CONFORMITY RE-ASSERTED In an Echo to R. S. OR, A Return of his Word to Doctor Womock's ASSERTING, 

1. That Modification of public Worship by personal Abilities is not the formal Act of the Ministerial Office.  
2. That the Ministers of the Church of England ought to submit to the use of an Imposed Liturgy.    
AND Dissolving the Objections of Mr. CROFTON and R. S. to the Contrary.  
By L.W. D.D. A.S.  Jerubbaal Justified, page. 35. 
The Worship of God doth Truly, Formally, and Salvably exist in and by the English Liturgy.  
LONDON: Printed by J. G. for Thomas clerk at the South entrance of the Royal Exchange, 1664.   

IMPRIMATUR:  
Joh: Hall R. P. D. Hmfr: Episc. land. à Sac. Domest. Mar. 9. 1663.   

THE PREFACE.  
WHen the Doctors Sheets, relating to Mr. Calamy's Sermon, were Printed off, there fell into his hands by chance a Book that bare this Title, Jerubbaal Justified. The pretended Design of this Book, though it cast a sufficient deal of dirt upon the established Service of the Church, was to induce the people to frequent it, by proving it to be their Duty to Communicate therein, otherwise, the Author affirmed, they were guilty of the breach of the Fourth Commandement. The Doctor liked the Authors plea for Communion well enough. But besides the by-blows which he gave, in his Discourse, as well to the established Laws as to those in Authority, and the Liturgy itself, the Doctor found he had put forth this Scandalous Position of Mr. Croftons( with his Commendations and a challenge) viz. That no Minister of the Gospel can receive an imposed Liturgy without Sin;( or to this effect.) The Doctor acquainted a worthy person with it, who having red the Position over, with Mr. Croftons endeavours to prove the same, he  told the Doctor something must needs be returned in Answer to it, and prevailed with him to add those few pages at the end of the Sheets above mentioned, upon this account.  
As the Doctor was unsatisfied with Mr. Croftons Position,[ That no Minister of the Gospel could without sin receive an imposed Liturgy] So it seems some Separatist was ununsatisfied with Jerubbaal Justified, for affirming that the people could not without sin refuse to Communicate therein. And this Person having written in Defence of Separation, against Mr. Crofton's Advocate, as the Doctor had done in Justification of the use of an established Liturgy against Mr. Crofton himself, This provokes R. S.( for those are the Letters he desires to be known by) to take up the Cudgels against them both, and puts forth a Pamphlet with this Title, A Word to Doctor Womock, and A Blow( to the Brother of the Separation.) How the Separatist can bear his smart Blow I am not much concerned to examine; but of his Word to Doctor Womock here is a full and strict account as to all the Syllables and Accents of it. That it comes forth no sooner, the reason is, because the Doctor never had the least hint of such an Adversary till many moneths after his Pamphlet was dispersed; nor then neither, but casually by the hand of an old acquaintance, to whom some of that Party had privately presented a Copy, with some insultation at the performance. For what these men are not allowed to do above board upon the common stall, or in the Pulpit, they vent under-hand and at private Meetings, by those many Non-Conformists, who still have and still take all advantages to foment such seeds of Sedition and Schism as they have formerly sown in the several places where they had been unduly planted. I shall give the Reader no more trouble, after I have desired him to Correct some few Escapes of the Printer, and pass by such as are less Material.   

ERRATA.  
page. 1. line 14. r. a leading man, p. 3. l. 19. r. give him line, p. 17. l. 3. for action r. notion, p. 24. l. 18. r. that will, p. 33. l. 24. deal as.   

An Echo to R. S. or a Return of his Word to Dr. Womock.  
ALthough R. S. be the two first letters of Rebellion and Schism, we shall not determine they signify so much in this place; but leave it to the Mistress of the ABC to interpret them. If they stand for the right Name of our Antagonist, possibly R is the first letter of the last syllable of his Christian-name, and then he has held some mastership by Sequestration, and upon that account has arrived at such dexterity( as you see) in the art of Disputation. He is so well versed in the terms of the Militia, we may very well conclude him to be a trading-man in the black regiment of Boutefeus, who made up the Evangelium Armatum. However, we find him a very waspish Adversary; he is but A Word and a Blow,( for so he tells the world in the very frontispiece of his Pamphlet) though, while he deals his Blow to an Opponent that sufficiently deserves it, he is so gentle, he gives the Doctor but A Word; and truly that Word, though loud, so empty, that if it were not unsavoury, it could as little offend as hurt the Doctor.  
By his insolent carriage you may conclude him to be near-allied to the Pharisee; for he doth no less admire himself than despise others; not onely a Prelatical Clergy,( which is not to be wondered at) but his own brethren of the Separation and the Covenant; and this he doth even then when he is pleading for Non-conformity to the Service and Orders of the Church.  
And herein he pretends to humility and modesty, and speaks demurely of Conscience and the Fear of God; while he discovers abundance of pride and arrogance, which( as it hath nothing but a little thin Sophistry to support it, so it) betrays him to prejudice and passion, rancour and contumely, against both his superiors and Informers. But I shall not suffer my pen to rak into the filthy ulcers of this feeble Lazar, but content myself with pointing at them as we pass along, that you may take notice of the Infection to avoid it.  
This proud Philistim doth strut and advance himself with his crest erect, as if he designed to defy all the armies of the living God; and thus he begins to crow and bespeak his victory.  
Since my publication of Jerubbaal justified, there hath appeared against it, and me, and Mr. Crofton concerned in it, a double Assault, by two different Antagonists, as directly contrary each to the other as the right and left Wing, onely combined in one battalia under the Prince of darkness [ Behold his charity] 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. [ This is a prediction of his own overthrow; yet he gallops on in triumph, making his bravadoes in this language.] Such is the unspeakable weakness of both these mens batteries, that I have passed them with scorn, [ This is his humility] and stood still in expectation of the on-set of their main Battalia [ Behold his non-sense; for whom doth he understand when he saith this?] on the one side or on the other; but none appearing, I thought good to check their Insultation [ said alio fastu]( with which I hear [ with your harvest ears] 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 voice) the Answer published in his name, I will be bound [ What, by your Solemn League and Covenant?] Mr. Crofton shall meet him to receive it, and [ Enter Impertinence and Vanity] if the Boys do not hiss the Doctor, he shall go out victor. By which discourse a man might wager that he held his wit as well as his mastership by Sequestration, and the tide being now turned, he is quiter outed of them both. But let us give him time.  
Shall I presume( saith he) to take a turn with this reverend Archdeacon? I must then tell him, if he did not mistake, his Printer hath wronged him at the entrance of his Undertaking, to make him red Non-conformist instead of Now-conformist.  
A very remarkable Observation! but the Doctor was ware of the distinction, and so the mistake is imputable to the Compositor or the Corrector of the Press. But this advantage will not get R. S. the victory, for it is nothing to the purpose; and therefore he wheels about, and charges again in these lines.  
That pride and overweening 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 sheweth his fear of sin, whilst the other sheweth his willingness to be convinced, and both his humility.  
Here, Mr. Replicant, you talk of the fear of the Lord and the fear of sin; and if you could name but one single person of your persuasion( and, if you consult your own bosom, you dare not be so arrogant as to make yourself the Instance) that was not hearty engaged in the late rebellion, you might have some colour to be believed: But some of you will pretend, that God puts his fear into your hearts by an omnipotent operation, and then that fear acts you irresistibly, and consequently whether you run into Schism or Sedition, or any other crime, you do all in the fear of God, and you cannot do otherwise. But if you fear sin, 'tis at the same rate with those blind guides, which 
Mat. 23. 24.  strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Do you fear sin, who are not afraid to speak evil of dignities? You may pretend 
2 Pet. 2. 10.  to be afraid of a Liturgy imposed by your Kings command, but you are not afraid of a Covenant imposed against his Authority. You are afraid to have your shoulders in a Surplice, but you are not afraid to have your hands in blood. And yet you make the world believe, such is your fear of the Lord, you dare not deviate from Divine directions: But is not this one of the Divine directions, Obey them that 
Heb. 13. 17.  have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account. And this, We command you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
2 Thes. 3. 6.  ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he hath received of us. Do not you deviate from these directions? Impudence itself cannot deny it without blushing. Whom Mr. Crofton consulted in this case I know not: but when men do empanel their fellows upon the jury to inquire into their misdemeanours, they expect a more favourable verdict than to be found guilty. That notions may be offered to argumentation rather out of pride than any desire to receive satisfaction, you are not to learn; and we cannot discover over-much modesty in the papers that either he or you have offered to the world: but if there be that humility and willingness to be convinced which you pretend to, a little time will show it. But it begets a vehement suspicion you are not ingenuous, when you use such Sophistry to blind the true state of the question, and impose upon your unwary Reader, as we shall observe( with your contradictions) in your discourse following.  
His position( saith R. S.) you have truly transcribed, and observed the state thereof, [ so you confess] but [ you say] 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 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, [ You say, and I believe you whether so or otherwise] 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. [ How much of truth is in this your presumption we shall see anon; but you add] I therefore soberly require you to deny it if you can or dare; [ you are a bold champion] and if you cannot, what meaneth this digressive flourish? [ I desire the Reader by the way to take notice how this Replicant contradicts himself for want of a good memory; for what he calls here a digressive flourish, after a few lines( to serve his own turn) he makes to be the very question in debate: but he goes on thus,] Your flourish indeed hath given you the start, so that you have lost your question, and fall on a magisterial Swada[ with a w] of Mr. Croftons Conformity: Which of Mr. Croftons Syllogisms do you hereby shake? Is not this fair disputing? To this I answer, That the onely Argument which the Doctor had not formerly shaken all to pieces in other of his Papers 
Pulpit-Conceptions Popular Deceptions, per totum. , he undertook to dispute in these; and sure as this is a way to avoid needless repetitions, so 'tis a course of fair disputing.  
