A DEFENCE OF THE LITURGY OF THE Church of ENGLAND  
Being An Answer to the Book of Divers Ministers of sundry Counties, entitled, Reasons showing the Necessity of Reformation of the public Doctrine and worship &c.  
LONDON, Printed for T. Garthwait at the Little North-door of St. Pauls Church. 1661.   

The most learned Dr. SANDERSON hath this passage in his Preface to his Sermons Sect. 23.  
THe Reverend Arch-Bishop Whitgift, and the learned Hooker, men of great judgement, and famous in their times, did long since foresee, and accordingly declared their fear, that if ever Puritanism should prevail among us, it would soon draw in Anabaptism after it. At this Cartwright and other the advocates for the Disciplinarian interest in those dayes, seemed to take great offence: as if those fears were rather pretended to derive an odium upon them, then that there was otherwise any just cause for the same; protesting ever their utter dislike of Anabaptism, and how free they were from the least thought of introducing it. But this was onely their own mistake; or rather jealousy. For those godly men were neither so unadvised, nor so uncharitable, as to become Judges of other mens thoughts or intentions, beyond what their actions spoken them. They onely considered as prudent men, that anabaptism had its rise, from the same Principles the Puritans held; and its growth, from the same courses they took, together with the natural tendency of those principles and practices thitherward; especially of that one principle, as it was by them mis-understood, that the Scripture was adaequata agendorum regula, so as nothing might be lawfully done without express warrant either from some command, or example therein contained. The clue whereof, if followed on as far as it would led, would certainly in time carry them as far as the Anabaptists were then gone. But that it was no vain fear, the unhappy event hath proved; and justified them: since what they feared is now come to pass, and that in a very high degree. Yet did not they see the thread drawn out to that length, as we have seen it;( the name of Quakers, Seekers, &c. not then heard of in the world:) but how much farther it will reach none can say; for no man yet ever saw the bottom of the clue:   

A DEFENCE OF THE LITURGY OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND, Against The accusations of it contained in a Book entitled, Reasons showing the necessity of Reformation of the public. 1. Doctrine. 2. Worship. 3. Rites and Ceremonies. 4. Church-Government and Discipline, offered to the present Parliament by divers Ministers of sundry Counties in England.  
THis undertaking intends only the satisfaction of the Laymans conscience: And therefore it meddles not with the objections, which the forementioned Book produceth against the Articles of Doctrine, or against the Church-Government. For the exceptions against the former, all save one[ which I shall answer immediately,] do only insist upon the inconveniences, which the subscription to the Book of Articles is said to bring upon the Ministers; or upon the defectiveness of those Articles to be supplied by a Synod: and though all, that is there said against the Church-Government, were true; yet the common People might lawfully submit to it, commanding lawful things. The Ministers of England therefore being supposed able to satisfy themselves in that, which concerns themselves; or at least better then I presume to do: I shall only justify the LITURGY, in which the meanest people being Actors, they must needs become guilty, when they worship God after that form; if it were as bad, as the Petitioners would make it.  

OBJECTION.  
The only Objection against the Articles, which comes in the way of my design to answer, is in these words, Pag. 3. §. 5. That all being by Artic. 35. to admit both books of Homilies to contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine necessary for these times; men must subscribe to false Doctrines and Assertions.   

