Jerubbaal justified: or, A plain rebuke of the high (pretended humble) remonstrance and plea against Mr. Crofton his reformation not separation or, a plea for communion with the church under those corruptions, and by that disorderly ministration, to which he cannot conform, nor by it administer. Demonstrating, T.P. (alias D.) his grosse mistakes of Mr. Crofton his principle and argument: as also the fallacie and vanity of his pleaded necessity for his (confessed) separation from publique assemblies, which is found insufficient to acquit him of schisme. To which is added a position, disputing the lawfulnesse of ministers receiving an imposed liturgy.

Jerubbaall Juſtified: OR, A Plain rebuke to the High (pretended) humble Remonſtrance and Plea againſt Mr. Croftons Reformation not Separation. Worthy Sir,

YOurs the 12. inſtant I received, and with it a Book entituled Jerubbaal, or the Pleader impleaded, which pretendeth to anſwer Mr. Crofton's Reformation not Separation: in good time ſir, hath Mr. Crofton's papers paſt nine Months in private from hand to hand, and four Moneths in publique in the world and now anſwered: if it be to purpoſe, and truth be beaten out it is well, I will ſay better late then never.

I have not ſir Communicated the Book to Mr. Crofton as you do deſire, his late ſickneſs (not yet recovered) h • th diſcapacitated him for ſuch work: but I have read this humble Remonſtrance, and find in it a Spirit ſufficiently high: I ſhall adventure to give you, (and if you pleaſe the world) my thoughts concerning this impleading Plea, againſt Mr. Crofton's Plea for communion with the Church under thoſe corruptions, and by that diſorderly Miniſtration to which he cannot conform, nor by it Adminiſter: And truly Sir, This Book maketh a great cry, but yieldeth little wool, it may ſerve the ſimple (whoſe good affections to purity lead their judgement not only from, but againſt duty) to make a noiſe Mr. Crofton is anſwered: but the▪ Iudicious Reader will ſoon ſee there is in it vox preterea nihill, and that Mr. Crofton is as far from being anſwered, as he was before.

This Author having paſſed his Mindus like part built on his own Judgement of the expediency of it: (it is reaſon he enjoyPage 15. his fancy in his own fabrick) he abruptly aſſaults Mr. Crofton on the moſt groſs and manifeſt miſtake of the man, the natur of his Book, and the form and force of his Argument, which could poſſibly befall and miſguide any Antagoniſt whatſoever.

Sir, This Gentleman miſtaketh Mr. Crofton, and the generall nature of his book: he accounteth (and that with more then ordinary heat and confidence) Mr. Crofton the Mecaenas and Advocate of the Liturgy and Common prayer book, and an accuſer of the bretheren: he apprehendeth Mr. Crofton's Reformation, Pa. 14. 30. not ſeparation to be a Plea for the Liturgy, and an Indictment, or accuſation of the Saints, cujus contrarium verum eſt, how juſt, ſober, or warrantable thoſe his apprehenſions are, let all impartiall, unprejudiced men judge.

Mr. Crofton an Advocate for the Engliſh Liturgy, who can have the face to ſay it? How will that appear? hath he not preached and written againſt it? did he ever retract? doth he conform to it? or conſent to read it? was not his known oppoſition to it apprehended to be the cauſe of his vexations, and bonds he met with in Staffordſhire in his late Travells? can envy it ſelf oppoſe Mr. Crofton to Mr. Crofton: his enemies being Judges, never was any man more ſquare and ſtable to himſell then is Mr. Crofton: theſe things do indeed give cauſe to call him Jerubbaal and make it ſuſpicious he is the Gideon who threw down the Altar (if the Liturgy muſt be ſo accounted) of Baall: on what ground could this pretender, to reaſon and religion, cry Mr. Crofton is the Mecaenas and Advocate for the Liturgy: hath not Mr. Crofton's Conteſts, actings and ſufferings, manifeſted him a Monument of Gods Grace and Truth; and Sectarian rage and falſehood: will men needs reproach him with that, which none hath as he reſiſted? Oh Sir, Mr. Crofton hath pleaded for Communion in the Liturgy.

It is falſe ſir, he hath pleaded no ſuch thing, his Plea is for Communion with Gods Church, in Gods Ordinances and worſhip, though Adminiſtred by the Liturgy, and that onely in caſe of neceſſity, when we cannot otherwiſe enjoy ſolemn publique worſhip: it is one thing to commnnicate in the Liturgie ſimply and abſtractedly conſidered, this ſuppoſeth an aſſent unto it, and a perſonall acting in and by it as a Liturgy: for this Mr. Crofton hath never yet ſpoken one word: It is another thing to communicate in, and Religiouſly attend Gods Worſhip Adminiſtred by the Liturgy, in which the Liturgy is no more but the vehiculum inſtrument of conveyance and humane Miniſtration: the formality of Mr. Crofton's Plea is this: the Liturgie is a rude and diſorderly Miniſtration, an evil which ought to be aboliſhed, by which he cannot Adminiſter, but it is not an evil of that nature, to viſiate the Subject, nullify and deſtroy Gods worſhip, and ſo warrant the peoples withdrawing from that becauſe of this.

Vulgus non diſtinguit, that the over zealous vulgar ſhould account this a Plea for Communion in the Liturgy is no wonder: whilſt a man of learning doth it with all confidence, is a withſtanding of an inſerence which the premiſſes will not allow, a juſtification of the premiſſes, as true and good, cannot a man plead: men muſt in caſe of need drink water in unclean veſſels, or affirm Citizens muſt not looſe all for want of asking by the rude dialect of their Recorder: but he muſt be concluded the Mecaenas of Barbariſime and nonſence, and Advocate for the Queen of Sluts! may not Mr. Crofton deny ſuch diſorder to be a ſufficient ground for Seceſſion from Gods worſhip, but he muſt needs be the defender of that diſorder? According to this ſober Logick is Mr. Crofton tauntingly repreſented the accuſer of the brethren: and his Book branded as an Indictment againſt the Saints, what cauſe is there for this high charge, whom, when, where, and whereof hath Mr. Crofton accuſed? This Author calls him his accuſer, he ſhall do well to put him to ſhame by telling the world whereof Mr. Crofton accuſed him, Mr. Crofton doth in his book ſuggeſt groundleſſe, unwarantable, Secoſſion Page 29. from, voluntary non-communion in Gods worſhip, is a private or negative Separation; the firſt act towards a poſitive and totall Sepeparation, but is this to accuſe the bretheren? cannot a Miniſter ſuggeſt the ſinful nature of an act, but he muſt be arraigned as an Accuſer of the bretheren, oh Charity! oh Sobriety!

Sir, Who readeth Mr. Croftons book; and ſeeth not that it is ſo far from an Indictment or Accuſation of others, that it is a ſober, ſerious, and neceſſary Apology for himſelf, and his own practice moſt groundleſly, unchriſtianly and incharitably accuſed by others; and thoſe, ſome of the bretheren; who never adminiſtred, or attempted to reprove the things whereof they did accuſe him; in his whole Conflicts for Reformation, he had proteſted he could communicate in Gods worſhip under that order, by which he could not admineſter; comming to practice his principles, what Calumnies what Cenſures did accuſe him of defection and Apoſtacy? and conſtrain theſe Letters by way of Apology for himſelf, And this, thus extorted by falſe accuſations, is moſt falſely accuſed to be an accuſation of the brethren; Oh! Charity! Oh Sobriety!

Sir, We cannot expect he ſhould rightly take up Mr. Crofton's Argument, who hath ſo groſſely miſtaken himſelf, and the generall nature of his work, let me obſerve to you his miſtake in the very form, and ſo in the force of what he is pleaſed humbly to tearm Mr. Croftons Doome Argument. Page 15.

Having paſſed his many needleſs diſtinctions, he profeſſeth himſelf a negative and partiall Sepatiſt; he is beſt, ſee to his Warrant, leaſt being looſed from the Harbour he be driven he knows not whither, I am glad he diſavoweth Poſitive Separation, gathering a ſelect Company into a Corner, ſome who ſhreudly gueſs who this Author is, think they durſt preſume to charge him as peccant in this reſpect; but ſure I am Mr. Crofton, and other good men, are no little grieved to obſerve ſome Presbyters, not only abſent from publique aſſemblies, but alſo celebrate the Lords day by preaching and Miniſtration of the Lords ſupper, to a ſelect Company in private, as if they were deſigned to verefie that Independant Calumny; (Presbiterated Churches are gathered Churches.)

His Separation ſtated, this Antagoniſt aſſaults Mr. Crofton's Conſiderations; that he might fence with better ſucceſſe, he forceth the chief of them into this ſyllogiſme according to his own fancy, not Mr. Croftons Argument.

Communion with the Church, viſible in all acts of ſolemn Publique worſhip; is an eſſential part of the Sanctification of the Sabbath or Lords day, and indiſpenſable Duty of every particularPa. 15. 16. Chriſtian to be onely ſuperſeded by an inevitable neceſſity &c.

This is indeed Mr. Crofton's propoſition; on which this man doth aſſume, as that which he ſaith, muſt be the aſſumption, and accordingly ſtateth the Concluſion.

But Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy, or Common-Prayer (called Divine Service) is Communion with the Church viſible in ſolemn publique Worſhip. ERGO. Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy or Common-Prayer is an eſſentiall part of the Sanctification of the Sabbath or Lords day, and indiſpenſable duty, &c.

Sir, this Argument thus framed is a monſtrous Argnment; eſpecially to come from Mr. Crofton; they that ever heard him preach, read his writings, know his perſon, principles or practice can believe him, ſuch a Mecaenas and Advocate for the Engliſh Liturgy and Common-Prayer-Book, as to aſſent and conclude Communion in it, to be an Eſſential part of the Sanctification of the Sabbath; So as that the Sabbath or Lords day cannot be ſanctified where the Service-book is not attended, aſſented to, and acted in.

But Sir: What ground or reaſon in Mr. Crofton's Plea hath this Antagoniſt, which neceſſitateth this Aſſumption and Concluſion as that which he tells us mnſt be.

Mr. Crofton's Book is an Epiſtle to a Friend, his Argument is not (therefore) logically formed, but very legible in the Connexion and ſcope of his diſcourſe; but this Author doth not in his book, or Margin, cite, or refer his Reader to one ſingle ſentence, or word on which he bottometh this aſſumption and concluſion as that which muſt be, he indeed hathPage 22. confidence enough to affirm. Mr. Crofton ſaith, the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is an act of ſolemn publique worſhip: but doth not tell us where he ſaith it; and I am ſure I have read all that he hath written, and I never found that he ſaid it; I muſt ſay, Sir, they ſay ſo of this humble Remonſtrator, though ſpoken with ſo high conſidence, is not a ſufficient ground for credit: the rather, becauſe the queſtion Mr. Crofton did diſcuſſe, and was to bring into concluſion was not; whether Communion in the Liturgy or Common-Prayer-Book was an eſſential part of the ſanctification of the Sabboth: Truly ſir, Mr. Crofton hath diſputed fairly, if onely this Antagoniſt can find his ſillogyſme conclude, what never came into his queſtion: his logick hath lately failed him very much: Sir, ſure I am? whoſoever ſhall read and regard the ſcope of what Mr. Crofton hath written on this Argument ſhall find another aſſumption and concluſion, then what the zeal and prejudice of this Remonſtrator hath aſſumed and concluded: the true ſtate and form of Mr. Crofton's Sillogiſme is manifeſt to be this.

