SIR you say, That there is a certain Manuscript come to your hand, which is famed to be Dr Owen's, but received by you from a private hand, which you pub­lish, taking it for granted so to be, add his Name to it, and expose it to Publick View, and charge the said Dr. Owen with forty two Errors therein contained: It is not yet proved by you to be his, and therefore whether its reasonable for you to charge him with forty two Errors, if you had found them in the said Manuscript, let the World judge. But whether the charge of such Errors on the said Manuscript be just, give us leave to Examine by our Ensuing Conference. And seeing by a continued Prosopopeia, [Page 2] you direct your Discourse, Charges, Reproofs and Admonitions to me, as if I were personally present, or at least living in the Body, who you know departed this Life some months since; Take it not amiss if I treat you in the like nature, and think it as feasible for a dead man to speak in the Ears of the Living, as for the Living to speak in the Ears of the Dead.

I suppose if that Manuscript were mine, some or other of the Congregation to which I was Pastor, might come to me with this Case of Conscience. Sir, Is it lawful for us who are Members of a Congregation of Faithful People, (according to Article 19. of the Church of England) for to joyn now, as things are in their present Cir­cumstances, in the Publick Worship by the Liturgy? And that it was Answered,

It is not lawful for us to go to, and joyn in Publick Worship by the Common Prayer; because that Worship in it self, accor­ding to the Rule of the Gospel, is unlawful. Now I pray Sir, what Re­solution would you give of this Case?

I say, It is not only lawful, but a Duty for those that can­not have better Publick Church-Worship, without more hurt than benefit; and are near a competent Parish Minister, to go to and joyn in Publick Worship performed according to the Liturgy, and in Sacramental Communion; and for those that can have better, to joyn sometimes with such Parish-Churches, when their forbearance scandalously seemeth to signifie that they take such Communion for unlawful, and so would tempt others to the same Accusation, and Uncharitable Separation.

Sir, Your Resolution seems to me very long, and upon so many Suppositions, that its very ambiguous, and doth very scarcely, if at all, reach the Enquiry here made: For 1. We ask for our selves, who are Actual Members of a Voluntary Church, whe­ther we may joyn in such Communion spoken of, when we are, as we apprehend, of a Society, and have a Publick Worship more a­greeable to the mind of Christ, and our own Edification; and do you judge whether that be better or no for us. 2. What you mean by a competent Ministry, we know not; one man judges a man a Competent, yea able and profitable Minister, which another doth not, who must be a binding Judge to me in this case? Must I walk by my own Judg­ment for Edification, or by another Mans? 3. Doth nearness to a Com­petent Minister make it my duty to joyn in all the Publick Worship [Page 3] of that Church of which he is Minister? You say, If I cann't have better: But if I have and can by going further, what then? And for those that can have better, to joyn sometimes in such Parish-Churches, but then not alwayes, and to leave their aforesaid Com­munion as unlawful, whereas our said Parish-Churches require us so to do, prosecuting us by Laws wherever they find us assembled. You say it must be when our forbearance scandalously seemeth to signifie that we take such Communion for unlawful: Who shall be judge of this? Doth my Actual Non-communion with any Church scanda­lously reflect upon its Constitution, if I walk in Communion with a Church which I judge to be a Church of Christ? Must I go by the conduct of every peevish man or Church that will say so? If a Church of Baptists in the same Parish with me, will say so, must I therefore joyn with them upon their unalterable terms, which I am not satisfyed in? Again, what if I do take such Communion for unlawful, upon grounds satisfactory to my self, am I bound to-slight those grounds because somebody saith my forbearance hath a Scandalous Signification? Likewise if my Separation be in duty to wards God and my own Soul, it's not uncharitable to any Man, neither do I tempt any man by walking therein, to uncharitableness, or any Accusation thereof.

Something must be premised to the Confirmation of this Position.

These are the things that we premise, and therefore should be agreed upon on both sides, pro concessis, before we go to prove the Position laid down, by the following Twelve Arguments.

1. The whole System of Liturgical Worship, with all its inseparable Dependencies, are intended; for as such it is Established by Law, and not in any part of it only; as such it is required that we re­ceive it, and attend unto it. It is not in our power, it is not left to our judgment or liberty, to close with, or make use of any part of it, as we shall think fit.

There are in the Mass-Book many Prayers directed to God only by Je­sus Christ, yet it is not lawful for us thereon to go to Mass, under a pretence only of joyning in such lawful Prayers.

As we must not offer their Drink-Offerings of Blood, so we must not take up their Names in our Lips, Psal. 16:4. have no Communion with them.

To the first I answer: 1. If he will include all that is in [Page 4] the Liturgy, the Nonconformists confess that there is something in it which they differ from, as unjustifiable; and so there is in all mens Worship of God.

We say, The whole System, our meaning is plain, the totum, as it stands constituted in all its integral parts: When I speak of John or Thomas, &c. I speak not of a Finger, or a Leg; if I do, I say, the Finger or Leg of such an one; So we speak not of those things that you will call faulty, and unjustifyable, as it may be a Surplice or Cross, &c. but of the whole Liturgy-Worship, as Establish'd.

He intimateth that it is not in cur power to close with some, and not with all: This is his First Error.

It seems its but an intimated Error then; we say its not left to our Judgment or Liberty, ( viz. by them that challenge a Power over our Judgment and Liberty) to close with or make use of any part of it, i. e. in our External Communion; the Law al­lows it not, to read or hear it by bits or snaps, or leave out what we please; the Administrators will not leave it to us to do so, neither can it be done without manifest offence to such Worshippers.

Though man gives us no such power, God doth; I am not bound to believe or own all that any Preacher shall say in the Church.

We speak not only of what power God gives us, the sence is plain: But God hath not left it in our power to communicate with any Society, when they make that the condition of my Com­munion, which I am convinced of to be sin to me, or that I questi­on whether it be lawful or no: And though by joyning in any Wor­ship, you are not guilty of the Errors of the Administrators, yet you own the Constitution of the Worship, and the Rule by which it is performed, supposing all Rules of Worship be Christ's Laws and Rules, and therefore perfect and unerring. To worship ac­cording to the Liturgy, is to worship according to a Rule; and this must be Gods Rule, or Mans: If Gods, there's no body will dissent from any thing in it as unjustifiable; If mans, the whole is not justifiable; for let any sort of men show by what Authority they give a Rule for the Worship of God.

Though the Mass have many good Prayers, the Corrupti­on by twisted Idolatry and Heresie, maketh Communion there un­lawful.

That Twist is made in the whole System, by the Law E­stablishing it, where it is made their pretended Churches Worship; therefore being unseparable, you cann't make use of those alone which are directed to God, by Jesus Christ alone, but you must joyn in the Idolatry, if you come to the Worship as Establish'd. Again, when you joyn with a System of Worship, as by Law Esta­blished, you joyn wlth the whole; as, if you touch a mans finger, you touch the man: we have Communion with an Integrum, p [...]r partes, and with a Genus by a Species and with both by Individuals: Nay, as every part of the Scripture, one Verse or Sentence, if it makes up sence; so every part of the Liturgy, as in form and man­ner therein contained, is Liturgy; and Worship thereafter is ac­cording to the Liturgy, though it be but part of the Worship.

Prove any such Idolatry or Heresie in the Church Worship by the Liturgy, and we will avoid it.

The Question is not, de Quanto, but de Quali; if we prove Sin twisted in the Constitution and System, so that if we have communion with one, we must partake in the other, it's enough we are not to partake in fore-known Sins that we are convinced of, nor should we commit any Sin willingly, that good may come of it. If a Worship be not really a Sinful Worship, yet if we believe it so, or question whether it be lawful or no, we may not have Com­munion with it.

Heathens and Turks have good Prayers.

That Divinity wants several grains of Salt, and when you have done all, it will stink.

Psal. 16 4. Is too sadly abused, which speaks only of Sa­crificing to, and Worshipping False Gods.

Though it specifie but one sort of False VVorship, yet if it speak of it as such, then it's applicable justly to another; and if that be False Worship we are speaking of, it's applicable to it, and the place is not abused.

God put it into the Disciples power to beware of the Le­ven of the Pharisees, and hear them.

God commanded them to bewa [...] of the Leven of them; i. e. their false Doctrines and Traditions, &c. he never bid his Disciples to have Communion in one or the other; though he told them Moses Chair was yet standing, he had no other Church or Or­dinances yet on Earth, and the Constitution was Originally his [Page 6] own, though now much corrupted by Corrupt Officers and humane Inventions; VVell, saith he, attend the Ordinances and Offices of this Church yet, but take heed of their Leven and Corruption; he doth not bid them taste of the Leven to prove whether it be so, when they know it, and he told them what it was; Nay, you will say, a corrupt Church-Communion is to be parted with for a bet­ter; our case is such; but in Christ's case and his Disciples, it was not so; If they had not Communion with that Church, they could not with any on Earth then: Besides, it was his Church, and he purchased it with his Blood, and he had choice Members in it; but he alwayes witnessed against the corruptions of it, and had no Communion with them. Lastly, he was Lord of the Vinyard, and his Precept is a Law; let the like be shewed for your practice: That Case and ours differs toto Caelo.

Prove all things, is not approving all things.

The place is 1 Thes. 5.21. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good; that's necessarily accompanied with avoiding that which is evil; I must prove no longer than till I find it to be good or evil; and if the All things be matters of Practice, I am not to prove them by doing them before I know them to be in genere morali bona, or mala, or licita at least, for I may not do a doubtful action meerly to try whether it be good or no, this were to tempt God, and wound my Conscience; but a doubtful action whilst such, must be suspended. Prove all things, is especially to be understood of Doctrines that are pretended to be good, and I know no other but they are so, till I hear them; and when I hear them, and find them not so, I reject them as evil, and have no more to do with them, to countenance them; if this proving be applied to positive Actions, it must be by Pre-Examination of the nature of the thing and circumstances before hand, till I understand it, as before-said.

It is to be considered as armed with Laws; 1. Such as declare and enjoyn it, as the only True Worship of the Church: 2. Such as prohibit, condemn and punish all other wayes of the Worship of God in Church-Assemblies: by our Communion and Conjunction with it, we justifie those Laws.

That our Communion justifieth all the Laws that impose the Liturgy, yea, the Penal Severities, is to gross an Error to be written with any shew of proof. Error 2d.

Active Obedience to any Law, justifieth the Mandato­ry [Page 7] part of the Law, as good, either absolutely, or circumstanti­ally and comparatively, pro hic & nunc; but. passive Obedience doth not justifie necessarily either the preceptive or penal part, though it justifies me before the Law.

What if the Creed or Lords Prayer were too rigorously imposed?

If the thing be my duty in obedience to a just and Supream Law, I am not to neglect it because an Inferiour Governour too ri­gorously imposeth it: 1. Such a rigorous imposition hurts me not, in that which I take to be duty to do, whether that Imposition be or no. 2. Christ never annexeth too severe Penalties to any of his Laws. 3. If man undertake to annex too rigorous Punishments, or unsuitable ones, it hinders not me in my Duty to Christ. As if a Magistrate make Whipping or Hanging the Penalty of not receiv­ing the Sacrament, in such a time; If I upon Examination of my self and the Rule, apprehend it my duty in Obedience to Christ, I will do it, but not in respect to Mans Laws: But if the Subordi­nate Law-maker alter the Nature and Circumstances of the Su­pream, the Law is another thing, and my Obedience justifies the power of the Law-maker, and the goodness of the Law, in the Mandatory part. Again, good things by a lawful Authority may be too rigorously imposed, and the Law may be unjust in the Penal­ty, though the Mandatory part be good; which injustice is the sin of the Law-givers, loss and wrong of the Transgressor, because he suffers beyond the Merit of his Transgression; but this hinders not me from my Duty, neither doth this rigorous Imposition hurt me, so long as I stand in obligation and practice of my duty by a­nother Righteous Law, which requires the same thing. If Christ commands me to say the Lords Prayer, and annexeth no corporal punishment, I will do it: If Mans Law saith, I shall be hang'd if I do not do it; I do the Action by vertue of Christ's Law; But let such Law makers look to it that annex Corporal Penalties to Laws of his Institution; the Cries of them upon which they are Execu­ted, will be loud in Christs Ear.

This Corjunction by C mmunion by the Worship of the Liturgy, is a Symbol, Pledge and Token of [...]n Eccles [...]astical Incorpo­ration with the Church of England in its present Constitution; it is so in the Law of the Land, it is so in the Canons of the Church; it is so in the common understanding of all men; and by these [Page 8] Rules must our Ʋnderstanding and Practice be judged, and not be any Reserves of our own, which neither God nor good men will allow of. Wheref [...]re.

To the third Premise, I answer: The Church of England is an Ambiguous word, 1. As it signifies a part of the Universal Church, agreeing in Faith, one God, and all Essentials.

So any Church may be, as well as it, any particular Con­gregation; this is no distinguishing Character, but is ambigu­ous too.

2. As it is a Christian Kingdom, under one King.

A Church in a sence is a Christian Kingdom, i. e. a Royal Nation, under Christ their King. But there's no such Gospel Church in your sence, for there was neither Christian Kingdom nor King in the Apostles days.

As it is a Confedracy of many Churches to keep concord in lawful Circumstantials as well as Integrals.

