I Should be very much oblig'd to receive a Satisfaction from you, wch I could never give my ſelf concerning the Validity of your Presbyterian Miſſion: I conceive it to be the moſt material thing in difference between us; and that it ought to be conſidered in the firſt place, there being no Impoſture like that of aſſuming to be Preachers of the Goſpel without lawful Authority. I ſhall here trouble you with the Reaſons of my diſſatisfaction in this matter.

Firſt then I muſt crave your pardon to look backward as far as your firſt Reforming Ancestors, (from whom Preſbytery does more immediately derive it ſelf) Mr. Calvin in Geneva, Mr. Knox in Scotland, &c. And then permit me to ask a certain Queſtion, which hitherto none of you would do us the kindneſs to reſolve, Who ſent Them to reform the Church, or (as you phraſe it) to Preach the Goſpel? and How ſhould they Preach except they were ſent? Rom. 10. 15. which words of St. Paul ſeem to be a queſtion, but are indeed a full and peremptory Affirmation, That no Abilities of popular Eloquence can qualifie any perſons for Preachers of the Goſpel, without external and lawful Miſſion.

This then I ſhall lay down as a Foundation to what I have to ſay, That lawful Miſſion is eſſential to a Preacher of the Goſpel. And if ſo, I ſhall endeavour to make evident, That all your Predeceſſors of the Kirk (how able ſoever as to other qualifications) wanted this eſſential; and conſequently your ſelf who derive a Succeſſion from them.

Grant me (Sir) a little of your patience, and conſider, There are onely theſe Five imaginable AUTHORITIES from whence they could pretend to have received it. 1. The Spirit of God. 2ly, Themſelves or their own internal Spirit. 3ly, Or the People. 4ly, Chriſt and his Apoſtles. 5ly, Or the Church of Rome. Other Authority or Miſſion (as namely, That of the Greek Church) you will not pretend to.

Firſt, From the Spirit of God. This you know to be the matter in queſtion, and the eternal Controverſie, and the Allegation of all Fanaticks; it will be therefore a reaſonable demand, By what Evidences did it appeare to the World? And how ſhall the Contemners of your Goſpel be left unexcuſable, but by evidence of their Authority who are ſent to reveal it? In the Affairs of this World, Ambaſſadors you know, muſt not want their Credentials; how much leſs the Ambaſſadors of Religion? Doubtleſs that of your Anceſtors muſt needs have been an Embaſſie extraordinary, being to Reform the World, overrun (in their ſenſe) with Idolatry and Superſtition.

To this you anſwer, That the powerful gifts and ſanctity of thoſe perſons were ſufficient Evidences of their being Inſpir'd by the Spirit of God; and that the Converſion of many Thouſands from Superſtition to Godlineſs was an undoubted Seal to their Miniſtry. This is the Anſwer of all Diſſenters and Parties of what Name ſoever, Anabaptiſts, Behemiſts, &c. That they eaſily converted many Thouſands no body denies; but whether from Superſtition to Godlineſs, or onely to pride, cenſoriouſneſs, and contempt of all Authority, is the great Controverſie. Nay, was it never made a Note, of a man converted, (as the excellent Friendly Debate obſerves) That though he have a great many Faults, yet he is wrought to an Antipathy to Biſhops, Common Prayer and Surplice? And as to your ſelf, I might appeal to your Conſcience, whether you eſteem any man a right Convert, that is a FRIEND to theſe Things. As to thoſe powerful Gifts you ſpeak of, you do not mean any thing that is miraculous, or that other Sects will not as ſoon pretend to: And truly as for the Sanctity of your whole Party, obſervable is the Confeſſion of Mr. Calvin himſelf, in his Comment on the Thirty fourth Verſe of the Eleventh Chapter of Daniel; and I promiſe you not to injure him in the Quotation, Sed in illorum exiguo numero qui ſeſe ab Idololatriis Papatus ſubduxerunt, major pars plena eſt perfidia & dolis: praeclarum quidem zelum ſimulant; ſed ſi intus excutias, reperies plenos eſſe fraudibus. Of that ſmall number of perſons (ſaith he) who profeſs the pure Goſpel, the greater part is full of perfidiouſneſs and deceit; they pretend an excellent Zeal, but if you inſpect them narrowly, you ſhall finde them abounding wth Frauds.

