AN ANSWER TO THE Call to Humiliation: OR, A VINDICATION OF THE Church of England. From the Reproaches and Objections of W. Woodward, in Two Fast Sermons, Preached in his Conventicle at Lemster, in the County of Hereford, and afterwards Published by him.  
Printed for Edward Robinson Junior, Bookseller in Ludlow. 1691.   

AN ANSWER TO THE Call to HUMILIATION: OR, A Vindication of the Church of England.  
WHEN I first met with this importunate Call to Humiliation, I wondered how it came into the Head of that Minister, to call upon the Church of England in a Conventicle; he might as well have called upon the Socinian Church in Poland, or the Quakers in Pensylvania. How absurd was it to summon the Church of England to the Stool of Repentance in a Presbyterian Assembly at Lemster, and to proclaim a Fast for Persecution to those whom he pretends were persecuted by her? But though the Church was out of his Audience, yet it was matter of great Edification to his Hearers, to calumniate and reproach her; and I presume at the next gathering he was well rewarded for it. See how this Minister keeps his Days of Humiliation; he Fasts notoriously for Strife and Debate; instead of healing our Wounds, he enlarges and inflames them; he sets forth the Sufferings of his Dissenters, with Hyperboles, and lying aggravations, to what purpose, but to exulcerate and enrage them? as if he were sent in the Spirit of Elijah, he calls in effect for Fire from Heaven upon us. The Profanation of our Fast Day, was not enough for his Invectives; withal, he could find but little work of Humiliation for his own Sectaries, but with loads of Sackcloth and Ashes he overwhelms our Church, and in a word, he has laid out his whole Gift of Calling, and Clamouring, and Railing upon it.  
The best Apology against such a Libel, would be Patience and Silence; and the best Answer, that which Mr. Hooker made to certain Reasons and Raileries of the Puritans, to his Reasons, No, and to his Raileries Nothing. But there is sometimes a necessity of answering some Persons according to their folly; the applause and triumph with which this Pamphlet has been cried up by his followers, the Confidence wherewith they pronounce every thing unanswerable, that is not answered; and the Compliment of 
* p. 27.  Dumb Dogs, which this Holy Rabshakeh has bestowed upon us, do make it necessary to say something in our vindication, and to show how easy it is to defend our Church, against the feeble Assaults of a Lemster Conventicle.  
In answer to his Two Sermons, as he calls them, I will consider, 

1. His Declamations about Persecution.  
2. The Reasons and Objections which he pleads for his Nonconformity.    
Days of Humiliation are at all times necessary to the Church of Christ, which, while it is Militant, will be never so far without Spot and Blemish, as not to stand in need of public Explations; but when the Judgements of God, are either imminent, or present, and the unbounded wickedness of a Nation, do force them down from Heaven, then certainly is the time to weep, to Sanctify a Fast, and to call all the Inhabitants of the Land to a Public Repentance. Our Church on such occasions hath contented herself to follow the example of Religious Men in Scripture, and to prescribe such general Confessions, as are universally true of all, and particularly, applicable to the Case of every one; there is a Confession in that last Office, so full and comprehensive, that no one, who is not much in love with Cavil, can accuse the insufficiency of it. But this Minister is dissatisfied with it, he hath searched among 
* See p. 10, 11.  the accursed stuff, (as he styles it) of Ecclesiastical Affairs, and after much pains in rummaging, 
* See p. 10, 11.  he finds that the accursed thing 
* See p. 10, 11.  lies hid under the covering of Decency and Order, Penal Laws, Laws for Uniformity, Subscriptions; Declarations, Liturgies, Articles, Laws for Ceremonies, and Forms of Prayer. Thus one whole Constitution is accursed in his Opinion; even the Articles of our Religion are not excepted, though approved by all the Protestant Churches, and Sealed with the Blood of Martyrs, and the Prayers of all Churches, for at least 1000 Years together, have been nothing but Curses; and, as Achan's Sacrilege, an Abomination to the Lord.  
But Persecution is the great Rock of Offence, and he is very angry at the Compilers of the Office, because they have not mentioned it in the Confession; he cannot forgive a certain 
* The Bishop of Sarum.  Bishop in particular, who, he thinks, assisted in composing the Form, and had before Declared, that Persecution had not a little contributed to fill up the measures of the sins of a Church, 
See his Ep. Ded. and p. 11.  and that they who were guilty, ought seriously to profess their Repentance of it; But he observes, That he said this before he was a Bishop, which is, to insinuate, that it is no wonder he should now prevaricate, and that he was fallen from Grace by taking a Bishopric on him; But here he had an occasion of showing his Spite at the Order, and even a Reconciling Bishop, could have no Quarter from him. Now, for once, let Persecution be as heinous a Sin as he can make it, and let it be granted, that many Church men have been guilty of it; Yet, Why must it be particularly confessed in a general Humiliation? Why more than Drunkenness, Perjury, Blasphemy, or Whoredom? Would he have every individual Confess, that he has been a Persecutor, a Drunkard, a Blasphemer, and a Whoremaster? If many are innocent of these Crimes, so they are of Persecution; There are thousands of Congregations that never persecuted any one, and yet this  Judge would force them to plead Guilty of it. Be the Sin never so Epidemical, yet, why should I confess it, if I am not Guilty? And as for those that are, let him read over the Confessions, and he will find, they are in general Expressions included in it, and general Confessions are sufficient, because no others can be accommodated to so many millions of Christians; but nothing will please that Minister, unless the whole Church lie prostrate at his Feet, and submit to the Discipline he imposes, and then, perhaps, he would think her sufficiently humbled, and condescend to pardon her.  
Let us now reflect a little on the extremity of their Sufferings, as he is pleased to represent them; and one single Paragraph out of all his Tragical Aggravations will be sufficient. He assures us, 
* p. 4.  That it is as clear as the Sun, that for near 30 years' last passed, 1600 Ministers of the Gospel have suffered very hard things upon the account of Conscience, by reason of great Fines, and long Imprisonments. At the Restauration there were many Mininsters ejected who had either intruded themselves into the Freeholds of others, or had Usurped their Benefices in the times of Schism and Rebellion, without lawful Qualisications; so that they were ejected, not for Conscience, but Intrusion; whether they were just 1600, is not worth enquiry; but that they all suffered for Conscience, cannot be so clear as he pretends, for I suppose, neither he, nor we can know the Consciences of 1600, without something of Omniscience; but that all the 1600 did suffer by long Imprisonment, is an unconscionable overlashing, and 'tis as clear as the Sun, that it is a notorious Falsehood. He adds, That many of them have died for want of natural Bread, and that both the Shepherds and the Flocks have been starved. What! Have their Ministers died with Famine? Have whole Congregations perished for want of Bread? This is certainly all Fiction and Romance; or, if you will, the Rhetoric of common beggars, who with doleful Complaints of Starving, cheat the People into Compassion. I Grant, That many Families of Dissenters have been distressed by Penal Laws, though I think he can never make it out, that they were many thousands. But the conclusion of this Tragedy, is beyond measure extravagant. If, says be, the Sufferings of our Brethren were written at large, as the Sufferings of the Saints at other times have been, Mr. Fox his Book of Martyrs, would be but an Enchiridion in comparison of it. That Work is an account of the Sufferings of Christians, from the Crucisixion of our Saviour, to the Reign of Queen Elizabeth; and as Voluminous as it is, it has not bulk enough for the Dissenters Sufferings since the Restauration; nay, it is but a little Epitome in comparison. They, alas! have suffered more in 30 years, than the whole Church in 1600; and the Martyrologies of the whole Catholic Church, may be infinitely exceeded by the Acts and Monuments of a few little Conventicles. One would think that many Myriads of Dissenters had suffered Martyrdom; That every individual Church of England-man had destroyed as many as Dioclesian; and that all England had been a Sea of Blood for 30 years together; when in the mean time, not one of them suffered death for his Religion, not many of them were ruined in their Estates, and pecuniary punishments, were the only persecution of almost all of them. Yet he has the Confidence to say, 
* P. 11.  That the Church of England had taken into her hand the Bloody Club of Cain to Martyr the Dissenters; that his Weapon was a Club is revealed to him by 
* P. 4.  Bucheltzerus, to whom the Cabala was derived; but that the Church of England has used it against the Dissenters, is the revelation of Beelzebub, for the Father of Lies can be his only Author for it. Let him name but one Dissenter that has been martyred by the Church, and he shall have my Licence to revile her with all the odious Names, from Coin to the Apocalyptick Whore, in Scripture: But if that be impossible, he may still revile, if he please, but I think he will be no where believed, but in his Conventicle and his Patmos; so the place of his retreat is 
* Ep. Ded.  called by the fifth Evangelist, that he may be paralleled to one of the former.  
But this magnifying of Sufferings is an old Artifice of Dissenters; so did their Ancestors the Donatists, as may be seen in St. Austin, and so did the Popish Priests, (their late Brethren and Allies,) in the time of Queen Elizabeth, as may be seen in Creswell's Philopater and the Books of Parsons. Behold how one of them exclaimeth, Where are now the old Tyrants of the World, Nero, Decius, Dioclesian, Maxentius, and the rest of the great Persecutors of the Christious? Where is Genserick and Hunricus, with their Arrian Heretics? Alluding to the Persecutions of the State here as infinitely beyond them. This was just such another Outcry about Persecution as this Ministers. And how did the Statesmen of those Times apologise for their Severity? 