This will not tell us yet what the Church of England is: 1. A confederacy of Churches is by No-body call'd a Church in your sence of a Church; the Scripture no where calls a confedracy of Church­es a Church; nor doth any that call the Church of England [...] Church, owning it so to be in its professed Constitution, mean thereby a con­federation of Churches. 2. National Churches may be a confede­ration of Churches, and such confederation in lawful circumstan­tials as well as integrals, will make a Church. I know not why we may not have a Catholick Visible Church Organized, if this be a due acceptation of a Church.

If any Church go beyond these bounds, and upon good pre­tences shall agree upon any Error or Evil, it is a mistake to hold that all that incorporate with them in the three aforesaid lawful respects do therefore confederate with them in their Error. This is your Fourth Error.

That's [...]our Error, 1. In Arithmetick, its but the third by your own mark; 2. In Logick, for what [...]ounds have you set? These three things are but general Descriptions of a Church at most. Here's no definition in any or all of them of any particular Church; and that is setting of [...]ounds, when I difference and de­scribe a Species or Individual, under its next Genus, by its parti­cular form, or proper adjunct; we sp [...]ak of a particular Church so bounded. The Church of England is so, according to its [Page 9] present constitution, by Establishing Laws in its actual form of Officers, Members, particular Worship, and power, as an Organi­zed individual Church National. Church is not the next Genus of the Church of England, but remote National Church is the next Genus Now I say, upon whatever pretences a particular Church calls and professeth it self a Church, as the conditions of their Com­munion; if you joyn with them upon those conditions pretended and professed, that is a Token of your Ecclesiastical Incorporati­on in the said Church, in its present constitution; the Church and all others looks upon you as an Actual Member, let the conditions be Error or no Error. The Question is not so much now, whether the terms be Error or not, but whether your joyning upon the terms required, is not your Ecclesiastical Incorporation with them? And then if the terms be erroneous and sinful, whether you do not joyn in the Error, and professedly allow it by your practice.

I will give you a general instance, and a particular one: 1. You cann't name me one combined company of Churches from the Apostles dayes till now, that had no Error.

You might as well have said any one Church, for we speak of a particular Church, not of combined Churches; but suppose as you say, If that Combination be an Error, or an Error be the condition of the Combination, then my coming upon that conditi­on is an Error, and an Incorporation into that combination, so as to make me Confederate in that Error.

The Independents gathered a Syn [...]d at the Savoy, and there among their Doctrinals, or Articles of Faith, laid down two points Expresly contrary to Scripture: 1. That it is not Faith, but Christs Righteousness, that we are justified by; whereas it is both, and the Scripture often saith the contrary.

It is a strange thing that any man should take upon him such Magisterial Dictatorship in matters of Religion, to insinuate Error into Mens Minds, and unjust accusations of others: For 1. When the Scripture speaks of Justification by Faith, doth any sound Divines or Christians understand it of the Act of believing, but that the object of Faith that Justifies, is the Righteousness of Faith, our own Righteousness, or Christs Righteousness; but this dispute is not our present Province. The Articles of the Savoy-Confession saith, God freely justifieth us—Not by imputing Faith it self, the Act of believing, &c. Will you say, That God [Page 10] imputes the Act of believing for Righteousness, in Justification of a Sinner before God? If you will, there's more good Protestants will condemn this as your Error, then will say there is any Error in that Article of the Savoy-Confession; I am sure we have Scripture enough against you; but this is one of your Arminian Errors.

That Christs Righteousness imputed▪ is our sole Righte­ousness; whereas the Scripture doth name also our inherent and practical Righteousness.

Why do you not speak out now, but intimate an Error? Doth the Scripture name inherent Righteousness for Justification? I know what you would be at, you are for your Ev [...]ngelical Works to come in Cheek by Jole with the imputed Righteousness of Christ for Justification; and you are inforced [...]o it, because you will bring in the To Credere, one may as well come in as the other; And in this Doctrine I must tell you, you have laid [...]he fairest Bridg for Popery to come in, that ever any Protestant Divine hath done this hundred years. And that's your Popish Error.

I will reherse the Savoy-Confession in its own words, which is ta­ken verbatim almost, if not quite, from the Assembly's; so that you charge the latter, in charging the former.

I asked some yet living why they consented to these, and did not rather expound the Scripture, then deny it? And they said that it was Dr. Owens doing; Now doth it follow that every one that there confederated with you, owned these Errors.

If the bringing in this Article of Faith was Dr. Owens do­ing, as you say you were told, I am not ashamed of it. 2. He did no more in this and the other than was the Act of the whole Convention. 3. If any of the Members that were there, were dissa­tisfied in the truth of it, why did they not protest against it? But if it were an Error, all that acted silently, by implicit consent, were confederate (if it were a confederation) in the Error; and there was nothing of this kind done but by most Voices, which made every man concerned, that entered not his particular Dissent.

The Churches of Helvetia they are commonly such as we call Erastian, for no Discipline but the Magistrates; are all that confederate with them as Churches, guilty of this Error?

They are so, for subjection to such discipline is the Con­dition of their Communion; and therefore they that are joyned upon those terms, are guilty of their Error.

But I further distinguish between the many Parish-Churches, and the Diocesan, and the Church of England as constituted of such Diocesan Churches.

You may as well distinguish between the many particular men, and Homo and Animal.

The Old Nonconformists commonly owned the Parish-Churches (and the Church of England made up of such) but not the Diocesan.

You and they might as well own the Church of England in the form and constitution as it is Established, as the Parishes to be particular Gospel-Churches, and the Aggregatum of them to make up a Conglomorate Church; there is as much ground for one as for the other; Methinks a Conglobate Church makes a more firm and solid Body, being made of several Orbs subordinately, inwrap­ing and infolding one another. Now it must needs follow, that where a Church is thus constituted, that you cann't take out from such a Body any middle subordinate Coat, but you must make Schism of the whole; and to come into the Communion of the Chu [...]ch of England, which is such a conglobate Church, with a denial i [...] [...]our heart or mouth of a Diocesan Church, is to come with Schism in your heart and mouth, splitting a Church in order to Communion; yea, a denial of the very Establishment of that Church; yea, the very Pastoral standing of the constituted Pastor to whose Church you [Page 12] joyn; for the Diocesan Bishop by the constitution, is the Pastor of that Parish in which you joyn, the Parson or Vicar is but his Cu­rate or Ʋmbra: Now to say you joyn with a quatenus, and own not the very constitution and standing of the Church with which you joyn, in the sence the Church asserts it, is the greatest Equivocati­on in practice that is. You joyn with them quatenus Congregati­onal Churches, such they disown; as an Association of Presbyteri­an Churches, which they disown; you disown the Diocesan Bishop for your Pastor, which he saith he is; you say he is a Presbyterian Superintendent, he saith he is none. Is not this high imposing, to come to Communion with a Church upon the terms of your qua­terus? As if I should get upon a Cow, and ride it with Whip and Spur, and say I ride it quatenus Equus; and enter into the Society of a parcel of Pedlars and Tinkers, and say I confederated with them quatenus Merchants: The meaning is, by a reserve you can joyn visibly with one Church, and be a Communicate with another sort of Church at the same time. Well, the Old Nonconformists, nor you, are to be no Presidents to us in this case. We will not in­jure any Church so as to impose upon them terms of Communion, as we would have none impose upon us. So far as the old Noncon­formists, and the old Reforming Conformists, went forward with Reformation, to bring the Church out of the Wilderness, we honour them; but when they turn back again, and entice the peo­ple so to do, we are afraid to tempt God in that manner, for we have seen what God did with his people in the Wilderness of old, which things were written for our Ensample, upon whom the Ends of the World are come, 1 Cor. 10.

Also it's a mistake to say, That Communion by the Litur­gy is a Symbol and Pledge of the foresaid Incorporation in the Church of England, in its present constitution; it is only a part of the Communion commanded, but no such Symbol: And here's two Errors.

An Incorporation into a Species, is an Incorporation into the Genus; that which is Incorporated into the Species of Homo, and therefore receives that true denomination, is Incorporated into the Genus Animal. Or take the Church as an Integrum; that which is incorporated into an integ [...]al part, is incorporated into the Inte­grum, communion with the Integrum is per partes; and such incorpo­ration into any of the Parts, is an evidencing Pledge, which is a [Page 13] Symbol of Communion with the whole; as by a Turf, you take possession of an Estate in Land, and by the delivery of a Key, and entring the House, you take possession; i. e. These are Symbols or Pledges of your being instated in the whole.

For first, the Rulers openly declare that they take multi­tudes to be none of their Church, who joyn in the Liturgy.

That's false: Where do any Rulers by any Law declare so? And if any say so, it's only concerning such as yield not to their required terms of Communion, in joyning with the Worship of the Liturgy, as the Establishing Law requires; and will you joyn Communion with a Church, whose Officers plainly declare that you are none of their Church, whilst you Communicate? Surely you either strangely impose upon them to communicate, being a de­clared Non-Member, or they are pitiful Church-Rulers, that look no stricter to their Communicants, but whose will may break in upon them: So that here's a Church in Communion with those that are declaredly none of its Communion, and Members and Non-Members, in Communion, and Non-Communion, with a Church and no Church: This is a very pretty Riddle!

And it is Subscribing, Declaring, and Swearing Obedi­ence, which is the Symbol.

Of what? Of Lay-Communion? You should speak out your Sentences, and not squeez off a piece: Are any of those re­quired of Lay-Communicants? Nay are they not of another Na­ture, qualifications of actual Communicants for Office-Power? I wonder that grave men, and Divines, will dare to Equivocate so. Is not Baptism (according to the Liturgy) a Symbol of Incorpora­tion into the Church of England? Confirmation another? Recei­ving the Lords Supper, another Symbol? ordinary Attendence on the Service, &c.

Yea, they Excommunicate many that come to the Litur­gy-Service.

For what? For Bastardy, Whoring, Swearing, Drun­kenness; these should for all their coming to the Liturgy be Excom­municated▪ But why do they Excommunicate them? Is it not be­cause they look upon them as incorporated Members before Excom­munication? It were Nonsence for a Church to Excommunicate a declared Non-Member. And are not Excommunicate Persons kept from coming to the Communion by the Liturgy? So that [Page 14] it's apparent, Communion in the Liturgy is the Symbol, yea, door of in-let to, and out-let from incorporation with the Church.

And many come to it, who openly disown the Diocesan present Constitution; so did the old Nonconformists, and many Forreigners, French and Dutch.

Your Self for Example, the chief Head of that Trimming Sect, whose practice condemns their declared Opinion, and that your Rulers know, or else would not connive at such a scandalous sort of communicants, that deny the professed standing and form of a Diocesan Church, whilst they have communion wi [...]h it; and say, they communicate with it, qu [...]tenus a Presbyteri [...]n Associati­on of Churches. Those old Nonconformists that did so, are no Presidents to us; If they hal [...]ed and were lame, must we be so? Such Communicants are not acceptable to any Church; and I know what Church would never admit them, were it not to punish and expose them and their Profession, as ridiculous, and inconsistent with it self. And as for French and Dutch what are they to us, or any other, any more than they follow Christ? And if the Church do not do their duty towards disorderly communicants, let them look to it, it's none of our fault.

If one may joyn in Communion of Worship with a Presby­terian, Independant, or Anabaptist Church, without owning the Errors of their Constitution, then so we may with a Parish Church But, &c.

And a Diocesan too, you should say; for in joyning with▪ one, you joyn with the other as such. And I will tell you, if they make their Errors the condition of your communion, you cannot joyn in communion, &c. without owning their Errors; Suppose a Presbyterian Church makes worshiping according o the Directo­ry the condition of their Communion and I look upon this as their Error, or that it is a false Rule of Worship; do not I in joyning in Communion by the Directory, own their Error? So Baptists making Re-baptizing the condition of communion with them, and I look upon it as a sin, do not I own their Error, by joyning wi [...]h them on this condition? and so grosly condemn my self, and commit a known sin; yea, 'tis no better than a presumptuous Sin.

You mi take when you say it is by the Law of the Land.

I admir [...] you can say it, when I know you cann't but be better acqu [...]inted with the Laws, then so▪ You should have in­stanced [Page 15] in some part or clause that had excepted some Communi­cants from being reckoned of that Church: They would thank you for it, that they might not be liable to Excommunication. All that are liable to a Church-Excommunication when they have offen­ded, are declared Members of the Church. But all Communi­cants [...]nd Native Inhabitants are so; therefore the Law hath ex­cepted none.

You mistake again, when you say it is so by the Canons.

