A LETTER TO A Nonconformist Minister OF THE KIRK, SHOWING The NULLITY of the PRESBYTERIAN Mission or Authority to Preach the Gospel.  
LONDON, Printed for B. Tooke, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1677.   

TO THE Reader.  
READER,  
IT is not now the Order or Character of our CLERGY, nor their power of Binding and Absolving Sinners, which the PEOPLE have any great regard for, but only our Lungs and faculties of PREACHING: hence it comes to pass, that by this curiosity after Preaching, the People are betrayed to the cozenage of every new Light and Impostor in Religion, who is commonly a zealous and eloquent Preacher, and so profound a Dissembler, that we are not otherwise able to detect him, but by enquiring into his Mission.   

A LETTER TO A Nonconformist Minister OF THE KIRK, Showing the NULLITY of the Presbyterian Mission and Authority to PREACH the GOSPEL.  
SIR,  
I Should be very much obliged to receive a Satisfaction from you, which I could never give myself concerning the Validity of your Presbyterian Mission: I conceive it to be the most material thing in difference between us; and that it ought to be considered in the first place, there being no Imposture like that of assuming to be Preachers of the Gospel without lawful Authority. I shall here trouble you with the Reasons of my dissatisfaction in this matter.  
First then I must crave your pardon to look backward as far as your first Reforming Ancestors, (from whom Presbytery does more immediately derive itself) Mr. Calvin in Geneva, Mr. Knox in Scotland, etc. And then permit me to ask a certain Question, which hitherto none of you would do us the kindness to resolve, Who sent Them to reform the Church, or (as you phrase it) to Preach the Gospel? and How should they Preach except they were sent? Rom. 10. 15. which words of St. Paul seem to be a question, but are indeed a full and peremptory Affirmation, That no Abilities of popular Eloquence can qualify any persons for Preachers of the Gospel, without external and lawful Mission.  
This than I shall lay down as a Foundation to what I have to say, That lawful Mission is essential to a Preacher of the Gospel. And if so, I shall endeavour to make evident, That all your Predecessors of the Kirk (how able soever as to other qualifications) wanted this essential; and consequently yourself who derive a Succession from them.  
Grant me (Sir) a little of your patience, and consider, There are only these Five imaginable AUTHORITIES from whence they could pretend to have received it. 1. The Spirit of God. 2ly, Themselves or their own internal Spirit. 3ly, Or the People. 4ly, Christ and his Apostles. 5ly, Or the Church of Rome. Other Authority or Mission (as namely, That of the Greek Church) you will not pretend to.  
First, From the Spirit of God. This you know to be the matter in question, and the eternal Controversy, and the Allegation of all fanatics; it will be therefore a reasonable demand, By what Evidences did it appear to the World? And how shall the Contemners of your Gospel be left unexcusable, but by evidence of their Authority who are sent to reveal it? In the Affairs of this World, Ambassadors you know, must not want their Credentials; how much less the Ambassadors of Religion? Doubtless that of your Ancestors must needs have been an Embassy extraordinary, being to Reform the World, overrun (in their sense) with Idolatry and Superstition.  
To this you answer, That the powerful gifts and sanctity of those persons were sufficient Evidences of their being Inspired by the Spirit of God; and that the Conversion of many Thousands from Superstition to Godliness was an undoubted Seal to their Ministry. This is the Answer of all Dissenters and Parties of what Name soever, Anabaptists, Behemists, etc. That they easily converted many Thousands no body denies; but whether from Superstition to Godliness, or only to pride, censoriousness, and contempt of all Authority, is the great Controversy. Nay, was it never made a Note, of a man converted, (as the excellent Friendly Debate observes) That though he have a great many Faults, yet he is wrought to an Antipathy to Bishops, Common Prayer and Surplice? And as to yourself, I might appeal to your Conscience, whether you esteem any man a right Convert, that is a FRIEND to these Things. As to those powerful Gifts you speak of, you do not mean any thing that is miraculous, or that other Sects will not as soon pretend to: And truly as for the Sanctity of your whole Party, observable is the Confession of Mr. Calvin himself, in his Comment on the Thirty fourth Verse of the Eleventh Chapter of Daniel; and I promise you not to injure him in the Quotation, Said in illorum exiguo numero qui sese ab Idololatriis Papatus subduxerunt, major pars plena est perfidia & dolis: praeclarum quidem zelum simulant; sed si intus excutias, reperies plenos esse fraudibus. Of that small number of persons (saith he) who profess the pure Gospel, the greater part is full of perfidiousness and deceit; they pretend an excellent Zeal, but if you inspect them narrowly, you shall find them abounding with Frauds.  