ANSWER.  
IT follows not. For the Homilies may contain Godly and wholesome Doctrines, though there be false assertions intermixed, especially if they be not ungodly and unwholesome: and he that subscribes to the former, doth not to the latter. For it is not said in the Article, that they contain nothing but godly and wholesome Doctrine; and the subscriber to the Article subscribes to no more then is said in the Article. He that saith, he believes the works of Saint Austin do contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine; doth not by those words subscribe to every mistake, that is found in his works: neither doth he, who saith, I believe that the Sermons made by Ministers of our Times contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, by these words subscribe to the errors, the contradictions, the slips of tongue, which the Authors themselves must confess do sometimes fall out in their Sermons, except they are infallible. As for the two instances, which the Petitioners give, I can see no false Doctrine in either of them. The first is this, One of the Homilies saith, that Plurality of wifes was by special prerogative suffered to the Fathers of the Old Testament, not for satisfaction of their carnal and fleshly lusts, but to have many children: because every one of them hoped and begged of God in their Prayers, that that blessed seed, which God promised should come into the world to break the Serpents head, might be born of his stock and kindred. All they have to say against this clause is only this. As if all did not knew out of what tribe Christ was to issue. But I answer,( 1.) Here is no argument in this, except it be a false doctrine to assert, that all the Fathers of the Old Testament knew not out of what tribe Christ was to issue. And if it be a false doctrine; it must also be proved to be so, before they can justly charge him that holds it, with subscribing to false doctrine. And when they have proved this, I can expect they should prove also the rest of that they have to say against the Liturgy, and not till then.( 2.) Though it were granted, thatafter the forbidding of intermarriages among the tribes, any man, who was not of the tribe of Judah, might know, that Christ should not spring from him; until some calamity or other accident in the Nation might cause the breaking of that law, and the mixing of the Tribes, which well might be supposed probable in time to come: yet the Fathers of the Old Testament, before the division of the Tribes, could not possibly know, that Christ should not spring from them, although they knew he should be born of Judah. For Reuben might hope, that some of his posterity might match with the posterity of Judah. Much less could the Fathers know it, who dyed before Judah was born. And the Homily doubtless intends them before Abraham; because they are said to expect Christ only under the notion of the womans seed, whereas afterward he was expected more under the title of Abrahams seed. And so you see, here is no false doctrine proved in the first instance, but only boldly affirmed. The second is this, That another Homily hath these words.[ The same Lesson doth the Holy Ghost teach us in sundry places of the Scripture] for this is alleged, tub. 4. verse 10 This expression doth evidently admit of these two gross errors.( 1.) That the Book of Tobit is to be taken for holy Scripture.( 2.) That it was indited by the Holy Ghost. I answer to the first, that Apocryphal books were by the ancients, and may be called Holy Scriptures or writings, though not caconical; both because they treat of holy things, and are used in holy offices. To the second, that it doth not follow from the cited expression, that this book was indited by the Holy Ghost; but only that the passage quoted out of this book is so. For if holy men by their lives are the Epistle of Christ, written by the spirit of Christ; much more properly may their holy words be termed so. So that this phrase hath a tolerable sound; especially in the ear of those, who are wont to say touching assurance, that there is an inward voice of the spirit ordinarily spoken to the believers soul, which is 〈◇〉, to be believed for its own evidence, as the Sun is seen by its own light, without any reflection upon those rational marks and signs, which distinguish the voice of the true spirit from that of a false. But again, though the Homily saith the Holy Ghost teacheth us in sundry places of Scripture such a Lesson, and afterward quotes a place out of Tobit; yet the Homily doth not say that the Holy Ghost doth teach it in that place. I confess the words are doubtful in their meaning; and he who takes them in the wrong meaning doth subscribe to a falsity: but the Petitioners do not conclude only that a man may be in danger of it, but that a man must subscribe to a false assertion in these words; which cannot be, unless he must needs take the words by the wrong handle; when they have a right one. Whereas it is lastly said, That though the Article tells us, that the Church doth not apply Apocryphals to establish Doctrine; this Homily applies these Apocryphal passages to confirm the Doctrine of Alms. I answer, every quoting of an Author to witness unto a Doctrine is not used for the establishment of it, as the word is intended to signify the binding of the Intellect to assent to it with a divine faith. For then the Apostle pins our faith upon Aratus his sleeve, when he quotes that sentence, For we are his offspring. If they reply, but in the Homily under debate the verse is quoted as from the Holy Ghost; they do only recur back, and so should I, if I should answer them. There is no more needful to be said pertinently to my present design, upon this subject; but only to take notice, that what they say, Pag. 5. against an enforced subscription to these Articles, doth hold as much against imposing the confession of faith, made by the Divines at Westminster, as the test of Orthodoxisme. For it was not thought sufficient, that a man should assent to that confession with this Proviso, so far forth as it is agreeable to the word of God: by which, say the Petitioners, it must needs be granted that the composers of them are admitted infallible, and their articles of equal authority with caconical Scripture. But then was then, and now is now.  
I proceed to what they say against the LITURGY. And first they call into question, whether it be the same intended in the Act of Queen Eliz. But this is to question the Queens privilege, by which it was set out. Again, whereas the Act saith there should be alterations made in it from that set forth by King Edward only in two or three sentences; they mention many alterations, though not in sentences, but in the directory for reading the Scriptures. And to reckon up these alterations is the greatest part of their task. But if all they mention were true; he that reads the Act may satisfy himself, finding it provided toward the end, that the Queens Majesty with the advice of the metropolitan might ordain and publish further Rites and Ceremonies.  
In that sheet inserted into their Book, they cry out against that Translation of the Psalms annexed to the Book of Common Prayer. But( 1.) There is no command in the Liturgy to use that Translation, rather then another.( 2.) If there be any other injunction to red that Translation; it may be lawfully done, notwithstanding all the Ertours imputed to it. For when it is objected, How then is nothing red, but the pure word of God, or that which is grounded upon it, which is promised in the Preface? I answer, How would it be, if the Translation of King James were only red? It is usual for men, that bear no good will to the Common Prayer-Book, to give the sense of their Text quiter contrary to the Import even of King James his Translation; and if so, the case of both these Translations is alike for kind, and differs in degree only, themselves being Judges. I know an able Divine of the Independent way, who preached several Sermons upon Zeph. 2.1. which he red, sift yourselves, or, examine yourselves; whereas the used Translation renders it, gather yourselves together. Indeed they instance a plain contradiction betwixt the two Translations in Psalm 105.28. They were not obedient, saith one: they rebelled not, saith the other. But you may find just such another contradiction betwixt the usual Translation, and the Original, in Isa. 9.3. Thou hast not increased the joy, saith one: thou hast increased it, saith the other,   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 20. They except against the reading of Tobit thus. In tub. the third, where mention is made that Sarah the daughter of Raguel had been married to seven husbands, whom Asmodeus the evil spirit had killed before they lay with her[ a likely matter!] yet was she reproached by her Fathers Maids for strangling them all.   

ANSWER.  
ANd why not a likely matter? Is such an interjection sufficient to confute an History, that commemorates extraordinary events? For there is nothing in the relation inconsistent with itself, to render it unworthy of an historical Faith. Again they go on in objecting against this Book, In tub. 3. v. g. it is said, Alms doth deliver from death and shall purge away all sin. What need then the blood of Christ? I might as well reason thus, if Jacob got the blessing by his savoury meat; what need then his fathers good will? Or thus, such a man is indemnified by having no hand in the Kings death; what need then the Act of Pardon? The blood of Christ itself cannot deliver from death, but by alms; taking it for an inward propension to charitable actions. Again they have this note upon the same Chapter, One Raphael telleth Tobit thus, I am Raphael one of the seven holy Angels, which present the prayers of the Saints. Whereas none but Christ doth present their Prayers; which is clearly false, if [ none] be understood of men as well as of Angels. For how many prayers of sick persons and others, are presented to God by the congregation? Is not seconding a Petition presenting it! When the people pray for David, that God would fulfil all his Petitions; do not they present his Petitions to God, and make intercession for him, as St. Paul bids us to do it for Kings? But if they mean by [ none] only no Angel; how doth it appear, that no Angel backs our Prayers? They put down, Rev. 8.3. as if it were a proof. But I red nothing in that place, but only that an Angel was seen presenting the prayers of the Saints to God. But what though one Angel did, doth it follow hence that another doth not? Suppose Christ were signified by that Angel in that vision; yet it doth not follow, that because he intercedes, therefore the Angels intercede not. Though he presents prayers; others may present them too, though not in the same manner; even as he is a Priest, and yet no body denies but that there are other Priests too, though not in the same sense. Though there be but one mediator by way of satisfaction to justice; yet it is manifest, that there are many by way of supplication to mercy. They go on, This Raphael was a lying either man or spirit, for he saith I am Azarias the son of Ananias. But I answer, the words signify no more but this necessary, I am in the shape of Azarias, or I go under the name of him, and am taken by every body for him, and I am no body but he. When St. John saw multitudes in white robes with Palms in their hands; no man can say, that the Elder lied, who  told him upon his question, these are they that came out of tribulation; because they were represented in that vision. And so also Raphael might say, he was Azarias, without a lie, whom he represented to Tobit in an apparition. But let it be never so gross a lie, it makes no more[ taken singly without other considerations, which the Petitioners urge not] against the use of that book; then that lie of Jacob, I am thy son Esau, makes against the book of Genesis. And the following passage of Judith is by themselves paralleled with the act of Simeon and Levy: and when they red other books of Scripture, which relate the delusions of lying spirits, or the errors of men misled by a blind zeal of God; they may as well, upon the account of this reason alone, be said to converse with Dunghills, as they unreasonably call this book for the bad things which it only makes an history of. These evil pranks[ as they call them] recorded both in caconical and Apocryphal books, are red in the Church for good ends. And if there were not good ends, even when the case seems to be approved in the book; the Holy Ghost would not have left on record the treachery of Jael toward Sisera, and join to it the hymn of a Prophetess which seems to applaud it.   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 22. §. 1. They find fault with the word Priest, because they find it not the title of a Minister in the New Testament.   

