SOME Remarks, On a Pretended ANSWER.

THE Author of a Discourse written many Years ago, to Satisfy one who desired to know, what were the Reasons, which made him ap­ [...]ehend (as the Presbyterian Divines in [...]otland do) that the Word of God does not [...]ow men to partake in the Common-Prayer [...]orship, did not design to Concern himself [...]y further about it. He has had by him [...]ove Seven Years a Pretended Answer to [...]at Discourse, Printed at London, 1693, but [...]rceiving it to be very Weak, and very Ma­ [...]ious, he resolved to make no Reply unto [...] only to Answer it with Silence, and de­ [...]ved Contempt. But some worthy Persons [Page 2] in England having desired that he would send them some Remarks upon it, he has at last complied with their importunity; notwith­standing the Author of a Pamphlet which will Confidently deny matters of Fact, which all the World may presently prove and know to be true; and which will particularly deny a Quoted Passage to be found, where every Eye may see it at pleasure, must certainly be thought unworthy of an Answer, by all Persons of Reason and Honour.

The Answerer in his Preface tells the world a ridiculous Story, That deluded People broke into the Church Erected in Boston, for Worship according to the Church of England, to search for the Images which they supposed Church of Eng­land Men Worshipped. He that begins with such a Falshood as this, tis easy to guess what Truth he is like to Furnish us with. Tis no wonder that he goes on to Charge the Discourse, he attempts to An­swer, with Untruths; in affirming that the Apocrypha Chapters are to be Read on the greatest Holy-days. But does not the Com­mon-Prayer Book appoint them to be Read on Whit-sunday, Candlemas, Saint Peter's Saint Michael, and all Saints? which by some are accounted among the greatest Holy-days; and in some Places the greatest Concourse of People uses to be on those Days, as they who [Page 3] should know it have informed me. And has not the Liturgy ordered the abominable Magical Prescriptions, and Corrupt Doctrine taught in the Apocrypha, to be Read as if it were agreeable to Scripture? And does it not appoint some Apocrypha Chapters twice, nay, thrice in the Year to be Read? A respect not put upon a great part of the Canonical Scripture. And does it not Or­dain; that when on an Holy-day, in which one of them is to be Read, falls on such a Day as on which the Calender has appointed a Canonical Chapter, that the Canonical shall give way to the Apocryphal? The Answerer then has no reason to Complain of the Discourse, for saying that the Liturgy does advance the Apocrypha above the Scriptures. Tis plain by what has been mentioned. The Preface asserts, That 'tis the Opinion of the Author of the Discourse, that all Forms of Prayer are Vnlawful. That's a notorious Slander; like a great deal more in the Answer. There are many Witnesses, who can testify that he has Publickly declared the Contrary. Only he judges, the im­position of Forms (which is more than the bare use of them) to be Unlawful. The Preface hath another Untruth with the for­mer, viz. That the Author of the Discourse is against Reading of the Scripture in Publick [Page 4] Congregations. He wishes it were Read more there: Yet concurs with Didoclavius, Mr. Weems, Mr. Rutherford, and other Di­vines in Scotland, that it would be most for Edification, that Publick Readings should be attended with Expositions or an Exhorta­tion: Ezra [...].3.2 Chron. 17.9. Luke 4.16, 21. Act. 13.15. Thus it was among the Jews of old; and among Christians in the Primitive Times: As is evident from the Writings of Justin Martyr, Origen, Cyprian, Austin. These Remarks may suffice for his Preface.

Both in his Preface and in his Book, he does endeavour to perswade the World, that the Author of the Discourse, never compared the English with the Roman Liturgy; and that he speaks falsly, when he affirms that he had done it, and was satisfied. This Treat­ment of the Answerer is Base & Scandalous. I am certain, that the Discourser Compared the English with the Roman Liturgy, and a­nother Minister was with him when he did it; altho' he did not think it worth the while to read over every Word in both Li­turgies: Nor did he ever give the least hint, as if he had so mispent his Time, notwith­standing the Answerer does so unreasonably insist upon it. An Hours Comparing them, will let any man see, that the English is bor­rowed from the Romish, as to the Order and [Page 5] Substantial parts of it; of which more by and by.

In the First Edition of the Discourse, Printed in New-England, there is the word Jephilleth; whenas there is no such Hebrew word: But it was the Printers fault, who made Jephilleth instead of Tephilloth; which is the Hebrew word for Prayers: And in the Second Edition of the Discourse, Printed at London 1689, it is so expressed. Now this Answerer falls to Flouting at the Author of the Discourse, for that which was the Error of the Printer. What ingenuous Man would do so? But such mean discoveries of an evil Spirit are of a piece with the rest of the Answer.

As for the Jews saying, (which he Quar­rels at) viz. That Christians receive their Tephil­loth from Armillus; that is, their Prayer-Books from Antichrist: Dr. Owen, in the Preface to his Discourse concerning the Spirit of Prayer, pag. 20. Mentions it, for the same reason and to the same purpose as the Author of the Discourse has done; so that in Jeering him, he Jeers Dr. Owen too; a far Better and more Learned Man than himself. The Answerer would make you believe, that the Discourser is guilty of Scurrility and Pro­faneness, because of that Expression; Broken Responds, and Shreds of Prayers, whereby they [Page 6] toss their Prayers between the Priest and People. Those words are not Originally the Discour­sers; they are the words of a Person well known in the Church of God, in his Testimony from the Scripture against the Common-Prayer Book, pag. 72. Who had them, or part of them from the Famous Cartwright. The Ju­dicious Dr. Rule, in his Rational defence of Non-conformity, pag. 229. has words of a like im­port. But I take these Authors to be as free from all Scurrility and Profaness, as ou [...] Answerer. The Author of the Discourse af­firms, that Bishop Juell, in the defence of hi [...] Apology, pag. 346. quotes and approves o [...] those words out of Leonicenus, viz. That th [...] Priests of [...]is used to wear Linnen Surplices, whic [...] seems to be derived from them to our time. T [...] which the Answerer replies; It is not in th [...] Place he refers to; if any where. Thus does h [...] show his good Will to make the Discourse a Forger of Testimonies. Whereas, I kno [...] not how many have for their Satisfactio [...] seen that Book; and in the Page referr'd t [...] found the words mentioned.