* See a Treatise of the Lord Burluigh, Entitled, The Execution of Justice in England, for Maintenance of public Peace.  The sum of their defence was this; That what they did was necessary to the Preservation of the State, and that their Treasons and Seditions occasioned the hard Laws against them. And, Will not the same defence serve to justify the Laws against the Dissenters? The severest 
* As the 1 Eliz. c. 2.23 Eliz. c. 1.35 Eliz. c. 1.  Laws, and the severest Proceed against them, were in the Time of Queen Elizabeth, they were then suspended, deprived, imprisoned, banished, and some of them even 
* Barrow and Greenwood.  executed, for their scandalous Writings; and the ground of these Proceed may be learned from the Queen herself in the Speech of the Lord Keeper Puckering to the Parliament, 
* Transeribed by Dr. Pierce from his own hand Writing, and Published in his Discovery against Mr. Baxter, an. 1659. p. 109.  which was delivered by her Command and Direction: There he tells them, That they were commanded by her Majesty, to give no ear to the Solicitations of the Puritans, of whom he declares, It may be doubted, whether they, or the Jesuits, do offer more danger, or be more speedily to be repressed, and this Reason is there given for it, because they publish, in their Books, and teach in all their Conventicles, sundry Opinions, not only dangerous to the Realm, but also Derogatory to her sacred Majesty and her Crown, and by Separation of themselves from the Unity of their fellow Subjects, and by abusing the sacred Authority of their Prince, they do join with the Jesuits in opening the Door, and preparing the Way, to the Spanish Invasion, that is threatened against the Realm. Thus far the Queen herself, by the Mouth of her Lord Keeper; and so effectual was this Speech, that the Parliament than passed the Act of the 35 Eliz. the severest against the Dissenters in the whole Body of our Laws. But a larger account of the true Reasons of those hard Laws against the Papists and Dissenters may be seen in a 
* It is printed at large in Dr. Burnet's Hist. of the Reform. par. 2 lib. 3. p. 420.  Letter of Sir Francis Walsingham her Secretary, to Monsieur Chiroy a Frenchman. The Preservation of the State, against their Seditious Practices, is there assigned as the true Cause of those Severities. And as to the Puritans, he concludes, that after they had been a great while tolerated; When they descended into that vile and base Means of Defacing the Government of the Church by ridiculous Pasquil's; when they began to make many Subjects in doubt to take Oaths, which is one of the fundamental Points of Justice in all Places; when they began both to vaunt of their Strength and Number of their Partisans, and to use Comminations, that their Cause would prevail through uproar and violence; than it appeared to be no more Deal, no more Canscience, but mere Faction and Division; and therefore, though the State were compelled to hold somewhat a harder hand to restrain them than before, yet was it with as great a moderation, as the Peace of the State or Church could permit. Such were the Reasons of the Laws and Prosecutions against them in the happy Days of Queen Elizabeth: And have not these Observations been since confirmed by woeful Experience? Is it any wonder, that at the Restoration of our Church and Covernment, (which had been destroyed by a most unjustifiable Rebellion, when the whole Kingdom had been turned into an Aceldama, and the best of Kings was barbarously murdered,) the Lawgivers should look back upon the Miseries they had felt, and secure the King, the Kingdom, and the Church, against the increase of those Sectaries that had so lately destroyed them; and yet it is notorious, that these Laws were never rigorously executed, but when necessity required it: Their Assemblies were ever tolerated or connived at, when themselves were pleased to show that favour to the Government; but when they began to libel, associate, and plot, against the King, and it was evident, that the ruin of Church and State was again attempted; and all the Sectaries were ready to contribute their Strength and Power to effect it, was it not then high time for the Government to oppose them, to secure itself by the Execution of Laws, and to prosecute those who were resolved to ruin it. They had Liberty enough, till it was made a Cloak of Maliciousness, and the Government did never persecute them, but when it was persecuted by them. How impertinem then is it to clamour at the Church, because the State made Laws for its own preservation; How unjust to arraign their Governors as Tyrannical, because they would not be destroyed; and how impious to call suffering for Sedition; I ersecution for the Gospel.  
If these Ministers had any regard to the Judgement of St. 
* Aug. Tom. 2. Epist. 48. contra Donat. & Rogat. devi Corrig. Haeret.  Augustine, it would be to some purpose to ranscribe the essicacious Reasons; with which he justifies the use of Temporal Penalties, for the reducing of Dissenters; but however they may deal with him, the agreement of their chief Divines, the declared Judgement of their infallible Assembly, and their own undeniable practice, when they had power, will be enough to silence and condemn them.  
The Dissenters of late have wearied the World with their outcries against Persecution, they have magnified Liberty of Conscience as the Magna Charta of Mankind, and cried it up in their Addresses to K. James, as the restoring of God himself to his Empire; But nothing in the World that thinks and sees, can possibly believe them; for their own Writings, both past and present do manifestly show, that they never condemn Persecution, but when they cannot Persecute. It may be proved by a vast cloud of witnesses, That Toleration has been ever damned by the Presbyterians; and therefore it unavoidably follows, that Persecution has been ever approved by them. I could make good this by a deduction from their first Apostle Mr. Cartwright, to their present Patriarch Mr. Baxter; but in a Matter so notorious, so much labour, is unnecessary. I appeal to the Testimonies of 
* They were these, Dr. Burgess, Mr. Ward, Mr. William Good, Mr. Tho. Thorowgood, Mr. Humf. Hardwick, Arthur Salwey, Will. Reynar, Geo. Hughes, Edm. Calamy, Tho. Case, John Lightfoot, Tho. Watson. R. Baxter, Tho. Horton, Lazarus Serman, Matt. Newcomen, Richard Vines, Simeon Ash; James Crauford, Tho. Edward's.  Twenty of their most eminent Preachers, who in the Reign of Presbytery, did in their Sermons and Writings, with great Zeal, inveigh against Toleration, as unlawful in itself, and destructive unto Church and State: I refer you likewise to a very pathetical Letter to the Assembly, Subscribed by all the London Divines, Ann. 16●5. wherein they expressly Declare their abhorrence of Toleration, and exhort the Assembly to allow no Liberty to the Independants, as being notorious Schis maticks; and both this Letter, and that collection of Tostimonies are to be found in a Pamphlet, Entitled, Toleration disproven, which was Printed at Oxford, Ann. 1670. But hear the Divines of that Assembly itself, expostulating with their Dissenting Brethren the Independants; 
* Papers of Accommodation, cited by Dr. Still. in his Sermon about the mischief of Separation, p. 41, 42.  They desire an Answer to this one thing. Whether some must be denied Liberty of their Conscience in matter of Practice, ctice, or none? If none, then say they, we must renounce our Covenant, and let in Prelacp again, and all other ways; If a denial of Liberty unto some, may be just, than Uniformity may be selted without any Tyranny: They charge them farther with 
* Cited out of the same Papers, in his unreasonableness of Speararation. p. 69.  opening a gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due; And add, That this Liberty was denied by the Churches of New England, and they have as just grounds to deny it as tdey. Thus we see, that not the Presbyterians only, but even the new Light of Independency is against Toleration; and that persecution of Dissenters was not only their Doctrine, but their Vow and Covenant also. In that Covenant they Swore to extirpate Prelacy, and to endeavour after Uniformity in Doctrine, Discipline and Worship; and is it not a wonderful Confidence in this Minister, to Arraign the Church for persecuting, and at the same time to contend for the obligation of a persecuting Covenant, to reckon Uniformity among the accursed Stuff, and then Declare that they are bound by Oath to settle it.  
But their practice at last, is the clearest demonstration of their Doctrine. Behold, an 
* An Ordinance for putting in execution the Directory, August. 11. 1645.  Ordinance of Parliament against the use of the Liturgy; If any person hereafter shall at any time use, or cause to be used the Book of Common Prayer in any Church, or Public place of Worship, or in any Private place or Family within the Kingdom; every person so offending, for the first offence, shall pay the sum of Five, for the Second, Ten pounds, and for the Third, shall suffer One whole years imprisonment, without Bail or Mainprize. Do any of our Laws forbidden the dissenters to serve God in their own Families, as they please? or where is there such an abridgement of Liberty in our Statute Book? But yet their proceed were much more cruel than their Ordinances; so far were they from allowing any indulgence to the Church of England, that they would not allow Liberty of Conscience to the Supreme Head and Governor of it; They refused to permit their King the use of the Common Prayer in his own Chapel, and infisted to obtrude the Directory upon him against his Conscience; so that he had reason to complain, as he did, 
Decl. of Jun. 18. after the Votes of Nun-Addresses.  of their offering violence to the Conscience of their Sovereign, and to say, If it be Liberty of Conscience they desire, he who wants it, is most ready to give it. Nay, those Prosbyterians, when they had him in their custody, were so inhuman, as to deny him the attendance of so much as one Chaplain for the performance of Divine offices, though the Good King did often and earnestly Request it, which (as himself observes in his 
* In his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Meditations on it) was a piece of Rigour and Barbarism, greater, than is ever used by Christians, to the meanest prisoners, and greatest malefactors. Thus it was that they dealt with their Sovereign; and the whole Household were Treated no better than the Master of it.  
It is known to all the World, how the Episcopal Party were plundered, Sequestered, Decimated, Imprisoned, and totally Ruined by them; With what rigour their rebellious Oaths, Covenants, Engagements and Abjurations were imposed, and that they were all ejected out of the Churches, Colleges, Schools, and Universities. The Lord 
* Survey of the Leviathan, p. 305  Clarendon tells us, That the Reverend Bishops who were left alive, and out of prison being stripped of all that was their own, preserved themselves from Famine, by stooping to the lowest Offices of Teaching Schools, and Officiating in private Families for their Bread, which, together with the Alms of Charitable Persous, was the only portion of the poor Bishops, and all the faithful Clergy of the Church of England. 
* His Preface to Bishop Mortons' defence of Episcopacy. p. 39  Sir Henry Yeluerton computes, (and he thought that he was not mistaken) that there were 8000, who forsook all for the Covenant; and of an 729 Parishes within the Bills of Mortality in Londom, 15 were ejected, besides the prebend's of St. Paul's and Westminster.  
And now it will not be improper to add the Reply of Archbishop Bramhal to Mr. Baxter's Complaint, That the most Learned, Godly, Painful and Peaceable Men were ejected, because they durst not use the Ceremonies. Let Mr. B. says he, 
* P. 643. of his Works.  sum up into one Catalogue, all the Nonconformists throughout the Kingdom of England, ever since the beginning of the Reformation, who have been cast aside at any time, because they durst not use the Ceremonies; I dare abate him all the rest of the Kingdom, and only exhibit the Martyrologies of London, and the Two Universities; or a List of those, who in these late intestine Wars, have been imprisoned and banished by his Party in these three places alone, or left to the merciless World to beg their Bread, for no other Crime but Loyalty, and because they stood affectod to the Ancient Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England; and they shall double them for Number, and for Learning, Piety, Industry, and the love of Peace, exceed them incomparably. This is an assertion that shall stand unconfuted for ever and let every one now judge between the Church of England and the Separatists, which have been the greatest Persecutors.  
Thus have I been forced to retort the accusation, and to make it good by undeniable Proofs against them; that I might silence, if possible, their Hypocritical Clamours, and convince their Followers, that they are inexcusable in Judging that in others, which they do themselves; and that of all men they are the unsittest to pull the Mote out of the Church's Eye, when the Beam is in their own. If Persecution be the accursed Thing, why have not the Dissenters themselves appointed Days of Humiliation for it? Why do they not give it a Place in their Confessions? Is it not strange, that, in 40 years' time, they should not express their Repentance? And (to use this Minister's Expression,) is it not fit, that for one Tear of the Church of England, they should drop ten, nay, an hundred for one. It will be objected, that some of them, of late years, have condemned all Persecution for Religion; but have they ever kept a Day of Humiliation for it? Do they not think themselves bound by Covenant to extirpate the whole Government of the Church of England? And notwithstanding the Clamours of that Party against Persecution, is it not evident, that wherever they get Power, they immediately persecute. We have two Books already of the History of their Persecutions in Scotland, and when to the extirpation of all the Bishops, the ruin of Six hundred Ministers, and the Desolation of four Universities, they shall add the Destruction of the miserable Relics of that Church, I will not say their Story will be much greater than Fox's Martyrology, but I think the Dissenters Sufferings will be but an Enchiridion to it. In the mean time we have a fair Specimen, however of the moderation of that Party, whose tender Mercies have been always cruel, and a clear Demonstration of what may be expected by us, if GOD, in His just Judgements, should deliver up our Church unto their Fury. And yet these are the men that exclaim against Persecution, and cry out against the Church of England as cruel and tyrannical, but let them remember that Reflection, which was long since extorted by their Clamours, 
* Dr. St. Serm. on the Mischief of Separ. p. 55.  That they want the Ingenuity of Adonibezek to reflect on the Thumbs and Toes; which they have cut off from others, and think themselves bound to do it again, if it were in their Power.  