ANSWER.  
( 1.) NO more is either Minister or Presbyter, found in the new Testament appropriated to that office, which is styled in the Liturgy by the name of Priesthood. For we red of women beside Deacons, that are termed Ministers; and officers of the Synagogue and of civil Consistories were termed Presbyters.( 2.) Every Christian is termed Priest in the New Testament; and why may not a Minister?( 3.) Why may not a Minister of Christ be called a Christian Priest, as well as the day of Christ be called the Christian Sabbath? Since both these names are Jewish in their extraction, and Sabbaths are more plainly said to be done away then Priests; why should the latter be so violently contended against by those, which earnestly contend for the former?( 4.) Ministers of the Gospel are called Priests in Old Testament-prophecies of New Testament-times.( 5.) The English word [ Priest] is thought by learned men to be derived from [ Prester] a diminutive of [ Presbyter;] for Presbyter Johannes is the same with Prester John. And therefore seeing it signifies a Presbyter; they should rather find fault with the translators for giving this name to those, that ministered at the Jewish Altar, whom the French Translation calls Sacrisicateurs, then with the Liturgy for giving it to Christian Ministers, to whom properly it belongs. And as for the Greek and latin words, which are turned Priest; they signify only one, that hath to do in holy things. Now whereas they object, that this word doth connote a sacrifice: they cannot be ignorant, that the Ministers of the Gospel have as much sacrifice as Melchizedeck had, the Priest of the most high God, viz. Blessings, bread and wine, the sacrifice of praise, or the calvs of their lips. And therefore that which they say next, is a more sophism, if not an industrious one. For having premised, that this title is no way warranted by the word of God in the Pontisician sense; they assume, yet it is used above fifty times in our Liturgy. But they cunningly leave out that clause in the Pontifician sense. Therefore that their syllogism may proceed according to rule, the proposition must run thus: The word Priest is used fifty times in the Pontifician sense. And now it is as easily answered, as that paralogism of the devil would have been; if he had spoken out the whole sentence, which he seemed to quote. And therefore when they conclude, none but Papists use the word Priest, unless scoffers at Ministers, whom in derision they nick-name Priests: we must thank them for it, who fall out with the name, and have put this scoff into the Quakers mouth, who hath most of his weapons out of the Non-conformists shop, as Dr. Sanderson hath evidently discovered in his Preface to his last Edition of Sermons.   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 22. §. 2. It is said in one rubric, that the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel appointed for one Sunday shall serve all the week after. By virtue of this these in Cathedrals were red every day, albeit they had no Communion. But another rubric runs thus, the Collects, Epistles and Gospels to be used at the celebration of the Lords Supper. So that these two rubrics fight, &c.   

ANSWER.  
ASpirit of contradiction will reflect its own image upon any thing: otherwise what contradiction is there between these two injunctions, They shall be red at the Communion, and, they shall be red when there is no Communion? And when they gather from the first, that if they be red when there is no Communion, it is without warrant: they must needs except Holy days by virtue of the first rubric after the Communion, which requires all the service appointed for the Communion to be then red, to the end of the Prayer for the state of Christs Church, though there be no Communion. So that this Harmony results from both these rubrics joined together, that they are to be red on all Holy dayes, and on other dayes if there be a Communion, and that on those dayes the same should serve which served on Sunday.   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 23. § 3. The rubric before the general confession at the Communion runs thus, Then shall this confession be made in the name of all those that are to receive the holy Communion either by one of them, or by one of the Ministers. This gives liberty to Lay or private men to officiate, &c.   

ANSWER.  
SEeing it is lest at liberty to be made by one of the People or Minister, there can be no inconvenience in this except the Minister will. But when they say, that thus a lay-man shares in administering the Lords Supper; they condemn their Brethren, who sometimes require those, that come for the Sacrament, to make not only a general, but a particular confession both of their sins and experiences.  
Pag. 23. §. 4. They promise to speak more upon this Paragraph, when they come to the body of the book, and then I shall answer them.   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 23. §. 5. The rubric after the Communion saith, Every Parishoner shal communicate at the least three times in the Year: but in the exhortation before the Communion the Minister is to say, I bid you all that be present and beseech you, that you will not refuse to come being so lovingly called and bidden by God himself. Yet the foresaid rubric seems to dispense with Gods own invitation.   

ANSWER.  
GOds invitation calls 〈◇〉 them to come often: but how doth this injunction, thou shalt come at least thrice a Year, dispense with it? Be instant in Prayer, saith the Apostle: If a father saith to his child, pray at least when you go to bed or I will whip you; should this command be thought to dispense with the command of the Apostle, when on the contrary it exacts a measure of obedience to it? I require you to be in a fitting posture and to have an appetite to come often, saith the Church; but at least come thrice a Year, or you shall be punished: here is nothing said, which contradicts her self, or dispenseth with the command of God. When they urge the Primitive practise, of communicating at every solemn meeting; I doubt many, who say Amen to this Petition, condemn themselves for not administering once in many Years. They add, Why must Easter-day be one, more then any other Lords day; seeing every Lords day is celebrated upon the same account, viz. in memory of the Resurrection of our Lord? Answer, there was a good reason of this custom at the first appointment, that being all met together at once to put on the livery of their Lord, they might with joint consent openly profess and own before the heathens, that lived amongst them, whose retainers they were, which they did severally at other times. Therefore was one day appointed, in which all should communicate. But why should Easter-day be that high day since every Lords day, &c. By the same reason they might ask, why is thanks to be returned to God for delivering us from the Gun-powder Treason on the fifth of November, since we are every Sunday to give thanks for the benefits of Christ, amongst which redemption is one. Easter-day is not onely the Day of the Resurrection, because the first day of the week, as every other Sunday is; but also, because it is at the same time of the year, as near as can be calculated. Or if it were not, yet whereas other sundays are set apart to commemorate all that Christ did for us; this is set apart more peculiarly in memory of the Resurrection. They proceed, But where it is added in that rubric[ he shall also receive the Sacraments and other rites &c.] this is no other, but non-sense or worse. For What Sacraments are there else for a Communicant of the Lords Supper to receive? Is Baptism to be reiterated? are the Popish Sacraments to be recalled? &c. Here they are at the juggling mentioned before; leaving out something which would make it sense, namely these words which follow after in the same breath, according to the Order in this Book appointed. This being supplied is not the sense clear? Every Parishioner[ that is to be baptized,] shall be baptized, and every Parishioner[ that is to receive the Communion] shall receive the communion according to the order prescribed in this book. And he that is to receive any other rites, as confirmation, marriage &c. shall receive them according to the order appointed in this book. But they use another Sophistry which makes that which I have discovered, the harder to be discerned: That whereas, he shall communicate thrice a year, is one sentence; and He shall also receive the Sacraments and other rites according to order, is another sentence: they borrow these words [ thrice a year] from the first sentence, and make them to have influence upon the last. And so all their cavils against this rubric fall to the ground.   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 24. §. 6. The rubric before the Catechism concludeth thus.[ And that no man may think, that any detriment shall come to children by deferring of their confirmation; he shall know for truth, that it is certain by Gods word, that children being baptized have all things necessary for salvation, and be undoubtedly saved.] This rubric gives them more assurance of salvation, then ever God gives them. For if they be godly or wicked, it makes their salvation certain.   

