ing up at the creed must be a new sacrament, as well as the sign of the cross, if this were a true rule of judging what were sacraments?

But Mr. B. will have it, that the cross is a sacrament, because the preface in the Common Prayer Book about ceremonies says, "The Church only retains such ceremonies as serve to a decent order, and Godly discipline, and such as be apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some notable and spiritual signification (so he reads it instead of special signification) whereby he may be edified." Hence he infers, "That the cross is a sacrament, because it signifies Christ crucified, with the benefits of his cross; and the grace of edification, by stiring up our dull minds by the moral causality of the cause, and binding us to constancy to Christ."

But then all significant and edifying ceremonies must be new sacraments, as well as the cross, especially if they be apt to stir up our dull minds to the remembrance of our duty to God, by any notable and special signification. And putting off the hat, and kneeling at prayers, which are ceremonies of the French Church, will be sacraments as well as any other. For I hope no one will deny but that they are special significations of our inward reverence and humility, and are apt to stir up our dull minds to the remembrance of those duties also. Then Calvin's rules will turn all ceremonies into sacraments, because he requires ceremonies to be incitements to that reverence which we owe to God, and to be exercises or instruments of piety, and lead us in the way to Christ; such as will create a reverence in our minds for holy things, and be proper helps to excite us to devotion, and admonish us with what modesty, religion and observance we ought to handle sacred actions. This, in the Church's language, is to stir up our dull minds by significant ceremonies; but, in Mr. B.'s style, it is to make new sacraments.

As if nothing could put us in mind of our duty, but presently it must commence a sacrament; when as there is scarce any thing in the world but may suggest to us some good thought in an ordinary way, and work upon us as

external objects do, or seasonable words and good admonitions; which yet it would be new Divinity to term sacraments, though perhaps some of them might bid fairer for the name than the sign of the cross, or any other significant ceremonies of the Church, upon which Mr. B. fastens the imputation. Nothing can be a sacrament, but what is instituted to convey supernatural grace in a supernatural way. Now let any man prove the Church appoints any ceremonies for this purpose, and I will own she deserves the charge of usurping God's authority: but if it cannot be shewn that she appoints them to signify, or by their significancy, to work any other than common and ordinary effects upon our minds, in an ordinary and natural way; such as external objects, and decent circumstances of action (which may be helps to devotion) commonly do work; then men do ill to wound and terrify the consciences of the simple, by making them believe so false a charge against the Church; which tends not only to the prejudice of truth and peace here, but to the scandal of all the Churches of the Reformation, and more particularly the Church of France, whose principles and practice I have shewn to be the same with those of the Church of England, and consequently as liable to the same accusation.

I have insisted a little the longer upon clearing and vindicating this point, because the charge that is brought against the Church is so very heavy, and urged with so much confidence by those that form it.

CHAP. VII.

That the French Church makes her Rites and Ceremonies as necessary as the Church of England does.

The next charge against our Church is, that she uses an exorbitant power in making indifferent rites and ceremonies become necessary; which is to alter their nature, and make new terms of communion and everlasting salvation. To

which I answer, that the charge is false in every part of it: the Church neither alters the nature of indifferent things, nor makes them properly new terms of communion, or terms of salvation. First, she makes no alteration in the nature of indifferent things, but only restrains their use in the outward act, without laying any doctrinal necessity upon them, which is the only thing that can alter their nature. She does not say, they are absolutely necessary and immutable in their own nature, nor impose them as necessary for all times and places, nor oblige any other Church besides her own members, nor her own members to take them for particular commands of God which no man can alter; but all she requires is, conformity in the outward act, for the sake of peace and union, and decency and order. This declaration is made by the Church herself in the Preface of the Common Prayer Book, about ceremonies. "Those ceremonies which remain, were retained for a discipline and order, which upon just reasons may be altered and changed, and therefore are not to be esteemed equal with God's law. And in these our doings, we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe any thing but to our own people only. For we think it convenient, that every country should use ceremonies, as they shall think best to the setting forth of God's honour and glory." This certainly is the true liberty of all Christian Churches, to appoint what indifferent ceremonies they think fit for their own members: but it is no part of Christian liberty, for the particular members of any Church, to contemn and slight the laws of their community, when made by the aforesaid rules, about indifferent things. For the things are still indifferent in their own nature, and yet they are bound to observe them. Nor is there any absurdity at all in this, to say, that things are still indifferent and free in their own nature, though a necessity of outward obedience be laid upon us, unless the wisdom of all Churches be deceived. Le Blanc speaks in the name of all the French Church, when he says, "That rites and ceremonies appointed by the Church, are Observationes libera, matters of free observation; yet so, as that no one, by his private authority, may, or ought to contemn, or reject them." They may be commanded then, and yet