Is it possible you can charge such things for mistakes? doth not the 22 [...]h Canon require every Parishioner that is a Lay Person to communicate thrice every year? Is not that for a Symbol of their Incorporation with the Church of England, which is affirmed to be a true Apostolick Church, Can. 3. Can. 14 89. and how comes it to pass that the Churc [...] hath power of Excommunicating any per­son, but by vertue of Incorporation, which she hath by the same Law? He that is not in the Church, how comes he to be cast out? And how was it that he is esteemed one? Is it not by vertue of the Church Canon or Rubrick? Is he not by communion in the Sacra­ment of Baptism made a Member? Is not that communion of the Li­turgy: So for Confirmation, or other Liturgical Worship, that are made necess [...]ry conditions of communion, are they not Symbols of their Ecclesiastical Incorpor tion, the neglect whereof is punished with Excommunication. And likewise those that do not submit to the things therein commanded, not to be admitted to the Commu­nion of the Sacram [...]nts, and therefore to be reckoned as no Mem­bers. Can 27. Sc [...]ism [...]ticks not to be admitted to the Communion? ‘No Mininister when he celebrateth the Communion, shall wittingly administer to [...]y [...]t to such as kneel under p [...]in of Suspension, nor under the li [...]e p [...]in to [...] that refuse to be present at Publick Prayer, accordin [...] to the O [...]ders of the Church of England.’

I formerly instanced in one of the sharpest Nonconfor­mists, o [...] Mr. Humpney Feu of Coventry, who would say aloud Amen to all he Common Prayer, save that for the Bishops; by which all th [...]e know his mi [...]d; whether it were [...]ight or wrong, I now determine [...]. So here are t [...]ree more of your Mistakes, M [...]rk'd 7, 8, 9 Errors.

I [...] [...]his the onl [...] proof you bring of your charge of three Errors [...]h [...] ol [...] Mr. [...]u [...]p [...] F n would not say Amen to the Pray­ers for the Bishops, and you do no [...] determine it, Right or wrong; [Page 16] And yet his practice, or rather offensive forbearance, is proof e­nough of three Errors in the Manuscript. Is not this an admira­ble way of Reasoning? I had thought Errors in Divinity, had been to have been proved from the Word of God, and not from the sullen practices of an half-pac'd doting Nonconformist, which you know not whether it be Right or Wrong; surely Wrong, for Mr. Fen he ought to have pray'd for his Pastor.

You make all other Reserves of our own to be allowed neither by God nor good men. And this mark'd for two Errors, X, XI.

The Words are, By this Rule must our Profession and Pra­ctice be judged; that is, by their agreement or non-agreement with the Churches Rule of Worship. The common understanding of all, both Conformists and Dissenters, is, That any man that holds communion with the Church, in the Worship of the Lyturgy, doth give to the world an Evidencing Token of his Incorporation with the Church of England, in its present constitu­tion; and so did Mr. Fen, for all his refusal of his Amen for the Bishops; and such Reserves as those, are not allowed by God or by good men. For a man to joyn in communion with a Church, and have a reserve that it is not such a Church as they profess themselves to be, that the Pastor is no Pastor and not fit so much as to pray'd for; that's a sweet Church-member!

Here are two mistakes, 1. God makes it our great duty to hold Communion with most or all the Churches on Earth, with these Reserves, i. e. to own them in all that is good, and disown all their evil, though the Laws command the owning of them; Without this Reserve, I would not joyn with yours, or any Church on Earth.

And with this Reserve, you may hold Communion with the Church of Rome, and you may keep any company of any sort: This Principle smells very strong of I know what; I know also who can swear any Faith, or Allegiance, never intending to keep one word of it, and call it good Divinity; it's all salved well enough, hwit a Reserve; yea, and can do any evil actions, and it's all well enough if there is a good meaning, and a reserve. This I think you call Mental Separation elsewhere: it is an admirable Panacaea for a man to carry about in his pocket, now-a-days. But I pray will it serve in all cases of Church-Communion, when you know of Sin that will [Page 17] certainly be committed in the Worship, before you come to it, and that you must practically by visible participation have Communion in that Sin or Error; will a Reserve preserve you from the guilt of that Sin? That which you speak of, is another thing, all Administrators and Churches are liable to Errors; but we speak of Errors in the Rule of Worship, and the conditions of Communion fore-known, fore-judg'd by you: will God or good men allow of such? We speak not of the ordinary personal failings of men; could you by vertue of this Reserve, sub­mit to Re-baptiz [...]tion, the condition of their Church Communion? And many Instances might be given of the like Nature.

And it is an immodest Error to say that none are good men that are not of your mind.

It's an immodest false thing, if you affirm that ever Dr. O. said so, or that there is any such thing in the Manuscript.

He that joyns in the Worship of the Common Prayer doth by his Practice make Profession, that it is the true Worship of God, accept­ed with him, approved of him, and wholly agreeable to his mind and will. To do it with other Reserves, is Hypocrisie, and worse then the thing it s [...]lf without them Happy is he that condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth, Rom. 14.12.

This is the 12th Mistake, and one that hath dreadful con­sequents: 1. It contradicteth the Express Profession of the Communi­cants, who openly tell the World, That they take not the Lyturgy to be [wholly agreeable to Gods mind and will] and you are not to feign a Profession of men contrary to their open Protestation.

If men appar [...]ntly pr [...]ctice contrary to their Protestation, I call that, (and all men do) Profession; and I feign it not: If men profess (that the revealed mind and will of God is the only unerring Rule of Worship) with their Tongues, and yet in practice submit to, and joyn in Communion with a Worship which they openly declare to be by a false and Erring Rule, they make their Profession contradict their Profession: For they that cann't justifie a Rule as wholly agreeable to the mind and will of God, and declare that it is not so, and yet worship God according thereunto, do practice contrary to their declared Pro­fession. This we stand to as Truth, and will never be baffied to the Worlds End.

It is most direful to your own Separating Followers; who by this are supposed to profess all your Worship to be agreeable to Gods mind and will: And so all the honest well-meaning People are made guilty of all the Errors which you put into your Worship.

That Spirit of bitterness that appears here in this underta­king of yours, as many other things of the like Nature, little becomes a Minister of Christ, and one that in effect hath sometimes writ him­self Our Brother and Companion in Tribulation, and in the Kingdom and Patience of Jesus Christ: I could speak much of my mind to you upon this Subject, but for some Reasons I only hint (as Verbum Sapienti) how sharp many of your Invectives have been in the Hearts and Spirits of Christ's Members. 1. For your putting the title so often of Separa­tists, Separating followers, dividing Separatists, upon those who are ten­der of the Honour of God in the Purity of his Ordinances, you do but therein Espouse the Quarrel the Beast hath had with the Woman, ever since she came into the Wilderness, in laying all manner of Reproaches upon her Seed, as well as Sufferings, for hiding her self from his Abo­minations, and keeping their Garments undesiled by false Worship: The day will come that you will see those standing upon M [...]unt Zion, singing the Song of Moses and the Lamb; to be Separating followers, not of me, but of the Lamb. 2. We endeavour to teach those people you so contemptibly mention, That God is to be Worshipped by a Rule wholly agreeable to his mind and will, yea and a perfect and unerring Rule, not of mans making, and unagreeable to Gods mind and will, as you confess. Though we acknowledge all the performances of Gods best people in this World, are full of imperfections and weaknesses, and hence come short of his perfect Rule, yet we dare not set up any Rules of Worship more then Christ hath, nor make our Errors the con­dition of Church-communion; which last we should do, if we should do the first: What we do, is in waiting upon Christ for a further at­tainment to the knowledge of his will, and strength to walk up thereto; and so far as we have attained, we desire in all meekness and humility to walk.

2. It is contrary to your own Profession, that you could in Charity Communicate with Presbyterians and Anabaptists; and so you approved of all the Errors of their Worship.

VVe approve of none of the Errors of a Church or People that fall out by reason of Ignorance not wilful, and Infirmity; when we see them truly design the honour of Christ, and the Purity of Ordinances, desiring to walk as near as possible to the Rule of the Gospel, accord­ing to their best light, then we have Communion with them: But if they make to themselves Rules of VVorship which Christ never made, and make their Erring and Sinful Rules (such as are so to us) the standing and unalterable conditions of Communion, we cann't com­municate [Page 19] with them, by what ever Names such Churches are call'd.

3. It maketh it a down-right sin to communicate with any Church on Earth, &c.

VVe utterly deny this Consequence upon the Reasons before­mention'd; we distinguish between the Rule of Worship, and the Ad­ministration and Performance: For is there not such a thing as fellow­ship with others in Sin, and partaking in other mens sins? 1 Tim. 5.22. Rev. 18.4. If there be such a thing as this, it must be in some sort of Sins; Sins of ordinary infirmity (such as you would force us upon here) it cann't be, because then I could have no Communion on earth. 2. The sins of others, that I have no knowledge of before-hand, so as to prevent joyning in company with them, there my keeping my self from participation, must be by witness against it, due Reproofs, &c. and upon Non-Reformation, to separate my self again. 3. There are the sins of others, that are known to me, that will certainly be com­mitted, I know it, also of what kind and nature, and by my presence I give a tacit consent; and all that see me, by outward gesture and be­haviour, will judge me as far engaged in it as others: Is it enough for my justification, to say I have a Reserve? Your other Consequences there­fore will not hold, that if I say it is Hypocrisie for me to joyn with any Church in the Communion of known false Worship, i. e. with them that Worship God by a false Rule; That, 1. I must hold no Communion with any Church on Earth: 2 That it's a breach of the 9th Cammand; for I judge not others in particulars; but to pretend to serve God with a Re­serve, in publick false Worship, or any false worship, I affirm to be Hypo­crisy; to perform the External part in compliance with men, & pretend my heart was all this while for God. 3. That it's no friendly Act to the Church; for there is no friendlier Act to the Church, then to Endea­vour the Reformation of her. 4 That it is Self-condemning; for we say the practice that we plead against, is certainly so, and prove it from Rom. 14.12. 5. That it makes Christ and his Apostles Hyyocrites; for we have proved that Christ never joyned with false VVorship so much as with his presence at the place of it, unless with this intent, to bear witness against it, (as the young Prophet that came to Jeroboams Altar) neither did he ever advise his Disciples so to do: As for Mo­ses Chair, it was then Christs own Institution, and he had then no o­ther Church or Institution of VVorship on Earth.

There may be a false Worship of the True God, as well as a Worship of a false God: such was the Worship of Jehovah the Lord, by 1. Calf in the Wilderness, Exod. 33.5, 6. Such was the feast unto the [Page 20] Lord ordained by Jeroboam in the eighth month, the fisteenth day of the month, which he had devised of his heart, 1 King. 12.32, 33.

Your third Premise is unquestionable.

I am glad to see there is one Line without an Error.

But if you distinguish not of false Worship, you make but false Work of it: 1. To be false, is corrupting Gods own necessary Wor­ship; &c.

We know of no true Worship, but Gods own necessary Wor­ship; as for that which is not his own, nor necessary, God cares not for it, and we are better without it, then with it.

There is that which is false in Integrals, Accidents, Degrees, pardoned failings.

Worship is never called false, from failings only; when true, it's supposed we worship by a true Rule, and a good heart, which carries us forth to all careful endeavours to come up to it: As for falseness in Integrals, we affirm that it gives the denomination to the whole; for an Integral part is an essential cause of the whole.

To be false, is to be disagreeable to the Rule.

That is not Universal, for it's not false to be disagreeable to a false Rule. 2. There is no performance but in failings is disagree­able to Gods perfect Rule 3. It's rather thus; when the Rule of Worship is disagreeable to the revealed mind and will of God: Its the Rule must be the Standard of Truth and Falsehood, as to performances, and Gods Rule must be the Standard, and all others that are not his are false. Sinful Worship and false, are not reciprocally the same.

On these Suppositions, the Proposition laid down, is proved by the following Arguments.

And therefore Sir, it's not justice to fall foul upon the follow­ing Arguments, you having denyed the Truth of these Premises, up­on which the Arguments are founded. But seeing we have gone so far as to defend our Premises, we will proceed to defend the Arguments grounded upon them.

Arg. 1. Religious Worship not divinely instituted and ap­pointed, is false Worship, not accepted with God: But the Liturgical Worship intended, is a Religious Worship not Divinely instituted and ap­pointed: Ergo not accepted with God.

The Proposition is confimed by all Divine Testimonies, wherein all such Worship is expresly condemned: See Deut. 4.2. Chap. 12.32. Prov. 30.6. Jer. 7.31. Isa. 29.13, &c. that especially where the Lord Christ re­strains all Worship to his alone command, Matth. 28.20.

It is answered to the Minor Preposition, That the Liturgical Worship is of Christs appointment, as to the Substantials of it, though not as to its Accidentals; namely, Prayer and Praises; not as to its outward Rates and Form, which do not vitiate the whole.

To your first Argument, I answer: 1. As to the bare name, either you will call all Acts done to signifie immediately the Souls ho­nouring of God by the Name of Worship, or will not; if not, then that which is no Worship, is no false Worship; if you will, then your Proposition is false.

You love to play in the dark, and impose upon us your Sup­positions, when you have ours expresly before you: We take Religious Worship as the Genus, and its distributed into true and false; all false Worship strictly taken, is no Worship; and the Spirit of God some­times speaks of it so; We know an Idol is nothing in the World: But in the usual acceptation of the Scripture, because men intend it for a Worship, and commonly call it so, it's named a Worship, but a false Worship. Again, we distribute True Religious Worship into Natural and Instituted; these may be either of them True also, or false. The Argu­ment is to prove a certain kind of Religious Worship, which the Church is appointed to use, to be false, and it runs thus, the Medium is [Divinely]

All Religious [appointed or instituted] Worship not Divinely instituted, is false Worship, not accepted of God.