Communion with the Church viſible in Gods ſolemn publique worſhip is an eſſential part of the ſanctification of the Sabbath and indiſpenſable duty. But Communion with the Engliſh Church in the worſhip by her celebrated, is Communion with the Church viſible in Gods ſolemn publique worſhip. ERGO. Communion with the Engliſh Church (having no opportunity with any other) in the worſhip of her Celebrated is to me an eſſential part of the ſanctification of the Sabbath, and indiſpenſable duty.

This Argument Sir, is far from aſſuming and concluding the Communion in the Liturgy, is, an eſſentiall part of the ſanctification of the Sabbath, and indiſpenſable duty, and that the worſhip celebrated in the Engliſh Church, muſt be the Subject predicated in the aſſumption of Mr. Crofton's Argument: is manifeſt to every one who obſerveth theſe paſſages in his amplifying the conſideration which containeth this Argument

1 Communion with the Engliſh Church in the worſhip by her celebrated; notwithſtanding the defects and diſorders in Miniſtration thereof; was the queſtion Mr. Crofton did diſpute, and muſt bring into his concluſion.

2. He ſaith to his friend, you yet enjoy a liberty of worſhiping God in due and right order, and may drink the waters of the ſanctuary in clean veſſels i. e. VVithout the Liturgy its Rites and order (it is manifeſt this he intended) long may you enjoy Reformation not Seperation it, and if God take pleaſure in me he will in due time reſtore me to it, Sr. is it likely Mr. Crofton would aſſume and conclude the Liturgy is that ſolemn publick worſhip which is an eſſential Pag 6. part of the ſanctification of the Sabbath, and indiſpenſable duty; whilſt he profeſſeth he had ſanctified the Sabbath, and worſhipped God without it, and hoped for a reſtored liberty ſo to do again as a token of divine favour to him; he acknowledgeth it to be his friends priviledge, prayeth the continuance, feareth the loſs of it; that he did enjoy a liberty to worſhip God in due and right order without the Liturgy, he complaineth of of it as his affliction that he had no choice, but was under a neceſsity of attending Gods worſhip in this order Miniſtred, or he muſt enjoy no ſolemn publick worſhip of God. Sr. all men muſt confeſs thoſe things will not ſquare with an argument that ſhall conclude Communion in the Liturgy is an eſſential part of the ſanctification of the Sabbath &c. but they are exactly ſquare with an Argument for Communion with the Church in Gods woſhip there celebrated, though Miniſtred with rudneſs and diſorder.

3. Mr. Crofton as a conſcientious Chriſtian, and ſerious Caſuiſt, having concluded Communion in Gods worſhip was his indiſpenſable duty, in the general; enquireth what ſpecialty might become a moral bar, and warrantable ſuperſedeas to theReformation not Separation. ſame, hereupon he conſidereth what is pleaded by the Separatiſts who abound among us; and among other things the Liturgie by which Gods worſhip was miniſtred in and to the Church, admitting the defects, diſorders, and corruption Pag. 25. charged on the ſame, he concludeth they are great, and evil, but not an evil of that nature and quality, as to conſtitute a ſufficient bar to Communion in Gods worſhip miniſtred by the ſame. Sr. it is manifeſt the worſhip concluded by Mr. Croftons argument. (and the ſcope of his whole diſcourſe on this conſideration,) is diſtinct from, though miniſtred by the Liturgie, and that this is conſidered as a moral bar, or warrantable ſuperſedeas to that, but is found inſufficient.

Sr. our Antagoniſt having thus miſtaken and misformed Mr. Croftons argument, muſt needs be concluded to fight with the fancies of his own prejudice; and ſo I might diſmiſs him, but Sr. I ſeek verity, not victory, and would if poſſible he may ſee his miſtake more plainly upon the whole caſe of this Controvercy, in wich Mr. Croftons conflict is the more uncomfortable becauſe ſingle, and failed by thoſe whoſe place and duty oblige them to his ſuccour: but the Conqueſt is moſt certain to him fighting for the truth againſt all extreams for vincit veritas: I would therefore direct a word to this Remonſtrator, and tell him in his ear, if inſtead of thoſe many needleſs and ſome groundleſs diſtinctions he hath multiplied, he had well weighed and cloſely purſued the Criticiſmes in this caſe ſtated by Mr. Crofton, he had ſaved this labour, or written with better ſucceſs, and more ſatisfaction to his Reader, if he will not be offended I will note unto him a diſtiction or two, according to which Mr. Crofton doth move, and on which this controverſie doth depend.

Sr. This Remonſtrator maketh much adoe, in diſtinguiſhingPag. 22. ſolemn publick worſhip, by perſons, place, and reallity, in which he fighteth with his ſhadow, for Mr. Crofton would not differ with him, about them; though I believe he will diſlike his expreſſions concerning them, inſtead hereof he ſhould have obſerved Mr. Crofton hath diſtinguiſhed between.

1. The ſubſtance of ſolemn publick worſhip, which coſiſteth in the matter, and eſſential form of every ordinance, both which muſt be determined by the Lord and directed in his word. 2. The Miniſterial mode of worſhip, or that humane dreſs, in and by which its celebrated in and to the Church, which is not determined by the Lord, nor directed otherwiſe then as to its general nature, as that it be ſerious, reverend, grave, and the like, in the word, but is wholy left to the wiſdom and faithfulneſs of ſuch to whom the Miniſtration of ſolemn publick worſhip is committed.

Unto this diſtinction our Remonſtrator ſhould have added this ſecond viz.

Communion in Gods worſhip, thus or thus adminiſtred, which conſiſts in an humble, reverend, attendance on, and acting in the worſhip of God, as hearkening to the petitions pronounced, and ſighing or ſpeaking an Amen to them, and the like. Communion in this or that mode of miniſtration: ſo as to aſſent unto it, and act decently in it: as the Miniſters adminiſtration by it, or the peoples perſonal actings in popular Reſponds, contamations or corporal geſtures, required by it without any relation to, or direction from the worſhip of God.

Sr. Theſe diſtinctions are manifeſt in themſelves and manifeſtly neceſſary to all underſtanding Chriſtians the worſhip of God in its ſubſtance conſiſting of matter, and eſſential form, is clearly diſtinct from the humane dreſs, and miniſterial mode by which it is celebrated in and to the Church; preaching the word is Gods worſhip, by him determined: for matter, his word, will and mind, for form preached, ſolemnly ſpoken, diſcourſed in and to his Church: but that the preaching be an analytical explication, or metaphraſtical amplification of any portion of Scripture, whether it be by Doctrine, Reaſon, and Ʋſe, or onely a diſcourſe argumentative to confirm an Article of faith, or confute an errour is ind • fferent, undetermined by the Lord, left to the wiſdom and faithfulneſs of the Preacher; and this or that mode is clearly diſtinct from Gods Ordinance of preaching, which is fully, formally exiſtent in and to the Church by any, by every mode which the edification of the Church ſhall dictate, and the ability, wiſdome and faithfulneſs of the Preacher ſhall determine.

The Methods and Phraſes of adminiſtration of the Sacraments by previous or ſubſequent exhortation to duty, diſcourſes of their nature, uſe, and end; and prayers ſo modified and phraſed, are apparently diſtict from the Sacraments, thoſe parts of Gods worſhip, which ſubſtantially exiſt, when water, bread and wine, the right matter, are miniſterially applied in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt, as ſignificant ſealing memorials of Chriſts death, body and blood; the aſſential form of Gods ordinance and inſtituted worſhip. The ſame Sr. is conſiderable in prayer, the ſubſtance of which ordinance doth conſiſt in a calling upon God in the name of Chriſt for things agreeable to his will, ſo that where things agreeable to his will is the matter; and calling upon God in the name of Chriſt is the form; by whatſoever humane mode, order of ſpeech, phraſe, words, ſentences, the ſame is performed in, and for the Church it doth ſubſtantially exiſt, is diſtinct and to be abſtracted from the ſame.

Sr. on this firſt, the ſecond diſtiniction doth manifeſtly ariſe, viz. it is one thing to Communicate in Gods worſhip, preaching prayer, or Sacraments, ſubſtantially exiſting in any, in every miniſterial mode, and dreſs by which it doth exiſt in and to the Church; although theſe cannot be divided when Gods worſhip doth exiſt in to the Church (for God cannot be worſhipped by men, without the humane miniſtration of his ordinances in ſome▪ ſutable mode) yet they may be eaſily and plainly diſtinguiſhed ſo as that the Church and particular members may know their diſtinct intereſt in Communion; the people in the general nature of the worſhip, ſubſtantially exiſting Gods, in matter and form, in and by any humane mode whatſoever, as that which concerneth and ſo charged on them, all in common, and the Miniſter the ſpecifical and miniſterial mode of adminiſtration of Gods worſhip between God and his people; which is perſonally incumbent, and charged on him by vertue of that office for modification of Gods ordinances, which he hath received from the Lord.

Sr. Theſe diſtinctions are not more manifeſt in themſelves, then that they are Mr. Croftons, in this very caſe and controverſie; I would not that this Remonſtrator ſhould think I come to relieve Mr. Crofton, with any diſtinctions, which are not his, and plainly legible in the plea he doth implead, be pleaſed therefore to obſerve Mr. Croftons own words. Ʋnder all our corruptions, we muſt not, we cannot, we dare not deny the matter, and eſſential form of Gods ordinances and worſhip is continued to us.

Again Sr. in this very and ſpecial caſe of the Litugy Mr. Crofton Reformation not Separation. thus writeth; I confeſs the Common-prayer is my burden, by reaſon of its defects and diſorder, and the rudeneſs of the Miniſterial method; I ſtand convinced it ought to be altered, yee aboliſhed, &c. Yet I must confeſs I finde no matter in it, to which on a charitable interpretation, a ſober ſerious Chriſtian may not ſay or can denie his Amen: and though I diſtast the Miniſterial method, Page 25. I cannot but obſerve in it the eſſential form of prayer viz. a calling 〈…〉 the name 〈…〉 .

Sr. Can any tearms make theſe diſtinctions more plain, and yet Sr. theſe occaſion in Mr. Croftons plea for his Communion two more, which do ariſe from, and depend on theſe.

The firſt concerning corruptions, which he conſidereth toPa. 20. 21 22, 23. be intrinſecal vitiating the ſubject, nullifying Gods ordinance, deſtroying Gods worſhip, and ſo neceſſitating ſeperation.

Extrinſecal ſuperadded to, concomitant with, and converſant about Gods Ordinances, which notwithſtanding doth exiſt for matter and eſſential form perfect and entire, capable of due opperation, as ſtinking fiſh doth nouriſh, or water pudled, or taken in an unclean veſſel doth quench the thirſt, and preſerve life.

