ALthough R. S. be the two first letters of Rebellion and Schism, we shall not deter­mine they signifie 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 arriv'd at such dexterity (as you see) in the art of Disputation. He is so well vers'd 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 Frontispice 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 Superiours and Informers. But I shall not suffer my pen to rake into the filthy ulcers of this feeble Lazar, but content my self 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 design'd to defie 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 combin'd 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] [Page 3] 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 [sed 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 voce) 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 turn'd, he is quite 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 wrong'd him at the entrance of his Undertaking, to make him read Non-conformist instead of Now-conformist.’

A very remarkable Observation! but the Doctor was aware 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; whilest Mr. Crofton doth humbly consult whe­ther [Page 4] his Conformity may consist with his Ministerial Of­fice, and modestly offer his Notions to Argumentation; the one sheweth his fear of sin, whilest 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 your self the Instance) that was not heartily 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 bloud. 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 your selves; 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 your selves 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 it self cannot deny it without blushing. Whom Mr. Crofton consulted in this case I know not: but when men do im­pannel [Page 5] 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 shew 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 re­proched. [How much of truth is in this your presumption we shall see anon; but you adde] 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, [Page 6] 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 write 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 Logick. A fallacy, Ignora­tio Elenchi, hath brought him into this paroxism and di­stemper; for the position (against which the Doctor com­bates) is this, (and this Replicant doth in cool bloud ac­knowledge that the Doctor hath truly transcribed it, and observed the state thereof) That stated Forms for the cele­bration of solemn publick 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 Parson 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 [Page 7] 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 Contro­versie) for peace and orders sake; and the Doctors Argu­ment was this:

What I may lawfully be determined to by my own private judgment, that I may lawfully be determined to by the judg­ment of my Superiours: But to stated forms for the celebra­tion of Gods solemn publick worship, composed, (and for the very words, terms and expressions) digested into method, I may lawfully be determined by my own private judgment: There­fore to stated forms for the celebration of Gods solemn publick worship, composed and (for the very words, terms and expressi­ons) digested into method, I may lawfully be determined by the judgment of my Superiours.

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 [Page 8] the Impostor, thus to disguise your self, 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 acknowledge, you play the prevaricator your self, (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 publick worship, composed and (for the very words, terms and expressions) di­gested into method, I may lawfully be determined by mine own private judgment.] This he denies. But how now, Mr. Replicant? May I not be determined by my own private judgment? How doth this cotten with your Answer to the major, (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 Superiours never so strong; though my dim light [Page 9] seeth not more, it seeth more truly and more directively than their brighter.] Thus the Replicant preacheth in commen­dation of his own private judgment, when he is returning an Answer to the major; 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 Superi­ours, or by the resolution of my Equals and Inferiours, or by my own private judgment. 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 Superiours to this effect; and that we should be de­termined by the Resolutions of our Equals or Inferiours, I am sure is much more unreasonable than the former: It follows therefore, That (unless we stand to the courtesie of some Familiar Spirit to suggest the Form to us) we must be determined herein by our own private judgment, 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 judgment when he pleads for the liberty of his own invention to compose and modifie his own forms of pub­lick worship, yet he denieth his judgment a power to deter­mine a stated Form, semper eadem, always the same, for [Page 10] 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 judgment 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 Superiours have furnished us with variety, (and can adde 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 judgment 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 Creeple. In the last, the judg­ment must needs be erroneous, to be corrected before it be obeyed.] To as much of this discourse as is intelligible I answer, That if the Cripple acteth sanâ mente, it is his own judgment 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 verifie the truth of our Proposition against his groundless denial of it. If he lays aside his Crutch before he can walk stedfastly with­out [Page 11] it, or change it for a worse, then he doth not act sanâ mente, he is not determined by his judgment, but follows the wild rovings of a giddy fancy like a frantick 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 judgment must needs be erroneous, to be corrected before it be obeyed] but pass on presently to the proof of the major, viz. What I may lawfully be determined to by my own private judgment, that I may lawfully be determined to by the judg­ment of my Superiours. This our Replicant doth deny, and it is thus enforced;

What I may lawfully be determined to by a weaker judg­ment, to that I may lawfully be determined by a judgment that is stronger. But to stated Forms &c. I may lawfully be de­termined by a weaker judgment, viz. mine own. Ergo to sta­ted Forms, &c. I may lawfully be determined by a judgment that is stronger, viz. my Superiours.

