A WORD TO Dr. Womocke.  
OR, A short Reply to his pretended Resolution of Mr. Croftons' Position, concerning Ministers Use of an Imposed Liturgy.  
To which is annexed, A Blow at Jerubbaal Redivivus: Discovering his Weakness and Errors in Defence of his Groundless Secession from Solemn Public Worship Ministered by the English Liturgy.  
By R. S.  
The Publisher of Reformation not Separation.  
London, Printed in the Year 1663.   

The Epistle to the Reader.  
Courteous Reader,  
I Once more trouble thee, and the world, with a few Lines on this unpleasing subject; I would entreat thy pains to read them. Though many sleight this controversy, it's of weight: Many minister not by the Liturgy; they must be justified, or condemned; public Worship is confined to Liturgical ministration; it must be attended, or avoided; and Conscience must direct which is to be done. Mr. Crofton hath (before, and since his imprisonment, in zeal and faithfulness) pointed out the medium between sinful ministration, and groundless non-communion; in both which, he is opposed by enemies, calumniated by the wicked, and censured by the weak, yea, by Brethren in the Ministry, who have never vouchsafed to read what he hath written, nor have once reproved in him any error. The advantage and increase of Separation is so visible, that I may well stir up zeal to rebuke and repel it; I have therefore once and again appeared its Antagonist: The Blow I now strike is indeed below me; the Assault against my last is very weak. I have written, and pray thee to read, that thou mayest not be deceived with great words, which signify nothing; and serve to no end, save to fit the weak and simple to speak evil of the things they do not understand. That thou mightest do in judgement and conscience, what thou art like to be compelled to do by force and fear, hath been, and yet is the Endeavour and Prayer of  
Thine, seeking purity of Worship, in union with the Church, whilst R. S.   

A Word to Dr. WOMOCKE, By way of Reply to his pretended Resolve of Mr. Crofton's Position concerning Liturgies: And a Blow at Jerubbaal Redivivus.  
SInce my publication of Jerubbaal justified, there hath appeared 
Lawrence Womocke, Archdeacon of Suffolk. T. P. alias D. Author of Jerubbaal.  against it, and me, and Mr. Crofton concerned in it, a double assault, by two different Antagonists, as directly contrary each to other, as the Right and Left Wing; only combined in one Battalia under the Prince of Darkness, to darken, and, if possible, destroy the truth; so that as Luther between Pope and Anabaptist, stands Mr. Crofton between a Prelatical Clergy and Separatists: yet vincet veritas.  
Such is the unspeakable weakness of both these men's batteries, that I have passed them with scorn, and stood still, in expectation of the onset of their main Battalia, on the one side, or on the other; but none appearing, I thought good to check their insultation (with which I hear they are puffed up) by these few Lines. And first, to begin with the Learned Doctor, I would crave leave to tell him, if he will give good assurance, that he will in the Schools of the University give Mr. Crofton (viva voce) the Answer published in his name; I will be bound Mr. Crofton shall meet him to receive it; and if the Boys do not hiss the Doctor, he shall go out Victor. Shall I presume to take a turn with this reverend ? I must then tell him;  
If he did not mistake, his Printer hath wronged him at the entrance 
Antidote, p 106. p. ibid.  of his undertaking, to make him read Nonconformist instead of Now-conformist.  
That Pride, and over weening conceit of our own worth, maketh men Non conformists, I deny; for it is humility, and the fear of the Lord: they dare not deviate from Divine Directions; and your instance is an evidence of the same; whilst Mr. Crofton doth humbly consult, whether his conformity may consist with his Ministerial Office; and modestly offer his Notions to Argumentation; the one showeth his fear of Sin, whilst the other showeth his willingness to be convinced, and both his humility.  
His Position you have truly transcribed, and observed the state thereof; but if to affirm, It cannot be denied to be a most base and slavish servility to prostitute the Office to which we are apted and ordained 
Pag. 107.  by the Lord Jesus Christ, unto the pleasure and prescriptions of men, though the best for Quality and Authority, be to be proud, I will be proud, and glory in my pride: And I doubt not, if you were calendered as a man who should deny this Position, you, Sir, would be found proud enough to declare your displeasure, as unjustly reproached: I therefore soberly require you, to deny it, if you can, or dare; and if you cannot, what meaneth this digressive flourish?  
Your flourish hath indeed given you the start, so that you have lost your question, and fall on a Magisterial Swada of Mr. Croftons' conformity: Which of Mr. Croftons' Syllogisms do you hereby shake?▪ Is not this fair disputing? But we will weigh your Reason. You say, Mr. Crofton may please to be so humble, as to condescend to such an Imposition for peace and order sake.  
How! condescend to such an Imposition which prostituteth the Office received from Christ to the pleasure of men? Can you desire it? Were you in earnest when you wrote this? Can you judge it an act of Humility, or not rather the greatest Arrogancy, for Mr. Crofton, instead of Minister of Jesus Christ, to write a Minister of men? You need good Arguments; for you say you will prove it, and that by this Argument.  
What I may lawfully be determined to by my own private judgement, that I may lawfully be determined to by the judgement of Superiors:  
But, to stated Forms for the celebration of God's public Worship, composed (and for the very words, terms, and expressions) digested into method, I may be lawfully determined by my own private judgement.  
Ergo, To stated Forms for celebration of God's solemn public Worship, composed, and for the very words, terms, and expressions, digested into method, I may lawfully be determined by the judgement of my Superiors.  
But how now, Mr. Doctor? what is become of your Question? Do you not use to bring that into your Conclusion? That Mr. Crofton ought to condescend to such an imposition which prostituteth the Office received from Christ to the pleasure of men, was that you pretended to prove; doth not your Syllogism want a foot more to make it reach? But to play with the Prevaricator, know, Sir, I deny both the Propositions of your wellformed Syllogism.  
The Major you expect to be denied, and therefore enforce; but I also deny your Minor Proposition (viz) That to stated Forms for celebration of God's solemn public Worship, composed (and for the very words, terms, and expressions) digested into method, I may lawfully be determined by mine own private judgement. For, althoogh Mr. Crofton doth not exclude his own judgement, when he pleads for the liberty of his own invention, to compose and modify his Forms of public Worship; yet he denieth his judgement a power to determine a stated form, semper eadem, always the same, for words, terms, and expressions, what ever be the variations of God's providence, and the Church's condition. Nor doth this any way follow on the use of his judgement in managing his liberty: That a man may judge a Crutch fit for his now condition, will not conclude, that he may sana ment confine himself to a Crutch, one and the same Crutch, at all times, in all conditions; this Argumentation is a manifest halting before a Cripple: In the last, the judgement must needs be erroneous, to be corrected before it be obeyed.  
The Major you expecting to be denied, do thus enforce.  
What I may lawfully be determined to by a weaker judgement, to that I may be lawfully determined by a judgement that is stronger.  
But, To stated Forms, etc. I may lawfully be determined by a weaker judgement, (viz.) mine own;  
Ergo, To stated Forms, etc. I may lawfully he determined by a judgement that was stronger, (viz.) my Superiors.  
Here, Sir, to make the Auditors laugh, I will again become ridiculous, in your fancy, and deny both your Propositions.  
I deny the Major in the sequel, I may be determined by the weaker judgement; and it will not thence follow, that I must therefore be determined by the stronger judgement: For Sir, the weaker judgement is mine own judgement; and mine own eye is the best guide of mine own steps, though I see but darkly; mine own understanding is my candle from the Lord; my dim light judicium rationale, shineth brighter in the closet of mine own breast, than 400. candles, or the forense judicium of a Convocation. Sir, the Learned Davenant hath taught me, Men may guide us Judicio Ministeriali; but every one must judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Judicio private, & practicae discretionis: Yea, as if to your question, he hath concluded, Adnudam praescriptionem, aut determinationem alterius, sine lumine privati judicii, nemo est qui credere potest, etiamsi cupiat maxim. And, Sir, I am not bound to impossibilities; laugh while you list, I will move by mine own eye, be it never so weak, and my Superiors never so strong; though my dim light seethe not more, it seethe more truly and more directively than their brighter.  