This diſtinction, this humble Remonſtrator, doth with ſome ſcorn obſerve, and paſs by as of little or no weight, though the caſe of conſcience now controverted, doth depend upon it, and directeth the next diſtinction viz.

Reformation which ſuppoſeth the ſubject to continue ſubſtantially the ſame, but attended with ſome circumſtantial corruptions, the removal of which muſt be endeavoured, but theſe notwithſtanding the ſubject may with ſafety, and it muſt in duty be uſed. Separation ſuppoſing the ſubject ſo viciated, that it cannot be uſed with ſafety, without ſin, and muſt therefore be ſhunned.

Theſe diſtinctions moſt humbly ſlighted, I wonder at, that this Remonſtrator ſhould flie out ſo high, as to cry out Mr. Page 24. Croftons inſtances of ſtinking fiſh, pudled water and unclean veſſels yield not the leaſt ſatisfaction to me; for it is evident to any impartial Reader his prejudice never ſuffered him, to finde the form, and therefore he could not feel the force of the argument; for if the Liturgie be but a veſſel though unclean, this argument extrinſecal corruptions, being conſiſtent with Gods true worſhip, will not warrant a ſeceſſion, or negative ſeparation, appeareth very cogent, and is well amplified by the inſtance of pudled water or an unclean veſſel.

Sr. Theſe diſtinctions being not more manifeſt in themſelves, and to be uſed by Mr. Crofton, in the plea which this Antagoniſt doth implead; then to be Criſis of this Controverſie; the the hinge on which this great caſe of conſcience doth turn. I will preſume on my friend ſo far, as to preſent you with ſome ſhort and plain Aphoriſms concerning Gods worſhip, and his peoples communion; you may (if you pleaſe) call them Mr. Croftons Creed concerning communion with Gods Church, I cannot but commend them to the obſervation of Gods people & conſideration of Gods Miniſters, as thoſe which few ſober men will deny to be true, and being well underſtood would readily direct a godly mans courſe in the hour of temptation which is come upon us.

1. The Church Catholick viſible diſtributed (through neceſsity, and good order) to particular Aſſemblies muſt ſanctifie the Lords day by an holy Convocation.

2. The Congregation of perticular Chriſtians convened in full and open joynt Aſſembles, to celebrate Gods ſolemn worſhip, is the formality of an holy Convocation: in which every particular Chriſtian muſt make conſcience to be preſent, and continue from the beginning to the end of the miniſtration of Gods worſhip, they muſt aſſemble on the ſound of the ſilver trumpets, and not depart without the Prieſts bleſsing.

3. The worſhip celebrated in the holy Convocation for the matter and eſſential form by which it ſubſtantially exiſteth, muſt he determined by the Lord, and by him alone: all other matter though in a form by God directed; or the matter without the form by him appointed, is ſupperſtition to be avoided; a dogshead or Swines blood offered by a lawful Prieſt, and with Levitical Rights, and Incenſe in the hands of Chora Dathan, and Abiram, or a Lamb and Bullock offered by the laweſt of the people at Dan and Bethel, are eqully abominable to the Lord, Baptiſme by fire in the name of Father Son and holy Ghoſt or by water in the name of God the Father, and time the Mother of all things is equally void and vile, no worſhip of God.

4. All worſhip of mens invention ſuperadded to Gods apointment muſt be avoided, abandoned by every of Gods people, but Gods worſhip ſubſtantially exiſting with the ſame muſt not be diſowned or declined: the mountains of Iſrael, the Temple muſt be frequented, devoutly reſorted unto, though the high places be on the one, and the Image of jealouſy be in the other; theſe ſuperadded evils provoke God, but the Simbolls of his preſence continued, bind his people to due and conſtant attendance: the Croſſe in Baptiſme is to be (if poſſible) avoided but Baptiſme formally exiſting muſt not be diſowned, declined, becauſe the other is ſuperadded.

5 Gods worſhip celebrated by and among men, muſt be miniſtred, and exiſt in an and by an humane mode and dreſſe ſuitable to, and ſo fit to edefie ſuch a Creature and ſociety. Gods word and Sacraments, his peoples prayers, muſt be miniſtred in, and by modes, methods, words and actions, invented by the minde, expreſſed by the tongue, and performed by the hands of men.

6. The humane mode and dreſſe, words and phraſes, by which Gods worſhip muſt exiſt, and be miniſtred in and to the Church is not determined by the Lord, but wholly left to the wiſdom and faithfulneſſe of them who miniſter the ſame, hence it comes to paſs, that the ſubſtance of Gods worſhip continueth the ſame, in reſpect of matter and eſſential form by and under various miniſterial humane modes; Gods word is preached, though ſome times one way, and ſometimes another; the Sacraments are formally adminiſtred, prayers are truly made, and the one and the other is Gods Ordinance, the ſame unto all ſubjected to it, though the miniſtration thereof doth varie according to the various Gifts of the adminiſtrator.

7. The humane Miniſterial modification of Gods Ordinances in and to the Church is the formall act of the Miniſteriall Office to be fulfilled, and performed by the Miniſterial guifts, the perſonall abilities, of every individuall Miniſter, who is guifted of God, and ordained by the Church for that purpoſe. Goſpel Miniſtry is an office in Gods Church authorizing enabling, its ſubjects not to inſtitute any new worſhip for matter or forme, but to Miniſter the worſhip appointed by the Lord in an humane mode, and order, ſuch as may edefie the Church: the matter is the determination of God, the Miniſteriall mode is the digeſtion of the man, inveſted with an office to that purpoſe the word and the preaching of it is appointed by God, the mode, and tearms in which it is preached, to reproof inſtruction, or correction is the work of the officer, ordained to preach; he is guifted, and authorized to dicotomize, divide the word aright; the caſe is the ſame▪ in Sacraments, Prayer, Cenſures, all which muſt exiſt in, and too the Church by the Miniſterial mode and order, words, and expreſſions, in which the Miniſter entruſted with them, doth exhibit the ſame to them: herein each Miniſter muſt employ his Ciniſterial guifts, his perſonal abilities; this is the ſervice he muſt do to God, and his Church; he is a ſteward of the Miſteries of God, to diſtribute his maſters Goods with the utmoſt of his skill and faithfulneſſe: dicotomization of Gods word, modification of Gods worſhip, is the work in, and by which he muſt approve himſelf a werkman which needeth not to be aſhamed: in this he cannot without ſloath and porfidie aſſume, another mans mode, or ſuffer himſelf to be impoſed upon; ſo as to vail his own received guifts and to adminiſter by the modes, and formes digeſted and compoſed by others.

8. The miniſterial mode, and order of Gods worſhip being wholy humane, determined by mens Wiſdom and faithfulneſſe, it is and cannot but be ſubject to much & great corruption in defect, & diſorder rudeneſſe, & irreverence in expreſſions; ſome Miniſters are raſh and inconſiderate, unaffected with the Majeſty of God to whom they approach, in whoſe ſtead they ſtand, in and to his Church unacquainted with the nature of the ordinance to be adminiſtred by him: and the quality of the Church in and to which he doth miniſter (which things are the only dictators of that mode by which they miniſter) there are many times rude, prepoſterous, raſh, irreverent full it may be of nonſence, and cautologies, in the modes by which he doth miniſter; ſome are proud and curious, and in their carnal policy compell an vniformity, in miniſterial mode, not neceſſary, yea ſinfull; (reſtraining miniſteriall guifts, and the Churches profit by their variety) theſe pretend to correct ſome mens. rudeneſſe, and irreverence, by impoſing their own preſcribed compoſed formes and modes of miniſtration (to the open violence, and almoſt ſubvertion of the office of the Miniſtry) theſe again met, with men of ſloathfull, or ſlaviſh ſpirits, who are idle and neglect their own miniſterial guifts; whilſt others (on pretence to peace and obedience to ſuperiors) do admit them the formes compoſed by others; betraying the office they have received from the Lord, no wonder to find defects and diſorders in the miniſterial mode of Gods worſhip, whilſt the ſame is wholly dependent on men of weakneſſe, ſubject to folly and infidelity: the beſt of men and Miniſters need a Prieſt to make attonen ent for their holy things.

6. The guilt of all defect and diſorder in the humane miniſterial mode of Gods worſhip is immediately, properly, and directly perſonal, charged on the Miniſter, and on him alone: not on the Church, or any the members thereof. The guilt is proportioned to the duty, modification is a perſonal duty, charged on the officer appointed to that office: this guilt may indeed (as other ſins) by accident be derived to the Governours of the Church, who ſhould, but do not ſet up, and ordain men to the Miniſtry, and ſuſpend, and put down ſuch who want ability, well and rightly to modifie and miniſter Gods worſhip and Ordinances: and to the peo, ple and individual members, when they obſerving defects and diſorders in the Miniſterial mode of worſhip, donot grieve for the ſin of others, and complain of it as burdenſom to themſelves; and in liberty of choice, if they do not chooſe better, but ſit contentedly under the ſame. Eli by the firſt, brought on himſelfe the ſin of his ſons, prophane miniſtration, and the God-fearing Iſraelites delivered themſelves by the laſt▪ but there is no common reaſon which can derive the ſin of rude Miniſtration on the people.

10. All defects, diſorders, rude and impertinent expreſſions, in the hnmane, miniſterial mode of Gods worſhip: are corruptions, circumſtantiall, and extrinſeal in, and by which Gods worſhip may ſubſtantially exiſt in matter, and eſſential form, capable of operation to its appointed end. The Scriptures are read, though in parts and parcels, and in a corrupt, imperfect tranſlation: all which are evil: and abate the efficacy to edification: but are not ſuch evil, on which we may conclude the Seriptures are not read, or cannot edifie the hearers: the word is preached, and may profit the hearer, though the Sermon be raw, rude, indigeſted, immethodical, and in wild and unfit expreſſions. Prayer is preſented to God, though defective in ſome matter, to be deſired, diſorderly in the manner of expreſſions, uttered with abruptions, abreviations, pauſes, and poſtings one again: None of theſe evils do vitiate the ſubject, or alter the matter or eſſential form of Gods Ordinance, ſo as to deſtroy the ſubſtance: theſe make Gods worſhip not ſo ſerious, grave, and reverend as it ſhould be: but theſe, notwithſtanding it doth truly, fully, formally exiſt Gods worſhip: the third, not ſecond Commandement is hereby broken. God's name is truly but not rightly uſed: he is truly worſhipped, but th • ſe adjunct qualities which ſhould attend his worſhip are wanting: the want of reverence and right order in the miniſtration of his Ordinance doth provoke▪ God, but will not conclude he is not at all worſhipped.

