The Arguments and Objections are these that follow:

Objection. 1. The first Objection we shall mention, as brought against the Non-conformity and Separation of the Dissenters from the Church of England, is this,—That they have no Reason or Because what they are offended at, are not for­bidden in the Scriptures.Cause upon a Conscientious Account so to do, because the principal things they take offence at, are not forbidden in the Scriptures; and till they can produce a Scripture to the Ne­gative, [Page 4] as a Negative Article of Faith, that says we are not to do so, or so, Kneel at the Communion, Cross in Baptism, keep Holy-days, use Liturgies, Letanies, &c. they can have no cause of just scruple.

And thus, Sir, you are pleased to Argue, viz. ‘That there Scrupulous Con­science, p. 30.can be no Transgression, but by either omitting what the Law Commands, or doing what the Law forbids: For In­stance; If a man can shew where Kneeling at the Sacra­ment is forbidden in Scripture, where sitting is required, where praying by a Form is forbid, and extemporary Prayers are enjoyned, then indeed the Dispute would soon be at an end; But if neither the one nor the other can be found, as most certainly they cannot, then Kneeling at the Sacrament, and Reading prayers out of a Book, must be reckoned amongst things lawful, and then there is no need of scrupling them, because they may be done with­out sin; nay where they are required by our Superiors, it is our Duty to submit to them, because it is our duty to obey them in all lawful things.’ This way of Arguing (you say) is very plain and convincing.

And to the same purpose we have Dr. Stillingfleet in his late Dr. Still. in his Answ. to several late Treatises, p. 180, 181. Answers to several of the Dissenters, affirming, that those are Schismaticks that Deny submission to the Government of the Church of England; and he tells us in plain terms, assuredly, that the Reasons of this Denial do not signifie a Button; those (saith he) who seperate from the Church of England make this their funda­mental principle as to Worship (wherein the difference lies) that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God, but what he hath ex­presly commanded; We say all things are lawful which are not frobidden, and UPON THIS SINGLE POINT stands the whole Controversie of Separation as to the Constitution of our Church.

Here's the Objection in words at length, and which you will find to be no other then what the Papists make to the Church of England upon the same occasion, which I shall transcribe in their own words, and the Answers of your own Party to it, which I hope will be esteemed a fair and satis­factory way of Reply.

In his discourse [...]o [...]cerning the I­ [...]o [...]ry of Rome, [...]. 175. s. 16. Dr. Stillingfleet giving us an accout of his Popish Adversa­ries Plea, and how he Returned the Negative Articles to be proved by him, makes to him this Answer.

[Page 5] ‘But the strangest Effort of all the rest, is what he hath reserved to the last place,’ viz. That the Charge of Idolatry against them must be vain and groundless, because if I be pressed Close, I shall deny any one of these Negative Points to be divine Truths, viz. That honour is not to be given to the Images of Christ and his Saints; that what appears to be Bread in the Eucharist, is not the Body of Christ; that it is not lawful to Invocate Saints to pray for us—[These are the Jesuits words, requiring the Doctor to prove those Negatives, upon which single Point he puts the stress of his Argument.] Then follows his An­swer, which I pray you to mind well, because it is the An­swer you must take to the like Question from us, viz.

‘But the Answer to this is so easie, that it will not require much time to dispatch it. For I do assert it to be an Article of my faith that God alone is to be worshipped with Di­vine and Religious Worship: And he that cannot hence infer, that no Created Being is to be worshipped, hath the name of Reasonable Creature given him to no purpose. What need we make Negative Articles of Faith, where the Affirmative do necessarily imply them? If I believe that the Scripture is my only Rule of Faith, as I most firm­ly do; Will any man that considers what he saith, require me to make Negative Articles of Faith, that the Pope is not, Tradition is not, Councils are not, a private Spirit is not? for all these things are necessarily Imply'd therein. And so for all particular Doctrines rejected by us upon this principle, we do not make them Negative points of Faith, but we therefore refuse the Belief of them, because not contained IN OUR ONLY RULE OF FAITH: On this account we reject the Pope's Supremacy, Transub­stantiation, Infallibility of the present Church in Delivering Points of Faith, Purgatory, and other FOPPERIES im­pos'd upon the Belief of Christians; So that the short Re­solution of our Faith is this, That we ought to believe Nothing as an Article of Faith, but what God hath Re­vealed, and the compleat Revelation of God's will to us is contained in the BIBLE, &c.’

Answer to the Objection. And what could have been spoken wi [...]h fuller Evidence and greater Demonstration of Truth: Therefore as joyning issue with the Doctor, that upon this single point stands the whole Controversie of Separation, as to the Constitution of their [Page 6] Churches, viz. That nothing is lawful in the Worship of God, but what he hath expresly commanded, (as say the Dissenters) and not all things lawful which are not forbid­den, as say the Advocates for the Church of England, let his own words decide the matter, and forever determine the Case. For what need the Dissenters (as the Doctor affirms on their behalf) make Negative Articles of Faith, where the Affir­mative does necessarily imply them; If they do believe with the Doctor, that the Scripture is their ONLY Rule of Faith, as they most firmly declare to do, will any man that considers what he saith, require them to make Negative Articles of their Faith, that Popes, Councils, Private Spirits, Traditions, are not, and so for all particular Doc­trines rejected by them upon this principle: They do not with the Doctor, make them Negative points of faith, but they therefore (with him) refuse the Belief of them, BECAUSE NOT CONTAINED IN OUR ONLY RULE OF FAITH. On this account they do (with the Doctor) Reject the Pope's Supremacy, Transubstantiation, Infalli­bility of the Church of Rome in Delivering points of Faith, viz, Purgatory, and other Fopperies, (as Salt, Oyl, Spittle, Exorcisms, Conjurations, baptizing of Bells, &c.) And upon the same account do they Reject what the Protestants have received either from Pagans or Papists, as to National, Pro­vincial, Diocesan and Parochial Churches, Because not Con­tained in our ONLY RULE of Faith. As also of the Go­vernment of the Church of Christ by Lord Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Chan­cellors, Officials, &c. Because not contained in our ONLY RULE of Faith. In like manner do the Dissenters also Re­ject the Consecrating of Churches, Chappels, Cathedrals, Priests Garments, Altars, Liturgies, Singing Service, Letanies, Bowings, Crossings, Cringings, Holy-dayes, Fasts, Feasts, Vigils, because not one word of any of them is contained in our only Rule of Faith; So that the short Resolution of the Dissenters and the Doctor's Faith in this great Point is this, that they ought to believe nothing as an Article of Faith, but what God hath revealed, and that the Compleat Revelation of Gods Will to us, is contained in the BIBLE.

Therefore Christ having in the Affirmative compleatly Re­vealed to us his mind and will in the Bible, both as to the [Page 7] Doctrine and Discipline of his Church, we need not go to Pope, Council, Tradition, or any other for Additions to ei­ther, nor trouble our selves to make Negative Articles of Faith and Practice, which would be as Ridiculous as End­less.

And this we hope the Doctor and all his Party will take for good Pay, and that you your self, Sir, amongst the rest, will joyn Issue, and acknowledge, That this way of Arguing is very plain and convincing.

But this being so well performed by the Doctor, what shall we say that so wise, so learned, and so great a man as Dr. Stil­lingfleet should forgot himself so far, as to make head and run counter against his own Argument, and to that degree, as to pawn the whole Controversie upon that single point which he had so infallibly and indisputably resolved, which indeed is very strange and wonderful; but yet upon serious Thoughts we shall find it but a fulfilling of that Word of the Lord, Isa. 29. 14, &c.viz. I will do a marvellous Work amongst this People, even a mar­vellous Work and a Wonder [But what is that?] Why the Wis­dom of their Wise men shall perish, and the Ʋnderstanding of the Prudent men shall be hid [But when shall that be?] viz. When they teach for Doctrines the Commands [or the fear or Worship] of God for the Precepts of men. Our very case, and whereof we Vers. 13.have frequent and continual experience. For with what Evi­dence and Demonstration of Truth will the Papists argue against and censure the Heathen for their Idolatries, and yet at the same time be guilty of the same thing themselves, and expose themselves to the Censure of the Heathen on the one side, and the Protestants on the other.

How wisely, how spiritually will Protestants dispute with, handle and judge the Papists, for leaving the Word of God for Fables [for their Will-Worship, False-Worship, Idolatry, &c.] and yet at the same time be guilty of Will Worship themselves, exposing themselves to the Censure both of Papist and Non-Conformist? Of which we might give you divers Instances both of the one and of the other; and whereof take one or two.

Dr. Stillingfleet Idolatry of Rome p. 22. This very Jesuite who disputes with the Doctor, falls out in a most severe Censure of the Pagans for their most damnable Diabolical Idolatry in Worshipping their inferior Deities, as Venus, Mars, Bacchus, Vulcan, and the like Rabble of Devils, [Page] (as he calls them) who were their Damons, Hero's, or Inter­cessors to their superior Deity, Jupiter; not being aware (which also the Doctor improves against him) that they were guilty of the same Crime themselves in setting up their See p. 4, 5. and p. 159, 160.Inferior Deities, the Virgin Mary, St. Peter, St▪ Paul, and a hundred more as Mediators and Intercessors to the Supream, and to whom, as the Doctor observes, they pay divine Ho­nour and Worship, bowing and kneeling before them, and their Images also; which he proves against them to be no less Diabolical Idolatry.

Page 17. The Jesuite being quick-sighted, returns smartly upon the Doctor, That whilst he judges their bowing and kneeling be­fore their Images to be Idolatry, how can he justifie their bow­ing and kneeling before the consecrated Elements, bowing at [the Altar, East] Name of Jesus, Putting off their Hats, &c. which the Jesuite on the one hand, and the Dissenters on the other hand improve against him.

Primitive Rule of Reformation, p. 11, 12. And so whilst Dr. Pierce severely censures the Papists for varying from the primitive Pattern in their Superstitions and Abominations, Because it was not so from the beginning, Ser­gent the Jesuit returns his own Argument smartly upon him for doing the same thing, in many particulars, and which the Dissenter also doth for the same, viz. for varying in so many things from the primitive Pattern, whilst he judges others for the same.

To which we might add divers Instances, both as to Papists and Protestants, especially in those three Points, Idolatry, Imposition and Persecution.

So that as it hath been generally observ'd, the Papists Argu­ments againsts the Heathen, the Protestants Arguments against the Papists, are most substantial Arguments against themselves, when their practice gives their principle the Lye, & so rendring themselves altogether inexcusable, as faith the Text; There­fore Rom. 2. 1, 2, 3.thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thy self; for thou that judgest dost the same things. But be sure that the Judgment of God is according to Truth, against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the Judgment of God? &c.

[Page 9] Objection. 2. Because they are [...] things. Another Objection that is brought against the Dissenters, is, Because they separate from the Church of England for [...]eer Nicities, for little things, which in their own Nature are indifferent.

Scrupulous Con­science, Page 5. To that purpose you are pleas'd to express your self, viz. A scrupulous Conscience is conversant about things in their own nature Indifferent; and it consists,

Either in strictly tying up our selves to some things which God hath no where commanded; as the Pharisees made great Consci­ence of Washing before they did eat, and abundance of other un­necessary Rights and Ʋsages they had of mens own inventing and devising, which they as Religiously, nay▪ more Carefully observed than the indisputable Commands of God himself:

Or in a Conscientious abstaining from some things [...] not forbid, nor any ways unlawful. Touch not, tas [...] not, [...] not, doubting and fearing where no fear is, thinking that [...] as much offend God by eating some kind of Meats, [...] Garments, as they should do, were they guilty of [...] Adultery. Which is the case of many amongst [...] Scrupulosity about little matters, seem more [...] [...]uster [...], than other good and honest Christians are, or [...] need or ought to be.

Pag. 6. ibid. And a little further you add—A [...] Conscience therefore starts and boggles where there is no real [...] or Mischief; is afraid of omitting or doing what may be omitted or done without sin. Which I know not how better to illustrate than by those unac­countable Antipathies or Prejudices that s [...]me men have against some sort of Meats or living Creatures, which have not the least harm or burt in them, yet are so offensive and dreadful to such Persons, that they fly from them as they would from a Tyger or Bear, and avoid them as they would do the Plague or Poyson. Just thus do some men run out of the Church at the sight of a Surplice, as if they had been soar'd by the Apparition of a Ghost.

Resolution of Conscience, p. 38. A late piece call'd, A Resolution of Conscience, &c. (suppo­sed to be Dr. Mores) affirms thus much; 1. That the Go­vernment of our Church by Bishops. 2. The Liturgy or Set forms of Prayer, Admin [...]stration of Sacraments. 3. Certain Rites of the Church, particularly the Surplice, the Cross in B [...]ptism, the Gesture of Kneeling at the Communion, the Ring in Marriage, the Observation of the Churches Holy▪days. All which (faith he) [Page 10] I take for granted are Indifferent in their own Nature, that there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them unlawfull. I know no body (saith he) so unreasonable as not to▪ Grant this.

Mr. Will. Allens Catholieism, pag. [...]10. Mr. William Allen in his late piece called Catholicism, saith to the same purpose, That the Ceremonies of the Church of England are not enjoyned as things of Divine Appoint­ment, but only as of an Indifferent Nature, and therefore there is no reason to s [...]r [...]ple them, And again saith, That the Cere­monies and Service of the Church, or use of things in or about Gods Worship, which are not of the Essence of it, nor [...]s'd under the Nation of being Commanded by God, but professedly used as things Indifferent in their own Nature, and only as matters of humane [...] cannot justly be charged to be false Wor­ship.

Protestant Re­conciler, [...] part, pag. 35. The Author of the Portestant Reconciler tells us, That it is [...] the Church of England, that the Ceremonies used [...] by that Church Imposed on her Members, are in their own [...] things Indifferent, thus; (saith he) In the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer it is determined, that the particular forms of Divine Worship, and the Rites and Ceremonies to be used therein, are in [...] own Nature things Indifferent. Dr. Stilling­fleet, and many more, spake the same thing.

Protest▪ Recon— Prefac. p. 4. So that by [Indifferent] they would have us to understand things of a Middle Nature, that are neither good or bad of themselves, otherwise then as injoyned for Order or Prudence by Superiors, and alterable at pleasure; therefore King James opposeth them to Necessary things, which are enjoyned Ibid. part 1.by positive Scripture; and so the Protestant Reconciler Defines them, telling us thus: The Ceremonies which are Imposed by our Church, as they have nothing sinfull in their Nature, for which Inferiors should Refuse submission to them, so have they nothing of real goodness, nothing of positive Order, Decency or Reverence for which they ought to be Commanded.

Answer to the Objection. This we are told in words and pretence, the better to gild the Pill, to make it go down the glibber; but if you look more narrowly into the matter, you will find, that you your selves, as well as the Dissenters, have justly another sense of them, and that the Church of England does both use and Im­pose them as necessary things, (whatever they import in their own nature.)

[Page 11] For First, are they not things Consecrated and Dedicated to holy uses, in the worship and service of God, which makes Hooker Heal. Pol. l. 5. p. 70. sect. 69. them cease to be Indifferent? Hooker saith, F [...]astival dayes are Cloathed with outward Robes of Holiness, and that places and times of Divine Worship are so too, and the Cross a holy Sign.

Dr. Burges Dr. Burges saith, Ceremonies may be called the Worship of God, the Professors of Leyden call only such things, persons, times and places holy, as are Consecrated and Dedicated to God, but so in their Esteem and our also is their Dioce [...]an Episcopacy and Priest­hood, their Churches, Liturgies, Kneeling, Bowing, Crossing, Fe­stivals, Ecclesiastical Courts, and Excommunications, &c.

Secondly, They are not Indifferent, but necessary things (in your esteem) as appears by the Declaration of [...] Com­missioners at the Savoy upon the King's first [...] over­ruling the Arguments of their Dissenting [...] [...]leading Prot. Reconc. 1 part, p. 3 [...]. [...]. 8. for Reformation and Tenderness, which say [...] [...] Apo­stle hath Commanded that all things be done [...] there may be conformity, let there be [...] a [...] that purpose; and thence they inferr'd, that [...] will move to pity, and relieve those that [...] truly [...] and scrupu­lous, that we must not break Gods Command [...] [...] Charity to them, and therefore we must not perform publick services indec [...]ntly and disorderly for the sake of tender Consciences. And all this said to justifie the Refusal, to abate the Imposition of Ceremonies, especially those three then contended about, Surplice, Sign of the Cross, and Kneeling at the Communion.

So that here they are made necessary, and a Command of God urg'd to inforce them, viz. That things be done de­cently and in order, (though by the way) no other Com­mand Bellar. de ef­fect. Sacram. l. 2. cap. 31.then Bellarmine urges to Establish the whole Popish Ser­vice and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, viz. by this Precept of the Apostle.

And thirdly, Do not they as necessary things Impose, and inforce them with all severity imaginable, by Excommunica­tions of Dissenters, thereby knocking the Fly on the Neigh­bours head with a Hatchet, to the knocking out his Brains, as saith Dr. Taylor, destroying them in their Liberties, Estates, yea, Lives also, which surely must not be for trifles, but ne­cessary things.