Secondly, Themselves, or their own internal Spirit. It is absurd; for so all men may become Preachers of the Gospel, that will assume the confidence.  
Thirdly, the People. Let us allow this Authority for good: and then, I pray, will not Socinians, Anabaptists, Behemists, Fifth Monarchy-men (and who not) enter in at this Door, and plead their Call by the People to Reform the Presbyterians? be pleased to tell us what People do you mean? If those of your own Opinion, they will not in some places amount to a Fourth or Fifth part of the People, and must all the rest be debarred from Electing their own Preachers? besides, you know, it is not the People's Election alone that can Constitute a Preacher of the Gospel; it is the Mission and Ordination of your Predecessors, that I am now enquiring after. You cannot be ignorant concerning the popular Election of Ministers, that it had been disused many Centuries before Calvin; for the Tumults, Factions, and Confusions that attended it: the unstable People seldom or never agreeing about the Persons to be Elected; and I am sure there is no Precept of Scripture Invests them with any such power.  
Fourthly, Or will you derive your Ministry from Christ and his Apostles? But all Dissenters proclaim their Extraction from the same Original: which of them shall we believe? From Christ and his Apostles! Give me leave to ask whether immediately or mediately? Immediately you will not say; if mediately, I pray inform us by whom? Or from whose hands did your Puritan Ancestors receive their Mission and Ordination?  
Well, Fifthly, Some body must send them to Preach the Gospel: Was it the CHURCH of Rome? Yes, I have heard you say; and is not this to confess yourselves the Emissaries of Antichrist, that Man of Sin, the Whore of Babylon? Quid Christo cum Belial? But the unhappiness of it is, that this Mission from Rome, or Roman Bishops, will as soon Watrant the Sermons of a Popish Friar, as those of your Predecessors. And as to your pretended Ordination from Rome, there is one Difficulty in it, that I confess I cannot resolve; Was it not Episcopal Ordination, if any, they received from that Church? And was such Ordination good and valid, yea or no? If good, wherefore will you needs abolish it, as repugnant to the Word of God? If not, what will become of your Orders? And further, I would gladly understand; are any persons sent to go and preach the Gospel after their own sense? If so, than he that hath received Mission from your Kirk, may when he list become an Independent or Anabaptist Preacher, and justify his new Doctrine by your Commission.  
