An answer to the dissenters pleas for separation, or, An abridgment of the London cases wherein the substance of those books is digested into one short and plain discourse.

CHAP. II. The use of indifferent things in the Worship of God, no objection against our Communion. (Book 2)

THE First Objection against our Communion is drawn from the use of indifferent things. Our Adversaries say, that indifferent things may not lawfully be us'd in the worship of God, and that our Communion is therefore unlawful, because we require men to use such indifferent things. Now that this objection may be fully answer'd, I shall do four things; viz.

First, I shall shew what is meant by indifferent things.

Secondly, I shall shew that indifferent things may be lawfully us'd in divine Worship.

Thirdly, I shall consider how we may know, what things are indifferent in the worship of God.

Fourthly, I shall shew, how we are to determine our selves in the use of indifferent things with respect to the worship of God.

I. Then, I shall shew what is meant by indifferent things. All actions are either duties or sins, or in∣different, that is, such as are neither duties nor sins. Duties or sins are so, either in their own nature or by Divine Law. That which is commanded is a duty; that which is forbidden is a sin; but that, which is neither commanded nor forbidden, is in∣different; because 'tis neither duty nor sin; and we may either chuse or refuse it without sin. For where no law is, there is no transgression; Rom. 4.15. Duty is duty, because 'tis commanded; and sin is sin, because 'tis forbidden; and indifferent is in∣different, because 'tis neither commanded nor for∣bidden. So that we may as well know by the silence of the Law what is indifferent, as we may know by its Authority what is a duty or a sin. For where there is no Law for or against, the matter is indif∣ferent. As for instance, suppose there should be a dispute concerning daies set apart for the service of God; how must this be determin'd, but by the Law of Nature or Revelation? Now if neither the Law of Nature nor the Law of Revelation say any thing of the observation of such daies, then we are at li∣berty to observe or not to observe them.

II. Indifferent things may be us'd in the Divine wor∣ship; as appears, 1. From the consideration of the Gospel-rules of worship, which (except what re∣late to the two Sacraments) are taken from the Na∣ture of the thing, and were the same in all Ages; viz. such as respect Order, Decency and Edification. 1 Cor. 14.26, 40. So that we are no otherwise bound, than all the world ever was; and therefore, since o∣thers have always determin'd the outward circum∣stances of worship, we have also the same liberty. The Rules themselves are general, and the Apostles rarely descend to particulars; but whenever they do,

they shew how far Custom, Charity and the reason of the thing ought to govern us; (as in the case of a Man's being uncover'd in God's worship, 1 Cor. 11.4, 7.) for they thought it impossible or not worth their while, to tie all Nations to the same Modes, since God may be honour'd by one as well as the o∣ther. If it be said, that when things are determin'd in general, the particulars are therein Virtually deter∣min'd, and so are not indifferent; I answer, that then nothing is indifferent, since there are general rules about every thing. As for example, all Meats are now lawful to Christians; but yet there are general rules, by which we are determin'd in the use of them, such as our own constitution, &c. but those rules do not make the Meats to be other than indifferent. So there are general rules for God's worship; but yet the particulars are indifferent, and prudence is to re∣gulate them. The general rules of Order, Decency and Edification depend upon variable circumstances, and may be different according to those circumstan∣ces. That thing may tend to Order, Decency and Edification in one Country or Age, which in another may tend to the contrary. Thus being cover'd in the Church, and the Custom of Love-Feasts, &c. were once thought decent; but afterwards the opinions of Men alter'd. So that Order, Decency and Edification being changeable things as circumstances vary, only general rules can be prescrib'd; but the particulars must be left to Authority to determine.

2. Our Saviour and his Apostles did use indifferent things, which were not prescrib'd, in Divine Wor∣ship. Thus he join'd in the Synagogal Worship, John 18.20, &c. tho' (if the place it self were at all prescrib'd) the manner of that Service was not so much as hinted at. Thus he us'd the Cup of Charity in the Passover, tho' it was not instituted;

Luke 22.16. The Feast of Dedication was an human institution, yet he vouchsaf'd to be present at it. Nay he comply'd with the Jews in the very posture of the Passover, which they chang'd to Sitting, tho' God had prescrib'd Standing. The Apostles also ob∣serv'd the hours of Prayer, which were of human institution, Acts 3.1. Now if Christ and his Apo∣stles did thus under the Jewish Law, which was so exact in prescribing outward Ceremonies; certainly we may do the same under the Gospel. I may add, that the Primitive Christians not only comply'd with the Jews in such Rites as were not forbidden, but also had some ritual observations taken up by themselves. Thus they (a) 1.1 wash'd the Disciples feet in imita∣tion of Christ, and (b) 1.2 us'd Love-Feasts; till they thought it convenient to lay them aside. From whence it appears that prescription is not necessary to make a Rite lawful; 'tis enough if it be not for∣bidden.