But, Sir, that you may know a man of intolerable pride, in your account, I deny your Minor; and tell you in general, That the private judgement of a single person may be stronger than the judgement of a Convocation, or whole Council. Have you never read of one Gamaliel in the Convocation of the Scribes and Pharisees? Or of one Cranmer in the Six Articles Council of King Henry the Eighth? Or of one Paphthnutius in the Council of Nice? If not, give us leave to tell you, we hope you will not from Arhdeacon rise to be Archbishop; which if you should, we should fear to be forced to pluck out our eyes, because you say they are weaker than yours, now you are set above us. Let, Sir, Junior Sophs judge, whether you have not disputed like the Master of much Reason. But, Sir, your Magisterial Swada vanished, you appear as a Respondent, and say you lay the Axe to the Root of the Tree; and I will give you your due; you do strike at the Principle which is the Radix of Mr. Croftons' Argumentation: But, Sir, you seem no skilful Carpenter; you strike a blow which can never reach the Root, or once shake the Tree.  
Mr. Crofton argues, Ministerial modification of public Worship by personal abilities, is the formal act of the Ministerial Office; and he puts his Respondent to assign any other: You most profoundly answer by denial, and then assign Ministration to be the formal act of the 
Pag. 109.  Ministerial Office. Mr. Crofton I know will admit your Notion in the Genus, an inferior Minister of State, or Servant in a Family, must minister, as well as a Minister of the Gospel: but that specifical act which shall difference the special Ministrations of these special Relations, and several capacities, was the thing enquired; and what is the formalis ratio of the Ministerial Office, in the ministration of solemn public Worship, is the Question. To tell us, Ministration is the formal act of ministration, is good Scepticism; Dolosus versatur in generalibus; the formal act of the Ministerial Office is to minister; but quomodo? is the question. To hold your Lord Bishop's Stirrup, or the Candle to an Archdeacon, will not sure fulfil the ministry of a Gospel Minister; yet it is ministration. In your next tell us what is the formal act of the Gospel Ministerial Office, which will specifically difference it from ministration in the general; and than you will see little cause to cry out to make modification of the act, the act itself, is to make apparel the man; for modification of Ministration came not into the question; but that modification of solemn Worship is the formal act of Ministration, was and is asserted: and, Sir, the cutting and making of Cloth in such and such a shape, is the formal ministration of a Tailor, who will easily see your Answer to be a man of Clouts. But you pass to the Objection.  
Imposition and prescription in Prayer and Sacraments, is applicable unto Preaching. To this you give a  Answer.  
1. A Sermon is never the worse for being well digested. True; if it be the Preachers own meditation, much the better.  
2. If it be seen and allowed by Authority, I know no harm in it. Nor I neither: but this is not necessary.  
3. This course (if not endless) would more secure peace and solid edification of the Church. I deny that, unless by the Popish guard, Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion. But, Sir,  
What are these to a Sermon not studied, much less digested by the Preacher? not communicated to, but composed by pretenders to Authority? making Ministers to have no work to do qua Ministers, but to read what they have written, which is the nature and form of Homilies, and these exclusively imposed, which may as well be admitted as the Liturgy!  
4. When Presbyterians do preach other men's printed Sermons. Name any such, who so do, let them bear their blame; I know no Presbyterians who so do: But if you, Sir, please to inquire in the Parish of Christs-Church, or Martin's Ludgate, London, or Henly in Sussex, you may hear of Sons of the Church who stuck not to preach Mr. crofton's own printed Sermons: But these are preparing for Homily Ministrations.  
You think there is a vast difference between Praying and Preaching: is there not also a difference between these and Sacraments? Prove that Christ taught that Prayer may be comprised in a short Office: He suggested matter, did he determine the mode, terms, words, and expressions of Prayer? If not, what avails this plea? There are not more various Texts in the Bible, then wants in the Church, and both are the Scene for the variety of Gifts to exercise upon. But Sir, your next makes work for the Terraefilius. Mr. Croftons' instance of the Parish Clerk and People, is not to our prejudice, or his purpose; for they are a general part of the holy priesthood St. Peter speaks of, and it is their duty to bear a part in God's solemn worship.  
Well levelled, Doctor; I hope we shall no more hear of Clergy distinct from Laity: The Parish Clerk and People are part of the holy Priesthood; very true: they ought to bear a part in God's solemn worship; undoubtedly true: but must that part be ministration, such ministration as is the formal act of Gospel ministry? either so, or you have said nothing; and if so, farewel Holy Orders, yea, solemn Ordination to the Ministry; a man may make himself a Priest: Enter Indepency, the Archdeacon hath opened the door: All the Lords people are holy, the holy priesthood; Ergo, may minister in the Ministers Office.  
Your next, concerning Schoolboys, doth suggest some Boy read Mr. Croftons' Position to you; for otherwise, you might have observed, he doth distinguish the Ministerial Office, and Ministerial Act: and tells you, a boy may perform the Act, and queries, Must he therefore be admitted to the Office? He never allowed a Butcher a blow at an holy Ox or Lamb, because he can kill them; he never allowed Qualification to confer an Office.  
Sir, upon what you have said, Mr. Crofton appears not self-condemned, nor condemned by others; but if a Jury of Freshmen condemn not your Logic, you shall have my Vote to be Signior Lecturer. Ending your dispute, you pass to your former Swada, and affirm.  
Mr. Crofton, and his party are bound to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy. Negatur. You undertake to prove it thus.  
To do whatsoever is morally possible, for uniformity and peace sake, is your duty: But to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy is morally possible; Ergo, to the submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy 
Pag. 3.  is your duty.  
Though I could, in love to peace, I will not quarrel at the terms of your Major Proposition, and deny it: but I deny your Minor Proposition, (viz.) To submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy, is not morally pessible. You proceed to prove this.  
What is not sinful, and is within our natural power, is morally possible: But to submit to a prescribed Liturgy is not sinful, and is within our natural power; Ergo, To submit to the use of a prescibed Liturgy is morally possible.  
The Major is allowed you; the Minor, as to the last Branch may be allowed you: but sometimes our natural power may be under violent restraint, and then possibility may fail.  
As to the first branch, it is denied; and you proceed to prove it, (viz.) that to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy is not sinful; and you thus argue:  
What is forbidden by no Law, is not sinful: But to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy, is forbidden by no Law; Ergo, To submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy, is not sinful.  
The Major is allowed you; the Minor I deny: For to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy is forbidden in the first Command, which doth require faithfulness in the Office committed to us by the Lord himself; Ministers of God cannot without sin become the Ministers of men.  
2. In specialty; the Law of the Ministerial Office, in its special nature, (which must give Rules to the Ministers acts qua Ministerial acts) doth forbid such submission, as inconsistent with, and destructive to the formal act of the Ministerial Office, (viz.) modifying worship by personal abilities, notwithstanding what our Opponent hath urged to the contrary,  
3. The edifying of the Church by variety of Ministerial Gifts, is a Law which doth forbid such submission, as destructive to that end.  
The Apostle indeed bids us hold fast the form of wholesome words, but not to hold to the same words; to speak the same things, but not in the same syllables: for if so, the Liturgy must be catholic to all Christians, in all places and ages of the World, and that in the Greek Language only. Had this Doctor read Mr. Croftons' Argument on this Question against D. G. he sure would not have thus disputed, [Submission to Superiors is a duty; but our judicium rationale must judge their Mandate to be licitum & honestum, which in this case we cannot do; and then our Dilemma is manifest, Shall we obey God or man? judge you.  
Now, Sir, your holding your Conclusion is not in my power to hinder; but if your Premises be not pushed down, let all men of reason judge.  
