of the Cross as a solemn Profession of a crucified Saviour and a suffering Religion as Constantine make the Cross his Banner and Royal Standard and yet would any Christian refuse to fight under a General who bore the Cross in his Banner If you say that this is onely a civil Signe and Ceremony I deny it and affirm that it was as much a religious Ceremony as the signe of the Cross in Baptism unless any man think that there can be no Religion in the Field but onely in the Church That which makes it a religious Ceremony either upon a mans forehead or in the Emperours Standard is that it is done upon a religious account as a publick and visible profession of our Faith in a crucified Saviour and I think the Cross in the Emperours Standard displayed in the open Field in the sight of Pagans is a more publick and visible Profession of the Cross than what is privately transacted in the Church and leaves no visible signe behind it And I cannot imagine why any man should not as much scruple to fight under such a visible Banner of the Cross as to receive an invisible signe of it upon his forehead since the Profession the Ceremony and the Religion of it is the same It is true such Ceremonies as these ought not to be numerous nor too familiarly used nor upon slight occasions for this burdens Religion and makes them degenerate into Superstition or Formality But our Church has retained but one such Ceremony and that used but once in a mans life upon the most solemn occasion in the world at our admission to Baptism and it argues very little understanding in our Reconciler to reproach the Church for this and scornfully to ask Why she rejects crossing of the breast and retains crossing in the forehead why she rejects crossing at the consecration of the Eucharist and the Baptismal Water and retains it at the baptizing of the Infant why she rejects Exorcism Chrysom Vnction Dipping trine Immersion and retains the Cross in Baptism It does not become me to censure the Practice of the ancient Church in any of these Ceremonies but I think if the ancient Church cannot be condemned for these things our Church cannot One Ceremony is more easily justified than twenty and the using of it once upon a very solemn occasion than a too familiar use especially where it cannot so properly be called a professing Signe which is all I undertake for The onely Objection I can think of against the signe of the Cross in Baptism as a professing Signe is this That there is no need of such a Profession as this because we make the very same Profession at our Baptism which represents and signifies our conformity to the Death and Resurrection of Christ and therefore this is a vain and superfluous addition to the Sacrament of Baptism and does tacitly charge that divine Institution with defect I answer The same Objection for the very same reason might have been made against the Love-Feast which was celebrated at the very same time with the Lords Supper to signifie that Brotherly love and charity which was and ought to be among the Disciples of Christ and yet that heavenly Feast of the Lords Supper does not onely signifie our Union to Christ our Head but our Union to each other as Members of the same Body and therefore required the actual exercise of Brotherly love in receiving And yet this is acknowledged on all hands to be an Apostolical Institution observed by the Apostles themselves and all the Apostolical Churches of those days The same Answer then will serve for both That Christian Love and Unity is included in the Supper of our Lord and a patient suffering for the Name of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptism but neither of these Sacraments were instituted to signifie these Duties nor do they signifie them otherwise than collaterally and consequentially The proper use of these Sacraments is not to signifie and represent a Duty but to convey divine Blessings and Vertues to us The Pardon of our sins and the Gift of the holy Spirit in Baptism which incorporates us into the Body of Christ and the continual supplies of Grace and renewals of Pardon in the Lords Supper where we feast on the Sacrifice of Christ and partake in the Merits of it But then as we all feast on the same Sacrifice of Christ eat of the same Bread and drink of the same Cup this consequentially signifies that we are Members of the same Body and that we ought to love one another with the most tender and natural affections But the mutual love and charity of Christians being so great a Duty of the Christian Religion and so proper to be exercised at this time for which reason they used also to kiss each other before receiving and yet not directly and primarily represented in this holy Feast the Apostles did not think it any derogation from the Lords Supper to appoint a common Table for all Christians to eat at as a Testimony and Exercise of mutual love and charity with each other When we feast with any person it is a direct signification that we are in a state of Friendship and Reconciliation with him at whose Table we eat but it does not so immediately signifie that all the Guests who eat at the same Table are Friends to each other It is reasonable indeed that it should be so and God expects and requires that it should be so and none are welcome at Gods Table who do not come in perfect love and charity But I say the Lords Supper considered as a symbolical Rite does not primarily and directly signifie it and therefore the Apostles thought fit to signifie and profess this by a common Table where Christians first eat and drank together as Friends