But after all, this Minister, though he furiously declaims against Persecution, and with so much Malice and Acrimony arraigns the Church of England for it, yet if his invectives be well considered, one shall find that he no where declares for Liberty of Conscience, and that no one ought to be persecuted for his Religion. When he condemns Persecution, he adds always, 
* See p. 3, 4, 6, 8, 11.  for the Truth, which is a plain Intimation, that Persecution for Error he accounts Lawful; if he really does not, to what purpose is that Limitation? Why did he not openly condemn all Punishments for Conscience; but then he would have condemned the constant Doctrine of his Party, and though he was too wary to do that, yet it would have spoiled the design his Sermons, if he had spoke out honestly, and asserted the Lawfulness of persecuting men for their Errors: But if this be his Judgement, (and that Limitation is a strong Presumption of it,) then the sum of all is this, That the Presbyterians may lawfully persecute all other Churches, but must never be persecuted themselves by any, because all other Churches are erroneous, and the whole Inelosure of Truth is theirs, and it is only the Persecution of Truth that is condemned by them.  
It is evident, that he himself found'st the Iniquity of the severe Proceed against them, upon this ground alone, that they suffered for the Truth. For to this Objection, 
* p. 11.  that the Nonconformists have been buffeted for their Faults; his only Reply is this, Let's have a fair Hearing before we be judged, the Persecution of Truth is a great Sin wherever 'tis found; then he immediately proposes the Reasons of their Nonconformity, and concludes at last, 
* p. 24.  That if in all these: Things the Nonconformists are in the right, and have witnessed to the Truth, then ought the Church of England to hang down her head, etc. And thus, as he states the case himself, if the Dissenters have not witnessed to the Truth, the Church of England is not guilty, and all their Outcries about Persecution must pass for nothing. Here then lies the stress of the dispute, Whether the Nonconformists have Truth on their side, and were therefore really persecuted for Righteousness-sake? I proceed therefore to examine.  
Q. The Reasons and Objections which he pleads for his Non conformity.  
His first Stumbling block is the Subscription in the Act of Uniformity, with the Oath in the Oxford. Act, in which are these Words, I. A. B. do declare, That it is unlawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King: Again I do swear, That it is not lawful, etc. He adds, we refused thus to declare and swear, and he requires three Things to be observed;  
First, A man may believe a Proposition to be true, but would not be willing to swear it; and this Objection is a perfect Cavil. He that asserts a Proposition to be true, does mean only that he is convinced of its Truth, and he that swears it is true, does only call God to witness that he is convinced of it. Nothing is more obvious than that in all assertory Oaths, when we swear to the Truth of Things, we are understood to declare no more than our own Belief and Knowledge concerning them; and thus, when I swear that it is unlawful to resist, nothing more can be understood, than that I am fully satisfied of it; if I believe it unlawful, I may subscribe and declare that it is so, and if I come do that, I may also swear it, since in this Case an Oath, superadded to a Declaration, must follow the nature of the Principal, and can be nothing else but a Sacred Confirmation of my sincerity in declaring; and I am morally certain, that no Magistrate in England would have refused to administer the Oath with this Interpretation.  
Secondly, he objects, that Barclay, Grotius, and others who have written in favour of Kings, do yet allow some Cases, in which it is lawful to resist them, and if a King does govern by his Will, and not by Law, he doth excidere de jure, that is, he forfeits his Right to Govern. I answer, that an Arbitrary King does forfeit his Right, is affirmed by neither of these Authors, but is contradicted by them; and though it be true, that Barelay, Grotius, and others, whether Republicans, Jesuits, or Presbyterians, have allowed Exceptions for resisting, yet I am sure the Holy Ghost has made none in Scripture; they that resist shall receive Damnation, is denounced without any Limitation, and how shall we limit, where GOD hath not limited, or distinguish, where He hath not distinguished. So was the Rule understood and practised by the first and best of Christians, so was it taught by the first Reformers of our Church, and some of them with their Blood bore witness to it. The Popes were the first Christians that taught Resistance, but though an Augel from Heaven had taught it, we have received another Doctrine, and could not have departed from it.  
Thirdly, he adds, That all the Nobility and Gentry of England and Scotland, and all the Protestant Princes beyond Sea, in their Proceed against King James, have justified the Nonconformists in refusing the Oath. Now I have no Correspondence with all these Princes, Nobility and Gentry, and therefore know not their minds about it, but I am sure he cannot make good his all without taking Sanctuary in Hyperbole. There be many that think those Proceed may be justified without justifying Resistance, but I believe there are no Princes that will allow it against themselves, and if the Majority of the Nobility and Gentry do justify what they once condemned, their Authority can be urged on neither side, and though there he a Revolution of Opinions as well as Governments, yet the nature of Things is immutable, and Truth the same yesterday, to day, and for ever.  
His Second scruple is about Reordination, as tho' Ordination by Presbyters were not sufficient, without the laying on of the hands of those, we now call Bishops. But first, since this Minister hath now undertaken to argue, he should have proved, that Reordination implys a Nullity of their former Orders; But, as no Declaration of their insufficiency is required, so, neither is it employed in the nature of the thing, nor understood to be so by Construction of the Fact, as appears from the Reordination of many French Ministers, whose Orders have never been condemned by our Church, who never intended to renource them by that Action, nor are supposed to do so. Secondly, tho' the Ordination of Presbyters be granted to be sufficient, yet this will not justify the Nonconformists Ordinations; There is all evidnet difference betwixt the Case of these Ministers and the Presbyters of some Foreign Churches.  
1. Those Foreign Divines, tho' their Churches are not under Episcopal Government, yet they do not separate from Episcopal Communion, but have all owned Commun on with the Church of England. Blondel, their best Advocate for Presbyterian Parity, does yet condemn Separation from Bishop; as Schismatical, and expressly 
* Praef. ad Apol. p. 59  declares, that Aerius was therefore an Heretic, because he asserted, That separation was to be made from those who admitted any difference between Bishops and Presbyters. But their approving of Episcopal Government, and coadmning Separation from it as Schismatical, has been so often, so irrefragably 
* Ibid p. 47 and Bramhall's Replication to affirm the Bishop of Chalcedon, p. 164 of his Works.  proved, that there can be no longer any Controversy about it. But on the other side, the present Nonconformists do make Episcopal Government the chief reason of their Separation, and condemn it as unlawful and Antichristian, which no Resormed Church or Divine that we know, did ever before them; and this is certainly a very material difference between them.  
2. The Ordination of Presbyters without: Bishops in those Foreign Churches, has been generally defended by the plea of Necessity; thus it has been defended by some of the Foreign 
† Bishop Hall's, and Mortons' Bcoks in defence of Eiscopacy, Archbishop Bramhall in his Sup. Dr. durel's Church Government, Saywell's Evangelical and Catholic Unity, and lately in the Judgement of Foreign, reformed Divines.  Divines themselves, and thus by many 
* As Downham, Mason, Field, Andrews, and leately by Dr. Sherlock in his Vindication of the defence of Dr. Still.  Divines of our own Church. As their circumstances were, it was impossible for them to have Bishops, and therefore they wanted them out of invincible necessity; whereas our Presbyterians are uncapal le of that Plea, they reject the Authority of Bishops, and Ordain in opposition to them, and therefore it is evident, they are under no necessity, and consequently their Orders may be thought in ufficient, without impeaching the validity of Foreign Ordinations; And thus having separated their Cause, from that of other Protestants, I proceed to examine what he urges for it, and his first Reason is this;  
I. That the word of God makes not difference between the Bishop and the Presbyter, or Pastor of a Church, and he citys those Texts, Acts 20.7.28. and Tit. 1.5, 6, 7. to prove that those, Names are promiscuously used. Three ways have been taken to Answer this Objection; 1. That both the Names of Bishop, and Presbyter in Scripture, denote always the Prelatical Bishop, and not the Modern Presbyter. 2. That even in Scripture, the Names are so distinguished, that a mere Presbyter alone is never called a Bishop, tho' a Bishop is often called a Presbyter. Both these Opinions have been well defended 
* By Dr. Hammond and Dr. Taylor. , and perhaps, it is impossible to confute them; but to cut off all superfluous Disputes, it is enough to Answer, 3. That tho' the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are not distinct in Scripture; yet it is a very fallacious way of arguing from the indistinction of Names; to infer the Identity of Offices. St. John the Apostle calls himself twice a 
* 2d Ep. John v. 1. 3d Ep. v. 1.  Presbyter, 
† Rom. 16.7.  Andronious Junia, and 
* Phil. 2.25.  Epapheaditus, (who according to this Minister's opinion, were only Presbyters,) are reciprocally called Apostles; Are the Offices of an Apostle and Presbyter therefore really the same? This one instance is a clear Demonstration of the Falsehood of that Consequence. Though there was a confusion of Names, there was yet, a distinction of Offices, and if that can be proved, viz. That in the Apostolical Churches, some single Persons had a Pre-eminency of Power and Authority over the other Presbyters, it will necessarily follow, that that Office, (to which the Name of Bishops is now appropriated,) is at least of Apostolical Institution.  
Timothy and Titus 
* See Jus Divinum Ministerii Anglicani, p. 71, 72.  are granted by all sides to have had such a Superiority; and the Presbyterians only pretend that their Office was extraordinary, and expired with them; but this is affirmed without sufficient Proof, for what, though Timothy be required to do the Work of an Evangelist, can they prove that this signifies any more than a Preacher of the Gospel? And if it could be proved to be a Temporary Office, how does it appear that his Episcopal Power was a part of that Office, or that it was not distinct and separate from it? On the contrary it may be proved, by a Cloud of Witnesses, that this Power was not Temporary, but was every where derived by Succession upon single Persons; and particulably: as to the Succession of Timothy and Titus, we have the Confession of Du Moulin, 
* In his 3d. Ep. to Bishop Andrews, p. 181, 182.  That the Episcopal Order was (of Apostolical institution)— and that what name soever we give to Timothy and Titus, whether Bishops or Evangelists, it is manife that they had Bishops for their Successors and Heirs of their pre-eminency.) And in fine, this precarious Pretence of extraordinary Offices may with equal reason be urged, (as we find it is by Anabaptists; Quakers and Socinians) against the whole Order of the Ministry; and if it be admitted (as Mr. 
* In his Christian Directory, cited in the unreason. of Separ. p. 264.  Baxter once confessed) we leave room for andaecious Wits, to question other Gospel Institutions, at Pastors and Sacraments, and to say they were but for one Age. The Sum is this, there is clear Euldence in Scripture, that there were some Officers who had Power of Jurisdiction over Presbyters, and therefore the Texts which he produces to show the Community of Names can be no Argument against it.  
But to justify Ordination by Presbyter, he citys, 1 Tim. 4.14. where it is intimated that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. To this it is answered 
* On the brief Account of Church Government, in Answer to the writings of the Presbyterians, p. 195. etc. . 1. That Presbytery there is taken for the Office of a Presbyter, and so the Sense runs thus, neglect not the Gift, or Office of a Presbyter which was given thee by Prophecy with the Imposition of hands; and this Sense is warranted by the Authority of 
* Calv. Instit. lib. 4. c. 3. sect. 16.  Calvin, and of St. 
* St Jerom. in Locum.  Jerome long before him. 2. If Presbytery be taken for the Ordainers: it may nevertheless be understood of such Presbyters as had a Superior Power over others, for as Apostles and Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters, so might they Collectively be called Presbytery; and accordingly it is observed, that the Apostles themselves are called by St Ignatius, the Presbytery of the Church. 3. It is evident from 2 Tim. 1.6. that St. Paul was the principal, if not the only 〈◊〉 ordainer of him, and surely it is no good consequence, that if Presbyters may assist an Apostle or a Bishop at an Ordmation, therefore they may ordain without him. He conchides, that Augustine, Jerome, and chrysostom with many other Greeks and Latins, are of his Judgement, but he produces no passages out of any of these Authors, but asserts roundly, that they are all of his mind, and 'tis as easy to answer, that they are all against him; however, when he shall produce his Testimonies, it will be time enough to examine them.  