You have, Sir, been at the pains to transcribe Mr. Crofton's Creed in point of Church Communion; praeterea nihil; you deny no one Article, nor dispute not against them: Herein than we are agreed; only, Sir, let me tell you, that freedom from corruptions and disorders must be secured to the Church by the ways God hath directed, not by words which men have dictated, and by their unwarranted power determined.  
I having repelled the assaults, and dissipated the Forces of the 
Jerubbaal Rediviv.  Right, must now encounter the Left Wing of this Armado: In address to which, my courage is checked by observing the Antesignanus and Captain that appeareth in the Front; not afraid of his force, but ashamed that any called a Presbyter, should engage in such a Church-subverting design, and that with such weapons which the most rigid Separatists will be ashamed to take up: but be he Son or Brother, the Relation may restrain what the weight of the Warfare doth necessitate: With him therefore I must take a turn; the rather, for that many have sounded in my ears his proud alarm, That Mr. Crofton himself cannot now have any thing to say against him, his opinion and practice, unless he mind to have the last word, and resolve he will not be convinced. That this man may not abide wise in his own conceit, I must once more enforce the Rebuke given him, and advise him, [to reflect the wilful affectation of a Title which can no way appertain to him, (viz.) Jerubbaal; whereas Baal is not the object of his Plea, nor is he the Gideon that threw down and pleaded against Baal. With what face doth this man conclude the Common-Prayer Book is Baal, and not once consider or resolve Mr. Croftons' expostulations hereupon? My good friend, let it be seriously resolved, is there no differbetween Israel and Judah? Rome, and a Reformed Church? between 
Reformat. not Separate. p. 26, 36.  a calling on God, the only true God, in the Name of Christ, though in a defective, rude, confused, and unfitting order, and praying unto Saints and dumb Idols? Though our order of Divine Service be a Roman dreg of some dangerous distasteful influence, yet it is not Popery: Shall we not bless God, and rejoice in England, as brought out of Babylon, though some Babylonish Vestures, Rites, and Orders, which ought to be abandoned, are retained, yea, returned into her? When these things are well resolved, will not this Baal appear a babe of his fancy, without any real existence? Knoweth not this Pleader, that the mistake of the object doth misguide the act, and make reproof a groundless calumny?  
But if the Liturgy must be accounted Baal, is this man the Jerubbaal? When? by what Plea? in whose judgement, except his own? Let me say over again what I said in my last; hath not Mr. Crofton written and preached against it? Hath not Mr. Crofton suffered for his opposition to it? Doth not Mr. Croftons' 〈◊〉 
Jerub. justified, p. 2.  against which this man appeareth, plead convincingly against it? The enemy being Judge, is there any more open Jerubbaal in our Age then Mr. Crofton? This man appeareth against Mr. Croftons' limitation, and due bounds set unto men's affection; inferring what the premises will not allow, and proudly affects to be called Jerubbaal: Oh vanity! oh folly! But  
Secondly, I would advise this Combatant to review what he hath written; for verily I cannot without grief and shame, observe the Nonsense, ignorance, and error, with which this unanswerable Peice aboundeth: I shall, for his humiliation, note it in each Paragraph of his Book; and the rather, because his wild and confused method admits no regular Ratiocination. Note therefore,  
His Preface enters with an outcry, That the Rebuke I last gave him (being bigbellied with Satirical invectives, slanders, and revile) 
Jerubb. rediviv. p. 1.  would better become a Shimei, than a Levite: But he specifieth not one revilingterm; how bigbellied soever the Rebuke appeared, it is manifest no one was brought forth: I must therefore tell mine Antagonist, stubborn and scornful Sons do conclude the Father's just Rebukes are railing; let sober men judge the sobriety of so just Rebukes, as his Jerubbaal provoked.  
His next Paragraph complaineth, that he was charged with a mistake, a total mistake, a gross mistake, which he saith, is to him matter 
Pag. 2.  of wonder; and to whom can it be other, who is but in the least acquainted with the occasion, end and scope of his writings. I cannot but note the clearness of his Reason, or rather nonsense of his Argumentation: Mr. Crofton blamed (he saith censured) his non-communion at Laurence Jewry Church-door, and demanded (he saith challenged) an answer to his Reformation not Separation: this gave occasion to his writing; he aimed at truth and duty, that was the scope and end of his writing. All this admitted, what followeth? That it was impossible he should mistake, totally mistake, grossly mistake? So that he must hence wonder to be charged therewith; and all the world knowing this occasion, and end, cannot but wonder with him. An exact Marksman, that provoked to shoot, and intending well, is thereby put under an impossibility of missing the Mark! But could he think, all men will judge the occasion and end of his undertaking would so clear his understanding, as to keep him from mistake? If good intentions could destroy an erroneous judgement, there would not be so many mistakes in the world as there is: Be the occasion and end of this man's undertaking what it will, was he not mistaken in Mr. Crofton, when he called him, printed him the Maecenas and Advocate for the English Liturgy? Is it not out of mistake, that in this second piece he saith, The Altar of Baal, by him thrown down, is by me repaired, and my design is its resurrection? Result not these terms of propriety; Your novum organum, your man-devised Liturgy, your Divine Service, your blasted Liturgy, out the total and gross mistake of Mr. Crofton, and his Plea; Will this man have 
Jerubb. Rediviv. p. 11, 13, 14, 17.  the impudence to justify the Calumny of the wicked, That Mr. Crofton is an Apostate, revolted from what he witnessed? Let him draw it into an Indictment; Mr. Crofton shall abide the trial, though his Jury be a pack of his worst enemies, of superstitious Sons of the Church, and separating Sects. I could, for the honour of Reformation, wish, that men had not more cause to wonder that this man can do nothing but mistake, and persist with folly in a mistake, as it is too manifest in this his second Tract; then to wonder, that notwithstanding his good occasion and end, he was mistaken, totally mistaken, grossly mistaken; for the last is incident to the best of men.  
His third Paragraph tells us of five Queries, on Resolution of which dependeth the decision of this controversy. But, Sir, my last drew the 
Pag. 3.  Controversy to a much narrower Crisis; one single Question, which well resolved, would end this strife, (viz.) Whether the Liturgy, being an unlawfully constituted mode of solemn public Worship, be so far unlawful, or unlawful in that kind or quality of unlawfulness, which will constitute a warrantable ground or reason for non-communion in the worship of God ministered by the same? Jerubbaal justif. p. 25. Near this question you do not, you dare not come; your War would be too soon ended, and your wordy Army too soon disbanded, if you should fight so close. Sir, have you studied nothing but Sceptiscism, to avoid the Question by multiplying Queries of your own framing? Are you a Sopbomore, so subtle to shun the Question stated, and dispute the Queries of your own brain? You may, Sir, be your own Antagonist all your days, with much ease and pleasure to your fancy, but with little profit to others. Yet before you buckle to your work, you say you will enfeeble my Plea, which you can more stoutly call cavils and exceptions, then convincingly gainsay or contradict.  
The fourth Paragraph doth therefore observe the Crisis of Mr. Croftons' Plea to be communion in God's worship ministered by the Liturgy, not communion in the Ministerial mode: but this observed, is passed with a scornful note of Crambe recocta, occurring 20. times; not once considering it was so frequently inculcated on design to clear his dull capacity, who could, or would not observe it in Mr. Crofton's Reform. not Separate. And, Sir, I yet see not but this Crambe recocta may be disht up to you 200. times, before you will digest the same: Solomon hath indeed told us, though we bray a fool in a mortar, he will not understand. I wish you had turned on the hinge of the controversy; I should deny learned self to consider any strenuous argumentation, which would demonstrate this forcible Plea to be what you please to call it. a plausible evasion.  