and having thus testified their mutual kindness to each other they were the better prepared to eat together at the Table of their common Lord and Saviour and receive the Tokens and Pledges of his love to them all So that this Love-Feast did not at all intrench upon the Lords Supper it being instituted for a different end though in subserviency to it And thus it is in Baptism It is the Sacrament of our Initiation whereby we are made Members of the Body of Christ and intituled to all the Blessings of the New Covenant but the external Ceremony of Baptism whereby we are said to be implanted into the likeness of Christs death does not primarily signifie our laying down our lives for Christ though that be a necessary Condition of our Discipleship but it signifies our new Birth our spiritual conformity to the death of Christ by dying to sin and walking in newness of life as St. Paul discourses in the 6 Rom. And therefore taking up the Cross being by Christ himself made such an express Condition of our Discipleship the Primitive Christians thought it very fitting to make a visible Profession of this by receiving the signe
with the Faith of Christ For if any man 〈◊〉 thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in an Idols Temple shall not the conscience of him that is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to Idols and through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish for whom Christ died by being confirmed in his Idolatry by thy Example 3. Now the Apostle disputes against this practice of the Gnosticks of eating in the Idols Temple two several ways 1. Upon the supposition of the lawfulness of it 2. By proving it unlawful 1. Upon the supposition of the lawfulness of it and this he does in the eighth Chapter He allows that Principle of the Gnosticks That an Idol is nothing in the world and supposes for argument sake that this would justifie those who have this knowledge in eating at an Idols Temple for that the Apostle himself was not of this mind appears from the tenth Chapter of which more presently yet since there were so many professed Christians among them who were still leavened with their Pagan Superstitions and could not presently renounce that kind of Worship which they had been so long accustomed to as some Copies read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeâ—d of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 7. that some out of custom to the Idol instead of with conscience of the Idol it was very uncharitable by doing the same thing which they did though with very different notions and apprehensions to confirm them in their Idolatrous Practices Though these knowing Gnosticks who believed an Idol to be nothing might eat in the Idols Temple without being guilty of Idolatry yet thâ—y must acknowledge that those who believed these Idols to be Gods and did eat that meat which was offered to them under the notion of Sacrifices were guilty of Idolatry and therefore they were guilty of a very great sin when by doing the same thing though without Idolatry they encouraged those to do so too who were certainly guilty of Idolatry in it And the guilt of this is so much the greater because though they should suppose it lawful to eat at an Idols Temple yet they were under no necessity of doing it if they did not sin in it yet neither did they please God meerly by eating such meats as were offered to Idols for meerly to eat or not to eat any kind of meats is not in it self an acceptable service to God Meat commendeth us not to God for neither if we eat are we the better neither if we eat not are we the worse And therefore certainly we may abstain from it without any other injury than laying some little restraints upon the exercise of our private liberty and this is therefore a proper matter for the exercise of Christian charity as the Apostle had discoursed in the case of the Jews and Gentiles And though the Gnosticks thought that eating in an Idols Temple was a great argument of the perfection of their knowledge yet the Apostle tells them that charity and the care of their Brothers soul was to be preferred before such a vain boast of knowledge Take beed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died For which reason in the beginning he told them Knowledge puffeth up but charity edifieth This is the sum of the Apostle's reasoning in this eighth Chapter upon a supposition that it were lawful to eat in an Idols Temple Now what affinity is there between this case and that of our Dissenters Those who knew that an Idol was nothing and therefore that it could not pollute the meat which was offered in sacrifice to it might eat in an Idols Temple without Idolatry but yet ought not to do it when their Example though innocent in it self would confirm others in actual Idolatry therefore the Governours of the Church must not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship because Dissenters will not obey them but turn Schismaticks If our Reconciler be not ashamed to argue at this rate I am ashamed to confute him But it is plain he mistook the case For he says The Apostle grants that it is lawful in it self for Christians to eat of things offered to Idols he should have added in an Idols Temple where it had an immediate relation to the Idol which was the matter in dispute between the Apostle and the Gnosticks because an Idol was nothing in the world But now the Apostle does not grant this but onely at present supposes the lawfulness of it for in the tenth Chapter he professedly confutes it He tells them that to partake of a