Now you say either we mean by Religious Worship all Acts done to signifie immediately the Souls honouring God, or we do not: We de­ny your disjunction, nam partes disjunctae non sunt oppositae sine velo me­dio; for we do not mean all, but we mean some, we speak but of some Acts: Generalis Axiomatis contradictio, non semper dividit verum á falso; but there must be Specialis contradictio generalis Axiomatis, to make a true division: Ergo we say we are not necessitated (as you would have it) to mean all or none. As if when we were speaking of rich or wise men, you will say either you mean all men are wise, or no men are wise; if you mean all men, that's false; if you mean no men, no men are not unwise men: This is such a rude piece of Sophi­stry, that is very unbecoming a Doctor of the Chair. There are Acts signifying our immediate honouring of God in the Soul, which are not here intended. We tell you Prayers and Praises are Natural Worship, considered meerly as such: likewise there are indifferent occasional Acts attending Natural Worship; as suppose, lifting up the hands or eyes to God in Prayer, or in an usual Ejaculation, or holy Meditati­on. [Page 22] You know we mean by Worship, a prescribed instituted Worship, li­mited by a particular Rule and Form to walk by: The Jewish Wor­ship was instituted, and so the Gospel Worship of the New Testament.

I take it for granted, that by Gods instituting, you mean not a general Command to man to institute it, such as [Let all things be done to Edification] if you did, your Minor is not true.

God never gave any general Command to man to institute, i. e. to prescribe his Worship by a Law; Gods giving us a Rule to walk by in indifferent and occasional circumstances of his Worship, is no Command to us to make Institutions: Institutions are not to be alter'd at our discretion; and general Rules that limit our discretiona­ry Actings, are so far Gods Institutions; but those acts of ours, guided pro hic & nunc, lawfully by general Rules, any of them are not by us to be brought into a binding Law, ad omne & semper, neither for our selves nor others, for that would be a humane Institution in Gods Worship; therefore your distinction of Instituted Divine Wor­ship into Primary and Secondary, cann't be admitted; for there is no Worship of Gods institution, Secondary; your Secondary Limitati­ons of the circumstances and use of natural Worship not Instituted by God, is mans Will-worship only, and therefore false Worship.

Your wrong Exposition of all the Texts here cited, is more then one mistake; [Mark Error XIV.] Deut. 42. & 12.32. Prov. 30.6. Forbids adding to Gods Worship; which is broken by all that ei­ther say, That that is in Gods Worship which is not there, (as you do here.)

Do we not say that they that verbally or practically say that that is in Gods Instituted Worship, or belongs to it, which he never commanded, adds to it?

Or devise any Worship-Ordinances, Co-ordinate, or of the same sort with his own, as if they were imperfect.

We say so far the same, that they that devise an Institution co-ordinate with Gods, set up Posts by his Posts, make them of equal Authority, yea greater then Gods, by exacting the observance of them by Severer Penalties then they do Christs Institutions; yea, thrust out Christs, and bring theirs instead. You say they must be of the same sort, that's impossible, a Humane and Divine Institution differs toto ge­nere; therefore that's to suppose, that which never was; and all such adding aforesaid, is as if God were imperfect.

But there is not a word forbidding Subordinate Secondary Acts of Worship, such as kneeling, putting off the Hat, using writ­ten [Page 23] Notes in Preaching, Forms of Singing, Praying, Catechising, &c.

You might bring in what coloured cloaths the Minister should wear, what kind of Caps, Hats, Perriwigs, Pulpit, the Print of the Bible, the size of it, the tune the Psalmes should be sung in, the Pues, the fashion of the Church, the posture of the Communion-Table, the clothes, the Cups for Sacrament Wine, &c. such things are no parts of Gods Worship at all, but natural Attendants, or Conveniences to Worship in general, that God under the Gospel hath placed none of his Worship in; he hath by no limiting Institution given any sanction to them; they are discretionarily to be used, or omitted, or altered at pleasure of the present Worshippers, according to the general Rules of doing all things to Gods glory and our own Edification; and its the Churches Priviledge that they have by Gospel Charter; that no humane secondary Law can rob them of. And if there be such made, they are not Gods, its adding Laws to Gods Laws of Worship to make them, and therefore here forbidnen.

See now what some of your Secondary Worship would come to; if it may bind one way, it may another; and if it may be according to one Rulers humour, it may be according to anothers; and if in one kind of such circumstances, then in another; then all the old Popish Crossing, Cringing, Robes, Vestments, Altars, Salt, Spittle, Holy Water, &c. may come in: Likewise in the Particulars instanced in by you, it may be prescribed by Law how long the Sermon shall be, how long the Prayer, what matter and words in both to be used at such a time, whether the Minister shall preach with Notes, or without; that the People should always kneel at prayer, or always stand; or times of kneeling and standing: So in reading and hearing the Word; what tune should be sung to every Psalm, and what Psalm at each time, and what times, what Metre, what Catechise to be used, and when to be done, &c. with a thousand things more; and these upon what Penal­ties the Law-maker pleases, Spiritual or Pecuniary, or Corporal Mulcts; would not here come in such a Monster under the name of Secondary Worship, that would fright away all Gods true Worship­pers from Communion with it?

It was forbidden things, which in Isa, 29.13. & Matth. 14, are reproved, as being Precepts of Men, or things feigned to be neces­sary acts of Obedience to God, which are not so.

VVe say they were forbidden; Precepts of men are humane Laws in Divine things; their Traditions and Inventions, which they make necessary by their Laws, and enforcing of them, and then they [Page 24] are feigned so by men: It's not to be found that all the Pharisees Su­perstitions were particularly mentioned and named in the Prohibiti­ons in the old Testament, nor a quarter of them by Christ in the New: yet condemned by him as the Precepts of men; i. [...]. They had nothing but humane Sanction, they were forbid by Christs general Laws, being excluded, and a charge that no Laws of Divine VVorship should be added as primary or Secundary to his. His Disciples were not to go beyond his Commission, to teach any thing but what he had command­ed, or should, M [...]tth. 28 20. To go beyond a Commission, is to break and forfeit it, in assuming that power that was never given in it, by mens Law, much more by Gods; though the Particulars wherein the Forfeiture of Charter or Commission lies, were not particularly menti­oned, when the Commission or Charter was drawn: it's enough that there is nothing therein contained to authorize such practices.

But its replied, There is nothing accidental in the Worship of God; every thing that belongs to it, is part of it Some things are of more weight, Ʋse, and Importance than others, Mat. 23.27. but all things duely belonging to it, are parts of it, or of its subsistence; outward circum­stances and occasional, no accidental parts of Worship.

As to your Reply, it's the strangest that ever I read from so learned a man, and is a great mistake [Error XV.] What is there in the World, that is a Subject without Accidentals? Gods Worship hath a multitude of Accidents; as, the Hour, the Place, the Pulpit, Tables, the Cups of Silver, the Linnen and other Ornaments; the Books Printed, the Metre, the Tunes, Chapters, Verses, the Words of Translation, the Building, Gestures, Vestures, Treasures.

The prescribing these and their fellow natural circumstances, by particular limiting Laws, may make a Book as big as that of the Martyrs. Are they not pretty things to be called part of Gods instituted Wor­ship? They are natural accidents of Worship, but not limit d or institu­ted: Is it not pretty to say the hour and place is part of the Worship, the Pulpit of Preaching, the Silver Cups and Cloth a part of the Sa [...]ram nt? But Bread and Wine is part, though of less natural value in its self, then the Plate it's put in. There is no instituted limitations of the use of these said particulars in Worship; therefore not so much as proper adjuncts, or integral parts, which all Christs Ordinances are, though of more or less use, yet of equal Authority; the least Pin in the Tabernacle, with the greatest Beam, all must be done by the Pattern, as God commanded Moses.

You add another Mistake, [Error XVI.] That every thing belonging to it, is a part of it.

We say that every thing duely belonging to Divine Instituted Worship is a part of [...]t; because it cannot duely belong to it as a pro­per Adjunct, but by Divine Institution. You run upon a great mistake, to talk so much of Physical Common Adjuncts that never did partici­pate of the nature of the Subject; all things duely belonging to a man, as such, is part of him; all proper adjuncts are so, all integral parts are so; but Cloth, Money, a House, &c. are not so; therefore you did not deal fairly in leaving out [duely]

You say, [Outward Circumstances are natural and Occasional, no accidental parts of Worship] Answer. Just now all accidents were parts, (or else accidents belong not to it) and now it hath no acciden­tal parts: a mans name, Relation, Trade, Cloathing, Age, House, &c. belong to him, and no parts of him.

We contradict not our selves in the least, we say there is no accidental part in the Worship of God, no one part that can't be called Gods Worship; there's no common adjuncts belonging to it, that can be called Instituted Worship; or a part of it, as Silver Cups in the Sacraments, Tables, &c. these I say are natural, occasional, no parts, though accidents, they do not duely belong as integral parts, therefore it hath no accidental parts of its subsistence; the Accidents are com­mon and separable, as those of a man that you instance in, and say are no parts, so in a manner you have granted all. Most of the things in­stanced in by you, are not only no proper adjuncts of Instituted Wor­ship, but none of Worship in general, for they are common to other things.

Prayers and Praises absolutely considered, are not an In­stitution of Christ, they are a part of natural Worship common to all Man­kind; his Institution respects only the internal form of them, and the man­ner of their performance: But this is that which the Liturgy takes on it self, namely to supply and determine the matter, to prescribe the manner, and to limit all the concerns of them, to modes and forms of its own; which is to take the work of Christ out of his hand.

Your second Answer is no better: 1. If by Absolutely, you mean not generally, (but as opposite to conditional) it hath no sence here that I can find; but if it be in [genere] that you mean, they are no part of Worship at all, natural nor instituted; there is praying which is cursing, and striving against God and goodness, and praying to Idols.

Strange Logick and Divinity! 1. You need not have put your first supposal of our meaning, for we mean in genere, that Religi­ous Prayers and Praises generally considered, meerly as such, not spe­cificated by any limitation, are not an Institution of Christ: You say they are no part of any Worship at all, natural nor instituted; its as much sense as if you should say, When I say the Leg absolutely consi­dered, i. e. [...]ot relatively, as it stands to the whole, but in respect of the next Genus, is no part of a man; say you, as such, it's no part of an Animal, for its neither part of Homo, nor Brutum: Now is this good reasoning? Negatur; for it must be part of one, because abso­lutely, i. e. generically considered, i. e. as part of an Animal; a Leg being a proper adjunct to an Animal, but cann't be found but in Homo or Brutum; you say, Yes, it may be the Leg of a joynt-stool, fetching in a remote Genus, falaciously: And mark the proof, for there is pray­ing that is cursing, &c. therefore Praises and Prayers absolutely con­sidered, are no part of Worship at all. I suppose your meaning is, That Prayers are either such as are Religious Worship, or such as are not; as a Request or Petition to Man, and Praises or Encomiums of Men, and so in respect of this remote Genus, they are no Worship at all; but by your favour it follows not; for though some are not Religious Worship, yet others are, and all are Worship of one kind or another, either Re­ligious or Civil. Again, It's plain enough that we speak of Religious Worship in genere, and then will you say that Religious Prayers and Praises, absolutely considered, are no part of Worship at all, neither natural nor Instituted? If so, your proof will be this, for there is pray­ing which is no Religious Praying, viz. Cursing, &c. And so we see how in your Arguments you go about to delude and confound mens un­derstandings with little School-Sophisms, that becomes not the solidity of a Grave Writer, as leaping from one genus to another, fallacia gene­ris, putting a remote genus for a next, and a next for a remote; and by your leave you are out in your Divinity too, for is not an Impreca­tion a Prayer to some God, and therefore Worship? and Praying to I­dols, Religious Worship? will you say, These are no Worship at all? You might have left out striving against God and Goodness, that is a general Character of Sin and obstinate Sinners, but I cann't see how it comes in under the Genus of Prayer; you might as well put in fight­ing a Battel, or running a Race, or wearing Cloaths, or killing a man, and a hundred such heterogeneous things, and called them praying: But when men out of prejudice to any truth run into absurdities, God leaves them to leave their own Reason and Understanding.

But I suppose you mean de specie, praying to God for good things needful.

You love to play with Genus and Species; such Prayer is Species in respect of Prayer for the Genus, but it's a Sub-alternum Ge­nus, in respect of the Species under it, such as Natural or Instituted Prayers.

And it is another mistake, That this Prayer is not of Christs In­stitution, because it is a part of Natural Worship: All is of Christs In­stitution which is a part of his commanding Law. The Law of Na­ture is now Christs Law. Error XVII.