The fifth Paragraph fills time and paper to tell men, what he 
Ibid.  that runneth may read, (viz.) Mr. Croftons' dispute is about popular, not Ministerial communion. Yet here I cannot but observe his mistake of the Question; which he saith is, Whether this communion be Duty? He should observe, it is the Licet, not the Debet, of this communion, which Mr. Crofton doth affirm; he never disputed this Communion to be a duty binding semper, but lawful, and made duty by inevitable necessity only: He always affirms Communion with a non obstante, notwithstanding the Liturgy; and only, when we cannot have solemn public worship without the same: the utmost of Mr. Croftons' affirmation is, The Liturgy maketh not a warrantable ground for secession from God's Church and worship. But this man's good intention must make all men wonder he should be charged to mistake.  
Yet, Sir, you are well skilled in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when you tell us, 
Pag. 4.  You had reason confidently to affirm, Mr. Crofton said, the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is an act of solemn public worship. This denied, you plead a passage which only seems to suggest it; and in which it is not said: Is, Sir, this the strife about words condemned by the Apostle, for a man to deny he spoke what he is unjustly charged to have spoken? But of this enough, it being personal. But, Sir, I cannot a little wonder at your strange confidence, in again fathering the fancy of your own brain on Mr. Crofton, in what you call his Dumb Argument, when you know it hath in his name been disowned; and the abominable sequel thereof, together with its inconsistency with his Question, and the scope of his Plea been fully demonstrated in my Jerub. justif. p. 5. 6. Can you outface me, and Mr. Crofton too, that he will not after recollection say, that is a monstrous Argument, which maketh the Liturgy essential to the sanctification of the Lords day, so as that the Lords day cannot be sanctified where the Service book is not attended, assented to, and acted in? and doth not this naturally flow from your fancied conclusion? Were you not rebuked for this in my last? and was not Mr. Croftons' Argument put into form, that you might see its force; Man, be not obstinate.  
The sixth Paragraph doth assert a Notion, which admitted, maketh set forms of Prayer essential to Communion in all solemn public Prayer, (viz.) The Adhibition of his Amen is as real communion in the Ministerial mode of worship, as the personal acting by conclamation, popular responds, and groundless variation of gesture, and the like. Sir, I agree with you, magis & minus non variant speciem: Prove Mr. Crofton's Amen to be as real, though not so extensive communion as the  personal acts, and I will undertake he shall retract his principle and practice too. But, Sir, you are the first that ever made the external ministerial mode the adequate object of the people's Amen; all others refer it to the matter, and the matter only: and truly, Sir, if it be true, I must be excused, if I refuse to join with a Scotchman in Prayer; for they are, of all men, no little incident to disorder, in their conceived, self-framed Prayers. Nor do I see how I can be secured against the guilt of that confusion and disorder of expression to which all men are subject, save only by seeing the Form of Prayer to which I must give mine Amen, and being well assured from it the Minister shall not vary: This, Sir, necessitateth a Liturgy, and was suggested to you in my last, had you pleased to observe it. Sir, I judged Amen to be the act of my judicium discretionis, to be adhibited as mine understanding apprehended the matter prayed for: I have heard some Petitions put up to God, which I durst not enforce with my Amen. I presume you will not deny to pray with me; and yet (as you and I stand informed) you could not adhibit your Amen to all that I must ask of God. I conceive, if my Amen be at the command of mine Understanding, in reference to any matter, it is much more such in reference to every external Form, and Ministerial mode of Prayer. And now, Sir, Mr. Crofton's Nuntio will tell you, that admitting the Smectymnuan observation of the Litany (which holds not in any part, save the Deprecations, and that also is disputable) to be true: Mr. Crofton's judicium diseretionis commanding his Amen, can direct and dispose a silent observation of such a popular interruptions to solemn public Worship. Sir, if you will make Amen contract the Gild of the mode of Prayer, you must go to work again; for I will confidently affirm, in this opinion you stand alone, and will stand alone.  
The seventh Paragraph is the wild frolic of a foolish fancy; as if my noting the Liturgy to be a political order and direction, did 
Pag. 6.  confound it with the Directory; this is a vanity so visible, that I will say no more to it, save this, If you have no more wit then to play with your shadow, enjoy your sport; what is this to the question in dispute?  
The eighth Paragraph is like the seventh: In it you note, with 
Pag. 7.  seeming pity, Mr. Crofton's necessity of practice in prison; but, good Sir, what necessity (more than that of conscience and duty) constrained Mr. Crofton to state the Principle he now asserts, when he was at liberty, worshipping God in purity and power, and contradicting the late Bishop of Worcester's advancing the Liturgy? Deal you faithfully with God, his Cause, and People, when you suggest Mr. Crofton's now principle and practice was extorted by a violent necessity? The Lord judge these Censures. (2.) Your Notion of Civil presence comes again to be observed. (3.) It is well the Plea of necessity groweth frivolous to you; it is not so to others; they miss some integrals of Worship. (4.) I should be loath to conclude, set Forms of Preaching and Prayer (with soundness of Doctrine in both) were England's Ichabod; these were imposed, and all Preaching silenced, for some time, by the Proclamation of King Edw. 6. and God's Ark and Glory was then returning: I wish not to see so dark a cloud in God's Sanctuary; yet fear to conclude (if a lawful Ministry and substantial Ordinances abide) that God's presence is removed. I yet fear to eat your bread of secrecy, and to drink your stolen waters, though sweet, lest the dead be there, and such guests be in the depths of Hell. The house of an Obededom may entertain an exiled Ark; but not have comfort, or give any guard to Corah's company.  
The ninth Paragraph is, in my judgement, an eminent piece of 
P. ibid.  Nonsense: To my Objection, The personal guilt of Hophni and Phineas could not defile the Church; you answer, Personal corruptions are there contra-distinct to real, not to public, as it seems you understand me. Good Sir, what understand you by real corruptions? corruptions indeed? Is not all personal corruptions real corruptions? Are personal faults only imaginary guilt? It is then good sinning alone. Sir, I never understood real opposed to personal, but it signified public. Consider well how Civilians and Casuists distinguish an Oath into real & personale; and tell me what you understand by real, distinct from public, and opposed to personal, that I may understand you.  
The tenth Paragraph doth enforce the necessity of a groundless distinction of participation by profession, and joint communion; but addeth no new matter, only referreth to Jerubbaal: This than I turn back to Jerubbaal justified.  
The eleventh Paragraph noteth, that Mr. Crofton will deny that 
Pag. 8.  there are many, or indeed any members of the Church catholic, who never had opportunity of associating themselves with, or of joint communion in the solemn worship of God, in a particular Church: and answereth the same with needless distinctions, and manifest nonsense. As (1.) by universal is meant the catholic militant Church, comprehending visible and invisible; yet note, his Jerubbaal did determine it to be visible only, pa. 19 and the catholic Church must be the subject of solemn public Worship, and Gods Ordinances, capable of association and joint communion in them; of these the invisible part of the Church are not capable. (2.) That a man may be a member of the invisible, without opportunity of joint communion in outward Ordinances. I do not only imply, but I speak out; but what is this to our purpose? Nor will I deny, a professor may be a believer; but that maketh him not a member of the Church visible: Profession is the ground of visible Church-membership, but it is not the formalis ratio thereof; no; that is Baptism, an act of personal association, and joint communion; which must needs have its opportunity in all that enjoy it. I say as his greater Sophies, (ignorantly quoted) A professor is visible, a believer invisible; the believer may be a professor of the same faith, and not partake in the same ordinances: Yet it will not hence follow, there are any or many members of the Church visible, who never had an opportunity of joint communion in solemn public worship; for all such must be incorporated by Baptism; without which, the best professors and true believers must be foro Ecclesiae judged without the Church.  
The twelfth Paragraph, concerning Conventicles, tells us, A society of persons, ten, twenty, thirty▪ or forty, amongst whom is a Minister celebrating true Divine Worship, according to the will of Christ, by the assistance of his Spirit, and in his Name; not causelessly and unjustly separating from a true Church, is no Conventicle, or Schismatical Assembly. Who ever said such an Assembly was a Conventicle? Jerubbaal justified told you of twenty, thirty, or forty private members, assembled 
Pag. 22.  distinct from, and opposite to a Church, an holy Convocation: And I say again, if the Congregations in England be true Churches, and secession from them (as it yet seemeth to be) unwarrantable and groundless; though twenty, thirty, or forty, with a Minister, constitute themselves a counter-Church, opposite to these Assemblies, and therein administer Church-ordinances; I see not how to acquit them from the repute and reality of a Conventicle, and Schismatical Assembly: Nor will Christ's promise of his presence be any prop to their Fabric, who are not met in his Name; for God is a God of Order.  