Sacrifice signifies our communion with that being to whom the Sacrifice is offered Thus it was with the Jewish Sacrifices Behold Israel after the flesh are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar Thus it is in the commemorative Sacrifice of the Lords Supper The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ And thus to eat of the Idols Sacrifice in the Idols Temple is communion with the Idol Well says the Gnostick what communion can there be with that which is not or will you say That an Idol is any thing or that which is offered in sacrifice to Idols is any thing Will you say that there are any such Gods as the Heathens worship Or will you say that that is a Sacrifice or that that meat is polluted which is offered to nothing No says the Apostle I do not say that there are any such Gods as the Heathens worship for they worshipped dead men and women who cannot be present at their Sacrifices to receive their Worship or it may be they worship onely some fanciful and poetick Names and Fictions but this I say that though Iupiter and Bacchus Minerva and Diana and the rest of the poetick Deities are meer fictitious Gods yet wicked Spirits supply their places receive their Worship and attend their Sacrifices and therefore though these Heathen Idolaters be not in communion with those fictitious Gods whom they pretend to worship yet they are in communion with Devils who assume the names of these Gods But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to Devils and not to God and I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devils Whether this can be reconciled with the lawfulness of eating in an Idols Temple because an Idol is nothing in the world let our Author consider But he proceeds He the Apostle moreover grants that they who out of conscience did abstain from eating of such things had a weak conscience and that their conscience was defiled by eating of such things onely because they wanted knowledge or were not well perswaded of this truth that Christians had a liberty or power to be
Reverence of God and of the Vigour and Chearfulness of our Minds But I shall onely instance here in kneeling at the Sacrament which with our Reconciler's leave I must needs think a very decent Ceremony both as it distinguishes it from a common Feast and is very agreeable to the nature of that holy Mystery In this holy Supper we feast indeed at the Table of our Lord but this is not a common and ordinary Feast and therefore an ordinary Table-posture does not become us for this is not to discern the Lords body that is not to distinguish it from a common Feast If the Decency of religious Worship consists in peculiar and appropriate Ceremonies certainly there ought to be some distinguishing marks on this mysterious Feast And what more proper than to receive our Pardon upon our knees which is here sealed and conveyed to us What more proper than in the highest act of Worship to our Saviour to express the greatest humility of Soul and Body and when we receive the greatest and most ample favours from him to acknowledge our own unworthiness and pay the lowest Adorations to him I could be tempted to say that if any particular Ceremony in Religion be necessarily determined by an innate Decency and Fitness kneeling at the Lords Table is III. The Decency of Worship consists in a respect to the quality conditions and relations of those who worship God This Rule I learn from that reason the Apostle gives why a man should pray uncovered and a woman covered to signifie the natural Authority of the man and Subjection of the woman For the same reason he would not suffer a woman to speak in the Church because they must be under obedience for to teach is an act of Authority and therefore does not become her state of Subjection And there are other cases to which this may be applied but all that I shall at present observe is the use of distinct Habits for separate and consecrated Persons in the Worship of God The Apostle it seems thought it a piece of Decency that their external Garb and Habit when they worshipped God should be proper and suitable to their state and condition should represent and signifie the Authority and Government of the man and the Subjection of the woman And then I would fain know a reason why this is not decent for the Ministers of Religion too that they should perform the publick Offices of Religion in such a distinct Habit as may both signifie the peculiarity of their Function and that holiness and purity of mind which becomes those who minister in holy things A white Linnen Garment has always been thought very proper for this purpose the twenty four Elders who sate about the Throne are represented as clothed in white Linnen Garments nay that great multitude which stood before the Throne and before the Lamb were clothed with white Robes Nay this is one priviledge which was granted to the Wife of the Lamb that she should be clothed with fine Linnen clean and white Which I alledge onely for this purpose to shew that a white Linnen Garment is very proper for the Ministries of Religion and very expressive both of the Honour and Purity of the Ministerial Function for otherwise it would not be represented as the habit of those Elders who sate round the Throne nor as the habit of the Lambs Wife for all these prophetical descriptions must borrow their figures and resemblances from earthly things And if a white Linnen Garment were not proper to signifie the Dignity and Honour and Holiness of such Persons it could not properly be used to represent and signifie that in Heaven which