11. Defects diſorders and corruptions in the miniſterial mode of Gods Ordinances fixed, continued and reiterated, are more ſinful and offenſive to God, and his people then thoſe which are preſent and tranſient, but both theſe are ſins of one and the ſame nature and quality, and of equal influence on Gods worſhip miniſtred by the ſame. Corruptions fixed and reiterated, are more wicked becauſe more deliberately, and wilfully uſed: more offenſive to Gods people becauſe foreknown: like the rude miniſtrations of Elies ſons, they make the Lords people loath the offerings of the Lord, but yet they enter not into Gods Ordinance, ſo as to vitiate the ſame, and make it ceaſe to be his prayer, is no leſſe prayer when pronounced by the defective, diſordered forms which are fixed and reiterated; then when expreſſed by the raw, rude, irreverent modes, preſently conceived by the Miniſter: the laſt may be more excuſable in the Miniſter, and more comfortable to the people: but prayer is as truly formally, exiſtent Gods worſhip under the firſt: the fixed reiteration of a defective, diſordered miniſterial mode of worſhip addeth to the degree: but altereth not the nature and quality of the ſinne.

12. No defects, or diſorders in the humane miniſteriall mode, (whether fixed and reiterated in, and by impoſed, and preſcribed forms, or expreſſed in, and by preſent, tranſient conceived forms, in and by which Gods worſhip doth ſubſtantially exiſt, for matter and form his, in and to his Church) will warrant any Chriſtians ſeceſſion, voluntary withdrawing from the holy Convocation, or non-communion in Gods worſhip ſo miniſtred: for theſe, notwithſtanding Gods worſhip doth truly, fully, formally exiſt, capable of operation to its appointed end: 2. This ſin is purely perſonal, chargeable on the Miniſter, who ſtandeth charged with the office of miniſterial modification of Gods worſhip, in, and to the Church: the people or particular members of the Church, may and muſt paſſe on this (as other perſonal acts) a judgement of charity, which doth direct them to grieve for the ſin exiſtent; to complain of it, and as they have opportunity to admoniſh the ſinner: (though the ſons of Eli) of it, and ſeek the correction and removal of the ſame; but they have not of it any judicium publicum, judgement of Office, charged on them, by the ſpecialty of duty: and armed with a juſt morall power of correction, ſo as that the ſame ſhould be the neglect of this publique duty become their ſin, and leave its guilt on their ſouls: that Gods worſhip formally exiſt in every mode of miniſtration: every Chriſtian and member of the Church muſt judge and ſee: for by this corruption, the holy Convocation ceaſeth, and they worſhip not God: but the mode it ſelfe is perſonally charged on the Miniſter: the defect and diſorder is an accident reſulting from the ſloth, negligence, ignorance, weakneſſe and unfaithfulneſſe of the Miniſter, and an adjunct ſeparable from Gods worſhip exiſtent by the ſame.

Sir▪ I pray you take good notice of this, that the private Chriſtian, and particular members of the Church have no publike judgement of office, concerning the Miniſterial mode of Gods worſhip: for Sir, it is a notion of much weight, and uſe in this Caſe, and it appeareth plainly true, if the modifying of Gods worſhip, be, as it cannot be denyed to be the perſonal act of an Officer appointed to that end: moreover Sir, if the people have a publique judgement of the miniſterial mode of Gods worſhip, we are under a neceſſity of having what we ſo much complain againſt, and caſt off, (viz▪ ) a fixed Liturgy for the mode of Prayer, Preaching, Miniſtration of Sacraments: muſt then be kown to the people, and judged by them free from all defect and diſorder, before the people can attend Gods worſhip in that Miniſtration: it muſt be confeſſed impoſſible, for a ſingle Miniſter conſtantly to communicate to every particular member of his Congregation: the mode into which he hath (by his perſonal abilities and miniſterial Gifts) caſt the word Prayer and Sacraments: no ſerious, ſober Chriſtian can think the people to be guilty of thoſe rude methods, indigeſted, raw, expreſſions tautologies, ſoleciſmes, and diſorders, which a Miniſter may utter in his preaching, and praying, yet this is inevitable if the people have a publike judgement by ſpecial office, of the miniſterial mode of Gods worſhip: it is indeed true, the defective, diſordered mode of worſhip which is fixed, ſtated, and ſo from time reiterated is more obvious and offenſive, then what is tranſient, and ſo by the judgement of charity more burdenſom to the people, the grief of it being continued and renewed: but it is the judgement of office, armed with power to correct, deriveth the guilt of the one, or of the other.

I hope Sir, our Remonſtrator will by this time ſee, that he hath moſt groſſely miſtaken Mr. Crofton, and the whole ſcope and nature of his Plea, and the very Criſſis of our preſent Controverſie, he will ſure now ſee Mr. Crofton pleadeth not for Communion in the Liturgy, he is poſitive in it: a Miniſter cannot without ſin miniſter Gods worſhip by this (or a much better) mode (if generally and excluſively impoſed) of worſhip, he never yet adviſed, juſtifyed, or defended the peoples perſonal acting, by conclamations, popular reſponds, and groundleſſe variation of Geſtures, the part allotted to the people in, and by it; and this is Sir, properly Communion in the Liturgit. Sir, Mr. Crafton▪ doth conſider the Liturgy in its general nature, a Miniſterial mode, conveighing ſome part of Gods ſhorſhip, in, and to the Church, the which he confeſſeth is defective and diſorderly, and therefore the grief and burden of the Lords people; but it doth not vitiate, destroy, or nullifie the worſhip miniſtred by the ſame; but that it ſubſtantially exiſteth for matter and form Gods worſhip, capable of operation to its end, by reaſon whereof the people having no choice of a better, and more orderly miniſterial m • de, muſt, (though with grief, and a burdened ſpirit) attend the ſame; blſſing God they have his ordinances, though in a • unclean, unhandſome veſſel, or rudely mangled, or ill favouredly carved; ſo that Communion in Gods worſhip thus miniſtred; not Communion in this miniſterial mode is Mr. Croftons Queſtion.

S • . I havering corrected this Remonſtrators moſt groſs miſtakes, ſhall now take a veiw of the ſtrength of his argumentation, inPag. 16. 17. what he ſuppoſeth to be an anſwer to Mr. Crofton's plea.

To his falſly formed argument, or Syllogiſme he ſaith, his anſwer ſhall be by

Conceſsion. Diſtinction. Retortion.

In the firſt part of his anſwer, viz. his Conceſsion he yieldeth to Mr. Crofton; the truth of the Church of England; about this we diſpute no longer, onely ſome who will clap him on the back, for appearing an Antagoniſt againſt Mr. Crofton will think by▪ this Conceſſion he hath given away his cauſe.

S • . One thing I cannot paſs without obſervation; and thatPag. 19. is, an expreſſion wildly let fall, to which I cannot conſent to him viz. perſonal corruptions in ſcandalous profeſſors, or other Church members, (Miniſter (as well as others) the Hophni, and Phineas of our age) defils the Church: this I underſtand not, nor doth he tell us whether it defile the Church immediately, and of it ſelf, or conſequently and by accident, the defect of the Church, in ſome duty incumbent upon her, intervening▪ to derive the ſin unleſs by this laſt way; perſonal ſin, and Church guilt, are a contradiction: the prophaneſſe of Elies ſons was indeed charged on their Father Eli, and that by accident onely: but I never read, nor can finde it was charged on the Church of Iſrael; the God fearing Iſraelites did deliver themſelves, by their robukes of their diſorder, without forbearing to bring their offerings to the Lord, though they were rudely Miniſtered by prophane hands.

By way of Diſtinction.

Here he diſtinguiſheth between Communion byPag. 19. 20. Profeſsion, Participation.

How warrantable, and well grounded this diſtinction is, I ſhall not now conſider; I do not finde Mr. Crofton to be concerned in it; onely I muſt tell this Remonſttator, I underſtand not the neceſſity, and prrviledges he appropriateth to Communion by profeſſion, (if that profeſſion be abſtracted, from, and oppoſed to participation) calling upon God, worſhipping, God, and the viſio ſalvit • ca are not had▪ or done by a ba • e profeſſion of the true religion, but do require perſonal participation, pation, to make man enjoy, the priveledges to them belonging.

Again I muſt tell this Remonſtrator, Mr. Crofton will deniePag. 21. there are many, or indeed any members of the univerſal Church; (he ſure means viſible and militant, or it ſquareth not with his diſcourſe) who never had opportunity of aſſonating themſelves with, or joynt communion in the ſolemn worſhip of God; for if they be actual, formal members of the Church viſible, they had an opportunity to be made ſuch; men as we are not members of the Church; ſaving faith may give relation to the Church Catholick inviſible, but memberſhip with the Church Catholick viſible, could not be had without an opportunity of joynt Communion in Gods worſhip in ſome particular Aſſembly.

The Whole improvement of this diſtinction by this Antagoniſt is onely to infer what Mr. Crofton had yielded, yea interminis ſtated, viz. Communion in Gods worſhip, with Gods Church is an indiſpenſable duty of every ſoul called by the name of God; to be onely ſuperſeded by the real inevitable neceſsity of ſome natural (ſuch as is humane violence) or moral (ſuch as is the certainty of ſin by ſuch Communion) ba • e. About this therefore we are agreed.

The Remonſtrator maketh another diſtinction of publick ſolemn worſhip in reſpect of

Perſons worſhiping. Place of worſhip.

Reality of matter, and Conſtitution of the worſhip.

On what ground he multiplieth theſe diſtinctions I ſee not, unleſs on a meer fancie that Mr. Crofton determined the worſhip of God to be ſolemn publick in, and becauſe of thoſe places appointed, and uſed to that end in this nation; unto thisPag. 26. conjecture I am lead by his hot aſſertion, locallity under the Goſpel is meer matter of indifferency; God having only ſtamped ſanctity on places among the Jews. Mr. Crofton bearing me witneſs: for which in his Margin he quoteth Mr. Crofton his Altar worſhip. page 77. but good Sir, what needs this heat? Mr. Crofton did witneſs this aſſertion in his Altar worſhip: hath he unſaid it in his Reformation not Separation? he pleadeth for communion with the Church: but did he ever confine the Church to any place? he ſaith private perticular members may not withdraw themſelves, or deny communion, with the holy Convocation or Church aſſembly, whereſoever it is held; but he never denyed the Church or holy corrvocation was convened, and (if neceſſitated) may be again convened in woods, caves, dens, or poor cottages. Mr. Crofton doth grant the Church is an holy convocation in any place aſſembled, but he doth deny that 10. 20, 30, or 40. private particular Members, (among whom may be a Miniſter by his office a Publique officer) aſſembled in a place diſtinct from: it may be oppoſite to the Publique Aſſembly, is a Church or holy Convocation: and truly ſhould he grant this, he muſt be at a loſſe how to know a Conventicle or determine a Schiſmatical Aſſembly, and throw down the Bankes of all Church order.