And was it not alwayes as much as now? As all things were made by him, and as he lightneth every man that comes into the world, by the Law of Nature, which Law was never abolished, as to its use in the world, for Christs Ends; but meerly as such, it was ever since the fall a weak and imperfect Law, as to the Salvation of the world; Rom. 8.3. It was weak through the flesh, and life could not come by it, Gal. 2.31. Likewise at first by reason of the darkness that came in by sin, there wanted a further and more express manifestation of it, which was by Revelation, and in that respect was a revealed Law at Mount Sinai, but thereby became a more killing Letter. Two sorts of people there­upon were in the world, those that lay meerly under the light of Nature, and they that had the written Law, Rom. 2.12. Now miserable had the condition of the world been, if Christ had not manifested himself in another way then meerly by the Law of Nature: He reveals him­self as the M [...]diator of the New Covenant, the Seed of the Woman, the great High Priest, and Sacrifice, yea, a Redeemer of them that were under the Law, and in the Glory and Power of this Undertaking he appears King of Saints; first he reveals a Worship made up mostly of Types and Figures, for the strengthning of the Faith of his People in the Pro­mises of his appearing in the flesh, when the fullness of time was come; wherein also he fits and adapts the Law of Nature to his honour, and the use of his people, in subserviency to the promise; and this was the first Model of Instituted Worship that Christ set up in the World, and now is become Head of all things to his Church: But his peculiar Regi­ment was exercised there in his Mediatory Office. Afterwards when he had appeared in the flesh, finished his Ministry, and was offered up, the old model of Worship, the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinan­ces, was abolished, and a new Model of Instituted Worship set up for Conversion of Sinners, and Edification of his Church, to continue to the End of the World; and these two Models, Divine, have thought [Page 28] good to call Instituted and Revealed Worship, as distinct from Natu­ral. Now if you can find out a better term of Distinction, pray do; but the thing must be the same: Now let the world judge whether this be not perverse disputing, to endeavour to render such a known and approved Distinction, absurd and ridiculous: Moreover see more of this Spirit; you charge it for a mistake, in saying, This Prayer is not of Christs Institution; Is it said this Prayer? We say, Prayer in general, is not Instituted Worship, but Natural; but this or that Prayer is of Christs Institution, which is appointed to be used by the Church, or his people; the Prayer to be prayed by the Church when the Ark and Camp moved, and that when it rested, was Instituted by Christ; Prayer upon particular occasions in the Gospel-Church, are appointed; as at the blessing and Consecration of the Elements in the Supper; though not prescribed and limited as some men would have them; but where Christ hath prescribed and limited, we chearfully obey him.

It is another mistake, That Christs Institution respecteth only the internal form and manner of performance; the interal form is the in­ward desire offered mentally to God; and is not this natural, if Prayer be? Sure the form is the thing.

It is so, or should be so, if men were able to do it since the Fall; but the power of Nature was lost, and was supplied by Grace; take it as you will, we allow it; but you speak of one thing, and we of a­nother; you speak of of the internal qualification of the Worshipper, the Performer of the Institution; we speak of the internal form of the Institution, which is the perfection and rectitude thereof, wholly ac­cording to God's mind and will, as to the several particulars that it doth concern The form is not the thing, but the form and matter.

And that the manner of Performance is sinful, which is not of Christ's institution.

These are not our words, but that his Institution respects the manner of our performance; and that is, the external due manner, and the internal; the internal is the due Gospel manner of offering our desires mentally to God, which is not natural, but revealed, to pray in the Spirit with Faith, in and through Christ: Heathens may offer up desires mentally to a Deity by the Law of Nature; but by it they cannot know God in Christ, nor pray aright, without his Revelati­on and Institution: So for the External manner, after what manner in the Platform, and expresly, Not with vain bablings, and repititions, as the Heathens.

The words, and method, and length, are the manner of [Page 29] performance; can you shew an Institution determinative of them?

No, nor you, neither do I desire it; it was not that manner you mean that Christ determined expresly, it's enough that he deter­mined other manners, and his Institution reacheth that always in his own way, though not in mans, which thereby is excluded; for if Christ thought it not for his honour and the good of his Church, to make determinative Institutions of such things, it's great presumption in men to undertake it.

You say the Lyturgy takes on it self to supply and determine matter. Answ. Matter is more than manner; but this is another mistake.

I wonder any man will deny the Sun shines; doth not the Lyturgy determine the matter for every Prayer? Dare any man con [...] that ordinarily officiates, and change the matter from the time an [...] occasion prescribed; what if there be Scripture Expressions? It prescribes what Expressions shall be used in such a Prayer, upon such an occasion. You say, Matter is more then manner; then they prescribe more then manner. But I deny matter to be more then manner, in Gospel-worship; they are both of equal weight, in respect of the Institution.

It is another mistake, That thus to limit the concerns of Prayer to modes and form, is to take Christs work out of his hands: if so, you must shew where Christ undertook to limit us to his modes and forms only.

He hath limited us to his Laws and Institutions only; and do you shew us where he hath authorized any men to limit us to their modes and forms only.

Else it's not Christs proper Work: Is there a Lyturgy of his making?

No, if there had been, we would not dispute its Authority; But if there had been one to be made, it had been his work to do it; Law-making for his Worship in his Church, being his work. It's a sign a man hath not the Truth on his side, when he is put to such Childish Shifts.

Do not all Ministers in every publick prayer take Christs work out of his hand?

No, they do not, they make no Laws for others praying.

Do they not limit the people in matter?

No otherwise then Christ hath allowed them to do, by ver­tue of his Institution and Charter to his Church; all Christs Limitati­ons we are for; we are willing to be limited to Bread and Wine in [Page 30] the Lords Supper, but not to the weight and measure every one shall put into his mouth; nor to the sort of Wine, nor the fashion of the Cups it must be drank in, nor to the matter they must be made of; and a hundred such particulars.

3. Outward Rites and Modes of Worship divinely insti­tuted and determined, do become the necessary parts of Divine Worship; see instance, Levit. 1.16. Therefore such as are humanely Instituted, ap­pointed, and determined, are thereby made parts of Worship, namely that which is false, for want of Divine Institution.

Your third Reply is no better then the rest, viz. That, be­cause Divine Institution makes Rites and modes necessary, therefore humane Institution maketh such Parts thereof false Worship, for want of Divine Institution. Error 21. Gods determination can make any indifferent thing a duty; and therefore doth it follow that he hath left nothing to mans determination?

He hath left something to mans; 1. Where and so far as he hath by Commission in his word given man a Legislative power; but he hath given no such to him in the matters of instituted Worship; let him or you shew mans Commission. 2. Christ hath left many things to Christian and Church determination, by the Judgement of Dis­cretion, and so occasionally, as pro hic & nunc, to become a duty by vertue of his own Institution: but he hath left this as their priviledge by Charter, none must rob them of it: And if they alter the nature of the Rule, and come to make Law Determination, and binding Rules in indifferences, they forfeit their Charter.

Gods choice of Jerusalem for his worship, of the Tabernacle shape, of the Priests, &c. made those necessary, is therefore mans de­termination of the fixed places for Ordinary Worship, of the Form of the Temple, of ordained Ministers, false worship?

It was Gods choice of Jerusalem for his worship, that made Jeroboams worship, and his determination, false worship, in that time that God had limited his worship to a place: But when God binds his worship determinatively to no place, its false worship in man to bind it to any; and so for man to make binding forms in any thing of his worship, where he hath not.

Christ taught his Disciples a form of Prayer, may you not therefore teach your Children any?

No, if Christ hath bound us only to teach or say that Prayer, then we should teach or say no other.

That which God hath commanded, is no false worship, but God hath commanded the Churches to determine undetermined Modes and [Page 31] Circumstances needful in genere; so all may be done to Edification, de­cently and in order.

Now here is another fallacious reasoning; what do you mean by [determine] its one thing to determine by a Legislative power, and another to determine by the Rules of Discretion, pro hic & nunc; and so every particular Church is to do as occasion requires, and therefore not to be bound up by any standing Rule in those things, more then general, which Christ hath made. Other Rules binding to particulars, 1st. would infringe rhem of that Liberty they enjoy by Charter; 2dly Cann't possibly consist with the Churches bene esse, because of the mutability of such occasions and Circumstances.

Prayer and Praise are not things prescribed and enjoyned in and by the Liturgy; It is so far from it, that thereby all Prayers and Praises in Church-Assem­bly, meerly as such, are prohibited: But it is in its own forms, way, and mode, with their determination and limitation alone, that are instituted, perscribed and enjoyned by it: But these things have no Divine Institution, and therefore are so far false Worship.

Here are two strange Mistakes: 1. Are there so many Pray­ers enjoyned, and the People called on it, with a [Let us pray,] and yet is not Prayer Enjoyned? There's some secret meaning in it, &c.

No conjuring: VVe say there is no Law to command Prayer in general, but these particular forms and modes: and so for the calls to particular forms annexed, Let us pray, it intends not to leave it to your Liberty to choose your Prayer. If a Law be made to prohibit Eating meat in Lent, is this a Law against eating meat in general? Prayers are no where prescribed as such only, by the Lyturgy, but as this or that mode, words, form, and manner: And, Let us pray, is no term of Compulsion, but a form of Exhortation there prescribed a­mong others; if it be determinative, its to the Prayer next ensuing.

And are no Praises Enjoyned? Are there no Psalms?

VVe say not that there are no Prayers or Praises enjoyned, but not as such, but as modified in this or that manner: besides, any law­ful Prayers or Doxologies (by Christs Law) will not serve mans turn in this Case, he requires his own Prayer, to keep its time and Circum­stances exactly, without Alteration.

Your next misreport is, That [by the Lyturgy all Prayers and Praises in Church Assemblies are prohibited.] Error 23. This can have no sence but that either none are Church-Assemblies that have Lyturgies, or that nothing commanded in the Lyturgy is Prayer or Praises.

All Prayer and Praises in Church-Assemblies in the time and place of Lyturgical performance, are prohibited, except what is there prescribed; this is a known Truth.

Is there no Church on Earth out of England?

There is; but all out of England, or in England, don't wor­ship by Lyturgies.

Or do they forbid any out of England, to pray and praise God?

No; to what purpose is it to forbid further then their power reaches.

Do they forbid the Dutch and French in England to pray and praise God?

No; the Law allows Forreigners the Free Exercise of their Religion in their own way.

Do they forbid all Prayer in Pulpits?

That which is, is by the limiting Law, and must be no other then what the Law of man determines.

Have you proved all the Parish-Churches in England to be no Churches?

As much as you have proved all the Diocesses in England to be no Churches.

Have you proved that commanding men to pray in such words, is forbidding them to pray?

Enjoyning men to pray in such words by a Law, is forbidding them to pray in any other.

Arg. 1. That which was in its first contrivance, and hath been in its con­tinuance, an Invention and Engine to defeat or render useless the promise of Christ un­to his Church, of sending the holy Spirit in all Ages. to Enable it to the due discharge and performance of Divine Worship in its Assemblies, is unlawful to be complyed withal, nor can be admitted in Religious Worship; But such is Lyturgical Worship. That the Lord Christ did make such a promise, that he doth make it good, that the very being and con­tinuance of the Church (without which it is but a dead Machine) doth depend thereon, will not be denyed; it hath been andeniably proved.

I answer to your Minor, Do you mean that this was the intent of the Contrivers and Continuers? Or only that it is the Effect, con­trary to their intent? The first seemeth your intent; that's Error 24. for, first, you know not the first Inventers, and who all the Con­tinuers, &c.

We speak of the contrivance and continuance; but if you must have the first Contriver, it was that Spirit that acted the false Prophets in John's days, 1 John 4. and that he with such Agents have been the main Continuers thereof ever since.

Are you sure you lay not this Charge of Malignity on the men of God that made the Jews Psalms?

We are sure we do not; we blame nothing done by the in­spiration [Page 33] of the Holy Ghosts. But by the Jews Psalms, we know not what you mean; it may be their Lyturgy, in which are Fopperies e­nough to be Exploded, and like that you plead for.

That which is imposed with an evil intent, may be used to a good one.

God never required any thing (with an Evil intent) of his Church, neither doth he allow his Church to yeild Active Obedience to any that impose matters in his Worship with an ill intent; for both the Imposition and Intent are Sin; and we must not do evil for the ac­complishment of a good intent; besides, that is good which God judg­eth so; our Intent makes not an Evil thing good. Your 25th charge of Error comes in upon the Popes shoulders, and there we leave it.

Hereon the Church lived and acted for several Ages, performing all Di­vine Worship in their Assemblies, by vertue of the Gifts and Graces of the holy Spi­rit, and no otherwise. When these things were neglected, when the way of attaining, and the Exercise of them, appeared too difficult to men of carnal minds, this way of Worship by a prescribed Lyturgy, was insensibly brought in, to render the promise of Christ, and the work of the holy Ghost in the administration of Gifts, useless: And herein two things do follow.

It is a great Error to think that the gifts and graces of the Spirit may not be Exercised, if we use the same words, or if they be prescribed.

We do not say so here, and therefore I find you do not mark it for one upon us.

If you had put all the Errors of this Writing into a Prayer or Sermon, you had had need of more help of the Spirit to have avoi­ded it.

Take heed of Scoffing at the help of the Spirit. If I should have put them in a Prayer or Sermon, and imposed the use thereof upon you, it had been unkind, and hard measure. I suppose as to the number of the Errors, they will not prove to amount so high as you make, in the judgment of judicious and impartial men; I wish you had never had more in less room.

May not a man use the Lords Prayer by the Spirits help, and sing Psalms?

All things that Christ commands have the promise of the Spi­rits help to accompany them that wait for it in a due and faithful ex­ercise of Obedience thereto.

But you come to History, and add another mis-report in the Words [and no otherwise] and mean that by such gifts the Church Ex­cluded Lyturgical forms.