[Page 12] Prot. Reconc. 1 part. p. 38, 39, 41, &c. Yet so hardy and hold to do all this (as the Protestant Re­conciler worthily observes to them) to the Reproaching the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ, and the Primitive Chur­ches, for want of such decency and order (for they had no such) The Wisdom of the Church of England, who have de­clared that their Rites and Ceremonies are in their own Na­ture things Indifferent, and may be alter'd and changed; as also that they had their Beginning from the Institution of Man. The Wisdom of King James, and King Charles, who have both of them declared them to be esteemed unnecessary, as being but indifferent things, and not Commanded by God, and therefore alterable at pleasure. But especially (saith our Author) hereby become guilty of adding to the Word of God of Will-worship, of teaching for Doctrines the Com­mandments of men, of Imposing these things as necessary parts of Worship, and so of worshipping God in vain, as [...] will appear by what the best Assertors of the [...] of the Church of England have declared in this Mr. Faulkner, [...] 359. [...] Mr. Faulkner's Assertion, in saying hereupon, We [...] the Word of God, when we teach any thing to be com­manded or forbidden by the Law of God, which indeed is not there commanded or forbidden. And Bishop S [...]nderson, That then men Bishop Sander­son Serm. on Matth. 15. 9. p. 8, [...], 10. teach for Doctrines the Commandments of men, when they teach any thing to be absolutely unlawful, which God hath not forbidden in his Word; and if any man shall wear a Surplice, or Kneel, or Cross with an opinion of necessity, and for Conscience-sake towards God, as though God's service could not be rightly performed with­out them; yea, although the Church had not performed them, doubt­less the use of these Ceremonies, by reason of such his opinion, should be superstition to him.

And Dr. Patrick in the Friendly Debate—Then (say they) VVill-worship is erected, when any thing is to be enjoyned to be done, Friendly Debate, p. 115.or not done, as if it were the VVill and Command of God he should be so served, when it is a meer Constitution of the Will of Man. Then do we make Ceremonies to be parts of divine Worship, when we suppose them to be so necessary, that the doing of them would be a thing pleasing to God, and the omitting of them the contrary, al­though there were no humane Law which required the doing of them. And secondly, when we suppose them unalterable and obligatory so the Consciences of all Christians, for this supposes an equal necessity with that of divine Institution.

[Page 13] All which so fully speaks the Sense of the Dissenters, that there needs no better Answer to be given, than what they themselves have put into their Mouths. But, saith Mr. Al­len, in Contradiction to his Brethern, That things that are not Catholocism, p. 259. used as Commanded by God (taking for granted they had not so urg'd them) and only as Matters of humane prudence cannot (he saith be charged to be Will-worship. But for his better Information, we would refer him to the Protestant Reconciler, and the many Authorities urged by their own Pens to clear the same, with this Addition as to Jeroboam's Case, who va­ried but in four particulars as to the Service and Ceremonies of Worship, viz. the place of Worship, (Dan and [...]ethel, i [...]ead of Jerusalem,) 2. the Signs of Divine [...] Gol­den Calves instead of the Cherubims,) 3. [...] of the Feast (15 of the 8 Moneth, instead of the 7th) [...] ad­ministring, (making of Priests) All [...] think, were but Circumstantials about [...] not under the notion of being Commanded [...] (as Mr. Allen observes of our Ceremonies [...] of humane prudence; and for which [...] much to say to the Dissenters in that day, who [...] separated Arrow against Idolatry, p. 4 [...] to 74.from him for the same (2 Chron. 11. 16. [...] 13. and 14.) as Mr. Anisworth in his Plea for Jeroboam most notably ob­serves, who kept in the mean time to the Articles of Faith, and fundamental Ordinances of Religion, and worshipping with Reverence the God of his Fathers, making Alterations in things meerly Ceremonial, whereof no express Law for­bidding, and being variable, as time, place and person gave occasion.

Jeroboam's Rites and Ser­vices, and ours compared. But however, Jeroboam might [...]ince the matter, and make light of it, as others do in like circumstances; yet God, be­ing a jealous God, would not admit of such Innovation, and varying from his pure Worship, but Reproves these for de­sperate Idolatry, and Reputes it no other than the Worship­ping of Devils, 2 Chron. 11. 15. His Supremacy in the King­dom not being able to bear him out in altering the Ordinan­ces of the Service of God; and so doing things out of his own heart, 1 King. 12. 33. it became his Sin, and made Is­rael to sin, thereby doing evil above all that went before him, having made other Gods and Molten Images, to pro­voke [...] [Page 10] [...] [Page 11] [...] [Page 12] [...] [Page 13] [Page 14] the Lord to Anger, 1 Kings 14. 9. Casting him behind his back: Therefore the Lord threatens in the next Verses, in these words; Behold I will bring evil upon the house of Jero­boam, and will cut off Jeroboam, him that pisseth against the Wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the Remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away Dung, till it be all gone. Him that Dyeth of Jeroboam in the City, shall the Dogs [...] and him that Dyeth in the Fields, shall the Fowls of the Air [...]at, for the Lord hath spoken it. And which all came to pass accordingly.

Which pregnant Instance the Judicious will, I doubt not, [...] consider that these prudent and in indifferent [...] Religious Worship (as they are [...] to [...] minced and extenuated, may be of the [...] with Jeroboam's Idolatry. With this [...] varied but in four, and these in above [...] wherein they have presumed to swerve from [...] to Gods Word and Worship.

Objection. 3. These Rites are of Primitive An­tiquity, not of [...]opish Novelty. Another [...] this, and none of the least, viz. That Dissenters [...] to separate from the Church of Eng­land for Symbolizing with Romish Rites and Ceremonies, be­cause they only retain and practice such Rites and Ceremo­nies which were practised by Antiquity, before Popery took place in the World.

To this purpose you are pleased to say in your Scrupulous Page 30.Conscience—Now our first Reformers here in England did not go about to invent a new species of Government, to devise new Rites and Ceremonies, and a new form of Worship, such as should be least excepted against, and then obtrude it upon this Nation, as was done at Geneva, and some other places; but they wisely considered, if they did but reject what the Romanists had added to the Faith and Worship of Christians, lay aside their Novel Inventions, Ʋsurpa­tions, and unwritten Traditions, there would remain the pure, simple, Primitive Christianity, such as it was before the Roman Church was thus degenerated; nor have we any thing of Popery left amongst us, but what the Papists had left amongst them of Pri­mative Religion and Worship.

Thus saith the Resolution of the Case of Conscience, Resolu. of that Case of Consc. pag. 3.That the Rites of the Church of England▪ are exceeding few, and those plain and easie, grave and manly, founded on the prac­tice [Page 15] of the Church long before Popery appeared upon the Stage of the World. And again,

As to our Churches prescribing a Liturgy of Set-forms of Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments, and other publick Offices, it is easie to shew, that Symbolizing with the Church of Rome herein, is so far from being culpable, and much more from being a just ground of Separation from our Church, that it is highly commendable; for as herein our Church no less symbolizeth with the Primitive Church, than with that of Rome, as she is now Constituted.

N. Fratri & A­mic [...], Resp. ad Art. 12. And Dr. Saravia, who saith thus: Satis est modestis & [...] Christianis satisfacere, qui ita recesserunt a Superstitionibus & Idolatria Romanae Ecclesiae, ut probates ab Orthodoxis Patribus mores non rejicient; That it may be a sufficient satisfaction to mo­dest and pious Christians, that there is such [...] from the Superstitions and Idolatry of the Church of [...] to re­ject the approved Customs of the Orthodox Fathers.

Histor. Account▪ pag. 16. Page 14. These our Rites and Ceremonies (saith [...] are retained and kept out of due Reverence to [...] again▪ These Ceremonies were retained or Impos'd [...] and Equity of the Reformation, by [...] see they did not break Communion with them for [...] things, or that they left the Church Rome no further, than they left the Ancient Church.

The Doctor further assures us, That as to Discipline, re­specting the Government of the Church by Bishops, is to be made good by a Ʋniversal Tradition, universally received since the Apo­stles times, as the Apostolical Government, viz. Diocesan Bi­shops.

Resol. of the Case. p. 38. As to the Government of our Churches by Bishops (saith the Resolver) this is so far from being an unlawful Symbolizing with the Church of Rome, that we have most clear evidence of its be­ing a symbolizing with her in an Apostolical Institution.

Answ. to the 3d Objection. Thus have you the Objection in words at length, to which, in each part, the Dissenters do say, or may be sup­posed to say, as followeth.

In the first place, If it be taken for granted that the Pat­tern is fetch'd from those times, and not from the Popish times, viz. Rome in its Apostacy, we would inquire these two things: 1. By what Rule or Reason they should be a pattern to us, so as to have their Rites and Services Impos'd upon us [Page 16] for our Ritual? And (2) whether there were not great Er­rors and Superstitions in those times, as well as the succeeding Ages?

The Rites of those Primitive times not to be imposed [...] us. First, Why should our first Reformers any more impose the Rites and Customs of those times upon us, than any other? Why were we more obliged to accept of the Ecclesiastical Laws of Constantine, than his Civil, as Doctor Taylor well urges?

Duct. Dub. [...] sect. 3. That the Fathers met at Laodicea, at Antioch, at Nice, at Gangra▪ [...] 1000 or 1300 years ago, should have any Authority [...]ver us in England so many Ages after, is so infinitely unreason­able, [...] but the Fearful and Ʋnbelievers, the Scrupulo [...], and [...] [...] of a slavish Nature, and are in bondage [...] and know not how to stand in the Liberty by which [...] them free, will account themselves in [...] upon this account the Rulers of the Church, will [...] just, warrantable Canon, we are to obey in [...] they have power to Command: But the [...] for being in the OLD CODES of the Church, [...] than the LAWS OF CONSTAN­TINE.

No, they [...] higher, or else it will not do. To the first Primitive Christianity, and Religion in the first Primi­tive times given as by Christ and his Apostles. For Dr. Stil­lingfleet has well instructed us, if we believe the Scriptures are the ONLY RƲLE of FAITH; then it follows, Councils and Fathers, Traditions and private Spirits are no more our Rule than the Pope himself; and therefore with the Doctor, we refuse the Belief of all the Additions, Inventions, Traditions, because not contain'd in our only Rule of Faith: To the La [...], and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to that, it is be­cause there is no Light in them.

But secondly, do we not find these very times abounding Those Primitive times abounded with corruptions.very much with Error and Superstiti [...]n? Which is an Argu­ment we should not receive them for our Pattern more tha [...] others; whereof I shall give you some Instances from their M [...]gd▪ Cent. 3. p. 262, 263, &c. Naevi, or Errors, mentioned by the Centurists, viz▪. That Ori­gen asserted two Christs, deny'd his Godhead, the Head of Origen corrupt.the Arians and Pelagians, holding (as Jerom saith) very de­sperately about the Spirit, and very corruptly about Angels, Devils, Creation, Providence, Original Sin, Church-Govern­ment, [Page 17] and the Resurrection, and Sacrificing for the Dead. Orig. l. 3. in Jo. Baptism takes away Sin, and that there must be a Baptism after the Resurrection. They also say of Cy­prian, That Cyprian affirm'd the Church of Rome to be the Mother-Church; that there ought to be one High Priest over the Church; and that the principal Church is Peter's Chair, Cyprian Corrupt.from whence the Unity of the Priesthood ariseth; and that upon Peter the Church is founded: That he was a violent Impugner of Priests Marriages; held, that Sins are done away by Alms and good Works: That the person Baptizing in the very Act conferreth the Holy Spirit; that Chrysm and Exorcism are absolutely necessary; and that there should be Austin Corrupt.Sacrifices for the Dead, though some suppose many of these things were foisted in by the Papists.

De confes. l. 9. c. 3. Ep. con. Aer [...]. Her. 75. St. Austin prays for the dead, the Soul of his Mother Monica.

St. Ambrose for the Soul of Theodosius.

St. Gregory for the Soul of Trajan.

E [...]chir. c. 110. St. Austin saith, Prayers avail not unto all alike, who are depar­ted; therefore when the Sacrifices of the Altar, or of Alms, are offer­ed Chrysostom and others corrupt▪for all them who are baptized, and are defunct, for the good, they are Thanksgivings; for the not very bad, they are Propitiations; for the very bad, though not help the dead, yet comfort to the living.

1 Cor. 16. Hom. 41. De Civ. Dei, l. 22. c. 8. Chrysostom was for offering Prayers for the dead with Alms and Oblations.

Austin, a great friend to Reliques, affirming great Miracles wrought by them.

Contr. Vigil. Ep. 2. Jerome, a great defender of Reliques, & Adoration of them▪ Constantine, a great admirer of Reliques.

Apost. of later times, upon 1 Tim. 4. 1▪ Mr. Mede says, That Primitive Christians canonized Saints, and honoured the Reliques in Imitation of the Gentiles, their Dae­mon-worship, thereby to allure them, which, saith he, laid the foun­dation of Antichrist's [...], and Idolatrick Apostacy.

More of the cor­ruptions of those Times. They had Sufflation, Trine Immersion, Exorcism, Chrysm, white Garments, Milk, Honey to the new baptized, giving the Eucharist to the Infant, from the 4 to the 12 Century, mingling Water with the Sacramental Wine, the Eulogiae, &c. To which head you may add the Royal Witness in the beginning.

So that from the consideration of the Errors and Superstiti­ons, abounding in these times, there is no ground why our first Reformers should propose them for our Pattern; for if in one thing, why not in another?

[Page 18] But in the next place I presume upon a fair Examination of particulars, these two things will appear, 1. That we in the Church of England do not in our Rites, Services and Ceremo­nies symbolize with Antiquity. And, 2. that we do wholly symbolize in most, if not in all of them, with Popery.

Our Rites do not symbolize with Antiquity, as urged. 1. It is manifest that our first Reformers, as we are told, did not make such a perfect piece from pure primitive Antiquity in the first Reformation, and forming of our Liturgy, which contains so much the Rites, Services, and Ceremonies of the Church; for if so, there had been no such need to make so many Alterations, and reform so often, and in so many things the Reformation. And that they have so done, the Author of the Protestant Reconciler gives us this Account.

Protest. Reconc. 1 part, Postscript. It is certain (saith he) that our Church hath already altered her Liturgy at several times, and in several parts, viz. the Lessons, Festivals, Ceremonies, Rubrick, Collects, Prayers, the Form of Ad­ministration of Sacraments, the Catechism, Confirmation, Mar­riage, Visitation of the sick, the Burial of the dead, and Commi­nation. All which he has demonstrated in each particular, and from thence he makes these three Remarks:

1. That the pretence of still retaining & imposing the present Ce­remonies out of due Reverence to Antiquity, is false & hypocritical.

2. That it cannot justly be pretended that these Ceremonies are retained and imposed to manifest the Justice and Equity of the Re­formation, by letting their Enemies see they did not break Commu­nion with them for meer indifferent things, or that we left the Church of Rome no further than she left Antiquity.

3. Hence it appears how senselesly it is alledged that we cannot abate or change these Ceremonies, because they have been once re­ceived and owned by the Church.

Instances given to prove their Novelty. BUT, in the next place, the descending into particulars will give a fuller and clearer demonstration of our not sym­bolizing with Antiquity in all our Rites and Ceremonies.

FIRST, Because so many of them are Novel, and so many disown'd by Antiquity. And so much which has been really from Antiquity, has been disowned by us, and blotted out of the Liturgy.

First, That most of them are novel, or disown'd by Anti­quity. We shall begin with those three principal Cemonies, about which there was so much contention at the Savoy, viz. Kneeling, Surplice, and the Cross in Baptism.

[Page 19] Kneeling at the Altar. 1. That of Kneeling at the Altar, or at the Sacrament of the Supper is put amongst the rest of the Ancient Ceremonies, before any such thing as Popery was in the World, which is Novel, and but of yesterday, never known before Transub­stantiation, nor with us Protestants received till Edward the Sixth's second Common-Prayer, for in the first it was not. Peter Martyr saith, Propter Transubstantiationem & realem pre­sentiam invecta est in Ecclesiam; That to maintain Transubstanti­ation and real Presence, it was brought into the Church.

Decret. lib. 3. tit. 1. cap. 10. Hospin. de Orig. Temp. l. 2. c. 2 Socrates, l. 5. We are told in the Decretal, that Pope Honorius, Anno 1214. ordained Kneeling at the Sacrament. And his Predecessor In­nocent the 3d Transubstantiation. It is said, That in Tertullian and Chrysostom's time, they were said to stand at the Altar, when they partook of the Supper. Socrates saith, They took it in a Table Gesture, eating it at their Love-Feasts; And Paraeus asserts the same.

Part 1. p. 298. Hereupon the Protestant Reconciler tells us, To restrain this kneeling posture at the receipt of the Sacrament, out of due Reverence to Antiquity, when no such posture was used by Antiquity, I fear cannot be well excused from Falshood, or from imposing on the People.

2. Surplice. Secondly, As to the Surplice, the Fathers used it not, tho it is clear the Pagans did, from whom the Papists had it, and we from them.

Salmasius, as well as Petavius his Adversary, do own that in the Primitive Times the Presbyters did not wear any distinct Habit from the People.

The Reply to Dr. Morton. Caelestius Reproves the French Bishops, who began it as a No­velty, which tended to Superstition, and made way to Mockery, and Deceiving of the faithful.

The Surplice was brought into the Church by Pope Adrian Anno 796. Unreas. Separa. p. 38.

Dr. Stillingfleet tells us, That as for the Surplice in Parish Churches, it is not of that consequence as to bear a dispute one way or other. Unreas. of Separation, p 38.

3. Cross in Baptism. AS to the Sign of the Cross in Baptism upon the Forehead only, we read of no such Rite amongst the Antients, though the 30th Canon of the Church tells, It is an honourable Badge, and a lawful Ceremony, by which the Child is dedicated to the ser­vice of Christ, and which Rite was held in the Primitive Church, both Greeks and Latines, with one consent and great applause.

[Page 20] It is true, the Antients after Baptisin did sign the baptized with a Cross upon his head and breast, and anointed him with Chrysm, as a distinct Order from Baptism; but no such Sign­ing in the act of Baptism, as part of that Ordinance.

In Edward the sixth's time the Reformers did, as the first Service-book makes mention, sign the Elements three times with the Sign of the Cross, and also the Child upon the Fore­head and Breast when the Godfathers named his Name, and afterwards in Confirmation again in the breast and forehead; but all this is laid aside, and a new thing taken up, which is neither to be found in Antiquity, nor in the first Pattern of our Reformers.

4. Confirmation. As to the order and office of Confirmation in the Rubrick and Liturgy, it is another thing than the Antients used. That was to be done with Chrysm by the hands of a Bishop, with two Crosses, one on the Breast, the other on the Forehead, immediately after Baptism was administred (and as a distinct Ordinance from it) but this is to be performed by the hands of a Bishop, without any Chrysm or Consignation when they come to years of discretion.