Secondly, Themſelves, or their own internal Spirit. It is abſurd; for ſo all men may become Preachers of the Goſpel, that will aſſume the confidence.

Thirdly, the People. Let us allow this Authority for good: and then, I pray, will not Socinians, Anabaptists, Behemiſts, Fifth Monarchy-men (and who not) enter in at this Door, and plead their Call by the People to Reform the Presbyterians? be pleas'd to tell us what People do you mean? If thoſe of your own Opinion, they will not in ſome places amount to a Fourth or Fifth part of the People, and muſt all the reſt be debar'd from Electing their owne Preachers? beſides, you know, it is not the Peoples Election alone that can Conſtitute a Preacher of the Goſpel; it is the Miſſion and Ordination of your Predeceſſors, that I am now enquiring after. You cannot be ignorant concerning the popular Election of Miniſters, that it had been diſus'd many Centuries before Calvin; for the Tumults, Factions, and Confuſions that attended it: the unſtable People ſeldom or never agreeing about the Perſons to be Elected; and I am ſure there is no Precept of Scripture Inveſts them with any ſuch power.

Fourthly, Or will you derive your Miniſtry from Chriſt and his Apoſtles? But all Diſſenters proclaim their Extraction from the ſame Original: which of them ſhall we believe? From Chriſt and his Apoſtles! Give me leave to ask whether immediately or mediately? Immediately you will not ſay; if mediately, I pray inform us by whom? Or from whoſe hands did your Puritan Anceſtors receive their Miſſion and Ordination?

Well, Fifthly, Some body muſt ſend them to Preach the Goſpel: Was it the CHURCH of Rome? Yes, I have heard you ſay; and is not this to confeſs your ſelves the Emiſſaries of Antichriſt, that Man of Sin, the Whore of Babylon? Quid Chriſto cum Belial? But the unhappineſs of it is, that this Miſſion from Rome, or Romane Biſhops, will as ſoon Watrant the Sermons of a Popiſh Fryar, as thoſe of your Predeceſſors. And as to your pretended Ordination from Rome, there is one Difficulty in it, that I confeſs I cannot reſolve; Was it not Epiſcopal Ordination, if any, they received from that Church? And was ſuch Ordination good and valid, yea or no? If good, wherefore will you needs aboliſh it, as repugnant to the Word of God? If not, what will become of your Orders? And further, I would gladly underſtand; are any perſons ſent to go and preach the Goſpel after their own ſenſe? If ſo, then he that hath received Miſſion from your Kirk, may when he liſt become an Independant or Anabaptist Preacher, and juſtifie his new Doctrine by your Commiſſion.

As for Calvin; Beza, who wrote his Life, informs us, that he was never Initiated into any Orders of the ROMANE Church; Nullis erat Pontificiis In vita Calvini. ordinibus initiatus; are Beza's words, who being his great Acquaintance and Succeſſor at Geneva, could not but know it very well. I was of opinion, that your Founder Calvin had been in ſome Orders, until your own Beza inform'd me to the contrary. Farrellus alſo and Viret his fellow Preachers in Geneva, you will find in the ſame querpo, without Orders: as for John Knoz, he was (ſaith Mr. Clark a Presbyterian Miniſter, who writes his life) put into orders very young; that is, when he was profeſſedly of the ROMAN Catholique Religion, he was made Deacon or Prieſt of that Church, by Epiſcopal Ordination: but all this while we are to ſeek for their Presbyterian Miſſion: did John Knox receive any Authority to ordain other Presbyterians? could he confer a power on others, which he had not received, of ordaining Miniſters? to ſay there was neceſſity for it, is an anſwer that will excuſe alſo other diſſenters, pleading the ſame neceſſity of their Miniſtry; of all which, our Church is ſo ſenſible, that ſhe will admit none of your Brethren to her Ecleſiaſtical Functions without Reordination. Presbyteri & Diaconi praeter Epiſcopum nihil agere pertentent, Saith the Fortieth Canon of the Apoſtles; a Canon which, if it were not Apoſtolical, you cannot deny be very ancient: and do not Epiphanius and Saint Auſtin recount it among the Hereſies of Aerius, that he affirmd, Biſhop and Presbyter were the ſame thing? Aerius cum eſſet Bresbyter (ſaith Saint Auſtin) doluiſſe fertur, quod Epiſcopus non potuit Haeres. 53. ordinari, &c. Aerius being a Presbyter, reſented his diſappointment of a Biſhoprick; and to ſatisfie his humour of revenge, would needs aſſert, that they are the ſame office. Thus for ought I can ſee, your Presbyterian Anceſtors had no Miſſion at all, or no more then other Diſſenters, who all derive themſelves from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, from the Spirit of God, &c. Sleidan a Proteſtant Hiſtorian reports in his Commentaries, that Luther, hearing of the multitudes aſſembled, by Thomas Muncer the famous Prophet of the Anabaptiſts, wrote an Epiſtle to the Magiſtrates of Mulhuſen a City in Germany, where the ſaid Muncer remained, adviſing them to require of him, who ſent him to Preach the Goſpel? and if he anſwered God, that he evidence it by ſome ſign or extraordinary token; otherwiſe that he be rejected, hoc enim proprium & familiare eſt Deo (ſaid Luther) ut quoties conſuetam & ordinariam viam velit immutari, tum voluntatem ſuam aliquo ſigno declaret.