We are at length arrived to his five Queries before mentioned; 
Pag. 9  by himself stated, and so best resolved.  
The first is this; What is that which may warrant and acquit from 
Quaer. 1.  Schism, a persons non-communion with the Church of England in the worship alleged to be ministered by her Liturgy, or Common-Prayer?  
I must here note, that though he come not close to the Question in dispute, yet he cometh somewhat nearer; and can now mention the subject, Worship, distinct from his adjunct, the Liturgy by which it is ministered: so that he hath learned to speak in an entire Proposition, worship ministered by the Liturgy; I hope he hath so clear reason as to discern the subject, Worship: the Predicate ministered by the Liturgy, are the parts of this Proposition; and the Worship ministered, not the Liturgical ministration, is the object of his Communion, or non-Communion, controverted under this Quaerie; which he resolveth in certain Propositions, whereof the first is,  
Communion with this part of the Church is a Duty, etc. This is square to Mr. Croftons' assertion; only I would advise him to revise 
1 Proposit.  the wording of it, for it soundeth nonsense in mine ears.  
He noteth an Objection, Reading the Word is a public Ordinance 
Pag. 10.  of God, and part of public Worship: He answereth, True; who ever denied the thing is appointed? but not the measure, or quantum; be enjoyeth it in Textual occasional Reading in the Sermon preached. But, good Sir, is not solemn Reading, distinct from, and opposite to textual and occasional Reading, a part of solemn Worship? Cast your eye on Nehem. 8. 3. Luke 4. 16. Acts 13. 15, 27. 15. 21. Consult the practice of the Jews, and primitive Christians, the determinations of Fathers, ancient and modern Divines Systems, and Common-places in Divinity, especially Expositions on the fourth Commandment, tell me which of them assert not solemn Reading, distinct from Preaching and its accidents, to be a distinct part of solemn public worship? and which of them will conclude textual and occasional Reading to be the performance of it? Is not your fancy in this manifestly ridiculous?  
The second Proposition resolving this Quaerie, is a most strange, 
2 Proposit.  ranting, uncharitable (if I may not say impious) Notion, (viz.) The worship administered, or administrable by the English Liturgy, or public set-Form, considered as such, and in a complex state, appeareth (as yet) to be none of that Worship of which God is the Author, the Gospel the Rule, the practice Apostolic the pattern; but Cultus adulterinus, mere adulterate worship, a piece of Superstition, arbitrary Devotion, Scripture-bitten will-worship, supererogatory service, Lawstruck Tradition and Ordinance of Man. Whither will the man run? This proved, is enough to warrant, yea, to necessitate secession from the English Church: but we must believe it on the Magisterial confident say-so of this Grave Dictator; for no proof is so much as offered. But doth the man know what he saith? or whereof he doth affirm? that he thus ranteth, not against the Liturgy, (that may be born) but against the worship in abstracto, distinct from the Liturgy, is to me very strange. The Worship administered, or administrable by the Liturgy, is cultus adulterinus, no worship of God, is his Position; the most rigid Separatists will not say it. If this be so, well might Doctor Owen acquit Independency from Schism, by pleading the Church lost its being under Popery; gathering of Churches must needs be a duty; yet not gathered Church hath any worship of God, or any other the cultus adulterinus, etc. for they have no other worship then what is administrable by the English Liturgy. Good Sir, what is the worship administered or administrable by the English Liturgy? Is it not solemn reading the Scriptures, invocation of God, Baptism and the Lords Supper? Pray you, Sir, is not God the Author, Gospel the Rule, and practice Apostolic the Pattern of these? If these be not the worship administered, and administrable by the Liturgy, give us the name of it, that we may inquire its nature: Protestants have had no other worship since King Edward the sixth his days; true Christians have had no other since Jesus Christ his days: have the one and other been left in approach to God without his worship? yea, with adulterate worship, etc. How much will this fall short of Blasphemy, not only against Protestants, but Christians, and the God of both? I profess, I tremble that I hold you so close to the Crisis of our Controversy, that you should break out with such a ranting notion, which doth raze the foundation of the Church. Your sensu composito in individuo, connexio & qua talis, will not relieve you; for mean you what you will by these, the worship in abstracto is the subject of these, and of your Proposition, predicated cultus adulterinus, etc. And, Sir, lest we should mistake you, you have not only explained it by the actual administration; worship administered would not serve your turn, but you add the very posse thereof, and determine against the worship administrable by the English Liturgy. You may, Sir, by this notion help the simple to blasphemous words; but can never make a sober understanding Proselyte, or obtain any rational second, that knoweth how to understand a Proposition: Yet this fancy I find to be the Line which hath led you into the Labyrinth in which you are entangled. Be serious, and see whether it be not the snare of the Devil; out of which the Lord redeem you.  
On this Notion you proceed to resolve Objections: of which you note,  
There is in the Common-Prayer the substance of Divine worship, 
1 Object.  though disorderly administered; the essential form of Prayer, a calling upon God in the Name of Christ for things agreeable to his will, etc. To this you answer, conceding the matter of the Petitions, as that you will not dispute; and I suppose you will not question the matter of the Sacraments. The Form you deny not; only follow your fancy, the Name of Christ; which, you say, Mr. Crofton hath with disdain disowned. That I, in Mr. Croftons' name, disowned it, is true; the disdain is your own fancy: What one word of disdain is expressed? I will transcribe my sentence, that you and others may observe why and how I do disown this sense of the Name of Christ. Sir, I will assure you, Mr. Crofton did not understand by the Name of Christ, the Will of Christ; and yet I must tell him, it 
Jerub. just. p. 27.  is but one Doctor's opinion, that this is not a right description of Prayer: He might have been pleased to observe, in the same page, Mr. Crofton determined the matter must be according to the Will of God; and Will of Christ doth require some adjunct qualities which come not into the definition; but in the Name of Christ; that is, for his sake, merits, and mediation, cannot be left out. Note, Sir, The Name of Christ doth not exclude the Will of Christ; both have their places, and due respect: the will of Christ, in reference to the matter, is essential; the name of Christ, in reference to the form, is made essential; the will of Christ, in reference to the mode, in adjunct qualities, gravity of expression, fervency of affection, and reverence in demeanour, is made necessary, but not essential: And from what Divine doth Mr. Crofton differ in this distribution of the parts of Prayer? For herein (to use your own terms) Prayer in genere, is worship; and in specie, such instituted worship. But you proceed, and say;  
I mutter; Sir, I speak it out, The will of Christ requires gravity 
Pag. 11.  in expession, reverence in demeanour, etc. which come not into the definition of Prayer, as essential to its form. Nor, Sir, can you gainsay this: and, Sir, it would seem, yea, it really is so, that if the essential form of Prayer depend upon, or consist in a conformity to the will of Christ, that no Prayer is such, but what hath those qualifications: for, Sir, if so, a vain thought, and word, or rude demeanour, doth destroy the Prayer. But you say;  
Two Commandments are confounded. But, Sir, by whom? is it not by yourself in your very present distinction? For you say, the modus, outward manner of worship doth belong to the second Commandment, 
Pa. 12, 13, 14, 15.  cujus contrarium verum est.  
You enter a discourse of your Orthodoxy; in which if you be not Heterodox, I have no skill in Divinity. I will not strictly scan each word, your discourse is wild; but these Notions are obvious.  
That calling on God in the Name of Christ is required in the third 
Pa. 12, 13.  Command. And yet, Sir, this is the forma informans of Prayer as instituted Worship; for Nature will teach men to call on God.  
