any Coniideration, but to have fbewn, againil others who acknov/ledge that Fref- byters are the Offcers here meant, that it follows from their being then called Overfeers that they had the Powers of Ordination, Zee. entrufted to them. Nothing can follow from hence, but that they had the Powers of thofe who were then called BiJIwps. 2. It is urged that the fame St. Paul in his pf Epijlle to Timothy layeth down the Duties and ^lalif cations of Bi- ftiops and Deacons, without faying a IVord of Presbyters. I grant the Conclufion he draws from hence, that Presbyters are the Oj/icers in ih.Q Church whom he there calls BiJIwps-, and that there were no Bifhops, ( that is, none called Bi~ fiopsj then diJlinEifrom Presbyters. But I deny the Point in difpute, viz. That thefe, whom St. Faul here calls Bifiops, had the Power of Ordination entrufted to them. The Name Bifiop, or Overfeer will not prove it ; And there is a great deal againft it to be cQlledted from this Epiftle. As, I. This ^M//>o/' here acknowledgeth that the Duties of thofe then called Bifioys, are here laid down by St. Favl, amongft which we do not find the leaft mention of Orf?iVt?tiow V too material to have been omitted, if it had been tto- Province: From whence it may be probably collected that there was no fuch Fower belonging to them. For tho' Duties, or Powers of lefs importance than thofe mentioned, might be omitted; yetit is not tobe fuppos'd, that Powers^ or Duties of an higher fort fhould be difregarded. 2. It is not only faiW, that thofe who are here called BiJIwps are entrufted with the Power of Ordination, but this very Power is, in this y.ery EpiJIle, lodg'd in other Hands, and entrufted to Of^ 592 A brief Defenfe of fcers who arc acknowledged to be fuperior to thofe here called BiJI)ops. What can be the reafon of this > It muft be, either becaufe thofe Presbyters.here called Bifhops were never defigned for this Office ^ or that thcfe at Ephefus particularly were unfit for it. The /^t f ?/• of thefe Two Suppofitions cannot be true, as I know of: Therefore the former muft be acknowledged. That the> Apofiles fhould ordain whom they plcafe in all Churches is not ftrange : But that fuppoiing they defigned the Presbyterx fo ordained for the crdainijig of others in times to come, they fhould not only keep the Affair of Ordination in their own Hands for their Life- time, but fend other C/jwrci^- O^c'^^i into Places full of Presbyters already, as fit for that AVork as ever they were likely to be, on purpofe to ordain others, is incredible -, and not to be believed, un- lefs there were a plain Declaration that after fuch aTivie thefe Presbyters were to re-afTume the Exercife of their Right. Nay, had thefe Presbyters been ever defigned for theBufinefsof OrJz««tzow, the End oi Timothy s. beingTent amongfl them had moft certainly been rather to diredt them how to perform this Cffice^ fas he was in other Ca- fes to do,) than to take it out of their Hands, and ma- nage it, as far as appears, wholly Himfelf : For we find not the leaft Hint in St. FanVs Diredions to him on this Head, that Presbyters were to have the leaft Hand in it, but fufficient Evidence that he was to be ahfolute, and wm- controuVd in this Matter. 5. This anfwers the Difficulty here propofed by this y^Ht^7o;', that fuppofing the Officer called BiJ/jop here to be ^Preshyter^ then is the proper tpif- copal Fundtion wholly overlooked in this Apoftolical Di- redory : Which is fcareely fuppofahle, if it bcfo very need- ful in the Church as fojne have reprefented it. For, i. If he mean that amongft the Duties and ^lalifcatiom of thofe here called i)ij7;op .9, nothing is here mentioned by the Apojlle which is properly Epifcopal in our fenfe of the Word, I grant it to be true : But this will, according to his way ot rcafoning, only prove againft himfelf, that no fuch were thought by the Apojile to belong to fiach as are Epifcopal Ordination, j 9 5 are here called Bifiops. If he mean that nothing of the proper Epifcopal FunBion is mentioned, in this Epijile^ I deny it. But indeed it is mentioned, which is vtij much to the difadvantage of his Caiife, as belonging to Ofcers fiiperiorto the fxed Presbyters. The TruJ} of Or- divation,anA the BireBiom about it are given to Timothy^ without any intimation of any fuch Offce belonging to thofe Presbyters to whom he was fent to refide amongft them as long as his Pr^/^wcewas not more wanted in fome other Church. Now it is to the 0§ce of Timothy (whe- ther iixed at Ephefus during Life, or not ) that the Epif- copal FufiSion, for which we contend, anfwers. And therefore concerning the proper Epifcopal FimBion, here is a great deal faid in this Apofiolical Dire^ory. For it is not eflential to a Bifwp, that he ihould be fixed at one Place during Life •, but that he manage the Affair of Or- diitation, and Government., over whatfoever Church he is placed, and for whatfoever fpace of TiW. So that here is very good Proof from this vetj Epijile, that the Affair coordination was always managed by Perfons fuperior to Presbyters 'j and that Presbyters weve not defigned by the ApoJilesOot that Office^ notwithftanding that they are in it called Bifiops, or Overfeers. It is not therefore true, that Two forts of Ofcers only are mentioned in this Epijlle. For Timothy is of the third fort, and he is men- tioned •, and as particular Diredions given to him to be- have himfelf in his O^c^, as are given concerning P/^/- byters'UD.d. Deacons, 9. It is alleged that the fame St. Paul in his p -5^ EpifletoTituSyCalh Presbyters hy the Name of BiJIiops : Which I readily grant, as likewife the Conch- Jion drawn from it by this Author^ that Bifiops, i. e. the Officers there fo called, were not fuperior to Presbyters^ becaufe they were the Presbyters themfelves. But ftill I am at a lofs how this fettles the Powers of thofe who were then called BiJIwps. I do not allege here merely a Com- munity of Names. Titus., who anfwers in Office to our Bifwps, is not called a Bifwp here. It feems to be a Name pretty 39 A- AhriefBefenfe of pretty much at that time appropriated tothofewho were afterwards called Frepyters : And certainly thofe who were called by it at that time, were entitled to all the Offices belonging to thofe who were then called hj it, 2. e. to themfelves. I grant the fame C/>iir(a[£?£:r is given of all to whom that Name then belonged; and the fame ^tialifcatmis required. Nay, to go on in the Words of this If'riter, All Epifcopal Charaiiers were required in them j All Epifcopal Ifork required of them •, that is. All the Cha- racers and all the Work belonging to thofe who are there called Bifiops. For the Argument can prove no more. It can no more prove that they were called to the Ofc& of thofe who were afterwards called Bipops in a peculiar fenfe, than it can be proved they were entitled to all the Rights now challenged by the Bifiops of Ro7ne. What thofe Charaders, and what that Work is, mull be judged from other Arguments. If we go to this Epifle, we find no intimation about their Right to Ordain others •, but on the contrary, -a fuperior Officer fent to Crete, notwith- ftanding that there were a fufficient number of well qua- lified Presbyters ^iheie, onpurpofetoprefideamongftthem, and to ordain others to the Work of the Miniflry, I need fay no more on this Head, but refer the Reader to what I have juft now faid under the laft. Only I can't help obferving how free this Jiithor is in calling for plain and pojitive Proof on the fide oi Epifcopal Ordination, whilfthe cannot produce one fingle plain, or pojitive Proof, that Prefiyters were defigned by the Apojlles to Ordain •, unlefs he will efteem this a good Argument, thofe who have been called Bijhopsfince the ^pr>//?5 Days, have the Power of Ordination : 'rhercf(>re thofe who were called Bifiops ill their Days had it, notwithilanding they were hindred from the Excrcife of it •, and others were fent amongft them, to do that O^CQ, by the Jpo files themfelves. 4. This ^H^/;o;' farther allcgetli that T6'At,v4(?. 20.28. in which St. PawZexhorteth the Prejbyters of the Ephcfian Church m thefe Words, Take heed imto your felves, and to dlthe Flock of God, over which the Holy Gboji hath mad:i Epifcopal Ordination, 595 you Overfeersy or Bifiops. I acknowledge that the Perfons here fpclvcn to were Presbyters, now peculiarly fo called j and tiiat St. Faidhcrt calls them Bilhops, or Overfeers ; Which "Word is fo far from deferving Cevfiire in our T/an~ JIatiov ,th^t it had been happ}?- if it had been always ufed in otiicr Texts inftead of the Word Bifhop, which is the very Greek Word, and therefore can't be called an Liter- pretatiov of it •, arldthen, having been appropriated lince to thf^B'tghefi Ecdefiajl'ical Oj/icer, tis apt to raife a falfe Idea in the Minds of moft Men, who are more led by Words, then by the Reality of Things. But what are we to colledl from hence ^ i. Suppofe thefe Frejbyters at Ephefiis anfwered exactly to the Prejbyters in our Days, St. Faiil might juftly have faid the fame things to them which we find hfere faid • and exhorted them to take all poifible Careof themfelves, and their Charges over which the Holy Ghoft had f?iade thein Overfeers ^ in which Ex- hortation they muft be very quick-lighted who can difco- ver any thing of Ordination. And therefore it cannot be fhewn from thefe Words, that they were thought to have the Power of Ordination, any more than the Presbyters of the EJIabliJJjed Church are thought to have it.' 2. There is not only nothing in this Text to prove thefe Presbyters to have had the Poiver of Ordination, and the whole ma- nagement of their Churches entrufted to them •, but fome- thing in the manner of St. P^«Z's applying himfclf to them, which rather fuppofeth, and implies the contrary. For the Flock which thefe Perfons were here exhorted to fe^d, was that in which the Holy Ghoft had already made them Overfeers, or Bifhops : And this Flock, was the Company o^Lay-ChriJlians, not the Shepherds themfelves: And to feed the Flock, or the Church, was the Qjice of thefe par^ ticular Perfons here concerned, which Expreffion is not ufed concerning Ordaining other Presbyters, but gui- ding and inftrudting Lay-Chrijlians in the Way to Heaven. This, therefore is St. FaiiVs Advice to thefe Presbyters, that they fliould take heed to themfelves, to their own Example and Behaviour in their 0§ce , and to the Flock, that 3^6 A hrief Defenfe of that is, to every Congregation o? Lay-Chrijfians^ the Care of which had already been committed to any of them, &c. Now, I argue, that if thefe Perfons had "been de- ligned for the higheft Governours in the Churchy and for the ordaining of others, the Charge given to them had not ended without Diredtions, and Inftruftions, and Exhor- tations agreeable to thefe important Parts of their Ofce, But if St. Paw/, when he thought he was talcing final Leave of them, mentions no fuchOJ/ices belonging to them, it is a very probable Argument that he knew of none fuch to wl^ich they were called. What was com- mitted to them, he plainly tells them, viz. The in- fl:ru6ling and guiding the Lay-Chrijlans in their Way to lieaven ^ not the ordaimvg other Men to their own Ofce^ which, being a very great Truft, would not have been pafTed over by him, had he thought it belonged to thefe Presbyters. When he gives his Charge to Timothy^ it is in plain Words, that he is to govern, and ordain Presby- ters : When he gives his Charge to thefe Presbyters, it is to feed theVloc^ 0^ Lay-Chrijlians, Let any one obferve the Differejice, and judge whether thefe Presbyters were ever defigned for the fame Ojices for which Timothy had been fet over them. 5. That the Bufinefs oi Government. and Ordination were not at this time committed to thefe Presbyters, it is not only plain from the Expreflion' ufed ol feeding the Flock, which fignifieth quite another thing, but alfo from hence that Timothy did both before and af- ter this, govern, and ordain, as his own j^eculiar Buii- nefs, in this Church. That he governed, and ordained Presbyters there before this, this Author acknowledgeth, J), 8t. where he faith it is evidently proved, that the/;/ Epijile to Ti?Hothy was written before this meeting at Mi- letm. That liifiothy was prefent at this time, he like^ wife thinks very probable p, 79. From whence I argue that St. Paul having once,by that Epipe put tht7?i under his Goverjtance^and the AWaiipWrdination into his Hands, 3 it had been hix Intent here' to have committed all to the Care of thefe Presbyters, it had been higlily necelTary for him Efifcopal Ordination, '^^^ him to have faid fo plainly •, and to have declared to them, that whereas he had indeed confined them from the Exercife of their Right of Ordination, he now iliftated them in the full Exercife of that and ?.ll other Matters of Chnrch-Government. But having before reftrained theih in thefe Points, arid now not exprefsl/ releaiing them from that Reftraint, it feems far from probable that hte commits the Care of the Chiirch to ihtmm any other fenfe but that in which t/;e); had it before, during the aclcnow* ledged Rejidenny cfTimdihy amongft them. That Tiffiothy did, after this, govern and ordain at Ephefus, and not thefe P/'^^i^3!f6:/';y, is plain from St. PcmVs fecond Epijlle to hifn : In which he is fuppofed in the fame Offce as in the frji -J and the like Injun&ions, tho' in more general Terms, repeated concerning his Behaviour in it. From whencet think it evident bej^ond all ContradiBion, that St. Paul did not at this time once think of leaving the whole Go'- ver7tme7tt, ^nd the Matter o^ Ordinatio-hy in the Hands of thefe Presbyters. For if that were here his Defign, and folemn AB in this Charge, what Occafion, or what Foun- dation could thei"e be for him afterwards to take thefe 'Rights away again? And how various muft his Judg- ^ftient, and how unbecoming his Behaviour appear, to b'e perpetually thus changing, firft giving to Freshyters the Right of Ordination, then immediately reftraining it ^ then folemnly reftoring to them the Exercife of it, when he was taking his final Leave, and afterwards putting the fame Reftraint upon them again. This is incredible: And yet this muft be 'fuppofed, if there b^ any thing implied in the Text now before us, to the .purpdfe of the Freshy- terian Caufe. But a great DifKc^Aty is here ftarted, •and. a- g^ great Argument drawn from T/woffej's Prefence at this time, and from St. PjtJ'y not folemnly now making himtheir/A:^^52/7;.(?p,^nd giving him the Care of the Church, and xecommeriding Obedience to him as fuch. >Jow, I. The Bufinefs of this Author is not to prove that 2imotby was not a fixed BiJIwp of Ephefus, but that the Pref- ^ 98 ^ briefDefenfe of Fresh)ters oiEphefiis had the Right 0^ Or dhiaUon tntm^^^ to them. Suppofing Timothy were not now made fixed Eifliop, it will not follow that this jRf^k belonged to the Epheji.m Presbytersi 2. Suppofing limothy left them upon feveral Ocrafions, as he did now to accompany St. Paul to Rome, this did not necefTarily dilTolve his Relation to them, whenever he fhould think fit to return. St. Faitl had other, and fufficient Opportunities of declaring his Mind to Timothy : And the Presbyters knew his "Will too well concerning him, to negledt him whenever he fhould come amongfl them. Tmothys accompanying St. Faul to Rome, made it very neceflary for him to diredt his Difcourfe to the Presbyters, to engage them to regard their Ofice of feeding their Flock in his Abfence. It is highly probable that it was St. PaiiW Defign,atthis time, thatheihould return to them again, Lecaufe we find he did ; and as probable that both he, and they knew this. So. that his being ahfent from them at Times, as the Oc- cafions of the C^H/t^ required, did not diflblve his Rela- .tionto them. They feem, even after this, to have been his particular Care, whenever he could be with them, .tho' St. Paw/s Occafions, and the NecelTities of other Churches, might often call for his Help elfewhere. Had not the Labours, and Ajjijiances of fuch worthy Perfons been wanted at different Places, it is very probable they had been properly fpeaking^x^i^iT/^opi. But their not being/^jci, is no Argument on the fide of Presbyters, -to entitle them to the Right oi Ordination. Here, therefore is a fufficient Account given of St. Taul\ taking no ex- prefs Notice oiTimothy at this Meeting, becaufehjs De- fign in fending for the Presbyters was only to move them, as it were by his laft Words, to a due Care in that Office of feeding the Flock that had been entrufled to them •, efpecially becaufe Tijnothy was now leaving them for fome time. But we fee that it doth not follow from hence that he gave theOj/ice which Timothy formerly had into their Hands •, (for he afterwards exercifed the fame amongft them j) any more than it is true that they were em- Epifcofal Ordination, 599 empowered to ordain by Words which imply no fuch thing in them. In fine, the Presbyters of Ephefiis would have argued with lefs Reafon than any others, that they were called by St. Paul to the whole Care of the Church, and the or^ daining others, from his giving them the Name of Bijfwps, or Overfeers ^ becaufe they could not but know that they were called by tliat Name, when a fvperior Officer was actually fet over them to govern and ordair. They were neither to govern nor ordain^ when Timothy was fet over them to thcfe Purpofes ^ yet tliey were then called Bifiops^ and that by St. Paul. Neither, therefore, doth it follow that they are here declared by St. Paid' to be entrufted with thei^e RightSj from their being here declared by him to be Bif^ops, or Overfeers of the Flock of Chriji. From all which laid together it appears how void of all Foundation the AfTertion of this An- p. 80. thor is, that St. Paul doth in thefe Words, leave it to the Presbyters o/Ephefus, to manage Ecclefiafti- cal Affairs ,and Oidination amovgji the rej}^ nsoccafionjlmidd offer J by common Coiicert ajnongji tbemfelves, &c. Whereas he exhorts them to nothing but the faithful Execution of the Office of thofe called Iresbyters in a peculiar Senfe ^ and ufeth no Words that imply in them either the Right o£ Ordination, or of that Government which is claimed by Bi- flops fo called in an eminent Senfe. 5. It is alleged that St. Peter writing to the Prejbyters ftiles himfelf their Fellow Prejbyter, (as St, John alfo doth) and exhorts them to feed the Flock of Chrift, taking the C- verfight thereof willingly, 1 Pet, 5. i, 2. But, i. What fol- lows from the former part of this I cannot fee, unlefs this Author have a mind to prove that the Apofles by their Love and Humility in calling themfelves Fellow-Labour- ers with thofe who were under them, intended to equal thofe Prejbyters in all Powers and Rights to themfelves. If it prove any thing to the purpofeof this Author, it muft -pi QVQ Prejbyters to have been JpoJIles, even whilft the A- poJIJes were living, and ruled them« But it cannot prove this. 406 ^ brief Defenfe of this. Neither therefore can it prove them to have enjoy- ed any Pon^er^ but what modern Presbyters enjoy : to ivhom St. Peter might in Condefcenfion have ufed the fame Words he ufeth to the Primitive-Presbyters. 2. As to the latter part of it, that he exhorts the Presbyters, Wio-ic^voi to do the Office o^BiJlmps^ that is, of thofe then called Bi- fiops, or Overfeers, I grant : But to fay that it thence fol- ^ lows that he commands them to ordain^ and ^ovenr, which are parts of the Dutjr of thofe iince that Time called 5f- Jlmp in a peculiar Senfe, is manifeftly to beg the ^iiefli- on. For the ^lejlion is not whether Presbyters were not called Overfeers in thofe early Days : but what the Bufinefs of thofe, who were then called Overfeers, was. So that the Argument is no better than this, St. Peter com- mands presbyters to do the Office of thofe who were in his Da3''s called Bifiops, or Overfeers ^ therefore he com- mands them to do the Office of thofe who were after- wards called fo in an eminent Senfe. Whereas the Point nbw in debate is, whether thofe Officers, who were then called Bipops, were called to the Office of Ordaining^ &c. 2|. What the Office of thofe was to whom St. Peter writes this, is plainly enough here expreffed, wz. to feed the Flock in that place where they were placed, overfeeing^ or look- ing after it, not as if they were driven to it by force, but willingl}^, and gladly, &c\ Now if any one elfe had difcovered in thefe Words the Power of ordaining Pres- byters, what Triumphs might we have expected from this Author ? The Flock of Chrijl is the Company of Lay-Chri- Jlians diftinft from the Shepherds •, therefore this Diredtion, which wholly refpefts this F/oci,can Signify nothing but that it was the Duty of Presbyters, i. e. of thofe then cal- led Overfeers, to guide and inftrud: their Congregations with all Diligence and Faithfulnefs in the Way to Hap- pinefs : Nor can it poliibly be implied in this, that they had the Power of Ordination, which refpedls the confdtu- ting o( Shepherds over other Flocks, not the feeding that Flock over which they were themfelves placed. Nay, the contrary is rather implied, becaufe St. Peter when he is giving Epifcopal Ordination. 40 1 giving them Advice to perform their 0§ce as becomes them, mentions only thtfeedhtg of that Ko6-^ which they were, before this, called to overfee, and take Care of. From all which it is evident that nothing can be colleQ:- ed from this Pafage in favour of h'ejbyterian Oriimtion, 6. It is once more alleged that St. Paid writing to Timothy gives him this Charge, p. 82.' NegUB not the Gift that is in thee^ which tpas given thee by Prophecy, with the laying on of the Hands of the Prejl'ytery, i Tim. 1. 14. f pafs over St. PavVs mention- ing in another place the Impofition of his own Hands ow/> onTimothy, 2 Tim. i. 6. If the Gz/t in the latter place may fignify the Holy Ghoft, why not in the former > As indeed anyone would judge that this Word rather im- ports the extraordinary ^talif cations given to Timothy ^wm above for the better execution of his Q^c^, than the Ofce it felf, to which it doth not feem probable to me that he was appointed by any befides St. Paul himfelf. So that my firft Anfwer is, that the Ordination o£ Timothy, or the Appointment of hi7}i to his peculiar uj/ice, is not the thing here fpoken of ^ and confequently nothing can be coUed- ed from hence in favour ot Prejbyterian Ordination. But let it be granted, at prefent, that the Word iignifieth the Office to which he was called ; tho' it do not found to that purpofe. Let it be granted that an Affemhly (\i this Aii^ thor pleafeth j ot fuch as were in thofeDays called rfgir^f'Tsf 0/ made up the Tpso-Ct/Tie/oi/ here fpoken of. I afTure him, if, inftead of this Word, the Word Epifcopate had been uled, I fhould have been fo far from triumphing (as he fufpects) that I fliould have thought it fomething more to his pur- pofe, than the Word here ufed. For, i. The very highefi Church-Officers called themselves ^fs^/SuVsfo/ in thofe Days, as he himfelf hath proved in the Page before ; and there- fore a Company of the highejl Ecclejiajiical Officers may be here called Tfs!r.;5uT4f«y, as hehimfelf feems fenfible,p. 8^. Whereas I do not iind that the moft eminent and fuprem.e C/j«A-67;Goi;^/'>/(9/'s were ever call'd T^i^Cvjifiov in thofeDays, but the Word was generally given to a lower Degree. D d What 402 AhriefDefenfeof What he can collect from the hlghcfl Cbwrjj-Ofi.ers act- ing as a Presbytery^ (i. e. as a Company met together for this folcmn Purpofe) in favour cf a lower Order of Mimjlers, fwvce peculiarly call'd FreshyUrsA cannot fee. For it is impoflibk to argue, that fome of (the ^po^/c5 or flvavge- J'ljls acted as a Presbytery, i. e. as a Company in the fet- ting apart Thnothy to his O^cxt •, therefore thofe whom Ti~ onothy wsis fent to govern had a Right to meet, and adt as a Presbytery in ordaining others. 2. If this 7 ^rxi- prove any thing in favour of fuch a Right, it equally proves that Presbyters had a Right to fet apart not only Presbyters to their Office^ but even Evavgdijh, -or iuchChttrch'Ojficers vts Timothy was. to their 0#'tc : which is abfurd. ?.Let any one (ju^lge whether it be in it felf credible, that Prcf- bytcrs, fo called in a peculiar Senfe, fhould join in fet- ting apart Timothy to his Office, which was to govern, and ordain Perfons of the fame Rank with themfelves. 4. Sup- pofing Presbyters peculiarly fo call'd were in this Compa- 7ty, (which doth not appear at all j and this were properly ^n Ordination, it will only follow from hence that they may alLft (with Officers fuperior to themfelves j at an Ordination-^ not that they ma}'' v/ithout any fuch Officers manage this Affair : which w^ill be but of fmall Advan- tage to the Cattfe this AiitJwr hath imdertaken. ■). The fame may be faid v.dth refpedt to tliat Pjffjge, AB^ i ?• 1, j2, 3. if any ihould be fo w^eak as to urg j it, to prove that Ordination was part of theBulinels of tJic ordinary Teachers or Presbyters [n the Church. For if this were tlie Ordina- tion of St. Paul, it will follow from hence, not only that Presbyters have a Right of ordaining Presbyters 3 but alfo that their Oj^c^ was ioordaineven Apo files themfelves, and to give them the Authority which they had in the Church: which is too abfurd to need any Conlutation. If it were not an Ordination properly fo called, but only a joining in Prayer for the Grace of God to accompany St. Paul and BarnabaCm the particular Work they were going about, as this Author feems in another place to think, and as it is maniteft from the Context, then lie doth not well to urge Ep?f copal Ordmatwn 4^3 urge this as an Inftance of Freshyterlan Oriinatloii, ?.s he feems to do, p. iii.or., ("as he doth, p. 8yith the guidance of the Boly Ghojl, for, the ailignjng, or not 4 1 0 A brief Defenfe of not aiTigning itJlhBOfcers to diftin^ irorh in the Chri- fiian Church, as fhoiild feem beft. The re fill t of what I have contended for under this firft Reply is, that this may be the Commijjion to the Apojlles to ordain Siiccejfors in the Sacred Mivijiry, and yet not oblige them to ordain all to «?/ Offices : and confequently that they might afterwards make a diftinftion of Offcerx notwithftanding this Com- miffion : That this might be a fiifficicnt Coinmiffion for the Contimtation of a Gofpel Mimjiry to the End of thelForld, and yet that diJlinS Officers might be appointed for the iiJiinB Offices here mentioned: That Ordina ton might be comprehended under Difcipling, a wi Baptizing, and Teach- ing, I. e. that the Apojlles might be commifliontd in thefe Words to take Care that there fhould be Officers in the Church to ordain Perfons to all thefe Offices, and yet it need not be imply 'd in thefe Words, that all Officers whom they lliould call to teach, ihould be called like- wife to ordain others to teach. In one Word, granting his Premifes, I can fee no Foundation for the Conchijion he draws from them : Nor hath he himfelf advanced any thing but his own Affirmations in proof of it. 2. That this was a Commiffion given to the ApoUes, and deligned to fignify what their mainBufinefs in the World was to be, I freely grant: But that it was defigned either as their /i/// Cojmniffion, or as a full Declaration of the Me- thodsthtj were to take in the Execution of their Conimif" fon, I fee not the leaft Ground to think. During our Lord's Life they were iiiftrudted by Himfelf how to be- have themfelves in the Office to which he had called them. When he was going to be taken from them, he tells them indeed what their main Buiinefs was to be in the World ; But he not only doth this, but gives them a Promife of fending the Holy Ghoji to guide and dired them in the management of their great Office. This Com- mffion therefore may be ^ Declaration, in general, what their Bufinefs was to be : But not fo particular as that they might not afterwards have fuller Declarations con- cerning the fame : And this Commiffion it felf not confi- ping them to any one particular Method of executing it, ' ' ' ■ - ^ ^^ ' ' they Epifco^al Ordination. 411 they might afterwards be dlred:ed in their Choice of the beft Method, fince they are not commanded in thjs ei- ther to make, or not to m.alce, a diftinction in Eccleji- ajlical Ojfcers. So that it is no fuch Abfiirdity as this Author Would reprefent it, to fuppofe that this Comnif- //07r was not properly their full and perfed Ccvmljfion -^ iince they might have full and fufficiejit Commifions from the Holy Spirit afterwards, without any Reflexion upon our Lord, who fent this Spirit to fupply his own Place : or to affirm, that the ApoJlUs themfelves were not dire- cted in thefe Words to ordain others ^ ^nce they might have afterwards fufficient, and exprefs pireFiion-i for this purpofe from the Holy Ghoji. The "Words, therefore, now before us may be fully fufficient to the purpofe iptende4 by OU.V Lord, viz. the Declaration of the ^Nature of their Ojice in general ^ and yet their particular Dire£lion, and Commiflion to ordain other Minijlers might be given them afterwards by xh&Holy Spirit. Particularly I do not fee how this could be the Ccmvnjfion by which St. Paul or* di3.mt^Freshyters: Nor confequently how the Presbyters whom /;^ ordained could plead this Comviijfioii iov their Right to ordain. If therefore it be not at all necefTarj to fuppofe that this is the Covimijjion even of the Apojiles themfelves to ordain ^ (which is the only Ground of the prefent Plea-JxYiis at once deftroys the Argument for Pref- byterian Ordination taken from tnis Commijjion. 9. Either the Apojiles might afterwards malve a diftin- ction in Ecclefiajlical Oncers, notwithftandiiig this Com- miffion, or not. If they might, then this Commjfion lig- nifieth nothing to prove tjiat all who are called to teach^ are called likewife to ordain ; and confequently, if this be granted to be the Coi/nni fi on o^zW Presbyters, it may be a Commijfion to them only to teach, and baptize, and not likewife to oria/:'/. If they 77i%/;t not • tlien neither was ^t left to them to bebar the firft Presbyters from Ordina- tion, or to appoint Ti7«.'5t/;3>, and i'uchjuperior Ojfcers to that Work. For ifitwasour Lord's declared Will (as jhis Author contends^ that the fame Perfons that Ihould be 4*2 J brief Defenfe of he called to teach, fhould alfo be called to orilaiu ^ how could the Apoflle.^juGiifY their debarring thofewhonuhey called to t^^c^, from Ordirtation-^ or what Rcafons can poiTibly be found out for fuch a Procedure ? But it is ma- nifeft that they did debar the firft Presbyters from Ordi- 7tation, and appoint other Officers for that Office. From whence it appears to me to follow that they might not- withftanding this Commiffion^ appoint that fome Officers fhould be called, in future Ages, to teach in the Church ^ SLud others, diHind: from thefe, to ordain, as well as to teach. So that granting this to be a Comm'iffiion both with refpeft to teaching midoi'dainivg in the Church, jtt it may heaCommiffi'on to fo?ne to teach -^ and to others, diftinct from thefe, to ordain as well as teach. But, ; *;4. Suppofing it to be a Com7m(fion by v/hich the fame Perfons wereinvefted with the Right both citeachingdiwl ordaining, yet if the Apofiles afterwards thought fit to reftrain the Esercife of this latter Right, and to fignify their Will that the ordinary Presbyters and Teachers ihould not put it in Execution^ it cannot juftify any Presbyters in their Ordinations to allege this Covifniffion : As this Au- thor grants in another Place, p. S6. where lie in cfFed acknowledges that if it can be proved that the Superiority of fuch Officers as Timothy and Titus was defigned to con- tinue, this will be fufficicnt for the difinB'wn of Officers now contended for. I fee not the leait Reafon indeed from any thing in the New-Tejl anient, to think that any fuch Right was everfuppofed by the >^;K^kv originally to belong to Fresbjters., or to Perfons there called Bijiwps. I appeal to anyone, w^hether thebeftjudgmentwecan pafs in this Cafe, ought not to be founded upon their mariifcfl Behaviour, when there were Numbers both of Laity and Presbyters in the Church ; and whether it be not a good Argument that St, Paul knew nothing of fuch a Right be- longing to Presbyters, that he appointed fuperior Officers to o/'J^zw in Places where there was 2i Number oi Presby- ters already fetled. But if any chafe rather to fay, that the appointing fuch Officers was only a Sufpenfon of the i^xer- Epifcopal Ordination. 415 E^^rcife of that Right in Freshyters ^ not a denying them the hight itfelf •, I only defire to know of what Signifi- (^ancy this Covimijjion is to empower Freshyters to ordain, if the Apoftles immediately debarred them from the Exer^ cife of their Power, and might have hebarred them from it, (asthis y^Hi-/;or in efrecl acknowledgeth, and no one can deny) thro' all Ages of the Church. For this will a- mount to the fame thing, as if our Lord had given them, in thefe Words, no RigJjt at all to this Office. Either therefore this Conmiijion gives to Presbyters an vncontrol- lable Right to ordain, or only a Right, the Exercife whereof might afterwards be controlled and reftrained. Not an tine out reliable Right, becaufe we find the Apojiles did im- mediately controll, and reftrain the Exercife of it by ap- pointing a/wpmor fort o{ Church-Officers to manage the Affair oi Ordination in Places where there were already a fiifficient Number of Freshyters. And if only a Right^ the Exercife whereof might be controlled and reltrained ^ this will be of no more Importance than no Right at all. For then our only Ejujuiry will be,whether the Apojiles thought fit that Freshyters iliould ever exercife this Right or not ^ and if it appear they did not, this origiytal Right will, by their own Acknowledgment, fignify no more than if they had had no fuch Right at all. So that they mufthave recourfe to other Arguments, didiind: from this CovimiJfio7t^ to jaftify themfelves, vit. to fuch as prove that it was the Apojiles Will that the Freshyters of fucceeding Ages ftiould exercife this Power oi Ordination, tho' it be mani- feft beyond all Contradi£lion that they denied it to great Numbers o{ Freshyters Qii\i€\x own Age, and very proba- ble from thence that they did fo to all of the fame Order, But if any Ihculd fay, that the Exercife of this Fower might be reftrained by the Apojiles for a Time, notwith- ftaudingthis Commijfion, tho' it could not for ever -^ it is natural to enquire on what Grounds this is faid •, ^\nce it is manifeft that there is nothing in this CommiJJion which, gives aLicenfe to the Apojiles to reftrain Freshyters from ordaining for a Time, any more than for ever 5 and that there 4 U -^ ^r'lef Defefife of there could be no peculiar Reafott for them to reftrain the Presbyters of their own Age from it, unlcfs it be that they were certainly fitter for the Work than the Presbyters of many of the fucceeding Ages were like to be. So that granting this to be a CoimniJlion empowering Presbyters not only to teach, but to ordahi ; yet it being given with Jiich Limitations that the Apofles might afterwards debar them from tlie Exercife of tneir Power of Ordination ^ this Commjffwn it felf can lignify nothing, unlefs it be like- wife fhewn that it was the Apoflles Will afterwards that Presbyters fhould exercife this Right. All the Scripture- jp;"oo/ for this hath been fairly examined under the for- mer Plea ^ and no Intimation of any fuch Will of the Apo^ files iound in their jrriti7igs, hut a great deal to the con- trary : as in the former C&apf^;* feveral Argtunentshuve been advanced to the contrary, and defended from the OhjeBions madeagainft them. 5;. The Lommij^on of Presbyters is fufficiently known from the Will of the Apojlles declared about them, with- out having recourfe to the Declaration made hj Chrijl himfelf concerning the Bufinefs of tlie Apijlles^and Chiircb- Ofcers in general, thro' all Ages of the Church : as the full Commiffion o£ the Apo^les themfelves was made known to them by the HolyGhofl, and immediate Infpiration, after our Lord's Death. It was not in the leaft necefTary that our Lord fliould declare his whole Will in thefe Points, iince the HolyGhoJl was afterwards to be fcnt,in order to give his y^/)o//t?i all neceilary Diredions : And it is in every refped as much for the Good of the Chri- ftian Church, that the Apojilesihouiil declare the Commijjion of Presbyters, as that our Lord himfelf fhould. And if we have recourfe to the ApoJlolicallFritings, all that we can find pofitively declared concerning them is, that their Commijion is to teach the Chrijiian Church, or to feed the Flock of Chrijl -^ and we can draw a negative Ai- gument from tiie no mention of any fuch part of their O^ce, and from the Appointment of other Officers for that Bpif copal OidinatioTJi 415 that Work, that the Right of Ordination was not in their Commijion. 6. It peculiarly becomes this Author^ who hath fo o^- ten i^\)o]i:en oi plain^ and pojitive Froof from Scripture^ to coniider whether this Commijfion to which he appeals, comes up to that Character, or not. The Word Ordinati" on is not mentioned it it : Nor is this given to the Apo^ flies as a Commijjion to be given to all Teachers : Nor is it either faid or implied in it, that all who are called to teach^ or baptize^ are likewife called to ordain others to thofe Offices. That a greater Number of modern Divines have taken this for the only Co7nmiJion by which P/eshy- ters a£t their Part in the Churchy is no Argument that it is truly fo ^ and fuppofing it to be fo, it doth not follow that Ordination is part of their Office, becaufe this may be their Commijjion to teach without commilhoning them to ordain : And yet thefe Two Things are the main Sup- ports of this prefent Plea. 7. I hope this Author will excufe me from regarding what he alleges from the J ewijl) Church,^ whilft he him- felf puts the whole upon the Authority of the New Tefta- went-^ whilft he himfelfat the fame time difcards the like Arguments, when ufed againft an Opinion of his own; and neglefts the Affirmation of St. Jerome himfelf, the great Patron of Presbyters^ jwho in the fame Epiflle in which he maintains their Caiife, ftiles the DiflinSion be- tween Bifiops and Presbyters ( peculiarly fo called ) an ApoflolicalTradition :, and affirms it to have been taken from the OldT^eflament, and to anfwer to the DiflinSion between Aaron and his Sons : as he doth likewife in ano- ther place. This, I fuppofe, will not be allowed of: And yet if the lirfl: Founders of the Chriflian Religion thought fit to make any thing in their i^^^/i^zo?;, or the Appendage; of it, to cori-efpond to fome Things in the Jewip^l appeal to all Perfons, whether it be not moft frobable in it felf, that they fhould order this Correfpond- ence to relate to thofe Circumftances of it which were ap- pointed by God, and recorded in the Old Teflament, than to 4t6 A brief Defetife of to fuch as were determined by Hmnane Prudence after- wards. Howeve r true the Matter here affirmed by this ■Author maybe, of the Juftnefs of which I do not here make my felf a Judge ^ this is certain, that it no more refults from a Perfon's being ordained himfelf to teach, that he is empowered to ordain others to the fame Office, •than it doth from a Perfon's being empowered to adt the part of a Jnp'.e of Veace, that he is thereby empowered not only to do the Office of a Ji/^ice himfelf, but alfo to give the fame CovimiJJion to others ^ no more than it re- fults from a Perfon's being baptized, that he is empowered thereby to baptize others. And, therefore, fuppoling that the JewiJI) Teachers were always allowed to ordain others to the Office of a Teacher, it doth not in the leaft follow that it mnft be fo in the Chripan Church, becaufe it is at leaft full as much for the Intereft, and Honour of the Chrifiian hifiitution, that Ordination fhoiild be in Hands diftinft from the ordinary Teachers of the Church. Nay, I will add, more fo, as appears from the Behaviour of the whole Body of antient h-esbytcrs, who found themfelves "(according to the greateft modern Patrons of their Caufe) obliged in Prudence to reltrain their own Exercife of this Right of Ordination, and to lodge it in the Hands of a /«- jperior Degree of Church-Officers. Befides, the way by which any Light hath been given hyhich Arguments as this, hath iiot been by faying that there was fuch a Cu^om, or fuch sin Office in the Jewijh Church, therefore there muft be •fomething anfwering to tliis in the Chrijlian Church : but by jfhewing that there are actually in the New-Teftament Exprelfions about C^tjlovis or Officers, which may very well be explained fo as to correfpond to fuch or fuch par- ticular parts of the Jewifl) Conftitution. "Whereas under this,' and the foregoing Plea, 1 have fhewn that there is none- amongftall the PafTagcs alleged in favour of Pref- hyterian Ordination, which implies in it any fuch Right in ■ 1 eachers, but JTcveral which do the contrary •, and there- fore this Argument can have no force -, becaufe there is no ' PovfCi- in the Chrijlian Freshyters, fpoken of iu tiie New-Te- "> Jh??ie?itj Ep'tfcopal Ordinatton,. 