But R. S. proceeds and tells the Doctor, 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 orders sake. And then he falls into a convulsion and ecstacy, and cries out, [ 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 writ a Minister of Men?] Thus he raves he knows not why; and if he be not out of his wits, I am sure he is out of his logic. A fallacy, Ignoratio Elenchi, hath brought him into this paroxysm and distemper; for the position( against which the Doctor combats) is this,( and this Replicant doth in cool blood aclowledge that the Doctor hath truly transcribed it, and observed the state thereof) That stated Forms for the celebration of solemn public worship, and the several parts thereof, composed, digested, and( for the very words, terms, and expressions thereof) determined and prescribed by some others than the person or Minister, who standeth to minister Gods Ordinances between God and his Church; such an imposed Liturgy Mr. Crofton cannot without sin submit unto. This is clearly Mr. Croftons Position, and when he grows warm in pursuing the proof of it, he lets his passions loose into 
Position, pag. 3.  declamation, and saith, [ It cannot be denied to be a most base and slavish servility, to prostitute the Office to which we are adapted and ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ, unto the pleasure and prescriptions of men, though the best for Quality and Authority.] From which insolent Assertion the Doctor did argue, that Pride had a strong hand in the management of this contention; and endeavouring to becalm Mr. Croftons passions, he attempted to prove him obliged to condescend to such an Imposition( of Liturgy, as was formerly mentioned, and is the true state of the controversy) for peace and orders sake; and the Doctors Argument was this:  
What I may lawfully be determined to by my own private judgement, that I may lawfully be determined to by the judgement of my superiors: But to stated forms for the celebration of Gods solemn public worship, composed,( and for the very words, terms and expressions) digested into method, I may lawfully be determined by my own private judgement: Therefore to stated forms for the celebration of Gods 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.  
Here the Replicant having lost sight of the Question himself, or rather wilfully mistaken it, runs out into expostulation with the Doctor after this manner; 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 well-form'd Syllogism.  
But now, Mr. Replicant, give me leave to take a turn with you in your vein of Expostulation. Do not you play the Impostor, thus to disguise yourself, and palliate your disobedience to the well-settled Ord●rs of the Church, by calling that which is your duty by an ugly name, A prostitution of your Office received from Christ to the pleasures of men? And do not you know that the Doctor alleged the said passage from Mr. Crofton not as the state of the question,( which you confess he had truly observed) but as a proof of the pride of those that contend about it; for which reason you call it a digressive flourish. If the question had been this, Whether that expression had been a sufficient argument of their pride? I confess the Doctors Syllogism had not been concluding, because defective; but the question being about stated Forms, and that truly transcribed and observed by the Doctor, as you aclowledge, you play the prevaricator yourself,( which is something more than playing with him) and the Impostor too, thus to use fallacies to delude your Reader. But having done this, you exercise a little ingenuity towards the Doctor in telling him his Syllogism is a well-form'd Syllogism, though you manfully deny both the Propositions of it.  
1. You deny the minor Proposition, viz. That to stated Forms for celebration of Gods 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.] This he denies. But how now, Mr. Replicant? May I not be determined by my own private judgement? How doth this cotton with your Answer to the mayor,( a little after) where you discourse thus? [ Mine own eye is the best guide of mine own steps; 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;( and a little after) I will move by mine own eye, be it never so weak, and my superiors never so strong; though my dim light seeth not more, it seeth more truly and more directively than their brighter.] Thus the Replicant preacheth in commendation of his own private judgement, when he is returning an Answer to the mayor; but now, that he is concerned to say otherwise, ( right or wrong) he finds this his candle from the Lord to be such an Ignis fatuus, that he saith, in this case he cannot lawfully be determined by it.  
Were this Replicant true to his own Principles, we need go no further for a proof of this Proposition than his own Affirmations; but because he plays fast and loose with his Answers, we shall evince the truth of our Proposition by this Argument; To stated Forms for celebration of Gods solemn worship I must be determined, either immediately by the Authority of God himself, or by the Prescription of my superiors, or by the resolution of my Equals and inferiors, or by my own private judgement. I cannot expect the first; no man, that is well in his wits, will now pretend to divine revelation to determine his particular forms of prayer; and the Replicant will not allow of the second, the prescriptions of our superiors to this effect; and that we should be determined by the Resolutions of our Equals or inferiors, I am sure is much more unreasonable than the former: It follows therefore, That( unless we stand to the courtesy of some Familiar Spirit to suggest the Form to us) we must be determined herein by our own private judgement, or else remain for ever undetermined.  
But the truth is, though R. S. finds himself concerned to keep a close Guard, and for that reason denies the Proposition; yet he does it upon such a ground as doth clearly yield it; for, he saith, Though Mr. Crofton doth not exclude his own judgement when he pleads for the liberty of his own invention to compose and modify his own 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, whatever be the variations of Gods providence and the Churches condition.] Here, I say, he doth grant the Proposition which he offers to deny: For 1. in this case, doth not the private judgement still determine the form according to the variation of providences and conditions? What is it else that doth determine him, for words, terms and expressions, upon those various occasions? And 2. the Doctors argument is not restrained to one single form, semper eadem, always the same, whatever be the variations of Gods providence and the Churches condition: The Doctor argues for Forms in the plural number, and our superiors have furnished us with variety,( and can add more) according to the variation of providences. Besides the ordinary Service, with occasional Collects, is there not an Office for the 5. of November, and another for the 29. of May, yea and one for the 30. of January too? we may thank such as you for the occasion, while we praise God for the blessings commemorated in them.  
But let us attend the march of this great Champion: [ Nor doth this any way follow( saith he) on the use of his judgement in managing his liberty. That a man may judge a Crutch fit for his own condition, will not conclude that he may sanâ mente 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 obeied.] To as much of this discourse as is intelligible I answer, That if the Cripple acteth sanâ mente, it is his own judgement that determines him, what crutch is fit for his condition, and at what time, and upon what occasion he should use it; and that is enough to verify the truth of our Proposition against his groundless denial of it. If he lays aside his Crutch before he can walk steadfastly without it, or change it for a worse, then he doth not act sanâ mente, he is not determined by his judgement, but follows the wild rovings of a giddy fancy like a frantic person.  
But I find our Replicant begins to halt, and is like to come lamely off in his answer to this Proposition; and therefore for pity-sake I will not take his crutch from him, though it stands him in no stead, but to help a very little wit to bring in an old proverb to as little purpose; nor will I meddle with his non-sense in these words, [ In the last, the judgement must needs be erroneous, to be corrected before it be obeied] but pass on presently to the proof of the mayor, viz. What I may lawfully be determined to by my own private judgement, that I may lawfully be determined to by the judgement of my superiors. This our Replicant doth deny, and it is thus enforced;  
What I may lawfully be determined to by a weaker judgement, to that I may lawfully be determined by a judgement that is stronger. But to stated Forms &c. I may lawfully be determined by a weaker judgement, viz. mine own. Ergo to stated Forms, &c. I may lawfully be determined by a judgement that is stronger, viz. my superiors.  
What saith the Replicant to this Argument? [ Here, Sir,( saith he) to make the Auditors laugh, I will again become ridiculous in your fancy, and deny both your Propositions.]  
Here the man deals very honestly, and is as good as his word; for doth not he become ridiculous that talks of a sequel in a plain categorical Proposition? And is not he worthy to be laughed at, who in the repetition of a Syllogism makes four Terms where he finds but three? and so does he; for he s●ith,[ I deny the mayor 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.] Here the Replicant turns [ may] into [ must], which makes a considerable difference in the Proposition: but let him make his best advantage of it; and thus I answer, If I may be determined by the lesser light or judgement rather than the stronger, then either because it is less, or because it is mine own. Not the first, because it is less; for if so, then the Jews had better means to determine them than the Christians, and the Gentiles than the Jews, and we should be concerned to grow, not in knowledge, but in ignorance. This our Replicant dares not affirm. The reason then why I may be determined by the lesser light or weaker judgement is, because it is my own; and [ mine own eye is the best guide of my own steps, though I see but darkly,( saith our Antagonist:) my 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.] Thus our Replicant in one breath, 1. mistakes the question, and 2. imposeth upon the Reader, and 3. interferes with Gods holy word and ordinance. First, he mistakes the question here, which is, whether a man may be determined by his own weaker light rather than the greater light of his superiors? But he tells us, his own dim light, his judicium rationale, shines brighter in the closet of his own bosom, than 400. candles, or the judicium forense of a Convocation; and so in contradiction to his own assertion he is determined not by the lesser light but the greater, not by the weaker judgement but the stronger. I'll add but this; If he confines his eyes to his own dim light, and shuts his closet-doors to keep out the light of the Sun, or those 400. candles, he deserves to walk on in darkness. Secondly, he goes about to impose upon his Reader, by his comparison of a corporal and a spiritual eye; for though mine own eye be the best guide of my own steps to the body, yet it is not so to the soul. That promise of the Lord, I will guide thee with mine eye, hath matter of an higher comfort in it. This will appear further by the evidence that, Thirdly, he doth interfere with Gods holy word and ordinance: For 1. that self-denial which the Gospel calls for doth extend( and not without reason) to pertinacy in our opinions; and if there be not some kind of mortification of our own carnal judgments, we shall many times be tempted to cry out against the Orders of our superiors, in as great a transportation as Naaman did in another case, Are not Abana and Pharpar rivers of Damascus better than 
2 King. 5. 12  all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them and be clean? But why are we forbid to be wise in our own conceits, and to 
Ro. 12. 16. Prov 3. 5, 7  lean to our own understanding, and commanded to be wise unto sobriety? It was the saying as well as the observation of a wise and pious person 
Qui se sibi magnistrum constituit, stuito se discipulum subdit. Bern. epist. 87. , He that is his own scholar, hath a fool to his master: and Solomons meaning is the same when he saith, 
Pro. 26. 12.  Seest thou a man that is wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him. And now, Mr. Replicant, you may walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that you have kindled; but remember there is a Wo 
Isa, 50. 11.  denounced against those that are wise in their own eyes: and 
Isa. 5. 21.  therefore retract the arrogance of that expression in comparison of your superiors, [ Though my dim light seeth not 
A Word, pag. 4.  more, it seeth more truly and more directively than their brighter.] This shows no great willingness to be convinced. For 2. this doth interfere with Gods holy ordinance; for why did he set up a candlestick and provide lights in his Church? why does he make it the peoples duty to seek the law at the Priests lips? why did he command, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves? why did God make that promise, and instance in it as such a signal blessing, Thine eyes shall see thy teachers? After all 
Isa. 30. 20.  this provision, these commands and promises, must every man be allowed to be his own guide, and to do what is right 
Ibid. 21.  in his own eyes? 'tis not the light within thee, but the voice behind thee,( and that may be the voice of the rod too, the most proper instrument to be used upon them that turn their backs upon their governours) that is designed by Almighty God to reduce such as turn out of the way to the right hand or to the left. And seeing this is Gods acknowledged institution and ordinance, be not faithless, but Trust in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not to thine own understanding. 