Secondly, He proceeds to justify his Orders by the Authority of our own and Foreign Churches, All our learned Divines at the Reformation from Popery, beld that Ordination by the Pastors of Churches (he means Presbyters) was valid and good. Thus he affirms on, without proving, many Greeks and Latins and all our Divines, are only confident Phrases and aught to pass for nothing; in short I defy him to produce any one of those Divines, that has allowed of Presbyterian Ordinations made in a Schismatical opposition to Bishops, and without the Case of necessity. But he adds, The Twenty third Article of Ministering in the Congregation, seems to speak as much; That Article declares, That it is not lawful to exercise the Ministry without a lawful Calling, and that those are lawfully called, who are called by Men, who have public Authority given them in the 
* Quibus potestas publice concessa est in Ecclesia Art. Edit. 1552 & 1562.  Congnegation, i.e. the Church to do it. And how impertinent is this Allegation? was public Authority ever given in our Church to Presbyters, to ordain Priests or Deacons? on the contrary, it is expressy provided in the Preface to the 
* Approved Art. 36. and established by Acts of Parl. Reg. Edw. 6. & Eliz. p. 58.  Form of Ordination in our Liturgy, that whereas it is evident unto all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons— therefore to the intent these Orders should be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England; it is requisite, that no Man shall execute any of them, excep the be called, tried, examined, and admitted according to the Form hereafter following; and I hope it is evident from that form, that a Bishop is necessary to Ordination.  
He goes on and affirms, That the French, Belgic and Helvetick Churches, besides many others, are of his Judgement. All the other Protestant Churches (excepting only Geneva) have Episoopal Government, and that they allow Ordination by Presbyters in opposition to it, is an Assertion that may well be thought incredible, till it be sufficiently proved; and as for the Churches he mentions, their Divines account the Non-Conformists Ordinations Schismatical, and the best defence of their own is necessity. But he needs not name the Church of Scotland, for Scotland, (says he) hath justified all our Nonconformity. By Scotland he means the Presbyterian party of that Kingdom, 
* See the Letters about the Persecution Scotland p. 58.  the lesser part for the whole; but however, if Scotland justifies them, it is the only Church in the world that do so.  
Lastly, He adds, our Diocesan Bishops may glory over us, as the King's Bishops, or Bishops of the State, which is just the Raillery of the Papists, Parliament Bishops, and Nagshead Bishops. But are our Bishops ordained by the King and State? are they not Christ's Bishops, and Scripture Bishops? No, for this new Apostle of Patmos, does Peremptorily tell them, that they must not pretend to be so near in Blood to the Scripture Bishops of the first Two hundred years as the Pastors of single Congregations. But with Submission to his Apostleship, I reply, that the 
* Jus Divin. Minis. Aug. 71.  Presbyterian Assembly have granted, that Timothy and Titus had supper out Authority over Presbyters, and therefore our Bishops having the same Authority, may pretend to Kindred with them. 2. 
* Ibid. p. 140.  They acknowledge also after Blondel, that above 140 years after Christ, Bishops were set over Presbyters; so that they grant them to be introduced within 40 or 50 years after the decease of all the Apostles. 3. The Epistles of Ignatius (who was Contemporary with the Apostles, and suffered Martyrdom within nine years after the decease of St. John) do manifestly show; that the superior Authority of Bishops was then established in the Church, and therefore certainly by Apostolical Institution. And the Authority of these Epistles has been so demonstratively cleared from all Exceptions by Bishop Pearson, that there is now no Contreversie about it. 4. Mr. Chillingworth at the end of his Book, has plainly demonstrated the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy, and he Sums up his Demonstration in these Words.  
Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been received universally in the Church, presently after the Apostles times.  
Between the Apostles times, and this presently after, there was not time enough for, nor possibility of so great an Alteration;  
And therefore, there was no such Alterat on as is pretended. And therefore, Episcopacy being 
* By Peter du Moulin, Beza. Chamier Nic. vedetius, whom he citys as Confessing it.  confessed to be so Ancient and Catholic, must be granted also to be Apostolic. Quod erat Demonstrandum.  
And I hope this Minister will condescend to answer this Demonstration, when he writes again, or however be so modest, as not to conclude so confidently, when he has proved nothing. But behold the Chair of Infallibility! Wherefore I say, that Ordination by the hands of the Pastors of Churches, filled with the Holy Ghost, is much more eligible than by Diocesan Bishops; a very peremptory Decree, but we must not question it, for Pythagoras hath said so; yet thus much I presume to Answer, that Diocesan Bishops are filled with the Holy Ghost, as well as parochal Pastors, and that Schismatics have no Title to it.  
We come now to his Third Reason of Nonconformity, the Declaration of Assent and Consent, required in the Act of Uniformity to the Book of Common-Prayes. And 〈◊〉 He can't Assent to that passage in the Athanasian Creed, where it is said, that every one that doth not keep that Faith whole, shall without doubt perish Everlastingly. Now it is certain, the Athanasian Creed is entirely 
* The Judgement of Foreign Reformed Churches, p. 32, 33.  received, and approved by all the protestant Churches in the World, (excepting only the Antitrinitarians) as hath been lately observed; and therefore this Minister is herein a Nonconformist to all Protestant Churches, as well as to the Church of England, and they are all Condemned together, as practising a point of Popery, in damning all that differ from them. Let us see now the Reason upon which all Protestant Churches are condemned by him. One Article (says he) of that Creed is about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, from the Father and the Son, which the Greek Churches did not believe nor receive; and supposing them in an Error, he adds, I must be very bold if I leap into the Throne of Judgement, and pronounce them damned. I am as much afraid as he is, of invading Christ's Tribunal, and pronouncing any one damned, much more a whole Church, and such a Church as comprehends so many Millions of Christians.  
But, 1. The Differences between the Greek and Latin Church, about the Article of Procession, is by 
Mr. Field of the Church, lib. 3. c. 1. Loads Conf. p. 16. Pearson on the Creed, p. 324.  Learned men affirmed, to be only verbal, because the Greeks acknowledged under another Scripture Expression in the same thing, which the Latins understand by Procession, viz. that the Spirit is of, or from the Son, as he is of and from the Father; That as the Son is God of God, by being of the Father, so the Holy Ghost is God of God, by being of the Father and the Son, as receiving that infinite and eternal Essence from them both; Thus Bishop Pearson upon the Article, and if so it be, than there is no difference about the Doctrine itself, but only about the word Procession. But says this Minister, The Procession of the Holy 〈◊〉 Ghost is a most profound Mystery, and very much obscured by bringing in word Procession; and is not this a most profound Objection? Is it not rather profound Non Sense, to say, that the Procession is obscured by the word Procession? And how does the expressing that Mystery by Procession any more obscure it, than the infinite Duration of God is obscured by calling it Eternity? But, the Scripture on that occasion never uses the word. In relation to the Father, it is used 
* John 15.26.  expressly, and in Relation to the Son, it is contained virtually in Scripture, where the Holy Ghost is often said to be the Spirit of the Son, and that is all which is understood by proceeding from him: and if no words are to be admitted, that are not found in Scripture, (the old-Subtersuge of the Arrians) we must not only exterminate Homoonsios', Procession, and eternal Generation, but we must burn all our Bibles, except the Greek and Hebrew, because they are not properly the Word of God, but Words that signify by the Agreement of Men; and if the original Words of Scripture may be Translated by Words of humane Institution, why may not a Doctrine of Scripture be so expressed also.  
Secondly, as many of the Roman Church have absolved the Greeks from damnable Error in this Point, so it is notorious, that the Writers of our Church have always vindicated them from it; and therefore it cannot be imagined, that our Church in this Creed should pronounce them damned; and it must be manifest injustice to put such Interpretations upon the Creeds of a Church, as have heen ever disclaimed by the chiefest Writers of it.  
Thirdly, These damnatory Clauses must be understood to refer only to the Belief of the Doctrines contained in the Creed, and not to every particular Word and Expression in it. The great Fundamental Doctrine, which in this Creel is called the Catholic Faith, is this, That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, and of this Faith it is declared, That they who keep it not, shall perish everlastingly. And they who believe this, viz. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are Three Persons and me God, do believe all that follows in the Creed, which contains nothing, but what is Essential to the Unity and Distinction of the Three Persons, and therefore however, they who believe the Trinity, may scruple some Words and Expressions in this Creed, or understand nothing of them; yet as long as they believe the Doctrines, they are not included in the Sentence of perishing everlastingly. Faith belongs not unto Words but Things, and though no one shall be damned for a Word, yet it is no uncharitableness to say after our Saviour, that he, who believeth not, shall be damned; neither is it any Popery to conclude, that if the Belief of the Trinity be necessary to Baptism, it is necessary to Salvation; and if this Minister be of another mind, let him answer the Arguments that have been 
* Dr. Sher. Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity.  lately urged for the necessity of that Belief; and let him also satisfy the World, if he can, why the Athanasian Creed, which the Presbyterians appointed to be read in Churches, in their Directory drawn up at the Savoy, an. 1661., should be afterwards a Reason of their Nonconformity.  
But he goes on with his Scruples about the Matter of Consent, and declines to speak of the Ceremonies, the Cross, the Surplice, and behold the Reason, because all know they came from Rome, and when Rome falls, they will fall too. This is an Art full of Venom, to traduce by odious Insinuations, that which cannot be opposed by just Objections. It appears from 
* Orig. in Ps. 38. Hom. 2.  Origen and others, that the Cross in Baptism, and from 
† See Hooker, lib. 5. rect. 29.  S. chrysostom, and S. Jerome, that such a Garment as the Surplice, were of Ancient Usage; their Antiquity is far enough beyond Popery, and they come no more from Rome, than do our Creeds and our Bibles; and if this Minister hath had a Revelation in his Patmos, that they shall fall with Rome, we are foretold, that in the last Times false Prophets shall arise, and must not take his Dream for Vision. Next, en passant, he upbraids us with our praying for King James, a professed Papist, that he might persevere in the Faith, but there is no such Prayer in our Liturgy; and if there were, seeing the Papists are Christians, and believe all that is necessary to Salvation, (for I hope, he will not leap into the Throne of Judgement, and pronounce them damned,) why may we not pray for their Perseverance in the Faith, not the Faith of a Papist, but the Faith of a Christian, that will suffice to save them. And now, after these little Skirmishes, we enter into the Battle, and must encounter the Reasons which he has mustered up against reading the imposed Form of Common Prayer. And here pray judge between the Church of England and the Nonconformists.  
First, he affirms, that during the Apostles Times, and two or three Hundred Years after, there was no Liturgy used nor imposed, neither did they direct for the drawing up of any, and enforcing it by Penal Laws. Here are many things jumbled together, which must be separated, Penal Laws; imposing set Forms; Directions for them by the Apostles; and the Primitive use of them. As for Penal Laws, the Presbyterians themselves allow them, and their Directory is as accountable for them as our Liturgy; imposing to be considered hereafter; and as to Directions for composing Forms, out of many that are urged, I shall select these three Considerations.  
