But then you come to the Particular Reafons which, you fay, fome bave given for preferring the way of the Separation before that of the Church of England: And reduce them to these Three Heads. That in their prefent way they enjoy purer Ordi nances. That it affords them Communion with a better People. That it most conduces to their Edification. All which, you fay, are at once cut off by the finfulnefs of the Separation. But I hope not before you have prov'd the Separation to be Sinful. 1. That in the Way of Separation they enjoy purer Ordinances, freer from Ceremony, and the addition of things not commanded. But to this you think you have faid fo much in your First and Third Sections, that you fhould not think it necessary to add any more upon the Subject, were it not for fome Objections, that ly in your way, that you may leave nothing untouch'd (tho' but touch'd) that hath the Appearance of an Argument. And what I have alfo already reply'd to these your First and Third Sections, will make it unneceffary to fay much more here. But now for your Particulars. 1. It is Objected, that your Ecclefiaftical Rites and Ceremonies are against the Rules of Scriptural Worship and Gofpel Simplicity. But to confute this, you speak very confidently, that this Simplicity, if the Apolle Himfelf underfood what he ment by it, is never oppos'd to Ceremonies; but only to Falfhood and Hypocrify, because you find it fo us'd in fome places. "But if Simple and Compound be Oppofite Terms, then is it as properly and directly oppos'd to Humane Rites and Ceremonies, as it is to Hypocrify, 2 Cor. 1. 12. It is oppos'd to Fleshly Wifdom; but the Fleshly Wisdom, as it is exercis'd about the matters of God's Worfhip, appears in the devifing and impofing of thofe Pompous, Mystical Rites, and fignificant Ceremo nies, whereby it pretends to adorn the Worship; and in this Senfe it feems to be, that the Apostle here ufes it, Why as tho' living in the World are ye fubject to Ordinances, Col. 2. 20. After the Commandments and Doctrines of Men; Which things have indeed a fhew of Wisdom in Will-worship, Ver. 22, 23. What was the main Scope of his Epiftle to the Galatians, but to confirm them in their Chriftian Liberty, against thofe Rites and Ceremonies, which some would have obtruded on them? And with what a warmth of Zeal doth he exprefs himself in that case, calls it a perverting of the Gospel of Christ, Chap. 1.7: and pronounces an Anathema, ver. 8, 9. and wishes that they were cut off that troubled them with these things, Chap. 5. 12. And that it was not Herefies in Doctrine that he fo inveighs againft, but the abolished Rites and Ceremonies, wherewith the pure Worship of God began then to be adulterated. appears by his Difcourfe all along, How turn ye again to the Weak and Beggarly Elements, whereunto ye defire again to be in Bondage? Te obferve Days, and "Months, and Times, and Years; I am afraid of you, left I have bestowed upon you labour in vain, Chap. 4. 9, 10, 11. And whereas you are ftill fo confident to affirm, that the Apostle enjoyn'd and approv'd thofe Ceremonies you mention'd in your former Sections, I refer you, and my Readers, to what I have there answer'd in Confutation of it, it being evident, that there was nothing in the World that the Apostle Paul was more averfe to, than these things, of which you are fo exceffively fond. 2. You argued, That if the Church had Power to lay afide fome Rites, which were prefcrib'd by St. Paul himself, it hath Power alfo to appoint others of the like nature. To which I answer'd in my Letter" p. 79. That because a Church hath power to purge it felf of fome unneceflary and offenfive Vanities, it doth not follow that it hath therefore power to intro duce duce others; which I illuftrated by the Example of the Brazen Serpent, which when it came to be abufed, Hezekiab had power to take it down, that it might no longer ftand as an Inftrument of Idolatry in that Church; yet had not therefore power to erect another thing of his own Invention, in the room of it, which had he done, would have deferv'd no better name than a Gambole; For if Hezekiah, and the People with him, might (without offence) call that Symbole of God's own erecting, when Idolatrously abused, by a name of contempt, Nehushtan, I fuppofe we may call that which is but of Man's Invention, and unwarrantable obtruding on God's Worship, a Gambole; yea, and call thofe Ceremonies too, which were never of Apoftolical Inftitution, at least when become Scandalous, and justly to be abandon'd, Offenfive and Unnecessary Vanities, without the danger of Libelling against