41 7 ftament^ which can correfpond to the Powerhe herefuppo- feth to have been in the JewiJI) Teachers. 8. If our Lord himfelf, in the Words we are now con- fidering, empowers Presbyters to ordain, fome ^lejiions naturally ofrer themfelves. 1. How came they, in fevei'al Chirches^tohe reftrained by the y^po/?/e^theiT]felves ^ and denied the Exercife of this Right immediately after their Commifwn was giyen them: and this without- ahy y^po/o/)' for fo doing •, with- out any Acknowledgment that this Right did originally belong to them ^ without any Declaration that it was only for -prdent Expedie7tcy,' and for prudent Coniiderations fufpendedfor a Seafon -.hut that the Exercife of it fliould be reftored again to them very foon > Why do we iiicet with nothing like this? And why do we find the firft Presbyters dealt with by St. Paul^ exadly as hfc woald have dealt with them, had they not h?id originally the Right of Ordination ? To this ^lefiion I find no Anfwer attempted.: nor can I think of any that can be returned. 2. If this Repaint weve defigned to be taken off, after the D^ath of the Apojiles, and fuch Gfficexi as Tmothy, and Tittis • how comes' it that in all the Accounts of the Primitive Church we read ofjivgle Perfons fucceeding them in their Stations^ and 0§ces f How comes it that imme- diately upon their Deaths, we find the fame Reftraint, and the fam^ DiJmiBion fpoken of with fo much Zeal in Ignatius' s Ep files ? I 3. If this Reftraint were defigned to be taken off after lithe Death of the Apofiles •, and accordingly removed ^ [as our Adverfarie s coniend ^ ) how, and' when was it im- pofed again upon them ? Which is the intermediate Time in which they did exercife this Right of Ordinaticn ? i'i^hich is the Time when the Reftraint was laid upon rhem igain ? And how com.es it th.at their Ordinations were al- ivays difapproved, and condemned, and their Right to :his Work always denied ? r-, wr. j This laft ^lejiion this Author feems fo >miich aware' of IS to be willing to add fomething un^et this- Hectd fuffi- '. E e cient. 4 T 8 A brief Defenfe of rient, either to prevent, oranfwer it : which I muft there- fore confiderjbecaufe it is almoft the whole of what he pretends to allege for his Caufe out of the Records of Ecclejiajllcal Aittiquity. Fir ft ^ he faith, that infome Partsofthe Chriftian Church it is 7wt very diffciiU to fix the Time of this Reftraint upon Presbyters. The only hijiattce he produceth is that of the Church oi Alexandria, in which he faith iS^ Jerome t^//s vs that for above Ttfo Hundred Tears the Presbyters chofe and fct apart their Biftmp. From whence he argues, that If Presbyters in this Church 0/ Alexandria hivefted, and conferred Power and Authority on their Bipop., and the Va' Jidity of this AB of theirs remained vnqiieftionable^ much more might they conifer Orders on Presbyters. And, left there fliouldnot appear Reafon enough in the Argument it felf, he adds, that this Argument Mr. Baxter often tells m was efteemed unanfwerable by as great a Man cvi Archbi- Jl)op Ulher, p, ICO. I have often told this Author how lit- tle I am moved with great Names in Matters of Judgment ^ nor will he, I well know, yield to the Force of every Argument ( in other Points ) which ArcJibifliop Ujber thought unanfwerable : And therefore I hope he will give me leave freely to examine the Force of this Argument. For I am fo far from thinking it unanfwerable^ that I can- not help thinking it will be found to prove the very con- trary to the Defign of this Author m alleging it. For, I . Either this Bifiop whom the Presbyters o£ Alexandria conftituted from the very Time o^ St. Mark t]\Q Evangelifl^ , to the Time oi Her ad as and DiojiyJiiiSy was no more than . a Privie-Piesbyter^ or Prefident of the Council of Presbyters -, or he was a Biftwp in the peculiar Senfe of the Word. If he were no more than a Prime-Presbytery it will not fol- low that becaufc they chofe their own Prefdent, therefore. viJich more they might ordain other Presbyters, which is the Argument here ufed. For it is a much Icfs thing for Per- fons of the fame Office met together to chufcone of them- felves to prejide amongft themfelves, for the better Ma nagementof their Joi;/t GK7//>/i, than to call other Per' Epif copal Ordination 4^9 Jons to their own Office, In which they had no part he* ford. But if he were a B'lflmp in the peculiar Senfeof the Word (as I doubt not St. y^row^ meant, and this Jrgiiment fuppofeth) then here is Demonftration of the DiJlMion , between Bifiops and Presbyters from the very Days of the II Apofiles. 'l 2. This very chufing themfelves a B'tjlwp is fo far from '} proving that they were not under Rejiraint in the Point 1 of Ordiiiation, that it is the very putting themfelves under ! that Rejirahit : as a Peoples chufing any Perfon, from a- mongtt themfelves, to be their King, refrains that Rights which was originally in them, of granting Commijfwns o£ lefTer Importance •, and is designed to devolve the Power of doing this upon this lingle Perfon ^ fo far is it from proving that they themfelves continue to exercife it. And, according to St. Jerome^ the Prejbyters chuling and fetting \^Bifiop over themfelves, is the thing which put a Period :to their ruling the Churches in common, and with a pro- ' per Equality : And from the very Time of their doing this, they muft, according to him, be under Rejlraints, ,So thatinftead of arguing, the Presbyters chofe their Bi' , j/jop, a fuperior Officer •, therefore much more ordained \Presbyters : I argue, the Presbyters o£ Alexandria chofe to 'themfelves Bi(l)ops from the very Time of the Apojlles ^ therefore from that Time they were reftrained from or- daining other Presbyters, fuppoling they had an original I Right to that "Work. For what, I pray, is that Repaint which Blondel, and this Author contend that the Presbyters voluntarily DUt themfelves under, near the middle of the \Second Cetitury -^hut whatrefulted from their chuiing,from iamongft themfelves, Governors whom they called BiJIwps? j And what is th?it Re Jiraint which St. y^rowe fpeaks of, but the very Order that one iliould be chofen from among the Presbyters, to whom the Care of the Church Ihould be in a peculiar Senfe committed ? Nay, fuppoling this Perfon, chofen by them, to have been only a Prime-Presbyter, what lam faying is fo evident, that Blondel himfelf aclcnow- tdges fuch a i^^/m;;t upon the Pir^^^jt^n by their Choice E e 2 • of 420 -A brief T>efeiife of. of a Prme-Preshyter, as that nothing was afterwards to he (done, in which he was not to bear a principal part. And St. Jerome's only Deligii being to point out the Occafion of that Diftindion between jBf/7;ops and Presbyters, which prevailed in his Days,and on which the Reftraint put up- on P;'^jZ')'f^rs,according to him, was fetled in the Church , to be fure he could mean nothing in tliefe Words kfs than to prove that this Rejlraint was in the Church o^Alex- ii7tdria from the Time of St.. Mark, by fhewing that from that Time the Presbyters of that C/?«/c/j had-chdfeil Bifiops, and placed them over themfelves. For tlie Sentence go- ing before is to this purpofe, that tho' in his Opinion the Original Deiign was that Presbyters ihouli govern by theiu. Presbyteries ; yet that afterwards one was chofen from a- mongft them to be fet over the reft ^ and that this wa» deligned for the preventing feme Abufes and Schifms. T05 prove this, he appeals to the Church oi Jlexandria, in which he faith the P/^j/'j>t^r5, even from the Time of St. Mark, had chofen one from amongft themfelves, whom they called peculiarly by the Nameof 5i//;op, to be fure for the Purpofe above mentioned, hi revicdiumfchifriatisi If therefore the Diftinction in his Days between the 0#"- ces oi Bipops and Fricjlswas in rsmeduim fchifviatis, itfol-r lows that this EleBion of a Bijl^op fwhich he .here fpeakj oi) was for the fame End. For no one can fay but that St. Jerojne is here fpeaking of that Choice. oi a Bifiop^ which reftrained the Exerczfe of the Powers of Preshyten, whatever he fuppofed them to be. 5. It doth not in the leaft follow from the Presbyters chufing their own 5i/7;op5, that they pretended to ordain Presbyters : and yet the whole of this Argument is foun- ded upon their chijivg their own Bifiops. Suppofe it be faid of any Company of Men, that they met together^ and chofe one from amongft themfelves, and having pla^ ced him by that means in an higher Station, they called hmKing: doth it follow that becaufe they thus made him Kivg, therefore to be fure they did what is of leiTer Iniportance •, that therefore any of them, or all of them : after Epifcop^l Ordination, 4^ * bfter this gave Co7nmifiom to other Officers under this \Khig ? No, From the time of that\ EWion he is, by the Will of God, and the. Law o^ Nature, invefted with all due Authority •, and it is his JBufinefs to give Commif- fions to all hiferior Officers. Jufi fo it is in the Cafe before us. Let it be granted that thofe Presbyters chofe one out ' oT their Number, and that having by that means placed. Him in an higher Station, they called him Eifiop •, which is all that St. Jerome faith, it will not follow from hence that after this EleBmt^ they alTumed to themfelves to give Comrmffiwns to Inferior Eccleliaftical Officers ; But rather that from this time, this was one of his peculiar ^ufoefTes ; as I have juft now been obferving. 4. As there is no CGnfeqimce in the Argument drawn from hence : So neither doth St. Jerovie give the leaft colour to fuch an Argument, but in the fame place ufeth fuch Expreffions as abfoTutely overthrow it. He doth not fay that thefe Presbyters conferrd Power ^ and Aiitho" |;77_y upon their Bifiop : Nor doth it follow from what he. faith, any more than it follpws from a Py-z^t/s nomina- ting a Perfon to-a BiJIwprick^ tliat fuch Nomination is the fole Authority by which he a£ts in EccUjiajticd Matters^ He m.ay, notwithftanding this, derive his Authority from the Will of God, tho' the inftant of the Ele^ion be the Time from whence the irill of God concerning his Autho^ rity muft be fuppofed to take Place. And therefore this Aiithor dothjiot well to add fuch Expreffions- as thefe to thofe in St. Jerome, to embelliOi his Argument, which atlaftmuft reft v/holly ■ upon that Father. Again, he ufeth the Word Epifcopus, in a peculiar fenfe, as iignify- ing an Officer diitintt from Trcsbyters. The fame Word lie ufeth in the very next Sentence in the fame fenfe, and denies to Presbyters the Right of Ordination, as I have :fhewnbefore, which he here appropriates to JBifiops. But what is very remarlcable, he illullrates the Presbyters chufing their Bi[!wp by the fimilitude of an Armys chufing" X'^tix Geyieral. Now from hence it follows, that as the 4rmyj after fuch EMion, pretended not to the granting E e 3 Jjjfe-'^ 4 2 2 J brief Defefife of Inferior Commijions in it, but did indeed by means oF this ElcB'ion devolve this upon the Perfon chofen General ^ fo neither did the VreJbyter$^2ihtvXhc EUlVio-n of their Bijlwp, pretend to the granting Comvnjfions to Life?ior Vrepyters : And that for a very good Reafon, vh. becaufe they had by this EleBion devolved this Bufinefs upon the Perfon chofen BiJl)op, as they had the Care of the Chiirch in all Cafes, in a very peculiar manner. But, as I pafs, I can- not forbear asking, if this Account of the Jlexandrian Prejhyters chufing their own Bifiops^ be true, what be- comes of that vnalietiahle Right of the Laity in EkcliojiSy of which this Author upon another occafion fpealcs > Thus have we feen of how little Force this Argument^ from thefe Presbyters chufing their own BiJImp^ is, to prove that they did all that time exercife their fuppofed Right coordination: And how little Satisfadtion this gives us in our Enquiry, how^ and when the Exercife of this Right came to be retrained in the Church. From hence I like- wife draw an Argument that it was the fame (^in St. Je- romes, Opinion) in all Churches, as in the Church of Alex- andria, becaufe he makes the Government of Churches to be always the fame in all Places : And the Decree on which he founds the Rejlraint put upon Presbyters, to be univerfal, and at the fame time. Confequently, therefore, if it was an purfuance of this Decree that the Alexandrian Church chofe Bijljops, and that by this Choice the Presbyterswere rejlrained in the Exercife of their origijial Rights, this Re- Jiraint mufl likewife be as early, according to St. Jerome, in all other Churches, that is, from the very Days of the Apofks. Confequently, likewife, if the learned Blondel be indeed the Defender, and Follower of St. Jerome, he cannot pretend to fix the time of this Rejlraint in any of the Churches later than this : Much lets can he, conJi- ilently with himfelf, fir ft fix the time of this Rejlraht (which St. Jerome reprefents as at the fame time Univer- fal,) to the middle of the Second Century -^ and afterwards argue from St. Jerome himfelf, that it could not be in the Church of Alexandria till the End of the Third Century. How- Eplfcopal Ordination. 425 i However this may be palliated ^ having examin'd the fo much boafted htjiavce of the Alexandrian Presbyters, and found it fo miftaicen, and fo mifapply'd-, I fliall not trouble my felf to fearch that dark Author for any other lefs material Injlances : But content my felf with having confider'd what is principally urged, and depended on, "by thofe who have given the lateft Occafion to the pre- fent Debate. Secondly , This Author adds (p. ici.) that even after I Presbyters and Bijlwps were generally dijlingvijly d in ths Church, it was yet no uncommon thing for mere Presbyters to ordain Perfom into the Ofice of the Minipy : And likewife (p. 102.^ that there are Injlances of Ordinations by Presbyters acknowledged valid, after Epifcopal Government w as fetle din the Church. Now, I. St. Jerome, St. Chryfoflome, and the greateft Favou- rers of Prejn)3rters amongft the Antients,do abfolutely de- ny to Prefbyters thlsPrivilege. The latter, whilil he gives them a part in the Gpverjnnent of 'Churches, as their Right, exprcfsly affirms Bilhopsto be fuperior to them in the Point of Or Jfw^tf on : And this in the place in which he is proving their original Rights, and not their Pradtice : Nor doth he intimate that ever any Presbyters fo much as pretended to exercife fueh a Right. The like doth St. Jerome, as I have already Ihewn, Nay, the Senfe which JSlojidel, and his Followers labour hard to put upon his Words, ^lid facit Epifcopm, Sec. amounts to this at leaft, that m his time no Prefl)yters did, or were allowed to ordain. Nor did Jerius ever pretend to it. Here then are exprcfs Tejiimonies of the Advocates of Prefby ters, plainly fufficient to prove that there was no fuch thing attempted by Presbyters, or allow'd to them, in the Times of thefe Writers, nor known to have ever been al- low'd to them in former Times. To oppofe to thefe, and the like Teftimonies which might be produced out of an Age in which to be fure Epifcopacy was come to its full heigth, two obfcure Canons, wliich want a great deal of Critical Learning, to fettle their true Reading, and then E e 4 their 4^4 ^ ^yief D^fevfn of their true Meaning, cannot appear of any great force in this Cavfe, in which we are feeking for plain Evidence^. 2. Suppofing thefe Camm to be fuch as they are here repreftnted, it doth not follow from City-Preshytcrs and (TZ-'o/t^pj/to^^i being reftrained by them, that therefore it ivas ufL^albeforefor furh too?-d'^?7z as they fa w fit. No, I appeal to any Obferver of Things, if it be not more probable tha' fuch Canons might be made, becaufe fome Chofepifcopi (from their Kame) and fome Presbyters (from other falfe Reafonings) might at that Time have been in- duced to fj/woL-a/^^ in that matter: As Dr. Maurice hath fhewn that the Canons againft multitudes of Bifhops(here like wife mentioned) were cccafioned by Heretical hmo' lators for their own Ends often multiplying Bilhops. And, therefore, thefe Canons do rather Ihew that the Pre- t^\^tsQ^Prepyters to orJtWf were look d upon as Inno- vations not heard of before, and fo relifted, than the con- iiiijry. And if it fhould be allcw-d that Prejbytcrs might ordarn^wkh the Command of the Biiliop, or in his Name, this willnotat all prove the Right ^ or juftify the Exer- c:l{f- '{ it, in oppofitionto Bijbops. .Still here is manifeft i iCif f;om tliefc very Capons^ that the BiJJ)op was at this time accounted at leaft the .Fountain of all ordaining Power, and his Cojifent neceiF^fj in all confider&ble jBs of the Clergy. •" . •: . . • . . ^ , ^. i cannot fee ho^v this Argument drawn from thefe Canons, or Injlances of Prejb.yteritxn Ordination allow'd, is conliftent with the Scheiue of Blondel^ which like wife feems lobe efpoufed by the Author now before me. Ac- cording to him, Prime-Prejhyters weie in, and from the Days of the Apojlles, fetled in the Churches : And by his own Confcffion Ordination, or any thing material, could jiot be perform'd. without their bearing a principal Part. Af^er this he fixcth the EJlalliJlmient of Epifcopacy^ pro- pc//}" fo call'd, fooncr than the middle of the Second Cen- tury. If by this the Prejbyters gave not up the Exercife ■'oi then ordainuig-Office^wh^t is the Reftraint which it i:- fo often faid they brought upon themfelves ? If they did, here Epifcopal Ordination* 4^5 here IS no room left for the allowance of any of their Qrdinamns -, no Poffibility of defending them upon their own Principles ^ no Probabilitj that they ever could he acknowledged as good, and valid, by the Ages follow- ing) when Ch/o?;/ had been added to their own Covipa£f. Or, will not thefe Writers give to the Bilhops ('when once fetled) as great Powers as they allow evfen their P/ w- Vrejbytersl Certainly greater : And if fo, muft wot Or- dination reft in their Hands? And doth not the whole Current ofHlflory aflure us i:)lainly that it did fo? Befides, this Author obferves in Qther places how fond the Eccleji^ ajjlcal Tfrlters are of confining this Power, and of cal- ling that Confent on which he fuppofeth it^ to_ have been* founded, by the Name of ApofioVual Injlltiitlon : ^What place is there then left for their allowance of Ordination by Frejl^yters, who are fo great Enemies to it ? The like may be laid concerning that Canon of the Second Council of ^i'// which this Author produceth in another plac/?, (p, 1 80) as if fomethin^ might be built upon that in fa- vour of his Caiife. Wfiere^s upon his own Principles, and fuppoiing the meaning of the Cano7i to be what he would have it, no Canon of fo late an Age as that (x;/z. about the •Year. of Ckrlfl 61 ■].. J cmi he of any^force in this Debate. Kay if it be true,; as Blond el and others affirm, that Eplfcopcicy was fetled, generally about Forty, or Fifty Years after the ^po7?/^5, (by which means the Confine- ment of the Power of Ordination muft likewife be intro- ducedj it is, impoffible that a Canon mside above Four Hundred Years afterwards ftiould calj. this a Nov_el Con^ Jiltntlon.; Nor is it to be allowed, that any Ferfons offo late an Age fhould be admitted as Good TVltnefes in this Ct/^, unleJs they produce'their Vopch.er._y neceffary ^ this is fuch a Coytfne- mevt^ as that if this Author could find the like in favour of Lay Ordinatio7is, I will promife him to become his Pro'' felyte in this part of his Contro^ierfy. But in the mean while, that he fhould, by negleding to mention it, lead his Eeade?' to think that no fuch Argtnnent could be urged for Epifcopal Ordhmtiov, I cannot reconcile to that Free- dom, s.nd hnpartiality he everywhere pretends. Agreeably to what goes before, it is urged, p. 15' 9. that our Saviour himfdf places the Dernier Refort in the Church, which in Scripture always Jigni fie s the People : And fo I fuppcfe from hence it follows that all Church-Power is iuthcm. Now, i. I deny that the C/^wrc/:? fignifieth the People, feparately conlider'd, in this very place, or in- deed in any place but where fuch a DifiinBion between t]\Q Church, and the Pajiorso^ it is made, as this Author is not willing to allow between the Clergy, and Laity : Much lefs any fuchfSenfe as to cafl: fuch a Reflexion upon the P(7/?on of it as this IFriter labours to deduce from hence. I fay it doth not here fignify the People diftindtly confider'd, becaufe it is not to be fuppoff.d that our Lord would debar his very Apojlles, or Pajlori appointed by them in the feveral Churches, from all Concern, or fo much as a Vote in their Congregation about the Matter fpoken of. Nay, I cannot "think but that this Amhor himfelf would allow an Apojfle a fingle Vote in a Co7i~ ^r^^i3;fzo7z upon fuch an Occafion. But, 2. Let it be fo; Let the J)eniier Refort m the Cafe mentionM, Mat. 18. 1 7. be to the People diftinclly confidered : i. e. Let the private Offences of one Man againft another be brought before the Congregation of Lay-Chrifiians to which they belong, after other more private Methods have been tried in vain : And let an Exhortation, and Difcourfe be made, in their Names, to the /w/wWoz« Perfon. I fay, let this beallow'd, what will follow from hence ? Certainly no l*Q}per hut for this one Bufinefs -. No Power? wholly dif- F f 3 ferent 438 ji brief Defenfe of fercnt from this, and wholly independent on it : And what then doth the Dentier Re fort in this one Matter lig- nif\'' ? Or how can this lext fcrve the purpofe here in- tended hy \\\\% Author ? Unlefs it follows, that becaufethe hjl Rcfort is to be made to the Reople in cafe an injurious Per ion be not brought to temper b}^ other Methods •, there- fore th^' Z./?>/o;t is to be made to them in all Cafes: IV'hich this Author wiW not furcly fay. Or if it do fol- low from thence that the lajl Refort is to be made to the Churchy in this fenfe of the Word, then let it follow like- wife that the /;j^ Refort is not to be made to the People in ■^ny Cafe •, (which as undoubtedly follows from this Paf- • fage of Scripture ^) and then let it be confidered what • the Caiife o^ this Author v/ill gain by fuch ah Argument. Secondly, It is urged that the Praftice both of the Apo- Jiks, and of tiie firft Lay'-Chrijliana^ proves the Exercife o^ tht Right oi Ordination to have been allowed to the Tecplc in the very Days of the Apoftles : That they voted zntheEleBion of Deacons^ K^.6. \%. that when a Rerfon Tposchofen tothe Apojllepip, it was deter7}ii?ied by their Suf- frages, Ad. 1. 26. thatthe}^ fent forth Barnabas, Act. 1 1. 22. and appoijtted Com-panious and AihRanis for St. Paul in his Travels, 2 Cor. 8. 1 9. and confeque^itly chofe the vwr& ordinary Church-Oncers, tho' the Apojllcs, as chief DireBors are faidto ordain ; that the Brethren as well as the Apo- ftles, a7td Elders were concerjied in the Council of Jerufa- " lem, Act. 15:. 23. and that the Apoftles thought it their ■ Duty to give an Account of their A&ions to the People, as'- St. Peter did, AB. ii. 4, jp. 158, 1^9. Thefe Inftances muft be particularly conlidered. A]id, I. The Apofiles did indeed, in the Cafe of an Ofce which they thought too diiFerent from the main End of . their Apoflcfiip for themfelves to attend to, put it upon the People to nominate the Perfons whom they thought proper tohe Deaco7is. But in the frjl place it doth not appear that they accounted this any Privilege of the P^o- ple ^ or that they thought tJienifelves under any necef- iity of doing this : But rather the contrajy, bccaufe the Peoph ,- Epifc'jpal Ordination. 43 9 Feo^le claimed no fiich Right, and i^leaded no fuch Pri- vilege, but were bid to do this by the ApoJiUs, without their thinking any thing of it : And in the next place, they confined the People to the Number Seven, and after they had put the NomhiaUoit ofthePerfons upon thePi^o- pie, they referv d the Right of appointing them to that Office to themfelves, A6t. 6. 3. LookY^ out among you f even A^enofhonejl report, whom WE 7?iay appoint over this biiftnefs', which accordingly they did, v. 6. not accoun- i ting the Nomination of the People fufficient, when they were prefent themfelves to do fomething farther. I fup- _ pofe this Author will grant that the Apojlles might have i excepted againft any of the Perfons named ; and then cer- ! tainly the People muft have nominated another. So that here is an Inftance and Proof which this Author fometimes calls for, how the Nomination may be in one, tho' not fo abfolutely but Exceptions may be made ^ and yet theAppointvie7ft and Ordination to an OJice in the Power of another fo far that the Nonmtation fliall not be of force without it. And if fo, what Service will the Nomination ofthefe Beacons do to his Caiife ? Efpecially coniidering farther, that it doth not follow becaufe the Jpojiles al- lowed this in the Cafe of an Inferior 0 fee therefore it was their Will tha*: it fhould be fo likewife in another. And again, if this hijlance prove any thing of their Will with refped: to this lowejl Office, the hijiances of Timothy, and Titus, and the Management oi Ordinations at Ephefus^ and in Crete ^ will as effedually prove that they thought not fit to give to the Laity fo much as the Privilege of the No7ninationo£ the Perfons to be Ordained to the higher Office of Prejbyters ; much lefs, the Privilege of the fole Appointment of them to that Office. For if this {hew the Will of the Aiopcs concerning the Office of Deacons ; the Epijlles to Timothy and Titns ma}'' well be allowed to {hew their Will concerning the Ordination of Presbyters, ancl what Concern the People have in it. 2. It is faid that when a Perjon was chofen into the Apo- filejbip, it was determined by the Suffrages of the People, F f 4 Act. 440 A brief Defenfe of Ad. T. 55.' Now, T. When the Church was very fmall, in Number, and as many as cculd, or dared, kept con- ftantly together, as it were in a Body, nothing could be more natural, or fitting, than that the Apofiles, who were always with them, and waiting £ci the Lord's Promife, fhouid do nothing in any Cafe \\^ithout firft propoiing it to this conftant Ajfejnhly : But this not out of any necef- lity from the thing itfelf, but only out uf prudent Con- fiderations, fitted to the 5i-fli-e of xhe Church at that time. Nor could their joining the People with themfelves in this firft A6t, preclude them from eftablifliing, or follow- ing any other Method afterwards ift the ap])ointment of Church'Ojicers. So that fuppofing that an Apojlle himfelf had been chofen, at this time hj the Votes of the People, it will not follow that it was the Will of the Apojilcs, afcer the Defcent of the Holy Ghojl, and when the Churches came to increafe, and to be fetled -, that the Appointment even of tlie loivcjl Order of Church- Officers ihould be left to the Suitrages of the People, 2. Be it ^0^ that the People did chufe an Apojlle hy their Votes, flill here were, befides the Laity, the other Eleven Apofiles, who firft propofed, and directed this Afrair. So that nothing can be urged from hence for any Ordinations hy the Laity without any Church-Officers in conjunction with them : Which will be very little to this 7Vrite/s Purpofe. But 5. The Truth is, that ac- cording to the Account of this Matter in the place cited, it is impoffible that any fuch thing Ihould be here in- tended as the chufing the Apojlle Matthia^s by the Suffra- ges of the Laity. For the Matter is recorded thus, that St, Peter flood up in the midft of the DifcipUs ('amongfl which are mention'd feveral ?roragw in the Verfe before ^j ahlfpoketo thisefPedt, (^probably to the other Jpojlles peculiarly •, for the Appellation ufed agrees not to all in the whole Apmbly ^) that it was fit ^inoihei' Apofilc fhouid "be chofen upon the Death oi Judas ^ that in purfuance of this. They (probably the ^poftles only, for the Reafou before given •,) confented to name, not oj/e Pcrfon,- but two, and thefe, according to St. P<:ters Diredion, only out Epifcopal Ordination, 441 out of thofe who had been with Jefm from the beginning of his public Minijiry •, that an Appeal was then made to' Ood Abnighty, ^nd a Prayer tohim tointerpofe in a pe- culiar manner to ihew which of the two he would have to be an Apojile •, that after this Prayer they drew Lots (the manner of which Grotitts defcribes) and the ApoftU'^ fiip fell by Lot upon Matthias : And that after this he was ftiimh red with the Eleven Apojlles, or accounted oneof thaC Supreme Order, z. e. immediately upon God's having in cfted declared it by ordering the Lot to fall upon him. This is the natural meaning of this PafTage : In which we fee it is not plainl}?" exprelTed, nor fo much as probably imply'd, that the P(?op/d bore any Part, unlefs as Wiinef- fes to this TrajifaBion. But fuppoling they did bear a Part in it •, that it was not by way of Voting, (as is argu- ed from the T^ord here tranflated Nimhred, becaufe it fometimes fignifieth one chofen by Suffrages^ or Votes*^ ) may appear from the following Remarks, i. It is manifefl: here was no thought of voting an Apoflle into his Office, becaufe there can be no place for Loti upon that Suppofi- tion ; and the Prayer ufed is not at all proper, had this Matter been to have been carried b}^ a majority of Votes. For to appeal to one who knows the Hearts of Men per-*- fedly, is as much oppofed to putting a Matter to the Votes of thofe who know 7wt the Hearts of Men as any thing can be • and doth as much exclude all Suffrage, and Voting, as any Method can do. So that the Choice of this Method is a Demonftration that the Apojlles thought not fit to truft their own Judgment, or to put this Mat- ter in the Power oiHmnan Determination. 2. The proper place for voting had been before the Lots were caft : And it isveryftrange to talk 0^ voting, after God Almighty him- felf had been invoked, and was underftood to have in- terpofcd in a peculiar manner to determine the Lot to Matthias. For how abfurdly doth it look, firft to draw Lots in the folemn Prefence of Almighty God, and pray to him to Ihew whom he hath chofen of the two : and after God hath difcov^red his Will in favour of^ Matthias, then to 442 AbrtefDefenfe of to put it to the Vote whether he fhall he the Man, or no? Was he an Apo^le as foon as God had determined the Lot tohim^ or not? If not, then that which is here called God's fhewingthathe h^L^chofen him, was not fufficient to make him an Apnftle^ which no one furel}'- will {z\y -. If he was an Apojile immediateljr upon God's having determined the Lot to /?iw, then what place could there be for the Votes ofany Mortals upon Earth ? They might as well have pretended to have put it to the Votc^ whe- ther the other Eleven Ihould be Apojlks, as whether Mat- thias fliould, after the Lot had fallen upon him, by y^/- w%/jf)' Goi's fpecial Determination. 5. It is highly rea- ibnable to think that the Apojiles would not put fuch a Matter as this upon Huynane Votes, but make an appeal as immediately as they could to God himfelf, that the Perfon chofen into the ApoJIleJJnp might not come behind themfelves, or want that CharaEenJlic of an Jpojlle, t\\Q being chofen by the peculiar Interposition, and Defigna- ^ tion of their great Mafter. 4. 1 fee not how it can agree with the Principles of this Author himfelf to fuppofe it poffible that the EleBion 0^ a. Perfon to the Apoflleflnp Ihould be in the People. For, i. The utmoft that he contends for in the Name oi the Laity, is a Ri^ht in every Congregation to appoint or ordain their own Minijier : But his Argjuftent drawn from this place of Scripture, if it prove this Ri^^ht£oT which it is alleged, it will likewife prove a Right in one Congregation to chufe and appoint the Perfon who {h^M govern and teach, in any other, as he himfelf (hall think fit, all over the Cbrijian "World ; ■ forfudia Power belonged to an Apojile : And confe- queutly, 2. This Right of Elefting fo often afcrib'd to cvcij CoJtgregation hy this Author, is abfolutely overtur- ned by this Argument, which pleads for a Right in the Xiiffy alTemblcd with the Apojlks at Jentfalem to impofe ^'Governor and Teacher upon all other Chrijfians which then were, or ihould afterwatds be: Who had as much riglit to vote in the fucceeding Days whether Matthias fnould be an Apojlle, as that lingle Congregation had to do Eptfcofal Ordination.- 445 do it at that time, being as much concern'd in his Apojih' JI)ip as TIjey were. 3. It is an Ahfurdity, upon this Au- thor's own Principles, to think that an Apojlh could be chofen even by all the Covgregatioyis of Lay-Chnjliaitsth2it were afterwards, put together. For their Power, accor- ding to himfelf, can extend no farther than themfelves, and the appointing anyone to govern, or teach, them- felves. JFhereas the Comviijion of an Apojlle reached far- ;ther than thefe already converted : And his Bulinefs was^ ;to be a iritnefs ofChri/s RefurreBion, as St. Feter expref- ifeth it in the place now before ^s, and to preach his Gof- pel to thofe who had never before heard of it. And what Right can any Congregation be fuppofed to have to grant a Covumjwn to fuch an Officer as this ? 5;. I add that the very Word here ufed, upon which the Argument is foun- ded, cannot, as it ftands here, be interpreted of EleBioji- h J Suffrages, hj any Rules o^Gra7}wiar. For it is com^ pounded with the Propofition awl, which fignitieth with, and the Words y.ilo^TavhJ'iKa. ci';ro9-lo\av are immediately connedted to it. Now this may very well be rendred, he was numbred together with the Eleven Apojiles ^ but it cannot be rendred, he was chofen by Suffrages together with the Eleven Apojiles^ unlefs it be thought iit likewife to alTert that at the fame time the Feople voted the other Eleven alfo into the Apofilejlnp, which I hope this Author will not do. 3. It is alleged that the Veople fent forth Barjiabas, AS, II. 22. Now, I. Suppoiing this to have been done by the People^ the fame Word might have been ufed (^where perfed Accuracy was not deiigned, and at a time when, there was no need of it) had they only recommended it to him peculiarly as the fitted Perfon, to go and preach Jefas Chriji amongft a particular fort of People. But, 2. This conferred no ^Ht/;o;7>)) upon ^^n/a/'^f which he had not before : For he might have gone himfelf upon this very Errand, without the Formality of being fent by them, had he thought fit to do fo •, being every way cjualified, and commiirioned to do it before this. And- there. 444 ^ brief Defenfe of therefore this is no Inftance of the Laity s EleBhrg, or ealUvg-j or appohiti7tg any Ecclefiaftical 0§cer to 'an OJice^ which he was not before commiffioned to execute : And confequentl3r is not to the purpofe of this Anthor. 5. By this Jrgiiment the Laity m a Congregation have not only a Right to appoint their own Mimftem^ but Preachers in other Congregations likewife, which is contrary to the Principles of this Author. 4. The Text faith that the Church at Jeritfalem feht him forth. Now in that Church there were certainly ApoJiUs^ Prophets, Teachers, very Ex- traordinary Ecclejiajiical Oncers, as well as Lay-Men : And why will not this Author fuppofe that thefs werethePer- fons whofent him forth ? If he will but give himfelf the trouble of looking into the Thirteenth Chapter of this fame HiJIory of the A^s of the Apojiles, he will find fomething which may give light in this Matter. We read there, V. I. that there were at Antioch, either in or about the Church, Prophets and Teachers : And of them particularly Faul, and Barnabas, and three others are named ; v. 2. that whilft thefe were miniftring to God, and fafting, the Holy Ghojl faid, feparate me Paid^ and Barnabas to the particular Work to which I now defign them •, and v. 5. that they, i.e. manifeftljr, the other £a7f/j/zVdf/Perfons Uamed before, fajled, and prayed, and laid their Hands upon them, &c. Now, i. If the Words import that thefe Prophets and Teachers were in the Church, then the Word CWc/? doth not always fignify the Ljif^y diftinit ; from the Clergy. 2. If the Words import only that they ', were about the Church, then the Word Church doth in- deed ■ here frgnify the Company of Lay-Chrijlians : But thisriot only not excluding, as I hope, the Apojlles and Tropheis from being Chrijiians, but manifeftly implying fuch a diftinction between Teachers, and People as this Author is not willing to admit. 5. If the EcclefiaJlicaV Offcers here mentioned, were diftinft from the Church Jiere mentioned, and this Church was only the Laity, hence arifeth a plain Obfervation, that when Paul and Barnabas were now to be f^nt upon a particular, confiderable Buii- nefs,> Ep'ifcopd Ordination. 445 nefs, the Holy G^ci/?''himrelf overloolced the Churchy m this Aiithors Senfe of the Word, and called upon thefe Ecde^ ifaJlicalOjficers, the Teachers o^ this Church, as the moft proper Per Tons to fet apart Paul^ and Barjiabas to the par- ticular Bufinefs then in yiew. I think it much better and fafer to obferve fromthis plain Paffage, what Method the Holy Ghojl thought fit to take in fuch a Cafe as this, than to argue from an obfcure, or ambiguous "Word ufed in a PafTage, in which it is plain the Ifriter did not defign to fet down the particular Circumftances of xhtFaEi. From all which it may appear how unreafonable it is to argue ixom xht fending forth Q^ Bantah as J Acts ii. 22. that the Pi?op/^ fdiftintUy conlid'ered) exercifed the Right of Ordi- vation in the Days of the Apojlles. 4. It is urged, that the Laity appointed Companions^ and Ajfiflants for ^t. Paul in his Travels, whom he calls the Apojlles of the Churches, and the Glory of Chrijl, 2 Cor. 8. 19. Now, I. I wonder this y^z/t/;or doth not argue that St. Paul was the Apojlle of the People likewife, for it is ma- nifeft they fent their Charity by him, to the Brethreji in Jiidca, KSi. II. 3c. as St. Luke in fhort exprefleth it ; tho* St. Paul himfelf faith, they befeechedhim with great Im- j)ortunity to take upon him that Affair, 2 Cor. 8. 