If it be said, that these usages of the Christian Church were civil observances, and us'd as well out of God's worship as in it; and therefore what there needed no institution for, might be lawfully us'd without it; I answer, 1. That this justifies most of our usages; for a white Garment was us'd in civil cases as a sign of Royalty and Dignity, &c. 2. A civil observance, when us'd in Religious wor∣ship, either remains civil, when so apply'd; or is religious, when so apply'd. If it be civil, then kneeling in God's worship is not religious, because 'tis a posture us'd in civil matters. If it be reli∣gious, then a rite that is not prescrib'd, may be us'd in worship to a religious end. 3. 'Tis evi∣dent,

that (c) 1.3 neither the washing of feet nor the holy Kiss were us'd as civil rites; and that the latter is call'd by the Fathers the Seal of Prayer and the Seal of Reconciliation. 4. If a rite's being civil makes it lawful in Divine worship, then any civil rite may be us'd in worship, and consequently all the ridiculous practices of the Church of Rome wou'd be warrantable. 5. If a rite's being civil makes it law∣ful in worship, then how can our Adversaries say, that nothing is to be us'd in worship, but what is prescrib'd by GOD, except the Natural circumstances of action? For there are many civil Rites which are not natural cir∣cumstances of action. Feasting and Salutation are civil usages; but Divine worship can be perform'd with∣out them. And if these and the like were antiently us'd in worship, then we have the same liberty to introduce such customs.

3. If things indifferent, tho' not prescrib'd, may not be lawfully us'd in God's worship, then we can∣not lawfully join with any Church in the World. For all Churches do in some instances or other take the liberty of using, what the Scripture has no where requir'd. Thus the (d) 1.4 antients observ'd the Feasts of the Passion, Resurrection, &c. Stood in their de∣votions on the Lord's Day, &c. These things they all agree'd in, and thought it unlawful to act against an universal practice. Besides, some Churches had peculiar customs within the bounds of their own Communion. The Church of Rome fasted on Satur∣days, others indifferently on any Day. That of Milan wash'd the feet of persons to be Baptiz'd, but that of Rome did not. Thus in our daies some re∣ceive

the Lord's Supper kneeling, others standing, &c. So that if we must have an Institution for every thing done in the worship of God, and if we must join in nothing which has it not, then we cannot be mem∣bers of any Church in the World. Nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can, with a good conscience, perform any part of God's worship, if this principle be admitted for true. For habits and gestures are not determin'd in Scripture, and God's worship can∣not be perform'd without them; and if they are un∣lawful, for not being commanded, then a man must sin every time he Praies or receives the Sacrament.

Nay those that condemn the use of such things as are not commanded, do in their practice confute their opinion. For where, I pray, are they commanded to sprinkle the Children that are Baptiz'd? or to receive the Lord's Supper sitting? or to use con∣ceiv'd Prayers? or to touch and kiss the Book in Swearing? Or to enter into a particular Church-covenant? Nay where do they find that the Scripture saith, that there is nothing lawful in divine worship, but what is prescrib'd; or that what is not commanded is forbidden? Where are we told, that God will be angry with us for doing that, which he has not for∣bidden? Our brethren themselves will allow, that the time and place of God's worship may be pre∣scrib'd by Authority; and why then may not ne∣cessary circumstances, such as gestures and habits, be thus determin'd, tho' they be not commanded? Certainly the command of a lawful power does not make that unlawful, which was not forbidden, and by consequence was lawful before.

