popery; and the principle of the Diffenters would leave us defenceless against the Papifts, as well as all our other enemies, and is contrary to the fundamental principle of all fociety, and even of nature itself. We have no occafion here to enquire, what the articles of the church of England are; becaufe the objection extends to all articles whatfoever, except fuch as are fet down in the Scripture, which fets down nothing but baptifm; and is fo brief in its accounts, that every true principle of the Chriftian faith might be evaded, if we were to lay hold of fome fhort expreffions, and make them exclufive, contrary to common rules of reafoning, the plainest facts, and the nature of the cafe, as fome have done; particularly the celebrated Mr. Locke, who contends, that the Chriftian Gofpel has but one article, namely, "that Jefus "Chrift is the Meffiah;" whereas the one great condition of falvation, in the Gospel, is baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft; therefore the great and fundamental article of the Gospel, is that of faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is plain the church was under fome particular rules befide the expreffions of the New Teftament, from the words of St. Paul, where he mentions the apadoras, traditions or ordinances, deli、 vered to the church of Corinth, to be religiously kept or obferved. See I Cor. xi. 2.

74. From the preceding article, which afferts, that the church. of England hath impofed articles which Chrift hath not imposed; it is argued, that in oppofing the church of England, they oppose "an invafion of the kingly authority of Jefus Chrift."

Jefus Chrift doth not act in perfon, but hath commissioned his church to act for him, and hath promised to be with it, and fupport its authority, to the end of the world. Therefore, to argue for Jefus Chrift against his church, is to fet up Jefus Christ against himfelf; and the like objection may be made against all the churches in the world: which, fo far as they act for their own just rights, under Jefus Chrift, may be faid to act against him. Every true church is bound to affert and defend the faith it hath received but its enemies will call this neceffary defence an impofition, and then contend, that they are free from all obligation. But with what grace doth this argument come from the party, who impofed their own folemn league and covenant on men's confciences in this kingdom, at the peril of their lives and fortunes, and profcribed them as malignants if they refused to take it; for

which there certainly is neither precedent nor precept in the Gofpel? How marvellously do the opinions of men change, when they argue for themfelves, and when they argue against us.

5. To explain away the offence of fchifm, it is farther argued, that as there were fchifms among the Corinthians, when it does not appear that there was any feparation; so there may be a separation where there is no fchifm: becaufe Chriftians may ftill be united in heart and affection, though they perform the offices of religion in different places and in different ways.

The hiftory of facts in this country give us a different profpect of things; and indeed it is prepofterous to suppose, that if we fow in fchifm, we shall reap in unity: or in other words, that if we murder and mangle the body of the church, we fhall preferve charity, which is the life and foul of it. It is true, we shall not difpute much about any thing, if we are indifferent to every thing: but misguided religious zeal is not of this infipid character. The ordinance of parliament of the 11th of Aug. 1645, for putting in execution the directory, has thefe words-" If any person or perfons whatsoever, fhall, at any time or times hereafter, use,' or caufe the aforefaid Book of Common Prayer to be ufed in any' church, chapel, or public place of worship, or in any private place, or family, within the kingdom of England, or the dominion of Wales, or port and town of Berwick; every person so of-` fending herein, fhall, for the first offence, pay the fun of five pounds of lawful English money; for the second offence, ten` pounds; and for the third, fhall fuffer one whole year's imprisonment, without bail or mainprize." This law was one of the fruits of fchifm; and there never was a law more fevere and cruel. The king was then living, and the private worship of his family is not excepted. But thefe were days of religious madnefs; we know better now. So it is faid; but I fear with very' little truth. What would not that perfecuting fpirit do, if it had power, which is fo confpicuous in the Syllabus of Mr. Robinfon's Lectures, a Diffenting teacher at Cambridge? How fresh is the remembrance (or ought to be) of the riots in London, which fhook the kingdom, and brought us fo nearly to ruin in a few days; all conducted by a fanatic Prefbyterian, with a rout of forty thousand diforderly people at his heels? And if the principles of fanaticifm can perform fuch wonders here, even in a man without learning, without parts, without morals, without fenfe: how dreadful may their effects be upon a future occafion! and who can

tell how foon that occafion may happen? especially as Dr. Priestley, another Diffenting teacher, is now threatening us with impending ruin, from himself and his party; who give us warning, that they have long been, and are now, conveying gunpowder under our foundation, to blow up the old rotten fabric of the church of England? But our Diffenting apologists affure us, Chrif tians may still be united in heart and affection, though they worthip God in different places: and that there may be separation without schism, as there was schism at Corinth without separation, But these smaller fchifms of the Corinthians, which did not actually separate them into different communions, were yet, according to the Apostle, very reprehenfible, and of bad tendency: therefore, actual feparation, being fchifm in the extreme, must be more reprehenfible. To fuppofe it lefs, is to contradict the reafon of things; as if it fhould be argued, that because we may hurt a man without killing him, therefore we may kill a man without hurting him.

6. However, if there fhould be any fchifm betwixt the church of England and the Diffenters, they fay the guilt of it is with the church, who will not "yield to weak brethren in things which are confeffed to be indifferent and of small moment."