And as there doth not appear any Warranty from Antiqui­ty Why Confirma­tion not Scriptu­ral. Arch-Bishop Cranmore.for this Confirmation, so neither is there any direction in Scripture for it, as Archb. Cranmore doth fully acknowledge, whereof we have an account from Dr. Burnet out of a Manu­script, written with the Bishops own hand, by way of Question Cotton's Library Cleop. E. 5.and Answer, as he found it in Cotton's Library, Cleop. E. 5.

[Page 21] Baptizing of In­fants. As for the Office of Baptizing of Infants, as enjoyn'd in the Liturgy for Regeneration upon the Deed done, and to be per­formed by Goslips, who are to profess Faith and Repentance in the Infants name and stead, is generally sc [...]upled and dis­owned by the Dissenters (as savouring too much of Popery) though the greatest part of them do baptize their Infants.

And as for the Antiquity of the practice, if any credit may be given to many learned Paedobaptists, it will not appear; whereof take these following Instances:

Disswasive a­gainst Popery, p. 117. The learned Dr. Taylor tells us in his Disswasive against Popery, ‘That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants, re­lies but upon two Witnesses, Origen and Austin; and the latter having received it from the former, it relies wholly upon a single testimony, which is but a pitiful Argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical. He is the first that spoke it, but Tertullian that was before him, seems to speak against it, which he would not have done, if it had been a Tradition Apostolical. And that it was not so (saith the Bishop) it is but too certain, if there be any truth in the words of Ludovicus Vives, saying, that anciently none were baptiz'd,’ but persons of riper years. He says thus in his Com. on August. l. 1. c. 27. whose words are as followeth, viz.

‘ Ludovicue Vives Com. on Aug. l. 1. c. 27. None were baptized of old, but those who were of Age, who did not only understand what the Mystery of the Wa­ter meant, but desired the same; the perfect Image whereof (saith he) we have yet in our Infant Baptism; for it is ask­ed of the Infant, Wilt thou be baptized? for whom the Sureties answer,’ I will.

The Doctor adds, ‘That the Parents of Austin, Jerom, Amhrose, although Christians, did not baptize their Chil­dren till they were 30 years of Age; and that it will be very considerable in the Example, and of great Efficacy for the destroying the supposed necessity of derivation of Infants Baptism from the Apostles.’

Grotius on Mat▪ 19. 14. Hugo Grotius (in Annot on Mat. 19. 14.) saith, ‘It was no small Evidence that Baptism of Infants many 100 years was not ordinary in the Greek Church, because not only Constantine the Great, the Son of Helena, a zealous Chri­stian, but also Gregory Nazianzen, who was the Son of a Christian Bishop, and brought up long by him, was not baptized till he came to years, as is (saith he) related in his Life.’

[Page 22] Daille. Daille, the learned French-man, tell us, ‘That in ancient times they often deferred the Baptism of Infants, as ap­peareth (saith he) by the History of Constantine, Theodos [...]us, Valentinian, Gratian, and in St. Ambrose; and also by the Orations of Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Basil on this sub­ject. And some of the Fathers have been of opinion, that it is [...]it it should be deferr'd: But whence is it (saith he) that the very mentioning hereof is scarce to be endured at this day?’ Ʋse of the Fathers, l. 2. p. 149.

Dr. Field saith, ‘That very many that were born of Chri­stian Dr. Field.Parents, besides those that were converted from Pa­ganism, put off their Baptism for a long time, insomuch that many were made Bishops before they were baptized.’ On the Church, p. 729.

Mr. Baxter. Mr. Baxter, a great Asserter and Defender of Infant-Bap­tism, doth ingenuously own, after his long search into Anti­quity, thus much; ‘I will confess that the words of Ter­tullian and Nazianzen shew, that it was long before all were agreed of the very time, or of the necessity of baptizing of Infants before any use of Reason, in case they were like to live to Maturity;’ More Proofs, p. 279.

As for Baptizing Infants with Sureties, Fidejussors, or [...]. Godfathers & Godmothers.Gossips, as the Liturgy enjoyns; and such an Essential part of the Ordinance (owning that the baptized Persons are requi­red to repent and believe, and that Infants are capable [...] do neither, but that they do both by their Sureties) appears also, if the learned are to be credited, to be no less a Novelty, as the Centurists declare, Magd. Cent. 4. cap. 6▪ p. 419. De susceptoribus certi nihil Invenias; that is, you can find nothing certain of Godfathers in that Age. But that it came in the 5th Century, Cen. 5. c. 4. p. 656. Adhibitos interdum & suscep­tores; sou Patrinos ex Autoribus hujus temporis liquet; that is, the Authors of the 5th Century mention Sureties, or Godfathers: Upon which Dr. Taylor saith,

‘I know God might, if he would, have appointed Godfa­thers Dr. Taylor.to give Answer in the behalf of Children, and to be Fidejussors for them; but we cannot find any authority or ground that he hath; and if he had, that it is to be sup­posed he would have given them Commission to have trans­acted the solemnity with better Cir [...]umstances, and have given Answers with more Truth, for the Question is ask'd [Page 23] of Believing in the present; and if the Godfather answers in the Name of the Child. I DO BELIEVE; it is Noto­rious, they speak false and ridiculous, for the Infant is not capable of Believing; and if he were, he were also capa­ble of dissenting; and how then do they know his mind? And thefore (saith he) Tertullian and Nazianzen gave ad­vice, that the baptizing of Infants should be deferr'd till they could give an account of their own Faith.’

Walafrid Strab▪ de Reb. Eccl. [...]. 26. Walafridus Strabo, who lived about the year 840. saith, (De rebus eccl. c. 26.) ‘That in the first times the grace of Baptism was wont to be given to them only, who were come to that Integrity of mind and body, that they could know and understand what profit was to be gotten by Bap­tism; what was to be confessed and believed; what, lastly, was to be observed by them that are new-born in Christ, and confirms it by Austin's own Confession of himself con­tinuing a Catechumen long before he was baptized. But af­terwards (saith he) Christians understanding Original Sin, and least their Children should perish without any means of Grace, had them (he saith) baptized by the decree of the Council of Africa; and then adds, how Godfathers and Godmothers were invented.’

Bohemius, l. 2. de Gent. Mor▪ Johannis Bohemius, lib. 2. de Gent. Moribus, saith, ‘It was in times past the Custom to administer Baptism only to those that were instructed in the Faith, and seven times in the week, before Easter and Penticost, catechiz'd; but af­terwards, when it was thought and adjudged needful to eternal Life to be baptized, it was ordained that New-born Children should be baptized, and Godfathers were ap­pointed, who should make Confession, and Renounce the Devil on their behalf.’

7. Liturgy▪ As for the Liturgy, it is another thing than can be found among the Antients. Is it not clear, that in the 3d Century, they had no Directory or Book to pray by, as Tertullian in his Apology mentions?

Tertul. Apol. 9. c. 30. Ep. 121. We look up to Heaven with our hands stretched forth, as being innocent and bear-headed, as not ashamed to make our Prayers sine Monitore, without a Directory, as coming from the free motion of our own hearts.

Platina tells us, that in Celestine's time there was no other parts of the Mass, but the Reading of the Epistles and [...]o­spels, [Page 24] which was Anno 435. Platina. in Celest. 1.

Apol. 2. Justin Martyr, in the second Century, fully sheweth the manner of Christian Service in his time—The Ancient Chri­stians (saith he) had their Meetings on the Sunday, they began with Prayers for the Church, especially for the Inlightend, which were baptized; then the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles are read as time permits; then a Sermon unto the People, and exhorts them all unto the Imitation of the best things; then all do rise up, and pour forth their prayers again; when their prayers are ended, Bread, and Wine mixed with Water, are brought forth, which be­ing taken, he who hath the Charge goeth before the People with an earnest voice in praising God and thanksgiving, and the People do answer with a loud voice, Amen. Then the Deacons divide the holy Signs unto them all which are present, and carry the same unto the absent: this, saith he, we call [...] thanksgiving, whereof none may partake, unless he believe the true Doctrine, and be washed in the laver unto Regeneration and Remission of sins, and live so as Christ hath directed. After this is a gathering of Alms. And p. 7. He who instructed the People, prayed according to his ability▪ Here was no Liturgy or Common Prayers mentioned.

Walafr. Strabo. Walafrid Strabo, who wrote in the 9th Century, saith in his Book de Rebus Ecclesiae—All which is done now with a multitude of Prayers, Lessons, Songs, and Cons [...]rations, which the Apostles, and those who next followed them, did with prayers and remem­brance of the Lords sufferings even as he commanded.

Socrates Hist. l. 5. ch. 21. Socrates saith, That among all the Christians in that Age, scarce two were to be found that used the same words in Prayer.

Pope Gregory the first made a new form of Service, which Pope Gregory. they call the Mass▪ and did add many Ceremonies that were not in use before; So that Platina saith, The whole Institution of the Mass was Invented by him, we in England had ours from Gre­gory, who by his Minister Austin first founded the Church, and introduced most of the Rites, Service and Ceremonies.

Their was another Mass, which was called the Mass of Am­brose, Jacob. de Vora­gine [...]n vita Greg.a ridiculous thing, which they afterwards fathered upon him different from Gregory's, whereof we read in after times, and there was great contention which Mass should be received into the Churches. Which when Pope Adrian (who was Anno 796.) saw, he was put to his shifts, and said, he would refer it [...]o the Will of God, whether he would by any visible sign Approve the Mass▪ [Page 58] of Gregory, [...] of Ambrose▪ So these two Books [...]ere [...] to­gether upon the A [...]ar, in St. Peter's Church, and [...] called upon God to shew which of the two be approved; the Doers were shut all Night, and the next Morning when they returned into the Church, the Book of Ambrose was found lying, as it was laid down, and the other was all torn and dispersed through the Church: The Pope maketh the Comment, that the Mass of Ambrose should lye un­touched, and the Mass of Gregory should be used through the World; And so [...]e did Authorize and Command, that it should be used in all Churches and Chappels, which Charles the Great did second; Commanding that only to be used, and Ambroses to be Burnt.

8. Letanies. Gregory the first, Ordained the Letanies or Supplications, saith Platina.

9. Responses. The Responses and Gradual was given by Pope Gregory, saith Pol. Virgil.

10. Collects▪ The Collects Ordinary, as saith Durandus, were Ordained by Pope Gregory: the other Collects added by sundry Popes, as Cassandar in Liturgia, cap. 21.

11. Offices, An­tiphones He made the Offices of the Church, and disposed the Nights and Days Antiphones, or Singing-Service; he polished the Rites of the Mass, and renewed its Canon; he made the In­troitus to the Mass, with the Particles; he Commanded the Kyrieeleison and Hallelujah to be Sung. He ordered the 12. Kyrieeleison.singing of Psalms, the Letanies and Processions. Balaeus Cent. 1. p. 62. sect. 32.

13. Psalms and Lessons. The Prescript Number of Psalms and Lessons was brought into the Church by Gregory the 7 th. Anno 1073. saith Du­randus.

14. Epistles, Go­spels. The Epistles and Gospels Platina gives to Pope Damasus, Anno 384. Pope Anastasius brought in Standing at the Gospel, Anno 400. as saith Platina and Pol. Virgil.

15. Singing Ser­vice. Austin (Confess. lib. 9.) shews that the Latine Church had no Singing-Service; that was brought into our Ceremonies, saith Polidore Virgil, from the old Heathen (de Invent. Rer. lib. 6. c. 2.) who were wont to Sacrifice with Symphony, wit­ness Livies, l. 9.

16. Altars. The Primitive Church had no Altars: Pope Sylvester was the first Author of their Consecration, Bellar. de Verb. Dei, l. 4. c. 3. Anno 334. Then consequently no Bowing to them, nor Kneeling before them, being all Novels.

[Page 26] 17. Festivals. Magd. Cent. 2. [...]. 6. p. 119. As little can you find the English Festivals in Antiquity.

The Centurists tells us, Observandum est Apostolos & Apostoli­cos viros, neque de Paschate, neque de aliis quibuscunque festivitati­bus legem aliquam constituisse; It is to be observed that neither the Apostles, nor any Apostolick men have given us any Law for the observation of Easter, or any other Feast whatsoever, Magd. Cent. 2. Chap 6. p. 119.

Cent. 3. 137. They also tell us out of Origen, That it was not lawful for Christians to observe the Feasts or Solemnities either of Jews or Gentiles, Cent. 3. p. 137.

The Council of Laodicea in the 37 Can. forbad the Heathen­ish or Jewish Feast. Non oportet a Judaeis vel Hereticis Feriatica quae mittuntur accipere, nec cum eis dies agere Feriatos.

The Canons of the Ancient Councils forbad to keep the Pagan Feasts, and to deck their Houses with green Boughs and Bay leaves, as they did in the Kalends of January, Con. Affr. Can. 2. Tolet. 4. Can. 5. Brac. 2. c. 7.

The Festivals observed by the Ancients were not account­ed more holy than other days. Jerome on Matth. 5. saith, Non quod celebrior sit dies illa qua conv [...]nimus.

The Waldenses, The Ancient Fathers of the Protestants, held, that they were to rest from labour upon no day but the Lord's day. Aeneas Sylvius.

18. The Ecclesi­astical Rites and Geremonies of Marriage. The Rites and Geremonies of Marriage, as expressed in the Office of Marriage in the Liturgy, do not appear to have been in use in those Primitive times. It being decreed by Pope Julius and Ser [...]ius▪ about the middle of the 4 th Century, That all Marriage should pass the Benediction of a Priest upon penalty of Sa [...]riledge; The Office being taken from the Papists, and those very Restraints laid upon Marriage, at what seasons People may Marty, and when not, are taken out of the Ro­mish Pope Clement.Rubrick. Pope Clement having ordained, that from Septuage sima, till Easter; from Rogation, till Whitsunday; and from Advent to Epiphany, Marriage should be prohibited; and which Doctrine of Devils is translated from their Ru­brick to ours.

19. Bowing at the Altar and to the East. As for Bowing to the Altar, and to the East, and at En­trance into Churches and Temples, they are Reverences which seem to be fetch'd from an Elder date, viz. from the Pagan Idolaters, and from whom the superstitious. Ancients and Papists had them, and we from them. Dr. Willer in his [Page 27] Synop. Papisi p. 492, 493. saith▪ That Bowing at the Altar, and Name of Jesus, are superstitious Idolatries▪

As for Ecclesiastical Orders and Officers of the Lord Arch-Bishops, 20. Ecclesiastical Orders.Lord▪ Bishops, Deans▪ Arch-Deacons, [...] and the Supremacy exercised one over another in the Church of Eng­land; they are so far from having the stamp of Primitive An­tiquity, that they are not to be found therein, at least for the three or four first Centuries.

Dr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum, p. 177. tells us after this manner, viz. That whether any shall succed the Apostles in supe­riority of Power over Presbyters, or all remain governing the Church in an equality of Power, is no where determined by the Will of Christ in the Scripture, which contains his ROYAL LAW, and there­fore we have no reason to look upon it as any thing flowing from the Power and Authority of Christ as Mediator, and so not necessar [...]ly binding to Christians.

And further assures us, That Episcopal men cannot shew by the word of God neither by the practice of the Apostles, nor so much as by the PRIMITIVE CHURCH, that a Minister of Jesus Christ hath had any superintendency over several private Churches, or that a Bishop hath ordained Ministers by his sole and pure Au­thority, as is now practised in England; or that he who is not na­turally Invested with any Authority, should have the power to De­legate others, and much more Secular persons.

And if any would be better satisfied herein, there are two late pieces, which may fully do it, viz. one by Dr. Owen, in a Book called, The Order and Communion of Evangelical Chur­ches; and the other in a Book called, No Evidence for Dioce­san Churches and Bishops in the primitive times.

The Primitive Fathers were against dedicating of Churches to Saints and Angels. 21. Dedication of Churches to An­gels and Saints.

Austin saith, If we build a Church of Stones or Wood unto any most excellent Angel, are we not accursed and anathematized from the Truth, and from the Church of God, because then we give unto a Creature that service which is due unto God only? Cont. Maxim. lib. 1. Arg. 11. de Spir. Sancto.

Erasmus upon Austin 's words, hath in the Margent marked thus—This is done now to each one of the Divi or Saints, viz. not a Church erected without such a Dedication.

[Page 28] Pope Vitellia [...]us brought in Organs, and other Musical In­struments [...]2. Organs.into the Church about the 8 th Century, Bell▪ de bon. oper. lib. 1. c. 7.

23. Rogation-week. Rogation-week, or Gauge-days, were Ordained by Pope Leo 444. as saith Platina, Massaeus, and Polidor Virgil.

24. Priests Gar­ments. Pope Zacharias, in the year 737, Ordained Priests Gowns, Tippets, and Four-corned Caps. Chron. Achil. Faseicul. Temp.

25. Wed. Frid. and Sat. Fasts. Pope Boniface Ordained Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays Fasts, as saith Platina.

26. Vigils. And that Anno 425, Pope Boniface Ordained Vigils or Saints Eves Fasts, as Polidor Virgil and Pantaleon affirm.

27. Apostles Creed. To which is called the Apostles Creed, was not as now in our Liturgy known in the Primitive times, but has past great alterations.

1. It is manifest the Fathers in the first Ages do give us the Creed in other words, not one of them giving us this Form for above 300 years after Christ. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, write the Churches Faith, but none of them in this form.

2. We have Bishop Ʋsher, that great searcher into Anti­quity, giving us an account of the Additions made to it (in his Dissert. de Symbol. p. 16.) viz. [Maker of Heaven and Earth] was a new Addition, not in the ancient Copies. (2.) [Concei­ved] is added; the old form is, Born of the Holy Ghost. (3.) the word [Dead] is added. (4.) [Descended into Hell] is added. (5.) the Name of [God Almighty] to the Articles of Christ's sitting at the right hand of God. (6.) [Catholick] is added to Holy Church. (7.) [Communion of Saints] is added. And (8.) [Life everlasting] is added. And which Additions, faith Bishop Ʋsher were not made at once, but at several times. And the Bishop affirms, that the Nicene was as Confidently, and more Anciently called the Apostles Creed.