4. in which he was as truly the Apojlle of the Churches, or one fent by the Churches on that Bufinefs, as the others here fpoken of. Perhaps therefore, the others were likewife befeeched, and importuned to accompany him. 2. The Truth of the Matter is this, The Churches^ (Prophets, and Apojlles, and Teachers, as well as Brethren without doubt) thought good that fuch and fuch Perfons fhould accom- pany St. Paul : and they thcmfelves likewife thought good that it fhould be fo : and St. Paul himfelf thought it good ^ otherwife he was under no Obligation to accept of thefe Companions. But what is this to the Peoples fole appointing any Perfon to an Ofhce merely Ecclejiajlical ? 3. Suppofing this done only by the Laity, that they ap" pointed the Brother whofe Praife is in the Gofpel, 2 Cor. 8. 19. and others to join with St, Paul , this was in a Bufi- nefs 44^ ^ ^rief befenfe of liefs relating to their own chantahU Contnhiitwii^^ and what is this to their appointing a Perfon not already cal- led to it, to an Office merely Ecdejiajfkal concerning which only our Debate is > This conferred no EccleJiaJIical Office upon any Perfon fent with- St. Paul, nor confirmed any. If they were EccleJiaJIical Officers hefore this, they remained in all refpefts the fame, without any Addition : If they were Laymeit,. they received no EccleJiaJIical Com- 7niffio7i, but remained perfeft Laymeyi, notwithftanding they were thus fent by the Eeo^le to accompany St. Paul. So that this Injiance is fo little to the Purpofe, that I can- not but wonder to find it alleged. 4. If the Peo^^le mull needs be underftood in the place cited, by this Author to hsivefejit, or appo27tted Ecclefiaftical Officers who were not fo before (and nothing lefs than this can ferve his Pur- pofe^ then it follows that the People of 07ie Church appohi' ted them ^OT other Churches : which is according to hi??!, Tyraimy, and I??ipo[itio?t, and therefore deltroys his own Principles. As for their being called the Apojlles of the. Churches,he knows the Word can't be meant in the Senfe in which St. Paul was an Apojlle, but that they only fig- nify Perfons fe?it by the Churches upon their Bufinefs : And as for their being called the Glory of Chrijl •, fo is every good Man who is a Credit to ChriJ}ia?iity, whether he be an Ecclejiajlic, or Lay??ia??. • 5. From the Three foregoing Inftances, vi%. the chu- ling an Jpoftle ^ fending forth Bar?iabas ^ and appointing Co??]pa?iio?is to St. Paulin his Travels, this Author argues, that if they were thus covceryied in chufwg extraordinary Mi- 7iiJ}ers, it caii^t bt thought but that they exercifcd the fa??ie Power ill chujing the ordinary. In anfwer to this, i. I have Ihewn that they did not chufe an Apojlle ; that they con- ferred not the leaft part of the Ecclefajlical Office upon Barnabas, nor ufed any Authority over him -^ and that their chufing Perfons to accompany St. Paul hath not the leaft relation either to the appointing any on^ to an Eccle- JiaJIical Office who was not in it before •, or fo* much as to the determining any one, who is already an Ecclejiajlick, to Bfifcopal Ordiriationl 447 to€xercife his EccUfiaJlical FiinUzon after fuch a peculiar planner, or in fuch a particular place. And therefore I conclude that lince fuch Ivjiaiices do not fhew that the Laity wcie concerned in appointing anyPerfonstoanjE/:- dejiajllcal Offce^ the Conchifion he draws from them necef- farily falls to the Ground. 2. Siippofing the People did chufe the extraordinary and fupreme Church-Oj'iccrs, it is fo far from following from hence that they chofe the or- dijiary, and inferior likewife, that the contrary follows from this very thing. For juft as we' fee that the TeopU by the electing a Kivg do utterly preclude themfelves from giving Comviifions^ and Authority to the inferior Of- cen, who are to ad under him^ and devolve this Matter upon the Perfon chofen King ^ fo likewife fuppoiing thej chofe the fupreme Chnrch-Offcers^ the Apojlles themfelves, it is manifeft they did by this Choice give them the Power of granting Co7nmiJjions to the inferior Clergy who were to act under their Ci/"^, and Infpe^ion. 3. That the Jpofies did take upon them to grant thefe Coimnijionsj or ordain Presbyters, as chief Dire&ors, this Author owns in the fol'- lowing" Words, tho' he adds it was with the Confent of the People, So that here is an Acknowledgment that the Peo-^ pie did not ordain inferior Church-Officers without the^^o- Jlles ^ from whence I argue that he mull: acknowledge fome thing more necelTary to Ordination^ in the Days of the Apojlles, than the Appointjnent or Choice oi^i Congrega- tion oi'Laymen^ which deltroys his Jrgiment, p. 8c. And, on the other hand, that the Apojlles did ordain Presbyters without confulting the iaz7_y,orwithout thinking it necef^ fary fo to do, I appeal to A&s 14, 23. where no mention is made of the Peoples Concern in this Affair 5 and to the Epijlles to Timothy and Jittis, written with a peculiar Eye to this Matter, in which the Management of it is given into the Hands of thofe Two Ecclefafical Officers, com- miiiionedby St. I^jw/ himfelf to that purpofe, without a Word in them of any Neceliity of the Peoples Concurrence with them, much lefs of any Right in them to execute ,that Office by tliemfelves, without any Ecclefiajlical Offi- cer, 44^ ^ ^^'^^f ^^finfe of m cer^ which this Author contends for. As for the EpifllKi to Timothy, and Titus, the Matter is plain, becaufe it cai?' not be fuppofed that the Words ufed there concerning this Matter have any relation to the chifing by lifti7ig up the . Hands '^ and no Direction is there given concerning any part the Laity were to bear in it : which certainly had been done, if St. ?aul had thought fit to make them the Ordainers of their own Presbyters. Which may fatisfy us likewife that St. Pfliz^rs other Ordittatiojts, f particularly this, ABs 14. 23, now mentioned j w^re not managed after a different manner : tho' this Author is pleafed to argue from the Word ;c"?'1"«'>'^'''72f here ufed, that the Ayojlles ordained them by the Confentof the FeopU expreffed by lifting up their Hands, p, 358. To which I anfwer, i. Tho' this might be the/r/ Signification of this Word, yet it is very frequently, and moft commonly ufed for any fort of Apyorfitment, or Ordination, or Eledion, as this Au^ thor knows, and in Cafes in which the Appoijiter, or Chtfer is one fingle Perfon .^ and therefore at leaft it cannot be Ihewn certainly that the Word is here ufed in its//;/? Sig- nification. 2. The Interpretation of this .^wt^or is im- polTible in this place. For granting the Word to have the Sipiijication he contends for, yet there can be nolnflance of the ufeofit for any Perfons conftituting, or appoint- j jng any Gjjicers by the Suffragesof others. It is here faid \ of the ApoJIks that they did ytierrov^t. which muft mean, according to his own Signification of the Word, that they appointed Presbyters by the lifting vp of their own Havd;, not by the lifting up of the Hands of othen. For when this Word is ufed ot the people, is it not meant of their electing by tlie holding up their own Hands ? And can this Author give any Inftance where it is ufed of any par- ticular Perfons cledting, and yet underflood of the lifting up the Hands of other Perfons, and not of thofe who are faid x"f^']''»'«'«' ■'' If he cannot, then here it muft be under- flood folely of the Apoftles 5 for of them it is affirmed that they, not the People did x^Jf^lowp- 3. Add to this, that the Word is not here ufed abfolutely, or alone, but it is faid that Epjfcopd Ordination. 449 tliat the Jpojiles did ordain Vrepyten for them^ i. e. the [People. Now this Author cannot, I believe, produce one Inftance where this Word is ufed for appointing Officers for others, and j^et underftood not of thofe Perfons who are faid to appoint them, but of thofe for whom they are faid to be appointed. I 6. It is alleged that the Brethren, as well as the Apoftles, ani Elders, (thefe Three Orders) were coJicernedhi the Coun- cil 0/ Jerufalem, A^s 15. 23. from whence I infer, with this Authors Leave, that there was at leaft fome fmall Diftindtion o^Offce between thefe Elders, and thefe Bre^ thren, whom he himfelf here makes to be Two different, ^nA^i^ixiQ: Orders. But to reply to this, i. A great pifficultir being raifed at y^wtfocfe, concerning the conver- ted i^fcut/?^?/^, whether they were obliged to obferve the Law of Mofes, it Was agreed that St. Paul, and Barymha^^ with, fome others, fhould go up to Jerufalem : and it is nanifeft that there was no Thought in them that fent :hem, of their confulting the Brethren, or Laity, at Jeni^ ^alem, becaufe, v. 2. it is faid that they fhould go to the dpojlles, and Elders^ concerning this ^lejlion, without my mention of the Laity : who would certainly have jeen named, had there been any Thought of confulting hem. Nay, agrecabty to this, it is faid, 7;. 6. that in pur- liance of this Commijfion, the Jpojiles, and Elders, with- out any mention of the Brethren, or Laity, m.et together • ivhich is fufficient to fhew that the whole of this Matter as to be deterniined by their Authority. 2. The whols 'hurch is indeed mentioned, x'. 22. and the Brethre?!,^ v, 3. as joining in the Refolution taken by the Apojiles, and Iders : but the former Obfervation fheweth that this is ot to be fuppofed to ipply any equal, or joint Authori- in them, becaufe upon this Suppofition Paul, and Bar^ abas would have been at firft direded to them ^ and any ne may fee there is no need of underftanding it fo. For .11 that can be fairly collected from hence is, that the %-iJlian people, as far as could be known, acqaiefced in, ndwere well fati-:fied with, this Determination of the G g ApoflUs 4-50 A brief Be fenfe of Apojlles and Elders : and that accordingly In the Lme^: , written, the Brethre7i were joined with the ^po7?/?s, and ii'/i^z-i^becaufe it wouldbe a great Satisfadion to the Churches to which it was fent, to know that there was an ; univerfal Agreement of the Chriftuws at Jemfalcm in this Decijion of the Apojlles. This isReafon fufficient for their being joined with the Apojiles^ and Elders, in this Aftair ; and therefore it cannot be fhewn from hence that they pretended to any Authority in it. 9. The Laity at Jeriifa- lem were as much in need of the Dircdions, and Guidance , ofthe Apojlles, as the Laity of other Churches : and can- ji not be fuppofed to be at all qualified to decide Controver- f fes, and nice ^lejlions. 4. The joining them with the ! Apojlles, as this Author doth, deftroys his own Scheme, l and overthrows his own Principles: for it gives the Laity j of one Church that Power of laying Impositions on their |j Brethren, and fending Decrees to the Laity of other Chur- I ches, which this y^HtWhath utterly denied, and zealoufly oppofed : and confequently cannot be reafonable, even in; his own Judgment, "j. As to the Point of Ordivat'iov, no- thing can be collcded from hence ; and it is manifeft fi'om the Eptjlles to limothy, and litus, that the Apojlles made no Scruple of giving their Orders concerning the ( Management of that, without confulting, or advifing^ with the Laity, or ufing their Names to give any additi- onal Authority to what they thought fit to be done. 7. It is pleaded, th^t the Apoftles thought it their Duty to give an Account of their Anions to the People, as St. fe- ter did, J^Si 11. 4. I am indeed afliamed, and aftonifhed, to read fuch Exprcliions concerning the Apojlles. For, I. This Author mi'^t as well fay that the People who were to be guided, inflructed, and directed by the Apo- jlles in the nature oiChriJlian'ity, and their oJi'wDuty were the Judges ofthe Apojlles themfelves, and might call them to an Account for their Management of themfelves in their Office,to which they were called,and in which they were dire^^ted, by GoJ himfelf: a Bufinefs which the Eeo- pie were not at all qualified for, andot'which they never thought. Epifcopal Ordination 45 1 tliouglit. 2. If it Was the Duty of the ApoJlUs to give an Account of themfelves to the FeopU, it was their Duty equally all over the C/;;77?z«M World : for their Relation extended it felf to all Churches. But it is abfurd to jput ^fuch an impolTible Task as this upon them : and therefore I this could be no part of their Duty. 5. The Behaviour of I the Apojlles towards the Laity, was never out of Duty, in fuch Senfe as if the Laity were the Judges of their ABiom, < and could demand an Accowit from them (which is the lonly Sevfe that canferve the Purpofe of this Author) tho* ; it may be faid to be out o^ Duty, as it is the Duty of all \Supenors, to condefcend to the Weaknefles and Prejudi- ices of their /w/mor^, and to endeavour to give them Eafe, and Satisfadion, in points which they had otherwife no Obligation to lay before them. The Apfilesmi^t think at their Duty, in this Senfe, frequently to juftify them- felves from thofelmputationsj which evil, 01 we akMcn laid upon them •, and which would, otherwife, have ren- dered them the lefs capable of doing Service in the Church. But this Senfe of the Exprefto7t here ufed ferves not the Purpofe of this Author. 4. If any one pleafe to turn to the place here cited by him, ABs 11. he will find that iSt. Feter was fofar from thinking himfelf obliged to give an Account of his Anions to the Pfop/^, that he did not do it to the whole Church ♦, nor as from any Obligation, as he ought to have done, according to this Author^ -, nor ever thought of doing it at all, till he was taxed by a par- ticular Sed of them, as if he had done an unjuftifiable thing, V. 2, 3. that upon this Accufation he willingly en- deavoured to give thefe prejudiced Perfons Satisfadtion ^ which he doth by a bare Relation of the Matter of Fadt, V. 4. and without any Acknowledgment of their Autho- rity to call him to Account. And what there is in this Procedure more than a Willingnefs that all Ihould be fa- tisfied, and eafy, and no Offences continued in the Way dF the Gofpel, let any one judge. 5;. I am fure it may as well be argued that the JpoJHes thought it their Duty to give the Heathens, or inibelievijig Jews an Account of tlieir G g 2 Anions, 452 A brief Defenfa of ABmts, bccaufe when thev were taxed Ly them of ma- le ing a Difturbance, and Alteration in the World, they thought fit to give them an Account of their Proceedings, and to lay before them the great Rcafons they had to preach the Gofpel o^ChnJl. 6. Granting that the Apojlles. thought it their Duty to give an Account of their Behav'i- tur in fome Points, it is manifefl: from the Ep'ifiles to 7z" fnothy and Titiis, that they did not thinlc it their Duty to do fo in the Affair of Ordhiatton cf Prejbyters, and Ryjlon in the Churches ofChrifians. 'Thirdly, It is alleged by this Author^ in favour of the Chtirch-Fower of the Laity, that in the Daysof the^po//?i the Office of ?v caching was iyi covimon, p. 1^5, i?^. aud the Laity baptized, p. 155", 136. and from hence, likewife, ht would lead People to thinlc that there is no Office claimed by the Cle?'gy which the Laity have not a Right to perform. To this I anfwer in general, that I would uot have the ^c^Jer imagine from hence that it is this Author's conftant Opinion that there was no Diftindion of Offices inthofe Days .- for hehimfelf, as I have obferved before, makes the Apojlhs, Elders, and Brethrejtinthe Council of jervfalem, to be Three Orders : and 1^ Three Orders, then there was a Diftindtioiiand fetled Difrercnce in the Offices of aiders, and Laity : and confequently fome Offices ap- propriated to the fnrvier, which the latter dii^ not pretend to perform. Or if he will not allow this, I hope the Rea- der will, notwithftanding his Affirmations, confider that St. Raul hath made a Difference between the Prejhyters of Ephefus, and the Flocks over which they were placed, ^cls 20.28. and in his jE'^7//?5 to Timothy. But it is necelTary to be more particular, and to examine cver)r Pafjage here alleged by this AJtthor. As to the PafTages, therefore, ci- ted for the Laity's Preaching, as this Author is pleafed to- call it, the Reader will find upon Examination, I. That fome of them are nothing but fach Exhor- taticm to the Laity, as would be very proper at this Day, when there is no fuch Ciifom pretended as their preach- 7vg in pvMic Affeirihlies, Thus, H^b, 3. 15. the Chri* Jiiav^ Ep'ifcopal OrJinatm, 45 1 ffixvsin^i State ofPerfeciition are called upon to exhort cr,ic another, while it is called to Day, &c. i, e. to encou- rage one another to a conftant, and couragious Confef- iion of the Faith of Chrijl^ and this for fear any of them {hould be over-power'd by Perfeaition fo far as to be brought to deny thtir Majler. Now what is this to the f reaching publicly in the Congregation ? Or, who ever Atny^ A. iMch. Exhortation^ and mutual Admonition to be even the Duty of all Chrijiians, whether Clergy, or Laity ? Thus again, fcZ'. 10. 24 25. the Zaz>)) are indeed exhor- ted to conlider one another to the exciting^ and qiiichmtg Xht'iv Love ^ mid. good If 07'h '^ not to forfake the apj?ihVnig \of thevjfelves together (^merely out of fear of their Pe/fe- '.cutors) but to exhort one another^ i. e. as I underftand it, in connexion with what goes before, and what follows, to encourage one another to meet together for Religious lOfices, notwithftanding the Perfeaition of their Adver- saries. For it is oppofed to the forfaking their Religious Allemblies : Which Oppojition is not preferved if the Words be interpreted thus •, Not forfaking the ajfcmhling of your f elves together, but exhorting one another when you are affembled. On the contrary it is very well preferved, it they be interpreted thus, Not forfaking the a jfembling of your/elves together, but encouraging one another to this alTembling as an open acknowledgment of your M.rjier by meeting for his Service, and Honour, for joint Prayer, and the Celebration of the Lord's Supper, And that this negled: of ^^t.'w//'/i7;^thcmfelves together is, at leaft, one iort, or degree of that Apoftacy and Sin he fpeaks of in the foUov/ing A^erfes is, I think, very probable from his conneding his terrifying Reafons againffc wilful /fpofacy immediately to this Injunction 7iot to forfake the affemb- lin^ themfehes together, as Reafons againft the NegleS of rJ/t'?«/7/i?;^ themfelves jaft now mentioned ^ and from his defcribing this Jpofacy, v. 29, to be the accounting the Blood of the Covenant (as tlie Wine in the Lord's Supper is peculiarly called in the Gofpel) a Common, or Unholy xhivg : e. the avoiding and flyiiig from the Participation of it, G g 5 ^s 454 Ji brief Defenfe of as if they had a mind to make their Adverfaries believe , it was a thing they no more valued, or regarded, than theiH Adverfaries themfelves. And the Practice of fome who' had thus out of fear denied Chrifl by refufing to meet as ' his Difciplesy to worfhip, and remember their Lord, might juftly give occafion to the Apofile to be zealous in his Injunftions upon this Head-, and is a fufficient Rea- fon why he fhould prefs them to exhort one another to fo necelTary an Acknowledgment of Chr'ifi ^ and urge it upon them by fhewing the Guilt, and Sin of thofe who wil- fully refufed out of fear, to meet their Fellow-Chrijiiam^ for the Worflnp of t]\e\x Majier, and t\\t Religious Rememr trance of him in the Lor^'s-jSwpp^r. i. Therefore, if this hiterpretaUon be juft, here is not the leaft intimation of any fuch thing as preachiftg in the AJfemhlies of Chrijllam, allow'd in, or required of the Laity : And that it is juft, I appeal to the Reafovs here given. I add that they who favour the Interpretation of thi? Ai{Jthor can fay nothing for it, but that it is a pojjible Meaning of the Words •, not that it is plainly, and manifeftly the Senfe of them : which alone is a fufficient Reafon againft building fuch a Point as this upon them, even tho' nothing more could be faid of the IiiterpretafionI have given, but that it is likewife pojfible, 2, Suppofing the Interpretation of this Author to* be juft, no more can be inferr'd from it but that the Apofile did advife the Lay-Chrijlians, in Times of Perfe- cution, when they were met together for Religious Ifor- JJnp, to fpeak to one another, and to encourage one ano*^ ther againft Apofiacy, and the Fear of Men. Now this is very confiftent with the Prepytcrs having an appropria- ted Office ill theCeverj AJfnnllies : And I fee not, for In- llance, why the perfecuted Protcjiants in France might not, even in their Religious AJfemhlies, have made it one part of their Bufinefs, to fpeak comfortably to one ano^ ther, and to encourage one another to Perfeverance", without ever fuppofing themfelves polTcfs'd of the fame Ofcc which their Pajiors, and Preachers exercifed. ^. And that this Iniunftionof the Apoftlesdid not in the '-■ • ■ Jeaft Epjf copal Ordinat'idn, 4^5 leaft derogate from the appropriated Office of the Payors of thefe very Cbrijliam^ even in his own Opinion, is ma- nifeft from this very Epijile, in which thefe fame Chri- jHam who are here called upon to exhort one another, are called upon, Ch. 13. v. 7. to remember, or have re- gard to, thofe wlio were their Leaders^ and BireBors, ?L\id.fpokt to them the Word of God, i. e. their Preachers •, and, V, 17. to be in fome fort of SubjeSliov, and to pay allreafonable Deference \.o their Spiritual Leaders: Whofe peculiar Bufinefs is here declared, viz. to watch over the Souls of the Laity here fpoken of, as Perfons that mujl give an Aecount. So that in this very Church thert were Preach, ers, and Guides diftinft from the Laity, to whom the Laity were here required to attend •, and to be advifcd, and perfuaded by them according to this Author himfelf. (p. 161.) From whence I argue that it is highly impro bable that the fame Apojlle ihould in another place fti;: up thefe fame Lay-Chrijiians to preach to one another in their pw^/76 Affemhlies, ' Again^It is in the fame place alleged that this Duty of Teaching and Admomjhing one another in their AiTemblies is required of r/?^ Laity on the highefl Motives, fuch as, that the IFord of God may dwell in you in all Ififdoin, Col. 7. \6. and that you inay comfort and edify one another, 1 Thef $. II. Now, I. Neither of thefe Texts is by St. Paul intended as a Motive to any thing at all, as any one may fee by turning to them : And therefore not 2i Motive to the Laity, to preach in puhlic Apmhlies. The former 0^ them is an hijunBion by itfelf, independent on what goes before, that the Iford of God J/mld dwell richly in the Cor ioliians in all irifdom : And tlie latter is likewife a Com- mand to the Laity diftindt, and of a larger extent than that o( exhorting one another, which goes before it, and makes it their Duty to f^i/}, and profit one another by all Methods agreeable to their feveral Stations, and to the C'hriJIian Religion : And therefore is not a Motive to the Practice of the foregoing Injundtion, but a new In- j'unftion ad4cd to it. The Motive to both thefe Duties is 45^ A brief Defenfe of talcenfrom C^W/'sLove to us exprelTed in the Verfes before. But 2. Neither of thefe 7Vxt5 can with any co- lour of A;'gU7?iei;the apply'd to anything but the private Behaviour of C/j/7/?ia7Z5, diftindt fronitfiatin more public Apvdhlies. What the Jpofile recommends to the Colo/jiam in tht fonjier is that the irord of God may dwell 271 them, which can bear no Relation to xhtlv preachhig the Word of God in pihlic Ajfemhlies^ but rather implies that they have heard it at thofe Places preached by others. He ad- vifesthem farther in the fame F'^/-/^, to teach, and htfiniB themfelves ^^ which I wonder this Author did jiot allege. But how is it ? BjPfahns and Hymns, and Spiritual Sovgs ^ to keep up a fenfe of Religion in their Minds by this Method. The fame he recommends to the Ephefans, Eph. 5. 19. where he exprefTeth it hy fpeakijtg to themfelvesin Tphns, and Hymns, 8cc. In the latter he exhorts the Thef- fjlo7!7an Chrifnajis to edify one another, to do one another all true and real Service, which certainly they may be exhorted to do without fuppofing them Preachers in Pub- lie Jffemblies, unlefs this Author's Notion of Edificatio7i be framed according to the Miftake of fome Modern Chrijlians^and not to the Scriptures themfelves, 3. Thefe l7!Ju7i3ions are in themidft of others, all of a private Na- ture, and not concerning an}^ thing relating to public lForJJ)ip : And therefore it is unreafonable to apply thefe to that Matter, abruptly, and without any the leaft In- dication in the Tejits themfelves to that purpofe. 4. In both thefe Epiflles there is a manifeft Diftindion made between the Laity, and their Paflors, and public Teachers : and therefore no reafon for St. Paul fc zeaioufly to enjoin the Laity to teach in public AJfemblies, as this Author fup- pofeth he doth. He himfelf, tho' for another End, makes mention ci Archippus amongft the Colojjians, to whom St, Paul fQr\(\^2i Mcj] age in this Epi fie fjultashe doth Salu-' taticns to others) that He fwuld take heed to the Minijlry he had received, to fulfil it. From, whence it is evident that he had an Office, and Duty incumbent on him, di- {lindt from tiiofe of the Laity. And in the E-pifile to the Bftfcopal Ordination, 457 Theffalomam now cited, in the very next Words following thofe quoted by this Author j St. Pavl hefeecheth them to take notice of thofe v^ho labour among Ji them, and are over them hi the Lord, and ivjini^ thejti ; a^td to ejleem them, ex- ceedingly, in love, for their works fake : Words, which, !« think, fufficiently imply an appropriated Ojfice of Payors and Teachers in thofe Days. Thefe Fajfages, therefore, cited by this Author for the Laity\ preaching in the Days of the Apofiles, concern only private Exhortations, and Jdjuonitions • and fa are nothing to his Purpofe. ' 2. Others of them will be found to be only Diredions how thofe Ferfons fhould manage themfelvesin the public Ajfemhlies, who had extraordinary, and miraculous Gifts, and particularly Revelations from the Spirit of God in thofe fir ft Days : And fuch as cannot be of any Concern in thefe Days, when there are no fuch Revelations. Thus if we examine t Cor. 14. we fliall find that the only Rea- fon for fo many fpeaking in the public Ajfemhlies was that it pleafed God to give to many of them 7mraculous Gifts, and ext7-aordinary Revelations, Chap. 12. 8, 9, 10. which is afufficient ground for any one tofpeak in PvbUc to fuch as acknowledge the Divine Infpiration of what they have to fay. And when he exhorts them, v. 12. to labour to excel for the edif}nng of the Church (which this Author allegethj this is h s way of doing it, fince you are fo much for the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, defire and labour after fuch, and after fuch an ufe of them, as may be moft for the common Benefit of you all. And, what is this to any other Church, or Ti7ne, in the World^ in which there are not fuch Gifts, and Revelations^ When other Churches, are like the Church at Corinth at this time, \tt their public A ffemblies be managed according to this Chapter. So if we look into the other Text alleged, viz. I Itt. 4. 10. and compare it with the Verfe foregoing, we fhall find either, i. That it is a Direa:ion to thofe I who were peculiarly called to the Office of fpeaking in 'public, as It may be thought from its being join'd with the Office oiMlniJirivg in the fame Verfe : And if fo^ let ■> who 458 ^ brief Defenfe of who will be the Perfons called to this Office, this very PafTagc proves a Confinevient of this Office. For it is plainly St. Feters Defign, v. 9. to exhort all amongft them to perform their feveral Duties, and exercife their feveral Gifts, for the common Good of the Church : And v. 10. to dire£l thofe whofe Office it was to Jpeak, to do it as the Oracles o£God. From whence I argue againft the Defign for which this Text is produced by this Author, that it a|) pears from this very Text, that the Office of Preaching, or Speaking in public AJfemblies^was not a common Office, but confined to fome particular Perfons. Or, 2. We fhall find that the Words are fpoken of a particular ex- traordinary Gift of the Holy Spirit given in thofe Days ; yet fo as to require the prudent Management of the per- fon who had received it, for the Good of the Church . This feems probable from its being called by the Name of yjiei7\xit. in the Vcrf& before. And if fo, they have no Place in the prefent State of the Church : Nor can any thing be argued from them. Add to this, that in thefe very Epijlles out of which thefe Pajfages are quoted, there is a manifeft Diftindtion made of Ecclefuftical Officers from the Laity, and a ma- nifeft Confinement of the O^ceoi Teaching, or Preaching in our fenfe of the Word. St. Paul in the firft Epijlle to the Corinthians, when he is fpeaking of the wonderful Gifts in this Church, (which \vas the only Ground for the fpeaking of fo many in their Affeynhlies) himfclf makes a Difference of Gifts beftow'd upon different Perfons, Ch. 12. 8, 9, To. and a Diftindion of Offices to which difl-e- rent Perfons vv^ere called, v. 5. 28, 29, 90. by which means he efi'edtually fets Limits to the Offices here men- tioned ^ and provides that even of thofe Perfons who had extraordinary Gifts none Ibould Ipeak in public but fqch whofe Gifts, or Revelations, peculiarly fitted them for it. So that there is included in his Account of the feveral Gifts and Offices then in that Church a Confinement of thefe feveral Gifts and Offices to particular Perfons. But to put it beyond all doubt, this fame Apojlle who is here jntro- Epifcopal Ordination, 459 introduced as a Patro7t of the whole Laity's i:>reaching, ^oth himfelf ask,cfc. 12. v. 20. Are all Apojlles f* Are all Prophets ? Are all Teachers ^ The Apoflle anfwers him- felf, No, by asking the ^uefliojt, and alfo afTerts in the fame Chapter that God hath appointed fome to one OJ'ce, and fome to another. Are all Teachers ? Tes, this Author snfwers in exprefs contradiction to St. Paid in this Chap- ter, all were Teachers in thofe Days : But the Reader, I hope, will confider whether he had not better believe St. Paul about the State of the Church at that Time, than this ITriter. In thc/r/? Epijlle of St. Peter, out of which the other PafTage is quoted, there is likewife a moft manifeft Diftindion made between the Prejbyters, and their Flock^ ch. 5. V. I, 2, 5. i. e, hetwttw Clergy, 2Lr\d. Laity: The for7fier of which are called upon as Shepherds to feed the latter -, and the latter are ftyl'd the Flock committed to the Careof the/or?7zt^r : And how every one of the Flock can have the Office of the Shepherd of the Flock,! leave to this Author to judge. 9. if we examine the remaining Ivjiances \\\is Author produceth of the preaching of the Laity, we fhall find that thefe likewife are of no importance in the prefent Debate, as they only concern the preachi7ig 0^ the Gofpel where it never was heard of, or the endeavouring to convince In- fidels of the Truth and Reafonablenefs of the Chrijlian Religion. For, i. Suppofing that all they were Xfl)'Wffw V^ho were fcattered abroad upon the Perfecution raifed on St. Stephens Account, A^. 8. 4. it is manifeft that they were fcatter'd into Countries where there were none to preach the Gofpel to hifdels but themfelves : And it is manifeft that they had the Power of working Miracles to juftify themfelves to any who ftiould ask them by what Authority they preached a new Dodrine, and fet them- lelvesto alter the Faith, and PraBice of the World about them. I fay it is manifeft they had this Power of Mira- cles, if we may judge of the reft hy Philip, v. 6. and by the Siiccefs they had, cb. 11. 21. and by the conftant at- tendanf e of Miracles upon thofe who were the firft Preach'^ ♦ . ' ' ?rs 4^0 A brief Defenfe of ers of the Gofpel ^ and by the ExprelTion ufed concern- ing them, that the hand of the Lord was ivith the?}!. Let therefore thofe Lay^nen who would argue from hence put themfelves into the Condition of thefe Brethren. Let the Providence oi God ca^ them into Countries oilnfdeU who have no other Opportunit}^ of hearing of ChriJ} but by them ^ and this it felf in my Opinion, will give them a Co7«wz^ow, if there be any hope ofSuccefs, to endeavour to convert as many as they can, to the faith of Jefus ChriJ} : And if they have the fame power of working Miracles, they need not doubt of the fame fuccefs. But what is this to the Cafe of Chrijliaju already converted > And what doth this towards thedifcovery of the Pradice of the L^i/-); in the ^^ewz^/z>i o^ the frji Chrifians v/hcn the Churches ca.me to be in a more fetled condition? For it cannot be right to argue, Lay-jnen preached the Gofpel in Places where there were no others to preach it, and in order to convert Unbelievers were enabled to work Mira- cles : Therefore Lj3?-7«^«, who have no fuch Power to fhew,^ may teach publicly in the more regular Congregations of Chrijlians, in which there are others whofe Office it is to doit. .But, 2. Why muft it be fuppofed that thefe Per- fons fcatter d abroad were all Lay-men, when v. i. of this Chapter it is reprefented that the Perfecution wasfo great that all were fcattered abroad, except the Apofles. If all except the Apofles, then many of thofe fcatter'd abroad muft needs have been Perfons peculiarly fet apart for the Office of Teaching and Preaching. And why muft it be fuppofed that Men of fuch Qualifications as Philip, by being made Deacons, were kept from any Office of moreConfequenccin the Chnrch^diiA not rather that they were authorized by the Apojlles to Preach, and Baptize ? ?. To make it highly probable that many of thefe were before this authorized to be Preachers, I allege the Tefti- mony of Clejnens Ro7naniis, a Writer contemporary with the Apojlles, and who hath the Happinefs to be much re- garded bj this Author. He knew thofe Times as well as ;my one ; And he alfures us that the Apojlles conjlituted the Epifcopal Ordinatioth J\.6 1 the very frfi Fruits o£ the co7werted Vex Cons to be Bifiops (or Presbyters) and Deacons ^ and confequently many were appropriated imn^ediately to ^cc/^/a/zVrt/ Offces^ Ep. ad Cor. p. ^(^. Ed. Lond. But-, 4. Let thefe Treacher s be what this Author pleafeth, he ought to remember that after they had converted a good Number at Antioch to the Chrifian Faith, Barnabas was fent from Jeriifalem to eftablifh, and fettle them : and he^ and Fmil taught there a whole Year, A^s II. 22, 26. and that fome Time after they returned again to Antioch, and themfelves appointed Prejbyters in every Church, A6ls 14. 23. from whence it appears that all Things which the Apojlles thought fit could not be done at firft •, that fomething more was necelTary than the Ele- ction of the Laity to conftitute any one a Prejl?yter'^ and that there is fuch an appopriated Office as that of a Pref- hyter by the Will of the Jpojiles-, contrary to many of thjs Authors Pofitions. And now if he could prove that after this Appointment o£ Prejbyters by the Apoftles the Laity of XheivCongregations exercifed theFitnBionswhich it was their proper Bufinefs to exercife,this would do his Caufe fome Service : but nothing lefs than this can be ofan37'ufe to it. The like Account likewife may be given of the Bre" thrcn mentioned, Phil. i. 14. who fpake the Word with Bold- vefs, and preached C/;n7?. For, i. The Brethren in the Lord were probably authorized Preachers, "called to that Office, and commiffioned to execute it, at leaft, thofe of them who preached Chriil out of good IFill, v. n^. for the preaching o£ the others St, Paul doth not feem to approve of, tho' he rejoiceth at the Converlion of an}^ Unbelievers by means of it, v. 16. Nay, thefe very Perfons might have been authorized, tho' they now exercifed their Office from no very good Principles. Here is no Argument to prove theCe Preachers to have been Lay-7nenh\it the calling them Brethren, which is no Argument at all : for fo is Timothy called, Heh. n. 23. Tychiciis,E^h. 6. 21. St. Luke, or: fome other Ecclcfiajlic, 2 Cor. 8. 1 8. and, not to name any more, Epaphroditm in this veij Epijlle, ch. 2. 27. With what Rea- fon tlierefore can this Author argue from hence, when it is 4^2 A brief Befenfe of is not at all probable that the Per fons here fpolcen of were Laymen. 2. Suppoiiiig them tohavebecnia^we?/, they only endeavoured to convert thofe Ivfideh they had Op- portunity to fpcak with, to the Chrijiian Faith, and who had no other way of hearing of the Gofpd but by them. "What is this to their performing the Office of Presbyters^ and Pajiors in Covgregations o^ChriJllam already eftablifh- ed 5 about which only theprefent Debate is ? 9. The fir ft Vcrfe of this very Epijlle proves a Diftindtion of Offices, and the Settlement oi Presbyters, and Deacons in all Chur- ches, as foon as the Numbers of ChrJJliam increafed, and there was an Opportunity of doing it, which helps to overthrow the Principles of this Author. From all that hath been here faid it appears that all thefeTa/ir^fifWinch I have particularly confidered')prove nothing to his Purpofe ^ and that it unhappily falls out^ that thofe very Writings of the Apojlles out of which he hatli colledled thefe T.exts, afford us fufficient Demonftra- tion of that Dljliji^ion between the Clergy and La'ity ( as foon as it could polfibly be fixed) againft which this Au- thor hath Ihewn fo much prejudiced, and partial ZeaL And for a farther Demonftration of it I muft refer the Reader to the former Chapters. I come now to thofe hijiances given by this Author of the Laity s Baptixhig in the Days of the Apojlles, that we may judge what Service thefe can be fuppofed to do his Caufe. But before he comes to his Inftances, he obferves that the Command given to the Apojlles to make Difdples, and baptixe,M2in. 28. 1 9. doth not exclude the Laity, p. J ? 5. To which I anfwer, that I do not found the Exclujion of the Lahy from any 0§ces upon this Command,but up- on the Will of the^pq^/e's,fufficiently declared afterwards, as I have explained this Matter in the foregoing Chapter. The ^lejl'wn is whether the Apojlles did not think fit for Orders fake to fet apart a particular Order of Men, for the Performance of thefe 0^c^5: for if they did, this is an ExchifwJk of others from the Performance of them. I have lliewn that none of the tvjlances produced by this Au- thor Epifiopal Ordination, 4^5 thor prove that it was the 0§ceoi the Lahy to preach in the public Congregations in the Days of the Apojiles : And as to baptiz27ig, I proceed to confider what he hath here produced. I. Conieliiis^ arid his Houfliold were baptized by the ^/vf/;/'6;M which accompanied St. Veter^ A<^s to. 23, 48. Kow, I . Here were many Perfons gathered together, as it is exprefTed, v^ 27, all now to be baptized, which was a juft OccafTon for St. Peter to put the Work upon others. 2. Thefe ophen, whoever they were, never thought them- felves qualified for the Work, nor did they go about to do it, fill St. Peter commanded it to be done : And con- fequently this was as efPedtually St. Peters own Att, as if ]ie had commanded his own Hands to bear a part in it. ?. St. P^tf/s Commilhon to thefe Perfons, at this Time, bears them out in the baptizing thefe Perfons, but here is nothing that implies that either they looked upon this as their Office, or ever did the like either before, or after, without the like occajional Commiffion. 