With what propriety can things of fmall moment be introduced, as objections to our communion, after it has been afferted, that the church of England is "no church of Chrift?" If that objection be good, all things of small moment are fuperfluous. For who can be obliged, or who indeed will confent, to be a member of a church, which is no church of Chrift?" Leave things indifferent (faith this reply) as they are in their own nature, and as Chrift hath left them, and the feparation is over." So then, if these indifferent things were removed, the Diffenters would communicate with a church, which is no church of Chrift! Who can believe this? Is it not much more probable, that the Diffenters do not mean to throw up the feparation for any conceffions that can be made by a church, which, in their opinion, is itfelf feparated from the communion of Jefus Chrift? Thefe objections are so inconfiftent, that they leave small hopes of the poffibility of a reconciliation. For if all these fmall things were removed, ftill there will remain the infuperable (and we trust, uncharitable and groundless) objection, that the church of England is no church of Chrift; and that Diffenters cannot upon any principle communicate with a falfe church. The cafe between

us is very bad under this representation of it; but it becomes, if poffible, more hopeless in what follows.

7. For the Reply tells us, that the Diffenters do not ftand out for the value of the things required, which are matters of indifference; but ftand up in defence of that liberty, wherewith Chrift hath made them free, and will not be brought into bondage.

Do they think then, that Chrift hath given them liberty to break the peace of the church, for matters indifferent? That is, to destroy peace, essential to falvation; to fave liberty, the creature of human pride? Another apologist of the Diffenters, the author of The independent Whig, puts this matter out of question; and affirms without referve, that fchifm is fo neceffary to the prefervation of liberty, that there can be "no liberty without fchifm." What would the Chriftian world be, if this principle were univerfally followed? No two of us could confent together; because the one must lose his liberty, till he goes off into schifm; fo it would break all Chriftian focieties into individuals. Liberty and bondage are words of ftrange fignifications in this land,' which it would be tedious to difplay. Only let us distinguish, that there is no bondage in dutiful fubmiffion; for that is the fervice of God which is perfect freedom: nor any liberty in unreasonable difobedience; for that is the bondage of Satan, who works in the children of difobedience, and puts them to a great deal of trouble; making them restless and impatient, and leading them fuch a wearifome life, that, if it were not called liberty, they would wish themselves out of the world.

8. The church of England is accufed of taking away the bread and the cup, unlefs people will receive kneeling; and Chrift hath not made kneeling a neceffary term of communion.

Nor is it neceffary with us; because we adminifter the facrament to the fick or the infirm, either fitting, kneeling, or lying.、 Kneeling is proper to an act of devotion; fuch the facrament of the Lord's fupper is now, and not a focial act of eating, as at the paffover, when it was firft inftituted. Kneeling may admit of a bad construction, because the Papists kneel and worship the host; but charity will give it a good construction, and then all the diffi culty is over. However, let us call it an impofition: yet why fhould the enjoining of it be objected to by the very people, who imposed on all that took their folemn league and covenant, the posture of standing, with the ceremony of lifting up the right hand

bare? But, what is ftill more to the purpofe, one of their apologifts affures us, they make no fcruple of giving their facrament to all those who chufe to kneel in a meeting-house *. Therefore it is not the thing, (though that is fometimes highly exclaimed against) but the enjoining of the thing that renders it offenfive: and it appears from this cafe, that Diffenters will do that to please themselves, which they will not do to please God; who hath enjoined us all to be at peace with one another, and to agree in his worship.

Sponsors in baptism, and the signature of the cross, are objected to. But the first is only a prudent provifion, as a farther fecurity for the child, if the parents fhould die, or be of fuch characters as renders them unfit for fponfors; which the child cannot help. The fignature of the crofs can give no offence (as one should think) to any person who delights in the memory of the cross itself. The pureft ages of the church used it on all occafions, particularly in exorcifms, which were antiently a part of baptism; and there are fome pretty clear intimations in the Scripture for the use of some signature on the forehead; and the first of all fignatures is that of the crofs. For motives of worldly traffic, the Dutch, instead of preferring it to a place in their foreheads, trample it under their feet: and our Diffenters reject it from an affection to their fchifm. If the Papifts are fuperabundant and superftitious in the use of the crofs, what is that to us? If they repeat the Lord's prayer twenty times in an hour, are we not to repeat it at all †?

9. It is farther objected to our church, that the people have a right, an unalienable right, to chufe their own ministers; which with us they are not permitted to do.

As for the patriotic term unalienable, it is applied to rights of nature, which are unalienable because they are inherent. But here, it can only mean, that the Diffenters claim it, and are refolved not to part with it. On this part of the fubject, I must lament with tears in my eyes, the great abufes in the church of

"In fome of our churches, there are fome who receive standing, fome kneeling. Nor is there, I believe, amongst our minifters, one in five hundred, who would refuse to give the facrament either ftanding or kneeling, to any one who thought either of these the fittest pofture of receiving." Diffenting Gentleman's Answer to the Rev. Mr. White's Three Letters, p. 21.

+ See the use of the Signature of the Crofs in Baptifm, fully and learnedly vindicated in Bennet's Abridgment of the London Cafes, chap. vi.