it does not signifie on Earth And if a white Linnen Garment do very aptly â—ignifie both the Honour and Purity of such a Function and it be a piece of Decency to use such Habits in religious Worship as are proper to the state condition or relation of the Worshippers we may certainly conclude that a Surplice or a white Linnen Garment is a very decent Habit for the Ministers of Religion when they perform the publick Offices of Religion I confess I cannot see what can reasonably be objected against this For why should not the Ministers of Religion worship God in a Habit expressive of the Dignity and Holiness of their Office as well as men and women in such Habits as signifie the natural Honour and Dignity or Subjection of these different Sexes Is not Religion as much concerned in the Honour and Purity of the Ministerial Office as in such oeconomical relations And is it not as fitting then to signifie one as the other by distinct and appropriate Habits If it be said that these external signs are nothing worth and that the Honour of the Ministry is more concerned in the Purity of their Lives than in the whiteness of their Garments this answer might have been given to St. Paul when he commanded the men to pray uncovered and the women covered That the Obedience and Subjection of Wives to their own Husbands is much more valuable than their praying covered in token of such Subjection But it seems S. Paul thought that the Decency and Solemnity of Worship did require the external signs and significations of this though every body knows that a signe is not so valuable as the thing signified This I hope is a sufficient Vindication of those Rites and Ceremonies of Religion which are also the necessary circumstances of action and it is a wonderful thing that this should ever be a Controversie whether the Governours of the Church have any Authority in these matters The Dissenters themselves at other times will acknowledge that the Church has Authority to prescribe the necessary circumstances of action and I take that to be necessary without which an action cannot be performed as I think it cannot be without time place habit and posture And since different times places habits postures may be lawful and some are necessary it must be left to the prudence of Governours to determine which shall be observed according to the Rules of Decency and Order And when the determination of these things is necessary it seems a more ridiculous thing to me to quarrel with Habits and Postures for their signification if they signifie well for there is no other Rule that I know of to determine the Decency of religious Circumstances but by their signification as I think sufficiently appears from what I have already discours'd That which signifies nothing is neither decent nor indecent that which signifies ill any thing unworthy of God or unsutable to the nature of religious Worship is indecent that which signifies well the Devotion and Reverence of our Minds our religious Awe for God or that peculiar Honour we have for him is a very decent Circumstance and yet this is all which men raise so much Clamour about under the formidable name of Symbolical Ceremonies But as I observed before there are
the Lord and bow my self before the high God shall I come before him with burnt-offerings with calves of a year old Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousand rivers of oyl shall I give my first-born for my transgression the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul He hath shewed thee O man what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God Now because God prefers true and real goodness before the externals of Religion does it hence follow that there must be no external Worship or that the Church must make no Laws for the decent or orderly performance of it or must repeal these Laws when any ignorant people refuse to submit to them Just as much as that God did not require them to offer Sacrifice because he preferred Mercy before it Our Reconciler obsâ—rves two Cases to which our Saviour applies this saying 1. To justifie his Disciples who pulled the ears of Corn as they walked through the fields and rubbed them in their hands and eat them on the Sabbath-day which the Pharisees expounded to be a breach of the Sabbatick rest as being a servile work and our Saviour does not dispute with them upon that point but justifies what they did by their present necessity and by this Rule I will have mercy and not sacrifice That God who prefers acts of Kindness and Mercy before Sacrifice when they come in competition with each other is not such a rigorous exacter of obedience to any positive Institutions as to allow no Indulgence to necessity it self and it becomes Church-Governours to imitate the goodness of God in this and our Church does so as I have already observed but how this proves that the Church must make no Laws about Ceremonies or repeal them if men won't obey them I do not understand The next instance is our Saviour's justifying himself against the accusations of the Pharisees for his eating and drinking with Publicans and Sinners which he tells them was onely in order to reform them as a Physician converses with the sick and certainly it was lawful to converse with them upon so charitable a designe since God preferred Mercy before Sacrifice and therefore certainly God will be better pleased with our conversing with Sinners in order to make them good men than with our abstaining from their company though a familiar conversation with them upon other accounts be scandalous And how this