Prov. 3. 5.   
But you instance,[ The learned Davenant hath taught me, Men may guide us judicio ministeriali; but every one must judge {αβγδ}, judicio privato& practicae discretionis: Yea, he hath concluded( you say) ad nudam praescriptionem aut determinationem alterius, sine lumine privati judicii, nemo est qui credere potest, etiansi cupiat maximè.] But who doth debar you the use of your judgement of discretion? or who requires from you a brutish obsequiousness to their naked prescriptions and determinations without reason? If you value the judgement and piety of that learned Prelate, why do you not follow it in your practise? Certainly in matters doubtful and indifferent he resolves, that every mans discretion should determine him to subscribe to the judgement and orders of his superiors. You cannot be ignorant of his constant practise in point of Liturgy; and for the Ceremonies in use amongst us, you have his Determination out of the Chair as Professor, which 
Deter. ●. 20. p. 101.  concludes thus; sieve igitur potestatem obligantis, sieve qualitatem ceremoniarum, sieve modum obligationis spectemus, Eccl●sia Anglicana justissimè obligat ad ceremonias.  
But from the mayor R. S. proceeds to deny the minor, viz. That to stated Forms, &c. I may lawfully be determined by a weaker judgement,( viz.) my own. But, Sir, saith this Replicant to the Doctor, 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.] But this Answer doth not contradict the Doctors Proposition, and therefore it is nothing to the purpose. But besides, the Replicant may remember an old Axiom in the Schools, A posse ad esse non valet consequentia: his may-be's are not cogent arguments ordinarily: Plus vident dvo quàm unus oculus; which may be rendered in the words of Solomon, In the multitude of counsellors 
Prov 11. 1●. 24. 6.  there is safety. But he proceeds to instance, [ Have you never red of one Gamaliel in the Convocation( but why not rather the ASSEMBLY?) of the Scribes and Pharisees? or of one Cranmer in the Six-Articles Council of King Henry the Eighth? or of one Paphnutius in the Council of Nice?] Well, we have red of these persons; but what then? For Cranmer, though but a single person, yet he was an Archbishop; and you should do well to remember that for the honour of that Order; and yet that is but one example, and One Swallow will not make a Summer; nor can you make fair weather, to adorn your pretensions, of your other Instances; for the text tells you, that all 
Acts 5.  the Council agreed to Gamaliel,( and some one single person must break the ice in every debate:) and yet should those in Authority prove so very Jews, as to deny Christ to be the messiah, and silence the holy Gospel, you may be allowed to be singular in your zeal, and start up the Gamaliel in the Convocation of Scribes and Pharisees. For Paphnutius, I wonder you should set his single judgement in opposition to that whole Council; for though he first took up the debate, yet the story tells us, the whole Council concurred with him in that business.  
I could( were I so disposed) tell you of John of Leiden, Hacket, and other( of your self magnifying Lights) Heads of pernicious Factions, and so give you a Rowland for your Oliver; but I desire you at least to remember, that it was the Fathers of the Church in council that blasted the most damnable heresies that were broached from time to time by single Presbyters, or others.  
But R. S. goes on, and tells the Doctor, If( you have) not( red of Paphnutius, and the rest) give us leave to tell you, we hope you will not from Archdeacon 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 Soph. judge whether you have not disputed like the master of much reason.]  
But, good Mr. R. S. whatever indignation you have to the Archdeacon, you should not slander him; he no where saith( as you suggest) that your eyes are weaker than his now he is set above you; but this he must say, that there are some set as well above himself as you who are very much more quick-sighted than you both; and I hope he is so charitable, he would not pluck out your eyes, but open them, that having the like apprehensions of it with himself, you may be induced to comply with him in your submission to their Authority. For they doubtless have the advantage of situation, and are nearer to Almighty God in place; and if that signifies nothing, the promises of Gods assistance to men in office are of none effect.  
But R. S. resolves now to be honest: he tells the Doctor, [ I will give you your due, you do strike at the principle which is the radix of Mr. Croftons argumentation;] but withall he adds, that the Doctor is no skilful Carpenter, his blow doth neither reach the root nor shake the three; and thus he proves it, [ 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( the Doctor, saith he) most profoundly answer by denial, and then assign Ministration to be the formal act of the Ministerial office. Mr. Crofton I know( say you) will admit your action 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 Bishops stirrup, or the candle to an Archdeacon, will not sure fulfil the Ministry of a Gospel-Minister; yet it is ministration.]  
Thus R. S. rants at the Doctor and the Hierarchy of the Church, as if the Covenant were yet in force, and an Ordinance for their eradication. Were I willing to return his sarcasm I would ask him this question, Whether a less penance than holding the Bishops stirrup can be inflicted upon persons that have been so violen to throw their Lordships out of the saddle? and do not they deserve to hold a candle to an Archdeacon, who have so long held one to the Devil to compass their designs? But I shall spare them, and apply my discourse to the Exceptions of this Replicant.  
And first, whereas he excepts against the Doctor for saying that Ministration is the formal act of Ministration; this, I say, is false and groundless. 1. False; for the Doctor did not tell him that Ministration is the formal act of Ministration, but that to minister was the formal act of the Ministerial office. And therefore 2. his Exception is groundless 
It is a rule in logic, Ta●…, ●… n● praedicata, qualia patiuntur esse subjecta. ; for take [ ministration] or [ to minister] onely in that latitude and with the same limitation as Ministerial office is taken in Mr. Croftons Position,( when he saith, An imposed Liturgy is destructive to the formal act of the Ministerial office) and his pretended scepticism is vanished; here is then as little room for this Dolosus to dance in, as for his cavil.  
But whereas 2. he defines the formal act of the Ministerial office to be the ministerial modification of public worship by personal abilities.] To this I answer,  
1. If by ministerial modification of public worship he had meant onely the performance of the duties of public worship; then I should have  told him, those duties are performed by personal abilities in the use of an imposed Liturgy. The understanding, will and affections, as they are required by Almighty God, so are they employed and exercised in such an imposed Service. If the Priest reads the Forms out of a book, his eyes are his own; if he takes the pains to get them without book,( which is more pains than to pour out such as the Fancy shall suggest extempore) his memory is his own; and so he performs the duty by his own personal abilities.  
But by modification of public worship he means the private composition of Forms for public worship, and by his own personal abilities this Replicant understands principally the exercise of his Invention; for his words are these,[ 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.] He saith, he doth not exclude his judgement, but it is the liberty of his Invention he pleads for. Yes forsooth, these are the shrines that bring 
Acts 19. 24.  no small gains to these craftsmen; and they must contend for the liberty of their own Invention to make such shrines to serve the dotage of their superstitious Confidents.  
But if it be not a breach of the holy commandment thus to set up and worship their own Imaginations,( as that renowned 
B. Andr. Sermon on Acts 2. 42.  Bishop long ago observed) I know not what the Commandment signifies. For the command requires as well the affection of the spirit as the understanding of the 
1 Cor. 14. 14, 15.  mind in prayer: but as the Romanists, by setting their people to pray they wote not what, make their understanding unfruitful, contrary to the Scripture; so these 
See Pulpit. Conceptions Popular Deceptions, p. 3. 9, &c.  men, by giving themselves to imagine prayer at the same instant, they do so occupy their mind with devising what to say next, that their spirit is unfruitful, contrary to the very same Scripture; as that reverend and learned Prelate more at large expresseth it.  
But seeing it is the use of their Invention that Mr. Crofton and R. S. so earnestly pled for, I hope for the future they will lay aside their pretention of praying by the Spirit; and consequently silence those old complaints, That the Spirit is stinted by an imposed Liturgy: for we see by this Confession( extorted by the power of Truth) that it is nothing else but the stinting of their Invention.  