28. The Athana­ [...]i [...]n Creed. As for the Athanasian Creed, Quicunque vult, &c. fathered upon Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in the 4th Age; It ap­pears to be otherwise, and to have no such stamp of Primi­tive Antiquity, as Dr. Burnet (Hist. of Reform. Part 2. B. 1. p. 167.) informs us, viz. That they went according to the Re­ceived opinion, that Athanasius was the Author of that Creed, which is now found not to have been Compiled till near three Ages after him.

[Page 29] What was of Pri­mitive Antiquity, left out of the Liturgy. Secondly, It doth appear that what was of pure Antiquity, and in use in those first Centuries, viz. 2, 3 & 4, are either not used, or blotted out of the Liturgies, having been here­tofore in use.

The Protestant Reconciler, Part 1. Chap. 8. from pag. 261. to 299 gives an account of the Ancient Rites and Ceremonies in use amongst the Ancient Churches and Fathers, now laid aside, viz. Love-feasts; Kiss of Charity; Deaconesses; Pray­ing standing from Easter till Whit sunday; Dipping or Plunging the Baptized, yea, the Trine Immersion; Deferring Baptison till Easter and Whitsunday; Exorcism; Sufflation; Anointing the Sick; Chrism; White Garment; Milk and Honey to the New Baptized; giving the Eucharist to the Infant, from the 3d to the 12th Century; mingling Water with the Sacramental Wine; All eating of one Loaf in the Supper; to send the Eulogiae or Broken Bread to the absent; to receive standing, or in a Table Gesture; to pray for the Dead, &c. All which are Rejected. And many of these, though in the first Common-Prayer in Edward the Sixth's time laid aside, as the said Author, p. 298. tells us, concluding thus:

Prot. Re [...]onc. p. 298. Hence we may see how vainly 'tis pretended, that these Ceremo­nies were retained or imposed to manifest the Justice and Equity of the Reformation, by letting their Enemies see, they did not break Communion with them for meer Indifferent things, or that they left the Church of Rome no farther than she left the ancient Church, as saith Dr. Stillingfleet. When 'tis manifest, saith he, that we left off praying for departed Saints, the Ʋnction of the Sick, the mixing Water with the Sacramental Wine, the Chrysm, Exorcism, the anointing the baptised Person, Crossing the Breast, and at the Consecration of the Eucharist, and the baptismal Water, with many other things which were retained in the ancient Church, and in the Liturgy of Edw. 6.

Thus you see, that notwithstanding the great cry of Sym­bolizing with Primitive Antiquity, and not at all with Rome, that the latter appears to be as true as the other is false, their Litnrgies, Rites and Ceremonies, being (as said) a Composi­tion of Pagan, Papal Inventions, with some Novel Additions of their own▪ and Primitive Antiquity almost wholly exclu­ded. And it is very observable to consider what Alterations have been made in Edw. the Sixth's Liturgy, to gratifie the Papists, as omitting that Clause of the Letany, FROM [Page 30] THE BISHOP OF ROME AND ALL HIS DETESTA­BLE ENORMITIES; and that in the Commination, CUR­SED BE THE WORSHIPPERS OF IMAGES; and have left out that Exhortation which is condemned as a most vile abomination in their usual Masses, where People Gaze, but do not Communicate.

2 dly, That we do symbolize with Popery. Secondly, In the next place it will appear (that as we do not Symbolize with Antiquity in our Rites and Ceremonies) that we do symbolize in most, if not in all of them, with Popery, though so positively denied by the learned.

Which is manifest, first, by the several particulars before 1. Former in­stances.mentioned; for as the Church of England doth not symbolize with Primitive Antiquity therein, as it is plain they do not, (if our Authors speak true) so they do fully symbolize with Popish Novelty, as the proofs make manifest, both in Kneel­ing at the Altar, Cross in Baptism, Surplice, &c.

2 dly, By confession of Parties. Secondly, This symbolizing with Popery in our Rites and Ceremonies, appears by what is fully owned and acknow­ledged by Parties themselves.

The principal part of Worship, (both as to matter and manner) performed in the Church of England, is contained in the Rubrick or Service-Book, by Law established; which in the beginning of the Reformation in H. 8. time, was no o­ther than the Romish Liturgy, some parts only being transla­ted into English, (viz. the Creed, Pater-Noster, Ten Command­ments Fullers Eccl. Hist. Book 7. p. 385.and Letany. Edw. 6. went further▪ translating it all into English, yet retaining the same Service word for word, except some alterations; for so Mr. Fox tells us in the King and Councils Letter to the Devonshire men, about the altera­tion of their Mass-book, who by the Instigation of their Priests, had been stirred up to Rebellion; wherein it is thus told them, as recorded, Act. & Mon. 2 Vol. p. 1189.

As for the Service in the English tongue, it perchance seems to you a New Service; and yet indeed it is NO OTHER BUT THE OLD, THE SELF-SAME WORDS in English, for NOTHING is altered, but to speak with Knowledge, that which was spoken with Ignorance, only a few things taken out so fond, that it had been a shame to have heard them in English.

Some alterations were made afterwards in the 2 d of Edw▪ 6. and some by Q Elizabeth, and some few by King James; but the Body and Essentials of it continued, and was preserved, for so faith K. Charles the 2 d.

[Page 31] 14 Chap. 2 [...] ▪ In his Preface to the Common-Prayer, annext to the Act of Uniformity, in these words:

That we find that in the Reigns of several Princes, since the Re­formation, the Church upon just and weighty Considerations her thereunto moving, hath yielded to make such alterations in some particulars, as in their respective times were thought convenient, yet so as the main Body and Essentials of it (as well in the chiefest materials, as in the frame and order thereof) have still continued the same unto this day, and do yet stand firm and unshaken, notwith­standing all vain attempts, and impetuous assaults made against it by such MEN AS ARE GIVEN TO CHANGE.

Calderwoods Ch. History, p. 256. In Confirmation whereof, you have the testimony of King James, as Mr. Calderwood in his History of the Church of Scot­land informs us, who tells us, that King James in the 8th Sessi­on of the General Assembly held at Edenburgh, Aug. 4. 1590. said these words in his Speech to them, viz The Kirk of Geneva keep Pasch and Yule, whereof no Constitution. And as for our Neighbour Kirk of England, their Service is an evil said Mass in English; they want nothing of the Mass but the liftings, but that the Kirk of Scotland was the sincerest in the World.

So that you have the Acknowledgment and Grant of three Kings to the truth hereof; that the publick Worship and Ser­vice of the Protestant Church of England contained in the English Liturgy, and practised in the Church, is the same in the main Body and Essentials, chiefest Materials, Frame and Order with that of the Popish; and whoever will take the pains to search into the Popish Breviary, Ritual, Missal, and Pontificial, which four comprehend their whole Liturgy, will find▪ though there may be some alterations and variations, in several particulars; yet as the King grants, the substance and chiefest materials and order is the same, and that ours is taken out of theirs, viz. Collects, Mattins, Eversongs, Epistles, Gospels, Creeds, Letanies, Consecration, Administration of Sacra­ments, Baptism of Infants, with Gossips to answer for them, Kneel­ing at the Altar, Confiteor, Absolution, Confirmation, Burial, Ma­trimony, Visitation of the Sick, Ordination of Arch-Bishops, Bi­shops, &c. And which will appear particularly by what fol­lows.

Myst. of Iniquity, l. 2. ch. 22. p. 468. Dr. Moore in his Mystery of Iniquity▪ [...]ib. 2. ch. 22. p. 468 says thus▪ For undoubtedly our Her [...]ieal Reformers did not, as [Page 32] is the use of some act, out of peevishnes [...] and spight, and please their own humour and impetuosity of Spirit, as being part of the chaste Spouse of Christ, the true Apostolick Church, the Mother of us all, deals as a Mother with all those that profess themselves in any sense Children of Christ's Church, and therefore would not have them, divided more than needs; whence it is, that out of a spirit of Cha­rity and tender Kindness, she has in some things in themselves Indif­ferent, (& what Indifferent things they are you have heard) humbly condescended to symbolize with that lapsed Lady of Rome, to bring off her abused Paramours to the pure Worship of God; which Con­descension, as is well known, took good effect for some space of Years, and the Catholicks joyned in publick prayer and service with us [and well they might, being as our three Kings have granted so much their own, only in the English tongue] till that Harlot that makes nothing of having her Children divided, forcibly rent off the English Roman Catholick from so reasonable and Christian a Communion; and yet, saith he, does not our Church cease to use this charitable Courtship and sweet Condescension towards them still, [viz. yet symbolizing with her] to win them off to such a Worship as is every way as graceful as their own?

Dr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum, c. 7. s. 5. p. 123. Dr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum, speaks to this purpose, viz. That the great reason why our first Reformers did so far comply with the Papists, it was to gain, and lay a bait for them, and which he hopes was never intended to be a Hook for the Prote­stants.

3 dly, By compa­ring their Divine Service and ours together. Thirdly, Will not the Symbolizing with Popery appear, more particularly, by comparing our Divine Service in the Common-Prayer and Rubrick, with their Divine Service in their Mass-book and Rubrick; and how much we have taken them for our pattern, and follow their direction in the par­ticulars following, viz.

First, In the time when Divine Service, and publick Wor­ship is to be performed.

Secondly, In the Divine Service it self, which is to be per­formed.

Thirdly, In the Rites and Ceremonies performed in Di­vine Service and Worship.

1 st. As to the times of Worship. First, As to the times of Worship, their Breviary and Ka­lendar do divide the year into Feasts, Vigils, Fasts, and Work­ing-days: So do we take ours directly from them, dividing our Kalendar by theirs, both as to Feasts, Vigils, Fasts, [Page 33] Working-days. It is true, they have more Feasts than we, but all ours are found in theirs, and taken from them, as our Ritual makes manifest. For Instance:

1. Their Feasts are divided into Movables and fix'd: So are ours. Their Movable-Feasts and Holy days are,

• 1. Their Easter-day, on which the rest depend, is always the first Sunday after the first full Moon, which happens next after the 21 st. of March; and if the full Moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter-day is the Sunday after, with a Vigil before: So ours from them expresly.
• 2. Their Advent-Sunday is always the nearest Sunday to the Feast of St. Andrew, whether before or after, and to four Sun­days after: So ours directly.
• 3. Their Septuagesima-Sunday, 9 Weeks before Easter: So ours.
• 4. Their Sexagesima-Sunday, 8 Weeks before Easter: So ours.
• 5. Their Quinquagesima-Sund. 7 Weeks before Easter: So ours.
• 6. Their Quadragesima-Sunday 6 Weeks before Easter: So ours.
• 7. Their Rogation-Sunday, 5 Weeks after Easter: So ours.
• 8. Their Ascention-day is 40 Days after Easter: So ours.
• 9. Their Whitsunday, with a Vigil, 7 Weeks after Easter: So ours.
• 10. Their Trinity-Sunday is 8 Weeks after Easter: So ours. And 24 Sundays after Trinity.

2. Their Fixed Feasts are as followeth, viz.

• 1. The Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ, the first of January.
• 2. The Epiphany, 6 January.
• 3. Their Conversion of St. Paul, 25 January.
• 4. Their Purification of the blessed Virgin, with a Vigil, 2 February.
• 5. Their St. Matthias, 24 Feb. with a Vigil before it.
• 6. Their Anunciation of the Virgin, 25 March, & Vigil
• 7. Their St. Mark, 25 April.
• 8. Their St. Philip and Jacob, 1 May.
• 9. Their St. Barnabas, 11 June.
• 10. Their Nativity of St. John Baptist, 24 June and Vigil.
• 11. Their St. Peter, the 29 June & Vigil.
• 12. Their St. James, the 25 July & Vigil.
• [Page 34]13. Their St. Bartholomew, 24 August and Vigil.
• 14. Their St. Matthew, 21 September & Vigil.
• 15. Their St. Michael, 29 Sept— So ours; to which we add, And all Angels—
• 16. Their St. Luke, 18 October & Vigil.
• 17. Their St. Simon and Jude, 28 October & Vigil.
• 18. Their All-Saints, 1 November & Vigil.
• 19. Their St. Andrew, 30 November & Vigil.
• 20. Their St. Thomas, 21 December & Vigil.
• 21. Their Nativity of our Lord, 25 December & Vigil.
• 22. Their St. Stephen, 26 December.
• 23. Their St. John the Evangelist, 27 December.
• 24. Their St. Innocents, 28 December.
• 25. Their Monday and Tuesday in Easter-week.
• 26. Their Monday and Tuesday in Whitson-week. So are ours directly.

• Fasting days.
  1. Their Forty days of Lent.
• 2. Their Ember-days, at the four seasons, being Wednes­day, Friday, Saturday, after the first Sunday in Lent the Feast of Pentecost, September the 14. and December the 13.
• 3. Their three Rogation days, being the Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays before Holy Thursday, or the Ascension of our Lord.
• 4. And all the Fridays in the year. So are ours in like manner.

Thus do we symbolize expresly, or rather take them for our Ritual and Pattern, as to the times of Worship, ours being but a Transcript of theirs, and which they practised so many 100 years before us. And of all which, not one word of Direction in all the New Testament. If it be said, who hath Required all these Feasts, Fasts, Holy-days, &c. at our hands? Must we not say, our Soveraign Lord the Pope, who Ordained all this service for us, to the denying the So­veraignity of Christ, as though he was not the only Law­giver, being wiser than what is written.

If we must keep Holy-days for all the Apostles, & the other Saints of the Pope's making, why not for the Patriarchs and Prophets? why not for St. Enoch, St. Seth, St. Noah, St. Abra­ham, St. Lot, St. Moses, St. Job, St. David, St. Samuel, St. Esay, St. Jeremy, &c.?

[Page 35] 2 dly, As to the Divine Service it self. Secondly, In the Divine Service it self, which is to be per­formed at the prefixed times aforesaid. Which they have di­vided into Mattins and Evensongs, and so we, after their Ex­ample, and appropriated to the particular Feasts, Fasts, Vigils, Offices of Baptism, Supper, Marriage, Burial, Confirmation, Vi­sitation of Sick, Churching of Women, &c. So we directly.

The substance or matter of their Divine Service consists in Collects, or short Prayers, Confessions, Absolutions, Prescript Lessons of Psalms, Epistles, Gospels, Prophets, Apocrypha, Letanies, Anthems, or Canticles, and Comminations appro­priated to the several Offices abovesaid. All which is the substance or matter of our Divine Service, in all parts of it appropriated and applyed to the several and respective Offi­ces aforesaid. It is true, there may be some variation in the Collects, and Lessons, Letanies and Anthems, though many times the very same word for word, and to the days and oc­casions they appointed them. These six Canticles are word for word from the Mass▪Book, viz. Benedicite omnia opera. 2. Benedictus Dominus Deus Israel. 3. Magnificat anima mea. 4. Nunc Dimittis. 5. Quicunque vult. 6. Te Deum laudamus, with Gloria patri, as they have directed to be repeated often, and after every Psalm; and Gloria in excelsis, and Pater noster to be often repeated in every Office and Exercise.

Thirdly, In Rites and Ceremonies.

Do they kneel at Confession and Absolution? So we.

3 dly, In Rites and Ceremonies. Do they Repeat the Pater-noster, kneeling, after the Priest? So we.

Do they stand at Gloria Patri? So we.

Do they stand up and repeat the Apostl's Creed? So we.

Do they repeat after the Minister the Kiryeelyson, Christe­elyson, kneeling? So we.

Do they upon the reading or singing Quicunque vult, or A­thanasius Creed, stand? So we.

Do they upon saying or singing Letanies, make Responses by the People? So we.

Do they kneel at the Altar when they partake of the Eu­charist, or Lords Supper? So we.

Do they upon the Rehersal of the Ten Commandments kneel, asking mercy and grace after every Command? So we.

[Page 36] Do the Priest and People read the Psalms alternately, verse by verse? So we.

Do they sit at reading the Lessons? So we.

Do they uncover themselves in the Churches? So we.

Do they sing their Anthems, and Canticles, and Psalms, and Prayers with Musick, Vocal and Instrumental, as Organs, Flutes, Viols, &c. So we in our Cathedrals.

Do they bow to the East, and Name of Jesus? So we. Of all which not one word in all the New-Testament.

4 thly, As to the places of Wor­ship. Fourthly, Is there not a symbolizing with Popery in the Places of Worship?

The Places of our Worship are either such as were built and consecrated by the Papists, which we took from them, retaining the Saints Names they were dedicated to, as St. Mary, St. Peter, St. Paul, All-Saints, or such places as we have built by their Example, posited East and West. Consecrated and dedicated to some Saint or Angel, and which we take to be more Holy than any other place, as they did, and give great Reverence by uncovering the Head, and bending the Knee, and upon entrance into it, bowing to the East and Altar placed therein. And keep the annual Feast of Dedica­tion, Wake or Paganalia, as the Papists and the Heathen before them did. Of all which, not one word in all the New Testament.

5 thly, In the Priesthood. Fifthly, Do we not also symbolize with them in the Priesthood, who are principally to minister in those places of Worship?

1. Orders. Have they superior Priests, viz. Bishops and Arch-Bishops, in the room of the Heathen-Flamins and Arch-Flamins for Sa­cerdotal Service in Provinces and Diocesses? So have we.

2. Distinctions. Have they Inferior Priests, distinguisht by Dignities, Names and Services, as Deans, Chapters, Prebends, Arch-Deacons, to minister in Cathedrals; and Parsons, Vicars and Curates to officiate in Parishes? So we.