We say that the Church performed all Divine Worship [ i. e. acceptably] by vertue of the gifts and graces of the Spirit, in all A­ges, and no otherwise. Tell us of another way to perform Divine Worship; we exclude no Worship so performed.

It's too true that the carelesness, sloth, and worldly Alienations of Ministers, made all useful Sufficiency for the work of the Mi­nistry, in praying and preaching, to be neglected, and doth to this Day.

And this was the design of the first contrivance, and after-continuance of Lyturgical Worship: Here we agree well enough.

1. A total neglect of all Gifts of the Holy Ghost in the Administration of Church-Worship and Ordinances.

The first Consequence is an untruth; no doubt but Lyturgies were abused to cherish Ignorance and Negligence: But that the neg­lect was total, is not true; whether you respect all the Churches, or all the parts of Worship and Ordinances.

We say it hath been abused to a total neglect by many you call Churches and Ordinances; it would be sad if it should be in all Chur­ches and Ordinances; but a total in not a few, is sufficiently known. We apply not total to the universal Church, but to some Churches on­ly; neither hath the Universal Church in all Ages served God by Ly­turgies, nor in any one, I believe.

2. When a Plea for the work of the Holy Ghost began to be revived, it produced all the Enmity, Hatred and contempt of, and against the Spirit of God himself, and his whole work in the Church, which the whole world is now filled withal.

That word [his whole work in the Church] is another mis-re­port; it is not [his whole Work] that is so contemned: Error 28.

The whole work of Christ in his Church, is by his Institutions and the gifts and graces of his holy Spirit; and if these be hated and contemned, his whole work is hated and contemned.

And its a palpable mistake, that the foresaid scorn of all done by the Spirit, [ariseth from hence alone] a justification of their devi­sed way of Worship; it ariseth more from a malignant Enmity to serious Godliness, &c. Error 29.

But what hath caused that in the case mentioned? Hath not a justification of their devised Worship: Causa causae est causa causati. When we say the only Cause, we mean the principal first moving cau­ser, causa procreans, its here.

All the reproaches that are daily cast on the Spirit of Prayer, all the contempt and scorn which all Duties of Religious Worship performed by his Aid and Assistance, are entertained withal, ariseth from hence alone, namely a justification of their devised way of Worship, as the only true way and means thereof. Take this [Page 35] away, and the wrath and anger of men against the Spirit of God, and his work in the Worship of the Church, will be abated: yea the necessity of them will be Evident. This me cann't comply with, least we approve of the Original design of it, and partake in the sins which proceed from it.

You charge no Error here, do you?

No, but seeing you and your dividing Separatists are bran­ded with D. S. now my Irons are hot, I'll add R. too, the first Let­ter of my own Name.

I will tell you a story how the Separatists were the Causes of all the Mischiefs in the late Mutations. — And amongst the rest you know Oliver comes to be made Protector, the Fundamental Laws made among themselves by we know not whom; Parliament Lords made by him; Parliaments called and broken at his pleasure; the Go­vernment of the Counties put into the hands of Major Generals: Af­ter the Death of Oliver his Son set up, and his Parliament first pull'd down, (in which you told me you were an Agent) and next himself.

Let all this be granted, it amounts to no more then this, That I was an Agent in pulling down a Usurper: I pray where lies the most Loyalty, in being an Agent to aid and assist, and maintain such a one; or to contribute towards the pulling him down? I know you were migh­tily displeased with me and the Army for it; and I remember a remark­able passage in your Epistle to them, in the Preface of your Holy Com­mon-wealth, where you say, For my part, you see the worst that I desig­ned by this Book, which was written while the LORD PROTECTOR (prudently, piously, faithfully, to his Immortal Honour, how ill soever you have used him) did Exercise the Government.

Ay, but this you could not be contented with, to pull down the Protector, but you must break the Army in pieces. You were once Pastor to the Officers of the Army, when they pull'd down and set up, and again pull'd down, till they had turned the Army Bulwarks into Atoms. And when you saw what they had done, said, [I wonder the People do not cast stones at us as we go along the Streets] was not this a blaming of the flock?

Very Good, Sir, and was there any disloyalty in all this? If all the simple things that we have said must be told, and that you have writ, I could tell tales too, but there is so much Printed of it, that I need not fill pages with it, and I must tell you, it's that which is now much worse resented by the World, then any thing you can report of me; but I seek not Revenge, though I could give you heap measure in these matters. But if your hand be in at it once more, you shall be sure to have that which you deserve in such cases; That which is Sauce for [Page 36] a Goose, is so for a Gander also. I shall only add one thing, that where­as you charge Separatists, as you call them for the great Dividers in this Land; Let me tell you, there was never an hundred of Separatists this Hundred years living together, that have made more dangerous divisions in matters of Religion, both in Doctrine and Discipline, then you have done: And with such Errors that it may be the Church had hardly seen, or at least been vexed with at this day, had you not spaw­ned them into her Bosom, and given Credit and Life by your Autho­rity to some Old and Exploded Ones by most Protestants.

Argument 3. That in Religious Worship which derogates from the King­ly Office of Jesus Christ, so far as it doth is false Worship. Ʋnto the Office of Christ it inseparably belongs that he is the Sole Lawgiver of his Church in all the Worship of God. The Rule of his Government herein is, Teach men to do all, and observe whate­ver I Command.

But the Worship treated about, consists wholly in the Institutions, Commands, Pre­scriptions, Orders and Rules of men, and on the Authority of me [...] alone doth their Impo­sitions on the practice of the Church depend. What is this but to Renounce the King­ly Office of Christ in the Church?

To your Major of your Third Argument, I answer: First, there is that in Worship, as the badness of men, &c. which is no part of Worship, and therefore no false Worship.

This is the Old Crambe ter Coctum, tollere Subjectum, and let the Predicatum go whistle, we will draw out this kind of Argument at length, and send it to the boys at Oxford, to course with. That in Re­ligious Worship which is no part of Worship, is no false Worship; But there is that in Religious Worship (as the badness of men) which is no part of Worship: Ergo there is that in Worship, which is no false Worship.

And now you have proved that no Worship is no false Worship: but let me tell you, (seeing you are so upon the Carp) a man of Clouts, a Picture, a Statue, is called a false man; any counterfeit thing, is called a false thing: false Worship in the Scripture strict sence, is called no Worship, because it's no true Worship, signifyeth nothing, is not accepted of God, nor profiteth us. But as to your retorted Argu­ment, to destroy our Subject or Antecedent, it runs after this manner; There is that in a House which is no House, as a Cat, Dog, Pig, &c. and therefore no false House. Who goes about to say, A Cat is a false House, or that Sin is part of Gods Worship? but quite contrary; nei­ther doth any body say, Sin is in Worship as an integral part in the To­tum or Species in Genere: it's often said our performances are accompa­nied with Sin, but no Sin is a part of a Religious performance as such. Besides, we often tell you when we speak of Worship here, we mean the Rule of Worship, which ought to be unerring, and so we will put it, [Page 37] though that's evident to be our meaning to any man that is not con­tentious, That Rule of Religious Worship which derogates, &c.

True Worship materially may be so abused as to derogate from the Kingly Office of Christ.

All sin derogates from the Kingly Office of Christ, but Christs Rule in its self cannot be made sinful materially nor formally, mens Actions may; And therefore if you will have that to be the sence of the Major, it's true by your own concession, and there can be nothing in Worship that derogates but Sin; but you know all men mean by that in Worship, that which men account and call Worship, as the Traditions of men, &c. which our Saviour blames for false Worship.

That it belongs to this Office of Christ to be the Sole Law-giver in all the Worship of God, is Error 30.

This is one of the boldest Assertions that ever Protestant Di­vine made. You say in your dispute about a Stinted Liturgy, page 360. That God being the Supream Law-giver of the Church, having by Moses given a Law in Israel, did in general command, Deut. 12.32. That they should add nothing thereto, nor take therefrom; and consequently we may conclude it prohibited under the Gospel; nay indeed the very prohibi­tion of Self-Idolizing makes it a Sin, for any man to arrogate that Le­gislation, which is the Prerogative of God, for that were to Deify himself, and so this general prohibition doth make all Ʋnwarrantable Additions to be sinful, i. e. which God hath not Authorized men to make.

Your following mincing this great Truth, is as here; for we say, gene­ral Rules of walking in the use of indifferent things, are no Rule for man, or Authority for him to limit them by a binding Law in matters of Religion, but on the contrary a prohibition of it. For walking at liberty in the use of those things under the general Rules, are Church­es and Christians Priviledges; none can rob them of them, nay, they themselves cannot alter their Nature, to make that necessary in Christs Worship, which Christ hath made indifferent, no more then they can make that indifferent which he made necessary. And therefore I round­ly assert against you; That though every Church of Christ hath the liber­ty and priviledg to act prudentially, or make prudential determinations con­cerning the present use of indifferent things, pro hic & nunc, yet to make any standing or binding Determinations and Laws for thems [...]lves or others, is altogether unlawful, as highly derogatory to the Kingly Office of Christ, and robbing themselves or others of their granted priviledge, and so a for­feiture of their Charter; and all your by-standing Laws, and Subordi­nate Laws for Worship which you talk of, are unwarrantable additions [Page 38] to the Word of God, according to your own position, unless you shew better Commission for enjoyning Liturgies and Forms of Worship by Laws Ecclesiastical or Civil, then you have done there in your Dispute, or here.

Princes may make Laws for Translations of Scripture.

We utterly deny that a Prince may impose upon his Subjects what Translations he pleaseth; it's true, he may Recommend what he thinks best, and so may any Christian; and besides, is a Translation a part of the Worship of God? even as much as the Printed Letter and the paper of the Bible, and as much as the Pulpit and the Parsons Gown and Cassock, a part of his Prayers and Sermons; and so for your time, place, utensils, that you would have some Seducers restrained in; they must all be so, that you are pleased in Cathedra to call so.

Mat. 28.20. by saying Whatever I command you, doth not say, Do nothing which your Parents, Prince Master, Pastor commands you: Heb. 13. Obey them that have the Rule over you.

That is, in the Lord; Christ hath Commanded Obedience to all the lawful commands of these, but he hath not given them a Legi­slative Power in his Church, that's his own Prerogative; let any of them, or you for them, shew their Commissions for this if they can.

It is another mistake, Error 31. That the Worship treated a­bout, consisteth wholly in the Commands of men: The Worship con­taineth, First, General Praying, Preaching.

We have shewed that these are not commanded in general, but as to the kind and matter limited, modification, &c. it's the man­ner as to Circumstances, Words, Sentences, kind of matter, that is li­mited, prescribed and commanded.

Secondly, It containeth for the matter signifyed, Confession of Sins of Omission and Commission.

We except not against any thing that is in Worship, that is the will of Christ that it should be there. But let man let Christs In­stitutions alone, and not cast them into his Mould; a good Iron Pot may be melted down into a Cannon Bullet, and become quite another thing, an Instrument of destruction, and yet the matter is the same.

It is also a mistake, Error 32. that on the Authority of men alone doth the Imposition on the practice of the Church depend, for first the aforesaid are Imposed by God himself.

They will never serve God well, that look upon themselves to be Imposed upon by him, neither are Gods Laws called an Imposition; imposition is usually taken but in these two sences; first when a blind [Page 39] and delusion is put on my Understanding, that I take that to be truth which is not; or secondly, upon our Actions contrary to our Will, and it may be our Understanding and Will both are inforced by Laws or Pow­er to do that we otherwise would not.

Lawful Modes imposed by men, depend not on their Autho­rity alone, but on Gods who Au [...]horizeth the Ruler.

Therefore he is to Command only in his own Province, where by God the Judge of all he is limited; a Justice of Peace's Authority reacheth no further then his Commission gives him leave to go. They have no power to impose l [...]wful modes, things lawfully used are to be indifferently used in the Worship of God; what he thinks is necessary to be made a binding Law, he hath made so; or else he is deficient in his house.

Your Conclusion is a Mistake, Error 33.

That it must needs be, if the premises were so full of Errors; but we have vindicated them, so the Conclusion is true.

Argument 4. That which gives Testimony against the Faithfulness of Christ in his house, as a Son and Lord of it, above that of a Servant, is not to be com­plyed withal, let all the Disciples judge.

Ʋnto the Faithfulness of Christ doth belong to appoint and command all things what­soever in the Church, that belongs to the Worship of God, as is Evident from the Com­parison with Moses herein, and his Preference above him, Heb. 3.3, 4, 5, 6. But that Institution and Prescription of all things in Religious Worship, of things never Institu­ted nor prescribed by Christ in form and modes of them, ariseth from a Supposition of a defect in the Wisdom, Care and Faithfulness of Christ; Whence alone a Necessity can arise of Prescribing that in Divine Worship that he hath not Prescribed.

1st. To your Major I answer, 1. To give Testimony, Signify­eth either by remote unseen Consequence to cross Christs Faithfulness, and so do many of your Mistakes: 2. Or it signifieth a plain Denyal of Christs Faithfulness, no Christian complyeth with this.