But 3. if the formal act of the Ministerial office be the modification of the duty by personal abilities,( i.e.) by the wit and invention of the Minister; then the Prophets and Apostles failed in the very formal act of their Ministerial office in Gods service; they did not perform it by such personal abilities, for holy men of God spake( not after their own inventions, but) as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And 
2 Pet. 1. ult.  as to the formal act of Ministration, what difference is there betwixt a Form immediately inspired of the Holy Ghost, and one prepared by the study and prudence of our superiors, whom God hath set over us? I say, as to the formal act of Ministration; for the worship or service of God administered in these cases, is no more modified by personal abilities in the one than in the other.  
4. Again, you confess [ the formal act of the Ministerial 
Pag. 4.  office is to minister] but then you add [ quomodo? is the question] and so you run from the quid sit? to the quomodo sit? which is no regular way of arguing. For, as the Doctor said truly, to make the modification of the act the act itself, is as much as to make the apparel the man. This absurdity you endeavour to evade by saying [ modification of Ministration came not into the question; but that modification of solemn worship is the formal act of Ministration, was and is asserted.] But then if this be the definition of the formal act of Ministration, what is the genus of it? The single term [ modification] cannot be it; for that hath reference( as you confess) 
A Word and a Blow, pag. 17, 18.  to the adjunct qualities; [ gravity of expression, fervency of affection, and reverence in demeanour] yea unto those rude methods, indigested raw expressions, tautologies, solecisms and disorders, which a Minister may utter in his prayers, as Mr. Crofton confesseth: and such modification of the act cannot be the genus of it. You must therefore add some other word to it to make it serviceable to you instead of a genus; and what must that be but those terms [ of solemn worship?] so that [ modification of solemn worship] is your genus; and if so, then the Doctor will demand what is the specifical difference that doth distinguish the Ministration you undertake to define from Ministration in the general? You have nothing left but your personal abilities; and consequently the difference in this your so much magnified Definition ( of the formal act of Ministration) doth not distinguish your Ministration in Gods solemn worship from your holding the stirrup to the Lord Bishop, or the candle to the Archdeacon, or the Tailors shaping his apparel; for these are all performed by personal abilities.  
And therefore I cannot grant that the modification of public worship by personal abilities is the formal act of the Ministerial office: it is Mr. Croftons duty, and the duty of his Advocate to prove it,( and till that be done, their Argument is invalid) for Affirmanti incumbit probatio. But, to return R. S. his own words, we must believe it on the magisterial confident say so of this great dictatory.  
And because I see this is made their last refuge, which they flee to as a sanctuary to shelter them from the imposition of the Liturgy, I shall take a little more pains to demolish it, by proving the Proposition itself to be improbable and absurd, false and scandalous; which I shall endeavour by these Arguments.  
1. That Opinion that hath no ground in Scripture, Antiquity or Reason, is improbable.  
This Opinion, That modification of public worship by personal abilities is the formal act of the Ministerial office hath no ground in Scripture, Antiquity or Reason.  
Therefore this Opinion, That modification of public worship by personal abilities is the formal act of the Ministerial office, is improbable.  
1. This Opinion hath no ground in Scripture; for therein the use of Forms of prayer, praise and benediction, is prescribed to such as are engaged in the Ministerial office; and sure the Holy Ghost in Scripture would prescribe nothing destructive to the formal act of that Office.  
2. It hath no ground in Antiquity; for there we find the use of Forms and a Liturgy composed and prescribed from time to time. [ An Order and regular Method of Praying, Reading the Scriptures, and Administration of other parts of Worship, in convenient time and order, successively each after other in their proper place: This Mr. Crofton 
Position, pag. 1.  confesses to have been used in all Churches of Jews or Christians.] But let him show that there was ever such a method and order without the very modification and form itself, till the late Directory.  
3. This Opinion hath no ground in Reason; for to the clearest light of Reason it appears to be 1. absurd, 2. false, and 3. scandalous; and it is evinced to be so by these following Arguments.  
1. Absurd, which is proved thus:  
That Opinion that placeth devotion and the solemn worship of God in prayer chiefly in the exercise of the Invention, is absurd.  
This Opinion, that the modification of public worship by personal abilities is the formal act of the Ministerial office, placeth devotion and the solemn worship of God in prayer chiefly in the exercise of the Invention.  
Therefore this Opinion, that the modification of public worship by personal abilities is the formal act of the Ministerial office, is absurd.  
The mayor cannot reasonably be denied, and the minor is confessed by R. S. and Mr. Crofton,( ut supra.)  
2. This Opinion is false and scandalous, which appears thus:  
That Opinion that makes the use of the Lords prayer, or of any Psalm of David, as a Form, destructive to, or inconsistent with, the formal act of the Ministerial office, is false and scandalous.  
This Opinion, that modification of public worship by personal abilities is the formal act of the Ministerial office, makes the use of the Lords prayer, or of any Psalms of David, as a Form, destructive to, or inconsistent with, the formal act of the Ministerial office.  
Therefore this Opinion, that the modification of public worship by personal abilities is the formal act of the Ministerial office, is false and scandalous.  
These Propositions are both so evident, they need no further confirmation.  
I shall add but one Argument more against this Doctrine, which is this;  
That which is inevitably prejudicial to the people, either by involving them in the guilt of all that non-sense and indiscretion, sedition and blasphemy, which the Minister many times runs into in his conceived prayers, or by interrupting and disturbing them in the performance of Gods public worship, that is not the formal act of the Ministerial office.  
But the modification of public worship by personal abilities is inevitably prejudicial to the people, either by involving them in the guilt of all that non-sense and indiscretion, sedition and blasphemy, which the Minister many times runs into in his conceived prayers, or by interrupting and disturbing them in the performance of Gods public worship.  
Therefore the modification of public worship by personal abilities is not the formal act of the Ministerial office.  
The mayor cannot be denied without scandal.  
The minor is evident; for either the people do not join in the Forms of public worship, where non-sense and indiscretion, sedition and blasphemy are uttered; and then( if they do not take the name of God in vain) they are at least interrupted and disturbed in the performance of Gods public worship. Or else they do join in it, and then ( if the people love to have it so) they are involved in 
Jer 5. ●1.  the guilt of all that non-sense and indiscretion, sedition and blasphemy, which the Minister many times runs into in his conceived prayers. This R. S. took notice of when he wrote Jerubbaal justified, and therefore he saith, [ If the 
Pag. 17, 18.  people have a public judgement of the ministerial mode of Gods worship, we are under a necessity of having what we so much complain against, and cast off,( viz.) a fixed Liturgy; for the mode of Prayer, Preaching, ministration of Sacraments, must then be known to the people, and judged by them free from all defect and disorder, before the people can attend Gods worship in that ministration.] And a little after, [ No serious sober Christian can think the people to be guilty of those rude methods; indigested raw expressions, tautologies, solecisms and disorders, which a Minister may utter in his Preaching and Praying; yet this is inevitable,( saith R. S.) if the people have a public judgement by special office of the Ministerial mode of Gods worship.] But it is not the peoples want of a public judgement by special office that will keep them from the guilt; their judgement of discretion, if they consent to it, will certainly make them guilty; and if they consent not,( when they come with a hearty devotion, finding that they cannot do it conscientiously) they are then interrupted and distracted in their duty, the performance of Gods public worship; they cannot perform it with such persuasion of faith, such intention of mind, such fervency of affection, as they may do by a composed Form, which they know and are well assured of aforehand.  
But( if modification by personal abilities) if that be not it,( to save himself a labour, which he knows he is not able to accomplish) he calls upon his Antagonist to assign what is the formal act of the Gospel ministerial office, what will specifically difference it from Ministration in the general; and if it may contribute to his satisfaction, I shall readily obey his command, and tell him from the Holy Ghost in Scripture that it is {αβγδ}. If you will have it 
Acts 13. 2.  more fully, it is The Ministration of a person duly admitted into holy Orders 
Heb. 5 4. , performed to the glory of God 
Acts 13. 2.  and the benefit of his Church 
Heb. 5. 1. , by a Form prescribed either 
To this reduce inspiration.  immediately 
Num. 6. 23. Luke 11. 2.  by God himself, or by such as are clothed with 
See Pulpit-Conceptions, pag. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60.  Authority, according to the word of God.  
And now having not onely shaken the three, but grubb'd up( that which is acknowledged to be) the very root of Mr. Croftons Argumentation, the most difficult part of my task is dispatched.  
But R. S. renews Mr. Croftons Objection in these words, [ Imposition and Prescription in Prayer and Sacraments is applicable to Preaching.] To this the Doctor shaped a fourfold Answer, and we must consider what R. S. hath replied to it. The Doctor saith,  
1. A Sermon is never the worse for being well digested.] To this R. S. replies, [ True, if it be the Preachers own meditation, much the better.]  
2. Saith the Doctor, If it be seen and allowed by Authority, I know no harm in it.] R. S. replies, Nor I neither; but this is not necessary.  