The external mode of Prayer doth belong to the second Command. And yet it is not essential to Prayer, as instituted Worship.  
That Prayer which is not agreeable for necessary modes and qualifications, as gravity of expression, reverence in demeanour, etc. to the third Commandment, may be justly denied to have the complete essential form of instituted worship. If this be true, Prayer itself is impossible to sinful men, and glorified Saints need it not.  
The ministerial mode in Prayer is medium cultus; Which you were told is but cultus vehiculum: the medium is invocation, the ministerial mode is only the vocal instrument between God and the people.  
Praying by the Liturgy is as praying before an Image: And yet in the one the Image, in the other, God, and God only, is the proximate immediate object of the Prayer: Men praying by the Liturgy, pass to God himself, nullo medio interveniente; but praying to an Image, sets God at a distance, and salutes his Gentleman Usher.  
Upon these and the like Notions you infer your principle, and justify what I thought you would have retracted with grief and shame, That God is not worshipped by the Liturgy. Hereupon, you frivolously, and to no purpose, mention many Authors: I pray you study in what they have written on the third Command, with this note; Many things are noted as sinful, to be avoided and abandoned, which yet existing do not vitiate the subject, nullify God's Worship about which they do converse, and will not therefore warrant secession or sepration.  
You highly insult in my concession the Liturgy is evil, a positive evil. I grant it you again: but, Sir, is there no evil, positive evil, but against the second Commandment? Is all evil, positive evil, in other men's act, a warrant for my separation? And now let us come again to the Question; Is the Liturgy, though evil, a positive evil, such an evil, an evil of that kind and quality, as to warrant separation? If not, what do you gain by what I grant? I tell you, the Liturgy is not medium cultus within the second Command; but modus ministerialis within the third Command. Be it superstitions, yourself confess it is not Idolatry.  
To your Quaery concerning the Corinthian prayers in an unknown tongue; I say, God was not the object; things according to his will 
Pag. 15.  was not the matter, nor was the Name of Christ the form thereof; for there was no invocation, there being vox & praeterea nihil; men heard a voice, but for what, to whom, or through whom it was uttered, they understood not: Now, Sir, is this the Case of the Liturgy?  
Sir, not to insist on your confused discourses of superstition; that there is evil, positive evil, in the Liturgy, I deny not; that I, or Mr. Crofton are Advocates for it, or the evils of it, I do deny: but being convinced all evil will not warrant separation▪ here I stick, and here I hold you; Is the Liturgy such an evil, of such kind and quality, as to constitute a warrantable ground of secession or separation? I yet stand negative: Come to the Question, and prove that; for affirmanti incidit probatio. Your wild discourse concerning the Commandments and Superstition being past, you proceed to answer another Objection by me made.  
God (say you) is not worshipped by the Liturgy; the manner 
Pag. 17.  and form is humane. To which I objected, So is the form and mode of a studied Sermon, and conceived Prayer; is not God worshipped by them? To this you first answer by manifest mistake: the worship is called humane, of which man is not only agent, but author. But my Objection is not of the Worship administered, or administrable; but of the Liturgy, manner and dress administering: and hereof I affirm, God hath appointed men to be not only Agents, but Authors, according to their wisdom and faithfulness, as Ministers; though that be appointed, yet this is arbitrarily eligible by men apted and authorized thereto. Your second Answer, telling us, you call it humane because it proceeds from man originally, is insignificant; for as an external and ministerial mode, it is not within the second Command, nor contrary to Christ's Crown Prerogative, but consonant thereto; for Christ, as King of his Church, hath committed his mind to his Ambassadors, and charged them by their own wisdom and faithfulness to put his Worwip into a due mode, suitable to his Majesty, and his people's weakness; and this you must know is bottomed on the nature of the Ministerial Office, that Scripture Precept; and is justified by the precedent of the Apostles practice, who were the Authors of that mode and dress by which they ministered: If then you fancy man's wisdom of composition of Prayer and Sermon in general, and man's will in imposition of his own composed mode, is contrary to the will and wisdom of God, yourself, and all Ministers in God's Church are hereof Guilty; yet they neither may, nor must avoid it. Your third Answer is, That the essential form of worship administered by the Common-Prayer is justly denied and disproved. That, Sir, it is boldly denied, is very true; but not justly; nor yet disproved, I confidently affirm: Yet, Sir, I must pull in my confidence, if the worship administered and administrable by the Liturgy be not God's worship: When this is proved, I shall know in what sense God is not worshipped by the Liturgy: but I hope you will find out other worship of God not administrable by the Liturgy; for Word, Prayer, and Sacraments, you affirm, are cultus adulterinus. Your fourth Answer cannot but make Liturgical men to laugh: Studied Sermon, and conceived Prayer, you say, cannot be said to be humane; (you must mean, in the Ministerial mode and dress, invented by man's judgement;) for though Man is the Agent, he is Author of neither; yet the one and the other is the act of his invention and judgement: Christ hath directed Preaching and Praying in an edifying manner and method, and therefore the Ministerial mode is determined in the Word: Oh rare Logic! The Lord Major requires his meat be carved in an handsome and honourable manner; therefore he determines the special carving mode. Your next concession, concerning exegetical, or analytical, or paraphrastical Preaching, & the wording of Prayer, is contradictory to this inference; and yet, in the height of nonsense, you proceed to affirm, the mode and dress is directed in specie, by the general rules of edification and order: General Rules for the guidance of man's wisdom, have determined the special mode for ministration. Why may not some Son of the Church report on you, The Liturgy was enjoined in specie, 1 Cor. 14. 12, 26, 40. and indicted in individuo by the Spirit as dictator, Rom. 8. 26. and be as soon believed, as you affirming it of conceived Prayer? for these two are equally demonstrable in the one, as in the other. And, Sir, let me tell you, nonsense, tautology, rude indigested expressions in conceived prayer, is an evil, a positive evil, as well as the order and method of Common-prayer; and therefore are as cogent to exclude the injunction and indictment of the Holy Ghost. Do what you can, you most and will find, the Ministerial mode is and must be humane, subject to humane weakness (which is a positive evil) in ministration; and God's Worship must therein and thereby exist betwixt God and his Church; yet this positive evil is not fathered on the Holy Ghost.  
Your next Paragraph offereth an Answer to my Objection, Our first Reformers, and Marian Martyrs, rejoiced and died under 
Pag. 20.  a mode of Worship by which God could not be worshipped. Your Answer is .  
Your first Answer, by way of concession, tells us, This was the dark side of those pillars; they were fallible men; Peter might Judaize; therefore we must measure truth by rule, and not by their practice. Sir, you might have observed, their practice was not propounded as a pattern, but a proof; that though they miss it in the Ministerial mode, yet God was worshipped by them, in and by this mode. Sir, God did not leave them in approach to him with adulterate worship, whilst they witnessed his truth. But, indeed, you observe not the purpose, scope, and strength of any one Objection. The Martyrs abhorred the notion of being saved only by true Doctrine▪ which they were charged to believe. Would you have us believe they went to Heaven, who witnessed true Doctrine, but worshipped God with false Worship, will-worship, the worship administered and administrable by the Liturgy?  