By a remote unseen Consequence you have answered the Ma­jor, for no man can see any Answer in it worth a Button. To give Testimony against the Faithfulness of Christ is by making or Comply­ing with Laws necessary for the Churches Esse, or bene esse, which he hath not made, and it charges him for not doing what he ought to do as the Lord of his house; and that which a man bears Testimony to by open Profession in Words or Practice, is not to cross Christs Faithfulness by a remote unseen Consequence; men do not use to bear Testimonies in the dark. Our meanig is, mens plain Denyal in Practice, and it may be an open mouth Vindication of themselves, and Condemnation of others added, as you do. This we roundly affirm to be a Testimony born against the Faithfulness of Christ, and in this meaning you grant our Major.

To your Minor, I answer, In your Supposition it is not true, That it belongeth to Christs Faithfulness to appoint and command all things whatever in the Church, which belongs to the Worship of God. Else he were unfaithful in bidding them appoint many things belonging to his Worship. Error 34.

Here is another bold Attempt against Christ, if it were not contradicted in the same breath, for if he hath bid them appoint and make Laws, then he did it in faithfulness, and it belongs still to his faithfulness to give them a faithful Commission, so as might not turn to the certain manifest wrong and injury of his Church, as the exer­ting such a power hath done; but tell us the Ʋbi of those Laws and biddings to men in the present sence, and the Controversy is at an end.

It is another Error, That the prescription of forms and modes of things in Worship not commanded by Christ, can arise from nothing but a Supposition of a defect in the Wisdom, Care and Faith­fulness of Christ.

I prove it; either it's so, or all that is done in that kind is su­perfluous. For if there were Laws enough ad esse & bene esse Ecclesiae, it's folly and madness to make more; that which you instance in forms of Catechising, Confessions or Forms of Prayer for Children, &c. they are nothing to the purpose, they may be of use in their place for some means of instruction to the Ignorant, as persons and cases re­quire. But we speak of forms and Systems of Worship imposed and bound on upon our shoulders at mans pleasure; this we assert must be upon a Supposal of the defect of Christs Law, or be done in manifest opposition to it, to thrust it out, or be a professed folly to make Laws were we declare there is no need of them.

Your Refutation in the three particulars are idle or false, not worth our pains to take notice of.

Argument 5. That which is a means humanely Invented for the attain­ing of an End in Divine Worship, which Christ hath Ordained a means for, unto the Exclusion of the means so appointed by Christ, is false Worship, and not to be comply­ed withal.

The end intended is the Edification of the Church in the Administration of all its ho­ly Ordinances; This the Service Book is Ordained and appointed by men for, or it hath no end or use at all; But the Lord Christ hath appointed other means for the attaining this End (as is Expresly declared.) He hath given gifts unto men for the work of the Min stry, for the edifying of the Body, Ephes. 4.7, 8, 11, 12. that is, in all Gospel Administrations; but this means Ordained by Christ, namely the Exercise of Spiritual Gifts in Gospel Administrations unto the Edification of the Church, is Ex­cluded, yea expresly prohibited in the prescription of this Liturgical Worship.

To the major of your fifth Argument, I answer as to the for­mer, no man is to comply by approbation with any thing that exclu­deth any of Gods means; E. gr. not with you that exclude the great duty of Catholick Communion.

Then you grant the maior, but insinuate a distinction, or keep a hole rather, to creep out at: There is (say you) compliance by Ap­probation, and compliance without, and that is by Compulsion: When men comply with a Worship, they submit to the Rule as the mind and will of God, not as to a faulty and Erroneous Rule: You are still upon your old shift, a short turn [...]nd a leap; putting the Errors of Perfor­mances, inst [...]ad of the Errors of the Rule. It's a false accusation to say, that I did ever exclude Catholick Communion: But if I should please men, I should not be the Servant of Jesus Christ; but it is a very small thing with me, that I should be judged of you, or of mans judgment, 1 Cor. 4.3. He that judgeth me is the Lord, verse 4. Only this I shall say, I will not go to the Church of Rome for Catholick Communion; nor betray the Lord of the Vineyard, that I may eat of the fruit thereof.

It is another mistake that the exercise of Spiritual Gifts is ex­presly forbidden; except you meant just at the use of the Liturgy, extem­porate utterance is forbidden; but it is not so in the Pulpit, Error 36

We mean that there is an actual Exclusion of the Exercise of Spiritual Gifts in the whole Lyturgical Worship, both in praying, or any thing else; it's all prescribed.

The pretence of mens liberty to use their Gifts in Prayer before Sermon, and in Preaching, is ridiculous; they are excluded in all their Solemn Worship.

This Answer is not only a mistake, but of an ill aspect on your self. It's not true [That the use of Gifts is excluded in all the Solemn Worship of the Church] As if Prayer, Praise, Thanksgiving, Confes­sion, Explication of the Scripture, Reproof, Benediction, &c. Error 37.

I admire at your boldness in these things: what Gifts of the Spirit are used for Edification of the the Church in all the Service of the Church? Is it Reading, and an Audible Voice? There can be no o­ther: Are these all that Christ gave to men for Edification, when he as­cended on high?

Indeed some Super-Conformists have said so, but I hoped you would not.

Whatever Super Conformists and Half-Conformists say, the truth is truth: Do you think the meaning of the Apostle is, when he saith, Christ gave Gifts to men, that he gave Liturgies to them, with prescribed forms of Prayer, Praises, Confessions, Benedictions, &c. If that be the meaning, produce Christs Liturgy that he dropt down from heaven with these gifts in it, and we shall with all Alacrity yield to that way of worship; but see you bring good evidence for it.

2. It hath an ill aspect; if that Preaching and Pulpit Praying be none of the Solemn Worship of the Churches, then all Churches that have not Liturgies, have no Solemn Worship at all.

Non sequitur; we say Pulpit-Praying is not any of the Ser­vice-Book Church Solemn Worship; they are in that respect called the Prayers of the Church; and if the Liturgy makes them none of its Solemn Worship; doth it follow that they are not so, or that other Churches doth not make them so?

If it be otherwise, Parish-Churches excel you, &c.

We envy them not; we desire to excel in following Christ, and walking according to his Rule; we compare our selves no otherwise.

Arg. 6. That which hath been and is obstructive of the Edification of the Church, if it be in Religious Worship, it is a false Worship; for the end of all true Worship is Edification: But such hath been and is the Liturgical Worship.

This is but the former repeated.

It is false, it hath another Medium; The Medium of the fifth Argument, was, A means humanely invented to exclude Christs means, for the attaining his end, viz. Edification: This Medium is, The bring­ing that which is obstructive, (i. e. apparently opposite) and contrary to all pretences of Edification. But the Major you grant.

To your Minor, 1. Such is all your Errors, all the disorder, ill reflexions, slovenly expressions, which any weak Minister useth, and the faults that all men have in some degree.

And that few go beyond you in; instead of Reflexions, you use Fractions by your Magisterial Club; and of slovenly reviling Ex­pressions, if they be not slovenly, they are as dirty as I have met with from a Minister of your Reputation; but for your way of arguing, the most illogical, fallacious, and full of pedantick Carping that ever was: And all men that oppose you in your confidently asserted Errors, must be stigmatiz'd with all reproachful names imginable; If they be not for Justification by works, then they are Antinomians; if they be not for your Pye-bald Conformity, then they are on one side Super Confor­mists, and on the other Dividing Separatists; and must have a sentence passed upon their Persons and Learning, as Unstudied Divines, Facti­ous, Schismatical, Erroneous; and this is all to promote love and Ca­tholick Communion in the World. Must you be the Infallible Dictator in all matters of Religion? Is there no men living that have Reason, Lo­gick, Theology, but your self? Are all the Divines and Schollars in En­gland a company of pitiful Mushrooms, to be treated so rudely by you, if they dance not after your Pipe? Yea, it's a sufficient Refutation of any Book, if Mr. Baxter tells the world it's a dangerous and Erroneous Book; and why? because it refutes his Errors. And whereas you say, You have answered Mr. Ralphson, and slight Mr. Warner, Dr. Sherlock, [Page 43] &c. Conformists and Nonconformists; it's neither your Principles nor way of Argument will refute either of them; for it must be the Word of God, and sound Arguments from it, must take place with men of Conscience and Reason, in these mattters; not little shifting trifling Sophisms, calling men Names, condemning them for Unlearned and Unstudied Divines, confounding clear words and truths with an hun­dred particulars, divisions, distinctions, nothings, till they are come to nothing; calling Truth Error, and Error Truth; this is not the way to Peace nor Truth: You are never like to die under the reputati­on of the Repairer of our breaches, and the Restorer of our paths to dwell in, unless you take another course for it, then yet you have done.

It puts an utter stop to the progress of Reformation in this Nation, fixing bounds unto it, that it could never pass. 2. It hath kept Multitudes in ig­norance, &c. 3. It hath countenanced and encouraged many in reviling and reproach­ing the holy Spirit, and his work. 4. It hath set up and warranted an Ʋngifted Mi­nistry. 5. It hath made great desolations in the Church: first, In the silencing of painful Ministers: Secondly, In the ruine of Families innumerable: Thirdly, In the destruction of Souls. It is not lawful to be participant in these things; yea, the glo­ry of our Profession lies in our Testimony against them.

Well, what say you to these things? Are they Truth, or no?

I charge no Error here.

Truly the Church is much beholden to such a Champion.

But I have something to say to your Reasons.

Nay, but I have nothing to say to you further in these parti­culars, if you have no Error to charge them with: I will leave them to defend themselves against others.

Arg. 7. That practice whereby we condemn the suffering Saints of the present Age, rendring them false Witnesses of God, and the only blameable Cause of their own Sufferings, is not to be approved; but such is this Practice; and where this is done on a pretence of Liberty, without any Plea of necessary duty on our parts, it is utterly unlawful.

The Major meaneth either Saints that suffer for well doing, or ill-doing.

It doth so, one of them besure; who would have thought up­on that fork? But do you take the present Sufferers to suffer for ill-do­ing? I'll assure you, you seem to insinuate your meaning pretty clearly, by your Exposing (in what you lay) one that died in Prison as a blame­able Cause of his own Sufferings; and by many other Actions and Writings of the like Nature: Take heed of adding affliction to the af­flicted.

If the Anabaptists should be suffering Saints, I would not be for Anabaptistry, for fear of condemning them as the cause of their own Sufferings: By that Rule, I must own every Error or Sin that every Saint suffers for.

But I believe the world begins now to be pretty well satisfied [Page 44] that all those things are not Errors or Sins, which Mr. Baxter calls so, and makes a great putther to prove so; nor all those Truths or Ver­tues that he saith are. Mr. Tombs, a back-sliding Anabaptist, was a great Saint in your Books: And though you will not be of a Sufferers Judgment to justifie his Suffering, you might forbear Espousing the Im­posers and Persecutors cause, and forbear persecuting with bitter words that comes not short of the others: There are hard words and Speeches to be reckoned for one day.

To your Minor, It is a gross mistake to say that going to the Lyturgy maketh the Refusers the only blameable cause of their own Suf­ferings; what are you one that acquit all the Prosecutors?

You are so, for you justifie the Law of which they are Offen­ders; he that justifies a Law, justifies also the due Executioners of it; and therefore condemns the Sufferer as the only blameable cause of his Suffering. A murderer is condemn'd and hang'd for Murder, the Law is good, the pro [...]eedings against him just and due; who is the blameable Cause of his own Suff [...]rings but himself?

But are there no Saints th [...]t go to Common Prayer?

Men may be S [...]ints (as you said not long ago) and yet En­gage in an unjust Prosecution; and to joyn in Communion with them, is to justifie their violences, and passionate Mistakes, as also condemn the Sufferers: I wish such Saints as you speak of, I mean they that se­parate not, would give more proof of their Saintship to the world, by separating at least from malice, hatred and bitterness of words and actions; yea, such inhumanity that Turks would not boast of, Papists blush to hear of afterwards; but some Protestants, your unseparable Saints, plead for, as the Ecclesiastical and Evangelical meritorious Righteousness by which they expect to be justified before God and man.

The Truth is, Repentance is a hard work, &c.

It is so, but its an easie thing to make a great splutter about it, and l [...]y the Law very hard to others, by Press and Pulpit. Is there a man on Earth that will stand more upon his proud pretences, and insul­ting too, in the maintaining of manifest decryed Errors and Practises? Therefore such Harrangues as these are, might be spared, for I know no body affected with them: Claudius accusat &c. Turpe est Doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum.

Arg. 8. That Practice which is accompanyed with unavoidable Scan­dal, Engaged in only on the pretence of Liberty, is contrary to the Gospel: But such is our joyning in the present P [...]blick Worship. It were Endless to reckon up all the Scan­dals which will ensue; that which respects our Enemies, must not be omitted: will they not think, will they not say, that we have only falsly and hyppocritically pretended con­science for what we do, when we can upon outward considerations comply with that which is required of us? Wo to the World because of such offences; but wo to them also by whom they are given.

But in the first place take heed of offending Saints: Now we must none of us [Page 45] hold communion with the Parish-Churches, least some Saints that separate should be rendred false Witnesses of God, and blameable.

I do not believe that ever a man that scoffs at hol [...]ness, and the Professors of it, will be justified by his own works. This and an hundred more Expressions in this Book had become another man more then Mr. Baxter. Sir, Do you know what Spirit you are of? It's so manifest, I am moved in love to speak so plainly.