remain indifferent and free, according to the true notion of indifferency, which he there gives: which is, "That all things are indifferent and free, which are not necessary either in their own nature, or by Divine institution." Le Blanc Thes. de Script. Plenit. Par. i. n. 6, p. 56.

Now the ceremonies of our Church are thus indifferent and free, even after they are appointed: for they are neither said to be necessary in their own nature, nor by Divine institution; but only necessary to be observed for order's sake. And when men have disputed never so long, this is the case of the French and all other Churches, that act and speak judiciously about indifferent things.

But the Church of England makes rites and ceremonies necessary terms of Church communion, and consequently necessary terms of everlasting salvation. Here I ask again, does the Church make any of her particular rites so necessary to be observed by any doctrinal necessity, as to say, except ye use these particular rites ye cannot be saved? Does she say, that if men be not signed with the cross in baptism, their baptism is not valid to make them members of Christ, and heirs of salvation? If they do not receive the eucharist kneeling, they cannot otherwise be partakers of Christ's body and blood? No; but she enjoins these ceremonies, and no one can ordinarily have the sacraments without them: and does that make them new terms of communion and salvation? If so, then the French Church, and all Churches in the world, yea dissenters themselves, are guilty of making new terms of communion. I will put a plain case, in which I think all Churches are concerned. Suppose any man desires to be admitted to baptism, or the communion, in any Church; is it not necessary for him to comply with the particular orders of that Church, as to the time when, and the place where, those sacraments are to be administered? He must go to a church, and not to a river or a pond, to be baptized; and he must meet the assembly in a church, and not in an upper room; in the morning precisely at a stated hour, if he will hold communion with them. Now, suppose any man should be so weak, or so perverse, as to refuse communicating with the Church, because she has

appointed this particular time and place for administering the sacraments, (which are confessed to be indifferent circumstances in themselves,) and say, Christ appointed no such terms of communion, but left all times and places indifferent; and therefore he could not communicate with them, unless they left him at liberty to do it where and when he pleased. Would this be a just charge against the Church, and prove her guilty of adding other necessary terms of communion, because she determines these particular circumstances of time and place, which are indifferent in their own nature? I suppose, none but a delirious, or a fanatical man will think so. And yet this is the charge brought against the Church of England, for determining some indifferent circumstances relating to the administration of the sacraments: a charge that recoils back upon the head of those that make it, and wounds all protestant Churches, and more particularly the French; as I shall have occasion more particularly to shew, when I come to treat of baptism, and the communion of the Lord's supper; where I shall make it appear, that they require several indifferent circumstances, rites, and ceremonies to be observed, and yet do not think themselves guilty of making new terms of communion. All I shall say further here, is only to note in general the true notion of making new terms of communion ; the want of attending to which, seems to be the only ground of this objection. Now a Church is guilty of making new terms of communion, when she requires any thing as a necessary condition, which Christ has given her no authority to require. And this may be done, 1. By requiring the belief of some new article of faith. Or, 2. some sinful practice, as conditions of communion. Or, 3. by prescribing any rite as simply necessary in its own nature, which is indifferent, and condemning all others as sinful. For this indeed were to correct Christ's laws, and to alter the nature of indifferent things; which no Church has power to do. Nor, 4. may she impose her own ceremonies upon other Churches, and refuse to communicate with those that will not receive them. For all Churches are at liberty to prescribe rites for themselves; and if any Church undertakes