The ſame quaere, Sir, you may at your leiſure do us the favour to reſolve in reference to your ſelf.

You cannot alas! plead any neceſſity to Reform Epiſcopacy, but all the other Sects will plead the ſame to Reform you. Nor will it relieve you to ſay, that by this Argument the Jewiſh Church rejected Chriſt and his Apoſtles: The caſe not being the ſame betwixt Chriſt and the Jewiſh Church, and between us and you. To ſatisfie the Jews and their queſtion, By what authority doeſt thou theſe things? Our bleſſed Saviour appeals to the Miracles which he wrought, If you believe not me, believe the works which I do. Nor will it avail you to return the queſtion upon our ſelves, who ſent us to Reform the Church of Rome? This truly is no anſwer, but a deſiring us to anſwer for you. Be plkas'd to know then that the Church of England was never of your froward and uncharitable humor in relation to that Church, to Reform our ſelves (ſaith Mr. Hooker) is not to ſever from the Church we were of before, Eccleſ. Pol. Lib. 3. Sect. 1. We are very ſenſible of their Errors, and yet we confeſs with St. Auſtin, there is no juſt neceſſity to divide the Unity of the Catholick Church; becauſe Separations in the Church tend to no other end, but to diſcredit the Chriſtian Religion, and render it leſs conſiderable, if not contemptible to its Adverſaries, Turks and Infidels: He that will admit no Church (ſaith Primate Bramhall) but that which is ſpotleſs, with Aceſius, muſt provide a Ladder for himſelf to climb alone to Heaven.

But as to your Party (Sir) I pray who gave them any Authority to Preach their Reformation to theſe Kingdomes? Give me leave to obſerve to you this paſſage in the Racovian Catechiſm there I remember the queſtion is put, Num ii qui docent in eccleſia (Sociniana) ut ſingulari aliqua ratione mittantur opus habent? Whether the Preachers of Socinian Doctrine, have need of any extraordinary miſſion? The Anſwer is, Nullo modo, quia nullam novam, nec inauditam afferunt doctrinam, &c. That is not at all, becauſe Socinians preach no new nor ſtrange Doctrine, but that onely which is Primitive and declared in the Holy Scriptures. The ſame is affirmed by Mr. Calvin concerning his own Reformation in the Preface to his Institutions, which the Lutherans (you know) will by no means admit for truth: See Conradus Scluſelburg de Theologia Calvinistarum. Indeed it had been ſomewhat, if it were not the matter in queſtion; or if Socinians, Behemiſts, and all the Sects that ever moleſted the Church, did not urge as much for themſelvs, boaſting of Goſpel truth. To ſay that your Party agree with us in all the Vital Articles of Religion, is to ſay what perhaps few of you believe; for I doubt not (if opportunity ſerv'd) every Sect of you would advance its reſpective Religion, as if that onely were Goſpel, and all other but Lyes and Superſtition: Or if you do believe it, the more is your unhappineſs to moleſt the Church about opinions, which you do not eſteem of any vital importance.