ANSWER.  
THe intention of these words is plainly expressed, viz. to prevent a scruple, which might arise from deferring of Confirmation till the child come to years of discretion, as if the child had not all the ordinances, that are necessary without it. Now the known adequate intention of the speaker is to bound the sense of his words, if they are capable of bearing an untruth in a larger acceptation. Therefore they can import no more then this, that children baptized have all things necessary to salvation though they die without confirmation, as much as they have after it; and shall be as undoubtedly saved without it, as with it. They have all things necessary in the kind of means, and shall be undoubtedly saved, supposing they live an holy life according to their baptism; for otherwise neither could they be saved, though they were confirmed. And truly charity would put as handsome a construction upon these words, as upon the Apostles, that Baptism saveth; and understand neither the one nor the other of the washing with water alone, without an inward cleansing, when they are applied to such as are capable of actual sin and Repentance. So that these words ingenuously interpnted run thus, If one be baptized, and renounce not his baptism by an unchristian life; he shall undoubtedly be saved, although he should die before the opportunity of confirmation came: and when they conclude with this interrogation of a strong denial, Is this a truth? I answer, yea, and grounded upon the word of God.  
In the 6. Paragraph there is nothing objected, which concerns the lay-man to take notice of, but onely the last words, That persons are not bound to receive the communion above thrice a year by the rubric of the communion; and therefore need not receive on their marriage day, as they are required by the rubric after Matrimony. Was ever heard such a consequence as this? One place saith, thou shalt receive thrice a year; and the other saith, thou shalt receive on the day of marriage: Doth not this plainly require, that if the 3. times were before, there should be then a fourth; or if they were not before, that this time should[ if not make a 4th, yet at least] be one of the three?  
The like cavil they make pag. 25. §. 8. against these words of the Rubr. after the Communion of the sick, in the time of the Plague &c. when none can be gotten to communicate with the sick, for fear of infection, upon special request of the diseased, the minister may communicate with him alone. Against this they except, that the very nature of the Sacrament requires a public administration, because there must be a communion of more then two persons in the receiving of it. Answer. Why must it be public? because there must be more then two? may it not be private for all that? public and private are not distinguished by the number present, but by the place. Two, as well as three, may do an action in public; if the place be public: and ten as well as two, may do it in private; if the place be private. And why must there be more then two persons? doth not our Saviour Christ say, two or three? Their first reason is, because in the rubric after the public communion, it is said, that there shall be no communion except four or three at the least communicate. But they have found out the answer themselves, that this order concerns only public not private communions. That which they reply to it is nothing; That it appears not by the word, that there is any warrant or necessity for such communions. For neither doth the word deny that there may be such necessity; nor doth it prohibit to gratify, where it is; and a non-prohibition is a warrant, if it tend to edification; which they do not deny. To show there is no necessity, they quote the first communion after the sick, where the Curate is prescribed to instruct the sick man, that if through any just impediment, as lack of company, he receive not the Sacrament with the mouth; yet supposing he believe, repent, and be thankful, he doth eat and drink the body and blood of Christ profitably to his souls health. But I answer, that the rubric under debate comes after that last quoted, and is an exception from it. For if the sick person be not satisfied of this, that the Minister saith; though there be no simplo necessity, yet there may be a necessity to him: and therefore it is put down, that it must be done on the sick mans special request. Besides he may possibly pled, that he hath not an heart to repent, believe, and be thankful; but hopes these graces will be quickened by the use of such an operative means. So that there may be a necessity of it quoad hominem; though it be declared not necessary in itself, upon supposition that a man can repent &c. without it.   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 26. § 1. The first words of the Liturgy are these, At what time soever a sinner doth repent him of his sin from the bottom of his heart I will put all his wickedness out of my remembrance, saith the Lord. This is in the rubric before it called a sentence of Scripture and the place alleged is Ezek. 21.22. But that text runs otherwise in the Original and new Translation of the Bible, viz. If the wicked will turn from all his sins which he hath committed and keep all my statutes and do that which is lawful and right he shall surely live and not die, all the transgressions that he hath committed shall not be mentioned to him. Here is little harmony between the Service-book and Gods book.   

ANSWER.  
LEt any unprejudiced Person view the places, and see if there be not as exact an harmony betwixt them, as betwixt a Ministers prayer and the Lords prayer, or his doctrine and his Text. The difference is onely in Phrase; Repentance in one, and turning from evil and doing of good, which are the two parts of Repentance, in the other: putting them out of remembrance in the one, & not mentioning them in the other. How then can these Petitioners say that here is no harmony? especially when they are wont to tell the Anabaptists, that a consequence drawn from Scripture is Scripture; and careless auditors, that the Sermons they make according to the word of God, is the word of God. But the very first words, they say, have no warrant of them from the text: which I deny; because no time being limited, no time is excluded by the text. However no doubt but it hath warrant from other places of Scripture, as they themselves in all probability have many times interpnted them; That it is never too late to return to God from the bottom of the heart. They add, that it is dissonant from another Scripture, To day if you will hear his voice &c. But that Scripture doth not deny, but a man that heareth not to day, shall yet be saved if he hear to morrow: but only implies how dangerous it is to defer; not least a man should miss of pardon, if he repents sincerely, though lately, but least he should not repent at all, his heart being hardened by continuance in sin, or the day of death surprising him in the state of impenitence, when God will swear in his wrath that he shall not enter into his Rest. The same is clearly the sense of the other Scripture, which they in vain provoke to fall out with the sentence under consideration. To day while it is called to day, lest your hearts be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. They say further. That these words[ at what time so ever] sound, as if a man could repent when he lists; and therefore have no ground in the word of God. But they might as well say, that those words of Christ are groundless too, whosoever cometh to me I will in no wise cast him out. Which [ whosoever] includeth him that hath stood out all his life long; and therefore by their reasoning implies, that a man may repent when he lists. They go on, It is true this is seemingly put off thus,( The book speaks the sense although not the very words of the text.) But this is too frigid an answer to satisfy the objection: for it is said to be a sentence of Scripture, not an exhortation according to sense only. But I answer, that the word sentence, doth by the etymology and common use of it, appear to signify rather the sense, then the rigid words of a proposition. For sentence comes from sentio, and it is usual among expositors to writ, sententia Pauli, for the meaning of Paul; and sententia verborum, for the meaning of the words. And why may not that Scripture, which contains the same sense, be put down in the Margin of the Common prayer Book; as well as usually it is in the references of the Bible? Especially seeing the Apostles and Christ Jesus do quote Scriptures many times not in the same, but in very divers phrases; and add not onely, saith the Lord, but as it is written. For that which they urge in the last place, that it agrees not with the sense, but is contrary to it, therefore it is untrue and injurious to charge the Apostles with the like in alleging the old Testament in the New; hath been answered with a denial before, when I shewed that it agrees exactly with the sense of the place.   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 27. 2. That expression in the Confession viz. There is no health in us, is incongruous and improper; because most of the common sort understand not the true meaning &c.   