3. Habits. Have they proper distinguishing Habits for their Clergy, and particular Vestments for their holy Ministrations, as Albs, Surplices, Chasubles, Amicts, Gowns, Copes, Maniples, Zones, &c.? So we.

Of all which, not one word in all the New-Testament.

That we do Symbolize with them in the Ordination of the Priesthood, take a brief Parallel of the Pontificials, viz. the Romish and the English.

[Page 38] Of all which Progress, not one word in all the New-Testament.

AND as a further Confirmation of our Symbolizing with Popery in our Rites and Service, take a few In­stances.

First, That the Papists not only so long approv'd our Li­turgy, and kept their Communion in our Church in that Wor­ship, as before Remark't from Dr. More; but also, that the Popes themselves have offered to Confirm the same, as Doctor Morton's Appeal discovers; and that Pope Pius the 4 th, and Explicat. Quest. illust. 4. p. 46. & 112. Gregory 13. offered to Queen Elizabeth to Confirm the Eng­lish Liturgy, as Camden in the Life of Queen Elizabeth te­stifies. Dr. Boys produceth the Pope's Letter, and Bristow's Approbation in his 39 th Motive.

And that the Jesuit, Dr. Carryer, saith, That the Common Prayer and Catechism contain nothing contrary to the Romish Ser­vice. Mountague asserts, that our Service is the same in most things with the Church of Rome, and that the Differences are not so great, that we should make any separation.

Common-Prayer Book Ʋnmasked, p. 9. Two famous Instances more we have mentioned in a Book, called, The Common Prayer-book Ʋnmasked, p. 9. One of a Je­suit, who coming not many years since to the Service at Pauls, declared he lik't it exceeding well; neither had he any Exception to it, but that it was not done by their Priests.

The other that upon the Pope's Bull that Interdicted Queen Elizabeth, Secretary Walsingham, procured two Persons to come into England from the Pope, to whom he shew'd the London and Canterbury Service, (in their Cathedrals) in all the Pomp of it; who thereupon declared, that they wondred the Pope should be so ill informed and advised to interdict a Prince, whose Service and Ce­remonies so symboliz'd with his own; and therefore returning to Rome, they possess'd the Pope, that they saw no Service, Ceremonies or Orders in England, but might very well serve in Rome; where­upon the Bull was Recalled.

Objection. 4. As to the taking of Collects out of the Mass-book, 'tis said by the Resolver, p. 43. That if those prayers are good, which he affirms to be very good, then such a symbolizing, he saith, cannot make them bad.

Answer. To which it is Reply'd, that the goodness or badness of Worship and Service, as to the matter and form, is to be mea­sured not by our Fancies, but the Rule of God's Word: But we do not find any such pattern of shreds of Prayers or Col­lects, [Page 40] to be said or sung, though such things Pope Gregory found in the Ritual of Numa Pompilius, which were said or sung in their Processions to their Gods. The Al [...]aron, Tal­mud and Apocripha may have, as we suppose, good things in things, as well as the Pagan and Papal Mass-books; must we therefore put them into our Prayers?

Therefore this kind of collecting we must, by his favour, judge bad, because not to be found in Christ's, but in the Heathen and Antichristian Platform, and as not being of di­vine, but meer human Invention; and therefore having been abused to Idolatry, ought to be rejected by us, because we are commanded not to take off the Babylonish Materials, A Corner, nor a Foundation▪stone, Jer. 51. 26. Nor to make such a Linsey­woolsey Medley in Gods Worship, Lev. 19. 19. Nor to swear by the Lord and by Malchim, Zeph. 15. being reqired to take heed to our selves, that we be not ensnared, and that we do not in­quire, saying, How did these Nations serve their Gods? even so will we do likewise: We are commanded not to do so unto the Lord our God: But that whatsoever God commands, that we are to ob­serve and do, not adding thereto, or diminishing therefrom, Deut. 12. 30, &c.

The learned Maccovius, upon Lev. 19. 19. saith, That the sacred Rites of Idolaters, though they be things in themselves indifferent, are not to be retained, because all Conformity with Ido­lators is to be avoided; as also saith Zanchy, Junius, Calvin, Beza, Mollerus, Danaeus, yea, Lyra, though a Papist.

Objection. But what do you say to the Lords Prayer? must we forbear that too, because we find it in their Mass-Book, though so positively enjoyn'd by Christ to use it, who bids us expresly, Luke 11. 2. that when we pray, we should say, Our Father, &c.? Therefore whoever will pray it, or neglect it, we must pray that very set-form of Prayer, in those very words, when we pray.

Answer. To which we say, that it is a great Mistake to suppose, that Christ hereby in this Scripture has appointed this to be a Set-form to be prayed by all in these prescript words, when we pray unto God; for then it would be unlawful to use any other words than these herein expressed in our Prayers; and that the Disciples and Apostles finned in using other words in those then Prayers we read of in Scripture; and so does the Church of England in forming so many Collects and Prayers.

[Page 41] Secondly, The Church of Rome and England also are great transgressors, to presume to vary from Christ's Precept, in al­tering or adding to the form of words expressed by Christ in this 11 of Luke, for so they have done—they say, Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them who trespass against us: when there are no such words in Christ's Prayer; his words are, Forgive us our Sins (or Debs, [...]) for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And add also the Doxology, which is not in this Prayer, Luke 11. But you'l say, as to the Doxology, it is expressed by Christ at the end of the same Prayer in his Sermon on the Mount, Matth. 6. It is very true, it is so, where he delivers this Prayer not as a Set-form, but a Pattern of Prayer, AFTER THIS MANNER PRAY YE, [...], to this purpose; and which is an Explanation of what he says, Luke 11. 2. when you pray, say, Our Father; that is, after this manner: and which can only be a warrant to the Church of England, or any other, to make such altera­tions; Christ no more intending to tye the Disciple, who de­sired to be instructed how to pray to this form of words, nor any other Disciple, than he did the 12 Disciples, when he sent them out to preach with this word of Command, Matth. 10. 7. Preach, saying, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand; that they should thereby be tyed to those very words in their Preaching (and preach nothing else): but as this was given as a Text or Theme to preach by, so the other to pray by. The Disciple who proposes the question, vers. 1. desires that they might be taught to pray, as John taught his Disciples; but such a set-form of Prayer we find not, that John in his teachings gave to his Disciples; neither do we find that any of Christs Disciples or Apostles did pray this very Prayer, to which our Expositors do agree.

Grotius saith on Luke 11. 2. That Christ herein teacheth us a Compendium of those things we are to pray for, at that time they were not bound to the use of so many words and syllables. As also Tertullian, Cyprian, Musculus, Cornelins Alapide; and Austin himself saith, Liberum est, It is free for us to ask the same things in the Lords Prayer, Aliis, atque aliis verbis, some­times one way, sometimes another.

Doth not Paul tell us expresly, He knew not What to pray for, but as the Spirit gave him utterance? Rom. 8. But he did know what to pray for, if this was to be his prescript form.

[Page 42] Tertullian saith, They prayed, sine Monitor [...], without a Monitor [or Common-Prayer-Book] And Socrates tells us, That among all the Christians of that Age, scarce two were to be found that used the same words in Prayer.

Chrysostom on Rom. 8. Homil. 14. saith, With other Gifts they had the Gift of Prayer, which was also called, the Spirit; and he who had this Gift did pray for the whole Multitude, for what was expedient unto the Church; and also did instruct others to Pray.

And though we find neither Christ nor his Apostles im­pose this nor any other Form of Prayer to be used by us, (but that we pray in the Spirit, and praise in the Spirit, and that God being a Spirit, seeketh and accepteth such Worship­pers) yet we find the Popes and their Councils imposing this and other Lyturgical Forms.

The Council of Toledo, Anno 618. decreed in the 9th Canon, That every day, both in publick and private Worship, none of the Clergy omit the Lords Prayer, under pain of Deposi­tion; since (say they) Christ hath prescribed this Saying, When you pray, say, Our Father, &c. And how formally and car­nally, if not Idolatrously, has the Pater-Noster been muttered over by the superstitious Papists ever since?

And may we not enquire, whether in the following Par­ticulars we do not symbolize with the Romish Worship herein?

1. First, By enjoyning and imposing this as a Set-Form, as they do, without the sanction of any sacred Text to warrant our so doing.

2. Secondly, By an often Repetition of the same Form in the same Exercise, three or four times at least, insomuch that in Cathedral Services it is said or sung ten or twelve times a day, contrary to Christ's express words, viz. That when we Pray, we should not make vain Repetitions, as the Heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking, Mat. 6. 7.

3. Thirdly, By enjoyning the whole Congregation, both men and women, to repeat the same after the Priest, though no such Direction by Christ; nay, he forbids Women to pray or prophesie in the Church, 1 Cor. 14. 34. &c.

4. Fourthly, In singing this Prayer in Cathedrals, by Responses of Priest and People with Musick, without the least divine Authority for such Song-Praying.

[Page 43] Objection▪ The Resolver goes oh, p. 43. Our Brethron, [surely] will allow of reading the Scriptures, as they do, viz. Epistles, Gospels, Psalms.

Answer▪ To which we say, We do surely allow of reading the Scriptures, but not as they do, especially in those Epistles, Gospels and Psalms, which are given us in the Liturgy, for the following Reasons:

First, Because the Epistles, Gospels and Psalms, in the Service-Book, are mis-translated, being taken from the cor­rupt vulgar Latine-Bible, which is so extream faulty, and so much complained of by the learned, both Protestants and others.

Secondly▪ Because what they call Epistles and Gospels are so curtal'd and mangled, that they become quite another thing than the Evangelists intended in the Gospels, or the Apostles in their Epistles, altogether ruining the scope and connexions in divers places, as may be instanced in numerous particulars, if need were.

Thirdly, Because they have been the Inventions of the Popes, who have so adulterated Christs pure Worship and Service, to patch up their Idolatrous Mass-Service, which Gregory (called) the Great compleated, as before, fixing and appropriating the Epistles, Gospels and Psalms to the Mat­tins and Even-Songs, throughout the Year, as the Romish Calen­dar, whose Copy ('tis suspected) we imitate, writes after.

Fourthly, That whilst it is supposed we may be instructed in the Lessons ordered to be read upon the (so called) Sun­days and Holy-Days, through the whole Bible, they have omitted so much of the Canonical Scriptures, as the greatest part of Leviticus, Ruth, Chronicles, Nehemiah, Esther, Can­ticles, Lamentations, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Zepha­niah, Haggai, The second Epistle to the Thessalonians, the second and third of John, and most part of the Revelation; instead of which, several parts of Apocryphal Writings are read, which are esteemed by the Learned, to be fabulous, and savouring of the too much adored Vanities of Gentilism.

Fifthly, Because they have omitted all the Original Titles or Inscriptions of the Psalms, which are part of the holy Scrip­tures, which have so great a tendency to unfold the mysteries in the Psalms, and instead of them retain the Popish Latino Titles, printed over our English Psalms.

[Page 44] Sixthly, because of those additions which are made to the Scriptures therein as to the 14 Psalm, 3 whole verses which are not in any of the Original Copies, and Gloria patri to the Conclusion of several Psalms, ordering it to be said at the reading of every Psalm, contrary to Deut 4. 2. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18.

Seventhly, because the Epistles and Gospels are ordered to be sung as well as said, without the least warrant or direction from the Scriptures.

Eightly, because it is ordered in the Rubrick to sit at the reading of the Epistles, and to stand up to bow and scrape, and Respond at the Gospel, without any warrant or direction from the Scriptures.

Ninthly, because of the disorderly chopping & interchang­ing of Scriptures, by way of Colloquy, betwixt the Priest and People, viz. The Lord be with thee, must the Priest say: And with thy Spirit, must the People say: Open our Lips, must the Priest say: And let our Mouths shew forth thy praise, must the People say. And bandying so often the Kyrieeleison and Christeeleison, Lord have mercy upon us, Christ have mercy upon us, betwixt Priest and People: for which no Rule of direction from Gods Word, but expresly found in the Mass-book.

How faulty the Liturgy appeared in many of these things, to many learned Episcopal Divines, is manifest by that Paper which was drawn up Anno 1641. Touching Innovations in Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, together with Considerations upon the Common Prayer; and subscri­bed by Arch-Bishop Ʋsher, Dr. Williams Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Prideaux, after B. of Worcester, Dr. Browning, after B. of Exeter, Dr. Hacket, afterwards Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, Dr. Ward, Dr. Featly, &c. and presented to the then Parliament; wherein they gave 35 Exceptions against several things in the Liturgy. And amongst others, against the corrupt Translation of the Epistles, and Gospels, and Psalms; against the Apocryphy enjoyned to be read in the Lessons; against singing of Service; against adding Gloria Patri to the Psalms; against the Hymns taken out of the Mass-Book, viz. Benedicite omnia opera, &c. against Priests Vestments, enjoyn'd as were used, 2d. E. 6. against the sign of the Cross in Baptism, which they say might as well be omitted as the Oyl which was heretofore its conco­mitant afore they went always together; against prohibiting times of Marriage, &c.

[Page 45] Objection. Another Objection which should have been spoken to be­fore, and which we he [...] add, is this, viz. That it may well be supposed, that the Nonconformists are very humerous in their groundless and unnecessary scruples, whilst they are of­fended with the Church for that her Ancient and Reverend Practice of Bowing at the Name of Jesus, enjoyn'd in the 18 th Canon; and for which they have that positive direction and Command, Phil. 2. 10. to warrant it.

Answer. It is very true, they are indeed offended at that piece they conceive) of voluntary Humility and Will-Worship, be­cause there is no more ground for Bowing at the mentioning of that Name, either from that or any other Scripture, than for Crossing our selves when that Name is named.

For, first, if it be a Command (as supposed) universally to bow at the mentioning those Syllables, and that Name Jesus, then are all both in Heaven, Earth, and under the Earth, Mer, Angels and Devils obliged thereto, whenever that Name is mentioned; be it either by a Wicked mans blasphemously swearing by it, or a drunken Priests prophanely muttering it, or the mentioning Jesus the Son of Syrach, or Bar Jesus the Conjurer.

And, secondly, if the supposed Command must be under­stood to relate to the naming the Name of our Blessed Re­deemer; it must then be considered which of his Names must be meant, because he hath many Names in Scripture, as Christ, Immanuel, Jehovah, Wonderful, the Everlasting Father, Saviour, Redeemer, Son of God, Prince of Peace, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, &c. Any of which being much more properly to be understood here, than this of Jesus, because it is at the name of Jesus, viz. some Name of his, and not the Name Jesus that is to be bowed to.

Thirdly, Neither can that Name be supposed to be meant here, because it relates to a name the Father gave him after his Death, Suffering and Exaltation, as the words make ma­nifest; and therefore not that name Jesus, which was given him at his Circumcision, before his said Suffering and Exal­tation.

Neither, fourthly, can this sense be admitted as a literal Command, that all must bow the Knee at that Name, because at the same time all and every one which make that reverence with the knee, are enjoyn'd with their mouths, to declare that [Page 46] he is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father, for they are joyn'd together; and why is not one perfor [...]d [...]s well as the other?

Therefore, fifthly, It doth necessarily respect another thing, than Reverencing the syllables of a Name, viz. that Power, Authority and Soveraignity which the Father gave him in Glory, as a Reward of his Suffering, which he him­self declared after his Resurrection, Mat. 28. That all Power was given him in Heaven & Earth, Ephes. 28. This bowing in the Name of Christ in this place, being by the Prophet, Isa 45. 23, 24. explained a Subjection of all to the universal Autho­rity that he shall exercise. Name often signifying Power in Scripture, Deut. 26. 19. Gen. 6. 4. Psal. 44. 5. 20. 1. 7. And therefore is this very Subjection mentioned in the Text of a universal bowing the Knee to his Authority, referred to the Judgment day, when all, both Men, Angels and Devils must be subject to him, Rom. 14. 11. And it is observable that the words are [...], In the Name, not at the Name of Jesus, viz. In his Power and Authority, being not a Com­mand, but a Prophesie when it shall be fulfilled and accom­plished, when there shall be that universal subjection to the Soveraignity of Christ, That every Tongue shall confess, that he is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father, as the after words men­tion. And which shall be, when he shall exert that Power that is inherent in him, to subject all Nations to his Autho­rity, when he takes to himself his great Power, and reigns, when the Kingdoms of this World shall become the King­doms of our Lord, when upon his Vesture and his Thigh shall a Name be written, KING of Kings, and LORD of Lords; and when all shall be gathered before him in the Judgment Day; Which I conceive is the true genuine sense and meaning of these words, and no such thing as a superstitious bowing at the Syllables of that Name, intended, which has been so uni­versally practised and enjoyned to the just Offence of the Con­scientious, who have not an implicit Faith to believe as the Church believes.

Imposition & Persecution. Fifthly, Their symbolizing with Popery in Impositions and Persecutions of Dissenters.

Have and [...]o the Papists violently impose their Rites, Ser­vices and Ceremonies, and cruelly prosecute and persecure the Dissenters by Confiscations, Imprisonments, and Death it self? Do not we by our Sanguinary Laws and Executions of them do [Page 47] the very same, and whereof not one word of warrant in all the New Testament? And how agreeable such a practice is to the Lamb-like Nature of Christs, and his Disciples and Fol­lowers, as also the Doctrines and Sentiments of many of your own Worthies, as well as the Suffrage of several of our Kings and Parliaments, judge you.

Bish. Jewells Apology, pag. 543. And whereof I beg leave to give you the following Instan­ces, (viz.) we shall begin with the famous Jewell, who notes it out of Chrysostom, Homil. on Mat. 19. ‘Doth the Sheep ever persecute the Wolf? no, but the Wolf the Sheep; so Cain persecuted Abel, not Abel, Cain; so Ishmael persecuted Isaac, not Isaac, Ishmael; so the Jews, Christ, not Christ the Jews; so Hereticks the Christians, not Christians, Hereticks; Whereby (saith Jewell) he plainly implyes, That Perse­cution for Conscience sake is a very Unchristian or ANTI­CHRISTIAN Sympton.’ And smartly again in the same Homily— ‘He that is a Persecutor is no Sheep of Christ's, but a Wolf, which, saith he, a Man should make any man a­fraid to feel any persecutive motion arise in his breast, as be­ing Indications of a Cainish, Imaelitish and Wolfish Nature, and a certain sign that he is none of the Sheep of Christ.’