I wiſh I could oblige you to conſider, whether you ought to take upon you to Reform, that is, ſuppreſs the univerſal order of Chriſts Church by Biſhops &c. Baniſh all ancient Liturgies; the uſe of the Creed, the Lords prayer, and ten Commandments out of your publique Devotions; all Anniverſary Solemnities of Chriſts Nativity, Reſurrection, &c. all Reverence or Kneeling at the holy Sacraments of Chriſts Body and Blood; revile the Church (whereof I cannot ſay, you but your Anceſtors, were made Members by Baptiſm) with the Names of Superſtition and Idolatry. Preach your deſperate Doctrine of abſolute Reprobation, and the impoſſibility of keeping Gods Commandments; introduce your own extemporary inventions inſtead of Liturgy: Levy Warr againſt your Soveraign; and all this without any Authority!

For all theſe ſtrange things I ſhould think, Sir, your Anceſtors had but need of ſome extraordinary Miſſion. But perhaps you will Anſwer and tell us, That there have been extraordinary Prophets ſent into the World without Miracles, as John the Baptiſt: And 2ly, That Miracles are no certain Signs of true Prophets.

As for John the Baptiſt, you may remember the words of the Angel, Luke 2. 15. he was filled with the Holy Ghoſt from his Mothers Womb; he ſhall go before in the Spirit and power of Elias (a Character to wch your Brethren will not pretend) he was a perſon propheſied of many Ages before his Birth, Iſa. 40. 3. The Voice of one crying in the Wilderneſs, make ſtrait the way of the Lord, &c.

2ly, That Miracles are no certain Evidences of true Prophets; becauſe there ſhall ariſe falſe Chriſts and falſe Prophets, which ſhall ſhew great Signs and Wonders, inſomuch that if it were poſſible, they ſhall deceive the very Elect: Wherefore if they ſhall ſay unto you, behold he is in the Deſert, go not forth; behold he is in the ſecret Chambers, believe it not, Math. 24. 24. That falſe Prophets can work any miracle but deceptio viſus, I do not believe. The meaning of our Saviours words is this, That if any other Prophet after him ſhall ariſe, aſſuming to be that Chriſt or Meſſias ſent from God, though he may pretend to ſtrange things, believe him not, go not forth after him. If new Prophets, Sir, though they come with a ſhew of miracles, are to be ſuſpected; ſhall we preſently receive all the Preachers of new Lights, that have not ſo much as the pretence?

I find a late Writer aſſerting, That in holy Scripture, there be two marks by wch together, not aſunder, a true Prophet or one newly ſent from God is to be known: One is the doing of miracles; The other is the not teaching any moral Doctrine adverſe to that which hath been already preach'd of old: Aſunder (he ſaith) neither of theſe is ſufficient: and for proof alledgeth two places of Scripture, Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. compared with Matth. 24. 24. Our bleſſed Saviour and his Apoſtles fulfilled both theſe marks, Firſt, in their Miracles, Acts 2. 22. Secondly, they taught no Doctrine of Morality, oppoſite to that which they found already eſtabliſhed. Chriſt came not to deſtroy the Law, but to fulfil it, ſaying none other things, then what Moſes and the Prophets did ſay ſhould come to paſs. But he Preached a Doctrine, which had all the obliging Characters of Vertue and Goodneſs, of Peace and Love; witneſs his excellent Sermon on the Mount; non vox hominem ſonat. There he preſſes the neceſſity of Moral Goodneſs, and keeping the Commandments of God; otherwiſe methinks then Calvin hath done: I ſhall inſtance a remarkable paſſage in the Second Book of his Inſtitutions, the ſeventh Chapter and fifth Section. Quod autem impoſſibilem legis obſervationem diximus, id eſt paucis verbis explicandum ſimul & confirmandum; Solet enim vulgo abſurdiſſima ſententia videri, ut Hieronimus non dubitavit Anathema illi denunciare: at quid viſum ſit Jeronimo, nihil moror: impoſſibile appello, quod nec fuit unquam, & ne in poſterum ſit, Dei ordinatione & decreto impeditur. I ſhall now (ſaith he) explain and confirm what I have ſaid of the impoſſibility to obſerve the Commandments: which commonly ſeems a very abſurd aſſertion; inſomuch that Jerom doubted not to denounce it accurſed: but what ſeemed to him I do not care, I call that impoſſible which never was, and which God hath decreed that it never ſhall be. His Commandments are not grievous, 1 John 5. 3. Vertuous Doctrine! if the Commandments be impoſſible, and that God hath decreed them ſo, nemo tenetur ad impoſſibile, Alas! we are of our ſelves too prone to take an allowance of Sin, without this Licenſe from Mr. Calvin.