To proceed. The Discourse pleads again the use of the Cross in Baptism; that t [...] first users of it were Hereticks viz Valentin and Montanus. This the Answerer is lo [...] to own. And for what reason? Because th [...] some who used the Cross, Wrote against t [...] [Page 7] [...]eretick Valentine! And is not this a weighty Reason? Sure it is, we hear nothing of the [...]se of the Cross, in any authentical Writer, [...]ntil we come unto Valentine; he then must [...]e the Father of it. And as he Begat the Cross, so Montanus the Heretick first gave i [...] [...]redit among Christians.

We go on with our Remarks. It seems by his Answerer, that the Author of the Dis­ [...]ourse is so very Profane, that he is loth to [...]ell the World of it. His words are, Hi [...] [...]stance of the Gallows looks so Profanely, that I [...]all rather pass it by, than Correct it. Speak [...]ut man, and let us hear the worst of it. The [...]rofane words in the Discourse are these; [...]udicious and Holy Men have argued thus, If Child should Worship the Gallows on which his [...]ather was Hanged, that would manifest him to [...]e Vngracious and Vnnatural: the Papists in A­ [...]oring the Cross, do as bad. This is the Pro­ [...]ane Passage. If Bellermine Complains of the [...]etro-brus [...]ni, for saying; That the Cross ought [...]o be as Odious to Vs, as is the Gallows to a Child [...]n which his Father was Hanged: will our An­ [...]werer joyn with him? It seems he does. But [...]f the Discourser be Profane, how Profane then, was the Great and Learned and emi­nently Pious, Robert Parker [...] who says; It is as Vnfit to make a Cross a Memorial of Christ, as for a Child to make much of the [Page 8] Halter, wherewith his Father was Hanged.

One Remark more. The Answerer with­out reason accuses the Discourse, of Trivial, Vnintelligible, Dirty Reflections. Good words, I pray, Sir, if it be as you say; Turpe est Docto­ré, [...]um culpa re [...]arguit ipsum. But the Dis­courser is not Conscious to himself of any such Reflections. If there had been any such, his Antagonist would not have spared to mention them; which he does not, because he could not. I have omitted to take notice, that the Answerer, pag. 21. Reflects on the Author of the Discourse, as a man without any Care or Conscience. Which whether he is such an one, they that know him best, and among whom he has been Preaching the Gospel for some Scores of Years, are best able to judge. And I have omitted, that the Answerer Chargeth him with gross Ignorance, and something worse; because he affirms, that Day, the Bishop of Chichester, a dissembling Hypocrite was one concerned in Compiling the Liturgy. That Day, was one of the Compilers, is related by Dr. Fuller in his Church History, Book. 7. p. 386. That he was a dissembling Hypocrite, the An­swerer don't deny; nor, I suppose, will any one else, when he reads the account that Fuller; and others have given of him. I omit also, that the Answerer unjustly Com­plains of the Discourse, for affirming that [Page 9] the Preface to the Common-Prayer Book de­clares, that nothing is appointed to be read but the Pure Word of God, or that which is evidently grounded on the same. He says the words are not so. But I maintain that those are the very words in the Old Edition of the Liturgy; and it was such an one that the Discourser then had by him.

It is now time to Argue the Point a little. The Discourser has Reasoned after this man­ner; The Mass-book is the Papists Idol: Pro­testants should not p [...]t such Honour upon that I­dol, as to take their Prayers and Ceremonies from it. The Answerer Denies that the Mass-book is an Idol: and yet it is certain that the Papists Idolize it. And do, they not Swear by it? See Howell's Letters, pag. 218. And do they not say, that to Swear on a Pro­testant Bible, is no more Swearing, than on Aesop's Fables? If the Mass-Book is not (as among Papists it is) an Idol forbidden in the First, it is an Idol forbidden in the Second Commandment. All Images or Means of Worship not appointed by the Lord himself, are such Idols. But the principal difference between the Discourser and the Answerer, is on this Question, Whether the English Liturgy is not as to the Substance of it, borrowed from the Papists? The Author of the Discourse [...]firms [Page 10] that it is derived from the Romish; and that altho' there are things in the Romish, which are not translated into English; and some things in the Common-Prayer Book, which are not in the other; nevertheless, that the Substance of the latter is taken out of the former. The Answerer says, that this is a gross Falshood. If it is so, King James I. was very much mistaken, when in a General As­sembly of the Ministers in Scotland, he thus Expressed himself; As for our Neighbour Kirk in England, their Service is an evil said Mass in English; they want nothing of the Mass, but the lifting up. I Charge you my Good People, Ministers, Pastors, Doctors, Elders, Nobles, Gen­tlemen to stand to your Purity, and to Exhort the People to do the same. This Speech was uttered by the King, August 4. 1590, as is testified by Mr. Calderwood, in his History of Scotland, pag. 256. We find in our Martyr Books, Vol. 2. p. 667. that King Edward the VI. in his Declaration to the Devonshire men who rose up in Rebellion, in defence of the Popes Service Book, has these words; As for the Service in the English Tongue, it perchance seems to you a New Service; yet indeed it is no other but the Old, the same words in English, for NOTHING is altered; but to speak with Knowledge that which was spoken with Ignorance, only a few things taken out so fond, that it had [Page 11] been a Shame to have heard them in English. If the Service were good in Latin, it is good in Eng­lish. Notwithstanding Two Kings have thus declared, our Answerer has the good Man­ners to say, It is a gross Falshood. But we shall produce some further Testimonies; and then let the World see, who has Truth on his side, the Discourser or the Answerer. Mr Thomas Gage having been a long time a Popish Priest, and so Vers'd in the Roman Liturgy, is a very Competent Judge in this Case. Now he in the First Edition of his English American, pag. 205. thus expresseth himself; ‘I continued Twelve Months at my Vncles House in Catton, Searching (tho' un­known to my Vncle and Kindred) into the Doctrine and Truth of the Gospel, Professed in England; for which cause, I made many Jour­nies to London; and then Privately I resorted to some Churches, and especially to Paul's Church to see the Service performed; and to hear the Word of God Preached; but so that I might not be seen, known or discovered by any Papist. When in Paul's Church, I heard the Organs, and the Musick, and the Prayers, and the Collects, and saw the Ceremonies at the Altar, I remembred Rome again; and perceived lit­tle difference between the two Churches: I searched further into the Common-Prayer, and carried with me a Bible into the Countrey on [Page 12] purpose to Compare the Prayers, Epistles [...] Gospels, with a Mass-Book, which there I [...] at Command; and I found no difference, [...] English and Latin, which made me wonder and to acknowledge, that much remained still [...] Rome in the Church of England; and that feared my Calling was not right.’ In the Lat­ter Editions of Mr. Gage's Book, such men as our Answerer, have caused these Passages to be left out; just as the Papists use to serve the most profitable Passages in Books, with their Index, Expurgatorius.