Dr. Moore. The learned Dr. Moore, in his Preface to the Mystery of Godliness, hath many plain and pertinent passages to this point, asserting, ‘That it is an Antichristian use of Church-Go­vernment to direct it to the upholding of useless or mis­chievous Opinions, scandalous Ceremonies and ensnaring Inventions of men. And what is it (saith he) but a No­torious Specimen of Pride, thus to force others to acknow­ledge, by making them profess to be of their Opinion? And what but Injustice and barbarous Cruelty to afflict men for what they cannot help, and in what they do not sin? And what but plain Rebellion against God to wrest his Scepter out of his hand, by which he ruleth in the Consci­ences of men,’ and to usurp this Empire to themselves? And again, lastly, saith he, ‘A mutual Agreement in bear­ing with one anothers Dissents in the Non-fundamentals of Religion, is really a greater Ornament of Christianity, than the most exact Uniformity imaginable, it being an eminent Exercise of Charity, the flower of all Christian Graces, and the best way, I think, at the long-run, to make the Church as uniform as can justly be desired,’ Thus far the Dr.

[Page 48] To this purpose also the great Chillingworth in his 4th Mr. Chil­lingworth.Chapter, Sect. 16. speaks thus: ‘This presumptuous Im­posing of the senses of man upon the words of God, and the special senses of men upon the general words of God, and laying them upon mens Consciences together, under the e­qual penalty of Death and Damnation. This vain conceit that we can speak of the things of God, better than in the words of God: This Deifying our own Interpretations, and tyrannous Inforcing them upon others; This restraining of the Word of God from that latitude and generality, and the Understandings of men from that liberty wherein Christ and his Apostles left them, is and hath been the on­ly foundation of all the Schisms of the Church, and that which makes them Immortal, the common Incendiary of Christendom, and that which tears in pieces, not the Coat, but the Bowels and Members of Christ, Ridents Turta, nec dolente Judaeo: Take away these walls of separation, and all will quickly be one; take away this persecuting, burning, cursing, damning of men, for not subscribing to the words of them as the words of God; let those leave claiming In­fallibility who have no title to it; and let them who in words disclaim it, disclaim it also in their Actions: In a word, take away Tyranny, which is the Devils Instrument to support Errors, and Superstitions, and Impieties in the several parts of the world, which could not otherwise long withstand the power of Truth; I say take away Tyranny, and restore Christians to their just and full liberty of Capti­vating their understandings to Scripture only, and as Rivers when they have a free passage run all to the Ocean; so it may well be hoped by Gods blessing, that Universal liberty thus Moderated, may quickly reduce Christendom to Peace and Unity. These thoughts of Peace, saith he, I am perswaded come from the God of Peace, and to his blessing I commend them.’

This Book of Mr. Chillingworths was Licensed by R. Bayly Vicechancellor of Oxford, Dr. Purideaux Reg. Profess. Dr. Dr. Stilling­fleet. Fell, and Dr. Stradling.

And Dr. Stillingfleet most excellently in his Irenicum to the same purpose, tells us in the Preface, ‘That Christ who came to take away the Insupportable Yoke of the Jewish Ceremonies,’ certainly did never intend to gall the Necks of [Page 49] Disciples with an other instead of it, and it would be strange the Church would require more than Christ himself did, and make more conditions of Communion then our Saviour did of Discipleship.

And speaking of the Grand Reasor our first Compilers of the Common Prayer had in taking in so much of the Popish Service, which was to gain over the Papists to them, Desires that their Charity therein to the Papists may not be a Breach of Charity to the protestants: his words are these,

Dr. Tayler. Dr. Tayler in his Ductor Dubitantium tells us wittily, that for a Trifling Cause to Cut off a man (which our Lay Chan­collors so familiarly do) from the Communion of the Church is to do as the man in the Fable, espying a Fly upon his Neighbours Forehead, went to beat it off with a Hatchet, and so strook out his Brains.

Dr. Tillotson. Dr. Tillotson in his Sermon before the Parliament on Luke 9. 55. page 156. You know not what manner of Spirit you are of? Which is as if he had said, you own your selves to be my Disci­ples, but do you Consider what Spirit now Acts and Governs you, not that surely which my Doctrine Designs to mold and fashion you into, which is not (saith he) a Furious and Persecuting and Destructive Spirit, but mild and gentle and saving. Tender of the Lives and Interests of men even of those who are our Greatest Enemies, you are to consider that you are not now under the Rough and Sowre Dispensation of the Law, but under the Calm and Peaceable Institution of the Gospel, To which the Spirit of Elias though a good man would be altogether unsuitable, but under [Page 50] the Gospel intollerable, for that designs universal love and peace and good will, and now no difference of Religion, no pretence of zeal for God and Christ, can warrant and justify thy pasionate and sierce thy vindicative and Exterminating Spirit.

To these we might add the Worthy Sayings of Bishop Ʋsher, Davenant, Hall, which the Late Worthy Author of the Protestant Reconciler, hath furnished us with and many more but let these Suffice only for a Conclusion: Take a passage Lord Castle­main.of the Lord Castlemains, A Great papist Husband to the Dutches of Cleveland, in his Book against Dr. Floyd.

Sure saith he, these Men that persecute Others are Beside themselves, for, if they should go but to Reckon themselves up to­gether, with all their Adherence, they would find they are not the Sixth part of the Reformed people in England; and Adds, Pag. 18. That they have not much Reason to Reproach the Roman Catholicks for the Parisian Massacre, that of Ireland, and the Gun-powder-Plot on the 5th of November 1605. Since that these Massacres were Committed, only upon those Per­sons whom Rome had Anathematiz'd, and Proscrib'd as He­reticks and Apostates▪ and it was never known, That Rome persecuted (as the Bishops do) those who Adhere to the same Doctrine and Faith with themselves, and Established an In­quisition against the Bigots among them, nor against the Pro­fessors of the Strictest Piety.

And again tells us in another place, to this purpose, That however the Prelates Complain of the Bloody Persecution under Q. Mary, that it is Manifest their persecution Ex­ceeds it, for under her (Saith he) there were not more then Two or Three Hundred actually put to Death, Where­as under their persecution there has above Treble that Number Been Stifled, Destroyed, and Ruined in their Estates Li [...]es and Liberties, being (as is most Remarkable) Men for the most part of the same Spirit and principle, with those Protestants who Suffered under the Prelates in Q. Maries Time.

In the next place, as a farther Witness against Imposition and Persecution; take the following Declared Sense, and Suffrage of several of our Kings, viz.

[Page 51] Bede L. 1. ch. 26. tells us, That King Ethelbert Declared after he Professed the Christian Religion, that he would compel none; Having been instructed that it was contrary to the Chri­stian Religion, which ought to be vollentary not compulsive.

King James affirmed, that for Concord there is no nearer way then diligently to seperate things necessary from unnecessary, and bestow all our labour, that we may agree in the things necessary, and that in things unnecessary, which are most of the Rites and Ceremonies, there may be a Christian Liberty allowed. Apud Caus. Ep. ad. Car. Perron.

King Charles 1st. In his Declaration, Anno 1641. Sayeth thus: As for Differences amongst our selves for matters indiffe­rent in their own Nature concerning Religion, we shall in ten­derness to any number of our loving Subjects very willingly com­ply with the advice of our Parliament, that some Law may be made for the Exemption of Tender Consciences, from punishment or Persecution for such Ceremonies, and in such Cases which by the judgment of most men are held to be matters indifferent.

His present Majesty in his Declaration from Breda, April 4. Speaks thus! We do declare a Liberty to Tender Con­sciences, and that no man shall be disquieted or called in question for Differences in Opinion, which do not disturb the peace of the Kingdom.

The which he often inculcates, viz. Declar. oct. 25. 1660. Whe do again Remember what we have formerly said from Breda, for the liberty of Tender Consciences.

And again in his speech, May 8th. 1661. I do vallew my self much upon keeping my Word, upon making good what ever I Promised to my subjects: The which the Chancelor repeates.

And again, July 8th. 1661. Remynds his Promise, as also what the Lords had promised to the same purpose at that time be­fore mentioned, which his Maty calls an honest generous and Christian Declaration, signd by the most Eminent Sufferors a­mongst them; Telling them he would not have it be in any mans power to charge him or them with the Breach of their words or pro­mises, which he saith, would be no good ingredient for the future Security.

And again in his Declaration, 26 Dec. 1662. Wee will re­member the Confirmations we have made of them, upon several Oc­casions in Parliament, and as also these things are still fresh in our [Page 52] Memory, so are we still firme in the Resolution of performing them to the full. And we do conceive our selves so far ingaged in hon­our, and in what we own to the Peace of our Dominion; which we profess we can never think secure whilst there shall be a Colour left to the Malicious and dissafected, to inflame the minds of so many multitudes upon the Score of Conscience, with dispair of ever ob [...]aneing effect of our promises for their Ease.

His Majesties Speech to both Houses; Feb. 10. 1667. De­clares thus, viz. One thing more I hold my self Obliged to re­commend unto you at this Cresent, which is that you would seri­ously think of some Course to beget a better Ʋnion and Compo­sure in the minds of my Protestant Subjects in matters of Reli­gion, whereby they may be induced, not only to submit quietly to the Government, but also chearfully give their assistance to the Support of it; And,

In his Declaration of Indulgence, March 15. 1671. Saith That it was evident by the sad experience of twelve years, that here was very little fruit of all those forcible Courses, and ma­ny frequent ways of Coercion that we have used for the redu­cing of all erring or dissenting persons; And thereupon granted his Indulgence.

Again in his Speech to both Houses 1678. Says thus: I meet you here with the most earnest desire, that man can have to Ʋnite the minds of all my Subjects both to me, and one to another, and Resolve it shall be your Fault if the Success be not suita­ble to my Desires.

Hereupon the Parliament, Jen. 10. 1680. From their owne inclination, known Experience as well as in Obedience to his Gracious Direction, did for the Relieving and better Ʋniting all his Protestant Subjects; Declare in their Vote Nemine Con­tradicente, That it is the Opinion of this House that the Prosecution of Protestant Dissenters upon the Penal Laws, is at this time grievous to the Subject, a Weakning the Protestant Intrest, an Encouragement to Popery, and Dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdom. And No. 6. 1680. Resolved Nemine Contradicente, That [...] is the Opinion of this House that the Acts of Parliament made in the Reign of Q. Elizabeth and K. James against Popish Recusants, ought not to be extended a­gainst Protestant Dissenters, having divers Laws under Consi­deration, as his Majesty directed for the Releiving, Composing [Page 53] and Ʋniting the Protestants: A Bill having passed both Houses for Repealing the 35th of Elizabeth.

As a farther Ratification and Confirmation that our En­glish Service and Ceremony was from the Popish Race and Succession; Take this following Historical Account; Giv­en us by some Eminent Writers, and Famous Sons of the Church of England.

Cambden in the Life of Q. Elizabeth. Cambden in the Life of Queen Elizabeth; assures us, That the Change of Religion was not in her time Suddenly▪ made but by Little and little, by Degrees, for the Roman Religion Con­tinued in the same State it was; First, a full Month and more, After the Death of Q. Mary, The 27th of December it was Tollerated to have the Epistles, and Gospels, the Tens Command­ments, the Symbole, the Letany, and the Lords Prayer, in the Vulgar Tongue; The Twenty Second of March the Parliament being Assembled, the Order of Ewd. 6. was Re-established, and by Act of the same the whole use of the Lords Supper Granted un­der both kinds; The 24th of June by the Authority of that which Concern'd the Ʋniformity of publick Prayers, and Administra­tion of the Sacrament, the Sacrifice of the Mass was abolished, and the Liturgy in the English Tongue more and more Establish­ed, In the Month of July, the Oath of Allegiance was Proposed to the Bishops, and other Persons; And in August, Images were thrown out of the Temples and Churches, and Broken and Burnt.

Thus far Cambden Gives us the Steps Queen Elizabeth took in the Reformation, what She cast off by degrees, and so Consequently, what she Retained, Which was the Rest of the Popish Rites and Ceremonies, and which She had a Great Love to, and Liking of which was the Reason there [Page 54] was no Greater Alteration.

Dr. Burnets History of Reformation. Whereof we have this Account from Dr. Burnit in his History of Reformation.

Queen Elizabeth Received some Impressions in her Fathers Reign, in Favour of such Old Rites as he had still Retained, and in her own Nature, Loving State, and some Magnificence in Religion (as well as in every thing else) She thought that in her Brothers Reign they had Stript it too much of External Or­naments, and had made their Doctrine too Narrow in some Points, therefore She intended to have some things Explained in more General Terms, that so all Parties might be Comprehended by them, She Inclined to keep up Images in Churches, and to have the Manner of Christs Presence in the Sacrament, Left in some General Words, That those who Believed the Corporal Presence might not be Drawn away from the Church, by too Nice an Ex­planation of it. So far Dr. Burner.

In Pursuance of these Resolves the Queen Attemps the Accomodating matters of Religion, so unto the Romish Clergy as to take them into the Communion of the Church of England, as Dr. Heylin affirms; She so Effectually Com­passed that for several years the Papists Continued in the Communion of the Church, and when they did forsake it it was not because they Approved not of our Liturgy, but upon politick Considerations, and because the Counsel of Trent had commanded it, and Pope Pius the 5th had Ex­communicated the Queen, and Discharged her Subjects from their Allegiance, and made the Going, or not Going to Church, a Sign Distinctive to Difference; A Roman Catho­lick from an English Protestant.

Concerning which, take Dr. Heilins own words in his History of Queen Elizabeth.

There past another Act for Recommending and Imposing the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments according to such Alteration and Correction as were made there­in by thoso who were Appointed to Revise it, as before is said; in the persuance of which Service, there was great care taken for the Expunging all such passages in it, as might give any Scandal or Offence, to the Popish party, or be urged by them in their Ex­cuse for their not coming to Church, and joyning with the rest of [Page 55] the Congregation in Gods Publick Worship. In the Letany first made and published by K. Henry the Eighth, and afterwards continued in the two Liturgies of K. Edward, the sixth; There was a Prayer to be delivered from the Tyranny and all the dete­stable enormities of the Bishops of Rome, which was thought fit to be Expunged as giving matter of Scandal and Dissatsfaction to all that Party or that otherwise wished well to that Religion. In the first Liturgy of K. Edward, The Sacrament of the Lords Body was Delivered with this Benediction; That is to say, The Body of our Lord Jesus, which was given for the preser­vation of thy Body, and Soul, to Life Everlasting; &c. The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, & Which being thought by Calvin and his Disciples, to give some Countenance to the Cross and Carnal Presence of Christ in the Pacrament (which passeth by the Name of Transubstantiation in the School of Rome,) was Altered into this Form into the said Liturgy, That is to say, Take and Eat this in Remembrance that Christ dyed for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with thansgiving; Take and Drink this, &c. But the Revisors of the Book joyned both Forms togither, least under colour of Rejecting a Carnal, they might be thought also to Deny such a Real Presence as was De­fended in the writing of the Antient Fathers, upon which ground she Expunged also a whole Rubrick at the end of the Communion Service, by which it was declared, that kneeling at the Partici­pation of the Sacrament were required for no other Reason then for the Signification of the humble and grateful Acknowledgment of the Benefits of Christ, given therein unto the worthy Receiv­er▪ and to avoid that prophanation and disorder which otherwise might have ensued, and not for giving any Adoration to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there Bodily Received, or in regard of any Real or Essential presence of Christs Body and Blood, and to come close to the Church of Rome, it was ordered by the Queens Injunctions; That the Sacrametal Bread which the Book Required only to be made of the finest Flower should be made round in fashion of the Wafers used in the time of Q. Mary.

She also ordered that the Lords Table should be placed where the Altar stood that the Accustomed Reverence should be made at the Name of Jesus.

Musick Retayned in the Church, and all the Old Festivals, observed with their several Eves, by which Complyances and Ex­punging of the passage before mentioned, the Book was made so [Page 56] passable amongst the Papists, that for ten years they generally Re­paired to their Parish Churches without doubt or scruple as is af­firmed not only by Sir Edward Cook in his Speech against Gar­net. and his Charge given at the Assizes held at Norwich, but also by the Queen her self in a Letter to Sir Francis Walsing­ham then her Embassador in France.