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 laugh'd 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 major in the sequel, I may be determined by the weaker judgment; and it will not thence follow, that I must therefore be determined by the stronger judgment.] Here the Replicant turns [may] in­to [Page 12] [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 judgment 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 concern'd 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 judgment 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 Superiours? 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 judgment but the stronger. I'le adde 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, [Page 13] 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 Superiours, 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 Superiours, [Though my dim light seeth not A Word, pag. 4. more, it seeth more truly and more directively than their brighter.] This shews 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 your selves? 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.[Page 14] 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 [...], 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, etiamsi cupiat ma­ximè.] But who doth debar you the use of your judg­ment of discretion? or who requires from you a brutish ob­sequiousness to their naked prescriptions and determinations without reason? If you value the judgment and piety of that learned Prelate, why do you not follow it in your pra­ctice? Certainly in matters doubtful and indifferent he re­solves, that every mans discretion should determine him to subscribe to the judgment and orders of his Superiours. You cannot be ignorant of his constant practice 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; Sive igitur potestatem obligantis, sive qualitatem ceremoniarum, sive modum obligationis specte­mus, Eccl [...]sia Anglicana justissimè obligat ad ceremonias.

But from the major R. S. proceeds to deny the minor, viz. That to stated Forms, &c. I may lawfully be determined by a weaker judgment, (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 [Page 15] you in general, That the private judgment of a single person may be stronger than the judgment 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 duo quàm unus oculus; which may be rendered in the words of Solomon, In the multitude of coun­sellours Prov 11. 1 [...]. 24. 6. there is safety. But he proceeds to instance, [Have you never read 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 read 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 Messias, and silence the holy Gospel, you may be allowed to be singular in your zele, and start up the Gama­liel in the Convocation of Scribes and Pharisees. For Paphnutius, I wonder you should set his single judgment in opposition to that whole Council; for though he first took up the debate, yet the story tells us, the whole Council concurr'd 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 [Page 16] 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 broched from time to time by single Presbyters, or others.

But R. S. goes on, and tells the Doctor, If (you have) not (read 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 tree; and thus he proves it, ‘[Mr. Crofton argues, Ministerial modification of publick 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 [Page 17] to be the formal act of the Ministerial office. Mr. Crofton I know (say you) will admit your action in the genus; an inferiour 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 inquired; and what is the formalis ratio of the Ministerial office in the ministration of solemn publick 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 fulfill 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 Logick, 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, [Page 18] 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 publick worship by personal abilities.] To this I answer,

1. If by ministerial modification of publick worship he had meant onely the performance of the duties of publick 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 imployed 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 publick worship he means the pri­vate composition of Forms for publick 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 judgment when he pleads for the liberty of his own Invention to compose and mo­difie his forms of publick worship.] He saith, he doth not ex­clude his judgment, 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 [Page 19] 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 plead for, I hope for the future they will lay aside their pretension 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 Superi­ours, whom God hath set over us? I say, as to the for­mal act of Ministration; for the worship or service of God ad­ministred 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 adde [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 [Page 20] Doctor said truly, to make the modification of the act the act it self, 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 adde 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 publick 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 [Page 21] magisterial confident say so of this great Dictator.

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 it self 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 publick 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 publick 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 shew that there was ever such a method and order without the very modifica­tion and form it self, 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.

[Page 22] 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 publick 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 publick worship by personal abilities is the formal act of the Ministerial office, is absurd.

The major 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 publick 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 publick 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 adde 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 [Page 23] times runs into in his conceived prayers, or by interrupting and disturbing them in the performance of Gods publick worship, that is not the formal act of the Ministerial office.