3. Saith the Doctor, This course( if not endless) would more secure the peace and solid Edification of the Church.] Here R. S. begins to be transported, as if the Doctor had touched his Copy-hold, and falls foul upon that, which even now he confessed he knew no harm in. For when the Doctor affirms, that if Sermons were seen and allowed by Authority, this course( if not endless) would the more secure the peace and Edification of the Church;] R. S. replies with some bitterness, [ I deny that, unless by the Popish guard, Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion.] But see how prejudice and passion have eclipsed his Reason; for what is there in the countenance of Authority to cherish Ignorance? Is not the Eye of a prudent governor matter of incitation, and his approbation matter of encouragement? and consequently then they must needs conduce to the advancement of Knowledge not of Ignorance. But R. S.( you must know) is a very able Scholar, and if need be, to affront his Adversary, he can bring in Proverbs by head and shoulders; and thus, having got a considerable interest in the Popish guard, he doth press and muster some of their Forces for his own service, and this amongst the rest [ Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion.]  
And is not this the Presbyterian as well as the Popish guard? What think you of Mr. Case, who calling upon 
See the Doctors 〈◇〉 p. 85. ●0.  his Auditors to pursue Rebellion in hopes of finding out a Reformation, he tells them, they must, after the example of Abraham, go at great uncertainties( and) they knew not whither. He thought they might possibly meet with as good fortune in following Hugh Peter's Asses, as Saul did in seeking of his Father's.  
But Sir( saith the Replicant) what are these to a Sermon not studied, much less digested by the Preacher? [ As little I confess, as this is to the controversy in hand; but you add] not communicated to, but composed by pretenders to Authority? making Ministers to have no work to do, qua Ministers, but to red 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.]  
To this I answer. 1. That R. S. his calling the Governours of the Church pretenders to Authority, is highly Schismatical and Seditious, and smells rank of the second Article of the Solemn League and Covenant. 2. That Homilies are composed to take men off from their study and diligence, who are apt to teach in their own personal capacity, is very false; and that such Homilies are or will be exclusively imposed, is maliciously or scandalously suggested. 3. That Sermons exclusively imposed may as well be admitted as the Liturgy is false, and nothing is offered in proof of it.  
But the Doctor answered, 4. That when the Presbyterians preach other mens printed Sermons, this is no prejudice to the interest of those skulls that hear them.] To this R. S. replies, [ Name any such who do so,( preach other mens printed Sermons) 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 Martins-Ludgate London, or Henly in Sussex, you may hear of Sons of the Church who stuck not to preach Mr. Croftons own printed Sermons: But these are preparing for Homily-ministrations.]  
In good time: But 1. If the persons you insinuate to be guilty of this Plagiarism, did modify his Sermons handsomely by their own personal abilities,( in the delivery of them) Mr. Crofton was beholden to them for being his Rehearsers; and their Memory is no less to be admired than his Invention. But 2. Did they preach his Sermons Verbatim? If they made no use of their judgement to avoid the Sedition( usual in his discourses) assure yourself they were no right Sons of the Church of England. 3. This might be a prudent design in them to try the judgement of their Auditors, whether it were the Doctrine or the Person they had in admiration: For we find many times it is not so much the matter as the gestures of the Preacher, with his tone, and the Emphasis of his words that makes the Impression upon a soft-headed-people; And there is no better way to shane them out of their Fanaticism, than to convince them( by such instances) that they do slight or reverence the very same Doctrine,( and therefore not out of judgement, but) according to the opinion they have of the Person that doth deliver it.  
4. I demand of R. S. whether those Sermons had the same effect upon the Hearers, when preached by those Plagiaries, which they had when they were preached by Mr. Crofton himself? If they had, then there is as much virtue towards Salvation in a discourse framed to my hand, as is in those of my own composition; and consequently the fault is not in the thing itself, but only in the Laziness of the Man that has personal abilities and neglecteth to exert them for the Service of the Church; if they had not the same virtue, then the efficacy of the Ministry is ex opere operantis, from the intention and quality of the Minister; and so R. S. falls in to the Popish guard again. Lastly, we must take notice, that in vilifying Homily-ministrations( as he calls them) he puts contempt( in effect) upon the Reading of the Holy Scriptures. But this the Holy Ghost accounts a kind of preaching; For Moses in old time hath in every City them that preach him, being red in the Synagogues 
Acts 15. 21.  every Sabbath day. These Preachments we are sure are nothing 〈◇〉 but the Word of God; but those other, though the Ordinance of God, yet are they subject to more perversities, and many times men give so much way to their own passions and conceits in them, that they are nothing less than that pure word.  
But to proceed, [ you think( saith R. S.) there is a vast difference between Praying and Preaching; is there not also a difference between these and Sacraments?] Yes, but what then? make your inference and we shall find you an answer.  
R. S goes on, and bids the Doctor [ 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?] So R. S. disputeth.  
But what need this Replicant bid the Doctor prove that Christ taught that prayer may be comprised in a short Office? Hath he not taught this by an example? Sure, when he gratified the piety of his Disciples inquiry after instruction in this point, he did not for a pattern, what the pharisees did for a pretence when they devoured widows houses; he did not make a long prayer. No, if we may believe Mr. Croftons Advocate, the Church of God hath been mistaken more than 1600. years: For, saith he, Christ suggested Matter,( but) did he determine the mode, terms, words, and expressions of Prayer? If not, saith he, what avails this plea?] You say right Sir, but in good earnest are you grown so great a proficient in Reformation, that you have forgotten your Pater-Noster? Or, how came you by that notion( so long concealed from all the blessed Saints and Martyrs of Jesus Christ) that the Lords-Prayer signifies no more than( the Title of Pater-Noster-Row in London) a direction where you may take up Stuffs of all sorts, as you have occasion? Can you understand common sense? What is the meaning of [ when ye pray say,[ OUR FATHER WHICH ART IN HEAVEN,& c?] Did not our Saviour herein direct them to a Form? Did he not determine the mode, terms, words, and expressions of Prayer? If he did not( in that instance) for my part, I shall despair of ever understanding any single Sentence of the Holy Gospel.  
But( saith R. S.) there are not more various Texts in the Bible, than wants in the Church, and both are the Scene for variety of gifts to exercise upon.] How? not more various Texts than wants? have you computed their number? Are there not at least a Million of such Texts? Are there not some thousands in one Book of Holy Scripture? If the wants of the Church be so many,( I demand of this Replicant) must all these wants be particularly enumerated in our Form of Prayer, or no? If they must, that Form of prayer( that contains an enumeration of so many particulars) cannot be much shorter than the whole Bible; and so long a Form is never fit for use, but in the Quadragesimal Fasts: I such a particular enumeration be not necessary( which indeed R. S. makes impossible) ble) but the wants of the Church may be recommended to God in General; then why not in a prescribed Liturgy? For Gods part, being the Ancient of days, and knowing our thoughts long before, he can no more be taken with the novelty than with the elegancy of our expressions. And for man, that variety of Conceptions( so earnestly contended for) hath more of temptation and peril, but not more of real advantage, than a prescribed Liturgy, as the Doctor hath sufficiently evinced in other Papers 
Pulpit-Conceptions. . Prayers are intended for an exercise of Devotion, not of Wit; not to inform our Maker, but to perform a duty of Solemn Worship that we may move him to be gracious.[ The Title of the 102. Psal. is [ A prayer for the afflicted when he is overwhelmed, and poureth out his complaint before the Lord.] Is this Psalm generally suitable to the state of the afflicted, and fit to exercise his Devotions? if it be, then there is no need of such an enumeration of particular wants as you speak of; if it be not, in saying so, you blame the Holy Ghost for inspiring such a Form for the use of the afflicted as is not suitable to the variety of Subjects and Conditions.  
But Sir,( saith R. S.) your next makes work for the Terrae filius,] And why so? The Doctor  told Mr. Crofton[ His instance of the Parish Clerk and people, was neither to our prejudice nor to his purpose; for they are a general part of the holy Priesthood St. Peter speaketh of, and it is their duty to bear a part in Gods solemn Worship.] Here R. S. cries out [ 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,( saith R. S.)[ They ought to bear a part in Gods Solemn Worship; undoubtedly true( saith he:) But must that part be Ministration? Such Ministration as is the formal act of Gospel-ministry?] No, the Doctor never said it was; and therefore R. S. might have spared his out-cry in these words, [ and if so, farewell holy Orders, yea, solemn Ordination to the Ministry; a man may make himself a Priest: Enter Independency, the Archdeacon hath opened the door. All the Lords people are holy, the holy Priesthood; Ergo may Minister in the Ministers Office.] Thus R. S. suffers his tongue and pen to run riot for lack of the words of truth and soberness to stop them.  
But, saith R. S. to the Doctor, either( you say) so,[ that the Part the Parish-Clerk and the People bear in Gods Solemn Worship is Ministration] or, you have said nothing] yes, altogether as much as he had need to say upon that account.  
The Doctor did distinguish the Ministerial Office and the Ministerial Act as well as Mr. Crofton; and had you not shut your eyes on purpose, you must have seen it; for he  told you, we must not so look to personal abilities as to forget 
Antidote p. 110.  Divine Ordination.  
If Mr. Crofton does not allow personal abilities to confer an Office, what does he infer from the abilities of the Boy to red, and the Parish Clerk to say Amen? That the Office of a Gospel-minister imports a greater work than what is performable by ordinary people, the Doctor doth allow you; and he hath  told you what that work is, in his Pulpit-Conceptions.  
You may boast what you please of your Reply, but for all this( your Vindication) Mr. Crofton appears still to be self-condemned; And what ever your Jury of freshmen do by the Doctors logic, I am sure a Jury of good Casuists will condemn your Divinity: And yet whoever has your Vote for the Office of signior Lecturer, such is the height of your insolence, you will keep the scorners Chair to yourself.  
But I am weary of R. S. his vanity, and therefore I shall proceed presently to make good the Doctors undertaking, viz. That Mr. Crofton and his party are bound to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy.]  