The same Confessed by Sanders also, in his Book De Schisma­t [...], and therefore Dr. Heilin in a few Pages after, adds, viz. And now we may behold the Face of the Church of England, as it was first setled and Established under Q. Elizabeth, the Go­vernment of the Church by Arch-bishops, and Bishops, &c. The Liturgy Conform to the Primitive Pattorn [viz. of Popery] and all the Rites and Ceremonies therin Prescribed, Accomoda­ted to the Honour of God, and Encrease of Piety, the Festi­vals Preserved in their former Dignity, Observed with all their Distinct Offices Peculiar to them, and Celebrated with a Religi­ous Concorse of all sorts of People, the Weekly Fasts viz. Wee­nesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, The holy time of Lent, The Embring Weeks, Together with the fast of the Rogation; Seve­rally kept by a forbeara [...]ce of all kind of Flesh, not now by Ver­tue of the Statute as in the Time of King Edw. but as appointed by the Church in her publick Callender before the Book of Common Prayer [So Correspondant with Rome.] The Sacrament of the Lords Supper Celebratited in most Reverend Manner. The ho­by Table Seated in the Place of the Altar. The people making their due Reverence at their first Enterance into the Church, Kneeling at the Communion; The Confession and the Publick Prayers, standing up at the Creed, the Gospels, and the Gloria Patri, and Ʋsing the Accustomed Reverence at the Name of Jesus, Musick Retained in all the Churches, in which, provision had been made for the Maintenance of it; or where the people could be Trained up, at least to plain Song, all which particulars were either Established by the Laws, or Commanded by the Queens Injunctions; or otherwise Retained, by Vertue of some Antient Ʋsuages, not by Law Prohibited; nor is it much to be admired, that such a general Conformity to those Cntient, (viz. (Popish) Ʋsuages was constantly Observed in all Cathe­drals, and the most part of the Parish Churches; considering how well they were Presidented by the Court it self, in which the Liturgy was Officiated every day, both Morning and Evening, not only in the publick Chappel, but the private Closet, Celebra­ted [Page 57] in the Chappel with Organs, and other Musical Instruments, and the most Excellent Voices of Men and Children, that could be got in all the Kingdom, the Gentlemen and Children in their Surplices, and the Priests in Copes as oft as they Attended the Divine Service at the Holy Altar, The Altar furnished with Rich Plate, Two fair Guilt Candlesticks, with Tapers in them, and a Massy Crucifix of Silver in the midst thereof, which last remained there for some years, till it was Broke in pieces by Pa [...]h the Fool (no wisor man daring to undertake such a Desperate Service) at the Sollictation of Sir Frances Knoles, the Queens near Kinsman, by the Caries, and one who openly appeared in Fa­vour of the Shism at Frankford; the Antient Ceremonies accust­omably observed by the Knights of the Garter; in their Adorati­on towards the Altar, abolished by King Edward the 6th, and revived by Queen Mary, whereby this Queen Retained as for­merly in her Fahers Time, for which she Received both Thanks and Honour from the very Enemies, [viz. the Papists] as appears by Hardings Epistle Dedicatory, before his answer to the Apology, So far Dr. Heilin.

Thus from what the Sons of the Church Cambden, and Burnet, and Heilin have Affirmed.

'Tis Apparent that Queen Elizabeth had a Natural propen­sity to favour the Papists, and that this was Discovered by her making the Terms of Communion much more easie to the Papists in K. Edw. Time, whereby she became the more Difficult and Arduous to the Protestant Dissenters, and whom she Rigorously Prosecuted for their Dissents; Cambden In­forms us, That about the year 1583. The Queen [Who held it for a Maxim, that she ought not to be more Remiss in Ecclesiasti­cal Affairs] advancing Whitgift from the Sea of Worcester to that of Canterbury; above all Commanded him to Re-establish the Discipline of the Church of England, that as then lay Dis­membred by the connivency of Prelates, The Obstinacy of Innova­tors, and by the Power of some Great Ones, whilst some Mini­sters using to their own fancy, new Rites of Services in their pri­vate houses, utterly Condemning the Liturgy, and the Appointed Manner of Administring the Sacrament, as being in many things contrary to the Scripture, and therefore many refused to go to Church, to Abolish which things, and to reduce them in unity, Whitgift propounded three Articles to the Ministers by them to be Subscribed, but [adds Cambden] 'Tis [...]credible what Con­troversies [Page 58] and Disputations arose upon this, what Troubles Whit­gift suffered of certain Noble Men, &c. How the said Whitgift vex­ed the poor Dissenters, what Letters were writ to him from the Counsel and Treasurer Cicil upon their complaints, and his Answers, you have at large in a late piece called the Harmo­ny between the old and present Nonconformists, some small part of the Councils Let­ter to the Arch Bishop of Can­terbury, and Bishop of Lon­don. abridgment thereof take as followeth, not unworthy of your notice, viz. in a Letter sent unto the Arch Bishop of Canter­bury, and Bishop of London, from her Majesties Council, September 20. 1584.

We have heard of late times sundry complaints against a great number of Preachers, whereby some were de [...]rived of their Li­vings; some suspended from their Ministry, and Preaching; especially such who instruct the people against your Spiritual Courts; advancing their profits by such kind of proceedings, and parti­cularly the lamentable estate of the Church in the County of Essex, Where there is a great number of Zealous and Learned Preach­ers suspended from their Cures the vacancy of their place for the most part without any Ministry, or Preaching, Prayers, and Sa­ments, and in some places of Certain appointed to those void Rooms being persons neither of Learning, nor of good Names, and in other places of the Country, a great number notoriously unfit Chargable with Ignorance, and with great enormous faults, as Drunkenness, filthiness of Life, Gamsters at Cards, hunting of Ale Houses, and such like, against whom we hear not of [...]ny Proceedig, but that they are quietly suffered to the Slander of the Church, to the offence of good people, yea, to the famishing them for want of good teaching, and thereby dangerous to the sub­verting of many Weaklings from their duties to God and Her Ma­jesty, by secret Jesuits and Counterfiet Papists, &c.

Treasurer Bur­leighs Letter to Arch Bishop Whitgift. And in a Letter to the Arch-Bishop, by the Lord Treasu­rer Burleigh, Dated July 5. 1584. it is said;

It may please your Grace, I am sorry to Trouble you so often as I do; But I am more Troubled my self, not only with many private Petitions of Sundary Ministers Recommended from Per­sons of Credit, for peaceable persons, yet greatly Troubled, but also am I dayly now Charged by Counsellers and Publick Persons to neglect my duty in not staying these your Graces Proceedings, so vehement, and so general against Ministers and Preachers, as the Papists, thereby are greatly Encouraged, and evil dsposed persons animated and thereby the Queens Majesties Safety En­dangered, [Page 59] With these kind of Arguments I am dayly Assaulted, and now my Lord, I am come to the sight of an Instrument of 24 Articles of great length and Curiosity, formed in a Romish Stile; to Examine all manner of Ministers in this time with­out Distinction of persons; Which Articles are Intituted, A pud Lambeth, May 1581. To be Executed ex officio mero, &c. Which Articles I find so Curiously Penned, so full of Branches and Circumstances, and I think the Inquisitors of Spain use not so many questions to Comprehend and to Trap their Preys, I know the Canonists can defend these with all their Particles, but sure­ly under your Graces Correction, This Judicial and Canonical Sifting of poor Ministers is not to Edify and Reform, and in Charity I think they ought not to answer to all these Nice Points, except they were very Notorious Offenders in Papistry or Heresy, I write with the Testimony of a Good Conscience, &c. This kind of Proceeding is too much Savouring the Romish Inquisition, and is rather a Device to seek for Offenders, then to Reform any; and in another Letter adds, seeking rather by Excommunication to urge [...] to Accuse themselves, and then punish them:

Arch Bishops reply. The Arch-Bishop makes a large reply, In it Saith thus— ‘I have taken upon me the defence of the Religion and Rites of this Church of England, to appease the Sects of Schisms, therein to Reduce all the Ministry thereof to Uniformity and due Obedience; Herein I intend to be constant and not to Waver with every Wind, The which also my place my person, my duty, the Law, Her Majesty, and the Good­ness of the Cause doth Require of me, and wherein your Lordship and Others all things considered ought in duty to Assist and Countenance me; It is strange that a man in my place dealing with so good Warranties as I do, should be so encountred, and for not yielding, should be accounted wilful, but I must be Contented, Vincit qui patitur—And if my friends herein forsake me, I trust God will not, neither the Law, her Majesty, who hath laid the Charge on me, and are able to protect me.’

Many were the Severe Laws made against the Nonconfor­mists, which were put in Execution with Great Cruelty, To the Suspending, Imprisoning and Executing many of the Faithful Servants of Christ in this Queens Reign▪ where­of Fuller in his Ecclesiastical History gives a particular Ac­count. The High Commision Court (that grand Grievance) Set up also by her.

[Page 60] In the next place I shall give you some Confirmation of the Truth of the prevalency of Popery under a Protestant Mask, in the Rites and Ceremonies imposed in these and suc­ceeding times, by the witness Bourn by several Eminent Dis­senters, which we find upon Record in several Books, viz. A Book called the Register, another the Abridgment which was a Book Delivered to King James by the Ministers of Lincoln Diocess Anno 1605.

In the Register page 3. We have the 24 Articles agreed in the Synod, and Confirmed by the Queen, Exhibited to Mr. Edward Dering, and his Answers thereto, Anno 1573. where­of Receive his Answer to the first Article, The Article was ‘whether the Book Intituled the Book of Common Service allowed by publick Authority in this Realm is to be allow­ed in the Church of God, by Gods Word or no? To which he replyed,’ That

‘The Similitude that this Book hath with the Form of Prayer which the Papists used, I think declineth from the Equity of those Laws,’ Deut. 7. 25, 12, 30, 18, 4. Which Thing our Fathers so much Regarded in the Primitive Church, ‘that their Books are full of great Complaints against all Similitude to be had with the Gentles,’ yea the Second Council of Bracca made a Decree, that no Christian should have either Bay-leaves or Green Boughs in their houses, because the Gentles so Accustomed, and at this day, all Reformed Churches in France, Polonia, Helvetia, Scotland and other places have changed that Form of Prayers which Prudency of all Ages, if we shall Condemn the Rebuke of the Apostle I think will Teach us, 1 Cor. 14. 36. Came the Word of God out from you, or came it unto you only.

Secondly, We have the Psalms, Venite, Benedictus, Magnifi­cat, nunc Demittis, usual in our Ministry of which we can give no good reason, nor I see no cause why we should more leave out Ave Maria, and because of parting the Scriptures again into the Epistles and Gospels (which was not heard of before the days of Popery) I dare not Avow that this is that Reverend handling of the Scriptures, and the right dividing of the Word of Truth which Saint Paul Requireth, 2 Tim. 2. 15.

Thirdly, The great Inconveniency which hath followed this Book while it hath Maintained an Ʋnlearned Ministry, and made it thought sufficient to have the Service Read wherein we have made [Page 61] the Spirit of God to speak in vain, 1 Tim. 3. 12. which Requires the Ministers of the Gospel to be apt to Teach and to exhort and Reprove, Tit. 1. 9. This is an other Cause why I cannot Sub­scribe unto the Book, that it hath all things answerable to the Word of God.

But the Abridgment is much more full, bringing Argu­ments from the Scripture, The Fathers, the Old Reformers, and our own Old Protestant Doctors against it whereof I shall give this following Account.

First, It is contrary to the Word of God to use such Ceremo­nies in the Worship of God as man has devised if they be notorious­ly known to have been of old, and still to be abused unto Idolatry and Superstition by the Papists, especially if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church, where note that the Ceremonial part of the English Service that is like unto that of the Romish, is what has been abused by the Papists to Idolatry or Superstition but yet are not so necessary to Divine Worship, but that the Wor­ship may be Compleat, Devout and orderly without them, which appears saith they.

First by the Second Commandment which forbids all provocation unto Spiritual Fornication, as the 7th doth unto that which is Carnal:

Secondly, By the Commandment and Direction God hath gi­ven us in his Word to Seperate our selves from Idolaters, and be as unlike to them, as may be, especially in their Religions, Obser­vations and Ceremonies, to abolish not only all Idols, and that so as we may best shew our utmost Detestation to them, and root out the very memory of them.

Thirdly, By the Equity and Reasons of these Commandments which we find set down in Holy Scripture, viz. 1. The detesta­tion which the Lord our God (being a Jealous God) beareth un­to Idolatry, and all the Instruments and Tokens thereof, as unto Spiritual Whoredom.

Secondly, That it cannot be said sincerely we have Repented of the Idolatry of our Forefathers, unless we be ashamed of, and cast away with Detestation all the Instruments and Monuments of it. Thirdly, That we shall be in danger to be Corrupted in the Substance of Religion and Purity of Doctrine; and even to fall back again to Idolatry, if we Conform our selves to Idolaterous Ceremonies, yea, if we shew not all Detestation unto them. Fourthly, That our Conformity with Idolators in their Ceremonies wherein [Page 62] they Repose the greatest part of their Religion, will be a special means to harden them in Superstition. Fifthly, That seeing the Pope is revealed to be that Great Antichrist, and his Idolatry troubleth the Church at this day more than any other, and our peo­ple Converse more with Papists, then with any other Idolators, there is more danger in the Retaining of the Ceremonies and Re­licks of Popery, then of any other Idolatry whatsoever.

‘By the Judgment of the Godly Learned of all Church­es,’ and Ages, who have Constantly Taught and given Testimony of this Truth, That Christians are Bound to cast off the Ceremonies and Religious Customs of Pagans, ‘Jews, Idolators and Hereticks, and Carefully to shun all Conformity with them therein.’

‘In the Council of Nice it was Decreed, That Christi­ans might not keep the Feast of Easter at that Time nor in that manner the Jews did, let us say they, in nothing a­gree with that most detestable rout of the Jews.’

And in another Councel That none should fast on the Lords ‘Day, because the Manachees had taken up that day to fast in, That such Altars as were set up in the Country, and High-ways in Memory of the Martyrs, should be Abolish­ed, and that Solemn Requests should be made to the Em­peror, that all Reliques and Monuments of Idolatry might be utterly Destroyed; and this Decree we find Cited by Dr. Fulk.’

‘In another Councel, That Christians should not Cele­brate Feasts on the Birth days of Martyrs, because that was the manner of the Heathens. Tertullian is large and vehement in this point.’

‘As saith he, We may give nothing to the Service of an Idol, so may you borrow nothing from the Service of an Idol,’ if it be against Religion to sit at Table in any Idols Temple, What is it to be seen in the Habit of an Idol? Thou that art Christian must hate those things, the Authors, and Inventers, whereof, thou canst not choose but hate.

Austin himself Saith, if you would win Pagans leave all their Solemnities, for sake their Toyes.

The Judgment of the Church of Scotland in their Letter to the Bishops of England 1556. from a General Assembly at Edenbo­rough, thus writ if Surplice, Corner Cap, and Tipper, have been Badges of Idolators in the very Act of Idolatry, what have the [Page 63] Preachers of Christian Liberty, and the open Rebukers of Super­stition to do with the dress of the Romish Beast, And in the Con­fession of their Faith sworn to by them, and the Kings Majesty al­so; We find these words. and Detest all his Ceremonies and False Doctrines of the Roman Antichrist added to the Ministration of the True Sacraments, We Detest all his vain Rites, Signs and Traditions brought into the Church without the Word of God; Mr. Rogers that Holy Martyr would not Consent to a Cannon that was to be made in K. Edwards Days for the Clergies Con­formity in Cap, Tippet, and the rest of the Apparel, unless it, might be Decreed, that the Papists for a Difference between them and others might be Constrained to wear upon their Sleves A Challice with a House upon it.

‘Bishop Pilkington misliked, that in our Liturgy we are so like the Papists in Marriage, and many other things this faith he is our fault generally that we differ not from them in all our Ministry.’

Bishop Bilson Defending the Reformed Churches against a Slander of the Papists, Approvingly Reporteth thus of them, The Reformed Churches Saith he, are so far from Admitting the full dost of your Heresies, that by no means they can digest one Dram of your Ceremonies.

Dr. Humphrey Saith, That we aught to Refuse to Conform our Selves to the Enemies of God, in any of their Ceremonies, Professing plainly his Desire, and hope of the utter Abolishing of the Ceremhnies af all the Monuments of Popish Superstition, that yet Remain in our Church.

Dr. Fulk Saith, That if a man mislike our Form of Service, as not differing sufficiently from yours, he Sheweth his greatest Zeal in Detestation of your Idolatry, and Blasphemy; And a­gain we abhor sath he, whatsoever hath but a Shew of Popery.

Dr. Stu [...]liff maketh this one of his Principal Arguments a­gainst the Papists, that they have derived most of their Ceremo­nies and Customs from the Jews and Pagans; To the same Pur­pose Mr. Greenham and Mr. Marbury.

That Agreeing with us, most of the Reformed Divines do hold.

1. That those Laws that we have Alledged out of the Old Testement against the Monument of Idolatry, do bind us as much as they did the Jews, and from them they Conclude as we have done, That all Reliques of Popish and heathe­nish Superstition are to be Banished out of the Church of [Page 64] Christ; of this Judgment are Calvin, Martyr, Grineus, Wol­phins Ʋrsinus Machabeus, Zanchius, Simetrus, Zepperus, our own Book of Homilies, Dr. Fulk and others.

2. That Hezekiah Josiah and the rest of the Godly Kings of Juda which shewed most Zeal in Abolishing those things which had been abused by Idolatry, did no more then they were bound by the Law of God to do, And that from their Example, the Argument holds strong against the Monu­ments of Idolatry, now because all Christians are Bound to Imitate their Zeal therein; Of this Judgment was Au­gustin, Calvin, Martyr, Wolphins, Eevator, Zanchius, Bishop Jewil, Bilson, Dr. Fulck, Dr. Raynold, Dr. Andrews, Mr, Perkins, and Others.

3. That the Retaining of Popish Ceremonies, will certain­ly be a means to indanger the Doctrine that we profess, and to bring the People back to Popery; this was the judg­ment of the People of Saxony and them of Humburgh and of Luther.

4. That the Retaining of the Ceremonies of Idolaters will Cause them to insult over our Religion, as if it could not stand without help from them, and to harden them in their likeing of their own Idolatry, this Reason hath bee used against Conformity with the Jews by Constantine the Emperor and by all the Fathers in the first Counsel of Nice, and a­gainst Conformity with the Papists, Begentiis, Musculus, Bishop Jewel, and Others.

5. We are Confirmed in this our Perswasion, that it is unlawful to Retain the Ceremonies of the Papists by Experi­ence of the Great hurt they have done, and do Dayly in the Church, for we find that some of the Learnedest of the English Papists, Namely, Martial, Bristow, and he that pen­ned the petition for the Papists which Dr. Stutliff and Mr. Powel have Answered, have by this Argument Justifyed their Church and Religion, that we have borrowed our Ceremo­nies from them, yea some of them, as Harding, Martial, and he that Writ the Astrological Epistle for our English Papists have professed, that this was to them an Evident Argument, that Q. Elizabeth did in her Conscience like well of their Religion, because She liked and maintained their Ceremonies, and the Superstitious Multitude do usually de­fend the Blessing of themselves, with Crossing their Breasts [Page 65] and Foreheads, by our Crossing our Children in Baptism: So far the Abridgment. And to which we may add this further Testimony, following, viz.