To be ſhort, the Church of God may and ought to reform themſelves in caſe of error, or corruption of manners: But if we once admit others to do it, unauthoriz'd or unſent, we open a wide door to all Sects and Hereſies; and another conſequence is, we ſhall reſt no where; but be toſſed too and fro, (as Saint Paul ſpeaks) and carryed about with every wind of Doctrine, with the various lights of all Pretenders: This, one would think, hath been apparent enough in the experience of our Age.

Not that we deny our need of amendment and Reformation in this World of imperfection; but we give heed to the admonition of our bleſſed Saviour, John 10. 1. Verily I ſay unto you, he that enters not by the door into the Sheepfold, but climbeth up ſome other way, the ſame is a Theif and a Robber: not entring in at the door, ſignifies entring without any Authority, either extraordinary, when the Doctrines are new and ſtrange, or ordinary, when they are already known and confeſt.

For grant (ſaith Biſhop Sanderſon) for the ſuppreſſion of Idolatry, in caſe the Church will not do her Office, that it is lawful for any unauthoriz'd Perſons (ſuch as Knox, &c.) to take upon them to reform what they think amiſs; there can be no ſufficient cauſe given, why by the ſame reaſon, and upon the ſame grounds, they may not take upon them to make Laws, raiſe Forces, adminiſter Juſtice, execute Malefactors (Malignants) or do any other thing the Magiſtrate ſhould do, in caſe the Magiſtrate ſlack to do his duty: which if it were once granted, (as granted it muſt be, in caſe your Presbyterian Reformation be juſtifiable) every wiſe man ſeeth the end can be no other but vaſt Anarchy, and confuſion both in Church and Commonwealth: whereupon muſt un avoidably follow the ſpeedy ſubverſion both of Religion and State. Second Sermon ad Clerum on Rom 38.

This is our preſent caſe; you a private Perſon, pretending to no extraordinary things, ſay all things are amiſs; the Magiſtrate (and he a Chriſtian too) is of opinion, yea, perſwaded in his Conſcience, that you do all things amiſs; who ſhall be Judge? The Scripture; 'tis a ridiculous anſwer. The Scripture is a Law; and no Law can ever pronounce either for one or t'other, but in the mouth of ſome Judg.

From all theſe premiſes I perſwade my ſelf, your Anceſtors were no Prophets ſent from God, but intruded themſelves into the Divine Function: and (as the Prophet ſpeaks) they followed their own Spirits, and prophecy'd out of their own hearts. To add one word more, conſider all the Prophets mentioned in Holy Scripture, Samuel, Elias, Iſaiah, Jeremy, Hoſea, &c. At the beginning of their Prophecies, that the World might underſtand their Divine Miſſion, they uſually declare how and in what manner they received it, Iſa. 6. the firſt and ſecond Chap. of Jer. So as their Authority was confeſſed, when the matter of their Prophecies was little regarded. Some of them were qualified extraordinarily with the power of Miracles, propheſie of future events, &c. others had the ordinary Licenſe from the Schools of the Prophets.

In the New Teſtament, our bleſſed Saviour and his Apoſtles, beſide the internal excellency of their Doctrine, gave the World ſufficient external evidence that they were perſons ſent from God; and whereas you ſay, that you Preach no other Doctrine then that of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, it is the anſwer of Socinians, Anabaptiſts, &c. and will ſerve every mans turn as well as yours. But in the laſt place, cannot you juſtifie your ſelves by the Sobriety and vertue of your Lives? By the Loyalty of your Actions? It is a great controverſie, and I ſhall not take upon me to pronounce my own ſence of it; but you have heard of King James his opinion in the matter, Ego a Puritanis non ſolum a nativitate continuo In praefacione Monitoria. vexatus ſui, verum etiam in ipſo matris utero propemodum extinctus, antequam in Lucem editus fui. I have been diſquieted (ſaith he) by the Puritans from my Mothers Womb, &c. And his Son the bleſſed King Charles the Firſt, from a certain intimate acquaintance with your Party, writes thus to our preſent Soveraign King Charles the Second; If ever you ſtand in need of them, or muſt ſtand to their courteſie, you are undone; you may never expect leſs of Loyalty, Juſtice, or Humanity, then from thoſe who engage into Religious Rebellion; under the colours of piety, ambitious policies march, not only with greateſt ſecurity, but applauſe, as to the Populacy; you may hear from them Jacobs voice, but you ſhall feel they have Eſau's hands. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chap. 27.