1. Seeing there is convincing 
* See Dr. Flammond's View of the Directory; Selden on Eutichyus, p. 83. Dr. Lightfoot, Vol. 2. p. 158. and Dr. Comber's Scholastical History, p. 3. the Examiner of Dr. Combet, p. 4. does question the Solidity of their Proofs, but yet declines to undertake them.  Evidence, that the Jewish Church had a fixed Liturgy, and therefore both our Saviour, and his Apostles, who frequented their Synagogues, did certainly join in it, and not one jota is to be found in the Gospel that condemns it; from this Silence, and that Practice, we may certainly conclude, that the use of fixed Liturgies is lawful; that the joining in them is warranted by their Example; and that separation from a Church upon that account is absolutely unlawful.  
2. Our Saviour himself composed a Form of Prayer, for his Disciples, and in so doing hath 
* See M. Mede on Matt. 6 9  commended a set Form of Prayer unto His Church; He enjoined them, when they prayed, to say, Our Father, etc. which is as plain a Prescription of a Form as any Words can express. It is 
† Clarkson 's Disc. conc. Liturgies. p. 3.  confessed that this Form was anciently used in the Church, and this Primitive Use may be very reasonably ascribed to that Prescription, especially when we have so plain a Testimony as that of 
* Tert. de Orat. ca 1.  Tertullian, Novis Discipulis Christus novam Orationis Formam determinavit; i. e. Christ hath prescribed a new Form of Prayer to his new Disciples: And therefore from the Institution, nay from the Use of that Prayer which is confessedly ancient, we may certainly conclude, that a Form of Prayer is lawful in itself; that it is useful and edifying, that a Prayer is not therefore unlawful or inexpedient because it is a Form; and that the Prescription, or Use of a Form in a Church, will not justify separation from it.  
3. All the Directions which our Saviour or His Apostles have given for the Performance of the Duty of Prayer, may be applied to Forms of Prayer; suppose a Prayer to be exactly composed according to those Directions, may not such a Prayer be frequently used? Does it cease to be made according to those Directions if it becomes a Form? Is a good Prayer spoilt by using it often? And can the same Prayer be agreeable and not agreeable to Scripture, though it is not altered? The Spirit has given Directions for Prayer, and those are equally applicable to Prayers composed by private Men, and to those that are made for the use of a Church by the Governors of it; he hath given no Direction that private or extemporate Prayer should be only used in the Church. The Rules are general, and if the Apostles have not directed the drawing up Forms, they have left no Directions for any Prayer at all, seeing every Prayer either is, or may be a Form.  
Lastly, As to the Use of Liturgies in the first Ages of the Church he affirms, That it hath been abundantly cleared by those that have laboured in this Controversy, that the Pastors of Churches in the Primitive Times did not read Prayers. Those Labourers he refers to, are only Mr. Clarkson, for out of his Discourse of Liturgies he has extracted his Objections, and they are all answered already in Dr. Comber's Scholastical History; but because he has rallied up some few of them to defend his Nonconformity it is necessary to oppose the same Answers to them. He says, it is abundantly cleared, that the Primitive Pastors did not read Prayers. Mr. Clarkson indeed affirms, that no such Phrase is to be met with in any Writers of the Four of five first Ages at least; And to this it is replied 
* Dr. Comber 's Scholar Hist. pt. 2d. p. 206, etc.  that no such Phrase as extempore Prayer, nor any thing Equivalent can be produced in that time; that if written Forms of Prayer be clearly proved in those Ages, such positive Evidence cannot be overthrown by a negative Argument, and the want of a Phrase will not prove that any thing that was not which is proved to have been: That Mr. Clarkson himself hath found written Forms within that time; and that it is certain, that the Jews had written Forms, and yet the reading them is is no where mentioned in Scripture. The Minister proceeds and urges, that Act. 12.5. the Prayer for Peter's Enlargement was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instant, forvent without ceasing, but not by any Form, as is agreed on all sides; as if Prayer by a Form could not be instant and servant; but the ancient Church were of another opinion, when the Litany was commonly expressed by 
* See Dr. Comber on the Litany.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, earnest or servant Supplications. However, though it be granted, that no set Form was used on such an extraordinary occasion, does it follow that none was therefore used in the ordinary Prayers of the Church? Or suppose that no Forms were used when the Church had the extraordinary Assistance of the Holy Ghost to direct their Prayer; does it follow, that no Forms are to be used, when that Assistance is long since ceased? if it does, than it follows also, that studying Languages is now unlawful, because the Apostles were taught them by Inspiration, and that no Preacher ought to predmeditate or write his Sermons, because we never read that the Apostles did so.  
But the next Objection he thinks to be demonstrative, some says he, have been so curious as to observe, that in the Primitive times, the Saints usually prayed with their Eyes fixed on the Mercy-Seat, or closed, which utterly disables Persons from reading Prayers. Mr. 
* On Psal. 132.7.  Mede has proved, that the Jews worshipped towards the Ark, (whose cover was the Mercy Seat) and that the ancient Christians worshipped towards the Holy Table or Altar, which Answers to the Mercy Seat in the Jewish Temple; but whether their Eyes were fixed or closed is a moot Point to me, and I have not the Curiosity to make a research in to it. Mr. Clarkson Labours to prove that they lift up their Eyes towards Heaven; but however, they disposed of their Eyes, I hope the officiating Minister might nevertheless read Prayers to them. In out own Assemblies some devout Persons may be seen with their Eyes closed, others looking towards the Altar, and others towards Heaven, and even the Minister himself does often lift up his Eyes in Prayer; but I hope all this is no Argument that we have no Liturgy in our Church, and that they who scruple its use, do scruple nothing, and if it is no Argument now, it never was one.  
2. We come next to his Second Class of Reasons, which he thus gins, The Pastors of Churches in the Primitive times, were under the teaching of the Anointing, and had the Spirit and Gift of Prayer. Suppose we this to be true, that they were taught to pray by the Unction of the Spirit; was this Unction extraordinary, as the Gifts of Languages, Prophesying and Miracles? or was it an ordinary standing Gift, which was to continue in the Church unto the end of the World? If he means the former, to what purpose does he urge a Gift which no one now can justly pretend to? if the later, why did he not explain the Nature of it, and show the Promise, the extent and the necessity of it, and withal answer the Arguments, 
* Dr. Falconers Libertus Eccles. his Vindication of Liturgies, and the Cases Conc. the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer, part. 1.  that have been urged against these Pretences.  
But whatever he means by this Gift of Prayer, he would prove the use of it from Justin Martyr, and Tertullian the 
* Justius Apol. 2. p. 98.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former, he says, is Vindicated beyond all Exceptian. The Objectors understand by that Phrase, that the chief Minister used his own Abilities in composing a Prayer. But 
* Libe●tas Eccles. p. 113. etc. Scholar Hist. p. 33. & part. 1.  others think that it signifies his praying with all his might, i. e. with the utmost intention and fervency of Spirit. They explain this Phrase by another of the same Author used a little before it, where he says, that they made their common Prayers to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. fervently and importunately. They further prove, that the same Expression in another place of Justin (where he represents the Christians in general, as praising God with Prayers and Thanksgivings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) must signify only fervency of Devotion, since it cannot be pretended that every Christian in the Congregation prayed publicly by his own Ability and Composure; and lastly they show, that this Phrase is by the ancient Writers applied to singing of Hymns, which were set Forms of Prayers and Praises, and not Composed at every meeting by the Minister; and these are plain Demonstrations, that this Expression is no Proof of any Gift in praying, since it often signifies only fervency in it. The 
P. 24.  Examiner of Dr. Comber labours much to vindicate this Phrase, and he cannot deny, that it sometimes signifies only fervency of Spirit when it is appled to the People, but he thinks it a very plain Case, that a Minister cannot properly be said to pray to the utmost of his Ability, when he doth not pray to the utmost of his Ablity; and may not the same thing be said of the People also? If the Minister use a Form, may he not likewise pray with all his might, or as well as he is able? and is not this a plain Equivocating upon the word Ability? take it first for fervency, and then for a faculty of composing, and the Contradiction is solved, and the Fallacy Transparent.  
The other Proof is out of 
Tert. Apol. cap. 1.  Tertullian, sine Monitore quia de pectore oramus, we pray without a Monitor, because we pray out of the Heart. But this can be no Proof against a Form of Prayer; sor 1. They who join with a Minister that prays Extempore, do pray as much with a Monitor, and have a Prayer dictated to them as much, as if they joined in a prescribed Liturgy. And 2. Praying out of the Heart, 
Scholar Hist. part. 1. ●p. 46. etc.  may signify either saying a Prayer by Heart; or secret mental Prayer without words; or praying hearty, sincerely and affectionately, de anima innocenti, de Spiritis Sancto, (as Tertullian a little after) with a prayer proceeding from an innocent Soul, and the Holy Spirit moving and exciting it These interpretations are probable and consistent with the use of Liturgies, and consequently from this passage no Argument can be drawn against them: Yet from thence this Minister takes occasion to vent his Malice against Liturgies, and to reproach them, as an heathenish way of Praying. Now if our Saviour prescribed a Form to his Disciples, (and it is impossible for him to prove the the contrary) than this reproach is Blasphemy; might not an Atheist say as well, That Prayer itself is an Heathenish practice, or a Quietest, 
Comment. in Entychium, p. 55.  that vocal Prayer is a Heathenish way of praying. Mr. Selden thought it probable that the Heathens learned to use set Forms from the Example of the Jewish Church, and he citys Authorities to prove it, and 
View of the Directory.  Dr. Hammond produces out of Plato and Alexander, ab Alex. these two Reasons of that practice, which he thinks may pass Christian, least evil things should be asked in stead of good, and lest any thing should be said Preposterously in their Prayers; and therefore the practice of the Heathens is so far from being a prejudice to Liturgies, that it is a solid Argument for them, Whether either, or both, the Example of God's Church, or the Catholic reason of mankind were the Original of it, the universal use of them among Jews and Christians, and Heathens, is an impregnable Proof of their expediency, and can be ascribed to no other cause, but the voice of God or Nature.  
3. He transcribes this Objection after Mr. Clarkson, when the Christians were so numerous in Constantinople, that it was thought necessaryto dispose of them in several Church, the Emperor Constantine 
Euseb. de vita Const. lib. 4. c. 35.  〈◊〉 to Eusebius for 50 Bibles, for the use of those Churches, but there is no mention of any one common Prayer Book. Eusebius commends Constantine for observing in his Court the manner of the public Service in the Church, he first imoplyed his mind in the Meditation of the Scriptures, and then with those who dwelled in his Palace he repeated, 
Ibid cap. 17.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the authorized Prayers; and it is known, that he himself composed a Prayer which he 
Ibid cap. 19, 20.  prescribed to his Army. And after such convincing, Proofs can a Negative Argument be thought considerable enough to Balance them. Is it imaginable that Eusebius intended to give an exact Inventory of all that was provided for those Churches? Constantine sends to Eusebius in Palestine for 50 Bibles, probably because the best Copies might be there most easily procured; does it therefore follow, that no prayer Books were provided at Constantinople, where it was easy to procure them? and if we should send to Holland for Bibles when we want them, would it not be as plain a Demonstration, that we have no prayer Books in England? 