This the Doctor proves( by this Medium) because it is morally possible; And this he proves( by this Medium) because it is not sinful; And this he makes good( by this Medium) because it is forbiddden by no Law.]  
And here we are to join issue. For R. S. denies This,( which was the mayor Proposition of the Doctors syllogism) and saith, that to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy 〈…〉 First Commadement, 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.] Thus disputes the Replicant.  
But what! To submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy forbidden in the First Commandement? Some men have an art to infer Quidlibet ex quolibet, like the man that could 
Parker.  find the sign of the across to be a sin against every one of the ten Commandements.[ The First Commandement is this, [ Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. This Replicant infers, Ergo, Thou shalt not submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy.] Is this good logic? Just such Arguments we find in the Church of Rome; Rogavi pro te( Petre) ne deficeret fides tua, and again, Pasce oves meas; Ergo, Papa est Judex Controversiarum. Truly, in such Inferences as these the Consequences are so remote there is need of more than an ordinary sagacity,( such as that of R. S.) to discern them. What you object against the Doctor is now very applicable to yourself, Dolosus versatur in generalibus.  
But suppose the Doctor should put you in mind of the First Commandement, and tell you, that by the duty you owe unto Almighty God( required in that Commandement) you are obliged to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy; would not his consequence be as rational as yours? If this Deduction be remote and doubtful, so is yours too; and whose judgement shall we rely upon in this case? You cannot be so irrational( if you be a man) as to think we ought to rely on yours, because you are a Party; and you will pled that the Doctor is so too, and consequently it is no less unreasonable that you should rely on his; and what will follow from hence but a necessity of our reliance( for peace and order sake) upon the Authority of the Church, as well in opposition to the Schismatical Inferencer as to the 
Dr. pride.〈…〉. fol 〈◇〉) p. 391.  fanatic Enthusiast? Thus that Learned Professor in his Lecture ( De Authoritate Ecclesiae in rebus Fidei) hath determined: For, he observes, ut de illuminatione Spiritus in litibus definiendis, potest esse dissensus, quia unusquisque Fanaticus jactabit suum Spiritum: Ita etiam in Consequentiis deducendis ex indubitatis principiis, oriatur lis de Syllogismo, an secundùm rectam rationem contexatur. Quoniam quae tibi videtur recta ratiocinatio, alius pugnabit, non esse rectam, & sic nunquam erit Contentionis periodus. The difference therefore must be decided by a more competent Judicature, that is, by Authority.  
And now I shall tell this bold Champion, that the First Commandement doth require his submission to the use of a prescribed Liturgy; at least the First Commandement with promise: For that Commandement saith [ Honour thy Father and thy Mother,] The Prince and the Church; whose duty it is to see, that( in Gods service) all things be done decently and in order, to the Glory of God and the Edification of his people. If our Liturgy were designed to this end,( and your superiors do tell you it was composed upon no other account) you are obliged to the Imposition, as the Doctor hath elsewhere 
Pulpit. Conceptions p. 58, &c.  maintained by irrefragable Conclusions.  
But you allege, That the First Commandement doth require Faithfulness in the Office committed to us by the Lord himself. But give me leave to as ask you a question or two. What parts of the Ministerial Office are committed to you? and how far? and by whom? Sure your Power is not unlimited, nor your Jurisdiction universal. Was the Office committed to you immediately by God himself, or mediately by the Ministry of such as have a higher Authority than yourself? Did they understand the bounds of your Office when they ordained you? Is not their Office committed to them by the Lord himself as well as yours? Doth not the First Commandement concern them as well as you? and requires Faithfulness in their Office too? Why, they will tell you, it is out of Faithfulness to the Trust reposed in them, and to discharge their Office, that they have composed and prescribed such a Liturgy. Do they aver this without Reason? Was the Form( you so caulesly though furiously declaim against) imposed upon you without any previous examination or deliberate judgement? If this cannot be affirmed without impudence, then I ask further; have not they Judicium Rationale& Discretionis privatae, a Rational judgement of Discretion as well as you? and is not that sufficient to satisfy their Conscience, as well as yours is to satisfy your own? This then puts them upon an equal competition, and makes the scales betwixt you and them hang even. Where then is your common justice with your private judgement? Is there no allowance to be granted them upon the account of their Authority? If you be the Author of Jerubbaal justified, therein you aclowledge a judgement of office armed with a moral power which the people have not,[ pag. 17, and 18.] and( pag. 35.) you say, though the forum of the Church visible be changeable and is changed, yet it consisteth( even now) of such, who are true and lawful( though it may be not pious) Ministers of the Gospel, and these you confess are Judges: And what? must their Judicium forense& Decisionis Publicae, their legal Authority and public Decision stand for nothing? Or is it a sufficient security to your Conscience to confront your Christian liberty to their Authority? If your Creed be of the same dimensions with the Confession of Faith advised by the Assembly, you believe otherwise; for they confess, 
Chap. 20. Sect. 4.  That they who upon pretence of Christian Liberty shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be Civil or Ecclesiastical, resist the Ordinance of God;] and then you may learn from the Apostle what will follow, Rom. 13. 2.  
But you add [ Ministers of God cannot without sin become the Ministers of men.] How? not the Ministers of men? Had not the men of Salamis John to their Minister? Are 
Acts 13. 5.  there not some men of whom the Lord himself affirms, I have said ye are Gods? You will make them sorry Gods indeed( and you are very well acquainted how your confederates used his late Majesty) if you allow them no Ministers in their utmost exigencies.  
But perhaps your meaning is good, though your words be liable to exception. If your sense be this, that we ought not to resign ourselves up in a blind obedience to the Magisterial dictates of men, without any examination whether they be consonant to Gods word or otherwise, I do readily subscribe to it.  
For( 1) if there should happen to be a competition between them in matters clearly determined in Holy Scripture, or evidently consequential to any divine determination, it is our acknowledged duty to obey God rather than men. But this Rule ties you up more indispensably to the commands of your superiors in all cases wherein God hath made no such exception; for [ Exceptio firmat regulam in Casibus non exceptis.] If therefore you have any such exception in the Case of a prescribed Liturgy, produce it in Gods name; for your Governours will tell you that God commands your obedience to their injunctions; and he having invested them with Authority over you, they are by that means possessed of a right to command you from God himself. In this case how can you supersede their power? If you pretend to a Divine Authority to justify your disobedience, you allege no more than what they really have to command you. And then, unless the Authority you pretend to, be more evident for you, than that by which they claim their power to command you, is for them: it remains at least doubtful on which side the Right lies; whether on your Governours side who command, or on yours that refuse obedience; and in all doubtful Cases it is an acknowledged Rule, Potier est pars possidentis; the presumption is always for those in Authority, else Peace and Order must expire.  
But besides( 2) in doubtful matters, who should we have recourse unto but to such as are most versed in that faculty, that examines them? We should consult the Physician for our Health, and the Lawyer for our Title to an Estate; but we have all the reason in the world to trust the Divine with our Case of Conscience. The learned Davenant( as you deservedly style him) hath soberly determined in this particular; Pendere( Deus ipse) noluit fidem Ecclesiae suae ab absolutâ Authoritate Praedicantium: volvit( tamen) uti Ministerio hominum in verbi salutiferi praedicatione; volvit etiam ab omnibus Christianis horum Ministrorum vocem cum debito honore atque summa reverentia audiri. Can the Learning and Piety of that Reverend Prelate prevail with you? Behold( in your Opinion perhaps) a greater than Davenant is here, we have even Mr. Baxter 
Nose-gay to Mr. Caril p. 83.  himself our suffragan in this Article; he tells his Brethren of the Ministry, [ though he denies them to have either Credit or Authority against the known word of God, yet so great is their Credit and Authority even as Teachers and Guides of the Church in Cases agreeable to the word, and in Cases to the people doubtful and unknown, and in Cases left by the word to their determination,( the word determining them but generally) that he thinks the ignorance of this truth hath been the main Cause of our sad Confusions and Schisms in England; and that the Ministers have been guilty of it; and that till we have better taught even our Godly people, what Credit and Obedience is due to their Teachers and Spiritual Guides, the Church of England shall never have Peace or any good or established Order, &c.( as is more fully cited in the very 
Antidote p. 105.  next page. before[ Mr. Croftons Position examined.]  
3. To keep out Faction, to prevent Confusion, and to preserve Unity, God hath been pleased to establish a Subordination of Ministers in his Church, as well under the New as under the Gld Testament 
See Antidote p. 9. &c. . And as there is a judgement of Discretion that belongs to all, and a judgement of Direction that belongs to single Presbyters, so there is a judgement of Jurisdiction peculiar to the Prelacy. Every man for the satisfaction of his own Conscience may inquire and examine such Doctrines, Rites, and Forms of Worship as are delivered or prescribed to him; his judgement of Discretion is given him to this purpose; and he will pay his submission with the more alacrity to those whom God hath set over him, when he finds their Discourses and Injunctions consonant to divine Revelations. But what if upon such their exploration it should seem as well to some of those that have a Directive judgement, as to others who have only a judgement of Discretion, that somethings are to be held or practised otherwise than their superiors have detertermined? Why, in this Case Christianae erit modestiae diffidere potius privatae perspicaciae, quàm Reverendo Praelatorum 
Dr. Brid. Lect. 22.  coetui( as that Learned Professor hath resolved) it becomes their Christian modesty rather to distrust their own private in-sight( into the nature of those particulars) than the Reverend College of their Prelates, to whom belongs the judgement of Jurisdiction. And if possibly they should deprehend some manifest prevarication, non meditandum statim schisma, said communicandum in receptis; tolerandum quod tolli non potest,& expectandum demum,& orandum, donec Deus suo tempore quod distortum est aut luxatum, legitima aliquâ Authoritate ac debitis mediis, in integrum restituat. And this is not at all to become sinful, or the servants of men, but to walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, and to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, as becomes the Gospel of Christ, and Gods Ministers.  