That the Church of Englands Liturgie, or Common-Prayer P • . 28. 29. (the great Apple of ſtrife) is a part of this Real ſolemn worſhip of God, and Communion with her therein is an indiſpenſable duty I muſt (ſaith this Antagoniſt) take leave to deny: and Mr. Crofton will reply to him, do ſo and welcome; for greater zealots for the Liturgy, then ever Mr. Crofton is like to make, will not once affirm that the Liturgie is a part of reall ſolemn worſhip of God: it is not properly any worſhip at all; it cannot then be reall ſolemn worſhip of God: the Liturgy in the ſtrict forme, and generall nature of it is not worſhip but a Politicall (though Eccleſi ſtique) order and direction, unto praying, reading the Scriptures, and Miniſtration of Sacraments; methinks this learned man ſhould not confound; reall ſolemn worſhip, and a Political order relating to ſolemn worſhip; they are in themſelves manifeſtedly diſtinct. wherein the Liturgie doth preſcribe, and impoſe ſet formes; and certain words by, and in which Prayer, or other parts of worſhip muſt exiſt in, and to the Church it is only a Miniſterial mode, exhibiting worſhip; it is not worſhip it ſelf: I hope this acute diſputant, will not affirm the form or mode into which he caſteth, and by which he expreſſeth Prayer, is real ſolemn worſhip: I hope calling upon God in the name of Chriſt, for things according to his will, is the formality of ſolemn worſhip, and that his, or other mens formes expreſſing the ſame, is only the miniſterial mode, by which it is exhibited in, and to the Church.

Sr, How vain, and frivolous, are theſe high-flown Epethites, which this humble, Remonſtrator doth give the Liturgy humane ordinance, ſuper-erogatorie worſhip, arbitrary ſervice, Scripturebitten worſhip: whilſt it is not at all worſhip: but almoſt a Politick Order; and Miniſterial mode of Worſhip: but I muſt take up: leaſt by correcting a miſtake, I alſo be branded to be the Mecaenas and Advocate of the Liturgy: We ſhall hear more of this in the next part of his anſwer, which he ſaith is by way of

Retortion.

And what is it that he recorted on Mr. Crofton?

Communion with the Church of England, may be ſuperſeded by reall inevetable neceſſity, exeonceſſis: by Mr. Crofton's own Doctrine, and aſſertion; but mine (that I may put in for a ſuperſedeas, Page 31. is a reall inevetable neceſſity ſaith the Remonſtrator: If ſo ſir, is this a Retortion? I ſhould have thought it to have been more properly accounted ajoyning Iſſues, according to Mr. Crofton's Rule: which he could not, doth not, deny to be a Rule of truth, not to be avoided: but binding all non-communicants in Gods worſhip to aſſigne and plead the inevetable neceſſity which muſt be their warrant for ſecoſſion, ſo as to acquit them from Schiſme, or ſinfull ſeparation: Let us hear ſir his inevetable neceſſity pleaded, and herein he tells us.

He cannot communicate in two things: 1. In the Liturgie 2. In the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.

He cannot communicate in the Liturgy, nor did Mr. Crofton ever adviſe he ſhould: But I hope he will aſſigne a good reaſon why he cannot communicate in Gods worſhip Miniſtred by the Liturgy: he ſaith he joyneth with the Church in▪ Prayer, praiſes, and hearing the word: he ſure will not deny the reading of the word to be a Publique Ordinance of God, and part of publique ſolemn worſhip: he will I hope manifeſt an inevitable neceſſity for his own non-communion in that: and for his abſence from any, thoſe Prayers which are by the Church put up unto God.

The neceſſity of my noncommunion in the Liturgy (ſaith this Remonſtrator) is grounded on invincible doubts, about the Lawfulneſs of ſuch a conſtitution:

Sir, I cannot but pitty the man, doubts are a Rack to the Pa. 32. minde: and being invincible he is like to live in conſtant bondage: Sure I am, Mr. Crofton will conſent, he follows his conſcience though erroneous being duly carefull, and humbly ſtudious to certifie, rightly inform the ſame: But ſir, methinks he vexeth his ſoul, entangleth himſelf and ſeeketh to enſnare others with a needleſs ſcruple, viz. Whether he may communicate, where the conſtitution of a thing is unlawful: Mr. Crofton is at no diſtance with this Remonſtrator as to the lawfulneſs of the cenſtitution of the Liturgie he will not ſtand to admit his 3. Maximes in reference to Gods worſhip

What is unuſefull is unlawfull What is unneceſſary is unlawfull What is in his general nature not commanded is unlawfull.

But they come not into his Queſtion: nor hath theſe things any thing of anſwer, to any thing pleaded by Mr. Crofton, for Communion in worſhip miniſtred by the Liturgie.

But Sir, the conſtitution of the Liturgy being granted to be unlawful, and what ought not to be; the Queſtion yet abides, Whether the Liturgy, being an unlawfully constituted mode of ſolemn publique worſhip, be ſo far unlawful, or unlawful in that kind and quality of unlawfulneſſe, which will conſtitute a warrantable reaſon for non-communion in that worſhip of God, which is miniſtred by the ſame: Sir, all things unlawful, and relating to Gods worſhip, will not warrant non-communion in Gods worſhip; he muſt therefore ſpecifie an unlawfulneſſe in the Liturgy, which will be of the kind and quality which riſeth thus high, or he doth nothing; and I confeſſe, were it not for ſome fallacie in his tearms, more then (I apprehend) is in his minde, he doth thisPa. 29. 35 to purpoſe, it is this, The Liturgy is no worſhip of God, but will-worſhip, &c. no reaſon then he ſhould communicate in it as ſuch: But Sir, how ſhall we underſtand his words? they are capable of a good and true ſenſe, for the Liturgy is no worſhip of God; nor is it any will-worſhip; for, as I have before noted, it is not any worſhip at all, but a political order, at the moſt an bumane miniſterial mode relating to Gods worſhip: But Sir, the whole ſcope of his Book, and bent of his ſpirit, maketh me aſſured, this ſenſe came not into his minde; but rather this, The Liturgy is not Gods worſhip, i. e. it is an Page 30. unlawful conſtitution, and God is not at all worſhipped by it, or in the uſe of it; he therefore concludeth, his crime is in not joyning in prayer in ſuch a dreſs or form.

And Sir, this ſenſe maketh his words an aſſertion ſo horrid, and uncharitable, that he profeſſing himſelf an Antiſectarian, I would (if I had once ground to ſupport my Charitie) hope he did not intend it; for Sir, this is the old notion urged by the brain-ſick Browniſts, and others repelled and reproved by the old non-Conformiſts.

Sir, the truth is, in this ſenſe he muſt be underſtood, or in none to this purpoſe; and then be pleaſed to obſerve the height, rather then strength of his Argument.

If the Liturgy be not Gods worſhip, (i. e.) Gods worſhip be not celebrated by the modes and forms directed in the Liturgy: it then followeth, our firſt Reformers and Marian Martyrs, rejoyced in, and dyed under a mode of divine worſhip, by which God could not be worſhipped: all our pious painful preachers miniſtred by, and all the Chriſtians in the time of Queen Elizabeth, King James, and moſt of the Reign of King CHARLES the Firſt, attended on a mode, dreſs, or form, by which God was not worſhipped: all the Miniſters who now miniſter in publick, and all the people in England who now attend the ſame, do miniſter by, and attend a mode, form, and dreſs, by which God is not worſhipped: and all who have been baptized, or received the Lords Supper in and by the modes, and forms directed in and by the Liturgy, have been mocked and deceived, and enjoyed no Sacraments; and then Sir, judg you whether England be not Paganized, and the Independents have not reaſon to gather Churches in England.

Sir, this man ſaith, his charity muſt be onely judged by God; ſure I am, he giveth men (by ſuch an aſſertion as this is), little cauſe to think he hath much; for a more notorious breach of charity, cannot befal the moſt rigid Separatiſt, the Church of England ever knew.

But Sir, what reaſon doth this Remonſtrator render, why God is not worſhipped by the Liturgy? it is this, the manner (for the matter he yields; and eſſential form he cannot deny, of the worſhip) the form and dreſs is humane: we grant it Sir, ſo is the mode and form of his ſtudied Sermon, and conceived Prayer; will he be willing we ſhould conclude God is not worſhipped by them? will he ſtand by it that the miniſterial mode of worſhip is determined by the Lord in his Word? if ſo a reading miniſtery may ſerve Gods Church, for there is no need of other miniſterial guifts; I would adviſe him to recollect his thoughts, and ſee whether he can deny, that it is Gods will, in condeſcention to mens weakneſſe, that the miniſterial mode of his worſhip, be determined, digeſted, by the wiſdome and faithfulneſſe of his Miniſters gifted and appointed to that purpoſe.

Sir, though the Liturgy is a mode of worſhip obnoxious to exception, and unlawful; yet it is only a miniſterial mode, whereby in reference to Prayer, right matter is requeſted from the Lord, in the Name of Chriſt, and ſo Gods worſhip doth ſubſtantially exiſt for matter▪ and eſſential form, and he is worſhipped by the ſame; nor doth it at all vitiate Gods worſhip, becauſe it is in it ſelf an humane mode and form; for Gods worſhip cannot exiſt in, and to the Church, but by a miniſterial mode and form humane, invented, digeſted, by men: And now Sir, where is our Remonſtrators inevitable neceſſity for non-communion in Gods worſhip miniſtred by the Liturgy.

Sir, the impoſing of this Liturgy may be in it ſelf an evil, but it doth not alter the nature of it; but that God is as truly worſhipped by it when impoſed, as when left at liberty, and his worſhip is as fully, formally, though not ſo orderly miniſtred, and existent in, and to the Church by this, as any other humane mode, form, and dreſſe whatſoever.

One thing more I muſt not paſs without obſervation, and that is; this Antagoniſt ſaith, I know Mr. Crofton doth attribute the eſſential form of Prayer to it, (pag. 25.) which he deſcribes to be a Page 39. calling upon God in the Name of Chriſt, but if he understand not by the Name of Chriſt the will of Chriſt, then I ſay it is not a right deſcription of Prayer.

Sir, I will aſſure him, Mr. Crofton did not underſtand by the Name of Chriſt, the will of Chriſt, and yet I muſt tell him, it is but one Doctors opinion that this is not a right deſcription of Prayer; he might have been pleaſed to obſerve in the ſame page, Mr. Crofton determined the matter muſt be according to the will of God; and the will of Chriſt doth require ſome adjunct qualities, as gravity of expreſſion, fervency of affection, and reverence in demeanour, which come not into the definition of Prayer, as eſſential to its form; but in the Name of Chriſt, that is, for his ſake, merits, and mediation, cannot be left out▪

Sir, I now leave our Remonſtrator on his Rack of doubting, praying God may ſhew him mercy; not doubting, but whatever they be to him, you ſee his doubts are not invincible to others▪ for Mr. Crofton's argument ſtands yet firm, viz. The worſhip of God exiſting for matter and eſſential form, his own in ſubſtance, though by the Liturgy, (a defective, diſordered, unlawful mode) may not be refuſed or declined, this mode only by this reaſon becauſe it is humane, maketh not an inevitable neceſſity of communion or ſeceſſion.

2. Our Remonſtrator cannot communicate in the Lords Supper, under the preſent modes and methods of miniſtration in the Church of England: and his ground is the impoſed geſture of kneeling, the ſuperſtition and corruption which attends it.