Sue Scholar Hist part. 2d. p. 48. etc.  He pretends, That when Forms of Prayer began to be used, ever Church made use of what Forms they pleased, and for this he citys Socrates Scholas. lib. 5. the passage he intends is in Chap. 22. In which the Historian reflecting upon a division among the Novatians about the time of keeping Easter, and showing that anciently in different Churches, it was observed at different times without breach of Communion, does pass from thence to observe the diversity of other different usages in the Christian churches, as the different Customs of keeping the Fasts before Easter, the Marriages of the Clergy, and the different Rites and times of Prayer, and interpreting Scripture in many Provinces and Countries. The he tells us, that the Novations in the Hollespont did not observe the same manner of praying with those of Constantinople, and concludes, that upon the whole every where, and in all the Worships (or Rites) of Prayers, you cannot find, that they agree together, two in the same thing; and this is the passage they insist on. But 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may signify Ceremonies and Rites of Prayer, for of different Ceremonies he was before Discoursing, and then the Passage will be no proof of different Forms. 2. Admitting that he speaks of different Prayers, this diversity is not spoken of single Congregations, but of several Nations and Dioceses, such as, for instance, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Constantinople. 3. A little after we have the reason foe this variety, I judge, says Socrates, that the Bishops, who presided in several Gauges, were the cause of it; and how? They transmitted their own Usage as a Law to those who should come after them; thus the cause of this diversity was not Liberty, but Law and Prescription. 4. Immediately after, he vindicates the Nicene Council, which had determined the Controversy about Easter, and prescribed a certain time to keep it. But diversity in praying, and the different times of Easter, are by this Historian proposed as things alike indifferent; and if Church Authority may determine and prescribe in one case, so it may also in the other. Thus we have the great Example of the Nicene Fathers for prescribing, and in stead of the Liberty they pretend to, the Prescription of set Forms, or Rights of Prayer to whole Dioceses and Nations. In short, the design of the Historian is to show, that there were divers Customs in the Church in Things indifferent, and that the Communion of the Church ought not to be divided for them: Now Custom is a Law, introduced by Practice; and Law is a restraint upon Liberty: And if indifferent things may be prescribed by Custom, they may be prescribed by Canons, and Separation for them is alike unlawful.  
He observes further, that there were several Liturgies allowed even in the Roman Communion, and that this Branch of the Church's Liberty was taken away by the Council of Trent, and here in England by the Reformation. And what was that Liberty which was thus abridged? Not an Arbitrary Liberty in every Pastor of a Parish to use what Form he pleased, but the use of different Rules of Prayer that were before prescribed and practised in different National Churches and Dioceses. The different Offices in England, as those for instance after the use of Sarum and York, did agree in Substance, they had the same Forms of Prayer, and differed for the most part in Rubrics and Ritualities only; and when our first Reformers established an uniform Order, it was not esteemed an Encroachment upon Christian Liberty; neither are Unity, Order and Uniformity, the less valuable because Councils and Popes were for them  
5. His next Reason is an Invective against the Introducers of Liturgies, and in the midst of it he defines ex Cathedrd, That the Liturgies which bear the great Names of S. James, Peter, Mark, Basil and chrysostom are known Forgeries. That they are entirely genuine as they are now extant, is affirmed by no one; but that they are Forgeries quite throughout, and especially the Liturgy ascribed to St. James, is so far from being known, that we may safely affirm, that it is impossible to know it: And the contrary opinion of so Learned men, as 
See Falconers Vindication, p. 149.  Baronius, Ddurantus, Leo, Allatius, Sixtus Senensis, Possevinus, Pamelius, and others among the Romanists; Dr. Hammond, Thorudike, Falkner, Casaubon, Salmotius, Durel, and some other Protestants will bear me out in affirming it.  
But behold the Modesty, Charity and Humility of this Minister; 'Twas the Ignorance, Carnality, Sloth and Laziness of the Clergy, together with their Pride which first brought in and imposed Service-Books on the Churches— When the Church began to be an Harlot, when Bishops were not Silver Trumpets, but tinkling Cymbals, etc. when in Councils, as of Ephesus and Chalcedon, they professed they did literas ignorare, and could not write their own Names to confirm their Canons, than came in our Liturgies. Thus far the Son of Thunder, but I take heart again, for find it is brutum fulmen, and our Prayer-Books are in no danger from it. The Falsehood and weakness of this Raillery is 
Scholar Hist. part. 2d. p. 276.  sufficiently exposed already, and it is impossible such stuff should impose upon any, but the greatest Bigots of Fanaticism. Ignorance, Carnality, Pride and Laziness brought in Liturgies; he might as well have said, that Burglary or Usury did introduce them; if Pride and Ignorance brought in Liturgies, why are they not read in Conventicles? for 
In his Cure of Divisions.  Mr. Baxter hath complained to all the World, that the People who frequent them, for their Ignorance, Injudiciousness, Pride and Self-conceitedness are their Grief and their Shaine, and certainly we may believe him. But if Pride and Ignorance brought in Litugies; we remember well then Entbusiasm, Sacrilege and Rebellion did eject them. We have 
Preface to Dr. Still. unreasonableness of Separation.  had convincing Proofs, that the Jesuits first brought extempore Prayers into England; those Missionaries of Antichristian were the first Teachers of them; and when Presbyterian Ministers were Trumpets to Rebellion, when their Sermons and their Arms brought the best of Kings to the Scaffold, when the Church was rend in pieces with damnable Doctrines, when Jeroroham's Priests profaned the Pulpits and the Altars, when the Stalls and the Shambles were the chief Schools of the Prophets, when all Religion was vanished into Cant; and Blasphemy and Nonsense were entitled to the Holy Spirit; then were Liturgies first abolished, and extempore Prayers first universally practised in any Christian Nation in the World.  
But Liturgies, he says, were brought in when the Church began to be an Harlot. Smectymnius 
* Answer to Remonst. p. 7.  derived their Pedigree from Three Canons of the Laodicean, Carthaginian, and Milevitan Councils; and thus they are allowed to be in use about 1300 years since, and has the Church been a Whore for so many Ages? has she forsaken her Spouse so long? has she renounced Christ Jesus for 13 Centuries together? Yes, and much longer too, when we dispute about Episcopacy; for when we come to that Controversy, the Mystery of iniquity was working even in the times of the Apostles; and the Church did then begin to be an Harlot also; so little do some men care how they wound our common Christianity, and condemn the whole Catholic Church of Christ, so they may but vent their Malice against Liturgies and Bishops. But because he cannot deny that Liturgies were introduced in the 4th and 5th Centuries, he particularly Rallies upon the Ignorance of the Bishops of those Ages. And were those ever reputed ignorant Ages? when was the Church better enlightened with Learning, than when chrysostom, Basil, Nyssene, Nahianhen, Epiphanius, the two Cyrils, Lactantius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Isidore Pelus. Theodoret, Vincentius, Gennadius, and many others were the Luminaries of it. But among these Gnostics even the Mechanics, and the Women have been thought more able Divines than the Fathers; and indeed if Ability is to be measured by the Gift of Prayer, as they call it, they may vie Learning even with their own Teachers; for their most ignorant Zealots do often pray with as much fluency of words, with as much pretence to the Spirit, (and which is the main Gift) with as much Confidence, as the ablest Ministers among them. But the Bishops of Ephesus and Chalcedon could not write their Names, and Mr. Clarkson indeed produces the Subscriptions of Three or four to prove it. And to 
* Scholar Hist. pt. 2. p. 300.  this it is replied, That those Subscriptions are of no credit as being suspected of Forgery; but suppose there were four Bishops among 830 in those Councils, who were so illiterate, is it not a very impudent Calumny to say indefinitely, as he does, That the Bishops of Ephesus and Chalcedon could not write their Names to confirm their Canons? might it not as well be said, that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster were Independants, because there were Five of that Sect among them, or that the Nonconformists Ministers of this Age, have generally died as Traitors, because Two or three were executed for being in Monmouths' Rebellion.  
His last Reason concerns the imposing of Liturgies; and here he denies not the Lawfulness of them, but after he has begged the belief of his Followers, That they were not used in the Primitive times for many Hundred of years, he pretends to prove the unlawfulness of imposing them. Now one would think it a very plain Case, that things lawful in themselves may be lawfully enjoined by lawful Authority; but this Minister is of another opinion, and the only Reason he gives for the unlawfulness of prescribing Forms is this, That it is a restraint upon the Gifts of such Ministers, as have Ability to compose better Prayers themselves and this he illustrates by the trite instances of Trespass Offering, and of a Law obliging those, who are not Lame and Impotent to make use of Crutches. But, 1. All this is impertinent to the Dispute before us; for the Ministers in our Church are not restrained from the Exercise of their own Abilities in public Prayers; they may use their own conceived Prayers in the Pulpit, and the Fifty fifth Canon, as explained by the general Practice, is an allowance of it, and therefore if the Exercise of Abilities be not excluded in our Church, the pretence of restraint can never justify a Separation from it.  
Secondly, The Objection is grounded on these false Suppositions; that God is better served by conceived Prayers, than by a public Liturgy; that the Church is less difyed by it; that it is unlawful to lay a restraint upon private Gifts; and that it is lawful to separate for better Edification; and unless all these Propositions here precariously supposed to be true, (and I think he will find it impossible to prove them) than his whole reasoning, and the Crutches, he has brought to prop it, and the Pigeons, Lambs and Bullocks which attend it, are plainly unserviceable to him. His Pigeons and Crutches are designed to intimate that a Form of Prayer is a cheap, impotent, unedifying way of Worship, in Comparison of their extempore Effusions; but this he should have proved; for he knows we assert the contrary; we think that Prayers are not more acceptable, because they are inconsiderate or of private Composure; that the Framers of our Liturgy were as well gifted as Dissenters; that the Church may be better edified by the Spirit of the Church, than by the Spirit of a Member; and that those Prayers are fittest for the People, which they are before acquainted with, and wherein they are secured from Presumption and Impertinence, Blasphemy and Nonsense.  
He should have proved likewise, that the Exercise of private Gifts cannot lawfully be restrained by public Authority; we know, that even the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit were subject to restraint, and we have an express Rule, That the Spirit of the Prophets must be subject to the Prophets: There is no Law, no Reason, nor Revelation against such a restraint; on the contrary both Reason and Religion do require, that the use of private Abilities be regulated by public Order, and that the vain Ostentation of them be restrained. 
* Epist. 87. ad Prot. Aug.  Calvin has expressly declared for the necessity of prescribing Forms, To remedy the simplicity and unskilfulness of some, to testify the Consent of all the Churches in the same Prayers, and to prevent the desultory Lightness of those, who affect Novelty; In short, all the Foreign reformed Churches, do either use or approve of prescribed Liturgies; the old Nonconformists always allowed them, and even the Presbyterian Directory prescribed every thing but Words; and if private Spirits may be restrained to Sense and Matter, why not to Form and Language also?  
Lastly, Admitting that such restraint is unlawful, and that conceived Prayers are more edifying than Forms, he should then have proved, that it is lawful to separate for better Edification. The ancient Puritans thought otherwise, and so did the Presbyterian Assembly in their Controversy with the Independents; 
See unreasonableness of Separation pt. 1.  and so both Reason, Experience, and Revelation do convince us, that the restraint of private Gifts will not justify the dividing of Christ; that the silenceing an able Minister is not so mischievous as Schism; that the Pretences of better Edification is the fruitful Parent of endless Separations, and that the Church (which is in the House of the living God) cannot be built or edified, by being torn in pieces and destroyed? Thus have I considered at large his Discourse about Liturgies, it is the principal Fort and Bulwark of his Cause, and the slight defences which remain will be easily demolished.  