ANSWER.  
HOw oft have I heard this incongruous and improper expression used in extempore prayers; and yet no exception taken at it? That there is no soundness in us, but wounds, and bruises &c.   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 27. 3. After the first Lesson, Te Deum, or Benedicite, are to be red before the second Lesson; and so they interrupt the continued reading of the holy Scripture, which the Preface to that book would bear us in hand is provided against.   

ANSWER.  
I Shall take notice of this in the next Section, where they complain of the same interruption by the Antiphonies and Responds. Their next argument against Te Deum is, that it is in use among the Papists. But what if it be? Because reformation hath weeded out the Tares, must the wheat be plucked up also? For they have not a word against the truth, goodness, or usefulness of this Hymn. Touching the Canticle called Benedicite, beginning O all ye works of the Lord, they have this note. Whereas the song is said in the Title of it in the Apocrypha to be the song of the three holy children, which followeth in the third of Daniel after this place[ And they walked in the fire praising God.] This is an abusing and belying of the caconical text in Dan. 3. in which there is no hint of any such thing.   

ANSWER.  
WHen they affirm, This is a belying &c. they do not sure mean, that the saying of this song is a belying of the book of Daniel. For when I say the words, I do not say the Title, nor call it A song of the 3. children &c. If they mean that this title, which is given it in the Apocrypha, doth bely caconical Daniel; that is nothing to us. Besides, wherein appears the lie? For he that made this title, possibly might have before him some copy of the book of Daniel, into which this song was inserted; and so to him it might be onely a falsehood, and not a lie, to say it follows in the third Chapter. But they cannot conclude, that this was not the song of the three children, because, it is not mentioned in Daniel. For Philo Judaeus relates many passages of Moses, which are not down in the Books of Moses; and yet Mr. Burroughs makes use of them, writing of Moses his self-denial.   

OBJECTION.  
§. 4. The many Antiphonies and Responds have no pattern or warrant in the word of God.   

ANSWER.  
YEs, that they have, For the Angels cried to to one another Holy, Holy. And when miriae went forth with the women in the Solemnity to praise the Lord, she answered them and said, Praise ye the Lord, &c. And when some of Davids singers were appointed to use the Cymbal, some the Harp, some the Psaltery, and others the voice; it is not probable that they sung all at once and together. Besides if it were granted, that such a way of singing was not then in use; yet, as they think they keep to the example of the first celebration, though they do not lie at the Lords table but sit, because they keep the Table-posture which is now in use, and may well think themselves excused, though they do not sing the same tunes, which David set his Psalms for; so we by the same reason may follow the pattern of Davids singers, though we do not sing the same way but by alternate courses, that way of singing being in common use now. For though it had no Pattern; yet it hath a warrant for all their denial, because it was not forbidden. For a circumstance of worship, being not forbidden, is confessed by the most rigid non-conformists to be warranted; and this can be no more, then a circumstance. And indeed by the same reason whereby they ask a Pattern or warrant in Scripture for singing or praying by turns, yea and by much more reason the Quaker may demand a pattern or warrant in Scripture for Cuffs & ribbons, and such like punctilio's, which it were beneath the Authority & Majesty of Scripture to take cognizance of. But as I observed before, so this Paragraph forceth me to do it again; that the Quakers do but improve those indiscrete principles, which wiser men[ but such as serve an Hypothesis] do assert for their own ends, but cannot endure to have them urged against themselves. For although they will not endure, that others should do any thing in Divine worship, which they have not a command or example for in Scripture; they themselves will not be tied in the same bonds, wherewith they oblige others. For when they receive the communion sitting, and at noon, and have no widows in their Churches; this is contrary to example: and when they salute not one another with an holy kiss, nor set apart something for the poor on the first day of the week, nor anoint the sick with oil; this is contrary to a command. And if that which is contrary to example and precept, be lawful, when the case altereth and the reason ceaseth; much more is that lawful, which onely hath no precept or pattern, but is opposite to none.  
They next ask How these things can be done in Faith? Why not? For to what article of our Creed are they contrary? But if by Faith they understand[ in the sense of those words, what is not of Faith is sin[ a belief that what is done is lawful; then they may be well done in faith, because I have proved them lawful, being no where forbidden. And whereas they say it must be accounted will-worship; I answer, that the will-worship, which St. Paul finds fault with, consists not in using such forms of worship, which are nowhere prescribed in the word, but in placing holinesse in that which is not made holy by a divine institution, but left indifferent; or in placing unholiness in that which is not made unholy by a divine prohibition but left indifferent, as those did who were subject to ordinances, Touch not, taste not, handle not, of whom the Apostle speaks in that place Col. 2. & if so; I doubt the accusers are more guilty of this fault then the accused. For the accused, who are rightly informed, place not any intrinsical holiness in these Responds, but use them only because they judge them incentives of devotion, or because they are prescribed by them whose Office it is in public administrations to determine what is most conducible to edification. But the accusers place an unholiness in them, and say Respond not, across not, kneel not; which is parallel to, Touch not, taste not, handle not, the genuine voice of the will-worshipper. They are upon it again, that these Responds are to be excepted against, they are so frequent in the Mass-book. But 1. Those who compiled this Liturgy, had as great an Antipathy to the Massbook[ though more wisely moderated] as these Petitioners can pretend to. For several of them opposed it to the blood. 2. Such reasonings as these, It is in the Mass-book, ergo not to be endured; are the greatest commendations of the Mass-book. For when we fall out with it, for that in it, which is lawful, we give the adversary an handsome occasion to think, that we are as unreasonable, when we condemn that in it which is unlawful. A wrestler must get in to him, that he would overthrow: And we must come as near in our concessions, as truth will give leave, to those that we would confute. They lastly argue from the preface to the book of Common Prayer, which saith, that the reading of the holy Scripture is therein so set forth, that all things shall be done in order, without breaking one piece thereof from another, and for this cause be cut off Antiphonies, Responds, Invitatories, and such like things as did break the continual course of reading the Scriptures. But it is clear to him that will red the Preface, that the composers aimed onely at such an interruption, as was in use before, when a book of Scripture was often begun to be red, but never red. For so they express themselves in the former part of the Preface, and in the words immediately preceding mention is made of the Calendar, as a remedy of that interruption they intend. So that the Preface finds fault onely with such an interruption, as is inconsistent, not with such an one as stands with the ends of the Calendar, that so much of the Bible should be red over once a year. Now notwithstanding that interruption by the Antiphonies &c. which the Petitioners pled against; more of the Bible will be red every year according to the rule of the Common Prayer-Book, then there would by following the appointment of the Directory.   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 28.5. If the Litany must be red, why must the praying part be performed so much by the people? &c. There is no ground for this in Scripture; yet we must be made to believe, that there is nothing in the Liturgy but what is evidently grounded upon the word.   