As for Calvin; Beza, who wrote his Life, informs us, that he was never Initiated into any Orders of the ROMAN Church; Nullis erat Pontificiis 
In vita Calvini.  ordinibus initiatus; are Beza's words, who being his great Acquaintance and Successor at Geneva, could not but know it very well. I was of opinion, that your Founder Calvin had been in some Orders, until your own Beza informed me to the contrary. Farrellus also and Viret his fellow Preachers in Geneva, you will find in the same querpo, without Orders: as for John Knoz, he was (saith Mr. Clark a Presbyterian Minister, who writes his life) put into orders very young; that is, when he was professedly of the ROMAN Catholic Religion, he was made Deacon or Priest of that Church, by Episcopal Ordination: but all this while we are to seek for their Presbyterian Mission: did John Knox receive any Authority to ordain other Presbyterians? could he confer a power on others, which he had not received, of ordaining Ministers? to say there was necessity for it, is an answer that will excuse also other dissenters, pleading the same necessity of their Ministry; of all which, our Church is so sensible, that she will admit none of your Brethren to her Eclesiastical Functions without Reordination. Presbyteri & Diaconi praeter Episcopum nihil agere pertentent, Saith the Fortieth Canon of the Apostles; a Canon which, if it were not Apostolical, you cannot deny be very ancient: and do not Epiphanius and Saint Austin recount it among the Heresies of Aerius, that he affirmed, Bishop and Presbyter were the same thing? Aerius cum esset Bresbyter (saith Saint Austin) doluisse fertur, quod Episcopus non potuit Haeres. 53. ordinari, etc. Aerius being a Presbyter, resented his disappointment of a Bishopric; and to satisfy his humour of revenge, would needs assert, that they are the same office. Thus for aught I can see, your Presbyterian Ancestors had no Mission at all, or no more than other Dissenters, who all derive themselves from Christ and his Apostles, from the Spirit of God, etc. Sleidan a Protestant Historian reports in his Commentaries, that Luther, hearing of the multitudes assembled, by Thomas Muncer the famous Prophet of the Anabaptists, wrote an Epistle to the Magistrates of Mulhusen a City in Germany, where the said Muncer remained, advising them to require of him, who sent him to Preach the Gospel? and if he answered God, that he evidence it by some sign or extraordinary token; otherwise that he be rejected, hoc enim proprium & familiar est Deo (said Luther) ut quoties consuetam & ordinariam viam velit immutari, tum voluntatem suam aliquo signo declaret.  
The same quaere, Sir, you may at your leisure do us the favour to resolve in reference to your self.  
You cannot alas! plead any necessity to Reform Episcopacy, but all the other Sects will plead the same to Reform you. Nor will it relieve you to say, that by this Argument the Jewish Church rejected Christ and his Apostles: The case not being the same betwixt Christ and the Jewish Church, and between us and you. To satisfy the Jews and their question, By what authority dost thou these things? Our blessed Saviour appeals to the Miracles which he wrought, If you believe not me, believe the works which I do. Nor will it avail you to return the question upon ourselves, who sent us to Reform the Church of Rome? This truly is no answer, but a desiring us to answer for you. Be plkased to know then that the Church of England was never of your froward and uncharitable humour in relation to that Church, to Reform ourselves (saith Mr. Hooker) is not to sever from the Church we were of before, Eccles. Pol. Lib. 3. Sect. 1. We are very sensible of their Errors, and yet we confess with St. Austin, there is no just necessity to divide the Unity of the Catholic Church; because Separations in the Church tend to no other end, but to discredit the Christian Religion, and render it less considerable, if not contemptible to its Adversaries, Turks and Infidels: He that will admit no Church (saith Primate Bramhall) but that which is spotless, with Acesius, must provide a Ladder for himself to climb alone to Heaven.  
But as to your Party (Sir) I pray who gave them any Authority to Preach their Reformation to these Kingdoms? Give me leave to observe to you this passage in the Racovian Catechism there I remember the question is put, Num two qui docent in ecclesia (Sociniana) ut singulari aliqua ratione mittantur opus habent? Whether the Preachers of Socinian Doctrine, have need of any extraordinary mission? The Answer is, Nullo modo, quia nullam novam, nec inauditam afferunt doctrinam, etc. That is not at all, because Socinians preach no new nor strange Doctrine, but that only which is Primitive and declared in the Holy Scriptures. The same is affirmed by Mr. Calvin concerning his own Reformation in the Preface to his Institutions, which the Lutherans (you know) will by no means admit for truth: See Conradus Scluselburg de Theologia Calvinistarum. Indeed it had been somewhat, if it were not the matter in question; or if Socinians, Behemists, and all the Sects that ever molested the Church, did not urge as much for themselves, boasting of Gospel truth. To say that your Party agree with us in all the Vital Articles of Religion, is to say what perhaps few of you believe; for I doubt not (if opportunity served) every Sect of you would advance its respective Religion, as if that only were Gospel, and all other but Lies and Superstition: Or if you do believe it, the more is your unhappiness to molest the Church about opinions, which you do not esteem of any vital importance.  