4. This Inftance, therefore, can bearoutno Laymen who baptize any,unlefs fuch as do it on a like extraordinary Occafion, and by Order of fuch an Ecclefiajlical Officer as undoubtedly hath Authority to give fuch an Order. For thefe Perfons bap- tizing at St. Peter s Requeft, as this Author exprefTeth it, is fo far from ferving his Purpofe, that it overthrows it, as it (hews that they did not think of doing it without his Order. 5. Much lefs can this Inftance {hew that the Apojiles did not, when the Churches came to be in a more fetled Eftate, and it was time to eftablifh Matters of Or- der and Regularity, themfelves confine this Office to that Order oi Ec cleft aftical Officers which they appointed in the Church : and therefore it cannot be of the leaft Service to this Author. Let Laymen baptize in the like Cafe, I know nothing to hinder, or forbid them. 2. Great Numbers were baptized in Samaria, upon the Preaching o£ Philio, Afts 8. 12. which muft be done by the Laity, becaule there were none but Laymen here : or Deacons, in whofe CommiffionXhQiQ was nothing contained but 4^4 ^ ^//^ T>efenfe of i)Ut the Bufinefs of /ooH;/^ ^/rf:rt/;e Poo/-, p. t^^. But i. It is a great Prefumption in this Author to affirm that there were none in the Church at that Time, except the Apojlles^ peculiarly appointed to particular Ealefiafllcal Offices. 2. P/;z7zp himfelf might have been authorized by them to the Office of P/vac^zw^and Baptizivg, and fever al others oflilce Qjialifications. ?. I have fhewn before from ClsjnejfsRomaJius, that theApopcs appointed and ordained many of the very iirfl converted Perfons to Ecchjiajikal Offices. 4. Suppofing the Perfons who baptized not to have been peculiarly fet apart to that Office, the Miracles wrought by Wilip were a fufficient Juftiiication of what he Ihould think fitting to be done on fuch an extraordi- nary Occafion as this. 5?. It there were none but Lay-men prefent, then there were no others at this Time to baptize the Numbers here fpoken of. And fo they performed this necefTary "Work, becaufe there was no Body to perform it but themfelves. 6. Let Lay-men therefore convert Infidels ^ and baptize upon the like Occafion •, and, I may add, let Miracles be wrought to ftiew they come not without be- ing fent by God, and I will undertake this Inftance will tear them out. 7. If the Apofiles did, after this, appro- priate this Office to a particular fort of Men, this is a fuffi- cient Diredtion to all ferious Perfons in all ordinary Cafes, and to all who are concerned for Order and Regularity in the Church of thrift, 3. Aiianias baptized St. Vaul himfelf. But it is fit to confider that what was done in this Cafe was done by the- particular Command, and extraordinary Diredlion of God himfelf: and therefore nothing can be argued from it to ordinary Cafes ^ nothing againft the Appointment of the Apojlles when the Affairs of the Church came to be fetled. Let any La^-wj^z baptize, when he hath the Commiifion Ananias here had from Heaven : and this will bear him out. But otherwife he- muft feek for other Arguments to juftify him. 4. Three Thoufand were baptized at once, ABs 2. 41. which could not be done by the Apofiles alone. Now, i. This was EpifcopalOrd'mation 4^5 Was done by the Diredtion of the Apojlles at that very Time 5 and therefore nothing ran be argued from hence in favour of any Lay7?ien who fhoulddo the fame, with- out the fame Direftion •, without which none of the Lay- men here concerned would have thought of doing it. 2.^ If the Apojlles Rlone could not have done this, without hin- dring fomething of greater Confcquence, then, according to this Author himfelf, this is an Inftance of the Laity's baptizing only in Cafe of Neceffity, and this by the Dire- aion of the Apojlles : And what can be argued from hence for Baptjfvi hj Laymen^ unlefs in the like Circiimjlances^ in which I heartily allow ot it? 3. What the ApoJHesoidev* ed in fo extraordinary a Cafe^ in the very firft beginning of the Churchy doth not at all Ihew what their Will was, about the Office of Baptizing, when it was due Time to fettle fuch Points. 5. St. P^k/ declareth he was not fent to baptize, but to preach. Our Saviour baptized not, but his Difciples: and from hence this Author thinks it probable that th& fervile Office ofwaj/mig the Filth of the FleJIi was left to the meanejl and lowejl. Now, i. The only Reafon why St. Paw/, and the Highejl in the Church did it not, was becaufe they would not be hindred in their great Work of converting Unbeliever s^dLVid becaufe they had thofe about them, whom they appointed to this Bufinefs, not becaufe they thought it 2L fervile Work. 2. This Author unwarily by this waj of arguing proves the Laity to have been th-Q lowejl and meanejl in the Churchy by Ihewing that they baptized; and affirming that to baptize was a fervile jrork, left to^ th& meaneft, andlowejl': and fo contradicts his own Principles, and Affertions in other places, in which he hath laboured to place them even above the Apojlles themfelves : fo much hath his Zeal^ and Indignation againft fome particular Men tranfported him beyond himJelf Otherwife he would have contended that this Office belonged to the Clergy pe- culiarly, or at leaft he would not have envied them the Execution of it, lince he hath Ihewn that it was a fervile J^orL and left to the meanejl^ and lowejl in the Church. For, H h 3^ He 4^^ A brief Defenfe of 3. He hath fnrnifhcd me with this iinanfwera"ble Argu- ment againft himftlf, Baptifm was left to the lowejl and viean- cjl in the Church. But the C/^r^)i are, according to him- himfelf, the Uwefi avi vieamjl Perfons in the Church. Therefore Baptiftn is their Work joecaliarly. To conclude this Head. All his Ivjlances o£ Lay-Baptifms in the Days of the Apoftles are taken from the very firft unfetled Condition of the C/^/r/r/; before the Apoflles could have Opportunity to eftablifli any thing of Order in it •, and from Cafes of Necejity, or very extraordinary, from which nothing can follow to the Advantage of his Caufe ^ or any thing againft the Covfinejjmit of this Ofce to a par- ticular Order of Men by the Jpojlles themfelves. Fourthly, To confirm what he hath alleged for the Pra- ctice of the Laity in the Da3'-s of the ApoJIles, he likewife appeals to Two Authors amo]^^^ the Antievts. One of thefe he calls Pfeudo-Ambrofe^ p. 1 5 5:. but how mitient he was, z. e. how capable of being a Witnefs of what was done in thcfe Eays, he doth not let his Readers know ^ for fear, probably, that they fhould have Senfe enough to judge that a Man who was not born till above Tiyo ^M7fir5i Years after the Death of all the Apoftles^d.\d. not deferve the Kame of a very antlent Jvthor, and could not juftly be cited as a Witnefs of what was done near Three Hundred Years before his own Time. Suppofing therefore that he faith, that all atfrjl taught and baptized, 1. It is manifeft that he cannot idj this as a Ifitnefs of what was done in the firft Days of the C/;z/;'67j,becaufe he lived at fo great a diftancefrom them, that his Tefirnony, confidered as a Tejiimovy, cannot be admitted by any Laws of Equity in the World. 2. It is as manifeft that he only colleded this from thofe Ivjlances alleged by this very Author out of the New Tejlament ; the Force of which I have now examined : and fo his faying this, as his own Judgment, lignifieth no more than this Authors faying it himfelf ^ and fo adds not the leaft Weight to the Ar- ^unmttj even granting that /?e was of the fame Opiiiion with this Author in the Covfequences he draws from hence. But Epifcopal Ordination* 4^7 But, 3. Itismanifeft from the /^we, and other parallel Sentences of this antient Writer^ that he intended not to infer any thing, from thefe Liflances of what was done in the very firft unfetled Condition of the Churchy againft the Apoftolical Confinement of Ordination particularly to a peculiar Order of Men ; But doth himfelf in efredl ac- knowledge, and plead for fuch a Confinement : As this Au^ thor cannot but know, becaufe he muft have feen his Words often cited by the Advocates for the Caiife of ^ref- byters. < TheotWof thefe is Clemens Romanm, a vttj antient ^nt?r indeed, pompoufly cited by this ^nfW, p. i$j. as if he were perfectly of his own Principles, under the Title of an Author antienter thanfome of the Writings even of the NewTeflciment, and read with them publicly in ths Churches, &c. Let us fee, therefore, what is alleged from him, becaufe all muft" grant that it ought to be of impor- tance in this Caufe. I. This Author i^Rith, that this antient Writer calls thQ Ce7ifures o^ the Church, the Commands of the People. The only Paffage he can mean ( for he hath not quoted the Fage)isth^tp. 125. Ed. Lond. in which this good Man is propoling a Method of healing that Schifm, and Con- tention which was come to a great height amongft the Corinthians -, And his Advice is this. L there any amo^'gfi you of a truly generous and charitable Spirit^ thoroughly mo- ved with a dejire of healing this ^larrel ? Let him fay thiis^ If thefe Heats, and Contentions are on my Account, lam ready to depart, and be gone, or to do any thing in order to heal them, that the refl ofmj Brethren fhall think fit to order : (theu follow immediately thefe Words) only let the Flock ofChrift, together with the Prefbytersfet over it live in Peace. And he adds, Whoever hath the Chriflian Spirit to make fuch an Offer as this, will gain to himfelf an extraordinary Degree of Glory with God: And every Place will be glad to receive a Perfon offo peaceable and excellent a Difpoffion. Now, I. I fay, this Advice m.ight be given fuppoling the People to have no more Ecdef apical Authoriiy ihaii H h 2 what 468 'AbriefDefenfe of what they enjoy- at this Bay-^ for they themfelves are the only Judges of what will make themfelves eafy, and quiet 5 and if an End cannot be put to a Qiiarrel amoiigft Fellow Chrijlzi.ws without the Departure of fuch, and fuch particular Perfons, they themfelves are theonl}'' Perfons fit to declare this. 2. This Author hi.nfelf cannot fup- jpofe that here is any Authority at all lodged in the People m thefe Words, becaufe if there be any, it is an Autho- rity to fend away a Neighbour, and Fellow-Chriftian from his ufual Habitation ( f. e. in f jme Cafes, to ruine him and his Family) Whenever they fliall pleafe to be fo humourfome as not to be able to live peaceably by him : Nay, to fend away the very beft, and moft charitable Perfons amongft them -, for to fuch as thefe tht Depar- ture here fpolcen of is propofed. Now I ask this Juthor^ whether he will be the Patron o£ i^ach a pernicious Autho- rity as this, in any Coitgregation, or Neighbourhood of Lay-Chrijlians. If he would •, then is he, notwithftand- ing all his Pretenfes, the Patron of Ty^'^wwj?. If he would aiot ; then cannot he plead from thefe Words for any Authority at all in the People, becaufe if they give them any Authority, it is the Authority before-mentioned, 3. Had St. Clemsjit meant to :fignify that any fuch Authority Was of right in the People, the proper way for him to have expreffedhimfelf waste fay, that the Peo^^le had a right to meet, and to command the Departure of any ' Perfon at whom they were uneafy •, and this Perfon was obliged in Confcience to obey their Commands : But he faith no fuch things and therefore it is probable knew of 110 fuch Method of putting an End to ^larreh and Divi- Jiom. 4. It is manifeft that it was not his Defign to \}X0- pofe this as an ufual Method, or to intimate any fuch Authority originally in the Peoiile : But to recommend to the beft difpofed Perfons amorigfl them an extraordinar,y Method, to which the}'" were not obliged in ftridnefs of Right, or rigour o^ Jujlice, viz.. to fhew their great regard to Peace by making this voluntary Offer to the People, If our Prefence be the occafioji of perpetuating Unchrijlian HeatSy Epifcopal Ordination, 46 9 Heats, and Bljfenjiovs, we are ready to depart, or do any thing you fi all think fit tn coinmand in order to heal this great ^larrel^ and Divifion. Before this Offer, it is plain he did not think the People had any right to 07'der any fuch thing, becaufe if he did, there was not the leaft occaiion for his advifing that fuch an Offer fliould be made : And 5f ^/t^ritthey had anyPo^^r, it was only in this parti- cular Inftance, and over thefe particular Perfons, who voluntarily were to make the Offer, and to give this Power ; and confequently it is no more Power than any Congregation^OY Neighbourhood of Ch-ijlians hath at this Day, if any of their Fellow-Chrifiians think fit to put themfelves under their difpofal upon the like occafion. 5. We fee in this very Sentence ('which this Author tJiought not for his Purpofe to quote at length, but rather chofe to take out of it a Word or two which depend en- tirely upon the reft) a manifeft BiJlinBion in thofe very early Days between the Flock of Chrijl, i. e. the Laity^ and xhtPreJbyters their Pafiors : And a fuperiority (in fome fenfe^ of the latter over tlie forjner then acknowledged, and profelTed. 2. St. Clejnens Romanus is quoted again by this Author, p. 158. as faying that t/;^y^];o/?/^5 ordained with t/?e Con- fent of the whole Church, exprelTed, as he faith, by holding vpthe Hands of the People. Now, i. This antient Tfri- ter doth not fay that the Apofiles ordained any with the Confeitt of the Church : But connefts the Con fent of the Church to the Ordination of Prcjbyters by other excellent Men after the firft Ordinations by the Jpofiles. Nay, 2. In another place where he fpeaks of the Ordination of Prejbyters by the Apofles, he is fo far from faying that they ordained Ecclefiajilcal Cffcers not without the Con- fent of the Church, that lie declares that they ordained Perfons, the very Firft-fruits of the Converts to Eccle- fafiical Offces for the fake of thofe who Ihould believe af- terwards. Neither 5. doth he fpeak of any Confent of the People as a thing neceffary in thofe firji Ordinations, but only ufeth it as an Argument to the Corinthians that H h 3 thofe 47 o lA brief Defenfe of thofe Ferforxwnuld not be forcibly caft out of the Exer- cife of their Office, who had been ordained ei:her by the y4prjlles, or other excellent Perfons, and cf whofe Ordi- nati n the whole Church had at that time exprefTcd a very good liking • and had of en iince born Teftimony to them, and who had carry'd themfelves unblameably in their Office, BI071M indeed (p. 579J doth ftrangely, and with a furiDrizir.g Freedom alter thisSentence,chang- ing the Acaifathe Cafe mto the Nomitftlve^ and making it part cf the foregoing Sentence, againft all Rvles of Grammar^ \m order, 1 fuppofe, to connedt the Covfent of the Church here mentioned to the ^poJloVcal Order men- tion d before. But as it is, the moft that can be col- leded from it is, that when it could be, Ordhtatiovs were perf -rmed in the Prefence of the People^ and a Liberty all w'J them to give in their Teftimonies concerning the Behaviour of the Perfons to be ordained if they had lived amongit them. This is done in our own Church at this time, and I am fully of opinion that it is very well it is f)-, and might bf very well likewife, if a more open, and .tinielv Appeal were made to the Tejlimotty of all who may be iuppofVd to know the Perfons concerned. But this is not at all to this /hithor\ Purpofe. This makes not them the Jniges of their §11 alif cations, nor the Givers. of i\\e A'iiihof'l^y which P ejhyters have to minifter in Goi's Church For m thefrfi Evifile to Timothy, when St. Tavl had a fair Opportunity of declaring his Mind in this Matter, tho' he required that the Perfons ordained fhould be Ptrfons of good Reputation, and fo made it neceflary for Thnothy to enquire out their Charadters even amongft the Heathens themfelves •, yet he left the final Determi- nation, and the giving the Commljion entirely to Timothy, Kay, It will as well follow that the Heathens had the Right here pleaded for, in Ordinations, as that the Chrl- Jllan Lally had it : feeing their Teftimony alfo is fpokeil of by St. Paul. 4. It is here acknowledged by this Au- thor, that the Apojlles are faid to ordain as chief Dlre&ors. This is a Favour indeed 5 and the more becaufe it Ihews that, Ep'ifcopal Ordinatloni 47 1 that, according to h^ifelf, fomething more was in their Days requifite than the Peoples appointing a Perfon to officiate aniongft them. If the Apojlles were the Chief Dire^'ors, then I am apt to think they found out, and nominated the Perfons they thought fit to be ordained Prejbyters^ and judged of their ^ualificatio7is • and that their CommilFion was {6 neceflary that the Ap^ohtvient of the Pt'opZf fignified nothing without it. The Peoiles Concern, or Authority in this Matter, was at moft no more, than it would be, if a Kivg fhould refolve gene- rally to grant 110 Co7nmifion for the Office of Jvjlice of Pt^ijc^, unlefs to Perfons oi good Reputation amongft their Nei^^hbours, and accordingly grant his Commiffiotn in an Ajfembly of the Feople^ and give them the liberty of giving in their TeJIimoiiies concerning the CharaBer of the Perfons deligned by him for that Office. But all muft fee that this gives not to the Pcop/e the Power of fo much as vo- wzw^tzH^ the Perfons •, much lefs doth it imply that an Officer fo conftituted ads by Authority at that time deri- ved from them. Nay, 5. Granting all that this ^7/f/;or can think to be imply'd in this Expreffion of St. Clement ^ the i^z^/?t which this ^wt/jor hath contended for, in the Name of the Laitx^ t;7X. that of appointing and ordaining Prefbyters in the Church, without the interpofition of any Ecclefafical Officer, can by no means follow from it. For the Ordivation of the ApoJIles, and of other excellent Per- fons, is named in the very Words before it, as fomething equally neceffary at leaft. 6. I muft obferve that St. Clement himi^eli is fo exprefs in his Tejlimony concerning theDiftindion oi Clergy, znd. Laity, and the Office of Or- iination, in the very firft Days, that I fear this Author will not be determined in this Coiitroverfyhj him, as he hath not fhewn himfelf willing that his Reader fhould know what that very avtievt Writer faith on this SuhjeJ, I. In the Sentevnce I had occafion juft now to lay before the Reader, he mentions the Flock oiChriJi, and the P^ef- hytersf't over it. 7. In the Sentence now before us, \iQ makes thefe vqtv Prefhyters conftituted not by the Flocl it Hh4 ^^K 472 J brief Defenfe of felf, (7. e. the Laity •^) hut eitlier h j the Apojlles, or by other choice excellent Perfons, fuch as Timothy, and Titus. 5. In the Sentence before that, he affirms that the ApoJIles ordered that there fhould always be a particular Order of Men fucceeding to the Ojice of thofe whom they ordained upon their Deaths. 4. In another place, p. 132. he be- feecheththe Laity tohe fuhjeB to the Presbyters, appointed by the Perfons before fpoken of, to be their Vajlors, and Teachers. $. In another place, p. 98. he diftinguilheth the Presbyters and Deacons made at the very beginning of the Preaching of the Apojlles, from the believing Laity. 6. In another, p. <^S' he diftinguifheth in theChriJlian Church manifeftly, the Station and Ojfices of Hi^h-Prieji, Prieji, and Levite, from that of Laics, who he faith are within Bounds : And fo goes on to exhort the Corinthian Laics to keep within the Bounds prefcribed to them. Kow who would think that thefe and the like Pajfages, and Exprefiojts in this Apojiolical Author fhould be wholly j)aft over by this T?npartial Author, and every little Word caught at, and rigoroufly interpreted, that it may bear hard upon a whole Order of Men, and .expofe them to thofe whohave neither Ability, nor Leifure to fearch into the Primitive Conftitution of Ecclejiajlical Affairs ? After I have taken fo much Pains to conlidcr particu- larly every thing he hath alleged from the IFritings of the Apojiles, and their Contemporaries, I fhall not think my felf obliged to coniider at large all St. Cyprians high Com- plejnents to the Laity. For, i. This Author himfelf knows that the Laity neither did then, nor do now, deferve fuch Epithets, and Encomiums as he gives them, without making great Abatements in the hiter^retation of them. 2. He .I)roduceth nothing out of him concerning Ordination, but .that he was refolved not to adt in it clandejl'mely, but in 'the Face of the F^opJ^, that they might have the more^j- tisfaBion .- Nothing to take from himfelf the Jitthority of Ordaining, .or to give it to th^m. 3. Suppofing they chofe him BiJIwp, an4 in fome other Churches chofe their Bijlwps, this will not prov^ that they ordained one fingle Presbyter^ ■■ " ' - ^ - ^^ Bpifcofal Ordination. 47 5 or that every particular Congregation appointed their own Fajlor and Teacher, any more tlian the Feoples chufing a Kijig proves that, after that Choice, they coimnifion all Jujtices o£ Peace, and Oj^icers who are to set under him, 4. This Author himfelf will not be determined by St. Cy- prian concerning the Authority of a Bificp, or any other Ecclefiajlical Matters, but juft make ufe of fome particu- lar Sentences in him as he judges may beft ferve his own Purpofe. From all that hath been faid under this Head it appears,' thatnoneof the Jw/diwcf^ alleged by this Author of the Laity s Preaching, and Baptizing are of an}'' force in the Catife he hath undertaken-, and likewife, which happpens very unluckily, that every one of thofe Booh, and 7/^W- jz;?^5, out of which he hath chofen thefe Inftances, bear abundant Evidence of a fetled Diftindion hetwQcnClergy^ andZ^zf)',in the very firft,and earlieft Days of the Churchy and in all Churches as foon as it was pollible. And from all thathath been faid in anfwer to the Argument drawn by this Author from the Powers, and PraBice of the Laity in the Days of the Apojlles, it is manifeft that all Church- Power was not in the leople ♦ and particularly, that they were refbrained by the Apojlles them.felves from Ordination^ and the Management of that lodged, and left by them in the Hands of Ecclejiajiical Oficers, diftind from the Laity, In fine, I am as much againlt Ecclefiajlical Tyranny as this ^z/f/jor himfelf can be. I plead not for any Exorbitant Powers in BiJI^ops, nor any y^uthority in any of the Clergy^ but what is neceflary et all times for the carrying forward the great Ends of the Go/pel, and the better fecuring the Profeffion ofChriJiianity in the World. I have paft over all his Tritticif?ns, and his unfeafonable Jejls, and confin'd my felf wholly to his. Re a fonings on the Point of Ordina- tion ^ to which it hath been my only Buiinefs to give a clear and fufficient keply : Which I now recommend to hisfcrious Confideration, hoping that it may help to con- vince him that this Part of the Caiife is not fo evident as he would willingly believe it to be. t ' CON^ 474 -^ brief Defenfe of Conclusion. AN D now to conclude the whole. Having {hewn in thejirjf Chapter from all the Scripture Ivfiances^ and Exiles, relating to Ordination, that this Affair was manag'd, in the Days of the Apojiles by Cffcers fuperior toPreJbyters, and this by the Appointment of the Apojiles themfelves : Having vindicated the Validity of that cojtcur rent Tejii" wony ot A^itiqinty which bears Witnefs to the ApnJlUs fix- ing this Superiority in the Church, and traces it up to their Days : Having (hewn the Infufficiency, and Inconfiftency of thofe Schemes, concerning the fixing Epifcopacy in the Church, which have been oppofed to this : Kay, having fliewn that even St. Jerotne himfelf, to whom the great Pa- trons of the Prejhyterian Caufe appeal, (if he had anv de- terminate Judgment concerning it) was of Opinion that it was eftablifhed in the Days of the Apojiles, and that the Right oi Ordination was annexed to it : Having fhewn in the SecoTjd Chapter that no Inflance, or jRnZ^ alleged either from the New Tefiainent, or Ecclefiajlical Antiquity, in fa- vour of Prejhyterian Ordination, is fafficient to eftablifli the Right of Prejhyters to that Office : And having fhewn the like in the i hird Chapter, concerning what is alleged in favour of the Laity s Right to the fame Office -, I think I may very fafely conclude, that a fetled Diftinftion be- tween the Clergy and Laity •, and, amongft thofe of the for- mer Or J^r, between the Offices of JBi/;op.yf peculiarly fo cal- led) a'udiPreJbyters^is founded upon the ?f^z7/ of the^po//?s.* particularly that the i^z^^t of Ordi^iation, by their Will, belongs to Bifiops; and was never delignedby thern to be cntrufted to Presbyters •, or allowed to be exercifed fy the Chrijiian Laity. What Confequences fv^llow from what hath been faid, I leave to all to determine for themfelves : only I think it necefTary to add, en the one hand, that for my own part I cannot argue that Epifcopacy is ejfential to a Chrijiian Church Bpifcopal Ordinatwn, 475 Church becaufe it is of ApoJioUcal IvJlituUon : And on the other hand, I do argue that we are obliged, to the utmoft of our Knowledge, to conform our felves to the ApoJioU- cal Model in all Cafes, unlefs in fuch where the Imitation is vnpraBicable, or would tnanifeftly do more Hurt, than Good, to the Church of Chrifi ^ neither of which can pof- iibly he affirmed, in the ordinary State of the Church, con- cerning the Point now before us, as far as the Bjfentiah of Epifcopacy are concerned. Far be it from me to think o- therwife till it can be fhewn either that the Apojlles did not infti ute Epifjopacy with a Defign of its Continuance in the Church : or that they inftituted it, not as a Matter of Order, but of fuch Neceflity as others contend for. In fine, I have heartily endeavoured, in the foregoing Trea^ tife, to convince feme miftaken Perfons of their Errors : but having done this, I dare not prefume to judge them hj my Notions •, but muft leave them entirely to Go J, an(i their own Coytfciences. A "^ 47 '^ A Reply to Obje^iions A N APPENDIX ^ A Ltho' I have in the foregomg Pages faid what is J\. fufficient to juftify all that I advanced concerning Epifcopal Ordhtation in the Fi^ft Part o£ the Re afov able jiefs of Conformity, notwithftanding the OhjeBlons, and ^iejli- ons propofed againft it by Mr. Calamy in the Firji Part of his Defenfe •, yet left I mould be thought by fome Perfons delignedly to pafs by any thing material in this Co7itro' verfy, I ftiall here very briefly, • Firjfj Confider thtOhjeBioyis ralfed by him agajnfi my way of arguing on this Head : And, Secondly, Anfwer the ^lejlions he hath feen fit to pro- pofe to me upon it. As to the firj} of thefe, I argued that Epifcopal Ordim- tionw2iS the fetled, regular Ordination in the Church •, and therefore that it may juftly be expeded that all who mi- nifter in the Chiir ch ihould be ordained by BiJ/wps •, and that none who refufe the fetled Method, and without a Neceffity depart from it, and take another, (which by Confequence muft be irregular, becaufe it is not the fetled Method) ought to be acknowledged as approved of God in this irregular Separation of themfelves to the Miniftry. Now this is juft Reafoning, fuppofing Epifcopacy to have been founded only on the CompaB of Presbyters ; and the Confinement of Ordination to Bifjops, merely a lawful Con- finement, which Blondel and ouv Adverfaries have often •^^nowledged it to be. For from hence it will follow t>T^ it is the only regular Ordination fetled in the Church hy fuch CojnpaB, and that, as it is a Matter of as much Confequence as any Point oi Order can he, God cannot sgamfi Epif copal Ordination, 477 approve of any unnecefTary Departure from it : which is not to lay a Strefs upon it as a Matter oiijtdifpenfable Ne- cefity^ but of Dece7icy, and Regularity. And certainly there needs no Argument to prove, that even fuppoling any other Method lawful, and agreeable to Scripture, yet if another equally lawful hefetled in the Church, it muft be a Breach of Order, and Regvlarity to depart from it, and not to be juftified but by Neceflity. This is the Sum of what I have formerly advanced : And this is both juffc in it felf 5 and, as I likewife faid, agreeable to the Prin- ciples, and Reafoning of Mr. Baxter. Both which Things are denied by the Author now before me. 1. He allegeth, p. 54. that Epifcopal Ordination may be the regular Ordination, and yet not the 07ily regular Ordina- tion : And that Ordination by Presbyters may likewife be regular, as it is juftify'd by the Scripture it felf, p. 57. I anfwer, i, Ihavelhewn before that there is nolnftance in the New Tejiament of Ordination by Presbyters, nor any thing to prove that this Right' was ever entrufted to them : So that Ordinations by them are not regular even in his own Senfe. 2. Suppofing Ordination left at large to them in Scripture, and afterwards confined by themfelves to a fuperior Offcer (which, this Author acknowledges both lawful, and actually to have been done) from the Time of this Confinement, and the general EJlabliJIment of it, no other Method can be regular, nor juftify'd by any thing but Necefity : as after the Choice of 21 King, no Cominiffion can regularly come from any but th^t King. 3. When out of Two Methods, fuppofed tobelawful,ow^ischofen, and eftablifhed, both by Confent, and Cuftom of many Ages ; the other, fet up again in the fame place where the former is ufed, and in Oppofition to it, cannot be called regular in any tolerable Senfe, in which that Word was ever ufed, tho' it fhould be granted to have been equally good, and proper, before fuch Settlement. 2. He goes on in the fame place to argue, th^t fuppo- fing Ordination by Presbyters irregular, this is no Reafon for their fubmitting to Epifcopal Ordination who have been or* 478 A Reply to Ob jettons ordahied hy Presbyters, becaufe this is the acknowledging their former Ordination to be ?n/fl, and void : which doth not follow from its being irregular. I anfwer, it doth not follow indeed that it is mill, and void^ in fuch Senfe, as that Presbyters had not originally a Right to ordain •, but it follows that it is fo far 7tuU^ and void, that God did not approve of the Exercife cf that Right in Opposition to a lawful fetled Method, which is a fufficient Ground of fubmitting to that ejiablijl}ed Method. As, in a parallel Cafe, whatever Original Right there maybe in a people to conftitute lefTer fort of 0^f^/"5,or in thofe Officers to con- ftitnteothers of the fame fort, after the Choice of a Kijtg, zW Exercife of this Right, unlefs in Cafes of the higheft Ne- ceflity, is in fuch Senfe 7111II, and void, that none can ex- pe6t to be acknowledged duly authorized to the Offices they pretend to, before they have taken their Coimnif- fons from the Kiiig himfelf. 3. He reprefents my Argument thus, Ton grant our Or- ders to he regular^ which we dejiy of yours : therefore it is fa- fejl to fall in with m : and fo explodes it, in Archbifhop Ttllotfons Words, as parallel with that foolifh Argument of the Papifs, Tou acknowledge that we may he faved, which we deny concerning you • therefore it is your fafej} way to covie over to us, p. 56. an Argument, accoi^in^ to his ufual man- ner, of his own inventing ; for I have nothing like it. My Reafoning was never deligned, as I know ot, to touch the Salvation of any Man • nor can it be in the leaft De- gree, uncharitable to fay that Almighty God cannot ap- prove the unnecelfary Negled of Order, and Regularity, which is all I have faid. The Argument of the Romanijh is, You acknowledge, a Poiubility of Salvation in our Churchy i. e. that invincible Ignorance joined with true Sincerity maybe an Apology for the Errors of many in it : which we do not acknowledge concerning yours. But who doth not fee that this is no Argument, why thofe who know the Errors and Siiperfitiojis of that Church fhould go over to it ? Becaufe there is no Acknowledgment, in this, of the PoJibiUty of Salvation to fuch Perfons as thefe. My 'again ft Epifcopal Ordination^ 479 My Argument is this, You acknowledge Epifcopal Ordijid" ?2o« lawful, and your own Compliance wiih this, conlT-. dered by it felf, to be not only fafe, and fecure, but to be chofen before any other, as being the fetled Method, Therefore, you ought to fubmit to itjUnlefs Nectjjity for- bid : And therefore, to deviate from this, without fuch Keceffity, cannot be acceptable to Almighty God. Let any one judge what Affinity there is between thefe Two Arguments, and with what Equity the Farallel is here drawn by this Author. 4. After all this, he hath Four Reafons againft admit- ting my way of arguing, p. 57. As, i. Becaufe it is fo like the Reafoni7tg of the Papifls againji the Protefants. Now, I. This Author muft know that fuch a Reafon as this, is in Truth, no Reafon at all, becaufe it will be hard to fay that every thing like any Reafoning of Papifs is falfe. 2. Sup- pofe the Papljls fay to us. Your Ordainers wanted Autho- rity, doth it follow from hence that this can juftly be faid to no Perfons, becaufe they apply it wrong ? May it not be faid that Laymen have no Authority to ordain ? And would not this Author himfelf fay it to fomc Protejiants^ notwithftandingthat it is like xh^Reafonivgo^tho. Papijis ? 3. Juft fuch an Argument as this I find brought againft the Larpfulnefs oiRefJlance to the Civil Powers in fome Ca- fes, viz.. That the Papifts hold the fame : and doth it fol- low from thence that it may not be maintained by a PrO' tejlavt ? 4. That Regularity is not to be negleded without a great NecclTity, is my Principle : and this Author hath fa d the fame himfelf over and over again. 2. My Reafon- ing reflets upon many fuffe ring Witnejfes ofChriJi^andon moji of the Refonned Churches abroad. I anfwer, i. As much as any other DifFerence of Opinion doth : and I hope this Jinhor will not oblige, even himfelf, to be of the fame Judgment in all Things with all the fuffering IHtneJfes of Chrijl. 2. He himfelf, before he is aware, furnilheth me with a fufficient Reply to this, in what he faith on the like Occafion, Part II. p. 262. Icayit tell how to thijik it apart of the Honour due to Martyrs to tKmk them infallihk. And yet 4^0 A Reply to ObjeBions yet it fcems it muft be a Crime in me not to think therrt ib. Nor doth his own Negledt of Epifcopacy refiedt lefs upon other fiferhg Jfitnejfes ofChriJl. 3. The thinking Reforvied Churches in an Errbr is no Crime: and I doubt not he himfelfdoth fo, in many Inftances. Nor was the preferving, or defending Epifcopacy in this iVaffow ever ac- counted by themfelves any Reflexion, or Difhonour upon them : If it were, their not retaining it is as great a Re-- flexion upon us. Befides, many eminent Members of them have applauded the retaining it amongftus, andcondemn-^ ed thofewho have here refufedto fubmit to it, always ac- counting the Cafes very different, of themfelves, and thofe who have here feparated from the Epifcopal Church. But jf my Reafonhig refleds only upon 7710JI of the Reforjiiei Churches^ then the Reafonhig of this Author contrary to it, reflects Upon ot/j^/i of them : andfo we are both equally guilty of this heinous Crime : and both equally in an Er- ror. 4. The Point is, whether the Reafoimig be in it felf jufi:, or unjufl: : not whether it refledls on any Perfons, or not. 3 . My Reafonhig lays greater Strefs upon a Kicety, than Ttpon the maht Suhjlance : and therefore is falfe. Now, in one Word, this is downright falfe Accufation without any Ground : for I have laid no Strefs upon Epifcopal Ordina- tion but as upon a Matter of Order, and Regularity , and as fuch he himfelf mult own it ought not to be negledled without a Necejfity ^ which is all I have faid. Under this fame Head he acknowledges that the mojl emineytt Ahilities TPont prefently render a Man an authorized Minijler. Doth he, theref(3re, lay greater Strefs upon the Hands of any Ecclejiajfical Mijiijlers^than upon the jnojl eminent Abilities ? If he will not be contented to have this fixed upon himfelf with what Jufl:ice can he tax me with this, upon no great- er Grounds than this ^ But I find him ready, at all Ad- ventures, to raife a Cry againft me, even tho' he himfelf muft necefTarily be involved in the fame Guilt. 4. My Reafoning is fuch ^as would 7iot be horn^if retorted : and there- fore to.be ufed with Caution. Now, i. Suppofing this true, it is not fufficient to prove my Reafoning falfe, or unjufl:. But, agamfi Epifcopal O.diiiatmu 4^* But, 2. I promife him to bearit,whenthe/d(7K^ isr^^6;f- ed : tho' I fuppofe he will not exped that I fhould admit what is not truly the fame. So that here are Fom- Rea- fons given againft my way of arguing, all of which, in the firft place, are not true :^ and in the next place, grant- ing them true, three of them are of no Force at all. For an Argument may be juft, and yet bear fome Refemblance to that the Romanifts fay on fome Occafions. An Argil- went mdij hejjijf, tho' it imply in it that all Martyrs, or all the Reformed Cbttrches, are not infallible. An Argmnciit may hejufl, and yet Men may be fo partial to them- felves, as not well to bear it when it is retorted. Having fhewn the Jyjlnefs of my way of arguirg,not* withftanding his OhjemoTis, I mnft now add a Word or two concerning its Agreement with Mr. Baxter s Principles, and Manner of arguing in his Difputatiot with Mr. Johit- fon, to be found in the Ahridgment of his Life by the Aii^ Ihor now before me, p. 129. Concerning this there are Trpo Things which I have faid, i. That upon Mr. Baxter's Principles, and his way of arguing in that DifpJitatio7i , my Reafonhig muft be allowed of : for the Truth of which I appeal to what I have v^^ritten inthe iirft Part of the Reafonahlevefs cf Conformity on this Head, and againft Which I find noO^/Vfffow in this ^Htior. 2. That it was Mr. Baxters Opinion (as is plain from the Occafion of the DJfpntation now mentioned) that nothing but Necejity can excufe thofe \Vho negle6t Epifcopal Crdhiatkn. This is denied, and I am taxed with Mifreprefentation upon this Head, by the Author I am now confidering, p. i ^<^. Now I can here only appeal to the Abridgment of Mi'. Bax- ters Life com.pofed by this very Author : And if I fhould be miftaken in this, I hope he, of all Men, will pardon me, if it appear that he himfelf led me into the Mifirake. I fay then, that the Accoiivt of that Difpvtation given by this Author hitrifelfjuftifieth every "Word I here fay. The Account is this in his own Words, Abridg. p. 125. Mr. Johnfon wrote to Mr. Baxter about the NeceJ/itv o/Epifcopal Ordination. He in anfwer to him viahitained, that there tvos I i vo • 402 Jft Anfrper to Quejltoiis- tw abfohite Necefity •, that a Man might he a trueMimJler rpha was ordained by Prejbyters -, and that, in Cafes of Necefity, Ht was a Duty to take Ordination from them. All which is a- greeable to what I have faid, and implieth as ftrongly as Words can imply any thing,that it was his Opinion that Epifcopal Ordination is the regular Ordination, to be fought after, unlefsin Cafes oi Necefity. It this be a Mifreprefen- tation, I muft leave this Author to anfwer for it, for it is owing to himfelf. Nay, I will add, I think it agreeable even to the Principles of this Author himfelf, as well as all thebeftofthe^zyfc^wtfw^^nt^;-^; who allow the Confnement of Ordination to Bifiops lawful, and fometimes ufefnl ; and thenifelves, whenever they fpeak of their Negle^ of Epif- copal Ordination, fpeak of their being forced to it, and al- ways draw their chief Apology from the Necefty they found themfelves under to have recourfe to other Methods, And is it not ver}^ hard that I fhould be thus ufed by this licentious Ten, for faying only what all their ow^wRea- fonings allow, that Necejity only can juftif}'' their Separa- tion, and NegleB of the efablified Method of Ordination f* But I have learned by Experience to expedt nothing from this Author of that Candor, and Equity with which I once hoped this Controverfy might be managed. Thus much for the Juftification otmy Reafoning on the Point o^ Epif- copal Ordination iii a former Treatife. Secondly, I come now to the ^lefions he hath thought fit to propofe to me on this Head, p. 229. concerning which, the faireft Propofal I can make is, that the Reader fhould turn to them, as he himfelf hath expreffed them, that I may not be faid to alter any thing in my Repre- fentation of them.. To the Firf, I anfwer, Tes : but cannot think how I am at all concerned in it. To the Second, I anfwer,that the fame way o^Reafoning will juftify all thofc who take the Public Adminijl ration of God's Word, and Sacraments upon them without any mini- fleriallnvejliture • without Ordination by any Ecclefiajlical Oncers at all. Now fuch as thcfe I need not be afraid to fay, about Epifcopat Ordination, 485 fay, that C^ri/? cannot approve in this their iVf^/^J?, be- caufe this Author himfelf goes fo far as to fay, ;?. 