It may be, the Testimony of Popish Wri­ters, will be of more Weight with such Men as our Answerer, than any thing that Mr. Gage, or any other Presbyterian can say. They shall have some of them. There are Popish Writers enough, that will joyn with Dr. Mountegue, (an Arminian Protestant) who asserts, that their Service is the same in most things, with the Church of Rome; and that the differences are not so great, as that they should make any Separation. The Author of the Discourse; at which the Answerer is in such a Rage, takes notice that the Jesuit Car­rier, owns that the Common-Prayer and the Church-Catechism, contains nothing contra­ [...]y to the Roman Service; and that another [...]esuit, being asked how he liked the Service [...] Paul's; replied, I have nothing against it, [Page 13] but that tis done by your Priests. And that two Popish Intelligencers, having seen the London and Canterbury Cathedral Services, was pleased with it; declaring that it did very much Symbolize with that at Rome. I shall men­tion but one Testimony more, which indeed is a Satyrical one; it is that of Weston, a Popish Bigot; who having said, ‘That the Religion of Protestants was without all Re­ligion, because they have no Sacrifice, Priest­hood, or Sacred Ceremonies.’ He further adds; ‘Some Protestants indeed, that they may not appear absolutely Impious and Ir­religious, use our Missal and Breviary; se­lecting what they please thereof for the Rubrick of their Liturgy; and to make the Form of their Worship appear more Good­ly, they have their Canonical Persons, forsooth, after the Modes and Customs of the Church of Rome; their Caps, and Hoods, and Holy-days, and such like stuff, which they say they found in the Synagogue of Antichrist; by which very thing it is ap­parent, that the Religion of these Pro­testants stands guilty of Stealth and Rob­bery, by which it first came into the world; or if they will not be taken for Thieves, let them go for our Apes. These with their whole Service, are derided; not only by ours, but also by their own. The [Page 14] English seem to have driven the [...]ope out of England [...]n such haste, that they forced him to leave his Cloaths behind him; which they as Fools in a play, put on with a kind of Pompous Ceremony of Triumph, and so lead the Quire. A goodly Reformation it is, that they dare not carry through!’

Our Answerer will tell you, if you will be­lieve him, that there is not one Collect or Pray­er, in the English Liturgy, taken out of the Mass-Book. But then why do some Church men Plead for the Collects taken out of the Mass-Book, that those Prayers are in themselves Good; and therefore the taking them out of the Mass-Book, cannot make them to be E­vil? Are not Six Canticles in the Common-Prayer Book, taken word for word from the Mass-Book? But our Answerer has the Front to tell us, that Papists will not Com­municate in our Liturgy. He would per­swade us, that they cannot endure the Com­mon-Prayer Book. But how then did Par­palio, the Popes Legat, offer to Queen Eliza­beth, in the Popes Name, that the English Li­turgy should be Confirmed by his Holiness? And how then does Dr. Heylen (whom I take to be one of this Answerer's Brethren) affirm, that for several Years, Papists continued in Com­munion with the Church of England; and that when they did forsake it, 'twas not because they [Page 15] approved not of our Liturgy; but upon Politick Considerations, and because the Pope had Excom­municated the Queen. If Papists are such ter­rible Enemies to the Common-Prayer Book as this Answerer would make us believe, how does Bishop Hall, in his Quo vadis, say, That his Eyes and Ears can testify with what Applause the Catholicks entertained the New translated Li­turgy of our Church? And does not Dr. Moor, in his Mystery of Iniquity, pag. 468. say, It is well known, that for some space of Years, the Catholicks joyned in Publick Prayer and Service? But to put an end to this Dispute, Whether the English Liturgy is (as to the Substantials of it) taken out of the Romish: The Truth will be as clear as the Light of the Sun, Ob­signatis Tabellis. Let us then now Compare them before we go any further, and see with our Eyes, whether it be not so. Mr. Delaune, in his Plea for the Nonconformists, has done it to our hands. He has truly observed, that as to the Time of Worship, the Roman Bre­viary and Kalendar do divide their Year into Feasts, Vigils, Fasts, and Working-days: The English Liturgy takes these directly from them, dividing their Kalendar by them, both as to Feasts, Vigils, Fasts, and Working-days. It is true, that they have more Feasts than we; but all ours are found in theirs, and taken from them. In the Popes Liturgy, [Page 16] their Moveable Feasts are, (1.) Their Easter Day, on which the rest depend; which is to be the first Sunday after the first Full Moon, which happens next after the Twenty-first of March. (2.) Their Advent Sunday, which is always the nearest Sunday to the Feast of St. Andrew. (3.) Their Septuagesima Sun­day, nine Weeks before Easter. (4.) Their Sexagesima Sunday, eight Weeks before Easter. (5.) Their Quinquagesima Sunday, seven Weeks before Easter. (6.) Their Quadrigesima Sun­day, six Weeks before Easter. (7.) Their Rogation Sunday, five Weeks after Easter. (8.) Their Ascension Day, which is forty Days after Easter. (9.) Their Whit-Sunday with a Vigil, seven Weeks after Easter. (10.) Their Trinity Sunday, eight Weeks after Easter, and Twenty-four Sundays after Tri­nity. Thus it is ordered in the Roman Li­turgy; and it is directly so in the English. And if we Consider the Twenty-six fixed Feasts, appointed in the Common-Prayer Book, they are all observed on the very same Day in the Popes, as in the English Liturgy. The Days appointed for the Honour of St. Matthias, St. Mark, and the other Apostles, they are all the same with those in the Po­pish Kalendar. Whether it be not Idolatry to appoint Days to be observed in Honour [...], we shall not here Dispute; nor can [Page 17] there be any Reason given, why Days should not be Consecrated to Abraham, Moses, Sa­muel, and the Prophets, as well as to the A­postles; only that the Pope has not Cano­nized the former and has the latter. If we should proceed to Consider Rites and Ceremo­nies: In the Popes Liturgy, men are directed to stand at the Singing of Quicunque vult, and at the Recitation of Athanasius's Creed, and to Kneel at the receiving the Eucharist; that the Priest and People shall read Psalms alternately, Verse by Verse, with other Rites too many to be mentioned. Does not the English Liturgy do just the same? Why then does our Answerer endeavour to make the World believe, that the English Liturgy is not borrowed from the Roman? Mr. Delaune has moreover shewed in Thirteen Particulars, that the English Pontificial, is taken out of the Roman; and that in Ordination of the Priest­hood, we Symbolize with them. He might therefore upon good grounds affirm, as he doth, pag. 31. ‘The Publick Worship and Service contained in the English Liturgy, is the same, in the main Body and Essenti­als, chiefest Materials, Frame and Order with that of the Popish; and who soever will take the pains to search into the Popish Bre­viary, Ritual, Missal, and Pontificial, which Four Comprehend their whole Liturgy; will find, [Page 18] tho' there may be some Alterations & Va­riations in several Particulars, yet the Sub­stance, chief Materials, and Order are the same, and that they are taken out of theirs, viz. Collects, Mat [...]ins, Even Songs, Epistles, Gospels, Creeds, Litanies, Consecration, Ad­ministration of Sacraments, Baptism of Infants, with Gossips to answer for them, Kneeling at the Altar, Confiteor, Absolution, Confirmation, Burial, Matrimony, Visitation of the Sick, Ordination of Arch-Bishops, Bishops, &c.’ These things are Plain and Incontestable.