I wish I could oblige you to consider, whether you ought to take upon you to Reform, that is, suppress the universal order of Christ's Church by Bishops etc. Banish all ancient Liturgies; the use of the Creed, the Lords prayer, and ten Commandments out of your public Devotions; all Anniversary Solemnities of Christ's Nativity, Resurrection, etc. all Reverence or Kneeling at the holy Sacraments of Christ's Body and Blood; revile the Church (whereof I cannot say, you but your Ancestors, were made Members by Baptism) with the Names of Superstition and Idolatry. Preach your desperate Doctrine of absolute Reprobation, and the impossibility of keeping Gods Commandments; introduce your own extemporary inventions instead of Liturgy: Levy Warr against your Sovereign; and all this without any Authority!  
For all these strange things I should think, Sir, your Ancestors had but need of some extraordinary Mission. But perhaps you will Answer and tell us, That there have been extraordinary Prophets sent into the World without Miracles, as John the Baptist: And 2ly, That Miracles are no certain Signs of true Prophets.  
As for John the Baptist, you may remember the words of the Angel, Luke 2. 15. he was filled with the Holy Ghost from his Mother's Womb; he shall go before in the Spirit and power of Elias (a Character to which your Brethren will not pretend) he was a person prophesied of many Ages before his Birth, Isa. 40. 3. The Voice of one crying in the Wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, etc.  
2ly, That Miracles are no certain Evidences of true Prophets; because there shall arise false Christ's and false Prophets, which shall show great Signs and Wonders, insomuch that if it were possible, they shall deceive the very Elect: Wherefore if they shall say unto you, behold he is in the Desert, go not forth; behold he is in the secret Chambers, believe it not, Math. 24. 24. That false Prophets can work any miracle but deceptio visus, I do not believe. The meaning of our Saviour's words is this, That if any other Prophet after him shall arise, assuming to be that Christ or Messias sent from God, though he may pretend to strange things, believe him not, go not forth after him. If new Prophets, Sir, though they come with a show of miracles, are to be suspected; shall we presently receive all the Preachers of new Lights, that have not so much as the pretence?  
I find a late Writer asserting, That in holy Scripture, there be two marks by which together, not asunder, a true Prophet or one newly sent from God is to be known: One is the doing of miracles; The other is the not teaching any moral Doctrine adverse to that which hath been already preached of old: Asunder (he saith) neither of these is sufficient: and for proof allegeth two places of Scripture, Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. compared with Matth. 24. 24. Our blessed Saviour and his Apostles fulfilled both these marks, First, in their Miracles, Acts 2. 22. Secondly, they taught no Doctrine of Morality, opposite to that which they found already established. Christ came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it, saying none other things, than what Moses and the Prophets did say should come to pass. But he Preached a Doctrine, which had all the obliging Characters of Virtue and Goodness, of Peace and Love; witness his excellent Sermon on the Mount; non vox hominem sonat. There he presses the necessity of Moral Goodness, and keeping the Commandments of God; otherwise methinks then Calvin hath done: I shall instance a remarkable passage in the Second Book of his Institutions, the seventh Chapter and fifth Section. Quod autem impossibilem legis observationem diximus, id est paucis verbis explicandum simul & confirmandum; Solet enim vulgo absurdissima sententia videri, ut Hieronimus non dubitavit Anathema illi denunciare: at quid visum sit Jeronimo, nihil moror: impossibile appello, quod nec fuit unquam, & ne in posterum sit, Dei ordinatione & decreto impeditur. I shall now (saith he) explain and confirm what I have said of the impossibility to observe the Commandments: which commonly seems a very absurd assertion; insomuch that Jerom doubted not to denounce it accursed: but what seemed to him I do not care, I call that impossible which never was, and which God hath decreed that it never shall be. 