Thus I have given you the reaſons of my diſſatisfaction, cerning the validity of your Presbyterian Miſſion; and I muſt confeſs that I have here expreſſed only ſome wiſhes, not any hopes of convincing you; all my expectation is, that perhaps ſome unprejudic'd perſons will believe, that your Presbyterian KIRK hath no advantage, in point of a ſolid Foundation, over Independents, Anabaptiſts, &c. If inſtead of a pertinent anſwer to all this diſcourſe, you ſhall pleaſe to paſs your cenſure on the Author, and ſay that he is ſome Papiſt; I muſt reply to you in the words of the excellent Biſhop Sanderſon concerning the Puritan Preachers.

Some of them, eſpecially ſuch as betake themſelves to preaching betimes, and have not the leiſure and opportunity to look much into controverſies, underſtand very little of the true ſtate of the queſtion betwixt the Church of Rome and us; and yet to ſhew their Zeal againſt Popery, are forward enough to be medling with it in the Pulpit; but with ſo much weakneſs and impertinency, that they leave the question worſe then they found it; and the hearer, if he brought any doubts with him, to go from Sermon more diſſatisfi'd then he came. Preface to 14. Sermons, Printed Anno 1657. Sect. 18.

Now, if you pleaſe, let us confer a few words about ſome others matters, firſt, concerning that principle of yours, that nothing is to be done about the Worſhip and Service of God, without expreſs warrant or precept in the holy Scriptures: and I pray inform me where has our bleſſed Saviour or his Apoſtles enjoyned a Directory for publick prayer? Hath the Spirit any need of a Directory? what Divine warrant can you produce for your Singing to God in a ſet Form, & refuſing to pray in a ſet Form? for ſpeaking to him your ſudden and extemporary thoughts, but ſpeaking to the people with a ſtudied and compoſed Sermon? In which of the Goſpels are to be found thoſe three ſignificant Ceremonies required at the taking your ſolemn League & Covenant? Firſt, that we muſt be uncovered. Secondly, that we muſt ſtand up. Thirdly, with our right hand lift up bare? what expreſs Scripture have you for your form of publick pennance, called the ſtool of repentance? This principle of yours (as hath been already obſerved by the Friendly debate) makes that unlawful which the Scripture allows; in which we find many holy men doing thoſe things (without any cenſure) in Gods worſhip, which he had no where commended; for inſtance, what Commandment had David for his Deſign of building a Temple? Or Solomon for keeping a Feaſt of ſeven days for the Dedication of the Altar? For erecting an Altar to be aſcended by ſteps? expreſsly forbidden in the 20. of Exod. verſe 26. Thou ſhalt not go up by ſteps unto mine Altar. Or what warrant had Hezekiah for continuing the Feaſt of unleavened bread ſeven days longer then the time appointed by the Law? 2 Chron. 30. 23. If you ſay that all theſe things poſſibly were warranted, though not by Scripture; but now Scripture warrant is neceſſary, ſince extraordinary inſpirations are ceas'd: I pray tell us what Scripture have you for this very aſſertion, That extraordinary inſpirations are ceas'd? In a word, This Principle of yours, makes the worſhip of God impoſſible: The time, the place, the Veſture in which it ſhall be performed, being no where appointed: Do not the Quakers retort it upon your ſelves? Demanding Scripture for ſtanding in a Pulpit, for Preaching upon a Text, and that by an hour-glaſs, ſtinting the Spirit; for wearing a Cloak or Gown, &c.