ANSWER.  
IF any would see the expediency of these things; others have written on it. My design is onely to show their lawfulness: for if they are lawful, a Christian may use them with a safe conscience; yea must, when he is enjoined by those whose office it is to discourse of the expedience of them in a convocation. That belongs not to a private man, but to pray God to direct the officers of the Church, and onely to inform his own conscience concerning the lawfulness of that which they prescribe. This being premised, I conclude contradictorily to that assertion of theirs, That there is no ground in Scripture for such a way of praying. For that is evidently grounded upon the word, which is prescribed by lawful authority, and is no where forbidden in the word, as this kind of praying under question is not. They next ask, wherefore that clause in the Litany[ From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities] is left out? I answer, To obey is better then sacrifice; and to submit to the use of a more defective Liturgy lawfully commanded, is better then to use a more complete one in disobedience. I shall not therefore inquire, why this petition is left out; but charitably believe no less then dutifully, that there was a reason, and for ought I know this might be it. That this Litany being appointed for a standing form of Prayer, ought to contain no Petitions but such as are seasonable at all times. Now who knows how soon the Bishop of Rome may lay aside his Tyranny and his detestable enormities, upon which this Petition would soon grow out of date. That which concludes this Section, and is the whole of the next, hath been answered already; insisting onely upon alterations made in this book from that, which was in use in K. Edwards time.  
The 29. Pag. §. 7. Begins with the same objection concerning the corrupt Translations, which was answered before, and is of force in a measure, though not so great, against the Translation of K. James. They next insist upon that, which they had mentioned before, the answer whereof I deferred till this Section. Their words are these, It is too too palpable that in the Prayers and proper prefaces for Christmas day and Whitsunday, there are some things not onely uncertain, bat false, yea impossible to be true; and therefore not evidently grounded on the word of God. In the Collect for Christmas day, and seven dayes after, we must say to God, that he hath given Christ this day to be born &c. On what Scripture is this evidently grounded, that he was born that very day, viz. December 25? I answer, when a Minister in his extempore Prayer on the 5. of November hath these words or the like, Thou, who this day didst deliver us; on what Scripture is this evidently grounded, that the deliverance was given on that very day? and yet the thanksgiving itself is grounded on the word of God. I wonder, that wise men should thus wish to die with the Philistines, and pull down the 25. of December on the head of the 5. of November. For I suppose they are as willing to keep that day and put up that thanksgiving, as others. But they come with a greater reserve, If it did appear so, viz. that Christ was born on the 25. of December.] how can we say the same without gross lying to God seven other dayes more; seeing he was born but once, and on one day only? Answer, Let it be according to their mind, that Christ was not born on the 7. dayes after, nor yet on that day itself, taking the words in their proper sense; yet it can be no lye to say, he was born on that day, in such a sense, as is here known to be meant. For words, that signify one thing in propriety of Language, do signify not only a divers, but a clean contrary thing, in another sense; and if that sense be notorious, it is no lie. Doubtless he is a God, saith Elijah of Baal. He  told no lye, because all knew his meaning, that he was no God. But to bring this nearer to our purpose, might not the Jews, when they kept the Feast of Passover, say to God; we thank thee for saving us this day from the destroying Angel: and yet the Passover in probability would not fall out on the same day of the month in many years? By the same reason, though Christ was not born on the 25. of December, yet it may be said then, we thank thee for the birth of Christ on this day: the meaning being notoriously known to be this, for the birth of thy son on that day, for the commemoration of which this day is hallowed, or set apart. So then it being no lie on Christmas-day, though Christ should have been born on any other day of the month; neither can it be a lie on the 7. dayes following. For to perfect this answer in the words of Mr. Sparrow in his Rationale; It's manifest, that the Church doth not use the word Day for a natural day of 24. hours, but in the usual acceptation of it in holy Scripture, where by the word day is signified the whole time designed to one and the same purpose, though it last several natural dayes. Thus all the time, which God appoints to the reclaiming of a sinner by merciful chastisements or threatenings, is termed the day of their visitation. He gives other instances, and concludes; In like manner all that time, which is appointed by the Church for the thankful commemoration of the same grand blessing, for the solemnity of one and the same feast, is as properly called a day, and all that time it may be said daily, to day while it is called to day, as well as all our life, St. Paul saith, it is called, Hodiè, to day. You see then, how little cause they have to bestow such soul language upon this part of the Liturgy; calling it a lying to God, & an horrible abusing of God. But God forbid, that any son of the Church of England should be so ill bread, as to give them reviling for reviling.   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 29. §. 8. After the proper Prefaces at the Communion follows this, Therefore with Angels and Archangels &c. Here is another uncertainty, to say nothing of the untruth of it, for the Scripture never speaks of more Archangels then one.   