Some Object, That the Reformed Churches have their Publick Liturgies. Tis true, some of them have so, without any Imposition. But the most Learned Voctius, discoursing of Liturgies, sayes, that none used in any Pro­testant Church does Symbolize with Rome like the English. Dr. Bilson, (a Famous Episco­pal Divine) speaks the Truth when he says, That the Reformed Churches are so far from ad­mitting a full Dose of Papists Heresies, that they can by no means digrest a Dram of their Ceremo­nies.

Thus we have seen the First Argument in the Discourse Vindicated: As for the rest, not [...] them is Enervated by any thing [...] by this Answerer. He has offered nothing but what has been Reply'd unto more pl [...]n Twenty times, by [...] earned Nonconfor­mists; [Page 19] which may justly give a Supersedeas to my further Proceeding therein: For if I should, I shall but Actum Agere.

As for the Second Question in the Discourse, about Swearing by the Book; why should any Reply be made to such an Answerer, as main­tains, that when the Papists in Swearing Pray to the holy Evangelists to help them, they are not guilty of Idolatry? I shall at present only say further, that Athanasius in Swearing, would not use any other Rite besides that of lifting up the Hand to Heaven. And the Martyr Mr. William Thorp, refused to comply with the usual Mode of Swearing; and he sayes, that Chrysostom was against the Book Oathe, as he styles it: He thus Argues; ‘If I touch the Book, the meaning of that Ceremony is nothing else but that I Swear by it; when­as it is not Lawful to Swear by any Creature’, Vid. Fox Martyrol. Vol. I. Pag. 705. In Scotland, and in other Reformed Churches, that Ceremony is not used; and in our own Courts of Admiralty, another Form of Swearing is frequently practised. Many in England many Years since, were Scrupulous about that Mode in Swearing. In the Year 1649, in the Oath which was Enjoyned on Mayors and other Magistrates, a Proviso was inserted as to the Mode of Swearing, that [...]o Doubting Consciences might not be En­snared. [Page 20] Vid. Scobel's Collections, Chap. 51. This Mode of Swearing is at best, a Super­stitious piece of Judaism. For the Jews who indulge themselves in Swearing by Creatures, will frequently Swear [ Bethorah] by the Law, as is declared by their R. David, on Isa. 8.20. And at this Day, in Swearing they [...]se to lay their Hands on the Books of Moses; and suppose that an Oath has no Obligation, that it is no Oath except Sworn on the Book of the Law. Thence is the Custom of laying the Hand on the Evangelists in Swearing derived to us; as Drusius, and other Learned Men have Conjectured. Vid. Drus. de Trib. Sect. Lib. II. Cap. 16. p. 109. Leusden Philol. Hebr. p.423. I might have mentioned several other Martyrs and Eminent Confessors, who would not Conform to this Mode of Swear­ing. Nor is there any Law to Enforce it, only Custom.