Sir, What ſuperſtition and corruptions▪ attend the miniſtration of the Lords Supper? in which he muſt perſonally act, ſo as to become guilty of the ſame, I ſee not; nor doth he ſpecifie any, the geſture of kneeling excepted: that the miniſterial mode of this Ordinance is diſordered, I can allow him, but this, as in other parts of publick worſhip, is perſonal to the Miniſter, and him onely, there is a poſſibility of his compoſed, reverend attendance on the Ordinance, without any perſonal acting in thoſe popular Reſponds, and Conclamations, which are directed to the people in and by the Liturgy.

As to the gesture of kneeling, I do not find that Mr. Crofton doth ſpeak one word for it, or that he ever adviſed any to it; I well know he doth not yield it, nor approve it: I have heard him ſay, that If he be put by the Communion in the Lords Supper, becauſe he will not receive the Elements in that geſture, he is barred from his duty, and priviledge, by an act of violence he is driven, he doth not goe from Gods Ordinance. It is Sir, worth the enquiry, whether this profeſſed Separatiſt negative, have tendered himſelf to Communion in the Lords Supper, and tryed whether there were not a poſſibility of enjoying it without the geſture of kneeling: for Sir, ſeceſſion without all endeavours, and under any poſſibility of Communion without what we conceive to be ſinful, cannot be acquitted of Schiſm or ſinful Separation.

Sir, I cannot but conceive this Remonſtrator to have in himſelf a faire latitude concerning the Geſture of kneeling; he ſaith, I could goe near to approve of the Gesture of kneeling, being left arbitrarie, and Page 41. commended or practiſed onely as an outward badge of more then ordinary thank fullneſſe, under the reception of an extraordinary bleſſing, and not as an act of pietie, neceſſity and worſhip. Sir, the now Zealots for the Engliſh Ceremonies? will joyne iſſues with our Antagoniſt, and tell him kneeling at Sacrament is not act of worſhip, but only a reverend and pious badg▪ of more then ordinary thankfulneſſe, in reception of an extraordinary bleſſing; and will referre him for proof to the Rubrick in their new booke, which doth declare kneeling is a ſignification, of our humble and gratefull acknowledgment of the benefits of Chriſt therein given to every Receiver? and the impoſition is juſtly capable of a diſpute; the Rubrick ſeemeth to do littte more than commend this Geſture, onely directing the Miniſter to deliver the Elements to the people all meekly kneeling; and the legality of the Canon, by him quoted is juſtly queſtioned; ſo that his reaſons on which he could go neere to approve the Geſture, ſeems to be ſo cleare, that we may wonder he ſhould not communicate in the Lords Supper, much more that he ſhould flie ſo high as to conclude Poiſon poſitive poyſon; his Charity is large; who can judge all that ever did; all who do now communicate in the Lords Supper, celebrated by the Service-Book, and by the Geſture of kneeling are poyſoned, expreſly kild by poyſon, this Charity will better become a totall and poſitive Separatiſt.

Our Remonſtrator having (as he conceived aſſigned) a ſufficient warrant for his confeſſed ſeparation; in what he ſeemeth to anſwer to Mr. Croftons 2d▪ and chief Conſideration; proceedeth to conſider ſome others, his next aſſault is on Mr. Croftons argument from the high places in Iſrael, the high places were not taken away, but the people went thither to worſhip; yet I find not that any Godfearing Iſraelite, who loathed thoſe reliques of Idolatry, ever barred themſelves, Page 43. becauſe thereof, from Gods Altar and worſhip.

Sir, I cannot but obſerve what a fair leap our Antagoniſt maketh; paſſing many conſiderable Arguments, urged as moſt proper, pertinent, and regent in our Caſe, amongſt others the inſtance in the ſons of Eli, who failed in the Miniſtration of Gods worſhip, taking their owne part, before they had burnt the fatt, according to Gods own appointment; and not contented with the portion God had allotted to them, they tooke by violence what came next hand; inſomuch that the people of the Lord loathed, yet never durſt leave the offerings of the Lord; this diſorder in the Miniſteriall mode of worſhip; runs higher then that of the Engliſh Liturgy? yet the ſin is not charged on the people; but this, and arguments of the like nature, are not worth the obſervation of our humble Remonſtrator? but be it ſo, let us conſider his batteries againſt Mr. Croftons plead from the high places in Iſrael. Page 44▪

1. He tells us the retention of Jewiſh Ceremonies in the Chriſtian Church, is (God knowes) a juſt cauſe of complaint, did Mr Crofton ever deny it?

2. Reduction of them after ſacred and ſolemne expulſion is more greivous, who denies it? what reaſon doth Mr Crofton give for his and ſhall we not complain? whoſe complaints for retrogradation of Reformation, have been more audible and affectionate then Mr Croftons? who hath more preſſed or provoked the Complaints of Gods Iſrael? and ſhall we cry to him; what and ſhall we not complaine?

3. M • Croftons alledged Caſe of the Iſraelites high places, (he ſaith) is infinitely wide of ours, Sir, it muſt be ours according to his wide miſtakes? for according to Mr. Croftons cloſe argumentation, it is very neer, and pertinent; the objection M. Crofton doth obviate by the Iſraelites high places, he hath indeed tranſcribed; but not once regarded, or conſidered? (viz) do men complaine of ſome Roman Rites retained? let them conſider the high places in Iſrael: what is the forme, and force of this analogicall argument? Roman Rites reteined, is unlawful matter ſuper-added to Gods worſhip? which ſubstantially exiſteth with the ſame; the high places were unlawfull matter ſuper▪ added to Gods Temple and Altar, which ſubſiſted with the ſame, the Iſraelites left not Gods Altar, becauſe of the ſuper▪ added matter of the high places; nor may Chriſtians leave Gods true worſhip, becauſe of the ſuperadded matter of Roman Rites: Sir, are not theſe caſes now infinitely wide? but we will weigh the diſtance he obſerveth.

1. He ſaith the high places were retained; our Roman Rites reſtored: what then reſtoration may aggravate the evil, but doth it change the nature of the corruption; high places and Roman Rites whether retained or reſtored, are only evils ſuperadded to Gods Altar and worſhip, with which theſe doe truly formally exiſt, may and muſt bee attended; the relapſe of a Church reformed doth adde to its guilt, but not abſtract its being; returne of expelled evils do much more provoke God but not vitiate the ſubject his ordinance to which it is ſuperadded; reſtoration of corruption maketh ſin ſink deeper in the Church, or ſubject of ſuch reſtoration, but it is the qulle of the Corruption muſt ſinke into and ſubvert the worſhip of God to which it is affixed, ſo as to vitiate and deſtroy the ſame.

2. He ſaith the Iſraelites were confined to Gods Altar in a certain place; Page 45. and Mr. Crofton ſaith Chriſtians are confined to Gods worſhip in certain aſſemblies; true conſtituted Churches, ſuch as our Antagoniſt yieldeth Englands Congregations to be; Mr. Crofton denieth not local liberty, or the place of worſhip to be the matter of indifferencie; the man is miſtaken, locallity never became a Topick of any force to Mr. Crofton he ſaith to a true Church, a lawfully conſtituted Chriſtian aſſembly, meet, aſſemble where you will and can, that which he ſaith againſt the looſe affections of ſome Chriſtians, apt to wander, is, forſake not the Aſſembling of your ſelves together, as the manner of ſome is: let Chriſts flock lie where it will or can, all particular members muſt keep Company with them; and have good reaſon before they refuſe it; Chriſts true aſſemblies are to Chriſtians, what the fixed place, and altar was to the Jews.

3. The high places were at most but Idolatrous places, but our worſhip is ſuperſtitions worſhip: and into this runs his fourth note of diſtance, and diſparity in this Analogy, the Iſraelites worſhip was good, and place bad, but our place is only good and our worſhip is bad: No marvell Sir, if Maſter Croftons inference be to him a Non-ſequitur: but Sir, This Charity is againe the fruite of his ſeparation, and will carry him beyond the negative part of it; how? our worſhip ſuperſtitious? our worſhip bad? this cannot be admitted; who is the object of it, is it not God in Chriſt? what is the matter of it, it is not things inſtituted, appointed by the Lord himſelf, Word, Prayer, Sacraments? what is the form which giveth the eſſe to it? is it not what God determined, that his Word be read, preached, that he be called upon in the Name of Chriſt for things according to his will; that the ſymballs by him determined, be given and received as ſignificant, ſealing memorials, of the death, bodie, and blood of Chriſt? is not this the ſubſtance of the worſhip miniſtred in the Engliſh Church, and much of it by the Engliſh Liturgy? is this ſuperſtitious worſhip? bad worſhip?

Had our Remonſtrator ſaid, the Miniſterial mode of Gods worſhip by the Liturgy had been bad, diſordered, and not without ſome mixtures of ſuperſtition; he had not had Mr, Crofton for his Antagoniſt; but this vitiateth not its ſubject; entreth not into the worſhip; ſo as to make it ſuperſtitious worſhip, bad worſhip, the worſhip hereby exiſteth truly, fully, formally, Gods worſhip though not ſo comfortable, not ſo profitable to Gods people, as a better and more orderly mode for Miniſtration; but this will not do his work, his inevitable neceſſity faileth; his ſeparation appeareth ſinfull, a ſchiſme unleſſe he confound the worſhip and Miniſterial mode, ſo as to make the worſhip bad, ſuperſtitious, and not Gods worſhip.

Sir, before we paſs this part of our Remonſtrators Anſwer, I cannot but obſerve he is at a loſſe for what he pleads againſt: he crieth, What doth Mr. Crofton plead for? Page 46

Alas man, that ſhould have been known before now, and at the beginning of your Debate; it might have ſaved you this labour and time; What ſaith he, Is it my preſence in the Church at the time of Divine Service? yes it is: but not as his large Conſcience, can yield it, in an Idol Temple, at the Maſſe, or Turkiſh Alchoran; which I am ſure Mr. Crofton, or any good underſtanding Chriſtian could not yield: nor will his neceſſity to avoid poenal Lawes, or to bear a good Sermon juſtifie his ſo doing: no matter what Religion is publickly profeſſed, this man is ſecured from ſuffering, for he (to ſave his Eſtate) can foot it with a Church-Papiſt, to a Popiſh Maſſe, or Proteſtant Service; and if preſence in the Idol Temple in the time of Idol Worſhip may be made the Character by a poenal Law, you ſhall never know him for a Chriſtian; if this neceſſitie would have been ſufficient, we ſhould have had a much ſhorter Catalogue of Martyrs, both under Pagan, and under Papal power, then by Gods grace we have for our encouragement.

But Sir, that he and others may certainly know what Mr Crofton pleadeth for; I will tell him, It is for this Chriſtian, careful carriage on Gods Sabbath. It is a preſence in the ſolemn publique Aſſembly from the firſt to the laſt of their approach to God, out of Conſcience to begin and end the holy Convocation.

A preſence with a mind informed, a judgment convinced, that this Aſſembly is Gods Church, in which Gods true Worſhip is truly celebrated.

A preſence with an heart affected with, and afflicted for the ſuperadded Rites, which are affixed to Gods Worſhip, and the ſinful defective, diſordered mode, by which Gods Worſhip is miniſtred.