ANSWER.  
( 1.) WEre the pretended uncertainty granted; yet are not more uncertain things then this, usually uttered in extempore prayers?( 2.) This Hymn doth not say, there are Archangels: but onely, taking it as probable, saith we with them do magnify God; and such a concent with them, upon supposition they are, is certainly grounded on the word of God.( 3.) Archangel signifies no more then a chief Angel: now, if there be the least degree of superiority betwixt Cherubim and Seraphim, there are chief Angels. And that distinction of Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, will infer so much, if it be not restrained to earthly dignities, as it seems by the context it ought not, Col. 1.16. That are in heaven, and that are in Earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones &c.( 4.) If that, which the Petitioners do here confidently assert, be true, that Christ is an Archangel; then it is manifest, that there are two Archangels at the least. For we red of another Archangel besides him. 1 Thes. 5. where it is said, that Christ shall descend with the voice of an Archangel and the sound of the Trumpet. Now then except this voice of an Archangel be the voice of Christ [ and then it were a strange expression at the first sight] it is plainly asserted in this place, that there is another beside him. Indeed our Translation reads it, the Archangel, as if there were but one: but seeing the Article 〈◇〉 is not prefixed; it is to be rendered an Archangel, unless it were otherwise known, that there are no more then one, which is not known but is under enquiry. But to put all out of doubt, we red of an Archangel besides Christ in the Epistle of judas, even Michael, who striven with the Devil about the body of Moses. There is no way to evade this, but by saying that Christ was an Angel before his coming in Flesh, I mean not in respect of nature, but of title, as the word signifies an office, but that could not be, for his incarnation was the first step of his minoration: till then he was only in the form of God, whereas in this title he is in the form of a servant, since they are all ministering spirits. Besides it's said, he durst not bring against the Devil a railing accusation; which is a term too low for him, who is God blessed for ever, to say he dares not sin. And lastly, he said to the Devil, The Lord rebuk thee: whereas, if it had been the Son of God before the state of humiliatioh, he would have said, I the Lord rebuk thee ..   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 30. §. 9 In one of the prayers after the Communion, it is prayed that those things, which for our unworthiness we dare not, and for our blindness we cannot ask; vouchsafe to give us &c. This is a contradiction, for while we say we dare not ask, we do ask.   

ANSWER.  
IF figurative speeches be taken properly; no marvel though there be found contradictions, or non-sense in them all. Now here is clearly a Rhetorical figure in this prayer, and itis called 〈◇〉, or, Praeteritio, ubi quaedam simulatè dicuntur praetermitti quae tamen disertè memorantur, when some things are feigned to be past over, which yet are eloquently expressed. There are many examples of it in common speech, and in the best Authors, both human and Divine. Cic. pro Pomp. Sinite hoc loce, Quirites, praeterire me nostram calamitatem, quae tanta fuit, ut eam ad aures L. Luculli non è praelio nuntius, said ex sermone rumour afferret. i. e. I will say nothing, O Romans, by your leave, of our overthrow, which was so great, that it was brought to the ears of L. Lucullus, not by a messenger out of the battle, but by a rumour arising out of the common talk. The Orator saith, he would not mention that overthrow, which yet he expresseth with the greatest significancy imaginable; so great, that none were left to bring the General himself the news, till the common rumour first informed him. You see then an example in the best of profane writers, who sometimes saith he will speak nothing of a subject, which he bestows whole pages upon. You shall see the same in the best of divine Authors. For when our Saviour saith to his disciples, I do not say that I will pray to the Father for you; Dr. Goodwin, and others, no good friends to the common Prayer, do gather from those words a strong promise, that he would pray the father for them. By the same reason the Petitioners might say, there is a contradiction in his words. Besides there are degrees of daring, and not daring; so that they may both consist together in graduremisso: For Hope and Fear, though of a most advers nature, yet are like a Prisoner and the soldier that keeps him, tied together in one chain, saith Seneca. So then that phrase signifies no more then this: we beg of thee those great mercies, which are so stupendously great, we cannot ask them without fear and trembling. It is but such a strain of Devotion as that of the Publican, who would not lift up his eyes to heaven, and yet did in that sense wherein David saith, I will lift up my eyes to the hills &c. Or like that of Ezra, who saith, I am ashamed to lift up my face to thee for our iniquities are gone over our heads; and yet he did it while he was ashamed to do it. David also saith, my iniquities have taken hold on me, so that I am not able to look up; and yet he looks up with an eye of expectation in the very next words. So that there is no contradiction; if the sentence broken off, where they break it off. But the book goes on thus, Vouchsafe to give us for the worthiness of Christ. Now as the Apostle saith, that at the same time, he was both weak and strong; weak in himself and strong in Christ: so at the same time we may be bold to ask, and be not bold to ask; not bold by reason of our address, and yet bold by reason of the worthiness of Christ, which two different respects are expressed in the Prayer. Indeed the Petitioners take notice of this answer, but then bid us take this reply. If our own unworthiness causeth us not to dare to ask; why do we pray else where for ought else at all? But this is no reply, but onely a repeating of that which hath been already answered; and shall be now again with the same answer, That we do else where pray for ought else, because though our unworthiness causeth us not to dare to ask, yet the consideration of Christs worthiness supervenes and gives us boldness, by which we ask some things in particular, and all things in general.   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 30.10. In the second prayer at public baptism we pray that Infants coming to baptism may receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration. How can this be?   

ANSWER.  
HOw can that be, which St. Paul saith to the same purpose, that God according to his mercy saveth us by the washing of water and the renewing of the holy Ghost? What is salvation, but saving us from sin chiefly? and wherein consists that but in remission of sin partly? So that when the Apostle saith, salvation is received by regeneration; These Petitioners say, no, one piece of salvation is not. Mark next how they argue, Remission of sin is not received by spiritual Regeneration, but by and from the blood of Christ. Is there any thing in this Argument, but only Petitio Principii? For if there be, it must lie in a supposition, that if it be by Christs blood, it cannot be by regeneration, and consequently that these two are opposite and not subordinate; and they might as well say, the bread is not cut by the knife, but by the hand. What though without shedding of blood there is no remission? must it therefore be false, that without holiness no man can see God? Both are requisite, The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin: but it's through the washing of water and renewing of the holy Ghost. How rashly then do they conclude, that except we away with this expression; we are more for mans falsehood, then Gods truth.  
§ 11. They object against an answer in the Catechism, which is dubious and may be ill interpnted. But since they charge no deeplier, I shall save my reply. For in doubtful sayings the best sense should be taken; and no Catechism or confession of faith can be put down in such clear terms, but some, say they, can subscribe it, if they have liberty to take it in their own sense, without revoking any opinion of their own. They object against another answer of the Catechism thus, where it is demanded[ why are Infants baptized when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them, i.e. Faith and Repentance?] The answer is this,[ Yea they do perform them by their sureties] which is a mere tale. For however the sureties promise these in behalf of the Infant; yet it was never red nor heard of in Scripture, that one man Repented or believed in the name or room of another. Answer, The Infant may be said to perform them so far, as he is capable of it; and no more is required. Certainly, when these Petitioners deal with the Anabaptists, they will argue otherwise; granting that faith & Repentance are required to baptism, and yet not denying that children are to be baptized: both which could not consist, except they had these graces virtually, though not formally. And where as they urge, that many sureties themselves are not true believers; I answer, no more are many adult persons, who yet are to be baptized, if they are professed believers; and this sentence that Infants perform the conditions by their sureties, can bear no other sense, but that they professedly perform them, or rather a profession of faith and repentance is a real performance of the requisites in the person to be baptized. So that a considering man will see nothing in this cavil, but what may become an Anabaptist, & makes as much against the Directory as the Liturgy.   

