I am content that neither we nor they fhould be Judges in this matter, but we will refer our selves and our controverfie, to those who have been the great Authors, and defenders of the Reformation. Dr. Durell who was eight years a Minifter in the Reformed Church in France has writ a Treatife, concerning the Judgment and Practice of all the Reformed Churches in this point of Ceremony, wherein their confent to, and approbation of our Church in this Matter does unanimoufly appear, he could not be fubject to Ignorance in this Controverfie, the Reader may eafily fee whether he were under any prejudice or no, but if any exception could lie against him, I would easily appeal to the Body and Syftem of Confeffions and the Liturgies of all the Reformed Churches of Chriftendom; to be fhort, whoever will fearch honeftly into this matter, will find there are two things only for which Rites and Ceremonies can be defervedly condemn'd.

1. If they be Idolatrous or Superftitious; or,

2. If they be Burthenfom for their number. There is manifeftly no ground of Quarrel with our Church on this last Account.

C 3

Account. As to the former charge,I think we have nothing amongst us that any Man of common fenfe and modesty can suspect to be an Image or Idol, and how Idolatry can be fuppos'd without Either Idol or Image, is next to an Impoffibility to conceive; and as for Superftition, 'tis feated primarily in the mind of Man, and depends upon that opinion which is the ground and foundation of the inftitution, or obfervance of the Rite and Ceremony. Now what opinions particular Men may have, I know not, but if any Man can fhew me that the Conftitution of our Church has receiv'd into it, any opinion that has the leaft Tincture or Relish of Superftition,if it builds the Injunction or ufe of its few Ceremonies upon any other Foundation, than the general Rules of St. Paul that they tend to Decency, Order and Edification, I will for my part most readily subscribe to the Abrogation or Abolition of any thing which has the face or fhadow of a Ceremony amongst us.

By this time it's eafie for any unprejudic'd and fincere Hearer to judge what grounds our Church has given our Dif fenting Brethren of a Separation, fo fatal, not to the honour only, but I may almoft

almost say, to the Being of our Church and State too, what is it they find fault with? Is it the Doctrine of our Church? No; for this they contend with us, which of us have the greater esteem and veneration for it; or if they should differ in any one Article of our Confeffion, I know not any Canon that does exact Oath or Subscription to our Book of Articles, from the People, and in our Publick fervice, they joyn with us in no other confeffion than that of the Apoftles Creed, together with thofe two expofitions of it, the Nicene and Athanafian, univerfally reverenc'd and receiv'd. Do they find fault with the Government of our Church? I defire that they would fhew us what effential part of Church Government is wanting in ours, if they think every Circumftantial of Church Government clearly prescribed in Scripture, and every fuch abfolutely neceflary to the Being of a Church, and perpetual and immutable: When I fhall fee this made out I believe I fhall be able to prove that our Government may lay as good a Claim to fuch an Inftitution as any o ther whatever, and till then I defire they would confider the notorious inconveniences, fuch an opinion is clog'd with, C 4

попе

none of the least of which is this (not mentioned before) that as often as we shall find in any Church, fome Circumftance or other of Government, not clearly made out to us by holy Text, fo often fhall we be unavoidably tempted by this Principle to make a Separation from it; and how often this is like to happen, I leave to the reason of every Man, but indifferently read in Scripture, and to the experience of all Men to Judge.

Do they laftly find fault with our Ceremonies let them fhew us that the Church has no Power of inftituting any, or that ours are burthenfom for their number, or fuch in their Nature, as neceffarily involve Men in the guilt of Superftition or Idolatry, which they will be able to do, when they fhew us the Idol we adore, or that Superftitious Opinion in the Confeffion of our Church on which such a Superftitious Rite is founded; if nothing of this kind can be prov'd it will be found that our Brethren have been fo far from Lowlinefs, and Meekness, from Long-fuffering and Forbearance, that they have broken the Peace and Unity of the Church, with but any juft grounds at all. And yet

tha

tho they should be able to prove fome one thing or other of this kind, yet neither would this be fufficient for their feparation; for tho they cannot peradventure do all we think them bound to do, yet there is much that they can do for the fake of Peace and Unity, which till they have done, they will be found guilty of Tranfgreffing this Rule of St. Paul. I come therefore, to confider,

2. Whether our Brethren of the Separation have done all which they themfelves acknowledge they Lawfully may do for preferving the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace.

As much as in you lies (faith St. Paul, Heb. 12. 14.) follow Peace with all Men. and St. James tells us, The Wif dom which is from above is first Pure, then Peaceable, James 3. 17. Thefe and fuch like places do certainly import two things.

1. That it behoves every Man to do all that Lawfully he can do for the sake of Unity and Peace.

2. That he that does otherwife, is not led by the Spirit of God, which is a Spirit of Peace. 'Tis therefore with great Reason that we expect from Men that they should do all that lies in them for

the