They say indeed, that Nadab and Abihu sinn'd, be∣cause they offer'd strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not, &c. Lev. 10.1, &c. and there∣fore there must be a command to make any thing

lawful in divine worship. But to this I answer, that the phrase not commanded is constantly apply'd to such things as are absolutely forbidden. The fire also is call'd strange; which phrase when apply'd to matters of worship, signifies as much as forbidden. Thus strange incense, Exod. 30.9, 24. is such as was forbidden, because it was not rightly made; strange vanities is but another word for strange Gods, Jer. 8.19. and thus the fire of these Men was strange, that is forbidden fire. For there was scarce any thing belonging to the Altar, of which more is said than of the fire burning upon it. Lev. 9.24. & 6.12. & 16.12. 'Twas lighted from Heaven, and was to be always burning. When atonement was to be made by incense, the coals were to be taken from thence, and therefore surely 'twas peculiar to those offices. Nay just after the account of the extra∣ordinary way of lighting the fire, follows this re∣lation of Nadab and Abihu, to shew wherein they offended. For before it was the office of Aaron's Sons to put fire upon the Altar; and now they suf∣fer'd for attempting to do as formerly, because Heaven had declar'd to the contrary. There was also a Conformity between the punishment and the sin; for as fire from the Lord consum'd the burnt-offering, so fire from the Lord consum'd them. So that their case seems like that of Ʋzzah, 1 Chron. 13.7, 10, & 15.2. for they acted contrary to God's command. I may add that in other places also the phrase not commanded is apply'd to things forbid∣den; such as are call'd abominations, that is, ido∣latrous worship, false Prophets, &c. Deut. 17.3, 4. Jer. 7.31. & 19.5. & 32.35. so that since the phrase is always spoken of things plainly forbid∣den, 'tis a sign, that 'tis rather God's forbidding that made them unlawful, than his not commanding.

But, say they, why shou'd the phrase be us'd at all in such matters, if not commanded is not the same as forbidden? To this I answer, that not com∣manded is only a softer way of speaking, which is usual in all languages, and frequently to be met with in Scripture. Thus God saies, that hypo∣crites chuse that in which I delighted not, Is. 66.4. that is, their abominations, as we read, v. 3. So the Apostle saies, the Gentiles did things not convenient, Rom, 1.28, 29. that is, envy, murther, &c. And the phrase not commanded is of the like kind, when the things it's apply'd to, are alike abominable. Be∣sides, if not commanded be the same as forbidden, then the very notion of indifferent things is destroy'd, and there is no indifferent thing in the world; be∣cause a thing indifferent is, as I said before, that which is neither commanded nor forbidden.

But 'tis said, that all things not commanded in God's Word are additions to it; and that such additions are unlawful, because God saies, Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, Deut. 4.2. and the Scribes are condemn'd, Matth. 15.9. because they taught for doctrines the Commandments of Men. Now to this I reply, that if by adding to the Word they mean doing what the Word forbids; or appoint∣ing somewhat else instead of what God has ap∣pointed; or expounding away the design of the Word; or making that which is not the Word of God, to be of equal authority with it, as the Scribes did; or giving the same efficacy to human institu∣tions as God does to his; if I say by adding to the Word they mean any of these things, we think that adding to the Word is unlawful. And if by diminishing they mean neglecting what the Word requires, or thinking God's institutions not com∣pleat,

we think that diminishing from the Word is unlawful. But if they say, that doing any thing not commanded in the worship of God, tho' it have none of the ingredients before spoken of, is a sinful adding to the Word; we therein differ from them. 1. Because Christ and his Apostles and all Churches have done things not commanded. 2. Be∣cause this destroys the nature of indifferent things; which cannot be indifferent, if they be sinful addi∣tions to God's Word. Besides, adding is adding to the Substance, and diminishing is diminishing from the Substance; so that when the Substance remains intire without debasement or corruption, it can∣not be call'd an addition or diminution in the Scripture-sence. However our Adversaries them∣selves are really guilty of what they charge upon us; for they forbid, as absolutely unlawful, to use any thing in the worship of God, which is not prescrib'd; and certainly he that forbids what the Scripture do's not forbid, do's as much add to it, as he that commands what the Gospel doth not command.