1 99. that he, and his Brethren, ^ backward as they are to encourage ^wEccleliaftical Pound, have yet fo little Foiidmfs for a wild Common, that theyfiould readily join in declaring- their Dif- like of any Ordinations that can from Scripture be proved to be irregular. Now amongft the Scripture Requiftes he him- felf reckons the Approbation, and Hands of a Presbyter, or Teacher. Let this ^uejiion therefore be anfwered by himfelf, with refped to well qualified Ferfons who negled all Ordination by any Ecclcfiaftical Minifier : and the fame Anfwer will ferve me. But I add, that I never made any Ordinationi[\QCQ^2iXj to the Validity of ChriJFs Ordina7ices, tho' this ^Mt^or himfelf hath, and fpeaks in this place, as if I had. On the contrary, I haveftiewn that Gobi's Blef- ling will ever attend honeft and jfincere Chrijli an s. ^whether he that minifters amongft them be dul}^ authorized to his Ofce, or not. In one word, Per fens who neglecft all Or- dination by Minifters, may have very great Abilities •, may be very well qualified ^ may preach Chriji out of good inil-, the honeft, tho' miftalcen People, who follow them, may bebleJled by Almighty God : What therefore will he fay to them? Doth Chrift appro7;e them ? How then can he difapprove them, or to what purpofe doth he fo often de- iire that none may be approved that have not the Scrips ture Requiftes he mentions > But if, notwithftanding thefe ^lalifcations.he is ready to exprefs his Difike of fuch Per^ fons, as he faith himfelf, then I may be allow 'd to do the like, notwithftanding any thing in this ^tefion which ■ concerns only the Salifications, and Abilities of ihe Pe?'^ fons who take upon them the Office of public Teachers in the Church. St. Paul rejoiced, this Author often urgeth, that Chrifi was preached, tho' it was out of Eiivy : that is, he rejoiced that many fincere Perfons, who had not Opportunity of hearing the Go/pe/ otherwife, were fo far blefted by God, as to be brought, by the preaching of Men, of no very good Principles, to the Knowledge of Jefus Chrifi. But notwithftanding their bad ferTiper in onerefpect, the Ferfons who preached might be cnith.rir^ed li 2 t> 4?4' Ah Anfwer to Quefiions ' to that Office. And if fo, this fa3nng of St. ?aiits doth not patronize any Irregularity. If they were not aiitho- rited, this Inilancc proves that the Benefit received by the People is no Argument for approving the Mimjlershy whofe means that Benefit comes, or any Reafon for think- ing them authorized by God, for the Office of public MiniJIers. Accordingly I heartily rejoyce that any Per- fon is by any means converted either to the Faith, or FraBice of t]ie Go/pel : But I cannot think itjuftto argue from hence that the Perfojt by whofe means this Change Was made, is therefore duly authorized to be a public Minifier. To the 77;7>^ ?.ny Mivifier, or Preacher. To the Eleventh Queftion this Aiithor himfelf anfwers in other Places, that let a Perfon have never fo excellent Salifications, he muft make others the Judges of them, and cannot be juftified in his Negle^: of miniflerial Or- dination : yet doth this ^ejlion equally jultify all Neg- leds of that Nature. To the Twelfth, I anfwer, i. That amongft all the Pn- viitive Irregularities we read not of any Perfons taking the Work 0^ Ordination to themfelves out of the Hands of ^i- J1)ops. And 2. Suppofing any had done this ^ as this Au- thor and his Brethren would not now fubmit to Epifcopal Ordination merely becaufe others had done fo in the Tri- initive Church a^tcT Prcfiyterian Ordination -, fo I cannot think it a good Argument againft infilling upon Epifcopal Ordination, that fome of the Antients did not do it. ?. This Author himfelf is ever reprefenting x\\q Antients ?is fpcak- ing too hotly, and too highly in favour of Epifcopal Ordi- jiation. To theThirteenth, I anfwer, that I think not an nnin- terruptcd Line ofSuccefwn of regularly ordained EifJjops ne- ceffary : And likewife, on the other hand, that the Perfo- 7ial Vices of any Bifiops are no Argument againft their be- ing the proper Minijierso^ Ordination. If they were,there could be no Security in this Point, becaufe all may poifi- bly be either fecretly, or openly vicious. And the fame may be faid fuppofing the Right o£ Prejhyters themfelves to ordain. To the Fourteenth, I anfwer, that my Rcafoning on this Head hath been rejected by this Author, becaufe it bears fome Refemblance to that of the Romanijfs •, and yet now an Argument is drawn againft it, becaufe it is not agree- able to their Proceedings. How can he argue from the Praftice of the Church of Ko7/i^,whenit is fo often account- ed by hi?n a Prejudice againft any Matter, that it is like ^ to- tofomethingamongft them? But indeed the Cafes here mentioned are not parallel to the Cafe before us : and if they were, the true Rule is to conlider what isreafonable to be done, not what the Church of Rome doth in anjr Cafe, To the Fifteettth, the like Anfwer will ferve. To the Sixteenth J i. I anfwer the fame, (and fo faith this Author oftenj that we are to proceed by Reafon^ and noihj Exa?nple. 2. Vrejhyterians cannot polTibly call in queftion the Orders of thofe who received them from a Blfjop *, (ii^ whom they acknowledge a Right to ordain as he is a Vreshyteroxibf by Divine Appoijitment ) but it doth not follow from hence that Ordinations by 'Presbyters muft be acknowledged i;d!Z/<^ by thofe who think that they ne- ver were entrufted with that Affair, and have no Right to claim the Management of it. To the Lajl, I anfwer, that all Men certainly ought to receive Truth •, but that the preaching of Truth is not fuf- iicient to prove any one authorized to be ?i public Minijier, This is fo far from being pleaded by all Parties, that I know of nonewho fay it ^ and this^Mf^o/'himfelf expref- 1j contradicts it, and declares it not to be fufficient to prove any Perfon an authorized Minijfer, by reckoning up many other Scripture Requijites, and by his Readinefs t6 difown the Divine CotnTniJion of all who have them not. "What can be themeaning therefore of his defiring the Be- nefit of fuch an Argument as this, which equally defends the public Minijlry of thofe who neglect all Ordination, whom yet in other places, h^ hath declared he would not he thought to juflify ? Thus having confidercd the ^eries, propofed by him, with all the Serioufnefs the SubjeB requires ^ and having re- turned Anfwers to every one of them, I appeal to every impartial /^^Wf/- whether there be any thing contained in them fufficient to juftify the Negle& of Epif copal Ordina- tion, but what is fufficient likewife to juftify the Negledt of all Ordination ^ and confequently whether they fignify any thing to the Purpofe for which they are intended by this Author, A RE- 49- REPLY T O T H E INTRODUCTION T O T H E SECOND J>ART O F Mr. C A L A M Y's Defenfe of Moderate Nonconformity. I Perceive Mr. Calamy would ver^ willingly have his Readers believe, that the hrtroduWion to the Second Fart of his Defenfe of Moderate Nonconformity con- tains in it the v^tj Heart of the CowtroT^^r/} between us. And I, for my part, am fo ready to put the whole of our Difpute upon any one Point he can name, that I lay hold of th is Opportunity of examining , whether it contain any thing in it, fufficient to juftify what he calls Moderate Nonconformity ^ which is the Point, he often tells us, he ■propofcs to himfelf. But becaufe there is fo very fmalla part of that Intro diiBion^w}\\ch fo much as attempts to de- monftrate th^UnlawfuheJ} ofCompliavcewiih ihelfn^Jitions 4^2 Reply to Mr, Calamy. in the Church of England -, andXo great a part of it em- ployed upon Topics verydiftant from this ^ I think mj fclf obliged to go thro' the wholeof it. as far as I, or the Caufel have undertaken, can be fuppofed to be concern'd in it : left any who read it fhould be fo mifled,as to think there is more Truth, and Reafon in it, that I can find ^ or be diverted by the many p^rfojial, and foreign Matters in it, from the main, and only material ^lejlion between us. And for this End, in order to proceed as diftindtly as poflible, in this Enquiry, 1. 1 fhall coniider all the O/^'^t^zW there alleged againft what I have formerly advanced upon the Head of Ecclejt- ajlical Impojiiions. it. 1 ftiall make fome Reflexiom upon the Scheme of Li- berty, there propofed by Mr. Calarny. III. I fhall endeavour to Ihew, that tliere is nothing there advanced, fufficient to prove a Compliance with our Impojitions unlawful ^ and therefore, noth jng againft the Lawfulnefs of conjlant Communion with the Church of Eng- land 5 and confequently, nojthiug fafBcient to jujiify ??iode- rate Nonconformity. I. I am obliged to confider all thc-ObjeSions there al- leged Againft what I have formerly advanced upoji the Head of Ecclejiajiical Impofitions. The Impofitions concerning which our Debate hath been, are Three, viz. Kneeling at the Coinmunion ^ the ufe of Sponfors in the B apti f mot Infants -, and the ufe of the Crofs Ziit^r: Baptifm. . What I have faid concerning thefe may iypij^QXi in the FirJlPa?toi the Reafonahlenefs of Conformity, p. 66, 5cc. But j)ecaufe my Senfe in this part of the Con- tr^rjcrfyhdiXh. not been reprefented as I could wifti> and as .1 might juftly have e-xpftted,I think it but reafonable to endeavour once more to fet it in a fair J^ight, ' efpecially now I am going; to defend it from the (Jhje^ions made againft it. i > -•• I. ThereforeJlaiddown, as what was my own Opi- nion, that the Bifwps have Authority toprefcribe for the l^cttcr and more decent Adminiftration of the Offices of ' • ' Religion; gA Reply to 'Mr. Calamy. 493 Religion •, for the Beauty and Advantage of that Chnjii- av Society in which they prefide. This is a matter fit, and worthy to be loclc'd after by Governors •, and if done af- ter an unexceptionable manner, all will, 1 believe,acknow- ledge it for the good of the Church of Chrjjl in general, and for the honour of the Worfhip of God, and .the Of- fices of Religion. And this Power I lodged in the hands of the BiJJwps, becaufe in the firj} Ages of the Gofpel, no Power in any Affairs relating to the Church could be in anyhandshutthoi^Q c^EccleJiaflicalOficers, ^W Civil Ma- giflrates being profefTed Enemies to the Chrijiian Name : and becaufe they are at prefent, by the Frovidence oiGod^ the Ecclejiajfical Govenioiirs of this part of the Chrijiian Church : And however it came fo to be, whether from the original Appointment of the Apojlles, or from the Corn- pad: of Prejbyters, or from the Decrees of the Civil Powers-^ our Adverfaries acknowledge it a laTvful Conflitution, and the Care of thefe Chwches intrufled to them. But this I do not go on to urge, but proceed, as may be feen in Page 67. 2. To argue with the Dijfe7!ti7ig Mimjlers^ not abfolute- ly from this Authority^ but from their own Profeflions, and Principles. And here I endeavour to Ihew that the fame Obje^iom lie againfl their Compliance with the Pre- fcription of Time, or Place, or Liturgy for public Worfhip, with which they have profefTed themfelves ready to com- ply • and therefore that they may lawfully conform to the fcriipled Tmpojitions, and as well acknowledge an Att- thority in the Prefcription of them ( as far as Coviyliancc contains in it fuch an Acknowledgment j as for thefe. And this I there urge at full length. This is the Summ of what I fay in behalf of the Firji Prefcribers of thefe I?npo~ fitioJis ^ to which I might have added, that confidering this Church as reformed from Popery, there were wife and good Reafons for the prefcribing thefe as well as fome o- ther things which might at the lame time recommend it to the Afrcclions of thofe about it, and alfo be decent Ce- remoJiies in its own Services ; and thefe Reafons, I believe, were 4 94 ^ ^^Pb' ^^ ^^' Calamy. tvere fuch as would have moved fome of the wifeft an(J beft of our Modern Bijfenten to have joined in the Pre- fcrtption, had they lived at that time, and been conful- ted upon that occafion. Whether this Reafotthe now cea- fed, or whether there be not ftronger Reafons now for leaving the fcrupled hnpojitmis indifferent, I do not at this time debate. But this is fufficient to fhew, that the Firft Prefcribers ufed the Power they had for the Good and Edification of the Church, and agreeably to the Will of God. ?. As tothofe who have, notwithflanding the Scruples oTiomsLny Protefiaiits, retained, and infifted rigoroufly upon the fcrupled Prefc?'iptiom, I have faid fomething in their Name, and with refpedt only to the way of arguing the B'ljfentlng Writers have ufed in their Zeal againfl thefe ImpoJitioTts, And, 4. To declare my own Thoughts freely, I added at the end of this, that I Ihould ever be ready in my place and {1:ation,to promote any fuch Alterations in things in- different in themfelves, as might reconcile fober Dilfen- ters to the Church, and procure us a greater and ftridter Union amongft our felves. And this I think very con- liflently with what I had before declared concerning the Authority of Bijlmps. For as it belongs to the Office of the Supreme Civil Powers to order what feems to them con- ducive to the good of the Civil Society ^ and yet notwith- ftanding this, it may be a very honourable part of the^r Duty, when they find in the execution of their Laws a greater Damage than Advantage to the Common-wealthy to abolifh, and repeal them : fo likewife it may belong to the Office of Ecclefiaftical Governours to make Pre- fcriptions for the more decent Celebration of the Public Worfhip, &c. and 3^et notwithftanding this it may be their Duty, to alter, or abolifh thefe Prcfcriptions, when Experience hath taught them, (contrary to their own Ex- peftations,or the defign of thofe who firfl ordained them,) that the Difadvantages arifing from them to the Church of Chrijl are, in the whole, greater than the Advantages of J Reply to Mr. Calamy. 495 of them. But this I never can be induced to urge fo as to forget the Duty oilnfenors. For theConfiderations of Public Good, and Peace, and Charity, are to guide and influence the whole "World of C/;n7?f^W5: and my Scheme^ in this matter, is very fhort, and eafy to be underftood j vh. that both Qovermrx, and Governed'm the C^Krcfcought to have the fame common End in their Eye : that the for- mer ought not always to inlift upon their mere Autho- rity even againft unreafonable Oppofers, but to wave that whenever by fo doing they can promote the public In- tereft ^ and that the latter ought not to iniift merely upon their ChriJIian Liberty, even againfl: unreafonable Gover- vours, but'gladly to wave that in indifferent matters of fmall Importance, whenever by fo doing they can confult the Peace of the ChriJIian Church, and remove any occa- fions of Uncharitablenefs. Thefe are my Sentiments con- cerning our Lnpoftions: and I have laid them before the Reader once more, that he may take my Opinion from my own Words, and not from thofe of an Jdverfary, who hath always hitherto framed fuch Schejnes^oi me concern- ing this Point, as I cannot own. And having thus repre- fented my Thoughts to the Reader, I proceed to confider the Obje&ions advanced againft them in this Introdu^ion. Ohj. I. 'Tis query'd, How came the Bi~ (fjopa by this Authority ^ I had before fpoken Introd. p. plainly enough, had this Author been wil- 37* ling to underftand me, that as they did, by the Providence of God, fucceed in the Government of the Church, it belonged to their Province to take themoft effedtual Methods for the Advantage of the Church, and the Decency of the Office of Religion. And any Prefcrip- tions that do truly promote thefe, I doubt not, are a- greeable to the Will of God, and not out of the Province of any who have it in their Power to ordain them. This Anfwer holds good, fuppoling the BiJIwps merely law- ful Governovrs in pojGTellion of Power in the Church. But this did not ferve this Author s Purpofes : and therefore he makes another himfelf for me, after his ufual method ^ t and 49^ e^ ^^ply to Mr, Calamy, and fuch an one as might give him a better opportunity" of triumphing concerning the Succejion of the Bifiops to the Authority of the Apojlles, which yet in as great a de- gree even the moft moderate of the Dijfenthg MJmJlers^ have pretended to, whenever they khave had it in their power to conftitute and fettle the Church according to' their own Model. And furely it muft be true that the prefent Govermurs of the Chitrch fucceed the Apojfhs in all that Power which is at prefent neceffary to the well-be- ing of it : and that it is ever agreeable to Gdd's "Will, whether declared in an exprefs Text o^ Scripture or not, that fuch things fliould be ordered and complyed with as are trul3r for the intereft of Religion, and the decent Celebration of the Offices of Religion. And I appeal to ^ this Author himfelf, whether if he, and every other Chri- iliaii in the Land were fenfible that our Frefcrlptiona were truly conducive to the Honour of God, and the bet- ter Performance of Religious Worfhip i whether, I fay, upon this Suppofition, He would not acknowledge the Frefcr'iption of them, and Cornpliarice with them agreeable to the Will of God. Obj. 2. It is farther urged, that tho' the Supreme Cz?;;/ Magi ftr ate may have this Authority in Civil Affairs, yet the Bifiops may not have it inEcclefiaftical Matters, be- caufe they are not Supreme, but Chrijiis the Head of the Churchy and Subordinate Officers have no Authority but what he gives them. I anfwer, that the Higheft Civil Power on Earth is fubordinate to God, as well as the Ec- clefiaftical Governours to Chrifi : that as it is always the AVill of God that the Civil Govenioiirs fhould ordain what is truly for the Public Intereft; fo it is alway agreeable to the Will o^ChriJl that thofe who have the Power in his Church Ihould uie it for the promoting the great Ends of Religion, and likewifc oi Order, and Decency in the Of- fice of it ; that as this Authority in the Civil Magip'atc dotli not deftro}", or take away the right of judging in the Pt'op/f*, and of refufing Obedience whenever his Com- mands are apparently contrary to the Public Good-, fo nei- ther A Reply to Mr, Calamy. 497 ther doth this Authority in the BiJIjo^^s rot) the Chriftian People of their right to judge of the Nature of their Vre- fcriptions, and to refufe Compliance whenever the3r are difagreeable to the Nature of true Religion, or the fun- damental Laws of the Chrijlian Society. I add this, be- caufethis Author feems in tins place to think that Aiitho* rity in Goveniotirs here below, takes away all liberty of judging from fn/cr ion, which is the very Do6trine O' Ab^ fohiteVaJfive Obedience. Wherea- it is manifeft eVen in Cafe of Parents and Children, both that Varevts have Aii' thority over t\\tm, and that they arelikewife oblig'd to confider and judge concerning their Commands, whether they be agreeable to the Will of God or no. Ohj. g. This Author feems to fpeak as if he thought our Lord himfelf had exprefly ordained every thing ex- pedient for the v^ell-beingof his Church in all future Ages, and all Circumftances of Goi's Worlhip : and coiifequent- ly, as if He cannot be fuppofed to have left any Power to this purpofe in the hands of Church-Governors. But this doth not appear to have beeli our Lord's Deiign. It is fully fufficient that He hath eftablifhed the Effentials of his Infiitiition, and provided all things necelTary for the be" htg of his Church : and fully agreeable to his Will, as far as appears, that thofe who have it in their Power iPiould confult and prefcribe for the well-being of it, s -id for the greater decency ot its PztZ'/ic- 0^f^5. There is no intima- tion in Scripture either that the External Circumftances _ of Worlhip are there to be fearch'd for, or that they may not be prefcribedby any in After-ages, provided that ge- neral Rule be obferv'd of confulting Order, and Edifica- tion. Nay, the iife of any Cuftorn in Worfiiip not com- manded by our Saviour, is as great a Reflexion upon the Defedivenefs of our Saxdour's Inftitution, as the Prefcrip- tion of it is. Yet is there no Perform.ance of the moft fo- lemn Offices of Religion without fbme fijch, even anongft our Diffejitcrs themfelves ^ and it is as void of all Autho- rity £iom Scripture as the e7!J oijiing oi it, if it be a fuffi- cient Argument againft this to fay, that it belongs only to Chriji himfelf to determine the Circumftances of all K k the 498 ^ '^^pb ^^ ^^' Calamy. the Offices ofhis Religion. It is manifeft, I thinlc, that this was not his Intention, and as manifeft that it may be done by future Govenwitrs agreeably to his Will, be- caufc it is poffible it may be done to the Satisfadlion of all fober Chrijliam^ and to the more orderly and decent Per- formance of the folemii Offices of Religion. Ohj. 4. It is farther here alleged, that there can be no Authority in any Governours to make Prefcriptions, be- caufe this is to make new additional Terms of Commimmi, And yet this fame Author pleads for a right in every Con- gregation, that is, the Majority of it, to determine the Circumftantials of their own Worftiip : which is in efredt to make Terms of Co?nmmiio7i for their Neighbours •, to de- clare that they fhall not communicate with them but up- on fuch Conditions ^ and to debar the fcrupulous from all Communion, as they are now debarred by tJie EJia- llifi'd Church. Whereas if the Crime lie merely in ma- king 7 m«5 of Co^wtwhwzow, not enjoined in Scripture^ it is impoffible the Right to this (hould be in the Covgregatio7t, any more than in the Governours of the Church. Now ac- cording to my Judgment concerning the making any Prefcriptions Ter7ns of Coynvmnmtj no one ill Confequence can be fuppofed to follow from it, fuppofing them not difagreeable to the Nature of Chrijliaiiity, ordered upon wife and prudent Motives, and not fcrupled by any fe- rrous ChriJ}ia7i5 : which I take to have been the Cafe of our Trefcriptmis at firft. I believe truly that thofe who firft ordained them little thought of the confequent Scruples of any good Proteftants ^ and were fo far from defigning them as Inftruments of Exchifw7i to any Chrifiia7iSj that they purpofely chofe them on prudential Motives in hopes of inviting, anvl bringing many Perfons into the Church by their means ; and therefore I think acted like good and wife Gover7iours, and may be well defended in their Con- ducl, Jince fomething better may be faid of thefe things, when the)^ were firll prefcribed, than that they were 27tdiffere7it^ viz. there were good and wife Reafons for the Prefcription, antecedently to it. As to the iniifting on them to the exchijioji of numbers offcnipuhus ChriJIia7is from > Com- J Reply to Mr, Calamy* ^g^ Commmtion, I have not argued from it, "but only upon the Profellions and Vi'mci-plQsof the Moderate DiJfentersthQm-' felves,in order to induce them to comply with a//,as well as withfome of thofe fewPrefcriptions which are in theChtirch. As to the Method in which this Fower of framing Pre- fcriptions is to be exercifed, and concerning which D'rffi^ citlties are here raifed, I think it belongs to the Office o^ thofe in Power to take any lawful Method put into theii? hands by Providence, of confulting the Advantage of the Church committed to their Care. I do not fee how the accidental Inconveniences attending the exercife of this Fower in any particular method, prove any thing againfil the Reafonablenefs of the Power it felf^ or to whatpurpofe this Author urges the unhappy Differences in our late Co7ivocatiojts on this Head. He might remember that the Presbyterian and Covgregatmial Brethren themfelveshave hitherto found Umon, and Agreeviertt in their joint- Co h- fultations very difficult to be attained, and very eafy to be broken. And yet I prefume this will not be allow'd a good Argument againft the Expediency of their ading as an united Body, according to Regulations fixed by their mutual Confent. Ohj. 'J. But a great OhjeBion is here drawn from the Tower of the Civil Magiflrate.^ and the Inconfiftency of* this Power in our Ecclcjiajiical Superiors with it. I an- fwer that this Pciwer in Ecclefiafiical Goverriours can in no circumftances of the Churchhe fo far independent on the Civil /l^a^^zy/nrf^, butthat he ihallhavea rig'' t to inter- pofe, fo far as to hinder the Church from ufurping his Pro~ viiice^ or to defend any good and honeft Subjeds from fuffering in their Temporal Concerns on any account merely Ecclejiajiical. But the Impofitions we are now con- iidering are ordered by the Bifiops in conjundlion with the Civil Powers •, nor is there any the leaft likelihood of ha« ving any thing in our Nation ordered by the one in con- tradidion to the other: and therefore the Difficulty taken from hence can have no place here. And yet, m.ethinks, cf all Men, this Author need not be at a Lofs for an An* fwerto thisDifficulty, who hath utterly precluded the :!«•« K\ 2 gijirati ^66 A "^^p^y to Mr. Calamy. pijiratc from' any Right tointerpofe mCafes purely Ecch" fajlical, and loclged the Power of decreeing the Circiim- ftantials of public "Worihip in ever^r flngle Congregation. For when he anfwers this ^ieJlion,Siippnfe tfc^Congrega- tionjljoiild refolve vpoji one particular Time for the Celebra- tion of the Comiminion^ and the Civil Magijlrate flmiili declare that he will not have his SiihjeEls dijlurbed by fiich iinnecejfary Jwpojitions-^ as they mu^ be who fcruple that Ti??ie^ and arc thereby forced tofeelc out for other Congregations more to their Mind, perhaps at a great and inconvenient Diitance. IThich jfivfi here carry it ? When I fay^ he anfwers tliis Obje&ion againft his own Scheme^ others need not defpair of finding an Anfwer for their Purpofe likewife. If the Congregation may infift upon this as their Right, then here is imperiitmin imperio^ the very things as this Author faith, that is fo much dreaded, and which threatens endlcfi Feuds, If the Magifirate muft be liftened to, then what becomes of the Right in every Congregation o£ ChriJIiaris to appoint tlie Circmnjlantials of their own irorfiip ? But I need not have taken any Notice of this Difficulty which cannot touch the Churches of this Nation, any more than of the other he mentions, viz. Obj. 6. The poifible Difference between BiJI^ops of feVe- ral Diocefes, by which means a total Uniformity muft be hindred. For tliis likewife can have no place in our Church, in which nothing is prefcribcd, nor in all like^ lihood ever can be, but by the Confent of all the Bifiops, as well as of the Civil Powers. But however I fhall add, that tho' upon this Authors Suppofition there could not indeed be a National Uniformity, yet there might be an Uniformity in the Churches o!: the fame Diocefe, which would be much better than none at all. Fori take the Cafe to ftand thus. Uniformity indeed is not abfolutely iiecefrar3r, nay, in it felf it is nothing, but only as it pro- motes Order and Peace in the Church of Chri^ -, and as fuch it ought not to be ridiculed, or exploded hy any who havea Value for the Honour ot God's Worfhip, or a De- fire to fee Charity flourilh amongft Chrijiiavs. Could this be compaiTed, the Advantages of it wuuld be unfpeaka- • ble A Reply to Mr. Cahmy. 50 tie in the Removal of thofe Occasions of Quarrel, and Uncharitablenefs, which have arifenvifibly from the want of it in thefe Nations particularly. Nor could it polhbly it felf occaiion any Mifchief ^ thV the too rigorous en- forcing of it may have done fo. We muft take the World as we find it, and in all things have Regard to the Tem- pers of Mankind. It is a Scandal indeed to the Chriftian Name, that Brethren fhould not exercife theheartielt Chri- fiian Love towards one another, notwithftanding their different Modes of Worfhip : and yet fuch is the Weak- nefs of fome, and fuch are the PaiTions of others, that no- thing hath occafioned greater Animofities,and more fcan- dalons Breaches in the great Law of Chanty, than this Difference in the Way of Worihip. So that tho' Uniform -?mty be not of it felf a thing necelTary, or of much Im- portance ; yet it is manifeftly ib in a fecovdary Degree, coniidering the unreafonable Tempers of many Men, and how many Inftances o^Unchantahlenefs miay be prevented by it. Would it not be happy for all ChriJUws, were there no Neceifit}?- laid upon fome of differing from others in their Way of Worihip > Have not the dipvmg Mmjlen themfelves often in the Name of their People, lamented it as an Unhappinef'=,full of evil Confequences, that they v/ere neceffarily obliged to fet up different Ways of /?w^|fc Worjlnp > Doth not this very Anthor think the Uniformity o£ a N'eighbourhood, and their perfed Agreement in one Form of Worfhip, an Happinefs, and fuch an Happinefs as he would labour to bring about by alldiieMcans ? And is not this a manifefi: Acknowledgment that Uniformity is a Happinefs, as it removes fome Occafions of Uncharita- blenefs amongft Chrifians ? I wiih therefore that fome Per- fons would be content, in the Management of their Ar- gu}?ient.7, to fpeak the Truth cfToings not abfolutely ne- cellary :, and that, whilft they are arguing againft the Extremes of others, they would not run into the contrary £'A:t;'^wzt7 themfelves, of villifying, and depreiling thofc Things as of no ufe, which certainly have their good Confequences in the Chrijiian Chiirah. But tho' I have faid thus much in Defenfe of thatPow- K k 3 ~ " n '502 A Reply to Mr. Cala my. er which I had lodged in the Hands of our Ecchfiajlical Siipenor.'! againft what is here advanced, yet I muft inform the Reader, that it was not the Authority of the Bi/iops m making Prefcriptioris which I undertook in the Book be fore- mentioned fully to defend, or from which I argued for Cor?ipliaitce in om diffenthg Brethren-, but from their own ProfeJ/ions and Ccncejfiom, as any one who confults it may fee : and therefore it is time now to conflder what Mr. Ca- la?}iy here objects againft this part of my Argument, in which I ftill hope to iind a greater Strength than he would have his Reader believe. I {hall only obferve, upon the Review,how unaccountable it is that he iliould anmfe the World with Ohje^iofts ?.gainii the Power of BiJJmps to pre- fcribe, drawn from fuch Difficulties as cannot have place in our Caafe : that he fhould urge the Differences in Cowr iwcation between the Bifiops^ and Rrcjhyters ^ the Danger of a Power m the Church independent on the Civil Powers j the polFible Difagreenient between Bifiops offcveralDfo- cefes', when ouv Prefcriptiojis are, and muft always be, fuch as both BiJI)ops and Prejbyters have agreed on ; fuch as the Civil Power joins in comn anding ; and fuch as are confented to b}^ all the Bifiops of the Land. After having made his ObjeBzotts againft what in few words I declared concerning the Authority of Ecclefiajlical Goventoitrs, this Author proceeds to examine what I urge upon the Principles and Profejions of the Diffeiitivg Mhiijlers themfelves. And here he reprefcnts me to his Reader as arguing thus ^ The Dijfevting Mimjlers^in their Argum.ents againft this Power in Bijhops, neither agree with themfelves, "iwr with one another : therefore the Bijhops have this Pow- er, p. 44. And again, p. 48. He ftates my Argument thus. The EjeBed Mijiijlers would have joined with the Bi- fiop s in impojing fojne things ; therefore they had Authority to impofe fome things. Nay, p. 49. He pretends to give his Reader my Argument, as I my felf ftated it ; Part I. jp. 68. thus ^ IftheBifiopshave Authority to prefc?ibe in one Cafe, then in another ^ as if I had argued from their Authority in one Cafe to their Authority to prefcribe in every Cafe they pleafed. Whereas I have nothing to this ^urpofe in the Page quoted, but fomething very different :^ " ~ ' from A Reply to Mr. Calamy. 505 from it, viz. that If I could fiew that the very fame Objec- lions lie againfl prefcribing what the Diffenting Minifters ivould have complied with^ which were brought in their Najnes agaiitjl the rcrupledPrefcriptions,t/?zVr77;o«Zi account a good Argument to them, that the Bilhops hid Authority to pre- fcribe in the one Cafe^ as well as the other : i e. in the Cafe of the three Prefcript'wjisAhey fcrupkd, as well as in the Cafe of the Prefcriptiom they were ready to comply with 5 which Compliance, according to themfelvts, was an Ac- Irnowledgrnent of the Authority of the Prcfcribers. I de- lire therefore, all to take notice that I havenofach Argu- ments as he would fix upon me. It hath been his con- ftant co-rfe to talce this liberty with me : and fo I can the more eafily bear it. But I am not, as I hope, capable of impoling upon my Reader with any fuch falfe Reafon- ing : tho' I may think it not only juftifiable, but the beft way of arguing with any Perfons to do it upon their own ProfeffyDns, and Conceffions. Accordingly my Argument was to this efFed, You have pro-fefled your Readinefs to comply with fome Prefcriptions^which you fometimes fay 3S an Acknowledgment of the Authority of the Prefcribers; therefore you may likewife acknowledge their Authority in other Prefcriptions, as far as 3^our Cojnpliance contains in it fuch an Acknowledgment. The thing to be proved was not abfolutely that Bijbops have fuch an Authority, but that the Diffentivg Minijlers might,confiftently with fome of their own Profeftons, acknowledge fuch an Authority, by complying with it. This is very different from the former Reprefentatio7is -, and however I may have been mif- taken as to matter of Fa6t, the way of Reafoning is good, and juft, tho' that which this Author would fix upon me, is falfe and ridiculous . I built it upon his own repeated Words, that the Diffenting iMinifers could not comply with the Vrefcriptions^ becaufe the Frefcribers had no Au- thor ity,i'romvjhcncel concluded that they judged C0771- pliance to be an Aclvnowledgment of their Authority : o- therwife there can be no force in the Argument. Notwith- ftanding this, I found it related by the fame Author that they were ready to comply in t\iQufeoi£oViiQ Prefcriptiom. K k 4 Upo^^ 504 d Reply TO Mr, Calamy. Upon whicli I argued, that they who by Compliance ac- knowledge the Authority of Prefcribers in one Cafe, may acknowledge it another^ as far as Compliance implies fuch an acknowkdgment : and I inftanced in the Prefcriptions about Thne, flue, and Liturgy, as what the Biffenting Mimjlers had profefTed a readinefs to comjply with. Let us now fee what i? rephr'd to this, ri. This Author (fuppofing I had in my Eye the Managers of the Conference ^t the Slivoj) faith, th^Lt fuppojing they went too far, aiid were at times overfeen, it doth not follow, that they are herein to he imitated. I grant it. No Perfons are to be fol- low'd in their Errors. But,I pray , from whence can we polli-' bly colied the Judgment, and Principles of the Dijfejitiyig Jl'!Jw7*//5r^, unkfs from thofe who write, and tranfad in their Names, and are efteem'd as the greateft, and moft <2xcellent Men amongft them ? I fhould think they might have as many Followers amongft their Brethren, as Mr. Calamy, or any other Perfon who had gone off from their Principles : and judge it as much to my purpofe to argue froni their Profeiiions, and Principles, as from thofe of any amongft them. But this Author may allure himfelf, that I v/as not fo weak as to intend my Arguments drawn from their Profeffions for the ufe o^any Perfons but fucli as are of the fame mind with tkw,and I hope it may be allow- ed proper upon fome occafions to argue with Men upon their own Principles. But leaft any one fliould think them fo utterly forfaken by their Brethren and Followers in their readinefs to comply in thofe Inftances, at that time, I can affure him upon the Teftimony of tliis Aiith( himfelf, if he were the Author of the Abridgment of Mr. Baxter s Life, that there was the fame readinefs in the Dif~ fenting Miitijlers as well as People, to comply in thofe In- iiances, in the Beginning of the late Reign. I will tran- fcribe his own "Words from that Abridg?nejit, p. 655. where he is fpeaking of the Alterations then delign'd. Thus much Ifiall venture to fay, that fuch Amendments ^.9 thofe were, mth fuch an allowance in thepoiyitofOi^deTsforOrdhYdtion by Presbyters as is made, 1 5 Elix., cap. i 2. would in all pro- bability have brought in two thirds of the DilTentcrs in Eng- land. I confefs I thought tJiat upon fo good an Authority t J J Rep!) to Mr. Calamy. 505 I might have ventured to fay what I did, efpecially in a Debate with Himfelf. But now I begin to think it impof- iible for me to judge, even frcm his own words, either what his own P/hiciplesane, or what the Prhtciples of thofe whofe Gaufe ]ie maintains. There cannot be a more po- litive Declaration than this, which yet, it feems, imports no fuch thing as I have fix'xl upon it. 2. It is reply'd. That the Managers of the Dijfenthg Caiife at the Savoy Conference were fo far from owning the Authority oiBifiops to prefcribe,that it is manifefl: to allwho will perufe the Papers relating to that Affair, that they po- litively difown'd all fuch Authority. I anfwer, that it is as manifefl: to all who will perufe my Book without the preju- dices of this Author, that I tax them not with owning any riich Avthority in words, but only with a leadinefs to join, and comply in fome Prefcriptions, which they themfelves judged an acknowledgment o^ Authority in the Prefcribers ^ and confequently that thisy^wfWmiftakes and mifrepre- fents me when he would fix any other meaning upon my Words. 7. It is reply'd, that the Managers of thaitCojtference are mifreprefented by me, for as much as tliey never were ready to comply with the conftantUfe of the Liturgy, but always declared againft it, if it fhould be too rigoroufly impofed ^ and alfo that he himfelf could not comply with the covfiantV^Q of it, tho' amended to his Mind ^ or with the Prefcription of one certain Time for the Cojniminion, in Exclulion to all other. To which I anfwer, I. His Declarations concexn'm^ himfelf are of fmall im- portance in a Caufe, in which I muft coniider the gene- rally received Principles of the Dijfenting Minijiers, and not the Peculiarities of any particular Man. But if they be true, I infer from hence that he is not of the Number of thofe in whofe Name he made the foregoing Declara- tion, concerning a readinefs to comply, upon the Amend- ments lately defign'd. For I never heard but that thelJfe of the Liturgy fo amended was to have been as conjlant as it is now. 2.' Neither can he Himfelf, nor the Managers of the Sa' ■^oy-Confcrcnce^QVQW according to his •>pvQ{entRe£refe7itatio7i, poiiibly 5o6 eA Reply to Mr. Calamy; polTibly evade the force of my Argument. As for the Managers of that Conference^ he doth not pretend but that they were ready to comply with the Prefcriptwn of one particular Tiifie for the Celebration of theCojumitnion : which is fufficient for my prefent purpofc, as appears from this Jvthors declaring againft it as anunneceJfaryTerm ofCo?