Concerning the Name of this Anonymous Answerer, I list not to Enquire. Some say he is a Bishop. If he is a Bishop, I doubt not but that there have been many better Bishops in New-England than he; and I hope, there are such still. But I cannot easily Believe that he is one. It is beneath the Gravity & Learning which becomes a Bishop, to Write in such a petulant Style. I should rather by his Book, take him to be some High Flyer, [Page 21] who hopes for Preferment by his Bigottry to the Liturgy and Ceremonies. No Man of Honour could act so Mean or so Rude a part, as appears in the Answer from first to last; whereof the Reader has seen a little scantling. Sure I am, that many Worthy Conformists have been of another and a better Spirit, than this man is of. Great Divines of the Church of England, who have esteemed the Ceremonies to be indifferent things, and not (as the Nonconformists believe) Transgres­sions of the Second Commandment, nevertheless, were willing to have them removed; and the many Offensive things in the Common-Prayer Book altered. This is true, not only con­cerning Hooper, and Coverdale, and Latimer, and our Proto-martyr Rogers, & others, when the Liturgy was first Published in English, & was then a good step towards Reformation; but in the latter end of Queen Elizabeths Reign, Mr. Deering a Renowned Conformist, Writes thus; The Similitude which the Common-Prayer Book has with the Form of Prayer which the Papists use, I think declines from the Equity of the Laws in the VIIth. and in the XIIth. Chap­ters of Deuteronomy. Great inconvenience has followed this Book, while it has maintained an Vn­learned Ministry. Also in the last Century, there was (as is by Mr. Delaune related, p 4 [...].) a Paper presented to the Parliament by Arch-Bishop [Page 22] Vsher, Dr. Williams Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Prideaux, who was afterward Bishop of Worcester, Dr. Browning Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Hacket Bishop of Coventry & Lichfield, Dr. Ward, Dr. Featly, &c. Which Paper Subscribed by those Learned Episcopal Divines, contained five and Thirty Exceptions against several things in the Liturgy, and among others, a­gainst the Corrupt Translations of the Epi­stles, and Gospels, and Psalms, and against the Apochrypha injoyned to be Read in the Lessons, against Singing Service, against adding Gloria Patri to the Psalms, against Hymns taken out of the Mass-Book, against Priestly vestments, against the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, which they say might as well be omitted as the Oyl which was here­tofore its Concomitant. But our Answerer stands to justify all these things, which those Worthy Prelates and Doctors would have had Reformed. We have done with him.

Boston March 4. 1701, 2.

AND now, O you Churches of Christ in New-England, Hold fast the Profession of your Faith without Wavering. Be stedfast in your Religion, both as to the Faith, and as to the Order of the Gospel. Buy the Truth, but Sell it not. Remember what it was [Page 23] your Fathers came into this Wilderness to see. They did not (as Conformists now do) come into a fruitful Land to get Estates, but they ventured their own Lives and the Lives of their Children over a vast Ocean, to En­counter with the Straits and Difficulties of a Barren Howling Wilderness: An undertaking (as one truly speaks of it) hardly to be para­lel'd, except in that of their Father Abraham, out of Vr of the Chaldees, or of his Posterity out of Egypt. They Expected nothing but poverty and mean things whilst in this World. And all these Sufferings they very willingly were subject to, for no other reason, but that so they and their Posterity might be freed from the Superstitions of the Common-Prayer Book. An Ignorant Young Man, has the Confidence (I should have said the Impudence) to tell you in Print, that your Fathers did not come hither on any such account. He will also tell you, that your Vulgar Capaci­ties, cannot distinguish between Truth & Falshood, Like as the Papists, will not allow you to have a judgment of Discretion, and therefore you must Believe as the Church Believes. But if your Fathers did not come to New-England for their Nonconformity, what else was it for? There are many still living who can remem­ber that their Fathers have often informed them, that it was their dissatisfaction with the [Page 24] Liturgy and the Worship of it, which induced them to leave their Native Land. My Re­verend Father (who was for many years the Renowned Teacher of the Church in Dor­chester) did frequently declare it to his Chil­dren, both to those he brought with him, and to those born here. And in the Narrative of his Life Printed above 40 Years since, there is inserted the Reasons which he left written with his own hand, that caused him to Transport himself and Family from Old-England to New-England, viz. That it was to remove from a Corrupt Church to a Purer, from a Church where Discipline is Wanting, to a Church where it may be Enjoyed, from a Land where the Truth and the Professors of it were Persecuted, to a Land of more Quietness. Other Ministers of Christ by whom Churches were first Planted in New-England were of the same Principles, and so likewise the People who came with them.