As for the Words of the 2d Commandment, Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, &c. they do by no means prove, that we must wor∣ship God by no other Religious rites, than what he has prescrib'd. 'Tis true, we are there commanded to worship none besides God, and to worship God in a manner sutable to his Nature and a∣greeable to his Will: but surely rites instituted by Men for the Solemnity of God's Service are not there forbidden. It has been said indeed, that Ce∣remonies, being invented by Man, are of the same na∣ture with images; but we must observe, 1. That Images are expresly forbidden, and Ceremonies are not. 2. That Images tend to debase God in the

thoughts of those that worship him after that Man∣ner, but Ceremonies do not; and therefore Cere∣monies are not a breach of the 2d. Commandment. Ceremonies are not Essential parts of Divine Wor∣ship, but only circumstances of it; and certainly our Brethren cannot find fault, that such circum∣stances are us'd to further Devotion. For they themselves do plead for sitting at the Lord's Sup∣per, &c. upon this very account, because they think such external circumstances do further Devotion.

But, say they, if there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God, the Gospel wou'd be less perfect than the Law; and Christ wou'd not be so faithful in the care of his Church, as Moses, who was faithful in all his house, Heb. 3.2. Therefore as Moses laid down all the particular Rules for God's Worship under the Law, so has Christ under the Gospel; and it is as dangerous to add, as to detract from them. Now to this I answer, that the design of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to compare Moses and Christ, or the Law and the Gospel, and to shew the exact Cor∣respondence between the Type and the Antitype; and not to shew that our Saviour had as particu∣larly prescrib'd the Order of Christian Worship, as Moses had that of the Jewish. The Gospel is not so particular in the Circumstantials of Wor∣ship as the Law was; and we must not affirm that it is, because we wou'd have it so. We cannot prove, that Christ has actually done this, because we imagine that he shou'd have done it. We may better argue, that since these things are not ex∣presly determin'd under the Gospel, as they were under the Law; therefore they are left to the de∣termination of our Superiours, whom we are com∣manded to obey. Nor are the sufficiency of Scri∣pture

and faithfulness of Christ, to be judg'd of by what we fancy they shou'd have determin'd, but by what they have. Since we do not find in the Scriptures such particular prescriptions in Baptism as in Circumcision, nor in the Lord's Supper as in the Passover, nor in our Prayers as in the Jewish Sacrifices; therefore 'tis plain, that the suf∣ficiency of Scripture and faithfulness of Christ do respect somewhat else, and that they are not the less for want of them. Christ was faithful as Moses to him that appointed him, in performing what be∣long'd to him as a Mediatour, and discovering to Mankind in Scripture the Method and Means, by which they may be sav'd; and the sufficiency of Scripture appears in its being a sufficient means to that end, and it's putting Men into such a State, as will render them capable of attaining to it.

III. I am next to consider, how we may know, what things are indifferent in the worship of God. To this I might answer briefly, that in things for∣bidden by human Authority, the not being re∣quir'd in Scripture; and in things requir'd by hu∣man Authority, the not being forbidden in Scrip∣ture, is a Rule, whereby we may know, what things are indifferent in the worship of God. But be∣cause things in their nature indifferent, may become unlawful in their use and application, therefore I shall add the following particulars.

1. Things are call'd indifferent from their general Nature, and not as if they were never unlawful; for they are lawful or unlawful, as they are us'd and apply'd. 2. A thing may not be requir'd or for∣bidden by one Law, which is by another; and that may be indifferent in one state which is not in another; and therefore when we say a thing is indifferent, we must consider the Case and Law

which it respects. Thus to discourse about com∣mon affairs is a thing indifferent; but it is unlaw∣ful, when practis'd in the Church, and in the midst of Religious Solemnities. 3. As there are certain Rules, which we are to respect in common con∣versation, and which even in that case ought to tie us up in the use of things (otherwise) indif∣ferent: so there are some Rules, which we must have a regard to in the administration of Divine worship. And as in common matters the nature of the thing, in actions the end, in conversation the circumstances are to be heeded, viz. time, place, persons; as when, where, before whom we are cover'd and uncover'd, &c. so in sacred mat∣ters, the nature of the thing, in the decency and solemnity of the worship; the end for which it was appointed, in the Edification of the Church; and the Peace, Glory and Security of that, are to be respected. By these Rules we are to judge of the indifferency of things in God's service. But be∣cause these Rules are general; and Decency, Edi∣fication and Order are variable according as circum∣stances alter; and because different men have dif∣ferent opinions of them; therefore I shall give more particular Directions.