«- miimon. And as for both them and l/wifelf he acknow- ledges, even in this LitrodiiBion, a readinefs to comply with the Prefcription o^ the ordinary Ufeoia. Liturgy^ and of one particular Tijne for the Celebration of the Holy Sa- crament. And what need I defire any more ? For the Liturgy prefcribed for ordinary Ufe is ftill a Prefcripti€7i, and in his own Account, an unneceflary Prefcripiion : And they who can comply with fuch a Prefcription^^nd hj that means (as themfelves interpret fuch a Coj}iplia7ice) acknow- ledge the Authority of the Prefcriber, may as well com- ply with the fcnipled Prejcriptions, notwithftanding any force in that ^lijlion fo often put, by what Authority are they enjoin d ? To comply ordinarily with Terms which or- dinarily exclude fcrupulous Chrijlians itomCommunion, is no more lawful, than to comply with fuch Icrnis as always exclude them. Nor have the BiJl)ops any more Authority to prefcribe Circumftantials for the ordinary ufe of tlie Church, than they have to prefcribe to the conjlant ufe of it. And therefore I argue ftill after the like manner. If Compliance be an acknowledgment of the Authority of the Frefcriber, how can it be juftified to be ready to comply 'o;'Jz;7^;773iwiththofe things, which noonehath Authority ordinarily to ])tercnhe :, and at the fame time to refute Compliance with what is conjlantly prefcribed, merely for want of Authority in tlie prefcribers ? And again. If the Authority of the Prefcriber s may be owned (as far as Com- pliance owns it) in the one Cafe, why not in the ot/;^/' ^ So . that we fee, the BiJIwps having riO more Authority in the one Cafe than in the other, the ArgumiCnt drawn from their want of y^Hf/;o/ir_y doth conclude againft Compliance in the one Cafe as well as in the other ^ and that the Dif- fenting Minijkrs may, agreeably to their own Profeiiions (even as they are reprefented in this IntroduUion) own their qA Reply to Mr. Calam5% 507 their Authority in both Cafes, as far as hj CovipViance they can be interpreted to own it. But, 3. Whatever Mr. Calamy may pleafe to fay in this hi" trodiiB:'ion^ I ftill infift upon it that tJie diffenthg Mhiijie/s have been ready to comply with the Ufc of the Common- Tnryer-Book, amended, as conftantly prefcribed as it is now. I did not apprehend my felf obliged to confine my Argument to the Managers uf the Savoy Conference^ xho this Author hath thought it for his Purpofe to do it for me : but judged it proper to coniider not only their Prcfeffi- ons at that time, but what hath been fince declared in the Kame of the dijj'enting Minijiers. And I thought my felf fecurc ia what i fixed upon them, having built it upon the above-mentioned Declaration of this Author himfelf. And I therefore flillinlifi: upon it. Either thofe Amend- jnents deligned at the beginning of the late Reign with an Allowance for Ordination hjVrepyten would have brought in Two Thirds of the Dijfentcrs, or not. If not, then Mr. Calainy hath mifinformed the World. If they would, then it is certain that the dijfenting MiniJlers^ themoft ju- dicious of them, were then ready to comply with the conjlant ufe of the Coinmon-Frayer-Book fo amended ^ and confequently that what I affirm of them is true, and th^ Argument built upon this Profefwn of theirs, juft and good : as this Author indeed fcems to own by endeavour- ing to avoid the Force of it after fuch a manner. If the dijj'enting Minijiers were thus difpofed to a Compliance, I hope it IS no Crime to argue with them upon the acknow- ledged Lawfulnefs of that Compliance. If they were not, the only fair Way that this Author can take to anfwer what I alleged, is to own that he mifreprefented them, and not tax me with what I took entirely upon his Word. I am perfuaded that he himfelf was of the Number of thofe in whofe Name he made the fore-mentioned Decla- ration : And I amiieartily forry that I have had any hand in driving him from fo good a Difpofltion. I wifh he had found out fome better way of dealing with my Arguments than to reprefent himfelf, and his Brethren at a greater di- flance from all Tendency to a Compliance than they ever -J ^o8 oA Reply to Mr. Calamy. yet profefTed tliemfelves. But it feems, rather than anj of my Reaf()nings (hall appear to have any Weight, he will unwarily rejeft even his own Teftimony, and put any Advantage into the Hands of thofe, who will be fure to life it upon all Occafions, to the Prejudice of that Body of Men, whofe Caiife he undertakes to maintain. From what I have faid in Vindication of this Jrgnvient taken from the Trhiciples and Prof eJ^o7is o? the diffenthtg Mimjlem it mani- feftly follows, not indeed that Bifljops have Authority to prefcribe Things antecedently J/777/£^6r_^tr}i under thePenalty of 710 Communion, which, abfolutely confidered, was not the Point I undertook : but that the diffenting Miniftersh^Yt owned their Authority in the Prefcription of fome Things antecedently vnnecejjary , sls far as Compliance owns it •, .and confequently may lawfully acknowledge it in the fcrupled Prefcriptions as far as Compliance is an Acknowledgment of it. Or thus. That as they were ready to comply with fome Prefcriptions, notwithftanding the want of Authority in the Prefcribers, fo they may as reafonably cowp/;' with the fcrupled Prefcriptiovs, notwithftanding the ObjeBion taken from the want of Authority in the Prefcribers. And thus much may fuffice to fhew how the Reply of this Author on this Head is founded upon his own Mijlake^ and Mifrs- prefentation. One Argument I ufed in favour of the firjl Prefcribers was, That they had ordered nothing but what if all would ferioully comply with, is certainly for the Good of the Church : by which I chiefly meant, that the Things pre- fcribed are of that nature,that an unlverfal Compliance with them, fuppofing them not fcrupled by any, would not be the Caufe of any ill C(3nfequence, but of many good ones. To which this Author replies. As if it would jiijlify an Ufvr- per that his Aiminifl ration was managed for the Good of the Community. lanfwcr, i. There may be a Duty incumbent upon an Ufurpcr v/hen he is in Poffeliion : and tho' the Benefit of his Adminiftration to the Community will not juftify him in the unjuft acquiring of his Power, yet will itjuftify the Manner of his Adminiftration of it-: which is the Point now before us. But, 2. I cannot underftand upon what Principles he calli thofe Ufurpers, whom in other A Reply to Mr. Calamy. 509' other places he acknowledgeth to be lawful Governours. This Reply fuppofeth them to ufe their Power for the Good of the Church, and yet it feems they are no better than Vfnrpers'^ and be the Exercife of it never fo much for the Advantage of the Church, it muft according to this Reply be difown'd, and oppofed. And is this too agreeable to the Profeffions that have been made in the Name of the d7lfe7tt2rig Mhtijlers, to declare againft Compliance with the Epifcopal Power, even tho' the Bifiops had never extended it to any Commands but what are for the Good of the Church ? It was but juft now that this Author declared a Readinefs to comply with the ordinary Prefcriptlon of a Liturgy • from whence it follows, I fhould think, that he judges our Ecclefutfiical Governours may be juftified in the Prefcription of the ordinary ufe of that • and confequent- ly I fhould have been apt to have fixed it upon him, as his Principle, that the BiJI)ops might be juftified in the pre- fcribing what is truly for the Good of the Church, did not I now know by Experience how dangerous it is to tai him even with his own Acknowledgments, which can as eafily be contradi6tcd as made. Why are you xeadj to comply with the Prefcription 0^ the ordinary ufe of a Li- turgy f* It muft be either becaufe the Blpops have a Right to prefcribe it -, or becaufe it is for the general Good of the Church. If becaufe they have Authority to prefcribe it, then you acknowledge they have Authority to pre* fcribe a thing antecedently iinnecejfary, which will ordinarz" ly exclude fcrupulous Chrljiiavs from Comjiiunion. If mere- ly becaufe it is for the Good of the Church, then Compli- ance may be pradifed, notwithftanding the want of Av- ihority in the Prefcribers. But my Bufinefs here was not to prove that the BiJI.^ops had a Right to the Power they pof- fefs, but that they had exercifed their Power well, fuppo- fing the}'' had prefcribed nothing but what, if univerfal- ly complied with, is for the Good of the Chrijlian Church : and confequently, this Author, after his ufual nianner, hath here likewife miftaken me. After this I proceed to argue with ii\e dijfeyiting Minljlers concerning their ObjcBion taken from the Difproportion of the 5io Eefily to Mr, Ca.hmy. the Penalty. And I reafon upon their own Principles ; if this he fufficient to make a Command milawful, this will make the Prefcription of a Liturgy^ or a particular Time for 7for/;/p unlawful, which yet th y have profelTed a Readi- iiefs to comply with. This Author replies that this Readi- iiefs to a conftant Compliance in thefelnftancesispar^tztM- larly denied. I anfwer. There was a Time when it was par- ticularly, and folemnly owned even by hlmfelf -^ as 1 have proved from his own "Words, in which he profefleth a Readinefs in the greateft part of the Bljfenters to comply with the Liturgy amended, in which there was to he apar- ticular Ojfice for the Celebration of the Communion^ and a particular Time for it, as co7iJlantly to be obferved, and as much, exch five of all others, as theprefe7it. Nay, if I were not now better acquainted with the Perfon I am ar- guing with, I ihould have ventur'd to affirm that, when the dijfentitig Minijiers^ as he here affirms, p. 46- profeiTed a Readinefs to be deterjninedby the Civil Magiftrateiwyi/c/^ xhings, as beiitg merely circiimjiajiiial^ are common to Humane Anions. ^and Societies, they never thought of exceptiivg out of this Number, a particular Time for Worflnp exclujive of all other. But, however that be, I will take him, and his Brethren in their prcfent Difpoiition, before he hath thought himfelf obliged to revoke what he lafi: faid. And I defirehim to conlider whether the prefcribiitg the ordinary ufe of the Liturgy (whatever indeteriiiinate Idea he may have to tliat Word j be not the enjoining an unnecefTary Circwnjiance of Worjliip under a difproportionate Penalty. For how that can be done without the ordinary Exclufion o£many fcriiprdous ChriJIians,! am notable to think. And whether this Penalty for their No7t-cojnpliance be not difpro- portionable, I leave to this Author to conilder. Indeed, I wiih I could tell esadtly what he means by the ordinary ufe of a Lituigy, which he faith he could comply with. If he mean tliat he would not fo oblige himfelf to this, but that he would leave himfelf the Li/^^rf)! or taking ano- ther Method, and leaving the Church tflablified whenever he (hall judge it in his Confcience more for the Glory of God, and more agreeable to his Will , as he feems to mean A Rep!) to Mr. C alamy. $ i r mean in the Leginning of p. 5:0. I know no one in the Church at prefent who obligeth himfelf to the Ufe of the Liturgy, or to Covformity on any other Terms. If he mean that he cannot confent to be fo tied up, as not to have the Liberty likewife of praying as he feeth fit, upon par- ticular Occafions, in public •, as he feems to do, p. 49, and 5 3. he knows that this Liberty is both allowed, and taken in the Church at prefent. If he mean that he will not be fo tied up to the Ufe of a Forvi at the Commwnon, as that he will not adminifter it without one to thofe who fcniple a Form •, as he feems to do, p. 50. I defire to know whether there is any Ground to fuppofe that any fuch fcrupulous Perfons will think of chuiinghim for their Fa- Jlor who ordinarily ufeth a/tt Form oi Frayer in the Fub- lie JForJJnp •, whether any fuch Perfons will ever defire to join with him in the Celebration 0^ the Communion •, whe- ther if they do, it may not be as reafonable a Proceeding in this Cafe, as he feems to think it in.the Cafe of his own Schej}ie o^ independent Congregations, p. 5 1 . firfl to endeavour to remove their Scruples, and if that' be found impof- lible, then to refer them to a Congregation fuited to their own Scruples. But here I muft put him in mind that he is as much obliged ordinarily to receive fuch fcrupulous Perfons to Connnunlon, as he is ever to receive them : and therefore if he means by thisProfeifion, that he is ready'at one time of the Day to comply with the ordinary Ufe cf a For7n of Frayer sit the Celebration of the Communion, provi- ded he may likewife at another Hour of the Day celebrate it without a For?n •, that is, that he would willingly offi- ciate in a conforming Congregation, provided he might like- wife minifter in a dijfeyiting Congregation ^ this is indeed a very particular fort of Conformity to an EJiabliJJj'd Churchy being much the fame with Nonconformity it felf But becanfe I have found it a very precarious, and un- certain way of arguing with this Author from the Profef- iions ofhimfelf, and his Brethren, I am willing upon this Head to try another Method, and argue from lis, and their univerfal FraBice. And here I defire to know, by what Authority the Civil Powers require the Sitbfcri^tion of all 5 1 2 J Reply to Mr. Calamy. all dlfenthig Mhujiers to 96 Articles under the Penalty of being hindered from preaching the Gofpel. If they have no Authority to do this, (as it will be hard to prove they have upon Mr. Calamy\ new Scheme) Submiffion ought no more to he paid to them in their Impofitions than to the Bifiops. If this be a difproporticiiahle penalty which is here annexed to their Scruples^ this Command is as unlawful as thefcrupled Commands of the Bifiops : and Compliance with it as nnjuftifiable. Nor will it be a fufficient Reply to this to find out fome different Circumftances between this Jm- pojition, and thofe of the Church. The ^lejlion here is, whether the Mafiijirate have Authority to enjoin this Sub- fcriptioii^ and whether it be not impofed under a difpro- portionable Penalty ^ which I leave to this Author to con-. Jider, and then to anfwer, how it comes to pafs that the Want of Authority, or the annexing a diproportiouble Pe- Tialtj, fhould render CompViayice unreafonable, and a Com' inand unlawful in one Cafe, and not in another. . And by this time furely, the Reader may underftand that it was my Defign under this Head to argue with the diffenting Minijiers upon their own ProfeiTions, and Principles ^ that I had a juft Foundation fo to do ^ and might with reafon put the like way of arguing upon their own Principles into the Mouths of others^ in order to fhew them thelJn- realbnablenefs, and Unconclufivenefsof it. I come now to their ObjeBion taken from Ro7?i. 74. which I fully confidered in my Firfl Booh, p. 88, &c, where I endeavour to fhcw, that this Chapter cannot be proved to relate to Prefcriptiofis concerning God's Wor- ship, I. Becaufe it cannot be proved to extend to all Scruples coiicerning Matters in themfelves indifferent. 2. Becauie St, Paul himreU m?ide ihch 1-refcriptions. ?. Be- caufe they who urge it have, notwithflanding this Chap^ j ter, profclfed their Readinefs to comply in fome Prefcrip- ' tions by which fcveralfcrupulous Perfons muft unavoid- ably be excluded from Communion. To the frft of thefe this Author replies, that St. Paul doth not appear to make any Difference in the Scruples of weak Perfons concern- ing Things in themfelves not neceffary. And I anfwer, - that A Reply to Mr, Calamy. 5f | that tot any thing that appears in this Chapter, he might inake a Difference : it being no Contradiftion a:t all for him to command that Perfons who fcrupled particular Meats and Drikh fhould be loved as Brethot, and be re- ceived to Chiiych-Cbmmiimon j and at the fame time not to intend by this that Rich as fcrupled the fettled Otfioms received or enjoined in xhQreVigiom WorJJnp in any 01/ eft fhould be notwithftanding this, received to Communion in that Church. There may be other Reafons iox it : but I fay this Chapter doth not necefTarily imply it. And therefore at leaft, it cannot be demonftrated to be a Duty from this Chapter. Mr. CaVamy hath advanced nothing here to prove it^ but Affirmations that it is fo. That it was no Contradidion in St. Faiil to command the one^ and not to intend the other, is an Argument that he might command the one^ and yet not intend the other. That he thought it no Contradidion is evident ftom his own Pra- ctice, which was another thing I obferved. For he who commanded the one fort offcrtipulous Fe?'fons to be receiv'd, did himfelf, by pofitive Prefcription, in titc^, command aiiother fort of fcntpiilous Perfons to be rejefted. He made Freferiptiovs himfelf about Matters, antecedently Unneceflary, relating to religious "Worfhip 5 and by thefe excluded, in elted, fuch as fhould fcruple Compliance tvith them. The former of thefe I urged for the Lawful- nefs o{ Come Prefcriptions : and chiefly as an Argument to thofe, who I found had argued from St. Pauls not making Prefcriptions againft the Lawfulnefs of it in other Church* Gover7iors. But this our Author hath thought fit carefully to fupprefs : v/hich makes it the more necelTary for m.e here to repeat it. An Argument was drawn from St. PauVs not interpoiing in the Cafes mentioned in this Chapter againft any Church-Governors interpoiing. To which it was very proper to anfwer by another Argument drawn from his making fome Prefcriptions : it being iaiplied in the Argument, that if St. Paul himfelf had interpofed With any Prefcriptions, this mighthave been at leaft a Pre- tence for other Governors to interpofe in the like Cafes* 1 now argue farther upon t\\i% Argiimem of theirs, after the LI ..4;'; following ^ 1 4 ^ "ktfly to Mr, Calamy . following manner. The Cafes hett intended by St;- Paul can be only thofe in which he did not himicl-f think ■ J5|:' to interpofe. ' But he himfelf thought fit to ip.terpnfeiii the Cafe (,{,ChnJ}iam /B^lrdYiom m reUppis AjfernhVicL' Therefore this Cafe could not' be- in this C^hipxer in^encl-e^ by him. And again, if it -.Md been St. FjuTs, Ixiteni ion, as it 1iath always hitherto beeii reprefented, to lay it df wn as his ''{nS.gmcjtt that no Pr e f c ?■? pt 2 07i s, about the Circufnf an- ces onyof(Inp in themfelves unneceiTary, fhould be made ; and that weak Perfons who' fcrupleTuch P/rfcriptmis ihould notwithfl:andingtheir5c;7(;^J?;, be received toCom- viitmon : If, I fay, this had been his liitehtioh in this Chapter^ it had been a Contradicf'ion to this, even for him« felt afterwards to have made any fuch Prefcriptions^vAnch mufi: have excluded any Perfons fuppofed to-be /ctz^PhZozw;, as this ^?/?/;o;-acknowledgeth they mufi: ^ andconfequent- ly I juftly obferved that St. Paul no more intended this in this Chapterfi\2i\\ he means to contradidthimfelf This was a fufficient Reply to the Argument as it 'hath hitherto been urged from this Chapter: and how could I know be- forehand that this Author would have recourfe to an In- terpretation of it wholly new? But if there had been no other way but this of defending the Objecllon drawn from it-, yet he ought, I think, to have let his R^^^^r know, that I had anfwered the OhjeBion as it had been formerly urged, tho' he himfelf had now another Interpretation of this Chapter to allege to the fame purpofe... An4 if I uii- derftand him aright, he would now reprefenf St. Paul in this Chapter^ defigning only to forbid other C/;nr(;i?-Goz;^/- ?/on, 'who had not his Meafure of the Spirit^ to make any Prefcriptions about uvvereffary Circumjlances of Woriliip ^ but to referve to himfelf the Power of doing it : to order that Perfons who fcrupled fuch Prefcriptions oi others, Ihould n 6t wit] i landing be received to Co^iimiinloii, tho' thofe who (hould fcr-uple an}^ fuch Prefcript2o7is oi his own, fhould not: Which is fucha Reprefcntalion of the ApoJ}le\ Meaning, as I confefs I cannot but wonder at. For it is manifeft to aUjr who attentively read this Chapter, and ' the beginning of the, next, that ifhe deliver anything in this yJ Reply to Mr. Calamy. *) t 5 this place in order to preclude an^r Perfons from malciiig Prefcriptipns in the Cafes here intended, he declares him- felf at the fame time precluded froni it i, that whatever Scruples he here intends, he orders that thev {bould he "born with, without having regard to his own Prefcripti- ons any more than to others •, that if ChrijUavs be to be received XoCommnithn notwithftanding the Scruples here intended, fo it mull be univerfally, and without Excep- tion ;.and that the Rules of Behaviour here laid down ob- lige all Chnfliam, from the higheft ^po)?/^ to the mean- eft Laic. The Importance of the whole is m.anifeftly this, that it is the ViViij o£ Chnft'ia7is to bear with fach Infirmi- ties of one another as are there intended -,.^0 lote,and re- ceive one another no'withftanding fuch WeaknefTes, and Scruples as are there intended •, to bear one another's Bur- then •, not to condemn one another in their different Ap- prehenfions and Behaviour with relation to the Thii gs there intended-, to feek the Good of others more than their ov/n private Satisfaction, in the Co'ndndt of thein- felves in the Points there deligned 5 for al- \'.-].ich he uf. 'h fuch ArJ3;umentsas oblige himfelf as ftronglj- as the Chri- Jiiayi Laity he wrote to. And that no one iiiay think he iayeth down Rules for others^and not for'h'r'felf, he con- cludes the whole in his own P.erf: >n, as wel) as that c-f o- thers, ire then that arejlrovg ought to he a?^ the Tnji/mities of the JF^eah, Sec. I therefore arguci thus'; w'-'atever in this place he forbids to other Ch/ if iav.^, he declares equally •forbidden to himfelf : vvhatever he enjoins other Chrifti- ans, he declares equally incunibentup^n himfelf If there- fore he here forbid to any other Chrifians the making Pre- fcriptions about the Behaviour of their Brethren in God's Worihip, he declares it equally f-:^rbidden to himfelf. lif he here enjoin the receiving to Comnnniion any vvho fhould fcruple fuch Prefcriptibns of others,he here enjoins the fam.e with refpeft to his own. But it is manifeft from his own Behaviour that he thought it proper to make fuch Prefrlp- tions •, therefore it follows that the Rule'; here laid dovv'ii cannot be extended to the forbidding fuch pr e fcriptions -^ . or to the receiving f.ich to adtual and ^iHQindXCovuminion L 1 2 in ^i6 A ^eply to Mr, Calamy. in a particular Church, as fcruple fuch Prefcnptmts. Let it be obfervcd,that I do not here fay that there may not be other Reafojts for this : but I fay there is nothing in this Chapter to this purpofe. Thofe Two Evangelical Precepts, jfudge 7wt^ and. Love one another, ^re in my Opinion anE- phome of this Chapter • and may as well be urged againft any Ecclejiajlical Prefcripticns as what is alleged from hence. Thus have I again cleared this Matter,and IheWnfrom St. VauVs Pradice that there is nothing in this Chapter againft the Pon^^r of Church-Governors to prefcribe^ in anfwer to this new Account of St.P^nZ's Defignin this place. As for any Argument from St. PaiiVs Example to jufti-* fy the Prefcriptions of later Church-Governors, I urged not any fuch as abfolutely concluding,but with refpedl to others^ in whofe way of reafoning it was implied that his Exam- ple would be of fome Cojtfideratlon in this Cafe. But lac- knowledge a great Difterence between the BireBion, and confequently the>4«//;o;7fj of the o;;^, and of Xht other f notwithftanding which there maybe other Arguments for a fufficicnt -4«f ^o;7>_)' in later Church-Governors to pre- fcribe what is as truly for the Decency of God's Worfhip, as his Prefcriptions were. But I carl't but think it a little, and poor Exception which is here madeagainft my way of Exj^relfion : as if it were not all one to fay, St. Paul pre- fcribed fuch a Cuftom merely becaufe it was decent ^ and to fay, St. Paul prefcribed it on that and another Account alfo,becaufe he was directed to do it : lince he ought ne- ver to be fuppofed exempt from theDiredionof the Ho- ly Spirit -, and was directed to this by the Holy Spirit merely for the Decency of God's Worihip. It is faid like- wife,]?. 50. that St. Paw/'s Prefcriptions were about things not properly indif^ient:, that they wcvc expedient, a7id founded up- on moral Reafons. I grant it as far as Decency, and Order makcThirgs fo. And in this Senfe, hieeVmg at the Com- munion is not properly indifferent, but expedient, and foun- ded upon moral Reafons. And the fcrious Ufe oiGodja- thcrsis expedient in an higher Senfc, as it might beof great Ufcfalnefs in the Chrijiian Church : So likcwife is the Ufe {.fa good /.it m-^>' in the Public J^orjhip. But this Obfer- ^vation A Reply to Mr. Calamy. 5 1 7 vation doth not Ihew at all that St. P^n/did aiot prefcrihe fome Things not antecedentjj neceflary in the Senfe in which thofe Words have been ufed in this Controvsrfy a- bout the Prefcnptiovs in our Chtrch. There was another way of arguing I made ufe of to fJiew that St. P^wZ defigned not any thing in the 14th Chapter to the jRowaw^againft thePower of C/jwrc/^-Govf/-- mrs to p-efcribe, built upon the Conceffions, and Decla- rations of the diJfenthtgMhtiJier 5 thcmfelves. This Mr. Ca- hxmy hath thought fit wholly to omit : and I therefore now inlift upon it with fome Additions. 1, If theDefignof this Gijptf/- were to forbid future Chiirch-Govenwrs to make any Prefcriptions by which an}!^ fcrupulous Chriftians may be excluded from external Cow7K7/wfow with their ^/'^t/;/-^?;, then it forbids the Pre- fcription of the conftant Ufe of a Lhiugy •, which yet this Author in his Abridgment declares the greateft part of the Diffenters ready to comply with, as I have before iliewn. And I argue, if they can comply with tW,notwithftand- ing any thing in this Ch.wter, they may likewife with other Prefcriptions notwithllanding the Rules here laid down by St. Paul. 2. If the Defign of this Chapter be what this Author re- prefents it to be, it likewife as much forbids thePrefcrip- tion of the ordinary Ufe of a Liturgy, as it doth any other 5 becaufe by this it cannot be but that many fcrupulous Chri- Jlians muft be excluded-, and whalfoever this Chapter com- mands or forbids, it commands or forbids ordinarily as well as covjlantly. Notwithltanding this, Mr. Calamy alTures us in this htroduBion, not only that other diffenting Mi- vijlers have declared a Willingnefs, but that even he him- felf is willing to comply with the Prefcription of the or- dinary Ufe of aLitufgy. From whence I conclude that he may likewife comply with other Prefcriptions, notwith- lianding any thing in this Chapter. 5. I defire it may be confidered whether this Chapter, according to the Account given of it by fome, do not likewife forbid the making vnneceffary Prefcriptions con- cerning MiniJlersjWhich. muft exclude the Scrupulous from L 1 3 the 5 1 9 J Reply to Mr, Gala my. 1 'le Mlmfiry •, the rcqiiiri ng of them,, fgr inilaiice, the Siih^ f"'iptio-: '..f rhirty fixA/th. lesin order to t\\t\x Mhifiratio7t: fir why iTiould not ;rhis C/;j;?t^r; be likewi reinterpreted to tiM, citL-d,thar Perfons being duly qualify 'd for Mbiijiers, .oiight to be receiv'd, and prote*lted. as fuch, tho' they fhonld chance to differ from others in one or mcr^ of thofe numerous Prints treated rf, and iniply'd in thefe Aru- des ? And if notwithftanding this, fuch an mir.ecejfary Fre- fcnption as thh can readily be complyM with by the D'lf- feiiling Mhiifters^ I fee jiot how this Ch.rpter can hinder them from com-plying with o^/;tv.v. 4. If this C/;j/;i-^/' take from all any right of making choice of fuch Circiunjlavtials of jrorfiip, as exclude /crz*- pidoiis Cbrijiicpis from Communion j thtn doth it likewife ironi every one of the Independent CovgregaUons in Mr. Ca- Ia7}!y\s new Scheme. According to this Interpretation of it, it will not be lawful for the Majoritj^ cf anjr owq of them to agree upon th^<:o7//ri,-r;?t, or ordinary uCa of a Liturgy, tho' they Ihould think their Edif cation never fo much pro- moted by it : which is very hard, in a Scheme that pre- tends to fo much.Liberty. For b3r this .means many fcru- p ulcus Chnjlians will be either confi.mtly^ox ordinarily ex- ■ciuded : and according to this In rexpretationj it is the Du- ty of this Cow^/v^ati^w, not to refer the fcntpulotis Perfons to other Congregations^ (a method this Author on the like occafion recommends,)but it felf to receive them to Cojnmu- 9iion without any attempt to fend them to more diilant Cojt' ^rrgations.inwhich noLiturgy is ufed. For how other wife the Aides laid dou-n in tYAsChaptcr^ according to his Interpreta- tion can beobferved I fee not. Naj^jlfeenot but that accord- ing to him,St. Paid muft be fuppofed in this Chapter to pre- fcnbe Impoiid-)iliAies. For if he hereprefcribe any thingj concerning receiving to Chiirch-Covinmnion, it nmft be un- tlerflood of receiving the fcrvpuUxis here intended to a joint-pari icipation oYChriJFs Ordinances, at the famefi;//^, and the fame p/rtce. But fuppofe theJVlajority of a parti- cular Cf^igrcgation agreed upon a particular Ti*7«^,and a particular Form of Prayer, for the Celebration of the Lr.rd's Slipper y and fuppofe thefe two Particulars fcrupled by feme • ' . . - Jionefl ARepfytO'Mr.t^hmy. 5^9 'k(mt^Ch?'ffli^>}is'-,' I. derive to know what muft be done. It is impolhble they fhould be received to a common and joint-cel-ebrationof this Solemnitj : and for the Mhujler to admit them to Cr)7w;27Qt\ Church-Corn' 7nunion at all, it muft have a refpeft to the receiving all at the fame time :' And befidcs, being direded to the Chri- Jiian Laity, and not peculiarly to the C v-,c7, it cannot otherwife be cpmply'd with, but by receiving the fcntpit- lous there fpoien of at the faine time at which themfelyes communicate. For how, I pray, can they be faid to receive one another to CowwzHwfow, who com.municate miavoidably at diRind Times- 1 This, I think, is a Demonftration that St, Paul could not ill this Chapter, fpeak with refpea to fuch Scruples as we are concerned about ^ uhlefs he can hefuppos'il to enjoin hnpoffibilitie^, and Cotttradiaiomj and this V hope,' no one will fix upon him. At leafi: it is a Demonftranon that [nc]\ Sxjriiplei arenot here intended, a£ are inconfifteht with" Ghriftiahs communicating with one another at the fame time-, aiid confequently that St. Paul muft not be' fuppos'd here to fpeak of all forts of Scruples : and this is enough- 1^ overthrow the Interprer tation of this y^nf/;oA Thefe and the like Coniiderations make me think that St. Paw? could not intend -in- this C^^p-^;', to lay down Riilesto any other purpofe but this, that Chriftiansfliould love one another, and do all good Offices to one another, nothwithftanding their fmaller Differences ; that they fhould not be free to condemnone another for the fake of fuch indifferent matters, as Eativg, or not i:\ttf ?/^fuch par- ticular fort of Food ; that the ftrojig., i. e. Perfons of Judg- ment and Underftanding, fhould in all fuch Cafes bear with the Infirmities, and Miftakes of the weah : all which Kules, I am perfuaded, may be obfervM without admit- ting/-^ow^7? /t'"'''«p«Zo?/^ Chrijtiavs of all forts to the external Celebration of the 0^6t?5 of JR^/f^fow in every particular Church. But however this be, I hope Mr. Calamy will conlider with himfelf how to reconcile this Chapter with L 1 4 ' his; §20 A Reply to Mr, Calamy. liis own "Profefjions^ and his own Scheme^ as well as how tp objed it to others. Aficr I had anfwer'd the OhjeBion of the Bipntivg Mi- ?i2/^/-j taken from the 14th Chap, to X\\tRomans^ I pro- ceeded to fhew that themfelves were not free Reaf.ofConfor. from what they call Uwiecejfary Iwpojitmis: V 1. ]>. 96. an(i I inftanced in the Practice of Mr. Bax- ter^ than whom no Man hath more Follow- ers amongft them ^ and of the Iniependevts^ a numerous part of them •, laying nothing to their charge but what I found faid of them by this Author himfelf. The Svmmo^ the AnAver is, that this will not prove Uvfcrlptvral Impo- fitiovs lawful. Nor was I fo weak as to produce it for that Purpofe. But I hope it may be a good Argument to the Followers of Mr. Baxter^ and the Iitdepejidefits^ that it is iiot juftifiable to feparate from the EJtabliJIj'd Church in or- der to witnefs againft Lnpojitions •, and at the fame time to pradlife the fame thing fo much complain'd of, and to comply with it in their own Churches. ■ '"Thus have I endeavoured to anfwer all the Qhje^ioiis of this Author againft what I have formerly advanced con- cerning EccleJiaJIkal Lnpojitions in the EJiabViJh'd Church. 'Ihefecojid thing I undertook in anfwer to this hitrodu- ilion, was, II. Xo confider that Sche}?ie o£ Liberty which.is here pro pofed by Mr. Cala7?ty^ in opfofition to the EfialUfied Ms' thod : that fo we may fee whether thjt be free from the fame, or the like Objc&ions to thofe he hath made to the EJhbliJJjed Method. For if it do not appear at laft to be fo, this will I think furnifli a great Argument for an uni- verfalCompliance with the EJlabliJIment : it being a jult ground for our adhering to that, rathet then feparating from it, that thofe who have moft oppos'd it, and given themfelves moft Liberty to invent Methods and Schemes to fet up againft it, have not been able to propofe one to the World but what is liable to many of thofe ObjeBions, and Jnconveniencies which have been chiefly infifted on by this very Author, and his Brethren ia their Writings againft the Cauje of Conformity, ^yow^ '■' fif^ A Reply to Mr. Calamy. ' 521 Tirfi^ I fee not any Advantage to the Scrttpnlous in this Scheme^ which they are not as certain of enjoying under that to which I am prefTing Covformity. For I am not a- fham'd to own it as my Judgment, that together with the moft perfect EJiabliJ/ment that can be framed by Man, there ought always to be a Toleration and protedion for fuch weak and honeft Chriftians as are good and peace- able Subjedts to the Civil Covjlitution : and no other force ufed towards fuch but the force of fober, and good Rea- foning. And I obferve this the rather, becaufe Mr. Ca- lamy hath been pleafed in many places to drop fuch Ex- prelRons as naturally lead his Reader to think that all who plead for Covforviity to the Church 0^ Englajid^ are as zealous againjl the Toleration o^ Dijfenters as they are for their Compliance with the EJlahliJI)ment. So that as to this he hath no Advantage in his Scheine which I have not in jnine. Again, He will allow it an advantage in his own Scheme^ that all near Neighbours fhould join in the fame Form of Worfhip", and would think it not only a lawful, but friendly Office to endeavour to remove the Scruples of thofe who otherwife would differ from their Neighbours': I delire likewife that a more extended Uniformity may be thought an advantage to a Chrijlian Nation-^ and that it may not be judg'd an unchriftian or unfriendly Office to endeavour to promote it in the way of fair, and ferious Reafoning. However, this I am fure of, that as all that he can pretend to in his own way, with refpeclto fcrupu- lous Neighbours, is firft to endeavour to remove their Scruples by fober Difcourfe, and if that prove unfuccefs- ful, afterwards to refer tliem to other more diftant Cowjjrt?- gations • which is the Method he propofes on this Occafion j fo likewife may the fame fort of Perfons be dealt with in the way already eftablilh'd after the fam.e manner, viz. if their Scruples be incurable by the only Chriftian method of ferious Argument^ they muft be left to the ufe of that Liberty which is allowed them. But if this Author fhould ask, What if the Civil Magiftrate fhould debar them of all Juch Liberty ^ I reply by asking the fame Queflon, if his ' • • ' ^ -- ?.. T _, Schema} 522' cA RiSpfy to Mr, Cakmy. Scheme oi Indepsiicisnt Congregation were univerfally -re- ceiv'd, What if the, Mapjirate fhould require all within fuch a Diftrict tojoin wichfuch a particular Qovgregat'tonl I think it full as likel}?; that in fuch ; an 'EJiahliJIment -as he hath 'pVijcntQd.yihQ Magijif^ate iho.uld. prefs, and com- mand the Uniformity oi Si Neighbourhood ^?is that in any ot ther fort of Eftabliihment, he fhould prefs and command iht Uniformity o^ Si Nation. An^ if he reply that the c<^n- trary Suppofiticn is oar^ part of that Sche me' yNhich. he pror pofeth •, I anfwer, the like Suppofition is part .ofiimy Scheme likewife, and what I iliall always contend for 'Un- der the prefent EJIablifrd Scheme as zealoufly as he can do for it under any other M^we he can. think of. . Secofjdly, I fee not but that this new Scheme muft.lxi at- tended with Circumftances, and Confequences as bad, if not WDrie than wha> are feen to belong to the prefent EJlahtipment. For, ' .v ' . I. 7?he fame fortof evil Confequences will be found to folloW'Upon the raultit;ude of different m'odes of Worfbil> fet'up upon the jSt-^^«^ now before us, that are feen to follow upon thofe differences of Worih;p now amongft us J and thefe in gij^ater number, proportionable to that greater variety otM(?^(?5, which muff this, way be introl duc'd into our Churches. I muff beg leave here to fupS ppfe that Mankind will have much the fame Pallion^, and tht fame Tempers, even when this Scheme is eftabliilied, that they have now. And can any one imagine .that a number oi Neighbour s,\yi\\ not be difgufted that they i]uiil ejther conform to what, they do not like, or elfe befenf to fome.diffant place for an opportunity of Worfhip ? <^a9^, any one think that there will not b.e upon fuch occai^oiiSyi freqi-ient,. and zealous efforts for gathering Chiirches^ out> oiCljurches, and Violences amongft Neighbours to as greats a. degree as ever yet hath been known ?. "VVe fee this prac- tice in Tome places amongft the Dijfeuters thcmfelves at prefent, and made tnie occafion of great Heats, and Un- cbaritablenefs amongft, themfelves, even whilft the con- trary is fo miich their peculiar Intcreft : and may wc not ^xpeQ: the'like,or infinitely worfe, when there \yillbe'n9j eA Reply to Mr. Gala my, 525 fuch thing as a Common Cavfe^ and a Commoyt hiterefi, but every P/eacber will have a peculiar Intereft of his own to bias him, and every Congregation particular Notions, and Schejnes of their own, of which I doubt not to faj they will be generally as tenacious, as if they knew them to he o£ ApoJhUcalljiJlitiition ^ All will endeavour, (or at leaftfo profefsj to agree upon nothing but what the^ are direded toby the Will and Example of ChriJ}, and his, y^pofiles ^ and fo the Forms eflablifhed in every particular Covgregat'ion being all efteem'd to be Jure Divijw, or Jiu^ ^pojlolko^ the Zeal of Men will run high for their owiij (Honftitutions, and infinite muft be the Difputationg, and remarkable the Heat, and Zeal which will be occafion^d by thefe means. , For nothing warms Mens Heads like any Queftion that concerns their own Foim of Worfhip, . efpecially when they themfelves have had the ordering of all that relates to it. 2. Suppofing allin f)?