in fome Congregations than in others, (which the Diffenters must acknowledge to be the Cafe of their own Affemblies) the Impediments to fuch Edification ought to be placed to the Account of the Service itself?—The proper and unavoidable Answers to these Questions will, I trust, destroy all Pretenfions to extraordinary Spirituality in our Non-conformists; and putting this out of the que tion, we may further ask, whether, in point of Reason, the Usage of the universal Church before the Reformation be not a proper Precedent for us to go by? Whether the general Wants and Neceffities of Mankind, both fpiritual and temporal, be not daily the fame? and if so, whether the Form of Common Prayer may not properly and rationally be the fame too? Whether there be more Efficacy in Variety of speaking, than in much speaking? Whether, because there are fuch Things as vain Repetitions, therefore all Repetitions be vain? Whether the Prayers or the Difcourfes of the Separatifts, be more exactly adapted to the Cafe of every Individual in the Affembly, than those of the established Ministry? Whether a Congregation may not join with as much Safety and Devotion in the known and ordinary Supplications of the Church, as in the at beft uncertain, and poffibly ridiculous Flights of unprepared Oratory? Whether there be not more Danger of Obfcurity, Ambiguity, Tautology, and Inconfiftency in the latter Cafe, than in VOL. I.

R

the

the former? Whether the Lord's Prayer (of which the Diffenters themselves allow the Use) may not be faid, and attended to with as much Devotion, as any fubitaneous Oration whatsoever? If so, whether any other known Prayer is like to be attended to with less Devotion, purely because 'tis known? Finally, whether, in our Addreffes and Petitions to temporal Magistrates, we do not always take care that the Matter of them be as correct, and elegant, and refpectful as may be ? and, if fo, whether it be decent or pious to approach to God with less Caution, Accuracy, and Reverence in our Requests, than we do to Man? The Import of fuch Interrogatories as these must, I prefume, evince the Piety, Propriety, and Expedience of fet Forms of Prayer, as fuch, to candid and unprejudiced Minds; and if of fet Forms in general, fo particularly of the Liturgy now used by the Church of England.- -Of this Liturgy› which has been so often and fo unanswerably vindicated, I think it needless to enter into a Panegyric here; and therefore I fhall content myself with obferving, that making Allowance for a few inconfiderable Overfights and Defects, the Exceptions that have been made against it, or any Part of it, are demonftrably founded in Perverfeness and Hypercriticism, and fufpectably in Difaffection, Treachery, and even Infidelity.-For Proof of this I appeal not only to the daily Attacks made upon

the

the Athanafian Creed, (which are at least liable, in an Age so profeffedly infidel as this, to be fufpected of being clandeftine Attacks upon the Chriftian Faith itself) but also to the Alterations and pretended Amendments of certain Prayers and Paffages in the Liturgy, which were fome Time fince obtruded upon the World. The Frigidity, the Abfurdity, the manifeft Inferiority of these to the standing Service of the Church are so glaring, that it is no Breach of Juftice or Charity to apprehend the Defign of the Authors was to abolish what they profeft to reform, and eventually to fuperfede the Use of any Liturgy in the Church, by affecting to rectify and correct the present.—That I speak not this with any undue Partiality for the Services of the Church, or with injurious Infinuations to the Prejudice of thefe Authors, one particular Alteration will, I prefume, abundantly fatisfy my Readers; I mean the Amendment (fo called) of that excellent Hymn (of which the Poetry as well as Piety is most admirable) the Te-Deum.Upon the whole, though it is not to be denied that the Liturgy might undergo fome few Alterations for the better, yet, if we may judge from the late Attempts that have been made, and the Specimens that have been offered with this View, I humbly conceive this not to be the Day of Reformation.After all, the Defects and Inaccuracies that be complained of in our public Service are fuch as but

R 2

may

little

little affect the Point of Edification; to which the Liturgy in it's present Form is, we may venture to affert, as clearly inftrumental as any Compofition of the fame Nature in the antient or modern Churches of Christendom.

Hitherto the Charge of Dissenters against the Church has been negative only; the remaining is a positive one, absolutely accufing her of Superftition in her Customs, Ordinances, Rites, and Ceremonies; a Charge, 'tis prefumed, laid with no more Justice or Propriety than the other.-Now the present Charge must be levelled either at the Number or the Nature of the Ceremonies, &c. used in the Church; if at the Number, they are challenged to prove that there are more than serve to a decent Order, and godly Difcipline, (as the Compilers of the Liturgy express themselves) or that there ought to be fewer if they will admit of any; if at the Nature, they are defired to fhew that they are vain, dark, or dumb Ceremonies, "blinding the People, obfcuring "the Glory of God, hindering and not helping true

Piety, and confounding rather than declaring and "fetting forth Chriff's Benefits unto us." For to do the reverse of all this, is the professed Intent and Purpose of our Church Ceremonies. Do all Rites, Emblems, and Ceremonies, in their own Nature, rather darken, obfcure, and diminish Realities, than fignify, illuftrate, set off, and explain them? If they do, why are they fo univerfally used and

approved

approved of in all extraordinary temporal Matters? If they do not, why is the Ufe of them to be fuperfeded in fpiritual? or why is the Non-effentiality of them to be pleaded against the Use of them in one Cafe, more than the other?-It would be abfurd to think of crowning a King without Ceremony; and yet Ceremony fure is not effential to a Coronation. -And I believe it to be impoffible to prove, that the Divine Majefty can be ferved decently and reverently without fome Forms or Ceremonies, allowing the fame to be no essential Parts of Religion.

Again-A Ceremony, or Custom, is fuperftitious in itself, or in it's Application. Are the Ceremonies and Customs of the Church of England chargeable with Superftition upon either of these Accounts? Where there are the leaft Grounds for Scruples, is the not careful to remove them? And is it not unreasonable and uncharitable to impute to her what she most strongly and explicitly difavows?

-Thus, "to take away all Scruple concerning "the Ufe of the Sign of the Cross in Baptifm, the "true Explication thereof, and the juft Reasons "for retaining of it, may be seen in the 30th "Canon:" and with regard to the receiving the Holy Sacrament kneeling, our Church exprefly declares," that thereby no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the facramental "Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal Prefence of Chriff's natural Flesh