Mr. Brightman above an hundred years since, Commenting on those words, Rev. 17.3. He carried me into the Wilderness, and I saw, &c. Conjectured that the Time would come, when some Faithful Servants of Christ in a Wilderness, would make the clearest disco­veries of those Truths which are most oppo­site to the Romish Apostacy, which some have thought has been fulfilled when Churches were Erected in New-England, Eminent for [Page 25] their Purity and Piety. These Churches were Planted Noble Vines. God grant they may Ever be in respect of Purity and Holiness as once they were. Dr. Ames was wont to say, that if there were any Churches on the Earth which Christ would own, they were the Churches in New-England, and therefore had purposed to dye among them, but when ready for his voyage hither, Death removed him to the Church Triumphant. When our Fathers shewed such love to Christ, as to follow him into a Wilderness, and there were Holiness to the Lord, as Jer.2.2, 3. He rewarded them with shewing to them the form of his House, and the fashion thereof, the goings out there­of, and the comings in thereof, and all the Laws thereof. It was not (as has often eno' been said) with respect to Fundamental Articles of Faith that your Fathers came hither. For as to the Essentials of Religion, they concurr'd with the Articles owned by the Church of Eng­land, and therefore were willing to Own that which is the true Church of England, (but not the Apostates in it) to be their Mother, whose Breasts had nourished them; but they came to New-England, purely on the account of Discipline and the Spiritual Government of Christ in his Church, of which as a Legacy to their Posterity, they have left us a Platform gathered out of the Word of God. All and on­ly [Page 26] such Officers, as that word has Ordained, have been owned by us. Our Bishops, or El­ders (for those are in Scriptural Language the same) have been Scripture ones; Men able to Teach, Blameless, Vigilant, not given to filthy Lu­ore. Lord Bishops we have had none, nor shall we own any such to be of the Lord's Institution, Mar.10.42, 43. I have seen a Book with that Title, Lord Bishops, none of the Lord's Bishops. Memorable are the words of our Famous Mr. Norton, in his last Election Sermon; I may say thus much, and pardon my Speech, a more yielding Ministry unto the People, I believe is not in the World. Our Churches as to the matter of them, consist of visible Saints, which made them Golden Candlesticks. The gates of our Churches have been set open for the Righte­ous Nation to enter in. No ungodly persons (who were visibly such) have been admitted into our Communion. If any crept in unawares, and afterwards by Scandalous practices disco­vered their Hypocrysy, the holy Discipline of Christ purged the Church of them. The Liturgy confesses, that there was a Godly Dis­cipline in the Primitive Churches, and that 'tis much to be desired, that it might be restored, and yet for these 150 years, they have done no­thing to restore it. The Prelatists would Excommunicate Men because they were a­s [...] to Sin against their Consciences, but [Page 27] they might be Vicious, and Prophane, Drunk­ards, Swearers, Sabbath-breakers, and tho' never so Debauched, no Excommunication, no Discipline exercised towards them. And if a Man were liable to Censures for offending against their Ceremonies or Canons, he might with Money buy off his Excommunication, as Mr. Hickeringill did his for a Guinea, for which he says merrily, that he should love a Gui­nea the better for it as long as he Lived. The Discipline practised in the Churches of New-England is not like this. But as Tertullian says, the Discipline in the Primitive Churches was, a little Resemblance of the great Day of Judgment to come. In a word, All & only Divine Institutions have been receiv'd among us, & those Administred to the proper duly qualified Sub­jects of them, and this according to the Sim­plicity of the Gospel, without any Mixture of Popish Ceremonies, or Humane Inventions. There are some that will tell you, that you have no true Ministers, nor Churches, nor Baptism, nor Sacrament, because your Mini­sters have had no Ordination. But they have been Ordained as Timothy (whom Prelates pretend to be an Arch-Bishop,) was, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, 1 Tim.4.14. Bell [...]ne says, that Protestants have no true Mini [...]s among them, because they have not received Ordination by the Imposi­tion [Page 28] of a Bishops hands from the Apostles Successively. And Prelatists say the same, but that is at once to Unchurch and Unchristian all the Churches and Christians in the world▪ excepting some in England, and Ireland, and the Church of Rome. The Ordination of a Presbyter is as Valid [...]s that of a Bishops. Does not the excellent Bishop Juel s [...], that if it is Heresy to Maintain that a Bishop and a Presbyter are the same, then we must make the Apostle Paul to be an Heretick? There have been Bishops Ordained by Presbyters. Luther and Melancton, who were no mo [...] [...] Pres­byters, Ordained se [...] The [...] [...] ­gy have [...] intend [...] who are Shadows of Bishops, these in the beginning of the Refor­mation were Ordained by Presbyters. In Denmark, Bugenhagius, who was the great Instrument of Reformation in that Kingdom, & was a meer Presbyter, Ordained Seven Bi­shops at one time. In Sweden there is an Arch-Bishop and Seven Bishops. The first Protestant Bishops there had their Ordinati­on from Presbyters. A Learned Lutheran, lately a Professor in Wittenberg, asserts, that a Presbyter has equal power of Ordination with a Bishop; and complains of Papists for giving the sole power of Ordination to Prelates, and with him those English Divines who plead for it, are Papa [...]ur [...]em [...] Britanni. The Luthe­rans [Page 29] are the more concerned, for that Jesuites endeavour to perswade those Protestants that they have no true Churches among them, because their Ministers are Ordained by Su­per-intend [...]s who are not a distinct Order from Presbyters. To make all Ordinations Invalid and Null except Episcopal ones, & to make Ordination Essential to a True Minister, does not destroy the Ministers and Churches of New-England only, but in Scot­land, in France, in Switzerland, [...]n Holland, in Germany, in D [...]mark, and [...]we [...]en; that in short, a [...] t [...]e Protestant Churches in the World besides themselves. This makes ma­ny serious Men, begin to think, whether they who thus renounce Communion with all the Reformed Churches in the World (tho' very liberal in calling others by the name of Schis­maticks) are not guilty of a Schism, wherein they shut themselves out of the True Visible Catholick Church of Christ, & ought therefore to be Forsaken of all that would adhere to that. Is it reasonable that a Popish Priest who has received no Ordination, but from the Mini­sters of Antichrist, shall be capable of Prefer­ment without any other Ordination, but a Protestant Minister Ordained by Presbyters may not without a Re-ordination? We have been Taught better. Wherefore, O Churches of New-England remember how you have received, [Page 30] and heard, and hold fast. Let no Temptation shake you from your stedfastness. Shall such Churches Degenerate into Strange Vines? Shall their Posterity embrace such Superstiti­ons and Corruptions in the Worship of God, as their Fathers would r [...]her have