/t: Parifh unanimous, and to con- fent and acquiefce in the fame Form of Worfhip, the In-, conveniences, and evil Confequences muft be ftill much greater than they would be, fuppofing all in all Parifhes to confent, and acquiefce in the Form already eftablifh'd. for by fuch an univerfal ilnlforvnty all thofe occafions of pifputation and Violence which are adminiftred bj?- the Difterences in Religious Wordiip, are wholly removqd : \vhereas a farochial Uniformity may be maintained, and yet it may remain too probable that numberlefs inftances. of Heat, and Violence,and Uncharitablenefs will proceed from the diftind v/aj^s'of Worlhip agueed upon in every*. ^[{tiwQt Neighbourhood. .' ' . VJ 3. As thele, and the like Confequences would too pro- bably be feen even after the Settlement of each particulajf Congregation in their feveral Forms of Worfhip ^ fo I fear the like, and much greater may be expedted at the Time when fuch Settlement is making. For then every Man will come prepared with his own Opinion, and many tvith an Expedation that their particular Judgment fhould be regarded ^ and all the Follies and Heats t]iat are gene- rally feen on all Occafions when any Point is to be car- ' '^ • - ' , ry'd 524 G^ ^fpb ^0 ^f' Calamy. ried by Majority of Voices, will be found in the Manage- ment before, and at the Time of thefe Determinations : only perhaps with this difference, that they may be the greater on this Occafion,becaufe of the Importance Men are naturally apt to judge to belong to every thing which themfelves think becoming the Worfhip of God. "Whether this Author allows to Women any Right of voting in this Cafe^ (as I am informed fomewhat equivalent to this is granted them in many of our feparate Congregations) I know not. If not, I think they may juftly complain of their being deprived of that Right ^wYiich according to his way of arguing muft belong to all Creatures capable of religious Worfhip, and be as contented to be concluded in fuch Matters by \}\q.ix public Governours, as by thtVotes of their Neighbours, and Relations. But if this Liberty be allowed to t^^7« like wife, fome new ^ejlioits, and Diffi- culties may be ftarted. It is an eafy Matter to anfwer to all this, that thefe In- conveniencies,and evil Confequencesow^/'t not to happen ^ that it is the Duty of Men to bear with one another's Dif- ferences in religious Worfhip ^ and the like. But alas ! this is not the ^lejlion ^ but whether it be not likely thus to te. In Theory it lignifieth little what a Man faith. He jnay make what Ecdcfiaftical Utopia sht pleafeth, and in- dulse his own peculiar Genius, and Judgment to the ut- moft. But in all Propofals, and Schemes which we draw up in o^der to be reduced to Pradice, we mufl fuppofe the World what it is, not what it ought to be •, the fame Ignorance, the fame S iperftition,the fame Zeal, the fame Refejitments, the fame Bigotry, the fame every thing which we have found hitherto amongfl Chrijlians : and we mufl propofe (like good Fhyfciajts) not merely what as abfolutely good in it felf, but what is fo with refpedt to the PrejudiceSj, Tempers,and Conftitutions, we know, and are fureto be amoiigftus. And the want of this piece o( Prudence is alone fufficient Vo overthrow any Scheme ^^ tho' never fo good, never fo perfect in it felf. Thirdly, I mufl obferve, that as this Scheme hath no Ad- vantage (^with refpedt to the Scrupilous) which the prefent + - '.p>- A Reply to Mr, Calamy. 525 EfiabliJIment hath not as juft a Title to ; and is likely to be accompanied with Circumftances, and Confequences as bad, if not much worfe than what are feen to belong to that •, fo likewife is it liable to fome of the chief, andmoft terrible ofthofeO/yV^/ow.? which have been with the great- eft Zeal urged againft the prefent Efiahlifhmejtt. Let us put the Cafe, that the major part of a Neighbourhood agree upon the Ufe of a Liturgy at the Time of the Celebration of the Lord's Supper : a Privilege which I fuppofe this Author will not deny to any of his Congregations, at leaft for their ordinary Way of "Wor{hip,becaufe he is ready to com- ply with this^ ftiould it be prcfcribed even by the Bipops, Now, I . The fame Invedtive may be made againft this, which hath been made againft fuch a Power in Biftiops. For I fee not but that this is as manifeftly making exclu- live Terftis o'i Communion ^ as manifeftly an Encroachment Upon Chrijl's Regal Power ^ as manifeftly a Confinement of that which C^/ij^ hath left free, as what is complained oV\n\.\\e^xt£entEJlahliJf)ment. This doth as effeftually exclude the Scrupulous from communicating in that Con- gregation in which they have as great a Right to com- municate as their Neighbours-^ and confequently is as much a confining to owe^fort of Chrijiians what their common Mafter hath left open to all : it is as truly an Addition to Chrijl's Inftitution,who left it without fuch an Incum- brance, and confequently is equally an Ufurpation, and Invafion of that Authority which he only is faid to enjoy. To fay that xht Scrupulous may go to anothei Congregation more to their Mind, is to fay nothing that removes the prefent Difficulty. For according to this Author himfelf, they have a Right to be admitted in this very Congregation upon the naked Terms of C/j;7/? himfelf : and why Ihould they either put themlelves to great Inconveniences by hunting after other Congregations more agreeable to them- felves •, or by giving up their own Right encourage an impofing Spirit, and EcclejiaJUcal Tyranny in thofe who have no Authority for what they do > To do this for the fake of the Good of the C/?K;c/;,and the Peace of the Neigh- bourhood, I confefsl (hould think glorious, according to the. 52^ A Reply to Mr. Calamy. the Isfotion of Glory, and Honour laid down in the (jof- pet. But this Author hath utterly precluded the Scrupu- lous from this Method of proceeding : which leads me to obferve, 2. That as the fame OhjeBlons lie againft this Power which he hath lodged in his Congregation's^ which have been made againft the like in Btfl)ops ^ fo the fame Argu- inents prove it unlawful to comply with the Prefcription of the mnjor part of a Congregatmi^ or Neighbourhood^ which have been ufed againft Cotnpliance with the prefent £/?a- hlijfment. 1 have obferved already that whilft the Scru- ples of the Perfons above-mentioned remain, they ought to infift upon their Right to be admitted into that particu- lar Co7i^regatio7i.whichhath out-vored them,upon the Jertni of the Gojpel : and not to give it up to an impofing, and nfurping Spirit. I now add, that fhould their Scruples be removed, with refpect to the material Lawfulnefsof the Liturgy agreed upon, they are ftill obliged b)'- this Author^ Principles not to comply fo far as to ufe conftantly the Foryn agreed upon by others. For how do they know how many other hjipofuions they may bring upon themfelves,- and Neighbours at this rate > How can they anfwer the giving Countenance to the lealt Additions ro Chrift's In- ftitutions ? Their Compliance would be an Acknowledg- ment of Authority in the major part of this Congregation to make fuch an Agreement : and how could the}^- ac- knowledge this without giving up all R^'ght in themfelves- to be admitted upon other Terms ? Shall they give up this Right for the fake o^ Peace ^ No. Peace is indeed a good thing .^ but fuch a Cojnyliance tends to Slavery, and to the Encouragement oi Church-Tyranny , and Peace is not to be purcbafed at fo dear a Price. Thus, I fay, might this Caufe be argued upon this Author's Principles, and the fame 0/y^c7i-;7/j brought againft Compliance under his Scheme which Jie hath brought againft Compliance with' the Eflahlijhed Method -^ and io a peipetual Foundation laid of Qiiarrels, and Anidioiities amongft Neighbours. ■ Add to this, ?. That the fame Objeclion may be drawn from Rotn, 1 4. againft this Method of proceeding with fcru- t pulous 'A^Repl) to Mr. Gahmy. 5^7 |i«?oitf I^erfons, which hath been alleged againfl the £/?^- HiJl)cdfhiiri h. f'or what is it that, according to this Au- tl^qr.,xi\^t Chapter enjoins ? Is it.not tjiat.the Scrupulous fhall i)e' received to Cqmvmn'ion ^ Andfhallany il^iwi/(^r,or any of ii^oSc independent Qongregatiom dare to refufe the receiv- ing .an.y C'lriftian' to Co?nmmion? And inftcad of receiving thqfe \vhom St. JfanZ orders to he received, fend them a- way to other diftant Congregations? How doth this anfwer his Intention, which was to alTert the.JR%/;t of fuch Per- fons to be admitted in. this particular Congregation ? But I have before fpoke.n of this ^ and :{hall not at prefent urge it any farther. : And v/hat fhall we iiow fay if thofe very OhjeBlom which have been urged by, this Author ,vjith. fo much Vehemence, and peculiar Zeal,.againft the ejlahlijl)- ed Method.^ are found to lie againft that Scheme, which he is fetting up in,Qppoiition to it ? ^e, n)ufi: conclude either that there cannot beany particular Scheme' invented which will be wholly free from what this Author calls nw- fcriptural Additions ^ or that till fuch ?i Scheme, be found, we may very well adhere to the EJlabUJfjed Church : and .alfothat it doth not become Men to phjed: iDtfcriptiiral Additions to the C/;Hrc/^, and at the fame time advance a new Scheme, in which they muft, a s /ar as appears, necef- farily admit therh. '.■,■■,. Fourthly^ I muffc obferve that this new Scheme is an en- tire Departure frorh the Principle s^kw^ Prdfeffions of thofe dijienting Minijlers^ vj^io^t Caufean a'peculiar manner^this y^zft^^r hath undeptalcen to defend-, as far as we can judge from tlT£ puUUc. Declarations hitherto made in their Names., That i^^^j were for ah EjiahUJIment of a very different nature from that of thisy;iii/it/jor is very evident. Tha.t'if hey judged the Right of determining Ceremonies in Worfhip to be in theO'i;// Ma^ipate^ this very Perfoii in this Introdu^ ion ,(;ont^'nds,,p. ,4,(^., when citing their '^W^prds, in which, they declare, ' that as to Ceremo7iies they wcrewilliiig to'.he deter7?iined by Authority,he adds, i. e. the Civil Authority, as appears from all their Papers. So that they acknowledged the Authority of the Civil Magi/Irate . in determining fome Circim^antials of religious JForfiip : whicii 5a8 _ ^J Rep!} t0 Mr, CAamy. which firigle Point makes an efTential Difference hettve^rf their Schetne^^ and, this new one, which is wholly found- ed on the Right p£ every particular Covgvegation to deter- mine its own Circumftantials ^ and on the Denial of any Right in any fort of Goverhours to do it for them. I men- tion this not as if I thought it a good Argument abfolute- ly confidered againft the juftnefs and Goodnefs of this Scheme ^ but in order to fheWfhe i?^^ What fuch Relation between thefe two forts of Inftances, that Comphance may not be a Duty in the former, and yet*be a Duiy in the latter ? For fince it may be true that Chr'ijl'iamty mav oblige us to a Compliance with what we imagine to be IFeahiefs in others, in/ow^Inftances, notwithftanding that it do not fo oblige US in all, it cannot be a good Argument, to fay, "We are not obliged to comply in all things, therefore not in any thing : but the only Point is to confider whether the Jw- Jiances of which we are now fpeaking, be of the number of thofe in which we are not oblig'd to comply : which can- not be prov d from the prefentArgument,without {hewing that they are exaftly parallel to the other Inftances here produc'd • without ihevving, for Inilance, that it is as ab- lurd, andunreafonable^ as impradticable, and uneafy^ as inco^ififtent with the fpending our Time well, to kneel at the Commmiion in CompUanee with others ^ as it is to drefs and undrefs, to eat and drink, to laugh and frown, and to regulate all fuch fort of Anions according to the Nod^ an. I Cuftom of the moft humourfome of Men. 'Till this be ihewn, it is in all refpefts ^s good an Argument as this to fay, Wc are not obliged to fing, and dance, and fiddle, and hunt, and dig,- and run, and ftand, as long, and as of- ten as our Humourfome AVighbours : t'lerefore we are ob- liged to comply in 7iothiiig for the fake of the Feace, and ^(iet of tJie Neighhoiuhood : the Weaknefs of which I need not Hand to demonftrate. But, 2 In order to come nearer to the Cafe before us, Suj.- pofe I liv'd in a Family, in which once a AVeek the Mafer of it reqair'd all to come to Rrayer, andtoufethepofture oi Kneeling at Vrayer, Suppofing it mv Opinion that he had no right to prefcribe me what pofture to ufe in that Duty-, nay, fiippofingldidin miy Judgment prefer Stand- ing J yet when 1 fliould conllder that I can lawfully kneel, and that my not Kncclingmaj probably be the occafion ofan t/;ic/;;7/?/.'3;7/Pairion, and Refentment, and Qiiarrel, Jihould think my felf oblig'd to comply for the fake of M m 4. ' Peace, 5^6 J Reply to Mr. Calamy. Peace, anrl might jnftly be efteem'd to have little regard to the quicr of the Family, if I did not. Nor would it be any Excufe for my Behaviour or my little regard to Peace, to allege that the Majlei- of the Family hath as little, in making it to depend on fo indjfFerent a matter : it being P. poor alleviation of the Crime of ow^ Perfon to fay another is guilty of the fame. Nor doth it alter the Cafe with re- fpect to me, whether the Majler barely recommend this Fofinre, or require it after fach a manner as that I ihall be excluded from FajnUy-Prayer, if I do not comply. lam ftill obliged to prevent the aforefaid evilConfequenceby my Conipliaiice, fincc that doth not imply in it any ac- Icnowlei^gnient of his Authnihy Why not likewife from all obligation to fubfcribe Thirty Six Articles upon the InjiinBion of the Civil Power > And if notwithftanding this Argujneiit thefe Impojitions can be fubmitted to, I deiire a Real on why 0- thers may not, notwithftanding any thing contained in this Argument •, lince they are enjoined b}'" as competent an Authority, and Compliance to them would have at leaft t as 5^8 G.4 Reply to Mr. Calaniy. •as h?.pp3r an EfFcd upon the Good and Intereft of the Chrijlian Church. Add to all this, that the fame Vower which hath ejfta- fclifhed one Form of Worfhip, doth not fo rigoroufl)^ re- quire a Covipliance^ but t\\2it. Liberty^ andProte^ion are granted to ail fcnip^ilcus Covfciejices^ as they have been for many Years, and are now (bleffed be God) likely to be continued to all Pofterity. This, I iliould think, accord- | ing to what is here faid, to be a great Encouragement to Men, who think the Matters themfelves lawful, to Jliidy Compliance •, and an Inducement to them tc give up the . Liberty fo much talked of to the Feace^ and common Good • of the Church, and Nation. But I hope there need no more Words under this Head to ihew the Unreafonable- nefs of arguing, that we are not obliged to comply in all indifferent Things for the fake of Peace, and therefore not in the fcrupled Prcfcr'iptmts : for ilTice in fome Things, (tho' nor in alt) we are obliged to comply for the fake of fuchaGood^ the EJlablifi'd I'refcriptmts msij be of the number of thofe things, notwithftanding any thing im- plied in this Argument to the contrary. The Second Argument is that which I find here ufed,p. 77, 78. that fomeof the Impofitions in the Efiablijlid Church are pure Innovations upon divine WorJInp, as the Scripture hath fetled it, plain Additions to one of Chrijl's Sacrainents^ which alter the Injlitution : and to comply in thefe for the fake of Peace is to renounce the Purity of the Ordinances that Chrijl hath fixed in his Church for the fake of Peace. The Injlances particularly named are the Ufeofthe Sign oftheCrofs after Baptifn-^ ^nd the Ufe oi Spo7ifors'at that Solemnity : the Compliance with which is here inlinuated to be unlawful ; and fo not to be fubmitted to for the fake oi Peace. Now, I. This alters the j^z/^/zo 7z propo fed in this part of the IntroduBion entirely : which is,How far we ought to comply with tilings lawful iov the fake of the Public Good:, not whe- ther we ought to comply with any thing unlawful on that account, which I know not to have been affirmed by an^r Writer of tlic EJlabliJb''d Church ^ and therefore cannot imagine why tliis Ar^u)}ient is here made ufe of, unlefs it ^ were 'qA Reply to iWr. Calamy. 539 were left" otherwife what \\\h Author had to fay againft Compliance m^\\t be thought to lie within too narrow a Compafs. He hath fpent his Zeal fufficiently againft the things themfelves in debate, in other parts of his Work : and fufficient Jieiilies have been made to what he hath al- leged. Bui hov/ever that be, the jRe^^-/er might be left to jiicige of all Matters in their proper places : the only Behate here is concerning CofnpUaiice with things fuppos'd in t cmfelves ioht jiijllf able and lawful It would there- fore be the beft way to refer t^^e Reader to what hath been faid, in its proper place in Juftification of tlie things here mention d. Bi^t left this ftiould feem only an Evafion, and ^o prejudice the Cavfe I am maintaining, I ftiall here add fomething, in a very few Words,fufficient to counter- balance what is here urged. Let it therefore be confider'd, 2. That whatever is agreeable to the nature, and de- lign of any InJiituUon of our Lord's, may be ufed at the folemn Celebration of that Infthutlon without the imputa- tion oiAddiTtg to Chnfs IvJIitution in any fenfe unlawful, or difpleafing to God •, efpecially when it is declared by- all who ufe it that it is not, and ought not to be under- ftood to belong to the E(fence^ and Validity of the hjlitu- tion it felf. Thus for hflance^ The ufe of Vocal Bayer at the Celebration of Baptifm is not fo necefiary but that Baptifm in the Name of the Father, the Son, ajid the Holy Ghofl, is fufficient without it -, and fometimes in^ latter times neceffarily admftiiftred without it ; as it pro- bably was in the very Firji Days • of Chrijiianity, efpeci^ ally when great Numbers were baptiz'd at a time ^ for we read in the ^45^ o£the Apojlles nothing to make us fuf- ped the ufe of any additional Circiimjiances. Yet the ufe of Vocal Prayer at that folemnity is pradis'd by the Non- conforming, as well as Conforviivg Minijlers, becaufe it is efteem'd to be agreeable to the Nature of that Injlitution •, but not becaufe it is necefiary to the Validity, or Effence of it. .This ftiews, therefore, that it is not uulawtul to ufe what is,ftrictly fpeaking, an Addition to Chrifs Infti- tiition. For tho' this Author is pleafed in another place to urge that IvjiinBion of St. PavVs, Pray without ceafng, upon this Head r yet I cannot conceive how that toucheth this • - " Point Point fo far as not to make Vocal Prayer an addition to the Ivpuit'io-n of Baptifm. Fnr neither doth the Apoflle in that Paifage fpeak peculiarly or Public Prayer in a Chrif- tia-n Corgregatioit^ but iirohdhlj o[ Private Prayer : nor doth he fpcak particularl}^ of Fbc^Zand Audible Prayer : nor can he be fuppofed to imply by this Precept that the Admint- Jl) ation oiEaptifm neceflarily requires Vocal Prayer : which if it do not imply, it cannot be to this Writers Purpofe. This Author likewife allows "the Addition of fome fort of Spo7tfors: which yet equally comes under the Imputation of being fuch an Addition to the Injlitution oi Chrijl^ as he left it, as is not necelTary to the Validity of it ^ and e- qually fecms to reflect upon the JmperfeBion of his hijlitu- tion. What I wou'd infer from hence is, that it is not a fufficient 0/>/^c7zow againft the Ufeoianj thing at that So- lemnity that it is an Addition to Chrift\ Inftitution, cr that it is not neceiTary •, v/hich yet this Author feems to think fufficient-, but that it is an Addition of fuch a Na- ture as is not agreeable to the defign of the Ljflitiition^anA takes oir'from theacceptablenefs of the Ojfice to God. 'This is a very diftind: Point from the other ^ and in order to fhew that this cannot be provM of the PrefcriptioJis heie mentioned, I have the two following Obfervations to pro- pofe. I. It is proper, atid agreeable to the nature, and deiign of [}if ant- Baptifm that there fhouldbe fomething in the. fice appropriated to that purpofe,by which ihchfants fhould know when they are come to Years of Difcretioii that they are oblig'd, by the Coven J7it made in their Names tit Baptifm, themfeives to believe in Jefus Chrif ^^nd to live fuitable to fuch a Faith -, or otherwife not to exped any Be- nefit from the'iv Baptifn. Now whatever fmalllmpropriety there may be in fome Expreffions ufed, yet fince this is declared to be all intended in that part of the Oj^ice of 6/70M- fors fo much cavil'd at, both by the Church in the ( itblia Catechifn, and by the Principal Defenders of the Caufe of Conformity, it is extremely unacco'ini able that 2iY\y Perfons fhould raiher refolve to fix a ftranger and harder Inter- pretation of their own upon this, than acquicfce in fuch Declarations. At lealt there is fair Leave given to all to in- terpret this iviatter thus-, and coniecjuently nothing in this iuiposd J Reply to Mr, Calamy. 541 jmposM upon them to vfc^ or to perinit to be ufcd, tut what is agreeable to the Chrijiian Religion^ and to the encL oi'htfant Bapt7f7n. 2. Nor is it improper, or difagreeable to the nature of this hjlitution, after the Perfon is Bapiiz'd, to declare him a Chnj:ia7t, and under the Obligations of a Chfifiian, whether this be done by Words only, or by other fort of Sigvs only, or by JTords, and Sigvs whole Intention is declared fufficiently by Words join'd to them at the fame time. Accordingly after the Baptifm is com- pleatly ^ver, it is agreeable to the Irjlitiition to declare the perfon fo baptiz'd to be a C^ ijl'iav. and as furh to be un- der all the Obligations of the Chrijiian brofeffion^ by fig7i~ btg him with thefign of the Crofs, and declaring at the fame time that the ufing that Cerejnojiy is to this Purpofe, and to thin only. This is all that is, or ever was in ended by the ufe of this Cerejtiony^ before which the Baptifm of the Perfon is declar'd by the Public ABs of the Church to be fufficient and valid. To fay therefore that this looks as if Baptifm were not compleat without it, when both thofe who conform, and thofe who diflent univerfally be- lieve and acknowledge it to be fo, is ftrangely unreafo- nable. To rejed it on this account, or becaufe it is an unneceifary Addition to the Infiitiition^ is to caft the fame Reflexion upon any Prayer, or Tha7jkfgivi7ig, which is e- qually an Addition, and equally implies that the Bap- tifm already performed is not valid without it. And to fay that it is an AMitio7i fo difagreeable to the nature of this l7iftitiitio7i, as that it cannot iitly be ufed in it, is to fajT" fomething wholly diftind from the prefent Ohje8io7t, and what I verily believe cannot be provVl without putting fuch an TnterpretatioTt upon it as thofe whoprefcribe^ind iifs it do utterly difclaim : a Pradice indeed which hath been very much us'd in this Co7iLroverJy, but I think not very agreeable to Minds difpos'd to Uiiiiy and Agree7ne'nt. Let it not therefore be again faid by this zealous Author^that to perfuade Chriftians to fubmittothe ufe of Spmifors, and of the O'o/i-, in the Celebration of Baptif7n, is to perfuade them to renounce the PwnV)! ofChrif's Ordi7iance, till he can prove that the jfp ofthefe TwoPrefcriptiojis deftroys the Fwity Fiirity of the Ordinance ^ a Point which I fhould think it woul;l better become him not to infift upon, as for the fake of the Frotefiant Church eftablifhed amongft us, fo for the fake of thofe whom he fometimes glories to follow. In the mean while it is fome Satisfaction that when fuch fort of Charges are to be brought as prove a fmgle Com- pliance as unlawful as a covjlant one, Recourfe is had to this Office ; and no fuch Charge brought againft the ordim^ ry Offices of our Church, on which our Controverjy chiefly turns, and in which all Chrifilam amongft us are concerned. In thefe I hope I may fay he himfelf acknowledges that there are no Additions deJfruBive of the Purity nf Chris's In- Jiitution, unlefs he would be fuppofed to hold it lawful ever to renounce that Purity by complying with what de- ftroys it : which would effedually take away all Force from that ObjeBion of his which I have been now confider- ing. But then he makes ufe of other Arguments againfi: a conjiant Compliance even in the ordinary Offices of our Church, which I muft now proceed to examine. The l^hird Argument of thofe which I can difcover in this /wf-roiw^ioyz againft fuch a Comyliance as I have been preifnig is this, which is very frequently in the Mouth of this Author, and particularly inlifted on, p. 74, If a Coju-' pliajice rcithfome Things he requijiteforthefale of Peace, who can fay, where we {J)all Jiop ? Mujl we comply with all Toings jiot Jhf III for Peace fake ^ Jfhat if Minijiers were obliged to p7'each with an Helmet on, to read always with SpeBacles, to cofue to Church on Crutches^ iHmt if the Romiih Ccrhno7iies in Bapliftn, infolemn Feflivals, in Cojifecration of Churches, inExorcijmg, 8cc.JI}ould be injijiedon ^ MuJl all who will not comply be thought wipe ace able ? Or if the Obligation reacheth to fome Things only, it is hard to fix Limits, and to give Rea- fonsfor them when we have done. I. The firfi: Anfiver I fhall make to^ this wild Reafoning {hall be only to draw it up in the Forin of a Syllogifn, in whicii the Force of it will the more plainly appear. The Obligation to regard the Peace of the Church doth not extend to all poffible Injiances in jrhich Governors may require our Cojnpliance : therefore it extends to no Injiances at all. If this J Repy to Mr. Calamy. 543 be t}\e Coikhijion this Ifriter would draw, I defire to Icnow what means his own Acknowledgment, that all Chrijliam are obliged to regard it next to their own Purity ^ lince this again deftroys all fuch Obligation. If this be not the Conchijion he intends, all this Argimejit lignifieth nothing to the purpofe. For if notwithftanding this there lies an Obligation upon Chrijllans to comply infotfie Things, the fcrupled Prefcriptiovs may be of that ^Number for ought any thing here faid to the contrary. Again, It is hard to fix thejufl Lhnits of this Obligation- or to poijtt out plain-' ly to what Bounds it extends : therefore what ? Therefore there is no fuch Obligation at all to comply in any Inltan- ces. This muft be his Inference^ if he delign any thing by this Argument aga'ni^ Covi^liancc. And I appeal to all the World of C^/v/ww^if all the Duties of the Gofpel may not be argued away after the fame manner. For inftance, it is hard to determine exadly what a Proportion of my E- ftate I am obliged to beftow in Charity •, therefore I am not obliged to beftow any part of it. It is hard to fix the exadl Bounds of oir Obligation to Tetfipcrance -, therefore there is no fuch Obligation. It is hard to fix the exadt Meafures oi Jujiice in all manner ofTrade,and Co?njnerce • therefore there is no Obligation to it in any Inftances. It is hard to fix the Bounds of jnutual Condefcevfion amongft Chrijliam •, therefore there is no fuch Duty. But if this Author diiclaim the Conchijion I have fixed upon his Rea- foiling as I hope he doth, then it is vifible to Perfons of the lowefi: Capacity that there is nothing in it againft the Lawfulnefs or Becomingnefs of fubmittmg to the ejiahlijlj- ed Prefcriptions for the fake of Peace. For if i!: do not fol- low from it that Compliance in all indifferent Inftances is unlawful, it may be true, notwithftanding any thing here alleged, that Compliance in the difputed In Jiances is both law- ful, and our Duty. It may be true that i am not obliged to fubmit to an Hundred Ceremonies for the fake of Peace ^ yet may be obliged, notwithftanding this, to fubmit to Three. It mkj be true that I am not obliged to fubmit to a Number of indecent, and ridiculous Obfervances •, yet I may be obliged, notwithftanding this, to fubmit to Three which are uol lb. But, 2. The 544 J Reply u Mr. Calamy. 2. The fame A>jiimevt will equally conclude againfl: the CovipUance ot this Author and his Brethren with the Subfrrifition required of them by the Ovil Power. For they arc no more, obliged to fubfcribe all Articles which may be impofed, than thev are to comply with all CeremoJiies which may be impofed : and it is as hard to fettle the ex-^ ad Number of Articles they are obliged to fubfcribe, as it is the exact Number of Ceremonies they are obliged to com- ply with : and confequently, according to this Argument, they are not obliged to fubfcribe any- Articles ^ iince the Mai'iftrate hath no Authority, according to this Author, to interpofe in this Cafe. If, therefore, notwithftanding this ObjeBion, they think it reafonable to comply Co far as to fubfcribe 96 Artides 5 it may likewife be reafonable to comply fo far as to fubmit to Three Ceremonies. The fame may be faid w^th refpedt to other Inftances o^ Compliance, which have been propofed in the Name of the difenting Minijlers : but the Application is fo eaf}^ that I need not infift r.pon it. ^. With the Leave, therefore, of this Author I mufl: f ly it again, that it is fufficient Satisfaction to this ^lefion^ i Where mult we ftop in this CompUaiice in indifferent Cir- ciitnfances of^JFo?fjip £oT the fake of Peace ^ To anfw'er, When our Impofcrs prefcribe vain,fenjlefs, indecent, ridicvlous Ceremonies ', or- a tronblefome Number of any fort to burthen th6 Public Worfhip. This Author replies in his facetious way, A.pleafant Fancy ! As if any Impofers of common S'7ife would 07PJ1 the Cercrnonies they introduce to be vain, or indecent, &c! I am the lefs furprized at this, becanfe I have found him fo often ufing the fi re artful way of making his Advcrfary ridiculous, viz. firlt fixing aSenfe upon my Words which he thinks he can eafih^ put out ol" Countenance -, and then making himfelf plcafant wiih it. This I have reafon to complain of here : for I know it's impolilble for him to have been led by any of my Words to think me fo void of common Senfe as to make tne Impofers Judges in this Cafe. When I fay that we are obliged not to comply when any thing /;//«/ is impofed,- would not any fair Difputant un- derftand this of things which jpe our felves (not the /w- pofen) J Reply to Mr. Calamy. 54 5 pofers)thinkJiiiful. So wheli I fay that when rWictihus, and bitrthejifome Ceremonies are impofed, we may then with rea* fon complain 0^ Goveriwngoing beyond their Authority^ woiild not any one who was willing to underftand me,, interpret this of Ceremomes which we our felves, not the Impofers, think fo ? Or would any one, who is flncerely difpofed to fet Things in the beft Light, invent another Senfe which cannot without the greateft Abfurdity have been inteiided ? I confefs, tho' this Author hath taken no particular Notice of it, that with refpedl to the Point of Co?npUa7tce with hnpofed Ceremomes, I have not exprelFed my felf fo clearly in that Vage (P. I. p. 83 J to which he here refers, as I could wifli. For I there ufe fiich Words as may be underftood by fome to fignify that Cnmpliavcs may be a Duty, let never fo many and odd Cercmoiiies (not unlawful in themfelvesj be impofed : tho' indeed a candid Reader will fee from my very Words that I fpeak this only o^ Ceremonies of which the worft that can be faid is, that they had betternot have been commanded, But I take this Opportunity to declare it to be my Judgment, that there may be fuch a Complication of Circiimjlances, and C?- remonies in lf^o?-Jlnp (which cannot be faid to be in them-- felves finful) fo deftructive of the Simplicity of Chrijlian Devotion ^ fo repugnant to the End of the feveral Offices of it, as that it may not be fitting for Chrijlians to comply with them on that Account. I wifh indeed it were in my Power to determine exaftly the due Number,and Quality 0^ Ceremomes to be complied with, fo as to fatisfy every Body concerned. But this is not the only Cafe in which we are forced to come fhort. The like cannot be done with refpedt to any other of the moft momentous Points of Evangelical Obedience, We can do no more than lay down a general Rule, which we mull leave to the Confci- ences of Men, as in the Sight of God, to apply to them- felves in particular bijlances. For thus it hath pleafed God^ even in the moft material Points, to leave Something to the Judgments and Confcienccs of Men to determine for the7nfelves, that he may judge them according to iheir Behaviour in fuch Determinations, as it is truly and tho- N n roughly YQXi^hW Jiiicere, and upright, or drawn afide by Pafilon, or Intereit, or any worldly or carnal Ivjptive. It appears therefore that I make the People themfclves Judges con- cerning the Things impofed upon them : which wholly dtliro3^s aUthe iSu/tctp^/^of this y^Hi/;o;-, and returns them upon his own weak, and groundleis Miftake. ^ (Ifiall only'. add that it is impoJlibie, by th& Rule I hav^ now laid down, for any to judge Coviplimce with the eJfMilxedVre- Jcnptlons for the fake of Feace to be unbecoming a Chr'ijii- an. Kneelhig 3.t. the Coimniinion is the only Cerenwyiy in wliich all Chrijlians are concerned : and no one can think this, fuppofing it lawful, to be either indecent^ oThrtheji- fome. Nor can the Tfo other difputed Impofitlona^ in wliich generally t/^j only are concerned who have Childrev^ add to the Number fo as to make it intolerable. The jirjl of thefe I am chieflv concerned about, becaufe it belongs to that part oiWorjhip in which ia\\ChnJlians ought to bear a IJgtrt o bu^ if any of thefe CharaSen can be fixed upon that Cefem^vy, it will be proved unfit ever to comply with it, as well as always. For upon this Suppofition it is:as un- becoming a Chrijlian to comply with it onie ajear for the fake of L7Ai!/-it)», as once a Mowt/j j whereas the Perfons I am concerned with will not contend againft it thus iar. The Refuk of what I have faid is this, that the true way of arguing againft aCowp/z^wc^withour Prefcriptions re- lating to the Worlhip of God is not, to fay, we may as well be required to comply with numberlefs, vain, inde- cent Ccremoyi'ws^ as with the ],vf^^?z/-, which is falfe^ or that it is hard to fix tJie exad Meaiiires of Coinpliayice^ whicli yet cannot dilfolve our Obligation to itinfome Inftances-, but to' prove that the particular Inftancesin which we are called upon to comply ^hiq fuch as it is unbecoming a Chri- fi'ian to co'mply witii, either for their Number or ^lal'ity. Nothing but this can take ofr'our Obligation to the great Duty 0£ Qmdefceijjiojt, and Co7}!plia7ice : and therefore the Argument I am now eonfidering is of no force. fof that Purpoic, , . Fourthly jTJye Arpitmnt againft CofiJpU.iince'whichrtema to weigh molt with this Author, to be.moftfrecjuently in his J Reply to Mr. Calamy. <^47 his Mouth, and to he thought moft fufRcient of it fclf to defend his Caufe^ is taken from thai Evcouragemetit Complr ance would give to Meji of impofmg Spirits to add more and wore TmpoJitio7is, and from the Unlawfulnefs of giving fuchan Encouragement. This iingle evil Confequence of Compliance he thinks fufficient to counterhalance all the ^ood Confequences of it, and as fuch i-)ropofeth it, p. 52. and again inlifts upon it, p. 77. and agreeably to this, p. 79. alleges that Separation Is necejfary,asit is a difowning that Power which is itnwarrdntahly pretended to, nay, fatly fnfiil, when it is exercifed in the making vnnecefary Pre- fcriptiom ^ and as it is the only way of difowning it which can he of any Signifcancy. This way oi arguing deferyes fe- rioufly tobeconlidered ; and that the Tendency of it may- be fully feen, I offer thefe following Obfervations. I. Suppoiing a Compliance to encourage an impofngTem- per in fome Men, this is not a fufficient Reafon againft it. Our Saviour hath made Conipliance and Condefcenfon, Pla- cability and Forgivejiefs^ the Duty of Chriftians, tho' thefe Virtues may be faid to encourage fome Men in their pro- fccuting the Innocent with hjuries : nor did he think it enough to forbid any Man to be injurious to his Neighbour ^^ but Hkewife lays it upon the injured Perfon, not always to iniift upon his own Right, but to be ready to yield, comply^ and forgive, for the flike of the Peace^ and ^iet o^ Humane Society . Compliance in the ordinary Ufe of a Liturgy^ to which this Author flill profeflcs a Readinefs, encourage .h an impofing Spirit : for according to himfelf no one hath Right to prefcribe even thato;'iz7;^/*>'£{/^of one: yet he thinks this lawful, and expedient ^ otherwife fure- ly he would not declare his Inclination to comply with it. Compliance in the fubfcribing 96 Articles, upon the In- junction of the Civil Magiftrate, who hath not, according to this y^K^^or, Authority to enjoin this, is an Encourage- ment of an impofing Spirit : and as this Author loves to ar- gue iometimes, how doth he know but that this Compliance may tempt thofe in Power to im-^- i^Q I'oo Articles upon him and his Brethren ? Yet is this accounted lawful, and fitting to be fubmitted to, notwithftanding that the w^ant Nn 2 . of 548 ^ ^^py to Mr, Calamy. 0^ Authority in the Itnpofe/s^ and the fear of more Tinpojt' tiofis^ plead as ftrongly agaiiift Compliance in tJiis Lt;/t?,as in the f':nipled bijiances. It ;s manifeft, that in tiic Cafe of this Snbfcriptlon they deterihinc tlienifelves merely by the nature of the Propoiitions to he fiibfiribed to, and very ea- fily fvt^allow all tlie Difficulties they luge in other Cafes ^ of the Danger and Unlawfulnefs of giving any Encourage- ment to the Encroachments of an jifij)oJi>ig Vomer : whicJi methinks Ihould make them the more re^dy to own that the true Re a fans for Non-coinpliance in the Cafe before us, muft not be taken from the want of Authority in Lnpofers^ ov horn the Fear of ejicourapng an bnpojing Spirit^ which will equally conclude againft all CoJtipliavce^ but merely from the nature of the Ceremonies actually prefcribcd. But to xeMe Compliance in one Cafe againft which thefe 0/7>(?io7/5 lie, and to pradife it without Reludance in a- ;;of/j^/- againft which they equally lie, is not conliftent, but ftrangely unaccountable .• and overthrows the whole Force of thefe ObjeBions^ by fliewing that Compliavce may be lawful, and honourable, tho' the Impofers have no Au- thority^ and fhould be encouraged by it to proceed in their impofvg Humottr •, and that it is Tmie enough to think of Non-compliance wlien the Impoftions tliemfelves are fuch either in Quality, or Nmnber^ or both, as cannot fitly bfe complied with by Chrijliam : which is tlie Point I am la- bouring to bring our Controyerf)^ to. I can eafily appre- h'end that a Coynpliajice may be unlawful, when every one cf the Inftances in which it is required may be faid to be fuch as is not in it felf, as to the Matter of it, finful : and therefore am not concerned in what this y^«f/;o; urges for the Proof of this. But then I think there can be no Proof of this as to the Cafe before lis, but by proving the hupo- ftions efablified fuch as deftroy the End, or corrupt the Simplicity, or by their Number intolerably burthen the Celebration of God's Worlhip^ not by arguing from fuch Topics as wc fee equally deftroy the Lawfulncfs of Co/w- pliiuicem thole Inftances in whicli this ^z/f/;o/and his Fol- lowers arc willing to pradife it thcniielves. Laft of all, Supppfingthat a Compliance would give Encouragement to A Replj! to Mr, Calamy. 