Religion, or of Burlesquing on it, as you so very wittily fuggeft. But fo Sacred a thing is a Ceremony with you, that there must not a hard word be spoken of it, tho' it be become never fo Scandalous. By which it appears, what it is that you place you" Religion in. But what you mean by your coming to the matter at which I aim, I do not understand, or to what purpose you tell me, That as nothing Vind. p.127. less than an Almighty Power could give a Miraculous Vertue to the Brazen Serpent, and nothing lefs could take it away; So no lefs Authority can abrogate a Law, or Conftitution, than that which made it. That it was an Almighty Power that gave the Brazen Serpent that Miraculous Vertue, cannot be deny'd; but what was it that took away that Vertue, but the Peoples Sin in turning it into an Idol? Or where do you read of any particular Order, that God gave Hezekiah, for the taking it away? Was not the Abuse of it fufficient to make it, not only warrantable, but Commendable, to do it? That which is appointed but as a Mean, if it obtain not its good End, but deftroys it, is ipfo facto void. As for the Ceremonies of Men's De vifing and Conftituting, how Expedient foever they might feem to be in their Original, when they become Offenfive, they lofe their End, and the Authority of their Inftitution, and ought to be rejected, whether the Human Authority, that fet them up, will be perfwaded to take them away, or no. For otherwife you fin in laying afide any of the Rites of the Church of Rome, without that Churches Leave and Authority. And whether you will lay this as a guilt on the Reformation, I cannot tell. 3. You are offended with me for faying, Why Should not the Scripture determine to us what is Decent and Orderly in the Worship of Page 128. God? But this Queflion, you fay, might more fitly have been propos'd to the Sacred Pen-men. Here you give us another rare Specimen of your Ingenuity: As if it had not been plain enough, that this Negative Interrogation of mine was no other than an Affirmation, Sir, this Captiousness discovers but your own Weakness. And whereas you fay, I would have no Ceremony Impos'd, for which there is no Particular Rule in the Holy Scripture, there's never a word of it true. For Firft, 'Twas Decency and Order that I there mention'd, and not Ceremony, unless you will fay that there is nothing Decent or Orderly in the Worship of God, but what lies in the Ceremonies that Men have drefs'd it up with Or that all thofe Circumstantials which naturally and neceffarily conduce to the Decent and Orderly performance of it, are but Ceremonies, the contrary whereof I have already prov'd. Nor yet did I fpeak of Particular Rules, that were to be expected from the Holy Scriptures for these things; but but that they give General Directions, which ought to determine us, as to what is Decent and Orderly. But to this Question, as you have thus diftorted it, you have Four things to reply. 1. You fay, That it appears from what hath been faid, that feveral Circumstances of Worship are left undetermined in the Holy Scriptures, which yet must fome way be decided. Now you fpeak of Circumftances, whereas the Question was of Ceremonies. How will you falve this Inconfiftency? Or do you dream that Circumftances and Ceremonies are Convertible Terms? Sure tho' all Ceremonies be Circumstances, and in their own nature no more, if you do not Superftitiously make them Parts of Worfhip, yet all Circumftances are not Ceremonies. And then if by Undetermined, you mean, not particularly determined, I agree with you; but then the Particular determination of these Circumstances depends partly on the Nature of Divine Worship; and partly on the Providence of God, and the Various Conditions of Perfons, Times, and Places; partly on the General Rules that are given in Scripture, and partly on the Prudence of Men, directed by a due Confideration and Application of these things, as may beft fubferve the Honour of God, and the proper Ends of Divine Worship. 2. To your Second thing I have faid enough before, where you very mistakingly fuppofe that the Apostles Prefcrib'd and Enjoyn'd thofe feveral Ceremonious Rites and Ufages, which are mention'd in fome of their Epiftles, tho' they only fpake of them, as things then in common ufe, and did for the present bear with them, till they were afterward worn out of ufe, and justly laid afide as Scandalous. But to lay afide fome, and to fet up others, is what we have no Apoftolical Precept, or Precedent, nor any Reafon for, unless it be to fatisfy the Impofing Humours, or to ferve the Private Interests of fome Men. 3. The |