But if the First Commandement will not justify his Nonsubmission to Authority in the use of a prescribed Liturgy, he hath another special Law will do it; for he saith  
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.]  
To this I answer, That the formal act of the Ministerial office is not the modifying of worship by personal abilities( as hath been proved formerly) but is consistent with and included in the performance of Gods public Worship and Service, by a Form prescribed, either immediately by God himself, or by the Church according to the word of God. And I do challenge 
See Pulpit-Concept. p. 56, 57.  this Replicant to produce his special Law or prohibition to the contrary. For what he adds is not of force against us; viz.  
That 3. The edifying of the Church by variety of Ministerial gifts, is a Law which doth forbid such submission as destiuctive to that end.] It seems your shift of Pasture makes fat Souls too; and then I wonder your Law doth not likewise forbid the settlement of any one single person over a particular Congregation; and enjoin all Ministers to become Itinerant, that traveling up and down their variety of gifts may be the more diffused to the edifying of the Church. But if you take the Liturgy prescribed in the full extent of it, it allows you room enough in the Pulpit, and upon all incidental occasions to exercise your variety of gifts amongst the people. And if you restrain it to the several Forms of Confession, Prayer, and Thanksgiving, They are designed to exercise your heart rather than your brain, and it is their proper office to edify your Devotion not your Knowledge 
Unless it be impetrative or d●spositive. . And prescribed Forms are of so much the more advantage to this effect, because the less the understanding is occupied to consider and invent the matter, the more intent and earnest are the will and affections( the most immediate instruments of Devotion) about the holy duty itself, as hath been evinced elsewhere 
Pulpit-Conceptions p. 39. to 45. .  
But to follow this bold Champion; the Apostle indeed( saith he) 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:] And why so? Chemnitius 
Harm. Evang. c. 51. p 522.  was of another mind touching the practise of our Saviour, and the duty of the Church: NULLUM DUBIUM est, eandem doctrinam,& easdem Conciones, iisdem verbis saepius aliis atque aliis temporibus& locis a Christo repetitas: There is no doubt but Christ did often repeat the very same Doctrine and the very same Sermons in the very same words at several times and places. Non enim valere debet in Ecclesia illud Rhetorum praeceptum, {αβγδ}. said illud Iraenei potius valere debet, {αβγδ}. For that rule of the Rhetorician should not prevail in the Church of God; [ the affecting to cloath common truth in a new dress:] but that of Iraeneus should prevail rather, [ the delivering of the same Article in the same expressions.] To writ the same 
Phil 3. 1.  things unto you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe, saith the great Apostle; and words are not to be multiplied 
Entià non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate.  to no purpose.  
But, if so, saith our Adversary, i.e. if we speak the same things in the same words,( then) the Liturgy must be catholic to all Christians in all places and ages of the World, and that in the Greek language only.] To which I answer, 1. That if there were one catholic language, such a catholic Liturgy would be very desirable to all such as love to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace. O quam 
Psal.  bonum& quam jucundum! But 2. because all the World is not of one language, and because we must pray with the understanding as well as with the heart and affections; therefore the same Apostle that requireth all to speak the same thing 
1 Cor. 1. 10. , gives a warrant for interpretation, that all may be edified 
1 Cor. 14. 14, &c. . 3. It is observable, that his Direction is addressed, as his Epistle is, to a Church of one denomination and language; to the Romans 
Rom. 15. 6. , to the Corinthians 
1 Cor. 1. 10. , &c. 4. The Doctor does not contend for the absolute necessity of our prescribed Liturgy, but ●nly for the lawfulness and expediency of it.  
But our Antagonist goes on thus, [ had this Doctor red Mr. Croftons Argument on this Question against D. G. he sure would not have thus disputed.] And why so?( he adds) Submission to superiors is a duty;] a good confession if it were not for the But that follows, [ 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.] But maugre this mans prejudice we have proved their Mandate in this case to be licitum& honestum, and therefore to resist it is neither more nor less than to resist the Ordinance of God.  
But you were lately  told upon another occasion 
Reply to S. C. &c. p. 511. , that the defence of the Apostles[ we must obey God rather than man] is very unseemly in the mouths of Rebels.] Neither will the horns of that Dilemma assist you in this encounter, for to secure your Conscience and warrant your Non-submission to your Governours, the evidence you produce to prove that it is Gods will you should not obey them in this instance, must be more clear and pregnant than those Testimonies that are pleadable for their Authority to command you; otherwise your Conscience if it be tender and awake to do its office, must needs be perplexed, scrupulous, and doubtful, unless you have drunk as deep of the Jesuits Cup in this Doctrine, as you have done in some others, and persuade yourself, that in your practices relating to your superiors you may govern yourself by that opinion which is less probable; which course, how unreasonable, how unsafe and dangerous it is you are apt to proclaim loud enough in other instances.  
Your Governours command you to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgy; you despise this command, and tell them you must obey God rather than men. Now the quaere is, who hath the fairest Title to a Divine Revelation for their justification, whether your Governours for their Command, or you for your Recusancy and disobedience?  
They allege the prime, literal, and immediate importance of the holy Text [ Let every Soul be subject to the higher powers, obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.] This is their grand Charter to command you, their general Title to require obedience from you; but where is your Charter of Exemption, your privilege that frees you from your duty in this instance? Doth the Supersedeas your Conscience relies upon run in these( or the like) express and clear terms [ Do not obey them that have the rule over you do not submit yourselves in the use of a prescribed Liturgy?] Had you such a Divine Revelation in the holy Text, then you had as fair a Title for your Recusancy as your Governours have for their Command. But you cannot, you dare not pretend to such a Divine Dispensation in this case. But what is the course you take? Why, turning your back upon the clear light that leads you to your duty, you betake yourselves to the obscure shades, and serve your interest of any colour that you think will give a handsome appearance to your disobedience.  
You are enjoined the use of a prescribed Liturgy, and flying from your duty, you take Sanctuary in the First Commandement, which, in the first, literal, and immediate importance of it, hath nothing to the purpose; and so your appeal is made to a Consequence, which, if at all deducible from thence, is so remote and distant, that to most mens eyes it is invisible. Thus you forsake the good and safe old way 
In dubiis par● tu●●or est eligenda. Tene certum& di●… te incertum. ; you let go that which is clear and certain, to follow what is obscure, doubtful, and uncertain. Do you thus exercise yourself in the Law of God? Is this your way to have a Conscience always voided of offence towards God and towards man?  
When you refuse obedience to the commands of your superiors, you had need be very well assured of your warrant for it: The Casuists tell you, your grounds must be as clear as those upon which you are required to take a solemn Oath; for you do as much engage your Soul in one case as in the other, in both you pledge your interest in Gods favour, and venture your Salvation 
See Rom 13. 2. Mat. 18. 17. . And it is observable, that God hath been more severe 
See Mend●za in 1. Reg. c. 3. 10. Sect. 2. Tom. 2. p. mi●… i. 63.  in his inflictions toward such as have despised the commands of their Governours, than towards such as have dis-obeyed his own voice.  
But after all his pretensions to obey God, this Replicant doth prevaricate the very principle he so much insists upon; for he that prefers a human judgement before Gods express Command, doth not obey God rather than man; and thus doth he: For it is Gods express command( in general) That we should obey them that have the Rule over us; but that we should not obey them( in this instance) in the use of a prescribed Liturgy,] is but a human judgement; and yet he prefers and follows this judgement before that Commandement.  
And now Sir, to return you your own words to the Doctor, 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.]  
In your close, you accost the Doctor in these words [ 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( if that be good English;) herein then( you say) 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.] To this I answer in short, That the Governours of this Church have exercised no power but what God hath warranted, nor walked in any ways but such as God hath directed, to secure our freedom from Corruptions and Disorders; And that it is your duty to submit to that Power, and follow those ways, hath been sufficiently evidenced against you.  
For Mr. Croftons CREED, the Doctor had no other design upon it than to give the people notice of his judgement, viz. That it is their duty to frequent the service of God administered by the public Liturgy. But that it should be sin in them to absent themselves from such a Worship as Mr. Crofton and his Party cannot without sin administer unto them is a pretty Paradox, a device to teach men how they may neither go to Church nor be at home; frequenting that Service in hypocrisy, which, according to your Doctrine, they cannot in Sincerity say Amen to.  