54^ to fome mpojivg Tempers^ I appeal to the whole World of Ch/ifliavs, if it be not a greater Evil tohave^a^iy hand in giving Occafion to that inichnfl'hw Bchaviouj: which is founded upon our religious Differences, than to praftife a • CompVance^ and Condefcenjiov, from which fome may take Occafion to do their Parts towards the prefcribing more Ceremoiiiex in the Church. The bad Confcquc^nces of the former Method are prefent, and apparent : the bad Con- fequences of the Ijtter are not to come till tJiofe Perfons have carried their Point : nor are they to be equalled to what we have feen to follow from the former^ upon any probable Suppofition. And again, I appeal to all who underftand the Gnfpel, whether it be not nmch more agree- able to the Genius of it, to praftife Forhearavce^ and Com- pliavce till the very Time comes, when we find Men fo encouraged by it as adlually to impofe Ceremonies incon- ^iftent with theEnd,or nature of iif/7j?fo7/,and GWs Wor- fliip, and then to re'^ufe a farther Compliance: whether this, I fay, be not much more agreeable to the Genius of the Gofpel^ than to refufe Co7ripliancezt prefent, not becaufe the Ceremonies, now impofed, are not fit to be complied with^ (For this Argument fuppofeth the contrary j but be- caufe our Compliance may occafion the introducing fm'h Ceremonies and Forms in Times to come, as it may not be fit fox Chrijlians to comply with. One thing I am fure of, that in this Method there can be no fuch thing as mutual Compliance in the moft indifferent Matters for the fake of Peace, becaufe this ObjeBion lies c;er cS Church-Men than ever it is likely to be again, there was not one lingle Cerejnovy added to tht Chnrch-JKorfjip : which Obfervation as itis very much to their Honour, fo it is fiifticient to filence this mighty Feav oi^ move Ceremonies. Itis not what one Man, or a few have faid in their Palhon, that is to determine the Reafonablenefs of this Fear ^ but what is in the IHll, and Power of a Majority o^rnlirgClergy. And asExperiejice hath Ihewn that they have not hitherto once publicly attempt- ed to introduce more Ccremo7iies, fo is it much more un- likely t]i5in.ever that fuchan Attempt fhould befuccefsful, , either A Reply to Mr, Qzh^Y. 5 5 1 eit'her i« the prefent, or future Times : and is not this 'fufficifeitt to take away the Force of the prefent ObjeSiov, iwholly founded upon the Fear of encouraging the Impo- iTtionofmore Cercmoiires ^ For if cvcnas things ftand at prefent there doth not appear to be /r?"/?, and Fciper enough to do it: hluch lefs will there be when a Number of Meai comply who will be agahi/i all fuch Attempts. I (hall only add, that th€ Remainder of any Degree of what is here called the htipojing Spnt^as, far as I can judge, is wholly kept alive, and yigorcvus by the Mit ^sby fuch a Compl'^ance asl h?.\^Q been fpeaking of. ^ ^. To the latter \^^x\ of the Argument now before me i reply, that fuppofing it fatly JiJi fid mGovermrs to exer- cife tlieir Po\)ver in making what you call imveceffary Ire- fc)iptid7ti\ it may, notwithftanding this^he Sis fi atly Jivful in btheh to refafe CorripUaiice in fuch P/efcriptiovs ^s can- not befaid todeftroy the End, or Acceptablenefs of pi- vim Wb'rpip : ds it may be flatly Jivful in any Man to in- vade my J^i^^e- in a Matter'of no great Impertance^ and may likewife Idc flatly fnifid in me not to recede fronji this ^"^.^k for the fake of Peace, and the Public Good. ^^Ojrwill it be anyExctife for my .Sin,that another is likewife guilty nf Sin. Let it be therefore that Governors iin in making t{)!necrlfctry Prefcriptiojis '^ it may be equally true, that o« fhers iin in notcomplj^ing with them : becaufe the Dvty 0^ Titferio?-s doth not merely refped: their Governors-^ but they are bound to regard the Good of the whole Church ot Chrijl, and to take that lawful Method which moft con- duceth to the Encreafe oi Peace mid Charity, whether their Governors have done their Duty, or no : and may be ob- liged to give up their Right for the fake of the Public Good, tho' not for the fake of their Governors. 4- Laft of all, I offer tliis to Coufl deration, that Co7ripli' mice in the Cafe we are now confidering is perfedly coniift- ent with the difowning the Authority of thofe who im- pofe thefe Ceremome^ in this Impoftiov, and therefore not - Kn 4 ne- 552 J Reply to Mr, Calamy, necefTary to that Purpofe. As the receding from a Right invaded bv an injurious Neighbour doth not imply in it an Acknowledgment of his Right to invade it : As the con- Jfant, or ordinary Ufe of a Liturgy ^ (one of which this Au- thor s^ndhis Br ethrejt zve ready to comply with j doth not, according tothemfelves, imply in it ^n Acknowledgment of any Authority in ChurchzGovenwrs to impofe it : As their fuhfcrihitig %6 Articles ( which to fome judicious Perfons feems a greater Grievance than the ufing 3^ Ceremonies in Worfhip) doth not imply in it an Acknowledgment of the Authority of the Qivil Vower to impofe this upon them-, fo neither doth Co?«p//^«c^ with the eJlabliJhedFrd" fcriptions imply in it an Acknowledgment of the Authority of any in Vorver to fix and appoint them. The Clergy them- felves are not obliged to alTent to fuch 2in Authority in that Senfe in which it hath been oppofed, or in any other but that which I have mentioned in the beginning of this i?e- yly. A^ for the Za/t)', there is not theleaft Obligation up- on them in this Point : which is fully fufficient for the prefent Purpofe. And how the Stifnefs of fome Conformijls^ can alter this Matter, is as hard to underftand as it is to apprehend that a Neighbours perfifting to injure me, can render my Forgivenefs an Acknowledgment of his Right^ and Authority to injure me. But notwithftanding this, it feems the Caufe mufl not be deferted, becaufe Separation is the pitly way of difownivg this Authority which can be of any Significancy. It is, I acknowledge, the moft flagrant way of difowningit J but as I have fhewn already, not fo ef- fedual to prevent the Evil feared ^ nor fo free from fuch evil Confequences as 3 ^oodChriJlian would rejoice to pre- vent, as the other Method I have propofed ^ and confe- quently not of fo much Significancy in the Account of the Gofpel, or of the Law of Vrudejice. Thus have I impartially confidered every ObjeHiou I can find in this Introdiiclion againft tlie Lawfuhiefs 0^ Com- pliance with the prefent Ecclefiajiical EJlabliJhvient j and this chiefly with reflect to the Laity ^ becaufe if there be ijpthinfi herefaid fufficient to keep them from Compliance, " ^ - ■ this cA Reply to Mr, Calamy. 555 this is fully fufficient to my prefcnt Purpore,the Juftifi- catioii oiconftant Conformity to the Church of En^latid. But I find fomethiiig here added fp. 82, 83-) ^o"cern- iiig Occajional and Coujlaitt Co7nvniniov^ which I muft take a little notice of, if I may be fo bold without being repre- fented again by this artful Writer as running into the com- mon Cvj upon thefe Topics. He knows very well that I jiever charged the Practice of Occajional Conformity as H}" pocrify^ but have publicly vindicated it from that Impu- tation : and therefore I am not at all concerned in what he faith on this Head. Nor do I argue that we muft of necellity do all fuch things for Peace fake always, which we may lawfully do fometimes. Nor do I draw an}'' Ar- gument from an Occajional Compliance with our Impojitions^ but what I ihould equall}'' draw from a verbal Concelfion that Compliance is materially lawful. And what I fay is, that the Impojitiovs in our Church are of that Nature, and fo lit- tle burthenfome, that they may honourably be conftantly comply'd with for the fake of Public Good by all thofe ChrijThvis who think them, in the matter of , them, lawful. Now there is a very good reafon why Occajional Commu- 7iion is not the only thing which may be expeded from fuch Perfons in this Cafe, becaufe that prevents none of the evil Confequences of Separation, and removes not the occalion of the Unchrijlian Behaviour amongft us. The only End propos'd by it is to teftify Charity^ i. e. that they who praclifeit believe what they comply with to be in it felf /jh/h/, which cures no more Evils, and remedies no morelnconveniences, than a verbal Declaration to that purpofe would do^ and by the Confeffion of this Author himf&lf heretofore, hath added Fuel to the Heat of many on all fides who cannot underftand it. Whereas the chief End Chrifiians ought to have in their eye, after their own Salvation is fecur'd, is to prevent all unchrijlian Behavi- our in others, and to lelTen as much as in them lies the occafions oi Hatred., and. Malice, 01 any other Sin amongft Men. It is not enough to be free our felves from thefe Vi- ces: It is iiot enough to be perfuaded that tl^ere is nojujl occa- 554 ^^ .Reply to JWn 'Cala my. occafion given for the MIftakes and Violences of ' othersi: but We muft, in Inftancesof no great Confideration, re- cede from our own Right, and retrench our own Liberty for the fake even of a fingle Chri'ftian^ much more ' of a great Number ^ even for fear of giving occalibn to their ill Behaviour, much more when we^are afliired by Expe- riencs that we do fo. But (it is: here added) for arty to fay that if I am with thtm at all I miift he with them always^ js as if a Man fioiild tell me that if I can once, to pew ^nyfelf fociahle, and to jl)cw that I dont cbiivt the Food poifov'ous, eat of a certain Difi of Meat which fake are extrtmdy fmd of I vmji have it at every Meal, rr I Jlrall fljew my felf av un- fcaceahlc a 'd diforderly Man. So iikewif^ (p. d>oA a Man may lawfully hear a weak Treacher :init id oblige hiwfelf to hear no other would befinfnlly to enfiiare binifelf A Child )nay comply mth his Parents in taking fovie Diverjion : but to fpeni the gte ate Jl part of his time in it cannot be excufable onuvy Prei- tcncc. St, Paul comply^ d with Circiimcijinn in u particular in- Jlan'ce : hut had hs done it always, he had fubverted the Gofpel. V'l ]i^ve already faid wliat is fufficient to lliew the little force o£ iiich arguing in the Cafe before us. But becaiife I would not fcem.to overlook any thing in this Introduc- tion f'on which I am as willing as the Author of it that the Illue of our Controverfy Ihould be putj i have the following Obfervations to offer. X i. If this Author would not, for the fake of preventing the vnchrijlian Behaviour o^ others, be confin'd in his eating; Imufttellhim that he is not fo gcod-natur'd and com- pliant, as St. Paul v/as, who declared fomething very contrary to this, and often ventured the health of his Body for the fake of his weak Brethren. Indeed the on- ly\R«/^, as I have already obferved, which he went by in fucli Cafes as this, was the Inter eft of the Church, and the Good of his Fellow Chriffiavs. And therefore before he be brought in as aninftancc againft Compliance, it muft be proved that Compliance is not fo much for the honour of the Gofpel,^nd the good of other ChrijHans, as Non-com- pUanci is, Otherwife, his Example can fignifj nothing. ' For eA Reply tp Mr. Galamy. 555 For liComyVicince tends more to the good of the Church than Nou'complia'nce^ he would himfelf certainly praftice it, were he now alive. He therefore that would prove any- thing from St. FattVs Example againft Compliance^ muft iirft prove the contrary to this : and then there needs not his Exa?nple againft it : for he never Was againft ^njCo7?ipli- ancehut what was againft the Interejl of Chrijliamtyj ani againft fuch a CovipUiWcewe are all oblig'd to declare both in Words and Practice. 2. The Inftances here given by this Author are not at all parallel to the Cafe in debate; and therefore rannr;t prove any thing againft Co7npUavcewith. the Efiablifi^d Pre* fcnpt'wjts. To eat of the fame Difi always is a much more wearifome and burthenfome thing, than to Kveel oXice ji Month at the Communion^ or to permit a Child to be ba];5- tiz'd after the Eftablifti'd manner once in maTiy Years per- haps. Now tho' he who ftiould refufe to eat of the fame Food every day for the fake o£ Peace, might polhbly efcape the cenfureof unpeaceablenefs 5 yet he who would not com- ply fo far as to eat of the fame Dilh (which he acknow-^ ledges wholefome) oucea. Month, or ojtce aYear,for the fake of preventing any tmchriji'ian Behavhitr in his Brethreft^ feemsto me to have but little fenfe of that Charity which fired St.PaiiVs Breaft, and governed his Actions. So that tho' a Man be not oblig'd in one Cafe, it doth not follov/ but that he may be oblig'd in another very different froiti- it. Nor is there any thing in the Compliance we are fpeaking of which anfwers ro the being confin'd always to the hear- ing of a Tpeak Preacher : tho\ fuppoling there were, I muft: coniefs it to be my Opinion that a Chrifian who fubmits to this Inconvenience merely out of a Charitable Principle, for fear of being the occafion of any thing prejudicial to the Chrijlian-Church, ftiall not lofe his Reward for fuch a Condefcenfion. That hefnfully enfnares himfelf is not tiue^ or that he endangers his own Salvation by it •, for there is otherwife Provilion enough for that, and he is not und^r theleaft Obligation to be influenced by the Preacher any farther than as he appears to fpeak Truth, of which he is here 55^ fi^ ^eply to Mr, Calamy. here fuppos'd a capable Judge. Much lefs is there any thing in Covfonmty which bears any relation to a Child's, complying fofar with his Varevts as tofpcnd the greateft part of his time 'in Idle Diverfions : for this is in fuch fenfe {ojijifiil as that no Circitmjiavccs can make it otherwife. Almighty GoJhath made the contrary the Duty of every Man: but he hath not forbid Kneelhig at Xho^' Commvmon once a Month, or fubmitting to fuchPrefcriptions as hiur der not the regard to our own Salvation, or brealc not in Upon our Duty in any refpedt. A Ch'iU cannot lawfully mifpend his Time, ujwn the Command of a Parevt, any more than he can lawfully Swear, or Steal upon the Com- mand of his Parejit, and how therefore can this come up to the Point before us ? I fhould have a very mean Opi- nion of the Dutifuhiefs^ ov good Te?nper of^ a Child, who Ihould not oblige his Father fo far as at his Command tp fpend fuch a portion of Time in recreating himfelf, ascan- iiot hinder his Duty, or neceflary regard to his own Salr vatiojt, tho' he ftiould fuppofe this matter not to come within the verge o{ Paternal Authority : and yet this may be much more troiiblefome than the Cafe before us. Leait of all is St.PiiuVs Noncompliance in things which, in their (Jonfequences, would have fuliverted the ChriJIian-Church, an Argument againft Coynpliance in matters which would have no fuch eftett^ but we have reafon to think the quite contrary in the opinion of the fame>4pqy?/^,who efteems the removing theoccafions oiUjicharitable^ and Unchrijiian Be- haviour amongiiChriJ} ians a glorious way of edifying, and building up the Church ofChriJi. To fumm up what hath been fa id : It may not be the Duty of a Chrijlian to com- ply fo far as to eat of the fame Y)i\iialways : but yet it may be his Duty to comply fo far as to eat of it once a Week, when all the Neighbourhood meet to enjoy one another's Company, and when the refufal of fuch a Compliance may be the occafion of great Breaches, and Hatred amongft thofe he accounts weak Brethren, A Man may not perhaps be oblig'd to comply fo far as to engage himfelf to hear none but a weak Preacher •, yet may be oblig'd io far to comply ^^ to do things which bear noproportjpn to fuch an t Incoii- A Replj to Mr. Calamy* 557 Inconvenience as this. A Child may not fin againft God under pretenfeof CowjjZfawce with a Varent, or do that which he thinks unlawful, and inconfiftent with his own Salvation : but yet a Chriftian may be obliged to comply with others in what is not in it felf unlawful, and incon- fiftent with his own Salvation. In this Ivjlarice it is the thiv^ itfelf, whether commandtd by ihcFarevtox no, which is unlawful for the Child to chufe to do. In the Cafe before us, we are fpeaking of the Covipllavce with I?npoJitmis^ which are fuppos'd in the prefent Debate to be in them- felvesof that Nature that ?.ChriJlian might lawfully chufe them, and pradife them, were they not imposed. But, 3. What need there any more Words, when it is fo evi- dent that if thefe Inftances prove any thing againft Coi?i' pUanct\they touch thofe very Ivjlancesin which this Author and his Brethren allow Compliance to be lawful, and wor- thy of a C/j/7/?w« f* For inftance, If they prove againlt the neceflity of Co?npUa7ice with the ])j:e('ent EJ}abliJI:me7it,t}iey mull likewife prove the fame with refpedt to Co7iipliance in the covjlant ufe of an Impofed Liturgy ^ nay in the ordi- nary ufe of it : to the former of which a Compliance hath been heretofore offered in the name of two 1 birds of the DiJIhiters in England, and to the latter is even now pro- mised in the hitrodiiciion before us. Whereas if the Argu- 7//^Ht5 before-mentioned fignify any thing, they muft lie harder againft Compliance in this Cafe^ then in Kneeling once a Month, or permitting the Sign of the Crojs to be ufed at'ter Baptifm. Nay, How hard will thefe Argmnejits lie againft Compliance in all Inftances which are neceffary to tlie joining in all parts of Fithlic Wor[lnp (concerning which our main Difpute is) againft fuch a Compliaiice^ I fay, for the fpace ola whole Year, which yet hath been allowed ol, if not advifed, by fomc of the gr cateft of this Author s Brethren ? For if thefe Arguinents prove a more extended Compliance to be either inconfiftent with the Du- ty ot a ChriJIian to himfelf, or fo intolerably burthenfome as not to be fupported, or a fi'nful enfnaring of himfelf, or a Subverjion ot the ChriJIian Church ; I fear it will be hard to exempt an annual Compliance from the fame Guilt, or to make make it eligible to a Chnjl'ian on any account. But if they do not, they prove nothing againft a covflant Com- pliaitce with the Eflablifi'd Prefcnptwvs : but leave it ftill true, that they may honourably be comply 'd X'/ith by all Chnfiiamiox the fake of the Public Good, and the Peace and Interefi: of the Chnjlian-Chiirch. This particular Inftance of Cow^/faw6-^, allow'd by'great Men of the Separatiov^ I the rather mention, that I may fhew this Author how indif- ferent a matter fome very confiderable Men of his own fide have thought a Cowph'^jm^ little differing from that againft which he hath open'd as violently as if it would be the fcandal o^ChnJIiajihy, and the ruin of the Gofpel ; and that I may move him to confider whether more modefl Accu- fations would not better become him in a CaJife in which fo great a Lathudeh^ith. been allow'd of by his Brethren. rhave one thing more to ofrer peculiar to this Author himfelf, and that is, that if thefe Ltjlavces prove any thing againfl: Coinvllance with tlie EJIahlifi'd Churchy they will leave no room for the Covjlavt Compliance of any Perfons for the fake of the Peace of the Neighbourhood, were his dwn Scheme reduced to Practice. For I cannot fee how mij Co7>iplia7ice cav. be honourable upon this y^z/r/;or's Prin- ciples, but fuch an one as is indeed no Compliance at all - a lubmitting to what we did m ail refpecls approve of our felves, 2. e. a doing nothing for the fake of any Body but of our felves. It remains only now that fome notice be taken of the Motion this -^ift./?p;'makes,p. o/ . at the End of this hitro- ditSion, To which I have this to reply in general, that ! were all the things he mentions capable of a ftridt Demon^ ftration as true as any in tJie Mathematics, it would be a very great Abfurdityto put fo important a Cavfe n^on this' Illue, becanfe fo few of thofe many Chrijlians whofe Concern it is, are capable of underft^andingfucli a B'nwn- ///W^'oj/ofman}'- of thefe Points. But to free the Reader fro^n the C/oi/^i that this Conchfionoithc IntrodiiBionm^J draW-oyer his Mind, I fhall be more particular. ■1 Ov It J Reply to Mn Calamy. 5 59 T. It is plain, therefore, from what hath "been already faid in this Reply, that there is no need of proving that an Authority was left by Chrift to any Perfons to malce unnecefTary Prefcriptions : becaufe Covigliavce may be worthy of a Chriftjan, notwithftanding the hipofers havf> no Authority. This I have prov'd as well from the Co7h, cejions and Prc^cilce of this Author ?iY\d.h.is Brethren^ as fron^ t}\Q Reafoji oi theT/;z?7^itfelf: fo that, God be thanked^ it is not lb bad with the ChnJUan-Chnrch that we are obr lig'd in Confcicvce to wait for Feace and Umty till all thail; vaft variety of Opinions concerning the extent of the Aur ^/jo^zV)' left, and the Ferfovs to whom it is left, be reduc'd to one common, and univerfal Judgment. This is th^ Subjed of the 91, and 92 Vages. ' ■f/r.:h 2. It is demanded how far Compliance is to go, and where to ftop. I have already fhtwn that it is no Ar-i gument againft Compliance in any particular Cafe that we canno.t fix the exadt Bounds of it, any more than it is a.T gainfl the Pradlice of any other Chrljllan Virtue. That it doth not extend to all polfiblelnitances in themfelves law- ful I agree with this Author. But I think it very certain that there is no fuch Virtue as Compliance in the Cafe now before us, if it be not to extend itl'elf to all fuch Injiajices. as are coniiftent with the Ends of Religion, and the nature o God's "Worlhip : and together with this I remark that there is but one Cere?nony, viz. Kneeling at the Conimiimo7t'^ which is annexed to the Fiilllc WorJInp of our Church in which the Laity are concerned, and this a pofture very a- greeable to P/-a_y(?r which is then always ufed. I extend it therefore to fuch things as are not only lawful, but of that Kature that Compliance with them is more worthy of a C/?;7/?z A Reply to Mr. Calamy. pofeth Ch'ili to have left him, confider'd abfolutely by himfelf, and to give it up in many Inftances when the good of the Church requires it. 7. As for the Judgment what is fo lawful, as to be fit to be fubmitted to, it muft lie entirely in the breaft of the Perfonswhoare to pradice Co7;/p/if?wc-^. They are under no Obligation as I know of, but to take the greateft Care poffible to judge rightly : Nor do I attempt any thing in what I have written but to alfift them in that Judgment, by removing fome Prejudices out of their wa}''. If they judge that they have more reafons to think any thing prefcribed unlaw^ul^ than to think it lawful; it is my O- pinionthat no Command of others, nor any other Confi- deration can bear them out in complying with it. Bat I am not now concerned with any who doubt of this, but only with fuch as think all the Circutnjlances of the ordi- nary Parts of Public Jf^orJJnp fuch, as that Compliance with them is fometimes both lawful, and expedient. 4. As for the ArgMmcvt I ufe for fuch a Compliance as I am prelfmg, I think it founded on the Will of God, and the moft afteding pollible to a Chrijlian Heart next to that taken from our own Innocence, viz. that it would remove Ibme of the Occafions oiUncharitablenefi^ and nvch?-ijiian Be- haviour from amongftour Brethren : and therefore is more worthy of a Chrijlian than tlie contrary, which increafeth the Occafionof Sin amongftC/^W/i^Wi. This lad Confe- quence all on all Sides muft anfwcr for, who do not their Parts towards the preventing it. The chief Arguments againfl: a Compliance are confequential : and therefore I won- der this Author fhould fcem to find fault with fuch. Thofe which he hath alleged I have impartially confidered •, and fo I hope have anfwered his Demands on this Head. Lajl of all, I m.ufl: remind this Author that the Point between us is not whether a more perfedl Scheme may not be invented than the ejlahlifbed one ^ or whether that which he hath favoured the World with, be not more eligible. 1 hopo he himfelf would not venture the overturning the prefent Settlement, upon a Profpecl of fetling his peculiar Form : J Repiy to Mr. Caiamy. 5^1 Form : and if he do not intend this hj promiiing it, as I have too much Charity ^oi him to think he doth, it is plain the only ^lejlion is, Whether Complmice with theprefent EJiablffljed Church be worthy of a Chr'ijiian or ho. I will not put fo great a Task upon hhn, as he is willing to put upon us : and tho' I might with equal Grace put it upon him to demonftrate i^y clearly as to convince all Perfons concerned, that all the Claims here pointed at, as on the lide of the Church, have no Ground ^ and that his Schema only is founded on Reafon, and Scripture •, yet in return to all the Particulars he hath mentioned, I defire but one thing to be clearly made out on his Side, and that is that, taking the World as it is. Nonconformity is more for the Honour of Go J, and oi Chrifiianity ^ more for the Edifica- tion of the Church ^ more worthy, on any Account, of a Difciple 0^ Jefus Chrift, than Coitfor7mty to the Eflahlifiel Church. Let this one thing be cleared, there is no need of having Recourfe to other Arguments •, I may venture to promile in the Name of many others, as well as my own, that we will heartily join with him in the Profecution of the fame Caitfe. Thus have I honeftly, and impartially conlidered what is alleged in this IntroduBion ^ not omitting any Particu- lar in which I, or the Caitfe I have undertaken, can polli- bly be fuppofed to be concerned. I have fairly declared that I put the whole Caufe upon this^ agreeably to what Mr. Calamy feems to expcdt of me. I have here at the End pointed out the one fingle Point on which our Debate doth fo entirely depend, that all others are fuperfluous, and infigniiicant : and on this I fix. If he fee fit to reply fe- rioully to what I have faid uipon this Head, without doubt what he advanceth will have its due Weight : but if he have recourfe to any other Topics, and wander from this, I think fuch a Behaviour may juftly be looked upon as a de:iigned avoiding of the only main Point between us, and accordingly be negle^ed, without aDy Crime. Oo POST- 562 POSTSCRIPT. Relating to the Third Part of Mr. Calamy's Defenfe of Moderate Nonconformity. I Have in this Treatife, and in afonner Defenfe imparti- ally conlidered, and particularly anfwered to, every thing material alleged hyyiLCaldmy in the Firjf^ and Second Farts of his Defenfe of Moderate Nonconformity. There remains ftill the Third Part of his Defe?tfe,to which it may he thought necefTary to reply : concerning which I have the following Obfervations to make. 1, It is fo full of Ahufes,. and palpable Miftakes, and Mifreprefentations, that I would deiire nothing of any Readerhut that he would be fo juft as to lay before him, at the Time he reads it, what I have written in the Second Part of the Reafonahlenefs 0^ Conformity^ to which it is de- signed as an Anfwer : and then I fhould not fear the evil EfFed either of his miwon\\y Reflexions ^ or of his ftrange Mifreprefentations. It is on the Account of t/;^y^ that I can- not return him t\\Q Complement he is pleafed to make me, that if he write again he will bring the Art of Chicarierie to PerfeBion, {^which is an innocent ATtJ but muft needs fay, that if he go on as he hath begun, he is in danger of bringing a much worfe Art to Perfection, viz. that of Mif- reprefentation^ and nnjvji hfumation. 2. This Author hinifelf hath now put the whole of our Caufe upon what he hath advanced in the IntrodjiBion to 'the Second Part of his Defenfe^ to which I have made a di- Itinct Reply in the foregoing Papers ; and am willing to t have A POSTSCRIPT. 5^3 have the whole Matter brought to the fame Point. Up- on this Account, neither he^ nor any one elfe can blame me if I avoid a long, and tedious Diverfion to what muft be chiefly Perfoml : lince all that concerns the Caiifes of Conformity^ and Ncncovformhy in their prefent State,^ he himfelf profeiTeth to have comprifed in that httrodu&ion. 3. That I may not be thought wholly without Reafon to overlook this Third Part of his Defe7ife, I obferve that the Second Part of the Reafona hlenefs of Cor for7nity, to which this profefTeth to reply, is digefted under Two Heads : the former of which undertakes to anfwer thofe Arguments which were brought by this Author fox the ejeBed Miniflers continuing their public Minijivy •, and the Second to conii- der the Arguments propofed by him in Juftification of the Nonconformity of the Laity. As to the former of thefe I went over every Argument particularly by it felf, and endeavoured to Ihew that none of them were of any Force,without fuppofing it more for the Glory of God, and the Benefit of his Church, all things confidered, that their pihlic Mivijirations fhould be con- tinued, than the contrary : that this was the Point to be proved, which, if it can be proved, I acknowledge for my part, makes thefe and all other Arguments unnecefFa- ry, and needlefs, being alone fuflicient to juftify them. And now what Anfwer do we here meet with to this ? Can this be denied, or not ? No, on the contrary it is acknow- ledged, and fometimes it is declared to be fuppofed under every Argument, and I am taxed with a Fault in not ta- king it always into the Account. Upon which I take the Liberty to fay, that this is a plain Alteration of the State of ever}^ Argument from what it was atfiril : and that what I have faid is true, that all thefe Arguments, either without, or with the Proof of tliis one Point are infignifcant, and vfelefs', and confequently that this is the/o/^ Pof;?^ to be infilled on in order to juftify the Continuation of the pw^- lic Miiiijl rations either of the paf, or prefent diffenting Teachers. And whether this one Point be made out, or not, muft, according to this Author himfelf, be determi- O 0 2 ned 5^4 a.^ POSTSCRIPT. lied by what is alleged in the fore-mentioned IvtroiuBioyi, and in my Re^^ly to it : and fo there cannot be fuppoftd an}^ Neceffity of multiplying V/ords in this place. Under the Second principal Head of the Second Part of the Reafonahlenefs ofCojiforviity^ I went over every Afgti- vient by it felf, which had been alleged by this Write?- in Juftificatirtn of the Nomonfonmty of the Laity : and endea- voured to fhew that they were not fufficient for the Pur- pofe intended. Now he himfelf hath comprifed the whole of what is fufficient fjr their Jiijiification in his Tntrodu^i- cn, and defires it may depend upon v/hat is there faid : for which Reafon I have chofcn to malce a very particular Anfwer to that, defiring that the Canfe I have undertaken may ftand or fall with what I have advanced in this An- fwer. And on this Account everyone muft acknowledge it wholly needlefs for me to tire the Reader with Repetiti- o;/j, and Matters ^utcly perfonal, in order to vindicate my own former Reafom7tgs : concerning which I freely leave the Reader to judge, provided he will be fo juftas to take my Senfe from my own Booh^ and not fiom this Author ^ a- gainft the Juftnefs of whofe Reprefeyitations I think myfclf obliged to give public Notice. After I have gone over all the Argnmcvts in Defenfe of the dijfentivg Laity, I com.e to coniider tlie Circuviftances which, according to this Author^ make conjlant Comnivnion v/ith the Church EJfablified to be unlawful : and this I do at fome Length from p. 186. to p 204. This Part of the Controverfy likewife is thrown by hijn felf into his Introdn- Bion, in which he infifts upon thofe Circiimfiavces which make covJJant Compliance with our L/ipoJitiovs unlawful]; and accordingly I have followed him in my Reply to it^ fothat there is no need in this place of repeating what is, at his own Delire, transferred to another. After this follows, in the fore-mentioned Book, p. 205". a Parallel between the Argiiings of the Dijhiters on 07ie fidc-j and fome Church-vien on the other ^ againfl: their Com- pliance with one another. This is not a Matter of abfo- lute Importance in QMiCavfc : and was defigned to make all J POSTSCRIPT. 565 all Perfons, on all Sides, fenfible of the Wealcnefs of fom^ fort ofArguings againft mittttal CotnpliiWce. What ^is faid to this Purpofe I mnft particularly defire theReader to read in my own Words, becaufe this Author hath left out 7na7ty, I may fay, all the moft material Paffages in the Reprefen- tationhe pretends to give of this Matter. I cannot exprefs rnjfelf better, or more clearly, than I have in this Point : and therefore can only appeal to the Reader whether my Reprefentatwji of it have been fairly anfwered, or ^0. Thus have I given fome Account why no more parti- cular Notice is taken of the Third Part of his Defenfe : and think it fully fufficient to fay that I follow his own De- jfire in putting the whole Iffue of the Caufe^ handled in this Third Part, on my Reply to his hitroduB'ion. 4. If an}'- Perfons be refolved to think otherwife, I chufe rather to fufFer in their Opinion, than to weary out my felf, and others with needkfs Repethiovs. Yet, for their* Satisfadion if they will, either in private Converfatlon, or by Letter, or any more public way, point out any par- ticular Matter, which they judge of Importance, in this, or any other part of Mr. Calamys Defenfe, palTed over by me ', I promife that I will impartially conlider it, and iincerely give them my Thoughts upon it : tho' I am not fenfible that I have overlooked one fingle Point,which he himfelf, or any of his Friends can think 7?iaterial in this Caufe. Nay, tho' I have refolved to trouble the World no more with Matters purely perfotial,ve\atingto this Con- troverfy ; yet I am ready to give Satisfaction to any who want it, concerning any incidental Point in the whole of what I have written : particularly as to this Authors ac- cufing me of mifreprefenting Mr. Baxter's ConcelFions in favour of Epifcopacy (which he hath, againft plain, and pofitive Proof, and without the leaft Foundation, conti- nued to do in his Third Part, p, 200.) I doubt not to prove to any one, except himfelf, that the Mijhle, and Mifre- jprefe7itation lieth wholly on his Side. 5. Laft of all,Let any one but con fid er what Mr Ollyffe h^th had Occafion to obferve concerning his Behaviour to 5.66 A POSTSCRIPT, tohini- let any one but read his Performance, and fee with what Infolence and Contempt he often treats his Adverfaries'y with what Artifice he rather chufes to make fuch a. falfe Reprefentation of them and their Principles as maj render them odious to his Readers, than to ftate their .Arguments fairly, or anfwer them candidly ^ let any one but call to mind the frequent Occafions I have found to complain of his laying fuch Things, and fuch Principles to my Charge as never once entered into my Thoughts •, let any one but review his whole Behaviour from the very firfi: beginning of this Controverfy to the laft Word he hath written in it : and I dare fay, I cannot be fclamed if I have fo much Regard to my own ^I'let as to lay afide all Thoughts of having any thing to do with fo nnaccountahle a Ifriter for the future ; at the fame time heartily forgiving him every injurious irord, and Repre- fejttation, whether delTgned, or not dejfigned. Were I a Well-wiftier to his Caiife^ I would entreat him to alter his Method of handling it : but if he be determined to go on as he hath begun, he muft not wonder if he Ihould at length raife himfelf up an Adverfary, who may handle him as he defer ves. For my own part, I wilh hi77i well, and fo take Leave. FINIS. BOOKS written hy the Right Reverend Father in God Benjamin Lord Bijhop ^/6 A N G O R 5 and printed for James Knapton, at the Crown in St. PaulV Church-Tard. THE Meafures of Submijion to ihe Civil Magiftrate confidered. In a Dcfenfe of the Doftrine delivered in a Sermon preach'd before the Right Honourable the Lord-Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of .London, Sept. 29. 1705. The Fifth Edition. In which are added, i. An jIc- cejJion-Sermon, preached CMarch 8, 1704-5. ?. A Sermon concern! ng the Vnhappinefs of Abfolute Monarchy y &c. 3. A Sermon conccriting St. Paul'i Behavhur towards the Civil Magiftrates, pr. 3 s. The Original and Inftitution of Civil Government Difcufs'd 5 vii^ I: An Examhation of the Partriarchal Scheme of Government. II. A Ve- fenfe of Mr. ffool^er's Judgment, &c. againfl the Obje if ions of ifeveral late Writers. To which is added, A Large Anfwer to Dr. F. Attobury'a Charge of Rebellion : In which the Subfiance of his Latin Sermon is produ- ced, and fully examined- The Second Edition, pr- St. Several Di/courfes concerning the Terms of Acceptance with God; In which I- The Terms themfelves are diftinftly laid down j as thej/ are propofed to Chriftians in the NevvTeftament. And, 2. Scvetal falfe No tions ot the Conditions of Salvation are confidered, particularly of being faved by Faith Of trufting to external Performances. Of the Power of Charity to cover Sin?. Of relying upon the Merits of Chrifl. Of Man'i Weaknefs, and God's Grace. Ot Repentance- Of the Example of the Thief on the Crofs- Of trufling to a Death-Bed Sorrow- Of the: Pa- rable of the Labourers in the Vineyard- Of depending upon Amendjnenc in Time to come The Second Edition pr. 5 j. Several TrAiis formerly publiOied ; now collefted into One Volume. 1)17:^. I- A Letter to the Reverend Mr- Fleetrvood, concerning MiraicJes Written, A. D 1702- H A Letter about the Bilhop's Votes upon the Occafional Bill. 1703. IK. A Letter to the Reverend Dr- Francis After' *«r/, concerning Vircue,aDd Vice. 1706- IV. A Second Letter, in An* fvcr to his Large Vindication- 1708- V- A Vindication of I'the Aqiicdc Prophets, in Anlwer to Sir ^ B- 1709 VI- Some Confiderations offer- ed to the Lord Etfhop of Exeter. 1709 VII- An Humble Reply to the Lord Bilhop of Exeter. 1709. VIII. Queries to the Authors of the lace Difcourfe ot Free-Thinking- 1713. To which are added, Six Ser- mons 'tbrtins bever before publi(h'd,| w;^. Two Sermons concerning the Evils; of which Chriftianicy hath been made the Occafion Four Sermons con- cei fling the Extremes of Implicit Subjeftion, and Infidelity, pr 6 s. A f EefeTvacive agaiaft the Principles and Praftices oi the Nonjurors, both ia Church and State, or an Appeal to the Confciences and Commcvi ScftfcoPthe Chriftian Laity. The Fifth Edition, pr is. The I^ature of the Kingdom or Charch of Chrift : A Sermon preached before dhe King, March 51, 1717. The Fifteenth Edition, pr. 4 d. An Anfwer to the Reverend Dr Snape\ Lcuer to the Bllhop of Bangor, The Thirteenth Edition, pr 6 d. An Anfwer to the Reprefentation drawn up by the Committee of the Lower Houfe ot Convocation, concerning feveral dangerous Poficions and Doc- trines contained in the Bifhop of Bangor^s Prefervative and Sermon- The Second Edition pr 4 s. An Anfwer to a Calumny cart upon the Bifhop of Bangor y by the Reve- rend Dr Sherlocl^, at the Conclufion of his Book, cntituled , A Vindication eftbe Corporation ahd Ttft Aih^ &c. pr. 3 d. An Aafwer to a Late Book written by the Reverend Dr- Sherloc^, enti- luled, Tihe Condition and Example of our Blejfed Saviour vindicated, pr. i s- The Common Righcs of Subjefts, defended ; And the Nature of the Sa- cramentitlTeflyCoaEdexeA. In Aa(vicx 10 the Dean o( Chicbefier'i Vindica- tion of the Corporation and Tefl Alls. pr. ^ s. 6 d. An Anfwer to the Reverend Dr. JJare'i Sermon, intituled, Church Au' thority Vindicated : In which the Texts of Scripture relating to this Sub- jeft are examined ; the Doftrine of Sincerity is explained and defended j and feVeral other important Points are confidered : with a Poftfcripr, oc- cafioned by the Lord Bifhop of Oxf$rd'i late Charge to his Clergy. A Sermon preached the 5ch of November^ 1715- A Sermon preaclied the spch of May, iji6. A Strmonpreichtd on St David''i D.^-^ m'' y\-.:- U' ''''iSSii^ '<<^-'JSSii?^'.^y^