died than complied with them? Most certainly it is at this day a duty incumbent on the Ministers of God, to endeavour that their People may be Enlightned with Truth, left shortly it should be too late, and some in their Flocks depart from the Pure and Holy ways of the Lord, thro' Ignorance; and the guilt of their Apostasy lie at their Ministers door. Some­times a swift Apostasy from the Purity of Worship overtakes a People. I very often think of what is written, Judg. 2.17. They turned quickly out of the way, which their Fathers walked in, obeying the Commands of the Lord; but they did not so. If the Lord should remove but a few of his Eminent Servants from a­mong us, there is cause to fear there will be a great Defection Quickly. The Children of Israel kept to their Religion all the days of Joshua, and of the Elders that outlived Joshua, but then there arose another Generation, which forsook the God of their Fathers. Let us pray that there may not such a Generation rise up in New-England, and use our best en­deavours to prevent it. The Purest Churches [Page 31] are apt to degenerate. We find that the Churches Planted by the Apostles themselves did so. Whilst the Apostles were yet living, Religion decayed in some of the Churches, some of them left their first love, and there was a scandalous neglect of Discipline in o­thers of them. In the Autumn of the Apo­stles Age (as an Eminent Divine expresseth it) there was a great Falling among Professors of the true Religion. It is an old observation, that the Christian Church continued a Virgist during the Apostolical Age, but in the next Age, Corruptions and Superstitions began. What a contest was there about the day when Easter should be observed? And yet Ireneus says, that the custom of observing that Day, crept into the Church thro' Ignorance. And Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History, acknowledges, that neither our Saviour, nor his Apostles, did Ordain the keeping of that Holi-day. In Justin Martyrs time, they mixed Water with the Wine at the Lord's Supper, and the Deacons carried the Elements to absent Persons; neither of which practices was according to Divine Instituti­on. Nevertheless, these Innovations crept into the Churches within 50 years after the Apostles were all dead. The Sacrament of Baptism was corrupted, with the additions of the Cross and Oyl, Milk, Honey, and Super­stitious Garments, in the early Ages of Christi­anity. [Page 32] Of so little weight is the pretence of Antiquity, without Scripture, which Prelatists use to boast of Consuetudo sine veritate verustas erroris est, Cypr. Such Considerations as these, should make us the more Cautious and Vigilant against Degeneracy in Religion. As yet our Temptations to Apostacy, or Conformity are not great, and therefore our Sin in it will be the more unreasonable and inexcusable. By means of the Late Happy Revolution, our Nonconformists Brethren in England have their Religious Liberties confirmed by Law. Dr. Cressener (a worthy Conformist) speaking of the Indulgence granted to Dissenters, has these words, whatsoever others may intend or de­sign by this Liberty of Conscience, I cannot believe that it will ever be recalled in England, as long as the world stands. It is like to be of more lasting continuance, than Magna Charta. To this I shall only say, Oh! Vtinam. As for the Severe Penal Laws against Dissenters, they neither do nor ever did they extend to the Plantations. Shall we forsake the pure Worship of Christ befo [...] it comes to Suffering for it? If to gain Wordly advantages we shall Sin against our Light, what will we do if it should come to Fire and Fagot? What if Popery should take another turn in our Nation? That is not im­possible; tis not long since we were in danger of it. But will Popery return without Persecuti­on? [Page 33] Conformity will not secure us from the rage of Popery. Bloody Papists will no more spare a Godly Conformist, than a Nonconformist. Nay, they will endeavour to extirpate the Name of a Protestant. Dr. Vsher's Prophecy has been much spoken of, what if it should at last be accomplished? I pass by Mr. Archers Opinion, who thinks the Pope will regain all that he has lost in Europe. Good Men in England of all perswasions, are afraid that the Crying Sins of a Nation which hates to be reformed, will pull down very desolating Judgments, and provoke God to say, Shall not my Soul be avenged on such a Nation as this? What greater vengeance can their come on the Nation than a return of Popery? It would better become us to prepare for Suffering, than to think to escape by sinning against our Light. It may be they that will save their Lives, or Estates, or Places, shall lose them and a good Consci­ence, and a good Name among the People of God, and be infamous to all Posterity; as the celebrated Pern is for his time-serving. 'Tis hoped upon Scripture ground, that a glorious day for the Church of Christ is approaching, and not far off, but how dark the Night will be ere the Day break, who can say? If any of us shall be found among the last Apostates, we shall be the unhappiest Men that ever were in the world. Say not Liturgies and Ceremo­nies [Page 34] are small matters, & we had better Con­form tho' against our Consciences, than Suffer for such Trifles. Know we not, that the faithful Servants of Jesus Christ, have chosen to submit to the Extremest Sufferings, rather than to sin, tho' it were but in a circumstance of Divine Worship? Did not the Hebrew Mar­tyrs chuse to be tortured to death, rather than to transgress a Precept of the Ceremonial Law? Heb. 11.35. Oh! that Men would con­sider the words of Christ, Mat. 5.19. Who­soever shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach Men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. What do we think of our Fathers, who left a pleasant Land, and some of them great Estates, to live meanly in this Patmos, only because they were Conscien­tiously afraid of the Sin of Conformity? What do we think of such Men as Mr. Cotton, Mr. Hooker, Mr. Chancey, Mr. Davenport Mr Norton, and many other eminent Ministers of God, who underwent a voluntary Exilement into this Wilderness? Were not they men of uncom­on Leaving & Holiness? And have not they set us an Example of Suffering for Nonconfor­mity? The cause which Nonconformists appear in the defence of, is worth Suffering for, worth Dying for. Some faithful Witnesses of Christ have been cast into Prison and dyed there, for this their Testimony. So it was with Mr. [Page 35] Vdal, in a former Age, for being the Author of a Book called, A demonstration of the Discipline which Christ has prescribed in his Word. And yet a Conformist writer gives this Character of Mr. Vdal, that he was a Learned Man, blame­less in his Life, powerful in his Praying, and no less profitable than painful in his Preaching. The like is to be said of Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Thomson, Mr. Delaune, and many others, in our days, whose Blood will be remembred in the day that God shall make Inquisition for Blood. And when all the Righteous Blood which has been shed, from the Blood of Abel unto this day, shall come upon an Antichristian Persecuting Genera­tinn, as it will as soo [...] as they have filled up the measure of their Fathers. And consider­ing the goodness of the cause, the Author of the Discourse, does not desire to have his Name concealed.