Another thing I would intreat you to reflect upon, is the reaſon of your diſpleaſure at the temporal Revenues and encouragement of the Church of England; that which Diſſenters (if I underſtand them aright) would be at, is this, that the Clergy be reduced to their primitive poverty and dependance on the People; and methinks Judas hath very well expreſſed their ſence, John 12. 4. To what purpoſe, is all this waſte of precious ointment on the feet of Chriſt? might it not have been ſold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he ſaid, not that he cared for the poor, but becauſe he had the bag, and was a Thief. They do not conſider, how many vertues there are requiſite in a Church-man, which can have no place in the houſe of Scarcity; how little exemplary charity, temperance or humility can be expected from a narrow eſtate: that we cannot ſay, he is a temperat man, who is ſo, having ſcarcely wherewithal to ſatisfie his thirſt: or an humble perſon, whoſe fortune gives him ſmall temptation to be proud. Are not all Chriſtians under the ſame obligations of humility and contempt of Riches as the Clergy? Lay not up for your ſelves treaſures upon Earth, was ſaid to all; and is it not true in experience, that the poverty of Prieſts muſt be attended with ignorance or very ſlender knowledg? The neceſſities of our bleſſed Saviour and his Apoſtles upon Earth, were ſupply'd by Miracles; and therefore their caſe and our's not the ſame.

Give me leave to commend to your conſideration, thoſe excellent words of King Charles the Firſt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chap. 14. The concluſion of the War, makes it evident, that the main Reformation intended, was the Robbing the Church of its Lands, and the abaſing of Epiſcopacy into Presbytery; but no neceſſity ſhall ever, I hope, drive me or mine to invade or ſell the Prieſts Lands, which even Pharoah's Divinity abhorred to do. If the poverty of Scotland might, yet the plenty of England cannot excuſe the envy and rapine of the Church Lands. The next work will be Jeroboam's Reformation, Conſecrating the meaneſt of the people to be Prieſts in Iſrael, to ſerve their Golden Calves, who have enriched themſelves with the Churches Patrimony.

Again, be pleas'd to reflect on your diſpleaſure at the Liturgy of the Church of England. Some of you are for no Forms at all; others are for Liturgy, but it muſt be reformed. In the Hiſtory of the Reign of About the Year 1585. Queen Elizabeth, this paſſage is obſervable: four Claſſes of Presbyterians, complained of the Liturgy to the Lord Burleigh then Secretary of State; his Lordſhip bad them go and make a better; whereupon the firſt Claſſis went and fram'd a new one, ſomewhat near that of Geneva; this the ſecond Claſſis diſlikes, and alters in ſix hundred particulars; which alteration was excepted againſt by the third Claſſis; and what the third reſolved upon, the fourth would not conſent to: Thus your Party expect a ſatisfaction about the worſhip of God, which is impoſſible to be given you. As to your praying by the Spirit, there is a certain doubt in it, which hitherto none See the friendly debate. of you would do us the favour to reſolve: Either you mean praying by the Spirit of God, or by your own Spirits; if you conceive the words and matter of your prayer by the dictate of the Holy Ghoſt, then are your prayers as much the word of God as any of David's Pſalms, or as any part of the Bible; and, being written from your mouths, may become Canonical Scripture. If by praying with the Spirit, you only mean that you are inſpir'd with devout affections, then there is nothing in your prayers, but what others may pretend to, as well as your ſelves.

In brief, Since you do not pretend to entertain your people with immediate inſpirations, you oblige them to a Service they know not what; to offer up prayers, whereof they know not a ſyllable, nor your ſelf neither, before you begin: if you know them before hand, either for matter or words, then they cannot be extempore, as you would have the people believe; peradventure the reaſon why the people fancy your prayers, is, their variety; they love not to go where they muſt be always entertain'd with the ſame expreſſions; but if the ſence of our own infirmities (which are always the ſame) cannot oblige us to pray, why ſhould a ſet of new words do it? Conſider thoſe words of the bleſſed Martyr King Charles the Firſt. Some men are ſo impatient, not to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 uſe in all their devotions their own invention and gifts, that they wholly caſt away and contemn the Lords Prayer. I ever thought that the proud Oſtentation of mens own Abilities for Invention, and the vain affectation of variety for expreſſions in publick prayer, merits a greater brand of Sin, then that which they call coldneſs or barrenneſs; nor are men in thoſe novelties, leſs ſubject to formal and ſuperficial tempers (as to their hearts) then in the uſe of conſtant forms, where not the words, but mens hearts are to blame. I make no doubt but a man may be very formal in the moſt extemporary variety, and very fervently devout in the moſt wonted expreſſions: Nor is God more a God of variety, then of conſtancy; nor are conſtant forms of prayer, more likely to flat and hinder the Spirit of prayer, then unpremeditated and confuſed variety, to diſtract and loſe it.