proves what our Reconciler would conclude from it I cannot see Well but this is a general Rule which may be applied to more cases than one or two Right But if we will argue from our Saviour's authority and application we must apply it onely to such cases as are parallel to those cases to which our Saviour applies it otherwise we must not pretend the authority of our Saviour but the reason of the thing and let him set aside our Saviour's authority and we shall deal well enough with his Reason All that can be made of this Rule is this That where there happens any such case that there is a temporary competition between two Duties which are both acknowledged to be our duty there the greatest and most necessary duty must take place and particularly that all Rituals must give place to Mercy So that to make this a parallel case our Reconciler must grant that it is the duty of Church-Governours to prescribe Rules for the external Decency and solemnity of Worship what is the other Duty then to which this must give way To the care of mens Souls says our Reconciler No say I there is no inconsistency between the care of mens Souls and the care of publick Worship which is the best way of taking care of mens Souls and therefore there can never be a competition between these two O but some men are ignorant and scrupulous and wilful and if you prescribe any Rules of Worship they will dissent from them and turn Schismaticks and be damned and thus accidentally it affords occasion to these great and fatal evils Let him prove then if he can from these words of our Saviour that the Governours of the Church must never do their duty for fear those men should be damned who will not do theirs Such cases as these if they be truly pitiable must be left to the mercy of God but the Church can take no cognizance of them especially when this cannot be done without destroying the publick Decency and Solemnities of Worship and renouncing her own just Authority the maintaining of which is more for the general good of Souls than her compliance with some scrupulous persons would be I shall onely farther observe his great civility to theChurch and Kingdom of which he is a Member For his third Observation from these words is That they were used by the Prophet upon the occasion of the strictness of the Israelites in the observance and the requiring these Rituals whilst charity and mercy to their Brother was vanished from their hearts there being no truth no mercy nor knowledge of God in the land but killing committing adultery stealing lying and swearing falsly c. Now certainly it was no fault in the Jews at that time to be zealous for the external Worship instituted by the Law of Moses though our Reconciler seems to insinuate that it was for he matters not how he reproaches the Institutions of God himself so he can but reflect some odium on the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church yet they betrayed their Hypocrisie by their Zeal for the Externals of Religion while they neglected the weightier matters of the Law And left any man should be so dull as not to understand the meaning of this Observation he thetorically introduces it with a God forbid Now God forbid that I should say that it is thus in England but he is pleased to put men in mind of it if they please to think so This is true Fanatick Cant and Charity There must be no Rules prescribed for the Worship of God the Church must not take care to reclaim or restrain Schismaticks because our Reconciler thinks the State does not take sufficient care to punish other Vices Certainly there never was any Age of the Church wherein the publick Ministers of Religion took more care to decry this Pharisaical Hypocrisie of an external Religion and to teach men that nothing will recommend them to God without the practice of an universal Righteousness than at this day who will not flatter the greatest men in their Vices nor think any man a Saint because he expresses a great Zeal for the Church when his life and actions proclaim him to be a Devil We leave this good Reconciler to your beloved tender-conscienced Dissenters who can strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel who cannot see a Surplice without horror but can dispence with Lying and Perjury with Slanders and Revilings and speaking
prove by these following Considerations First I observe that the Apostle himself makes a plain distinction between an offence offered to private and particular men and that publick offence which is offered to the Church or to the Body and Society of Christians Give none offence neither to the Iews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God Which shews that we are to have a different regard to particular men in their single or private capacity whether they be believing or unbelieving Jews or Gentiles and to the Church or whole Community of Christians For this is an eternal Law in all Societies to prefer the publick good before the interest of any particular man And therefore though we must have a tender regard to the satisfaction of particular men and have a great care lest we offend a weak Brother in such matters as are of a private nature and use yet in all things of a publick nature i. e. in all things which concern Christian Communion we are to have a greater care of offending the Church than particular Christians though their numbers may be great And therefore we cannot argue that because we must grant all reasonable indulgence to weak Brethren in such matters as do not concern Church-communion which is the case of the Apostles indulgence