OBJECTION.  
Pag. 31. § 12. Speaking of the Commination they have these words, To which all the people are required to say Amen; whereby many of them are necessitated to curse themselves.   

ANSWER.  
( 1.) EVery man ought to wish in general, that all final impenitent sinners may be cursed. For else he hath not an heart according to Gods heart, and delighteth not in that righteousness, wherewith God judgeth the world. Indeed we ought, as God doth, to will all men to be saved; if they accept of Gods gracious terms: If not, we are to will their damnation. But( 2.) The sentences themselves have not the form of a curse, but onely of an assertion; being indicative, not optative: not cursed be; but, cursed is such an one. And whereas they stick upon the Amen, as if in that word the people wished those evils to themselves; it cannot be. For if, Amen, be joined to a wish; it consents, and saith, so be it: But if it be annexed only to an affirmation; it doth no more then assent, and say it is so. Yea this last is the first sense of the word; since it properly signifies verily, or truly. But what should I spend words about this frivolous exception, when( 3.) It would have been of as much force against this custom among the Jews, as it is against this custom among us. For though the Petitioners show several differences between these two, in respect of place and persons; yet such differences cannot make the Act lawful to them, and unlawful to us. For what though it was done then in a Mount? why is it not as lawful in the Church? may a man curse himself in a mountain and not in a valley? And what though it was pronounced then by the people? Why may not the people as well hear it from a Minister, and say Amen to it? They seem to fetch an Argument from the duty of Aaron and his sons, which they say was at all public assemblies of the congregation for worship to bless the congregation. But( 1.) the place they quote for it, Num. 6.23. &c. mentions not any such thing, as that it should be their constant duty in all assemblies of the congregation.( 2.) The forms of blessing put down in that place signify no more; then those prayers, which the Minister puts up with and for the people in the very office of the commination.( 3.) After he hath cursed[ or rather pronounced cursed] all final impenitents; he may when he hath done, bless the particular persons there present, not being able to know that any of them are such. So that there is no contradiction betwixt this office of a Minister and the office of Aaron and his sons. They go on, For Ministers of the Gospel then, whose Office it is to be messengers of Peace, to be employed and that often in cursing the people, as a part of his Office and of public worship; is such an human, & unchristian-like invention, as hath no warrant from the word of God. Answer, Was not Christ the messenger of peace? and yet we find him on a sudden leaping from Gerizim to Ebal, changing his dialect in the compass of a verse from blessing to cursing, from Blessed are ye that mourn, to, Wo be to you that laugh now, which sentence hath more of the form of a curse, then the sentences objected against, as hath been shown. And lest they should pick out any prerogative in the person of Christ, which might be pretended to alter the case, it is usual in the Apostles, Judgement without mercy to him, that shows no mercy. Tribulation, anguish &c. to every soul of man that doth evil. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha. But sometimes Argumentum ad hominem is more forcible, then ten Argumenta ad rem. Therefore let the Pititioners remember that Curse ye Merosh, hath been retained in the Pulpit, where was neither Common Prayer in the Pew, nor Priest in the Living. Indeed in the Parenthesis of that clause, which is now opposed, they grant, that a Minister may curse this or that particular offender, being according to Christs ordinance convicted, and still remaining refractory and impenitent. To which I reply, much more may such an one described onely in the general be cursed. For no particular Person is capable of the curse, but upon account of that general quality, to which the curse is due primarily of itself. If therefore Thomas may be cursed, because he is an obstinate sinner, although possibly he may repent; much more may all obstinate sinners in general be cursed, upon condition that they are finally obstinate, which is understood in the commination. Besides the sentence of the Church may err; and think Thomas is guilty, when he is not: But the spirit of God cannot err, which pronounceth every finally impenitent sinner accursed; nor can the Minister err, when he saith the same general words without application of them to any individual. They conclude this point thus, The commination itself saith, that the Discipline was to put notorious sinners to open Penance in Lent; and that in stead thereof, till the same discipline may be restored, it is thought good to use this; which shows plainly, that this is no other then a later spawn of Antichrist. Answer, Where lies the logic of this inference? Is it in the word Later? If so; then to make it good, whatsoever is later must be granted Antichristian: and then many of themselves have confessed Layelders to be Antichristian, which I would be loth to do. Is it in this, that the commination comes in the room of that Discipline? If so; then it is Antichristian, either because that discipline was bad and this supplieth the place of it. But what hurt can there be in putting notorious sinners to open penance in Lent? Or else it is Antichristian, because that discipline was good, and the commination, which is substituted, is not so good. That is confessed in the Liturgy: But the using of a less good, till the greater can be procured; is no more Antichristianism, then going up the stairs step by step is falling down headlong.  
They end their exceptions against the Liturgy thus, More might be said of sundry other particulars in the Service-book: but we suppose that he that shall duly weigh that which hath been already noted, will think these enough. And I conclude my vindication in like manner, more might be said in answer to every objection: But he, that will duly weigh what hath been already noted, will think such a punctual answer to such weak cavils, to be more then enough. Were it not that the inconsiderate vulgar are taken with the least show of a reason, as we see in the Quakers Proselytes; I should accuse myself for this prodigality of time and labour, though I owed to God an account of neither.  
The next head, of Rites and Ceremonies, would fall under my present design, the common people being actors in many of them; but that the Petitioners have saved me that Labour by their ingenuous confession, pag. 36. in these words. We taking it for granted, that they are in themselves 〈◇〉, or things indifferent; do humbly pray it may be considered, that being such they ought not to be imposed on those, who cannot be fully persuaded in their own minds, that they are lawful. This concession being all I aim at, I will not contend for that which is freely granted.  
FINIS.