Your second Answer doth deny matter of fact, That these Martyrs rejoiced in, and died for the Liturgy; as if Life and Liturgy came in competition, you freely deny. You may, Sir, deny the Sun doth shine. This man is sure well▪ read in our Book of Martyrs. Did not Cranmer, Ridley, and others, joyfully compose the Liturgy? Did not all that that then feared God in England, rejoice at the establishment of the Liturgy by the Statute of King Edw. 6. Did not Philpot appear in its defence at the Convocation? Did not old Latimer justify it in his Disputation at Oxford? Did not Rogers our Proto-martyr approve it, in his Speech digested to declare to the Commissioners who condemned him? Did not all that then suffered minister their last public and dying devotions by the Liturgy? Did not the Congregations (who then necessarily served God in corners) worship by the Liturgy? Did not they wish and wait for the return of the Liturgy, and rejoice in its revival by Elizabeth? Came not Life and Liturgy in competition, when the Articles objected against, and on which Thomas Watts, Thomas Osmond, Derrick Carver, John Launder, Mr. Rough the Minister, and Cuthbert Sympson, Deacon of the congregation in Bow- Churchyard, were condemned, was, that they used, attended, loved, laboured to restore the English Service, or Liturgy? Concluded not good Mr. Bradford, They fell under God's curse for calling good evil, and evil good, who condemned the English Service of Heresy? How far short is he who concludeth, and confidently affirmeth the worship administered or administrable by the Liturgy, is not God's worship, but cultus adulterinus? God is not worshipped by the Liturgy. Sir, turn over the Book of Martyrs, you may run and read these demonstrations of the matter of fact; it cannot be denied: Yet I tell the Zealots for the Liturgy, they infer more upon this practice, than these premises will allow; for whilst I am forced to produce them against this most rigid Separatist, to prove God worshipped by the Liturgy; I do deny their practice to be any way cogent, to confine all, or any ministration of God's worship to this mode and Liturgy.  
Your third Answer, of the disparity between their case and ours, hath been fully answered by Mr. Crofton, and me; who hath told you, the difference is gradual, not real; the worship of God was, 
Reformat. not Separ. p. 44, 45.  is, and must be always one and the same, though the Ministerial mode do, and aught to vary.  
Your fourth Answer, ad hominem, is indeed most judicious; I affirm, Ministers may not lawfully minister by the Liturgy; therefore all that did, or do hereby minister, do minister by a sinful and unlawful Form of Worship, a formal positive evil. I did, I do so affirm; what then? I did not affirm, The Worship administered, or administrable by this finfull mode, was not God's Worship, or cultus adulterinus; or that God was not worshipped by the Liturgy. But I affirm the contrary.  
I did also affirm this evil, formal positive evil, to be a personal evil, consistent with, whilst conversant about Gods true worship, and therefore no ground of separation; I affirmed salvability under this evil, positive evil. And herein your Censure is a manifest breach of Charity; you conclude the Martyrs had not God's worship, but adulterate false worship; which is inconsistent with salvation; for otherwise, the very Devils may dance in hope of Heaven; for they believe and tremble, yea, and profess true Doctrine: I charge a defect in circumstantials; you in the subject and substance: I reprove a sin of weakness, consistent with salvation; you the height of wickedness, adulterate worship, which concludeth its subjects, living and dying (as you cannot deny the Martyrs to have done, if your Notion be true) under it, in utter impossibility of salvation: Have you not cause to sing, jam sumus ergo pares?  
Your fifth Answer is, The Martyr's devotion was not confined to the Liturgy. Nor is theirs who use it, and administer by it; or ours who attend the same.  
Your third Proposition resolving this first Query concerning 
Pag. 21.  the expulsion of the Liturgy, I pass, as not concerned in it; consenting to your Conclusion, though grieved to see you give so much advantage to Liturgical Zealots, as by your weakness and wildness of Argumentation you have done: I say, it ought not to be; but being, will not warrant a separation.  
The Objections you take from me, I will observe your Answers to.  
The first is Mr. Crofton's sense of scandal. Your Answer doth witness, you either did not read, or did not regard and consider Mr. Croftons' Plea to the Bar of Scandal; you would else have seen his care of, and compassion to the weak; his concession of scandal in all acts of liberty, & sui juris; and his neglect of scandal only when it doth obviate his duty. But you insult here, as every where, on manifest mistake, wonder at the charge whilst you will.  
Your fifth Proposition is your Conclusion, built on the forenoted horrible and erroneous premises, and must be consonant 
Pa. 26, 27.  thereunto; I will to it say no more: but I deny the Conclusion.  
Your second Query, as a species of the first, is of the same nature, 
Quaer. 2.  and in it included, discussed, and resolved; yet you do particularly state it thus: What is that which may warrant and acquit from Schism, a persons non-communion with the Church of England, in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, under the present mode, manner, and method of administration?  
In this Query, I cannot but note, that the Lords Supper, as in the former worship, abstracted from the Ministerial mode, is proposed as the Object of non-communion.  
Your Answer to this Query is general, and granted you in Thesi; That if one cannot communicate in the Lord's Supper without sin, he is warranted in his non-communion: But your Hypothesis and Assumption is yet denied. Nor can your horrid breach of Charity pass without observation, That the mode, manner, and method of administration, maketh the Lord's Supper poison: whereby you must conclude, that all who have, all who do communicate in this Ordinance, thus ministered, have received poison: Yet you give us no proof for this Martyr-blaspheming, Saint-damning Notion. But you pretend to answer some of mine Objections.  
1. What superstitions and corruptions attend the Ministration of the Lords Supper, in which he must personally act, so as to become guilty of 
1 Object. pag. 98.  the same? You answer, Two, the Service, and the Gesture; Common-prayer and kneeling. But, Sir, you have not proved the communicants personal acting in Common-prayer; nor an impossibility of receiving the Lords Supper without this gesture: Suppose these warrantable reasons, your secession cannot be warranted by them, until you have essayed all means for public communion without them; in which, I am sure, you might have found a possibility of enjoying this, with at least connivance as to those Ceremonies which call for personal action.  
Your Plea, that the gesture of kneeling is imposed, is merely frivolous; King James his Proclamation was no Law; the Statute of 25 Hen. 8. extendeth not to Successors; but if it do, his now Majesty's Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical affairs, hath discharged the Canon challenging this Authority; the Common-Prayer Book doth imply, and suppose, not impose this gesture: your reason is as weak in matters of Law, as of Divinity. And, Sir, personal acting in the Service and Ministration, being as it may be avoided, it will be an hard dispute, whether the Gesture imposed will constitute a sufficient Bar to so great Privilege, and so certain Duty: But that it maketh the Lord's Supper poison, express poison, is out of dispute to men of modesty and charity, who dare not conclude all in Hell, who have received, and do receive the Elements kneeling. I am, Sir, no Advocate for this Gesture; but I abominate your venomous Notion. 
Object. 2. pag. 30.   
Your second Objection is ad hominem thus; Corruptions in point of gesture, are to Mr. Crofton a warrantable ground of non-communion: But, corruptions in point of gesture are corruptions  and circumstantial; Ergo, Some corruptions  and circumstantial, at a warrantable ground for non-communion. I pray you, Sir, when, and where did Mr. Crofton say, Corruptions in point of gesture is a warrantable ground for non-communion? I find it not in any of his writings: I say indeed, Mr. Crofton put by communion because of the Gesture, which is his personal act, and he judgeth sinful, is barred, by violence driven, he doth not go: This, Sir, is not repugnant to what I said, The worship attended with circumstantial corruptions, may with safety, and must in duty be used; for, Sir, every sinful act, personally done, becometh a substantial corruption; but done by others only, and about God's worship, it is circumstantial, and , and becometh not my Gild. Again, Sir, your Argument a fortiori, hath the little force of your whole Argumentation; If corruption in point of gesture be a warrantable ground for non-communion (which you falsely say is confessed) then much more the Liturgy: Sir, here is a mere non sequitur; for the gesture (if sinful) is the personal act of the Communicant, who is wholly mute, and passive, in the Liturgical ministration, in which he needeth not to act at all.  
Your third Querie is in effect the same with the first and second, concerning the Communion in the Service or Worship exhibited by the Liturgy. In the resolution of which, you run round, like the Horse in his Mill; and whilst I grant you the Liturgy is an evil constitution, as it is a Ministerial mode▪ you fly upon the Worship ministered and ministrable by it; and tell us, The worship ministered by the Liturgy is not performable by faith; the worship is sinful; the worship is unlawful: to these I shall say nothing more than what I have said before; If this Worship ministered (be the ministration what it will) be cultus adulterinus, sinful worship, unlawful worship, God hath not stated public worship in the world; for Word, Prayer, and, Sacraments are the worship. In your last, Liturgy was the object of your Communion; but in this, worship, distinct from, and opposed to Liturgy, is the object of your non-Communion; that we may know God is not worshipped by the Liturgy, you speak out, the worship is sinful, not God's worship, not performable in faith.  