1. Some things are so notoriously agreeable or opposite to Decency, Edification and Order, that common reason will be able to judge of them. Thus 'tis plain, that a tumultuous speaking of many to∣gether is less for Edification, and has more of con∣fusion, than the orderly speaking of one by one; and service in an unknown Tongue do's less con∣duce to Edification, than when 'tis in a Language commonly understood. But, 2. There are other things which are not so evident; and therefore for the clearing of them we may observe;

1. That Decency, Order and Edification de∣pend upon each other, and must not be consider'd asunder. And therefore we must not throw down the bounds of public Order, and bring all things into confusion, for the sake of Edification, or be∣cause we think any matter indecent. What is a∣gainst public Order and Practice, is for that rea∣son indecent, were there no other reason to make it so. So that if we wou'd judge aright of ei∣ther of these, we must judge of them together; and as Order alone is not enough to make a thing Decent, which is in it self indecent; so Decency or particular Edification is not enough to recom∣mend that, which cannot be introduc'd without the disturbance of public Order.

2. That when the case is not apparent, we shou'd rather judge by what is contrary, than by what is agreeable to these rules. We know better, what things are not, than what they are; and therefore, since we better know what is indecent than decent, disorderly than orderly, against Edification than for it, it's best to take this course in judging about it. As for instance, if we wou'd inquire into the de∣cency of the posture to be us'd in the Lord's Sup∣per, or the Edification that may arise from it; it may not perhaps be so easy for a Man to judge of the greater Decency and Edification of kneeling or sitting; but if he find that the posture injoin'd is not indecent or destructive of Piety, and of the ends for which the ordinance was instituted, he is therewith to satisfy himself. If, says St. Austin, Epist. 118. what is injoyn'd be not against Faith or good manners, it is to be accounted indifferent; and I may add, if it be not indecent, disorderly and de∣structive of Piety, it's lawful.

3. That if the case be not apparent, and we can∣not easily find out how the things injoin'd are de∣cent, &c. we are obliged to be cautious how we condemn an action, which those men practice whom for other things we cannot condemn. When we find that they argue, and produce Experience and Reason for it, and we have a whole Church against our Opinion, we shou'd be apt to think the fault may be in our selves; and that 'tis for want of un∣derstanding and insight, for want of use and Tryal, and by reason of some prejudices, that we thus dif∣fer in our judgment from them. We see what little things do determine men ordinarily in these matters, how addicted they are to their own ways and customs; and therefore we shou'd think again. So may we be reconcil'd to the rites of a Church, as we are to the customs and habits of a Nation, which at first seem as indecent, as the Ceremonies of a Church can do. In short, we have reason to suspect, 'tis a Zeal without Knowledge, when we presume to set our Judgment, Reason and Expe∣rience against the Judgment, Reason and Experience of the Christian World.

IV. I am now to shew in the last place, how we are to determine our selves in the use of indifferent things, with respect to the worship of GOD.

1. Then as particular Persons, solitary and alone, we may forbear to use what is indifferent, when no Law of Man requires it; and we may freely use it, when no Law of Man forbids it. 2. In our con∣versation with others we must so use our Liberty, as shall be less to the prejudice and more to the be∣nefit of those we converse with. We may act or forbear in complyance with Persons of weaker Judg∣ment. But 3. as we are Members of a Church, we are to obey the commands of it. For if the

not grieving a Brother or endangering his Soul o∣bliges us to restrain the exercise of our Liberty, much more do's the Peace of the Church oblige us to the same. Let every one please his neighbour, for his good to Edification, Rom. 15.2. that is, to his improve∣ment in Knowledge, Grace, or Piety, and the pro∣moting of Concord and Charity. Now Edification is chiefly so with respect to the whole, as the Church is the House of God, 1 Pet. 2.5. and every Chri∣stian is a Stone of it, and therefore ought to study what may be for the Edification of the whole. And how is that, but by promoting Love, Peace and Order, and taking care to preserve it? For so we (e) 1.5 find Peace and Edifying, Comfort and Edificati∣on, Union and Edification join'd together, as the one promotes the other. And therefore as the good and Edification of the Church is to be always in our Eye; so 'tis the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful; and to that end we shou'd comply with its customs, observe its directions, and obey its orders, without reluctancy and op∣position.