But the modification of publick 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 publick worship.

Therefore the modification of publick worship by perso­nal abilities is not the formal act of the Ministerial office.

The major cannot be denied without scandal.

The minor is evident; for either the people do not joyn in the Forms of publick 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 publick worship. Or else they do joyn 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 publick judgment 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 [Page 24] Preaching and Praying; yet this is inevitable, (saith R. S.) if the people have a publick judgment by special office of the Ministerial mode of Gods worship.] But it is not the peoples want of a publick judgment by special office that will keep them from the guilt; their judgment 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 publick 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 [...]. 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 Tree, 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 [Page 25] 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 touch'd 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 Governour 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 [Page 26] 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 Controversie in hand; but you adde] ‘not communicated to, but composed by pretenders to Authority? making Ministers to have no work to do, qua Ministers, but to read what they have writ­ten, which is the Nature and Form of Homilies, and these exclusively imposed, which may as well be admitted as the Liturgy.]’

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 offer'd 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 Sculs 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 modifie 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 judgment to avoid the Sedition (usual in his discourses) assure your self they were no right Sons of the Church of England. 3. This might be a prudent design in them to try the judgment 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 shame 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 judgment, 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 vertue 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 it self, 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 vertue, 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 [Page 28] 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 read 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 Pha­rises did for a pretence when they devour'd 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 [Page 29] 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 prescrib'd 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 prescrib'd Liturgy, as the Doctor hath suffici­ently evinced in other Papers Pulpit-Concep­tions.. Prayers are intended for [Page 30] 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 level'd 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, farwel 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] [Page 31] 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 read, 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 Logick, I am sure a Jury of good Casuists will condemn your Divinity: And yet whoever has your Vote for the Office of Senior Lecturer, such is the height of your insolence, you will keep the scorners Chair to your self.

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 prescrib'd 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 joyn issue. For R. S. denies This, (which was the major Proposition of the Doctors syllo­gism) and saith, that to submit to the use of a prescrib'd Li­turgy [...] First Commadement, which doth [Page 32] 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 prescrib'd 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 Cross 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 pre­scrib'd Liturgy.] Is this good Logick? 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 your self, 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 prescrib'd Liturgy; would not his consequence be as rational as yours? If this Deduction be remote and doubtful, so is yours too; and whose judgment shall we relie upon in this case? You cannot be so irrational (if you be a man) as to think we ought to relie on yours, because you are a Party; and you will plead that the Doctor is so too, and consequently it is no less unreasonable that you should relie 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. Prid. [...]. fol [...]) p. 391. Fanatick Enthusiast? Thus that Learned Professor in his Lecture (De Authoritate Ecclesiae in rebus Fidei) hath de­termined: [Page 33] For, he observes, ut de illuminatione Spiritus in litibus definiendis, potest esse dissensus, quia unusquis{que} 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 prescrib'd 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 Superiours 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. maintain'd 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 your self? Did they understand the bounds of your Office when they Ordain'd 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, [Page 34] 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 prescrib'd 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 judgment? If this can­not be affirmed without impudence, then I ask further; have not they Judicium Rationale & Discretionis privatae, a Rational judgment of Discretion as well as you? and is not that sufficient to satisfie their Conscience, as well as yours is to satisfie 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 judgment? Is there no allowance to be granted them upon the account of their Authority? If you be the Author of Jerubbaal justified, therein you acknowledge a judgment 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 publick 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 [Page 35] 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 our selves 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 Superiours 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 prescrib'd 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 possest 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 justifie 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 [Page 36] refuse obedience; and in all doubtful Cases it is an ac­knowledged Rule, Potier est pars possidentis; the presump­tion is alwayes 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 examins 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 determin'd in this particular; Pendere (Deus ipse) noluit fidem Ecclesiae suae ab absolutâ Authoritate Praedicantium: Voluit (tamen) uti Ministerio hominum in verbi salutiferi praedicatione; voluit 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 Suffragane 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 establish'd 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 judgment 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 judgment, as to others who have only a judgment of Discretion, that somethings are to be held or practised otherwise than their Superiours have detertermined? Why, in this Case Christianae erit modestiae diffidere potiùs 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 judgment of Jurisdiction. And if possibly they should deprehend some manifest prevarication, non medi­tandum statim schisma, sed 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 justifie his Non­submission to Authority in the use of a prescrib'd 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 Publick Worship and Ser­vice, by a Form prescrib'd, 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 injoyn all Ministers to become Itinerant, that travelling up and down their variety of gifts may be the more diffused to the edifying of the Church. But if you take the Liturgy prescrib'd 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 edifie your Devotion not your Knowledge Unless it be impetra­tive or d [...] ­spositive.. And prescrib'd Forms are of so [Page 39] much the more advantage to this effect, because the less the understanding is occupied to consider and invent the mater, the more intent and earnest are the will and affections (the most immediate instruments of Devotion) about the ho­ly duty it self, 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 wholsome 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 practice of our Saviour, and the duty of the Church: NULLUM DUBIUM est, eandem doctrinam, & easdem Conciones, iisdem verbis saepius aliis at{que} 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, [...]. Sed illud Iraenei potiùs valere debet, [...]. 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 write 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 multi­plyed 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 Catholick 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 Catholick language, such a Catho­lick 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 [Page 40] 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 read Mr. Croftons Argument on this Question against D. G. he sure would not have thus disputed.] And why so? (he adds) Submission to Superiours 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, [Page 41] and perswade your self, that in your practices relating to your Superiours you may govern your self by that opinion which is less probable; which course, how unreasonable, how unsafe and dangerous it is you are apt to proclame 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 your selves.] 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 your selves 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 your selves to the obscure shades, and serve your interest of any colour that you think will give a handsome appearance to your disobedience.