A preſence with a Conſcience convinced theſe Corruptions are evil, but not ſo evil as to deſtroy Gods Worſhip; but that the ſame doth (even by this ſinful mode) exiſt truly, formally Gods Worſhip; ſo as to uſe Gods Ordinance with delight, though grieved, burdened by the diſorder of the miniſtration.

A preſence with a mind perſwaded the modifying of Gods Worſhip is the perſonal duty of the Miniſter, and ſo the defects and diſorders therefore his perſonal ſin; ſo as that theſe may be the good mans burden, (being bound to mourn for other mens ſin, eſpecially in what ſo much concerneth his own profit, and edification) but cannot be his ſin, who hath thereof no publique judgment by ſpeciallity of Office.

A preſence with a mind ſoberly vigilant over its own perſonal actings, ſo as to decline all popular reſponds, conclamations, and variation of Geſtures, and the like actions, which are unduly required, from him; ſo as to contain himſelf under ſuch diſorder in a compoſed ſilence.

A preſence with a ſerious apprehenſion of God to whom the ſervice is di • ected; and the nature of the Worſhip miniſtred; ſo as with reverence to attend the Word read, and Prayers pronounced, though in parts, parcels, with unfit intermixtures, abruptions, abreviations, and pauſes; ſo as to ſigh and ſpeak out an affectionate Amen, the whole, the only vocal part of the people in publique Worſhip.

Sir, this is the preſence which Mr. Crofton pleadeth for, as that which true Religion, and good order doth require, and direct, whilſt Chriſtians cannot enjoy Gods Worſhip in communion with his Church, by a miniſterial mode▪ more regular, perfect, and profitable, digeſted by the perſonal abilities of each Miniſtrator.

Sir, our Remonſtrator proceedeth to another of Mr. Crofton's Conſiderations, and that he accounted his ſecond, but in the order of Mr. Crofton's Book it is the third, viz.

Communion with the Church under▪ many and great corruptions, is not inconſiſtent with zeal, care and contest for Reformation.Page 46, 47, 48.

What he ſaith to this is partly true, That endeavours of Reformation are a duty; that Connivance is an argument of Affection▪ Communion an argument of Connivance; the negative part of Reformation, bindeth ad ſemper, and the like; all which Mr. Crofton hath aſſerted, and amplyfied in his Plea: nor doth he detract or deny them; but theſe are generals, in the application of which our Remonstrator followeth the miſtake of the Queſtion, which hath miſguided him throughout his whole Remonstrance.

Herein, like an acute Diſputant, he correcteth Mr. Crofton's ſtate of the Queſtion, and profoundly tells us; Mr. CroftonPage 47. had done well to have ſtated the Question aright, de eccleſia reformanda, & de eccleſia reformata: Good Mr. Remonſtrator may not eccleſia eadem, be eodem tempora reformata, & reformanda, what if a reformed Church relapſe into ſome of tee ſame Corruptions, which were ſolemnly expelled, is ſhe not eccleſia reformanda? is there no cure for her but ruine? and no carriage towards her, but to relinquiſh and run from her? doth the Criſis of the Queſtion lye in her relapſe, and retrogradation in Reformation, and into the ſame corruptions which had been ſolemnly expelled; or in the quality and nature of the corruptions which are returned into her? if her relapſe be into extrinſecal, circumſtantial corruptions, which notwithſ •• nding the ſubſtance of Gods Worſhip, and ſalvability of Gods people is continued, and ſecured, is not the Queſtion then plain, Whether communion with her relapſed into ſuch corruptions be not conſistent with zeal, care and conteſt for▪ Reformation? and who will deny that? but if the relapſe into intrinſecal, and ſubſtantial corruptions which vitiate the ſubject, and deſtroy Gods Worſhip, and the ſalvability of Gods people; then indeed ſeparation, not only negative, but poſitive is a duty.

But Sir, I wiſh the Remonſtrator may review Mr. Crofton's Plea, and ſee that he doth conſider the Engliſh Church reformed, relapſed, and to be reformed, and pray he will conſider relapſe, and retr • gradation is the aggravation of the Church's ſin, and provocation of Reformers zeal; but, the quale of the corruptions, whether firſt introduced, or after ſolemn expulſion returned into it, is that which muſt direct, and determine Communion or Separation.

But Sir, no ſtate of the Queſtion doth, nor indeed can be expected to ſuite his miſ-guided zeal, but what is ſquare to his miſtaken judgment; he therefore here again c • ieth out of Communion in Corruption; Communion in the Liturgy; and according to the uncharitable fancy of the old brain-ſick Browniſts, and moſt rigid Separatiſts, his Dialect is, It is no Worſhip; God is not Worſhipped; it is a going back into Egypt; it is poyſon; I. will dye of famine rather then of poiſon; and the like, which is every where ſcattered up and down his Remonſtrance.

To all this I know, Mr. Crofton will grant to him Communion in the Corruptions, Communion in the Liturgy is not conſiſtent with endeavours for reformation: But Sir, herein lyeth the difference between Mr. Crofton and this Antagoniſt, the one maketh corruptions the direct immediate object of Communion; the other doth make Gods worſhip ſubſtantially for matter and forme, only Miniſtred by ſuch a corrupt mode, and with ſuch and ſuch corrupt appendants converſant about it, which enter not into it, the object of Communion; Mr. Crofton ſaith, we muſt communicate in Gods worſhip hereby Ministred; and the Remonſtrator ſaith, we do communicate in the corūptions, in the Liturgy; Mr Crofton is ſo farre from pleading for Communion in the Liturgy, that he ſaith Miniſters cannot without ſin uſe it, for they are Judges? and ſtand charged with the Miniſterial mode of worſhip; and non-miniſtration by it is the leaſt Art of reformation; nor doth he plead for, or juſtifie the perſonal actings of the people, in thoſe popular Reſponds, Read h • s Reformation not Separation. Conclamations, and groundleſſe change of Geſture, which is their part of Communion in it as a Liturgy; nay, ſo farre is Mr. Crofton f • om preſſing Communion in the Liturgy, that he maketh attendance on Gods worſhip miniſtred by the form of the reſult neceſſity; and blameth the ſame in a caſe of choice, or liberty, to enjoy Gods worſhip in a more orderly and regular mode.

If Sir, the Remonſtrator will not take the queſtion as it is ſtated, the caſe of Conſcience as it ſtands, and came cloſe to the criſis of the Controverſie, if he will not diſtinguiſh between his foode, and the unclean veſſel, and ill-favored carving which doth tranſmit it to him, if he will not differ between a neceſſity of feeding in ſuch veſſels on good wholſome food, ill-favouredly carved▪ and mangled, or ſtarving, and a liberty and choice of a better and more orderly miniſtration; he may be afraid of and all his dayes fight with his ſhadow; for he fighteth not with Mr Crofton whoſe queſtion is manifeſt in, and through his whole booke, to be about neceſſitated Communion in Gods worſhip in ſuch an unfitting Miniſterial mode.

Sir, Mr Crofton would not have any reforming Chriſtian goe back, or retreat from the degree of Reformation they have attained: but this is the caſe, and private Chriſtians duty; the forum of the Church viſible (at leaſt the particular to which they relate) is changeable, and changed, yet confiſteth of ſuch who are true and lawfull though it may be not pious) Ministers of the Goſpell, theſe are Judges; and do aſſume, & by their office impoſe on the Church a Miniſterial mode of Gods worſhip, which is rude, diſorderly, and was ſolemnely expelled; the people and particular members do nauſeate, are burdened at this mode, yet cannot deny Gods worſhip doth truly, formally and ſalvably exiſt in and by it, they have no publique Judgement of, nor moral power to correct this mode, may paſſively attend, & perſonally act their part in Gods publick worſhip, without any perſonal acting in the Ministeriall mode; muſt they in this caſe not keepe their places? but recede from Communion, and reſolve to live without ſolemne publique worſhip, not knowing how or where to have it better Miniſtred? Sir I would intreat our Remonſtrator to let his future diſcourſe turne on the binge of the controverſy; or his anſwer will be rejected as a groundleſſe and forced creaking, not more unpleaſant then unprofitable.

Our Remonſtrator doth ſuggeſt ſomthing from the Oath, called the Solemn League and Covenant, (of which he ſpeaketh in ſuch tearms, as ſpeak little of wit, or honeſty, and leſſe Scotch zeal) as making for his fancy argumentum ad hominem at leaſt.

Sir, we all know that Oath is become a Noli me • tangere, I muſt not plead for it, but this I will tell you, Mr. Crofton who hath reaſon, (having ſtudied and diſputed it, and deeply ſuffered for it) to underſtand that Oath will undertake to plead his principle, as that to which that Oath doth oblige; I will in his behalf note theſe three things conſiderable in this Caſe, to which that Oath doth bind: they are theſe.

1. It obligeth to Reformation in Worſhip, which ſuppoſeth worſhip doth fully and formally exist, defiled with ſome extrinſecal corruptions which muſt be removed, expelled; but ſtill the ſubject muſt be owned and ſecured; not declined or refuſed whilſt we conſcientiouſly attend Worſhip, we muſt carefully endeavour it may be as pure, as it is true.

2▪ This Reformation muſt be endeavoured in our places and Calling by lawfull meanes, but the private capacity of particular members of the Church, diſpoſe them to endeavours by no means but what reſult from the Judgement of Charity, viz. obſerving other mens ſin, they muſt grieve for it; admoniſh even Elies ſons to forbear it; Complaine to God and ſuperiors, humbly petitioning a Reformation by their publique authority; and in caſe of choice, and liberty, attending Gods worſhip miniſtred in a better Miniſterial mode; but in caſe of neceſſity, rather then not attend Gods worſhip truly, ſalvably exiſting, their place doth binde them to attendance on it in this mode? but with a greived, burdened, complaining, ſupplicating ſpirit; that this evill may be reformed, bringing their offerings to the Lord, whilſt they loath and rebuke, are greived for, and complaine againſt the Prophane Miniſtration of the ſons of Elie.

3. This Reformation muſt conſiſt with reall ſincere indeavours to extirpate ſchiſme, as well as ſuperſtition; Mr Crofton hath well cautioned us, that the Divell doth labour to reforme the one, by running as upon the other ſin; but the grace of God keepethReformation not 〈…〉 . us in an equal oppoſition to both: Now▪ unwarrantable ſeceſſion from Gods worſhip, this very Remonſtrator grants is a ſeparation, and a ſin, and although it be but negative and P • ge 46. partial, yet it hath in it the formality of Schiſme: our Remonſtrators inevitable neceſſity we have found before doth varliſh; on his miſtake he muſt aſſign another, and that from the nature and quality of corruption, or impoſſibility of communion in Gods true worſhip, without communion in the miniſterial mode, which is evident may be abſtracted from the worſhip; and Mr. Crofton doth affirme is a perſonal act, though of a publique Officer to a publique end

Sir, the whole of what the Remonſtrator ſaith in this point of Reformation is this: Mr. Crofton ſaith, the matter, (and he ſhould have added the eſſential form, for ſo Mr. Crofton ſaith)Page 48▪ is good, but the outward mode is bad, and to be reformed; this our Remonſtrator very often and with great humility calleth Mr. Crofton's recocta Crambe; and yet as often as it is boyled by Mr. Crofton, it hath no good connection in this mans ſtomack; all the nurture he draws from it, is but like Scotch Keal, which turneth into winde and vapour.