Altas Damas. p. 612, 613. tells us, That from three Romish Channels was the English Service raked together, namely, 1st. The Breviary, out of which the Common-Prayers are taken; 2dly, The R [...]tual, or Book of Rites, out of which the Administration of Sa­craments, Burial, Matrimony, Visitation of the Sick are taken; 3dly, The Mass-Book, out of which the Cons [...]cration of the Lords Supper, Collects, Gospels and Epistles are taken.

Bishop Hall in his Quo Vadis saith, That his Eyes and Ears can witness with what applause the Catholicks entertained the new translated Liturgy of our Church.

Mr. Thomas Gage in his English American, chap. 22. p. 205▪ thus expresseth himself, I conti [...]ued twelve Moneths at my Ʋnoles House at Gatton, searching (though unknown to my Ʋncle and Kindred) into the Doctrine and Truth of the Gospel professed in England, for which cause I made many Journies to London, and then privately I resorted to some Churches and especially to Paul's Church, to see the Service performed, and to hear the Word of God preached, but so that I might not be seen, known or discovered by and Papist▪ When in Pauls Church, I heard the Organs, and the Musick, and the Prayers, and the Collects, and saw the Ceremonies at the Altar, I remembred Rome again, and perceived little difference betwixt the two Churches: I searched further into the Common-Prayer, and carried with me a Bible into the Country on purpose to compare the Prayers, Epistles, and Gospels with a Mass-Book, which there I had at command, and I found no difference, but only English and Latine; which made me wonder, and to acknowledge, that much remained still of Rome in the Church of England; and that I feared my Calling was not right.

And p. 209. tells us, That upon his return afterwards to Rome, that Father Fitz Herbert told him, that the Common-Prayer Book (which was composed for Scotland) was by Arch-Bishop Laud sent to Rome to be first viewed and approved by the Pope and Car­dinals, and who upon the perusal did approve thereof, and liked very well for Protestants to be trained in such a form of Prayer and Service, &c.

Great Cerus Panegyer. Missae. cap. 11. 12. alledgeth against the Reformed Churches; the English Service-Book for their Popish Holy-days, the Book of Canons for the Sign of the [Page 66] Cross, and Kneeling at the Altar, and for the whole Hierar­chy, &c.

Cornelpis Scultingius in his Hyerarchica Anicrists, citeth whole Leaves out of Whitegift for the defence of their Hierarchy.

Stapleton Reflect. against Whitaker, Cont. 2. Qu. 3. Art. 3. useth Whitegift's Argument to uphold their Discipline, and professeth they are built upon one Foundation.

They further say, as Paep. Sapp. Anno 1604. Reas. of Relig. 13▪ That from their Treasure-House, the Religion now established in England, hath learned the form of Christening, Marrying, Church­ing of Women, visiting the Sick, Burying the Dead, &c. as their Book (say they) translated out of ours declares.

Curtaine, Of Ch. Power, p. 40. saith, That he heard one of the Jesuits say, that it was his hopes, that our Service and Ceremo­nies would return us again to Rome.

Another Objection is this, That whilst they separate for indifferent, and about disputable things, they do violate a known plain positive Scripture, which enjoyns the Inferiors to be obedient and subject to their Superiors.

The Protestant Reconciler, 2 part, urges it as an Objection brought against the Diffenters, compar'd with 1 part, p. 198. That seeing God hath enjoyned all Persons to obey those that have the Rule over them, Heb. 13. 17▪ and submit themselves, and to be subject to the higher Powers, as to the Ordinance of God, and that for Conscience sake. He that can satisfie his Conscience in his Refusal so to do, must shew some Law of God as evidently forbid­ding his Obedience to what Superiors do enjoyn▪ as do these Scrip­tures command OBEDIENCE to them in ALL LAWFUL THINGS.

And you tell us in your Scrupulous Conscience, pag. 33. That these things of a publick Nature belong only to our Superiors and Governours; and if they appoint what is unfit, indecent and inconvenient, they only are accountable for it; It is not the fault of those that joyn in such Worship, or yield to such Injunctions (NOT PLAINLY SINFUL) for the of Peace and Order. And the late most terrible Thunder-clap from the Bench▪ giving the Dissenters in charge to the Grand Jury, as such Despisers of Authority, who had sin'd the unpardonable sin, not to be forgiven them.

[Page 67] To which we say, That it is most certain that Obedience is due from Inferiors to Superiors, for Conscience sake, and for the Lord's sake. But then that is limited to be only in the Lord; for if they who are his Ministers, command any thing not agreeable to his Word, and plainly Sinful, though they may call them Indifferent things, State Policy, Order and Decency, we are justifi'd with the Midwives, in diso­beying the King's command, Exod. 1. 17. and Saul's Guard, in refusing Obedience to the King, 1 Sam 22. 17. and Daniel and the three Children in disobeying the King, Dan. 3. 6. and with Peter and John, who refused to forbear preaching Christ at the Rulers command, telling them, It was beete to obey God than Man. Though this absolute obedience to Superiors (as you'l find) is an Argument principally urged by men who have the Magistrate on their side, and their own Profit and Advantage concern'd, then Obedience to them is cryed up to be better than Sacrifice, and fall foul upon the Consci­entious, as Disobedient, Seditious and Rebellious. So Celsus the Heathen, reproaches the Christians for their forsaking their publick Assemblies, getting into Corners, disobeying Authority. So all the time of Popery were the Waldenses, Wicklivists, Lollards and Protestants, branded with Seditions, Disobedience to Authority, impugning the King and Queen's proceedings. And how doth Bonner lay the 13 Romans to the Martyrs, to require their Obedience and Subjection to all their Mumsimus's and Sumsimus's? But if the Tide be turn'd, and the Magistrate on the other side, then the same men cry out against Imposition and Persecution, as it was with the Arians and Orthodox, under the several Emperors of different minds; the 13 Romans was in those days used as the Dutch-man's Breeches to serve all occasions, and always improved to establish and inforce the present Impositions by the Power and Religion which was uppermost. This re­proves all our worthy Witnesses, the Waldenses, Wicklivists, Lollards, &c. who bore up for Christ against all their San­guinary Laws, Prohibitions and Commands, and those who opposed Jeroboam's Calf-Worship. This would establish the Religion of the present Power, be it either Judaism, Tur­cism, Popery, &c. and a conformity to it. But 'tis said, you intend this subjection to Superiors, only in lawful things, things not plainly sinful. Then if the Inferior be to judge [Page 68] what is Unlawful, and plainly Sinful, the Controversie is at an end. If they command lawful things, they command no other than God has commanded, which makes it lawful, then Obedience (as due) is given to God. If they com­mand in the things of God any other than lawful, or what he has required, they have no Authority so to do; and we Sin not in Disobedience by your own Rule, if they command sinful or unlawful things.

As to those things of an Indifferent Nature, or things not possitively forbidden, under which is included all the Rites and Ceremonies injoy'd by man, whereof no Word of God for. We know of no such things; all the Rites, Services and Ceremonies to be observed and enjoyned in Gods Wor­ship, being necessary things, and no negative Articles of Faith, as before.

Objection. Object. But is it not manifest, that Persons who presume to seperate from the Religion established by Law, are usu­ally of turbulent, seditious, factious Spirits? otherwise what means those sensible Impressions that have lately been made upon Authority, expressed by the publick Declaration, ma­nifold Addresses, and Pulpit Alarms, reflecting upon them as to the PLOT, and the Severity used by putting the Penal Laws in execution against this sort of People in City and Country?

Answer. Its very true that Press and Pulpit, late Declaration, Weekly Addresses, and severe Usage both in City and Coun­try speaks this Language. But 'tis not therefore true, that the Dissenters are guilty of Sedition, Treason and Rebel­lion, because the Truth and Innocency of Gods Church and People (as traduced to Authority) have been so falsly and maliciously branded and handled all along, which may be some Relief to them under their present Tryals and Suffer­ings; Suggestions, Calumnies and Outcrys being no Proofs.

Did not the Church of old pathetically complain of the very same Usage? The Mouth of the Wicked and Deceitful are opened against me, they have spoken against me with a Lying Tongue, they compassed me about with words of Hatred, and fought against me without a cause, Psal. 109. 2, 3. So no new thing.

[Page 69] And again, They that hate me without a cause, are more than the Nairs of my Head; they that would destroy me, being my Enemies wronfully, are mighty▪ for lo, they lie in wait for my Soul; the mighty are gathered against me, not for my Transgres­sion, not for my Sin, they run and prepare themselves without my fault, Psal 69. 4. 59. 34.

And further, Mine Enemies (saith the Church) reproach me all the day; and they that are mad against me, are sworn a­against me [it seems they wanted not perjured Informers in those days.] Therefore prays,

Let not them who are my Enemies wrongfully rejoyee over me, neither let them wink with the Eye, that hate me without a cause; for they speak not Peace, but devise deceitful Matters against them that are quiet in the Land.

Was not the Slander, wherewith the Adversaries of the Church reproacht them in Ezra's and Nehemiah's time, viz. (that for their peaceable attending upon the Lord, they were esteem'd) A Rebellious and Factious People, and hurtful to Kings, moving Sedition, Ezra 4. 15. Neh. 6. 6.

And was not this the Accusation of wicked Haman against Gods People, that because they dissented from the Religion established by Law; having Laws contrary to the Kings Laws, therefore as Seditious and Rebellious they ought to be cut off, and not suffered to live, Esth. 3. 8, &c.

Were not the three eminent Dissenters in Nebuchadnezar's time so treated for their Non-conformity to the Religion e­stablished Law, and as Turbulent, Stubborn, Factious, Disobedient and Rebellious, cast into the Fiery Furnace? Dan. 3. And after­wards, Daniel upon the same score slung to the Lyons, though his God and his Innocency pleaded his Cause against his ma­licious Treppaning Adversaries [that could only in the mat­ter of his God get the Advantage against him] My God (saith he) hath sent his Angels and shut the Lyons Mouthes: forasmuch as before him Innocency was found in me, also before thee, O King, have I done no hurt, Dan. 3. 21, &c. And what became of their malicious Accusers, afterwards you there understand.

Luk. 20. 21▪ &c. Neither did our Saviour himself, who was so meek, gentle and innocent, so harmless and inoffensive, meet with other measure, being directly so dealt with.

Did not the Treppanners assault him? For is it not said, [Page 70] They watched him▪ and sent forth Spyes, which should feign them­selves just Men, that they might take hold of his words, that they might deliver him unto the Power and Authority of the Gover­nour. And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly; neither acceptest thou the Persons of any, but teachest the Way of God truly. Is it lawful for us to give Tribute unto Caesar, or not? There was the catching Que­stion. And to which, though by his Practice, working a Miracle to pay Tribute, Mat. 17. 27. and his present Answer, he stopt their Mouthes; yet it would not serve his turn, but stoutly do they accuse him of the very Sedition and Treason They designed to make him guilty of. And they began to ac­cuse him, saying, We found this Fellow perverting the Nation, and forbidding to give Tribute to Caesar, saying, that he himself is Christ, a King, and they were not Caesar's Friends who said otherwise, Luke 23. 2, &c. Upon which he was cast, con­demned and put to Death, and the Inscription wrote over him (to justifie his Crucifixion) was, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Though he was altogether Innocent, ha­ving done no violence, Neither was Guilt found in his Mouth, but under all their Mischief and Spite with Meekness and Patience committed himself to him who judgeth Righteously: Giving us therein also an Example how we should behave our selves under like Circumstances.

And so they dealt with his Followers afterwards; did they not draw Jason and the Brethren unto the Rulers of the City? crying, These that have turned the World up side down, are come hither also. And these do all contrary to the Decrees of Caesar, saying, There is another King, one JESUS; and they troubled the Rulers of the People when they heard these things, Acts 17. 6, 7.

And so they laid many and grievous things against Paul, which they could not prove, viz. That he was a Pestilent Fel­low, a Mover of Sedition throughout the World, Acts 25. 7. and 24. 5 And what was this for, but the preaching and practising the Precepts and Doctrine of the Gospel, to make men holy and happy?

And did they not so deal with the Christians in the days after the Apostles, as Justin Martyr's and Tertullian's Apolo­gies, and Origen's Defence against Celsus make manifest? How all manner of Evil is charg'd against the Dissenters in [Page 71] those dayes [...]alsly? How Vicious and Seditious in their Conventicles? What Despisers of Dignities? What E­nemies to C [...]sar? And whatever publick Evil or Calamity be [...]ell, it must be laid to the Christians charge, and to the Lyons they must go, right or wrong, for the same. If Ner [...] has a mind to burn Rome, it is but laying it to the Christians charge, and that's enough

And was it not just so they dealt with our fore-Fathers, the Waldenses, Wicklivists, Lollards, and the Protestants in the Marian dayes, as Turbulent, Factious, Seditious, Resisters of Authority, &c.?

And may we not truly say, as it was then, so it is now? And may not you your selves, who so carry it to your dissent­ing Brethren, expect the same measure from that Generation of men, if they should get an advantage again in this Nation? as our Saviour tells you, Mat. 7. 1, 2.

It is no new thing, you-see, to have Innocency and Truth falsly and injuriously charged, and treated as Sedition and Treasor.

And may not the dissenting Party, notwithstanding all the Rage, Noise and Clamour, the many Provocations by mali­cious Prosecutions, invading of Properties, Priviledges, &c. Worrying of Informers and Souldiers, Fines, Confis­cations, Imprisonments, the Deaths, both in City and Country these two and Twenty Years, challenge the worst of their Enemies to come forth and produce any one thing wherein the Dissenters (as Dissenters) are justly to be charg­ed with Sedition, Treason or Rebellion, [in this Nation] but that under all they have behaved themselves meekly, pati­ently and submissively, as becomes their holy Profession?

And as for this horrid Slander of being all engaged in a late Plot, [their Principles leading thereto;] 'tis like all the rest. If to have been under the highest Provocations, and in the Exercise of the greatest Patience under them, renders them guilty, it may be something: Otherwise, if Proofs be neces­sary to make People guilty, why have not the Witnesses ap­peared? But this is but a pretence; for have they not suffer'd long before any Plot was talkt of?

But as to this, 'tis said, Have not several been imprisoned, some fled, and others executed about the Plot?

That several have been imprisoned, some fled and some [Page 72] executed, who have been reputed Non-Conformists, is very true; and so have many more of the Conformists, I presume, four for one of the other: Will it therefore be a fair way of Arguing, Because so many of the Conformists are said to be in the Plot, therefore all the Conformists of the Nation are guilty, and ought to be severely handled. I remember it was thought a very unfair way of proceeding of old, because Coll. Wagstaff transgressed in the West, that therefore my Lord of Kingstone must be punished in the North; nay, the whole party decimated for the same.

If some of the Non-Conformists are found Tardy upon good Proof, let them suffer the Penalty of the Law; but let not the Innocent be judged and punished with the Guilty, much­less let not the Principle of Non-Conformity be judged, be­cause some have miscarried under that Profession; for by that Rule may not the purest state of the Church, both in the Old and New-Testament, be censured and judged, who had their Chora's, Judasses and Diatrophesses amongst them? His Maje­sty in his Speech to both Houses, gives us a good Rule here­upon, viz. Let us look forward and not backward, and never think of what is past, except men put us in mind, by repeating faults we had forgot; and then let us remember no more than what con­cerns those very Persons.

But have they not appeared of late years very zealous and forward in Elections of Parliament-men, and other publick Officers in City and Country?

It is true, they have so, and so have the Conformists also, ten for one to their Number, both in City and Country; but what Transgression is that? What Law have they broke in Voting according to their Consciences, by endeavouring to bring such into Trust and Authority, as they have judged most Able and Honest to serve their Country, in a time when we are told by the King and four Parliaments of a POPISH-PLOT to subvert the Government, and to Ruin us in all our concerns?

But this as to Heresie, Schism, Treason, Rebellion, and Plotting (that are charged upon us) I do ingeniously and fully so far own and acknowledge in my own behalf, and in all others that I know of this despised reproached Number, that if to worship the God of our Fathers in the way of his own appointment, believing all things which are written in [Page 73] the Law and Prophets, be esteemed Heresie, we are Hereticks, [as K. Charles the first answered the Popish Marquess, as be­fore.]

Prim. Rule of Reformation. That if in Dr. Pierce's words (to justifie the Schism and Separation from Rome) ‘To have recourse to the Scriptures, consulting those Oracles, how things stood from the begin­ning, and only separating from them, we find Separatists from the Primitive Church and Truth; we make Asec [...]ion that we may not partake of the [English] Roman Schism, and answering the Lords express Command, Come out from amongst them,’ be ye sepanate, &c. 2 Cor. 6. Rev. 18. 4. be to be esteemed Sedition, Schism and Separation, we are Se­ditious, Schismaticks and Separatists.

If to own the Soveraignity of Christ (by whom all things were created, and by whom all things consist, who to this end dyed, rose again and revived, that he might be Lord both of quick and dead, to whom the Father hath given all Power, both in Heaven and Earth, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords) and Powers and Potentates as under him, in Con­science to him, to whom you own every Knee must bow▪ and the King is but next and immediately under him, supream Head and Governour in all Causes Ecclesiastical and Civil, it being also stampt upon our Coyn, Christ [...] Auspice Regn [...] [Christ the Kingdom's happy Guide▪] If the owning and asserting his Soveraignity in chief, be Treason and Rebellion, we own we are such Traytors and Rebels.

If in our Places and Stations, to endeavour the Defence of the English Government, Laws, Liberties and Properties, and to keep out the Popes forreign usurped Power, who has heretofore so tyranniz'd over Prince and People, both as to their Bodies and souls, in these Nations, and to which, all who have taken the Oath of Allegeance are so solemnly en­gaged, be to be esteem'd Plotting and Plotters, we own our selves guilty of that Plot.