You are injoyned 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 [Page 42] 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 your self in the Law of God? Is this your way to have a Conscience alwayes void of offence towards God and towards man?

When you refuse obedience to the commands of your Superiours, 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 humane judgment 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 humane judgment; and yet he prefers and follows this judgment 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 premisses be not push'd down, let all men of Reason judge.]

In your close, you accost the Doctor in these words [Page 43] [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 wayes 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 wayes 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 wayes, 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 administred by the publick 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 Hypocrisie, 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. Prid. Lect. 22. fol. p. 36 [...]. Disciplina optimè secundùm Dei praescriptum observatur, quando Publica privato non permittantur arbitrio, sed An­tistites praecipiunt, recipiunt subditi, non hi, pro illimita­to imperio, illi pro occaecato obsequi [...], sed tam hi, quam illi juxta praescriptum, a summo Agonotheta in Scripturis, Canonem; ut ergo iis incumbit, ut sine studio partium, bo­na [Page 44] 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; Sed 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, cùm 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 super eos, & Israe­lem Dei; furiosi verò & factiosi, qui privato elati aut in­flati lumine aut acumine, Ecclesiam cui subjiciuntur audire neglexerunt; sint cuivis fideli & Orthodoxo sicut Ethnicus & Publicanus, donec ex debita correptione aut correctione ad sobrietatem discant sapere, & ad matris gremium redire. Quod efficiat pastor ille bonus, qui ovem Errantem propriis reportat humeris. Cui cum Patre & Spiritu Sancto fit omnis honor, laus, & gloria, in secula seculorum, Amen.

Which may be thus rendred into English, For truly Discipline is best observed according to the Law and Ordinance of God, when Affairs that concern the pub­lick 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 [Page 45] 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 enjoyned them, that they may confess and in­geniously acknowledge 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 satisfie himself; or in reference to the manner of seeking, when one go­eth a new way to work to enform his judgment, chu­sing 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 hindring the Industry of private persons, that we rather bid and invite them to weigh our Doctrine in the Ballance of the Sanctuary, that they may thereby satisfie 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 Judgment 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, [Page 46] and to return to the bosom of their tender Mo­ther; which that good Sheepherd 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.