Having discoursed at Rovers concerning the subject, worship, 
Pag 34.  you come to the Predicate, ministered by the Liturgy; and state my Objection; The Liturgy is only a Ministerial mode, which the people are not to be Judges in; and therefore all the guilt resulting from thence is personal, i. e. peculiar to the Minister. To this you gravely answer, This twenty-year-old Notion is become an Article of Mr. Croftons' Creed; and in your Margin you refer to Mr. John Ball. Is age any harm to the Notion? Is it the worse for being stated by Learned, Judicious John Ball? No, Sir; these add force and lustre to it, and acquit Mr. Crofton from novelty and singularity in this notion; your notions are not two years old, nor can they claim any other Author, save acute T. P.  
Secondly, You deny the Liturgy is any Ministrial mode, more than the Book of Scripture is in the Ministers reading. If so much, Sir, 
Pag. 34.  is not that enough? That God's Word be read in such a Translation, measure, and order, is the ministration humane? And that Prayer be pronounced in such method, order, and expressions, stated, or immediately conceived, is the humane ministration thereof; edifying expressions, and reverential manner of delivery, you grant, is the Ministerial mode; these may be both exhibited by a stinted Liturgy: But, Sir, doth the Liturgy (whatever be its order) do any thing more than exhibit Word, Prayer, and Sacraments, in such an humane mode and dress between God and his People? and is not this the formalis ratio of ministration of God's worship, to which edification and order are separable Adjuncts? Is yet the Liturgy no Ministerial mode? Is Prayer read, no Prayer? and Sacraments ministered by prescribed forms, no Sacraments? Is such ministration, no ministration? Will you say it, and stand to it? I may commend (or rather condemn) your confidence: You say, The Popish Missal may be termed a Ministerial mode: It may so, it 
Pag. 35.  is so; yet it may not be attended by the people, because the matter ministered by this Ministerial mode, is either no worship, or false worship: Your parallel between the Popish Missal and Liturgy, is very square; they are both a Ministerial mode; in the Popish Missal, the subject matter, the worship, is vitiated; in the Liturgy, the subject matter, the worship, is right and good, but the ministration and mode is bad; A full agreement! an excellent Harp and Harrow! The Popish communicants contract guilt by communion in Idolatrous, superstitious worship, ministered by their Priests and Missal; Ergo, Our people contract guilt by communicating in Gods true and own worship ministered by the Liturgy: Rare Reason! but I must remember, the worship is cultus adulterinus, and the Liturgy is not a Ministerial mode. But  
Who is this that crieth out, that is a dangerous Principle, That people may lawfully communicate by that form, mode, and order of worship, which a Minister cannot lawfully administer by? D. G. redivivus? This quarrel is proper for a Liturgical Considerator. But 
Pag. 35.  wherein lieth the danger of this Principle? Such Opiniators fond try an experiment, how near they may approach to sin without sin. How, Sir? Is distribution of different capacities of Minister & People, and determination of the proper Duties of each, a fond experiment? Is an approach to sin, without sin, so greatly dangerous, especially in the critical, necessarily casuistical part of Divinity? Is a serious consideration of a Case of Conscience, the wanton act of the wild Schoolmen? Will not an Act of Parliament, a penal Law, clear this dangerous Principle, and make you, and many your Proselytes, make this near approach to sin without sin? Doth not the Law, public Peace, and Order, with Self-preservation, conclude the man under sin, whose condescensions came not near to sin, without sin? If we scape the sin, shall we not bless God, and do any thing with comfort? But▪  
Your third Answer is; The people have Judicium discretionis, you grant, not of Order and Method, to direct and determine that; 
Pag. 36.  this is proper to the Minister. We are, Sir, in this agreed; but your fancy doth confound the medium cultus with the modus ministerialis; the last you will not allow, and the first you do not understand; there is the reason of the strife: I pray you, Sir, study the propriety of these terms in reference to God's Worship; for want of this, you misapply Zanchy and all other Authors.  
Another Objection: Under this Ministerial mode the people are purely passive. You answer by way of Question, In what worship are the people active, if not in the worship in question, who cannot deny their Amen to any petition in the Common-Prayer? Who, Sir, denieth the people's acting in the Worship? The Ministerial mode (which I must and will retain) is the matter in question: You must prove, That the Ministerial mode is the Object of the People's Amen. Your supposition doth not evade mine allusion to the Speaker or Recorder; unless you make it certain, that the order and terms of their Speech is determined by the King, and so their Office be destroyed, and reduced to the Act common to every Boy. In the Case of Elies' sons, you grant, the people who loathed did not leave the offerings of the Lord: Nor do you urge any Reason cogent to them, which in its general nature is not cogent to us; we have true worship, and a lawful, though not Levitical Ministry: The force and pertinency of this instance, as also that of the high places, 
Jerub. just. p. 29, 30.  is fully urged in my last; I shall only leave you to review it, and see what you now object is fully answered.  
Your Notion of civil presence, urged in your fourth Question, is so notorious to guard your attendance on a Mass, Koran, or idolatrous 
Pag. 39, 40, 41.  worship; so repugnant to the principle and practice of Primitive Fathers, and Martyrs, that all sober Christians will see it a fancy, and conclude you will never make a Martyr. I shall not therefore stand to dilate upon it; only desire you to tell us in your next, what it is shall predicate Civil presence? in what lieth the ratio formalis thereof? whereby we may difference it from Religious presence? Do you predicate it, Civil presence ratione subjecti, because the person present is a civil person? If so, Ecclesiastical persons will be at a loss, and yourself not defended. Do you predicate it Civil presence ratione objecti, the business at which we are present is civil business? that will not warrant a presence at Common-Prayer, for that is Religious (though in your fancy false Religion) business.  
Do you, as you seem to do, predicate it Civil presence, from the reason which doth enforce it, the Law of a Civil Magistrate? then presence at Mass, at a Turkish Koran, or Idolatrous service will be civil presence; for in all these my body, the suppositum, is at the Magistrates command. Nor will yourself▪ contradicting notion, That the Common-Prayer is not Heathenish, or Popish Idolatry, any thing relieve you, whilst the worship administered and administrable by the Liturgy is cultus adulterinus, and as prayer before an Image, as is before observed. Then our primitive Martyrs were Felones de se, who were destroyed for not yielding their presence at Idol sacrifices on the Edicts of the Emperor. Until we know what is a civil presence, we must admire the largeness of your fancy, under the great strictness of your Conscience: and be sure you can foot it any way to free yourself from danger; for your necessitas officii doth fail, when the Magistrate doth Religiously (in zeal, whether good or bad, I will not dispute) compel your personal attendance on a Religious administration, by you judged cultus adulterinus: Nor will your necessitas beneficii hold against that Rule, We must not do evil that good may come thereby: It cannot please me, that any called a Presbyter, should own and argue the Jesuitical partition of body and soul, in external communion with the Church visible, in outward Ordinances; in which, the quale of my presence must be judged by its appearance ad vulgus to the observing world, and not by mine inward intention, and mental reservation: Pudeat nobis haec dici potuisse— Know-worth you not, that all Protestants have abandoned, abominated, and exploded this distinction, as the odious covert of Church-Papists, in their Hypocritical obedience to the Statutes▪, which commanded their presence at Divine Service?  
Your last Quaery, concerning the Solemn League and Covenant, is by yourself resolved, without any regard, or the least Answer to the three Considerations I have laid before you in my last: I will not therefore strive to word it with you to no purpose; consider, and rationally contradict what hath been said; otherwise, you multiply words in vain. In all you have now said on this Question, you have said no new thing; therefore I will say nothing; but pray that God may break the Snares with which you are entangled, and give you unfeigned Repentance.  
FINIS.