His Commandments are not grievous, 1 John 5. 3.  Virtuous Doctrine! if the Commandments be impossible, and that God hath decreed them so, nemo tenetur ad impossibile, Alas! we are of ourselves too prone to take an allowance of Sin, without this Licence from Mr. Calvin.  
To be short, the Church of God may and aught to reform themselves in case of error, or corruption of manners: But if we once admit others to do it, unauthorised or unsent, we open a wide door to all Sects and Heresies; and another consequence is, we shall rest no where; but be tossed too and fro, (as Saint Paul speaks) and carried about with every wind of Doctrine, with the various lights of all Pretenders: This, one would think, hath been apparent enough in the experience of our Age.  
Not that we deny our need of amendment and Reformation in this World of imperfection; but we give heed to the admonition of our blessed Saviour, John 10. 1. Verily I say unto you, he that enters not by the door into the Sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a Thief and a Robber: not entering in at the door, signifies entering without any Authority, either extraordinary, when the Doctrines are new and strange, or ordinary, when they are already known and confessed.  
For grant (saith Bishop Sanderson) for the suppression of Idolatry, in case the Church will not do her Office, that it is lawful for any unauthorised Persons (such as Knox, etc.) to take upon them to reform what they think amiss; there can be no sufficient cause given, why by the same reason, and upon the same grounds, they may not take upon them to make Laws, raise Forces, administer Justice, execute Malefactors (Malignants) or do any other thing the Magistrate should do, in case the Magistrate slack to do his duty: which if it were once granted, (as granted it must be, in case your Presbyterian Reformation be justifiable) every wise man seeth the end can be no other but vast Anarchy, and confusion both in Church and Commonwealth: whereupon must un avoidably follow the speedy subversion both of Religion and State. Second Sermon ad Clerum on Rome 38.  
This is our present case; you a private Person, pretending to no extraordinary things, say all things are amiss; the Magistrate (and he a Christian too) is of opinion, yea, persuaded in his Conscience, that you do all things amiss; who shall be Judge? The Scripture; 'tis a ridiculous answer. The Scripture is a Law; and no Law can ever pronounce either for one or tother, but in the mouth of some Judg.  
From all these premises I persuade myself, your Ancestors were no Prophets sent from God, but intruded themselves into the Divine Function: and (as the Prophet speaks) they followed their own Spirits, and prophesied out of their own hearts. To add one word more, consider all the Prophets mentioned in Holy Scripture, Samuel, Elias, Isaiah, Jeremy, Hosea, etc. At the beginning of their Prophecies, that the World might understand their Divine Mission, they usually declare how and in what manner they received it, Isa. 6. the first and second Chap. of Jer. So as their Authority was confessed, when the matter of their Prophecies was little regarded. Some of them were qualified extraordinarily with the power of Miracles, prophesy of future events, etc. others had the ordinary Licence from the Schools of the Prophets.  
In the New Testament, our blessed Saviour and his Apostles, beside the internal excellency of their Doctrine, gave the World sufficient external evidence that they were persons sent from God; and whereas you say, that you Preach no other Doctrine then that of Christ and his Apostles, it is the answer of Socinians, Anabaptists, etc. and will serve every man's turn as well as yours. But in the last place, cannot you justify yourselves by the Sobriety and virtue of your Lives? By the Loyalty of your Actions? It is a great controversy, and I shall not take upon me to pronounce my own sense of it; but you have heard of King James his opinion in the matter, Ego a Puritanis non solum a nativitate continuo 
In praefacione Monitoria.  vexatus sui, verum etiam in ipso matris utero propemodum extinctus, antequam in Lucem editus fui. I have been disquieted (saith he) by the Puritans from my Mother's Womb, etc. And his Son the blessed King Charles the First, from a certain intimate acquaintance with your Party, writes thus to our present Sovereign King Charles the Second; If ever you stand in need of them, or must stand to their courtesy, you are undone; you may never expect less of Loyalty, Justice, or Humanity, then from those who engage into Religious Rebellion; under the colours of piety, ambitious policies march, not only with greatest security, but applause, as to the Populacy; you may hear from them jacob's voice, but you shall feel they have Esau's hands. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chap. 27.  