Sir, our Remonſtrator muſt yet have this crambe recocta, it is the Criſis of this Controverſie, till it be digeſted, this Caſe of Conſcience cannot be reſolved; Mr. Crofton grants, that the whole frame and conſtitution of the Liturgy is to be reformed, removed; but he deemeth it to be adulterate worſhip and affirmeth it to be only a deſective, diſorderly miniſterial mode of Gods true worſhip, of which the people hath not publique judgment, and by which they may enjoy Gods Ordinances, capable of operation to their end, without any communion in this mode, which is perſonal in a publique Officer to a publique end, and muſt therefore be reformed by the endeavours of all in their places, and without unwarrantable ſeceſſion, negative ſeparation, formal Schiſm, and ſo a ſinne.

They who have made a Schiſm between Paſtors and People by an act of violence, and exaction of what muſt not be yielded, muſt be pittyed and prayed for, but not paid in their own Coyn by us, or repelled by our perſonal ſin and Schiſm: I deſire to ſerve God, but God keep me from ſerving him by my ſin; where ſin is Gods inſtrument, judgment (his ſtrange work) is his buſineſſe, and the fire is uſually prepared for ſuch Inſtruments, when their work is done.

Our Remonſtrator ſtumble • h on another Sentence of Mr. Crofton's Plea, for indeed he no where taketh the ſcote, or underſtandeth the form and force of any Argument; hePage. 5. faith Mr. Crofton ſaith, I cannot without trembling conſider the circumciſed Sects in the Church of Corinth, (Coloſſe he meant) are charged to have left the head, by leaving the body: This our Antagoniſt ſaith is a ſtrange Argument, unleſſe his non-Communicants be proved to be circumciſed Sects, and guilty of ſuch corruptions as will amount to a not holding the head.

Here Sir, our Remonſtrator (who taketh no Argument right) is run out into another miſtake; as if Mr Crofton did allude to the circumciſed Sects for their corruption, who alludeth to them for their ſeparation, not holding in the body, and ſo not holding the head; be the corruptions of any Church or People what they will; a ſeparation, and unwarrantable ſeparation from Gods true Church is a leaving the body, and ſo not holding the head; the eſtate of which is ſo dreadful, that every good man cannot but tremble to ſee any in the leaſt appearance thereof, motion, or tendency thereunto.

Sir, What our Remonſtrator doth urge in caſe of ſcandal is no contradiction in theſe to Mr. Crofton, in what he hath aſſerted: but in hypotheſi he hath run on his old miſtake, Is communion in the Liturgy a poſitive duty? isPage. 53. his Quaerie: Mr. Crofton ſaith, No; but communion in Gods worſhip miniſtred by the Liturgy, is a poſitive duty to ſuch who have no choice, and cannot enjoy Gods worſhip in communion with Gods Church Catholique viſible, in a better miniſterial mode and order.

2. Saith he, is not the Liturgy indifferent? Mr. Crofton faith, No; it is not: not as the Biſhop told him, becauſe impoſed, but becauſe a formal poſitive evil, but yet it is not an evil of that nature and quality, as to intercept the indiſpenſible duty of communion in Gods true worſhip miniſtred by it, when we have no choice.

3. Saith he, Will not ſcandal accrue by Mr. Crofton's communion, as well as conformity in the Liturgy; Mr Crofton ſaith, It will; but he denieth all communion in the Liturgy; and his non-conformity is the act of non communion in his capacity, as a Miniſter; his non-perſonal acting in any the popular Reſponds, Conclamations, and groundleſſe variation of Geſtures, is the evidence of his non-communion, as a Member of the Church.

Mr. Crofton is ſenſible, men, and good men, are, and will be ſcandalized by his communion in Gods worſhip, miniſtred by this mode; but this is by accident, not from the nature of his act, but from the ignorance and weakneſſe of thoſe who take it, and therefore are no bar to his duty; indeed weak, though good men may well ſtumble, when this man of Learning hath no more brains, then to confound communion in Gods worſhip miniſtred by the Liturgy, with communion in the Liturgy, and ſo conclude Mr. Crofton a Mecaenas and Advocate for the Liturgy.

Sir, That which is the great ſtick, and ſtumble with many, though this acute Diſputant doth not urge any thing againſt it, is this principle which ſome men (whoſe judgment ſhould be better) is pleaſed to call proprium Degma to himſelf, (viz.) I can communicate in Gods worſhip miniſtred in that humane miniſterial mode and order, by which I cannot adminiſter.

Sir, The general reaſon of this his reſolution, is the modification of Gods worſhip in, and to the Church, is the perſonal act of the Miniſter: If Sir, this act be perſonal, the Miniſter may not be impoſed on, all ſins in the miniſterial mode, are his, who miniſtreth; and they extend not to the Church, unleſſe by accident through ſome defect of their own: Sir, this general might be amplyfied by theſe particulars.

1. A Miniſter by his Office stands charged to modifie Gods worſhip by his miniſterial gifts, and perſonal abilities; he may not therefore be impoſed on, be the modes impoſed never ſo good; he may as well admit compoſed Sermons, as compoſed Prayers, and forms for Adminiſtration of Sacraments.

2. Every Miniſter hath a publique judgment of the miniſterial mode by which he miniſtreth the worſhip of God, and doth qua Miniſter, as a publique Officer, receive this, and reject that; ſo that if he receive a mode defective and diſorderly, the ſin becometh his.

3. Every Miniſter is perſonally active in the miniſterial mode by which he miniſtreth, ſo that he mangleth Scripture, and doth perſonally act all that diſorder which is in it.

Theſe things are well illuſtrated by Mr. Croftons alluſion to the Recorder of the Citie, or Speaker in Parliament, and ſhew good reaſon why he cannot conforme to, Miniſter by ſuch and ſuch a miniſterial mode.

But his miniſtry (as to exerciſe) being ſuperſeded, and he reſolved into the ſtate and capacity of a private member of the Church, conſidereth,

1. This miniſterial mode is evil, but not ſuch an evil as vitiateth the ſubject; Gods worſhip doth truly, formally, ſalvably, (though not comfortably or ſo proſitably as by another) exiſt in, and to the Church by it, and I cannot have Gods Ordinances in communion with Gods Church without it.

2. In this miniſterial mode, the members of the Church are purely paſſive, they according to their duty, aſſemble to worſhip God; the Miniſter charged with the bumane mode, doth aſſume a Miniſter by this, the which the members of the Church do not adviſe or chooſe, nor any way act in, but compoſedly attend the worſhip of God hereby miniſtred unto them, and exhibited for their Amen: ſo that the ſin is perſonal, not publique and common, no way derived to me, unleſſe by my neglect to mourn for this, as any other ſin in another.

3. Though this mode of worſhip do direct ſome acts to be done by the people, yet I am Master and Judg of my own action, and can with-hold, and refuſe it, ſo that in the whole miniſtration I act not, but in my Amen to the prayer thus modified, and my attention to the worſhip thus miniſtred, and the ſinful mode is by, and to the Miniſter, and him alone.

Sir, Let not any infer, that on theſe grounds we may attend a Maſſe and be innocent: For Sir, the corruptions in a Maſſe are ſuch as vitiate the Subject, and deſtroy the worſhip of God.

1. It is celebrated in an unknown tongue, and ſo doth not exhibit any worſhip; it is to the people, vox & preterea nihil, it is a frivolus objection, I underſtand Latine, when the Church, who underſtandeth it not, is the ſubject of the worſhip to be done to God, the Queſtion is of publique communion, not my private and perſonal adoration.

2. The Maſſe doth pray to the Saints, a wrong object; in the name of the Saints, a wrong ground, for ſome unlawful things; wrong matter of prayer, Gods worſhip is not herein exiſtent, but deſtroyed.

3. The Maſſe maketh the Sacraments Sacrifices for the quick and dead; tranſubſtantiateth the Elements, and ſo changeth the nature of the Ordinance in the very nature and eſſe thereof.

We are Sir, at laſt, arrived at the laſt quarrel our Remonſtrator picketh at Mr. Croftons Plea, in which he is exactly ſquare to his miſtaken ſelf.

Mr. Crofton ſaith, I am not without the caution and conduct of ſober, godly, learned promoters, and purſuers of a perfect and compleat Reformation.

To this the Remonſtrator ſaith, It is ſtrange Mr. Crofton Page 54. ſhould argue from communion amongſt diſtinct Churches, againſt the non-communion of preſent members of one and the ſame Church, ſince that is a communion not by participitati •• and joint fellowſhip.

How Sir, not by participitation and joint fellowſhip? that is ſtrange; though not by conſtant participitation perſonal, by their individual members, yet by joint fellowſhip in the ſame ſubſtantial worſhip, and occaſional perticipation reciprocally, each with other, by their particular members caſt into this or that Country: Sir, can other Reformed Churches hold communion with England, if her worſhip be no worſhip of God? will-worſhip, Scripture-bitten, will-worſhip? Moreover, Mr. Crofton obſervedReformation not Separation. the Reformed Churches diſowned not, on occaſion declined not, never adviſed their travelling members to decline communion with England, her Liturgy notwithſtanding, they ſure concludedPage 43. Gods worſhip was therby miniſtred.

Again, this Remonſtrator telleth us, Mr. Croftons inſtance in the primitive Non-conformiſts, is wide of that of the modern; it is true, and Mr. Crofton tells us in his Plea, He was ſenſible of it, they adminiſtred by this miniſterial mode, which Mr. Crofton ſaith, He can better excuſe than juſtifie; yet the diſtance is notPage 44. ſo great, as this mans wild fancie doth dream; they were under the ſame corruptions for kind, which are returned upon us; yet Hilderſham, Ball, Nichols, Hind, and others maintained the duty of communion in Gods worſhip, under, in, and by them, againſt Brown, Barrow, and other Rigid Separatiſts, who urged this mans grand Argument, it was not Gods worſhip, and it was will-worſhip: I know our Remonſtrator diſowns relation to theſe men, and their Sects, yet ſheltereth himſelf under their ſhield, and fighteth with no weapon, but what was forged on their Anvil, and in their Shop, only he addeth ours is an eſtate of relapſe; that is indeed true, and aggravateth our ſin, but altereth not the nature and quale of the corruptions; if theſe corruptions returned do vitiate the ſubject, and deſtroy Gods worſhip, they did ſo when firſt inovated, or continued in the firſt Reformation; for as I have before urged it is only the quality, not the degree of the evil muſt vitiate Gods worſhip, to make it poyſon, expreſs poyſon.

Sir, I have done with this Remonſtrator, when I have told him Mr. Crofton is a Peter, who can receive the rebukes of a brother Paul; but the rebukes of a Zeal, miſtaking matter of fact, doth only retort on the Cenſurer, with a what doth your arguing reprove?

I am Sir, Your Obliged Friend, R. S. Febr. 13. 1662.