4. The Point that follows next, is the abjuring of the solemn League and Covenant, as in itself an unlawful Oath, and imposed on the Subjects of the Realm, against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom. And is it not extremely modest in these Men, to Quarrel at the State, for requiring them to renounce an Impious and Rebellious Covenant? was it reasonable to admit such men into the Offices of the Church, as were sworn and obstinately resolved to extirpate the whole Government of it? But let us consider the Reasons which he urges against the abjurating that Covenant.  
1. There are many learned Preachers that never red a Law Rook, they know nothing of Manna Charta, Bracton, Littleton, Cook, Common Law or Statute Law— is it reasonable then to require them, to declare the Covenant is contrary to known Laws and Liberties, which they are utterly unacquainted with? Indeed there is no necessity that a good Preacher should be an able Lawyer; and much less is it necessary to read over a Lawyer's Library, to be convinced, that the Covenant was illegal, can none but profound Lawyers know that Felony and Burglary are against our Laws and Liberties? Does not every sensible man know, that the impofit on of an Oath without Law to warrant it, is contrary to it and that nothing is Law, which has not the concurrence of King, Lords and Commons to enact it? have these Ministers never heard of the 
* 3 Car. 1. c. 1. S. 2.  Petition of Right, which declares all others without Law to be against our Laws and Liberties? Or can they tell us by what Law the Covenant was established? was it not imposed without the Concurrence of the King. and against his express Command? had they never heard of the Oaths and Laws about the King's Supremacy? and is not the 
* Vid. indicium Acad Oxoniensis de solrum Freder. p. 8. 14.  Cotenant plainly Contradictory to it? and Lastly, do they not know that this Abjuration is required by an Act of Parliament? and what need then of consulting Law Books about a Covenant, for which there is no Precedent in them, when the Legislative Power itself has declared the unlawfulness of it? it is manifest this Ignorance is affected; time was, when they were so well acquainted with Laws and Liberties, that they preached the People into a Rebellion for them; in the Covenant itself they swore expressly 
* Artic. 3.  to preserve the Privileges of Parliament, and the Liberties of the Kingdom; if then they knew those Liberties, can they now be unacquainted with them? or is it not as lawful to abjure, as to swear, without knowledge. Article 1. They swore to preserve the Religion of the Church of Scotland in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government; and was there one in a Thousand of the Covenanters that had a competent knowledge of these particulars? How could it be imagined, that he common People should know them? and yet they never scrupled to exhort them to take it, though they were morally certain, they did not understand it. And Lastly, why is not this Objection now considered by the Virgin Daughter of Scotland, as he Phrases it: There they force the Clergy to swear that W. and M. are lawful King and Queen by Laws of that Kingdom, and is this reasonable, when they are utterly unacquainted with those Laws, and many Learned Preachers have never read the Civil not Statute Law, nor Craig nor Skin, nor the Original Contract; but it is always to be observed, that the Presbyterians never do condemn what they do not practise.  
2. The Substance of his next Reason is this, That the Covenant was taken by the People of Two or three Kingdoms, and a man had need be a good. Casuist, that can declare understandingly, that no one man is bound by that Oath, which almost every man took. Now I believe this Covenant was not taken by the Majority of these Kingdoms; in England I am sure it was generally refused by the Clergy, the Universities and the greatest part of the Nobility and Gentry. But admit the Majority took it, the force of his Reason depends upon this Proposition; That an Oath taken by a vast munitude must needs be Obligatory; and is it necessary to read all the Casnistical Books of Divinity to confute so manifest a Falsehood? in Popish Countries many Millions do take Monastic Vows, and all the Clergy swear obedience to the Pope; and may not an ordinary Casuist declare understandingly, that none of them are bound by those Vows and Oaths which all of them have taken? The Holy League in France was sworn by more than the Solemn League in England, was it therefore Obligatory? and is it not a sufficient Humiliation to which this Minister has called me, to be bound to answer such Absurdities.  
3. He urges, that by the Covenant all Persons were bound in their places to endeavour a Reformation of the Church according to the Scriptures, and the Examples of the best reformed Churches, and he asks, is this an unlawful Oath? I answer, the Question is deceitful; a man hinds himself by Oath to serve God and the Devil, and he asks, is it not lawful to serve God? is this an unlawful Oath? Thus the Covenanters did swear to endeavour Reformation, Art. 1. and to extirpate Episcopacy. Art. 2. But this Minister mentions Reformation only, and then impertinently demands, is this Oath unlawful? I am ready to maintain against him, that an Oath to serve the Devil is not more unlawful, than an Oath to destroy Episcopacy; and that upon this ground, because it is of Apostolical Institution. There are many other things unlawful in that Covenant, (as any one may be satisfied by the unanswerable Reasons of the University of Oxford against it) and therefore if this Minister will prove it lawful, let him justify it throughout, and not fly to such Methods, as may serve to justify the most execrable Oaths that can be, by producing one single Passage, that may seem justifiable in them. But thus he proceeds, If a man should swear, that in his Place and Calling he would endeavour to cast every Idol out of the World: and what is the consequence of this terrible If? Why, truly nothing at all; but he filly adds, that in Scotland they have cast off Prelacy, and established Presbytery, i. e. they have cast out the Idol, and set up the true God among them; but if this be his meaning, that Episcopacy is Idolatry, I account of him as one of the incurable Fanatical Roul, that call every thing Idol or Antichrist that displeases them, and I am not obliged to answer Bigotry and Frenzy.  
The last Point he insists on, is a Passage out of the Commination Office in the Liturgy, wherein the Church declares her Desire, that the Godly Discipline, used in the Primitive Church, may be again restored; and says, it is much to be wished for. It is wonderful to consider, what work he makes with this Passage! but I am willing to believe he never read it in the Liturgy. It was long since an old conceit of the Nonconformists, 
* Vid. Hooker, p. 331.  that the Primitive Discipline, which was so much wished for by the Compilers of our Liturgy, was the Presbyterian Discipline, and from them, I presume, he borrowed the Objection. But in the Liturgy itself there is no Foundation for it, as will appear from a view of the Passage itself in the Preface to the Commination; Brethren, in the Primitive Church, there was a Godly Discipline, that at the beginning of Lent, such Persons as stood convicted of Notorious Sins, were put to open Penance, and punished in this World— In stead whereof, (until the said Discipline may be restored again, which is much to be wished for,) it is thought good, etc. and is Presbytery the Discipline here desired? undoubtedly as much as Popery or Mahumetanism; It not that Discipline expressly declared to be the Discipline of public Penance, which in the ancient Church was inflicted upon such as stood convicted of Notorious Sins at the beginning of Lent, in order to their Absolution, and Admission to the Holy Sacrament at Easter? What can be more express and evident, than that the Ancient Leut Discipline is there alone intended? And have the Non conformists, as he pretends, ever written for, preached for, and suffered for, the Restoration of this Discipline? Have they ever wished or desired it? Have they not always written and preached against it? Do they not still exclaim at it, as Popery and Superstition? But this Minister pronounces confidently, that this Expression stands in the Liturgy, as well for the Justification of the Nonconformists, as for a Testimony against the Prelates. Thus the Godly Discipline is a Condemnation to them who have always desired it, and Justification to them who have always opposed it; and if Nonconformists must needs be justified by Blunder and Contradiction, this Minister I confess is a fit Apologist for them. But behold the Reflections he makes on this Passage.  
First, The Reformers and Compilers of this Book of Common Prayer had no full Satisfaction with what was then done. What, Were they not fully satisfied with the Liturgy? The first Liturgy of Edward the 6th was applauded by the whole 
* 2, 3 Ed. 6. c. 1.  Parliament, as composed by the Special Aid of the Holy Ghost; and 
* Acts and Monuments, Tom. 3. p. 171.  Doctor Taylor the Martyr publicly declared, that the whole Church-Service in King Edward's Second Liturgy, was so fully perfected according to the Rules of our Christian Religion, that no Christian Conscience could be offended with any thing therein contained. The Papists were the only Persons in those Times, that were dissatisfied with it, and therefore, in Queen Mary's days, a Challenge was made by 
* Ibid. Tom. 3. p. 18.  Cranmer, that with P. Martyr, and four or five more, they would enter the Lists with any Papists living, and defend the Common Prayer Book to be perfectly agreeable to the Word of God, and the same, in effect, which had been for 1500 Years in the Church of Christ; and let any one now consider, whether our first Reformers were not fully satisfied with the Liturgy. But he adds, they ingenuously confess, they came short of the Primitive Discipline, and that the Reformation should have been carried on higher, if the Times would have given leave. They confess, they could not revive the ancient Discipline of Lent, and they desired a higher Conformity to the Primitive Church, (not in relation to the Hierarchy and Liturgy, but) in the strictness of men's Lives, and the impartial severity of public Penance, Yet, says he, they had then their Government by Bishops, Archbishops, Chancellors, Archdeacon's, &c. as we have at this day. They had so, and were fully satisfied with it, and there were no Protestants in that Age that separated from it. Archdeacon Philpot, Archbishop Cranmer, and several Bishops, our first Reformers and Martyrs, approved that Government, and lived and died in the Administration of it; they did not permit it only, as Moses did Divorces to the Jews, because of the hardness of their Hearts, (as this Minister does falsely insinuate,) but they never intimated the least Suspicion of its unlawfulness, and they plainly, 
* Preface to the Book of Ordin. 〈◊〉.  declared Episcopacy to be evidently founded upon Scripture and Apostolical Institution. But these Reformers and Martyrs were ignorant of those things which are now known unto Women and Artificers; poor Men! they were under a dispensation of Darkness, and the Gospel-Light of Separation was totally hidden from them.  
Secondly, he observes, That it is more than 1000 Years since these good Men recorded their Desires of Restoring the said Discipline; and is it enough (say he,) that the Church carries her good Wishes with her through all Generations Enough certainly, while the Restoring that Discipline is impossible: Our first Reformers could not revive it, because the universal and incorrigible Wickedness of that Age, could not endure the Yoke of Primitive Penance and are scandalous Offenders now less numerous or loss incorrigible? If the Reformers are excusable, much more our present Governors, by how much the present Age is more untractable and more obstinate against the Bands of Discipline. Is it possible now to reduce Offenders to the Primitive Humiliations, the Fast and Watch, the Sackcloth and Ashes the Prostration at the Church Doors, and the other Austerities of Ancient Penance? Will any of the Dissenter's submit to this Discipline as a satisfaction for their Schism? If such an impracticable Discipline were imposed, these Ministers would presently cry out Popery encourage all Offenders to oppose it, and set open the Doors of their Conventicles to receive them such an Imposition would be vain and pernicious, it would scandalise the weak, and alienate the obstinate, and serve only to empty our Churches, and crowd the Conventicles; and though for that reason they may desire it. yet the Church is not obliged to prescribe a Remedy, that will make the Physician contemptible, and the Patiented incurable. The restoring of that Salutary Discipline (as the reviving of Primitive Piety,) may be always wished for, but perhaps will never be attained; but the licentious Wickedness of the present Times, the general Contempt of all the Censure of the Church, and the manifold Schisms with which it is rend in pieces, do make it now impossible; and if it were established, it is not to be hoped, that the obstinacy of the Dissenters would be subdued, nor their Aversion to the Church be reconciled by it.  