To the Major, 1. It is not true, when there is far more Scandal by for bearing that practice; but only when there is less on the other side.

Well, that is Answ. Bellarmine, thou ly'st; and it must be so, all the World cann't help Bellarmine in this case, he is perfectly refuted. Observe now how pretty the reason of the denial is, It is not true [that that practice which is accompanyed with unavoidable Scandal, &c. is contrary to the Gospel] because there is greater Scandal by forbearing that practice: 1. Do we talk of comparative Scandal? 2. Its unavoidable with a witness▪ if it lie on both parts of an indifferent act [...]on. 3. It was always reckon'd hitherto by [...] Divines, that the forbearing a doubtful action had the least scandal in it; but I must confess you are very safe, for you say, The Scandal is greater on the forbearing side, only when there is less on the other side: One stick is longer, when the o [...]her is shorter! This is now learnedly determined, Mr. Doctor!

To the Minor, It is not true. That it is only Liberty that is pleaded for the Com­munion in question; It is a great Duty, i. e. of Union, Concord, Peace, Obedience to Christ, &c. Avoiding of Schism, and twenty Duties more. Error 39.

M [...]st D [...]sse [...]ters that afterwards have complyed, have done it on the pretence of Liberty in matters of indifferency; against that pretence we alledge the business of Scandal, and the great danger of Scandal in matters of that nature, which Paul lays such a Stress upon, yea our Lord Jesus Christ himself in his Min stry annexing the great­est woes in the Gospel to Scandal. Puh! says this Gentleman, here's no danger of a Scandal in this case; it is not a doubtful case, its our duty to comply, a duty of Con­cord, Love, Obedience, &c. Well, all that I shall say here is, If any man be troubled and disquieted in mind about scruples of Consc [...]ence, here is a Casuist will do their bu­siness beyond all Casuists before him, or any Antinomians whatever: For tho [...]e things that you & the Divines you have consulted with, have called si [...]s, & thousands have been disturbed and wounded in Conscience for doing of he will shew to be an eminent duty. About the duties [...]ere mentioned, Enquiry may be made elsewhere, if need require; our Argument will stand fast enough without it at this time.

Arg. 9. That Worship which is unsuited to the relish of the new Crea­ture, which is inconsistent with the Conduct of the Spirit of God in Prayer, is unlawful: for the Nature, Ʋse▪ and benefit of Prayer, is overthrown hereby in a great measure. Now let any one consider what are the pr [...]mised Aids of the holy Spirit, with respect to the Prayers of the Church, whether as to the matter of them, or as unto the ability of performance, or as unto the manner of it, and he shall find that they are all rejected and excluded by this form of Worship as is pretended, comprizing the whole matter, limiting the whole manner, and giving all the Abilities of Prayer that are needful or required. This hath been proved at large.

It is a mistake, Error 40. That this form of Worship rejecteth and exclu­deth the matter of Prayer.

That which prescribes the matter of Prayer, excludes all other matter besides what is prescribed; and therefore is inconsistent with the conduct of the Spirit, in taking the work of the Spirit out of its hands: It rejecteth and excludeth our dependance on the promises of the aid and assistance of the Spirit in Prayer, because it prescribes and limits the matter, manner, and gives all the abilities pre [...]ended to; there is nothing for the Spi­rit to do; therefore here's nothing untrue: Where there is nothing left for the Spirit to do, the work of the Spirit, as to Gifts, is excluded.

Arg. 10. That which overthrows and dissolves our Church-Covenant, as unto the principal end of it, is to us unlawful; this end is the professed joynt subjection of our Souls and Consciences unto the Authority of Christ, in the observation of whatever he commands, and nothing else, in the Worship of God. But by this practice, this end of the Church Covenant is destroyed, and thereby the Church-Covenant it self is broken, for we do observe that which Christ hath not commanded: And while some stand unto the terms of the Covenant, which others relinquish, it will fill the Church with Confusions and Disorders.

To the 10th I answer, What your Church-Covenant is, I know not; but if it profess Subjection to nothing in Worship, but what Christ commandeth, it is your Church-Error, and Error 41.

I may spare the pains to vindicate our selves from this charge of Error, every Chri­stian can do it. But Sir, are you serious here, and speak as you mean? Or are you Ludicrous only, and would shew a feat of Sophistry? If it be the former, we must profess our Reso­lution to maintain that for Truth and Religion, which you call Error; and that we pro­fess subjection only to the Commands of Christ in matters of Religion; and if you know any Religion, or part of it to be exercised in Obedience to those Commands that are not Christs, keep that to your own practice if you like it, we need it not. What you say as to Psalms, Translations, Time, Place, Utensils, we say we do nothing in them, but in Obedience to the Commands of Christ, so far as they have place in Worship; neither shall you nor any man prescribe to us. If your meaning be to be taken in the latter sence, I say 'tis Ludere cum sacris, as hath been too often in this Undertaking of yours: Heathens had a serious Reverence to their supposed Sacred Things, as appears by the Poet— Procul! O Procul! este profani.

Arg. 11. That which contains a vertual renunciation of our Church-State, and of the lawfulness of our Ministry, and Ordinances therein, is not to be ad­mitted or allowed; But this also is done in the practices enquired into: For it is a pro­fessed Conjunction with them in Church-Communion and Worship, by whom our Church-State and Ordinances are condemned as null; and this judgment they make of what we do, affirming that we are gross dissemblers, if after such a conjunction with them, we return any more unto our own Assemblies; in this condemnation we do outwardly and visibly joyn.

It's an Error to hold, That if any unjustly condemn other Churches, it is a Re­nunciation of that condemned Church-State, to have Communion with them that condemn. Error. 42.

You cann't be ignorant, but know that you speak now fallaciously again. To have communion with another man, in other things that he condemns me not for, is no Renunciation of that for which he doth condemn me; E. gr. A false Worshipper con­denms me for worshipping the true God, or the true God in a right manner; I may maintain a Society with [...]h this man as to buying and selling, and not condemn my Re­ligion; but if I enter into a Religious Society with him in false Worship, I then renounce what he unjustly condemns me for: So your charge is fallacious and false.

Arg. 12. That which deprives us of the Principal Plea for the justifica­tion of our Separation from the Church of England in its present State, ought not justly to be received or admitted: But this is certainly done by a Supposition of the lawfulness of this Worship, and a practice suitable thereto, as is known to all who are exercised in this cause. Many other heads of Argument might be added to the same purpose, if there were cccasion.

Is there any Error here?

I mark none, but I answer your Argument thus: That which discovers the un [...]ou [...]d [...]e [...]s of any ones Plea for Separ [...]tion, is to be received,

That is not true universally, for the Commission of many Acts of Sin, is a discovery [Page 47] to a man himself, and good men, of the unsoundness of any Plea that hath been made for [...].

There are several cases in which separation from the Church of England is sinful: 1. If any separate as Papists do, and because they are against sound Doctrine, or any good that is in the Church.

This you charge them with; Papists will say your Doctrine is sound, and that which you have justified more then any profest Protestant Divine since the Reformation; as that of Justification by Works, Merits, Images, a power in man to invent & to impose Sub­ordinate Worship: They say they separate because of the Errors of your Church-Constitution.

If any renounce Communion with Parish-Churches, under the name of the Church of England.

Communion with the Church of England and Parish-Churches, is the same thing; as communion with Homo, is communion wi [...]h Animal. But we know where you would be.

If any renounce communion with the Church of England as it's a Christian Kingdom.

See now the quatenus still, you will not have communion with the Church, but with a Kingdom.

If any renounce communion with the Church of England, as its called one from an Association of concord of its Pastors or Church Governours.

i. e. Quatenus a Presbyterian Church.

If any renounce communion with faulty Bishops, or worship simpliciter, and not secundum quid.

Now here is a Communicant secundum quid. I would appeal to the Church of En­gland, whether Mr. Baxter be an acceptable Communicant? 1. He communicates with a Pa­rish-Church, but renounceth the organized Church of England. 2. He hath communion in the Liturgy, but renounceth the Authority of Diocesan Bishops, and their Office as established by the same. 3. He hath communion with the Church of England, but not as such, but quatenus a Christian Kingdom. 4. He hath communion with Parishes, but not as part of Diocesan Church­es, but quatenus Presbyterian Associations. 5. He hath no simple absolute communion at all, out is a meer secundum quid Communicant. Are not these now pretty clear and plain things to resolve a doubting Conscience, in the great point of Gospel-Communion?

Now I'll tell you the Reason of my Answer, These XII. Arguments I under­stand they are likeliest to prevail most by the honour of Dr. Owen's Name, more then by any strength that is in them: J was willing as long as I could to believe they were not his, they being as fallacious and frivolous as the rest ( i. e. Mr. Ralphson's and Mr. Warner's and one Error managed with above forty mistakes. Besides after being assured they were his, I was the more encouraged by the Example of Paul, Gal. 2.

As frivolous as they are, or as little strength as they have, you have not so much as shaken one of them, or any Scripture duely managed by the Suffering Gentlemen you trampled upon, one dead, and the other alive; dead or alive, it's all one to you; but go on: A Ream of Paper fill'd with such a Noise as this was, will not carry the cause you have undertaken, unless you can find better Arguments and Reasons, both Logical and Theo­logical, to manage it with. Put on the Spirit of Meekness, Gravity, Tenderness, Humility, Self-denyal: Do not think to raise your Honour upon the Ruines of Christs Truth, and the Reproaches of his Followers; this was not Pauls Spirit, neither have you his cause; for the busi­ness that he withstood Peter in, was compliance with the Jews abolished worship, in opposi­tion to the present Gospel-Worship, as it was owned and professed by the Gentiles: Besides, there was his Cowardliness and fear of man that brought him to it, with a great deal of dissimulation, whereby Barnabas and others were drawn away; Gal. 2.12, 13.

Sir, you write much, and Err much, and yet justifie your self as the most infallible Per­son in the World, when you come to particulars. Sir, I tell you, I shall appeal to any Christian Spirit, that reads your Refutation o [...] these Arguments, as you call it, whether you give any Testimony of the Spirit of Christ accompanying you in it. I say no more, [Page 48] but recommend to your serious consideration. 1st. The third chapter of the first Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians; especially vers. 11, 12.13 14, 15. & 18, 19. 2dly, The loud Pa [...]fie­tick Call of Mr. Vincent in the end of his Book of Love: O Tongues of Professors! [Ca­tholick Communicants as well as others] how long will it be ere you be quiet? How long shall your breath b [...] as the E [...]s [...]-wind, blasting all about you? When shall your words be agreeable to the Word of God? When shall your Lips feed many, and hurt none? Your reproachful back-biting railing Language, your Lies and Falsehoods, have seen your sin and shame, and the shame of Religion; Repentance and Amendment is absolutely necessary; else Salvation will still stand at a distance, Isa. 63.8. This he said suspecting men spoke of his Conformity.

Well, Doctor, I would not have you offended at what I have said and done; I doubt not but whatever I wrote, was faulty. — But I write as a Defendant of Love, U­nity, and the Catholick Church; and for the sake of such as being justly afraid of Sin, and Idolatry, and Damnation, are affrighted from Love Unity, &c. and fall into a wilderness of sinful Divisions and confusions by these frightful names. — And tho' in the Trials and late Distractions of the Land▪ I mention some of your confessions, it is to tell you, That I had reason to hope that you repented for doing no more in your publick Opportunities against the Spirit of Division that dissolved us.

True; had it not been for that Spirit of Division, there might not have been ccca­sion of your Repentance for writing the Holy Commonwealth. The World is hardly pe [...] ­swaded yet that it was hearty, but only to qualify your Self for State-Charity, as many Catholick Communicants go to Church and receive the Sacraments.

I will do much for that reason that the World may know my Charity with you, and have Charity for me, (for all any thing said of you in this Pamphlet) I will tell the Bishops, that they should not be angry with you, That I know not three men alive whom they are more beholden to for their Restitution by opening the door, and sweeping the way, and melting down and pulverizing all that was like to have resisted them.

Now to return this great favour, we will take care, if they understand it not already, to acquaint them that no ten men in England now alive, have done more for their Esta­blishment, by dirtying the Dissenters, and melting and crumbling the Cause of Noncon­formity to attoms, that upon the Principles and Reasons that you would have the World beleive it stands, it seems justly to them, and all other duly considering men, the most idle weak and ridiculous thing in the world. So that I hope now they will be well pleas'd with us both.

Dr. let us shake hands then, and be friends; and walk like B [...]e hren in Catholick Communion; I tell thee one thing, but it's not fit to be spoken of ye [...] but among Friends: I am going to discourse Dr. Sie [...]ck upon this great point of C [...]tholick Commun [...]on, to beat it into his thick Skull how the Catholick Church is united into one b [...]dy, so as to be one Church; I cann't make him understand what's meant by the word Union, nor how many sorts of Union; [...]e will receive nothing de nomine, nor de re; but I am not out of hopes of effecting something at last: If I cann't do it. I am sure no man can; It shall escape me hard if I do not [...]r [...] those worldly Pr. I G. and the unruly Pr. Ig's by Per­secution and by causless Separation and Alienation, to Catholick Communion.

Good night, S [...]r.

Good morrow, S [...].

We cann't ag [...]e on the time of day yet, it seems.