Me, me! adsum qui feci, in me Convertite ferrum.

He has been greatly pleased with those words of his Brother, in his Sermons on the Types, (p. 275. in the 1st. Edit.) speaking of the evil of promiscuous Communion & carnal Mixtures in Church-Society: This (says he) is a thing so clear throughout the whole Scriptures, that were I to chuse what Death I would dye, I think I could never chuse to dye in a better cause, than for bear­ing [Page 36] witness to this Truth. And yet this truth is but a small part of those truths the Author of the Discourse has witnessed unto, and is wil­ling to leave the world with this Testimony. He knows that for what he has done, he shall suffer Persecution, at least from the Tongues of Men, from the Reproach of Moab, and the Revilings of the Children of Ammon. But he remembers that Christ has said, Blessed are you when Men shall Revile you, and Persecute you, & shall say all manner of evil against you falsly for my sake. Rejoyce and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in Heaven: for so Persecuted they the Prophets which were before you.

SOME Remarks, ON A BOOK Written by the Bishop of DERRY.

AMongst all the Books written against Nonconformists, I have seen none so plausible as that Published by Dr. King, the Bi­shop of London-Derry. He does not Write (like the Pretender to An­swer a small Discourse concerning the Litur­gy) with Rancor, but with Candor, beco­ming a Christian, and a Gentleman. Were I inclined to make a large Reply to him, I would treat him with all possible Respect & [Page 2] Deference. Cum Boni [...] bene agier oporfet. But there is no need for me, or any one else to answer him, since it has been done to good purpose already, at least three times by three several hands, to which the Bishop has made no Reply, so far as I understand. A Name­less Author of the Presbyterian Perswasion, returned a solid Answer to him in the Year 1701. Also Mr. Boyse, (who was Born in New-England, and has been a Judicious and Worthy Minister in Dublin for many years, has given so fair and full an Answer to him, as there needs nothing more. The Bishop seems to have a notable Art at making Can­dida de nigris, et de Cande [...]ti [...]us Atra, his own Opinion white, and the Dissenters black: But Mr. Boyse has clearly discovered the So­phistry of his arguing. Likewise Mr. Kreigh­ton, (a Scotch Divine in Ireland) has nota­bly refuted him. I am not the Owner of that Book, some time since I had only a Cursory view of it. I remember he Com­plains the Bishop had been misinformed con­cerning some Principles and Practices of the Nonconformists, and that he has done them wrong in Publishing those things. As to what the Bishop objects against their no [...] Reading the Scripture in their Congregati­ons, Mr. Kreighton replies, that the Sermon [...] of Nonconformists are full of Scripture, tha [...] [Page 3] sometimes they have as many Scripture quoted in a Sermon, as there are Verses in a whole Chapter: But the Harangues of the Conformists in that part of Ireland, have [...] ­tle Scripture in them. Nay, he says, they despise a Sermon if it is well Confirmed with Scripture. Moreover he declares, that the Presbyterians do not only read some part of the Scripture in their Congregations, (as the Church-men do) but the whole Bible, from Genesis to the Revelation inclusively: Only they do it not all within the Compass of one year; and when they read a Chapter, it is accompanied with some Explication or Application, as was usual among the Lord's People under the Old Testament, and a­mong Christians in the Primitive Times. I remember also that he Objects against the Church-Catechism, that there are some things in it not Orthodox, and that 'tis a very de­fective Composure, not to be compared with the Assemblies Catechism. He argues thus, that Catechism in which there is nothing [...]tioned, concerning the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor concerning his Offi­ces, is surely a very defective Catechism: But this is true of the Church Catechism. If the Books referred unto were duly read and considered, I doubt not b [...]t many would thereby be Confirmed in their N [...]onfor­mity, [Page 4] notwithstanding all the Bishops plausi­ble pretentions to have the truth on his [...]ide. But pag, 78. He advises Dissenting Ministers to Discourage their People from Reading the Books written by Dr. Owen, Mr. Bax [...]er, Mr. Alsop, and Mr. Boyse, alleadging that they are Independents, in which he is mistaken; for these are all (except Dr. Ow­ [...]) known Presbyterians. For him to Dis­sw [...]de Men from Reading what they hav [...] written, under a groundless pretence of thei [...] being Independents; (which if they were so [...] [...]t makes no matter) is not fair. But it ha [...] been the manner of Conformists to misre [...] present the Arguments of their Antagonist [...] whereby they have wronged the Cause o [...] Nonconformity, and Confirmed their ow [...] Conformity. Witness for this that Scholas­tical Divine, Mr. Henry Ieans, who was fo [...] some time a Conformist, and wrote again [...] the Nonconformists, but when he impart [...] ­ally read and weighed their Arguments o [...] both sides, he became a Strenuous Nonconfor­mist. Hear his words, for they are wort [...] hearing. In the second part of his Schola [...] ­tical and Practical Divinity, pag. 94. I rea [...] (says he) all such Books of Nonconformists, [...] I c [...]uld p [...]ocure; upon perusal, I soon found th [...] their Adversaries must Disingenuously misr [...] ­presented all that they said, that they came a [...] [...] [Page 9] demning such Irreverence and Irreligion. Only he seems to Run into another Ex­tream, in making the posture of Kneeling, to be Necessary in Prayer, for Standing al­ [...] is a Praying Posture. Iob stood up when [...]e Prayed, Job 30.20. Mark 11.25. When you stand Praying, forgive. The Jews have a Celebrated Saying, That without Standing, (they mean Praying) the World would not stand. Why then should Kneeling, tho very suitable and convenient in Private Prayers, be urged in Publick Worship? As [...]or Kneeling at the Sacrament, which he is zealous for, we dare not do it. Our Saviour Christ has taught us otherwise by his own Example with his Apostles. Pa­pists say, that if they did not believe that the Bread is Transubstantiated into the very Body of Christ, they would sooner be torn in pieces, than Kneel at the Sa­crament. It is certain, that the Primitive Christians did not so. For in the Nicene Council, near upon fourteen hundred years [...]o, there was a Decree (it is in the 20th Canon) that Christians shall not in any Chur [...]ay Kneeling, but Standing on the Lord's-Day. But undoubtedly they had the Lords Supper on the Lords-Day. I cannot by searching, [...]d, that Kneeling before the Bread was En­ [...]yned before Antichrist was come to his [Page 10] height, nor for some time after that. But [...] design not an Answer to all that is Exceptio­nable in the Book written by this Right Re­verend Doctor; Others having done it with solidity & strength of Argument. The last Edition of his Book Printed in Boston is much disgraced, with a very foolish Preface set be­fore it, by a Young Man, who in his Satyrical Charity fleers at me for being an Old Man, & as he says forgetful. I have no reason to boast of a great memory, yet humbly to acknow­ledge the singular mercy of God, that I am no more forgetful, when obliviosa Senectus, a Great Old Age has overtaken me. I know not but that he, for all his Youth may be forgetful too. He supposeth he may say to me, fugisti qui tacuisti, that I am vanquished because I made no reply to his admired Answerer; but he forgets that I returned a sufficient Answer to him in a few Lines ten years ago (in my Remarks on George Keith's Sermon) declaring & demon­strating that that Virulent Anonymus had in ma­ny things spoken falsly and slanderously as well a [...] Disingenuously. To be sure, the Young Man hath forgotten the 19th Chapter of Leviticus, & the 32d verse, which says, thou shalt rise up bef [...]e the Hoary-head, and honour the face of the Old Man, and fear thy God.

Decemb. 2. 1712.