Thus I have given you the reasons of my dissatisfaction, cerning the validity of your Presbyterian Mission; and I must confess that I have here expressed only some wishes, not any hopes of convincing you; all my expectation is, that perhaps some unprejudiced persons will believe, that your Presbyterian KIRK hath no advantage, in point of a solid Foundation, over Independents, Anabaptists, etc. If instead of a pertinent answer to all this discourse, you shall please to pass your censure on the Author, and say that he is some Papist; I must reply to you in the words of the excellent Bishop Sanderson concerning the Puritan Preachers.  
Some of them, especially such as betake themselves to preaching betimes, and have not the leisure and opportunity to look much into controversies, understand very little of the true state of the question betwixt the Church of Rome and us; and yet to show their Zeal against Popery, are forward enough to be meddling with it in the Pulpit; but with so much weakness and impertinency, that they leave the question worse than they found it; and the hearer, if he brought any doubts with him, to go from Sermon more dissatisfied than he came. Preface to 14. Sermons, Printed Anno 1657. Sect. 18.  
Now, if you please, let us confer a few words about some others matters, first, concerning that principle of yours, that nothing is to be done about the Worship and Service of God, without express warrant or precept in the holy Scriptures: and I pray inform me where has our blessed Saviour or his Apostles enjoined a Directory for public prayer? Hath the Spirit any need of a Directory? what Divine warrant can you produce for your Singing to God in a set Form, & refusing to pray in a set Form? for speaking to him your sudden and extemporary thoughts, but speaking to the people with a studied and composed Sermon? In which of the Gospels are to be found those three significant Ceremonies required at the taking your solemn League & Covenant? First, that we must be uncovered. Secondly, that we must stand up. Thirdly, with our right hand lift up bare? what express Scripture have you for your form of public penance, called the stool of repentance? This principle of yours (as hath been already observed by the Friendly debate) makes that unlawful which the Scripture allows; in which we find many holy men doing those things (without any censure) in God's worship, which he had no where commended; for instance, what Commandment had David for his Design of building a Temple? Or Solomon for keeping a Feast of seven days for the Dedication of the Altar? For erecting an Altar to be ascended by steps? expressly forbidden in the 20. of Exod. verse 26. Thou shalt not go up by steps unto mine Altar. Or what warrant had Hezekiah for continuing the Feast of unleavened bread seven days longer than the time appointed by the Law? 2 Chron. 30. 23. If you say that all these things possibly were warranted, though not by Scripture; but now Scripture warrant is necessary, since extraordinary inspirations are ceased: I pray tell us what Scripture have you for this very assertion, That extraordinary inspirations are ceased? In a word, This Principle of yours, makes the worship of God impossible: The time, the place, the Vesture in which it shall be performed, being no where appointed: Do not the Quakers retort it upon yourselves? Demanding Scripture for standing in a Pulpit, for Preaching upon a Text, and that by an hourglass, stinting the Spirit; for wearing a Cloak or Gown, etc.  