I intent not to follow this Minister through his tedious Digression about Reformation, and much less to ramble with him as far as the Temple at Jerusalem, to which, forsaking his Text and his Purpose, he undertakes a Pilgrimage, and returns with these wise Observations, 
* P. 22, 23.  That the Temple was built upon Ornan 's Barn; that this Ornan was of Princely descent, because he had a Princely Mind; and that Temple-Work is hard Work, 'tis Threshing. Thus, after a long Journey, he brings back nothing, but Apes and Peacocks as himself observes of some who ramble into the Indies. These are the Saving Doctrines for which this Thresher is admitted by his Hearers; and since a Barn is his Delight, may he never Thresh in the Houses of GOD, nor profane those Sanctuaries that are consecrated to his Worship.  
But I return to Reformation, and in Answer to his Harangue about it I desire it may be remembered, 1. That this Minister does not seek the same Reformation which was sought by Christ and his Apostles, for Presbytery is not the Gospel, neither is Extirpation of Bishops the Propagation of Christianity. 2 Reformation is very good in itself and the Churchmen are for it much more than the Dissenters, but they cannot be convinced that the removing Decency, Order, and an Apostolical Government, is Reformation; they know, that this is the usual Vizard to disguise Sacrilege, Avarice and Ambition, and that the Sectaries endeavour not to reform the Church, but to destroy it, that they may seize on its Inheritance; and withal they cannot but reflect upon the experience which we have had of Sectarian Reformation; when Prelatical Government was reform into no Government, and a sober Liturgy into Enthusiasm, and 39 Articles into infinite Heresies, that could scarce be paralleled in all the ancient Catalogues, and in stead of the Power of Godliness, there ensued such an Inundation of Wickedness, as no Age could parallel. This was observed by the 
* For instance, by Edward's in his Gangraina.  Presbyterians themselves, and an ingenious Foreigner who then resided at London, made this Observation upon those Times, 
* A Letter of a Noble Venetian to Ca Barbarino, Translated and Printed 1648. p. 19  one of the Fruits, says he, of this Blessed Parliament, and of these two Sectaries, (Presbyterians and Independants,) is, that they have made more Atheists, than I think there are in all Europe besides; and if we judge of the Tree by its Fruits, and desire to see no more such Reformations, have they reason to blame us for it?  
3. It should be considered, that no pretence of Reformation can justify Separation from a Church, in which no sinful Terms of Communion are imposed. There is no Church in the World, which is free from all Corruptions in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, or Manners, and if the want of some Reformation be a just reason for Renouncing Communion, the Unity of the Church is nothing but a Notion, and it will be lawful for every Man to separate from all the Churches in the World, for it is only the Triumphant Church in Heaven, which is perfectly without spot and blemish. Defect of Discipline, and purer Communion, were the pretences of the Donatist and Novatian Schisms; but they were condemned by the Catholic Church, and 
* Aug. con. Parmen. Epis. lib. 2, 3. Tom. 7.  S. Austin proves at large against the Donatists, that Corruption in Discipline or Manners cannot make the Communion of such a Church sinful, nor justify Separation; and hence any one may discern, how impertinent to this purpose are all this Ministers Clamours about Reformation; for though the pursuit of it may be commeadable, and the Church may need it, yet it is evident his Nonconformity and Separation cannot be justified by it, for there is no Church upon Earth, which needs not Reformation, and if Men may separate where they see any thing amiss, this Principle will carry them to a Separation from all Christian-Society, and that is a plain Demonstration of the Faishood of it.  
I have now considered and weighed all his Pleas for Nonconformity, and having found them light and deceitful in the Balance, having sufficiently proved them to be false and fallacious; I conclude, that the Nonconformists were not persecuted for Righteousness sake, and that his 
* P. 24.  virulent Reproaches of the Church of England in Prophetic Language are no better than Blasphemy, and a contumelious Profanation of God's word, by making it the Instrument of his Spite and Animosity.  
And one Ressection more will make it yet more evident, that they did not suffer for Righteousness; it is this, that though his Pleas be allowed to have Truth and Reason in them, yet they will not justify the Dissenters Separation. Every one knows that these Ministers were not punished for not conforming as Ministers, but for setting up Conventicles; though they could not Act as public Ministers, yet they might have adhered to the Communion of the Church, and then they would have been in no danger of Persecution; they suffered for their Separation, and if all this Ministers Objections will not justify it, they will not justify their Sufferings for it. The Plea of Reformation I have shown already to be insufficient; and it is evident that Lay Dissenters are unconcerned in all the others; they were neither abliged to renounce the Covenant, nor the Lawfulness of Resistance, nor the Ordination of Presbyters, nor to declare their Assent and Consent to the Common-prayer; and this Minister himself denies not the Lawfulness of their joining in it. Thus he hath left all his Congregation without any defence, and it remains that they suffered not for Righteousness, but for an unrighteous and indefensible Separation.  
Let us see whether the same Objections will justify his own Separation? Suppose the Oath of Nonresistance to be unlawful, was that a term of our Communion? was it required of all that come to our Prayers or Sacraments? and might he not have adhered to the Communion of our Church without swearing or declaring it? be it granted next that Reordination is unlawful to be complied with; was that likewise any term of Communion in Worship and Sacraments? And if they could not Preach as Ministers, could they not Communicate as Laymen? and is the unlawful silencing of a Minister to be revenged with Schisin? The next point is the use of the Liturgy; and is there any thing unlawful in all our Prayers? if he cannot Consent to some Passages in the Rubric, or in a Creed that is very Seldom recited, yet there is nothing sinful in our ordinary Worship, and the occasional Communion allowed by the Presbyterians themselves is a clear Confession of it: And Lastly, as to the Covenant, if it must not be renounced, cannot they worship God in our Churches without renouncing it? or does it at all oblige them to Separation? Mr. 
* Defence of Cure, p. 68  Baxter has proved, that the Covenant binds them to Communion with our Church, because, it binds to Reformation according to the Example of the best reformed Churches; but all reformed Churches in Christendom do commonly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgy; if they come amongst us where it is used; therefore (says he) it seems to me to be Perjury and Covenant breaking to refuse Communion with the Churches that use the Liturgy, as a thing merely on that Account unlawful. Thus Mr. Baxter; and these Concessions are very remarkable; that Separation on the Account of our Liturgy is unlawful; that it is a breach of their Covenant; and is condemned by all Reformed Churches; and what new Pleas can this Minister produce to defend his Separation?  
Will he urge the Pretence of necessity to Preach the Gospel, and that therefore he was forced to separate, because he could not do it in our Churches? But if he was under the same necessity the Apostle was, than he has surely the Commission and Authority of an Apostle; but if he hath no Commission from God, (let me use the words of an ancient 
* Mr. Giffard cited in the unreasonableness of Separ. p. 80.  Nonconformist) it is the Devil that hath sent him forward to Preach against the Authority of the Church, and the Prohibition of the Christian Magistrate. In short, they have neither the same Commission as the Apostles; neither is there the same necessity of their Preaching, for the Gospel is now planted in this Kingdom; it is Preached in our Churches and it would not be extinguished if this Minister and his Brethren (to use his own Seraphical Expressions) were all them Dumb Dogs, or Breasts without Milk, or Bells without Clappers. And withal it is here to be observed, that it is evidently proved, 
* Ibid p. 1. sect. 8, 9, 10, 11, & 17.  that according to the Doctrine of the most learned Nonconformists of former times, both their Separating and their Preaching are absolutely unlawful.  
The Sum of all is this; the Laws against the Dissenters were made for the security of the Church and State; the Execution of them was not so cruel, as is pretended; their persecuting of the Government did extort it; the Presbyterians themselves have always condemned Toleration; they do ever persecute whenever they have Power; this Minister declaims only against Persecution for the Truth; but all his Pretences to Truth appear to be false and groundless; and if they were admitted, would not justify Separation; and therefore the result is this; That his Call to Humiliation is an unreasonable Clamour, and that it ought to have been directed to the Presbyterians themselves, and especially to their Ministers; who have been the most grievous Persecutors; who have crubified Christ Jesus by dividing heath; have torn his Body into pieces; have separated from the whole Catholic Church; under pretence of Reforming the Reformed Religion have Reproached and weakened it, have been always undermining that Church which is the Bulwark of it; have bound themselves by impious Oaths, and very lately ebtred into an Alliance with the Papists, to destroy it: And lastly, have suffered obstinately for an Unrighteous Choose, condemned by Reason and Revelation, by the Universal Church of all Ages, and by all the Reformed Churches in the World.  
Having now Answered the whole Design if this Pamphlet, and all that looks like Argument in it; it would be superfluous to examine the Remainder and to reflect particularly on his malicious Hints and Intimations, his Cant and Shtyr, his abuse of Scripture, his Uses and his Prayers, which he Recommends to his People, and wherein he Feaches them that Vile and Devilish Practice of turning Prayers into Libels, and instructs them to Pray much worse than the Pharisee; to commend themselves to God 
† See p. 27.  As followers of the Lamb and the Lords Anointed, and to accuse the Churchmen before him, as Dumb Dogs and Wolves, and bloody Persecutors. Thus do they fill up the measure of their Fathers, who sin their Prayers taught the People to Speak evil of Dignities, and to Curse the best of Kings, as a Bloody, Persecuting, obdurate Tyrant.  
Yet I cannot but take notice of his insolent, Triumph for the Establishment of Presbytery in Scotland. Now, says he, is fulfilled that which was spoken by the Prophet, The Land of Zebulun, etc.— The People which sat in Darkness saw great Light, and to them which sat in the Region and Shadow of Death, Light is sprung up. And was this Prophecy never fulfilled till now? It Presbytery the Messiah whose Light is there foretold? Did Nailor himself ever utter more Abominable Blasphemy? Has the Virgin Daughter of Scotland proclaimed a new Gospel which was not Preached before? Is it the Evangelium Armatum, or the Gospel of Xaverius, or of the Whore of Babylon? Hither to I thought that Episcopal Churches might have the Light of the Gospel; but a new Light hath now discovered that they are all in Darkness, and that all Christian Churches for 1500 Years together, have been in the Regions of Death, without Christ, without the Light of the Gospel, and consequently without Salvation.  
One thing more I must observe, that the Sermons and Writings of these Ministers do make it as clear as the Sun, that all the projects of Vnïon with that Party are absolutely impracticable. The Presbyterians are the only Dissenters that are thought capable of Comprehension; but to take them into our Church, we must cast out our Liturgy, and our Bishops, we must submit our Necks to the Iron Yoke of Presbytery; in short we must destroy our Church if we will have an Union with them; no Alterations will content them; they who have, & they who have not taken the Covenant do think themselves bound to extirpate Prelacy, and to Reform according to the model of Scotland, they desire no Union, and despise it; when Treaties of Peace are proposed they make themselves ready to Battle; their Hostility is Irreconcilable, and the total Destruction of our Church is the sum of all their Endeavours and Designs.  
But Oh! That our Lives were as good as our Religion, and our Manners pure and primitive as the Constitution of our Church; for than would God cover is under his Wings, and he that hath delivered, and doth deliver, would still deliver us. Our Church, we know, is Founded on a Rock, let us departed from Iniquity, and her Foundation shall stand sure, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.  
FINIS.