If any Man seem, or have a mind to be conten∣tious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God; 1 Cor. 11.16. Whatever might be urg'd, the Apostle concludes, we have no such Custom, &c. The Peace of the Church is to a peaceable mind sufficient to put an end to all disputes about it; and since the Peace of the Church depends upon the observation of its customs, that is infinitely to be preferr'd before scrupulosity and niceness, or a meer inclination to a contrary practice. There must be somewhat establish'd; and the very change

of a custom, tho' it may happen to profit, yet doth disturb by its Novelty, saies St. Austin, Epist. 118. Infirmity in a Church is better than confusion; and in things which neither we nor the worship are the worse for, but the Church the better for observing, Peace and Order are to be preferr'd far before niceties; and certainly neither we nor the service of God can be the worse for what God has concluded nothing in. In a word, what St. Austin and his Mother receiv'd from St. Ambrose is worthy to be recommended to all; That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners, it be∣comes a good and prudent Christian to practise ac∣cording to the custom of the Church where he comes, if he will not be a scandal to them, nor have them to be a scandal to him. Epist. 118, & 86.

And if the custom and practice of a Church must oblige a good Man; much more ought it so to do, when 'tis Establish'd by Law, and back'd by Au∣thority. For then to stand in opposition, is not only an Offence but an Affront; 'tis to contend, whether we or our Superiours shall Govern; and what can be the issue of such a temper, but distra∣ction? 'Tis pleaded, that there shou'd be a Liberty left to Christians in things undetermin'd in Scripture; but there are things which they must agree in, or else there can be nothing but confusion. For in∣stance, what Order can there be, if Superiours may not determine, whether Prayers shall be long or short, and the like? To conclude, when the Scrip∣ture do's neither require nor forbid an action, we ought to obey the Orders of the Church in the performance or omission of it.

But 'tis said, That if we be restrain'd in the use of indifferent things, we are also restrain'd in our Christian Liberty, which the Apostle exhorts us to

stand fast in, Gal. 5.1. Now to this I answer; 1. This is no argument to those that say, there is nothing indifferent in the worship of God; for then there is no matter of Christian Liberty in it. 2. A restraint of our Liberty, or receding from it, is of it self no violation of it. The most scrupu∣lous Persons plead, that the strong ought to bear with the weak, and give them no offence by in∣dulging that Liberty, which others are afraid to take; and why, I pray, is a Man's Liberty more damaged, when restrain'd by Superiours, than when 'tis restrain'd by another's Conscience? If it be said, that the Superiour's command restrains it perpetual∣ly; I answer, that the case is still the same; for the Apostle who knew his own Liberty, supposes that it wou'd not be damnify'd, tho' it were re∣strain'd for his whole life. For, saies he, if Meat make my Brother to offend, I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth; 1 Cor. 8.13. and this he wou'd not have said, had he not thought it consistent with standing fast in that Liberty, &c. 3. Christian Li∣berty is indeed nothing else, but freedom from the re∣straints, which the Jewish Law laid upon men. This is that Liberty which we are exhorted to stand fast in; and I think, that in obeying the or∣ders of our Church, there is no danger of Judaism. But we must note that Christian Liberty consists, not in our being freed from the act of observing the Jewish Law; but in being freed from the ne∣cessity of observing it. For the Apostles and first Christians did observe it for some time upon pru∣dential considerations; but they did so, not out of necessity, but in condescension to their weak Con∣verts. And if they cou'd observe some Judaical Rites without infringing their Christian Liberty; certainly we may safely use a few indifferent Ce∣remonies.

From what has been said it plainly appears, that the use of indifferent things is no objection against living in Communion with our Establish'd Church; and this is enough to satisfy those Persons, who upon no other account, than that of a few harm∣less impositions, are guilty of separation from her. But because they have some particular objections against some particular things impos'd by her, there∣fore I shall not satisfy my self with proving the law∣fulness of using indifferent things in general, but endeavour to satisfy all their scruples which relate to single instances, as I shall have occasion to treat of them in the following Chapters.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  1 Tim. 5.10. Ambros. De Sacram. lib. 3. cap. 1.
• (b) 1.2

  Ter∣tull. De Orat. cap. 14.
• (c) 1.3

  Buxtorf. Exere. Hist. S••c. Caen.
• (d) 1.4

  Vid. August. Epist. 118, 119. Basil. De Sp. S. cap. 27. Ambros. De Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 7. & lib. 3. cap. 1.
• (e) 1.5

  1 Cor. 14.26. 2 Cor. 10.8. 1 Tim. 1.4. Rom. 14.19. 1 Thess. 5.11. Eph. 4.12, 16.