Another thing I would entreat you to reflect upon, is the reason of your displeasure at the temporal Revenues and encouragement of the Church of England; that which Dissenters (if I understand them aright) would be at, is this, that the Clergy be reduced to their primitive poverty and dependence on the People; and methinks Judas hath very well expressed their sense, John 12. 4. To what purpose, is all this waste of precious ointment on the feet of Christ? might it not have been sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he had the bag, and was a Thief. They do not consider, how many virtues there are requisite in a Churchman, which can have no place in the house of Scarcity; how little exemplary charity, temperance or humility can be expected from a narrow estate: that we cannot say, he is a temperate man, who is so, having scarcely wherewithal to satisfy his thirst: or an humble person, whose fortune gives him small temptation to be proud. Are not all Christians under the same obligations of humility and contempt of Riches as the Clergy? Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon Earth, was said to all; and is it not true in experience, that the poverty of Priests must be attended with ignorance or very slender knowledge? The necessities of our blessed Saviour and his Apostles upon Earth, were supplied by Miracles; and therefore their case and ours not the same.  
Give me leave to commend to your consideration, those excellent words of King Charles the First, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chap. 14. The conclusion of the War, makes it evident, that the main Reformation intended, was the Robbing the Church of its Lands, and the abasing of Episcopacy into Presbytery; but no necessity shall ever, I hope, drive me or mine to invade or sell the Priests Lands, which even Pharaoh 's Divinity abhorred to do. If the poverty of Scotland might, yet the plenty of England cannot excuse the envy and rapine of the Church Lands. The next work will be Jeroboam 's Reformation, Consecrating the meanest of the people to be Priests in Israel, to serve their Golden Calves, who have enriched themselves with the Church's Patrimony.  
Again, be pleased to reflect on your displeasure at the Liturgy of the Church of England. Some of you are for no Forms at all; others are for Liturgy, but it must be reform. In the History of the Reign of 
About the Year 1585.  Queen Elizabeth, this passage is observable: four Classes of Presbyterians, complained of the Liturgy to the Lord Burleigh then Secretary of State; his Lordship bade them go and make a better; whereupon the first Classis went and framed a new one, somewhat near that of Geneva; this the second Classis dislikes, and altars in six hundred particulars; which alteration was excepted against by the third Classis; and what the third resolved upon, the fourth would not consent to: Thus your Party expect a satisfaction about the worship of God, which is impossible to be given you. As to your praying by the Spirit, there is a certain doubt in it, which hitherto none 
See the friendly debate.  of you would do us the favour to resolve: Either you mean praying by the Spirit of God, or by your own Spirits; if you conceive the words and matter of your prayer by the dictate of the Holy Ghost, then are your prayers as much the word of God as any of David's Psalms, or as any part of the Bible; and, being written from your mouths, may become Canonical Scripture. If by praying with the Spirit, you only mean that you are inspired with devout affections, than there is nothing in your prayers, but what others may pretend to, as well as yourselves.  
In brief, Since you do not pretend to entertain your people with immediate inspirations, you oblige them to a Service they know not what; to offer up prayers, whereof they know not a syllable, nor yourself neither, before you begin: if you know them before hand, either for matter or words, than they cannot be extempore, as you would have the people believe; peradventure the reason why the people fancy your prayers, is, their variety; they love not to go where they must be always entertained with the same expressions; but if the sense of our own infirmities (which are always the same) cannot oblige us to pray, why should a set of new words do it? Consider those words of the blessed Martyr King Charles the First. Some men are so impatient, not to 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  use in all their devotions their own invention and gifts, that they wholly cast away and contemn the Lords Prayer. I ever thought that the proud Ostentation of men's own Abilities for Invention, and the vain affectation of variety for expressions in public prayer, merits a greater brand of Sin, then that which they call coldness or barrenness; nor are men in those novelties, less subject to formal and superficial tempers (as to their hearts) then in the use of constant forms, where not the words, but men's hearts are to blame. I make no doubt but a man may be very formal in the most extemporary variety, and very fervently devout in the most wont expressions: Nor is God more a God of variety, then of constancy; nor are constant forms of prayer, more likely to flat and hinder the Spirit of prayer, then unpremeditated and confused variety, to distract and lose it.  
FINIS.