I shall conclude mine own and the Readers trouble, in this Argument, as that Reverend Professor( whom you had in great admiration till he came to wear a Roches) concludes his Lecture, De Authoritate Ecclesiae in rebus Fidei; 
Dr. pride. Lect. 22. fol. p. 36●.  Disciplina optimè secundùm Dei praescriptum observatur, quando Publica privato non permittantur arbitrio, said Antistites praecipiunt, recipiunt subditi, non hi, pro illimitato imperio, illi pro occaecato obsequi●, said tam hi, quam illi juxta praescriptum, a summo Agonotheta in scriptures, Canonem; ut ergo iis incumbit, ut sine study partium, bona fide deliberent priusquam aliquid decernunt: Ita illis perm●ssum est, ut Expendant ad indubitatam amussim, quid injungitur, ut agnoscant se didicisse a Pastoribus quod antea ignorabant. Tale autem modestum in domino Examen, privatum non sapit spiritum, quo turgen quos aversamur; said solicitam spirituum probationem, an sunt a Deo: spiritus siquidem habeatur privatus, vel respectu personae, quae legitimè quaerit; vel finis, ut sibi satis faciat; vel modi, cum peculiarem sibi eligit quaerendi aut judicandi normam, aut formam, Neglectis istis quae a supremo Legislatore praescribuntur. Respectu personae aut finis, tantum abest, ut obstemus privatorum industriae, ut invitamus illos potius, ad Expendendam doctrinam nostram ad Sanctuarii stateram, ut sibi ipsis satisfaciant& fidem nostram liberent; Qui vero secundùm hanc incedunt Regulam, pax sit supper eos,& Israelem Dei; furiosi vero& factiosi, qui privato elati aut inflati lumine aut acumine, Ecclesiam cvi subjiciuntur audire neglexerunt; sint cuivis fideli& Orthodoxo sicut Ethnicus& Publicanus, donec ex debita correptione aut correctione ad sobrietatem descant sapere,& ad matris gremium redire. Quod efficient pastor ille bonus, qui ovem Errantem propriis reportat humeris. cvi cum Patre& Spiritu Sancto fit omnis honor, laus,& gloria, in secula seculorum, Amen.  
Which may be thus rendered into English, For truly Discipline is best observed according to the Law and Ordinance of God, when Affairs that concern the public are not left to the Award and Determination of private persons; but Governours command and Subjects obey, not the former by an Unlimited and Absolute Dominion, nor the latter by an Implicit and blind Obedience, but when Governours command and Subjects yield obedience according to the Rules mentioned in the Holy Scripture by the Supreme disposer and Lawgiver: As therefore it is the duty of those in Authority, without partiality or inclining to any side with Equity and Integrity to deliberate, before they resolve or determine any thing: So, they that are to obey are allowed to examine and try by the Undeniable and Undoubted Rule, what is so enjoined them, that they may confess and ingeniously aclowledge that they have been brought by the Care of their Governours to understand their duty, which before they were utterly Ignorant of; And such kind of modest search or trial by the Revealed Will of God savours not of a private spirit, with which they are puffed up, whom we impugn; but is rather a diligent trying of the spirits, whether they be of God or no: For as much as a Spirit may be accounted private, either in regard of the person that seeketh, or in respect of the End and Drift of seeking, which is to satisfy himself; or in reference to the manner of seeking, when one goeth a new way to work to inform his judgement, choosing to himself a peculiar and singular Rule and Square to seek and judge by, omitting those Rules which for that very purpose have their Appointment from God Almighty.[ In respect of the Person or End, we are so far from hindering the Industry of private persons, that we rather bid and invite them to weigh our Doctrine in the balance of the Sanctuary, that they may thereby satisfy themselves, and acquit our fidelity. And as many as walk according to this Rule, Peace be on them, and on the Israel of God; but they are Furious and Factious, as far from Reason as Religion, who being lifted up with the Opinion of their own judgement and Wisdom, neglect to hear the Church to which they owe Submission and Obedience: Let such stubborn Children to every sound Believer be as a Heathen and a Publican, till upon due reproof and correction they learn to be wise unto Sobriety, and to return to the bosom of their tender Mother; which that good shepherd grant who bringeth home the straying Sheep upon his own shoulders; To whom with the Father, and blessed Spirit, be all Honour, Praise, and Glory, for Ever and Ever, Amen.   

Doctor Edward Reynolds ( now Lord Bishop of Norwich) in a Sermon Preached at the Second Triennial Visitation of the Right Reverend Father in God Francis Lord Bishop of Peterborough, at Daventry in Northampton-shire, July 12. 1637.  

Pag. 13.  WHosoever by Pride, or Faction, or Schism, or Ambition, or Novel Fancies, or Arrogance, or Ignorance, or Sedition, or Popularity, or Vain-Glory, or Envy, or Discontent, or Correspondence, or any other Carnal reason, shall rend the Seamless Coat of Christ, and cause Divisions and Offences, I shall need load him with no other guilt than the Apostle doth, That he is not the Servant of Christ, Rom. 16. 17. For how can he who is without Peace or Love, serve that God who is the God of Peace, whose Name is Love, and whose Law is Love?  

Pag. 10.  Greatly therefore doth it concern all of us in our Places and Orders to put to all our Power, Prayers, Interests, for preserving the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace, and for pursuing and promoting the Peace of Jerusalem, that in nothing we give offence to the Church of God; rather be willing to silence and smother our private judgments, to relinquish our particular Liberties 
{αβγδ}  and Interests, to question and mistrust domestica judicia( as 
{αβγδ}, as Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 4.  Tertullian calls them) our singular Conceits and Fancies, than to be in any such thing stiff and Peremptory against the quiet of Gods Church.  
[ As conducible hereunto, he adviseth] 
P. 33, 34.  Submission to the Spirits of the Prophets, and the judgments of the Godly learned; not to be stiff and inflexible in our own Conceits, nor to be Acceptors of our own persons, but to be willing to retract any error, and with meekness and thankfulness to be lead into the right way by any hand. Excellent was the resolution of Job in this case, Teach me and I will hold my peace, and cause me to know wherein I have erred, Job 6. 34. In which one disposition did all men, who otherwise differ, firmly agree, and were not too partially addicted to their own Fancies, nor had their judgments( which should be guided only by the truth of things) too much enthralled to their own w●llss, Ends, or Passions; soon might they be brought, if not wherein they err, to change their judgments, yet at least so to alloy them with Humility and Love( as St. Cyprian did his) that they should never break forth into bitterness towards their Brethren, or disturbance of the Church of God.  
In all differences 'tis recommended as a most Compendious Remedy to observe] 
Pag. 32.  the Custom of the Churches of God. To retain that( when there is no express and evident variation from Divine Authority) which is most consonant to the received usage of the Ancient and pure Ages of the Church. This Rule the Apostle gives for suppressing of differences, If any seem to be Contentious, we have no such Custom, neither the Churches of God, 1 Cor. 11. 16. Inquire of the former Age saith Bildad, and prepare thyself to the search of their Fathers, Job 8. 8. Look to the old way saith the Prophet, Jer. 6. 16. It was not so from the beginning saith our Saviour, Mat. 19. 8. Onely this Rule is to be qualified with this necessary distinction, That no Ant quity hath any Authority in Matters necessary, of Faith, Worship, or Doctrines of Religion, to prescribe or deliver any thing, as in itself, and immediately obligatory to the Conscience, which is either Contradicted or omitted 
For Satisfaction herein, Consult Doctor H. Hammond's Letter of Resolution. Quare 1. Of Resolving Controversies, per totum.  in the written Word, which we believe to be fully sufficient to make the man of God perfect, and thoroughly furnished unto every good Work, 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17.  
But, 1. In Matters accessary of indifferency, order, decency, and inferior Nature. 2. In Matter of Testimony to the Truths of Scripture, and for manifesting the Succession, Flourishing, and Harmony of Doctrines through all Ages of the Church, the Godly learned have justly ascribed much to the Authority and usage of the Ancient Churches. The study of the Doctrine and Rites whereof is justly called by the most Learned Primate of Ireland, A noble Study. I will conclude this particular with the words of St. Augustine, In those things, saith he, wherein the Holy Scripture hath defined nothing, Mos Populi Dei& instituta Majorum pro lege tenenda sunt, the Custom of Gods people and appointments of our Fore-Fathers must be held for Laws.  
Discipline and Fatherly Government( is requisite) to keep the Stones of the Building in Order, and to reduce all unto Decency and Beauty: for as God must be served with Holiness, so it must be in the Beauty of Holiness too, and Unity is the Beauty of the Church. Behold how pleasant it is for Brethren to dwell together in Unity.  
And here let me speak one word to you who are Church-Wardens, and are entrusted with the care of Presenting Disorders to the Governours of the Church; to beseech you to consider the Religion and Sacredness of an Oath, which in the House of God, and as you expect help from God, you promise to perform; with the Reverence of which Oath and Fear of Gods dreadful Name, were you so thoroughly affencted, as indeed you ought, we should not see what with grief we do, so great Contempt of Gods House and Ordinances, as if they were common and profane things; many scarce throughout the whole year making their Confession of sins to God in the Assembly of his People, many seldom or never hearing one Psalm of David, or Chapter of the Holy Scriptures red unto them; nay, many neglecting the whole Liturgy of the Church, and dropping in after the Sermon is begun, and though the Preacher hath taken sad pains for what in the Name of God he speaks unto them, having not yet the patience to stay till that piece of the hour be ended. Certainly David had learned more Reverence to the Lords House, I was glad when they said, Let us go into the House of the Lord, Psal. 122. 1. and so had Cornelius, who with his Kindred and near Friends waited for the coming of Peter, Acts 10. 24. and so had Solomon, who teacheth men to watch daily at the Gates, and to give attendance at the Posts of the Doors of Gods House, Prov. 8. 34. And the Prophecies foretell the like of Gods people under the Gospel, that they should call upon one another, and should go speedily to pray before the Lord, and to seek the Lord, Zach. 8. 21. I speak this in zeal to the Service of God, and to the Reverence of his Sanctuary, and beseech you by the Sacredness of your Oath, and for the fear of Gods Name to think upon it. Thus far the Pious, Learned, and Reverend Dr. Reynolds( now Lord Bishop of Norwich) in that his Sermon at the Visitation.  
FINIS.