to the Jews therefore the publick Constitutions of the Church and Rules of Worship must be made to comply with the private Fancies and Humours of men and submit to unreasonable Scruples Our Reconciler owns this consequence as to Dissenters Seeing the refusal of submission to these things gives great offence unto the Church of God it equally concerneth the Dissenters upon these motives to submit unto them and it concerns them both to be as the Apostle careful to please all men in all things not seeking their own profit but the profit of many that they may be saved But why could not our Reconciler observe that this Rule equally concerns Governours as it does Dissenters not to offend the Church of God when he so earnestly disputes that Church-Governours are as much concerned in all these Rules of charity forbearance avoiding offence and scandal as private Christians and St. Paul urges this Exhortation from his own Example even as I please all men in all things Now if Church-Governours must not offend the Church they can grant a liberty and indulgence to the private scruples and fancies of men onely in such things as do not concern the publick communion of Christians The Rules of Worship and the Methods of Government and Discipline must be fixt and determined according to the general directions of the Gospel and with regard to the publick edification of the Church not to the pleasing and humouring some weak and scrupulous Christians for it is a just offence and scandal to the Church to make some mens private Fancies and groundless Scruples the Rule and Measure of Christian Worship Secondly This will more plainly appear if we consider a very material difference between indulging mens private scruples which concern matters of private use and observance and indulging such scruples as affect the publick Worship of Christians that in the first case Christian communion may be secured Men might worship God together according to the common Principles of Christianity though believing Jews were allowed to abstain from all meats forbidden by the Law of Moses and believing Gentiles indifferently to eat of all but when men differ about the Rules of Christian Worship one of these three things must happen Either 1. That Christians of different Perswasions in these matters must divide communion and separate from each other Or 2. That Christian Worship must be made to comply with the groundless fancies of scrupulous Christians Or 3. That men of differing opinions must be allowed to observe different Modes and Rites of Worship in the same Christian Assemblies each of which are a great offence and scandal to the Church of God 1. That Christians of different Perswasions must divide communion and separate from each other This is the usual effect of such Disputes about the Modes of Worship as our own sad experience witnesseth But this our Reconciler will not plead for and to be sure St. Paul never intended as you shall hear more presently 2. Christian Worship then must be made to comply with the groundless Fancies of scrupulous Christians That is there must be no Rules given for the Decency and Solemnity of publick Worship but what the most ignorant and most humoursome Professor will readily submit to which is both absurd in it self and inconsistent with all Government and makes it impossible to secure the external Decency and Solemnity of Worship which ought to be the principal care of Church-Governours as I have already proved 3. As for the third That men of differing opinions might be allowed to observe different Rites and Modes of Worship in the same Christian Assemblies This is as absurd as the other as sufficiently appears from what I have already discours'd At this rate the Governours of the Church cannot do their duty in taking care of the external Decency of publick Worship for who can foresee what Indecencies will be committed when every man is left to worship God as he pleases Nay this very thing in it self is extremely indecent for what Order what Decency can there be where there is no one Rule of Worship Uniformity in worship is like the proportion and symmetry of parts in the natural body wherein the external grace and beauty of it consists Though there were no difference at all as to external reverence in the several postures of receiving the Lords Supper whether kneeling standing or sitting yet it would be indecent and disorderly in the Communicants who receive together not to observe the same posture for some to kneel others to stand others to sit I am sure we should think it so at any ordinary and common Feast should some of the Guests sit at the Table on Chairs others stand and eat by themselves in a corner others sit on the ground others lean on Couches though there were nothing indecent in any of these postures according to the different Modes and Fashions of different Countries yet such an odd and humoursome variety it self is indecent and disorderly at the same Feast And if it be so at a common Table I think the indecency is much greater and more unpardonable at the Table of our Lord which requires the most universal harmony and consent Nay such a variety as this must needs give mutual offence and scandal to each other in the very act of receiving as I have already observed The onely reason that is or can be pretended why every man should be left to his own liberty to worship God as he thinks best is because men are divided in their Opinions about the Modes and Rites of Worship One thinks that rude and unmannerly which another thinks necessary One thinks that posture or habit c.