Jerubbaal justified: or, A plain rebuke of the high (pretended humble) remonstrance and plea against Mr. Crofton his reformation not separation or, a plea for communion with the church under those corruptions, and by that disorderly ministration, to which he cannot conform, nor by it administer. Demonstrating, T.P. (alias D.) his grosse mistakes of Mr. Crofton his principle and argument: as also the fallacie and vanity of his pleaded necessity for his (confessed) separation from publique assemblies, which is found insufficient to acquit him of schisme. To which is added a position, disputing the lawfulnesse of ministers receiving an imposed liturgy.

Jerubbaall Justified: OR, A Plain rebuke to the High (pretend∣ed) humble Remonstrance and Plea against Mr. Croftons Refor∣mation not Separation.

Worthy Sir,

YOurs the 12. instant I received, and with it a Book entituled Jerubbaal, or the Pleader impleaded, which pretendeth to answer Mr. Crofton's Reformation not Separation: in good time sir, hath Mr. Crofton's pa∣pers past nine Months in private from hand to hand, and four Moneths in publique in the world and now answered: if it be to purpose, and truth be beaten out it is well, I will say better late then never.

I have not sir Communicated the Book to Mr. Crofton as you do desire, his late sickness (not yet recovered) h••th dis∣capacitated him for such work: but I have read this hum∣ble Remonstrance, and find in it a Spirit sufficiently high: I shall adventure to give you, (and if you please the world) my thoughts concerning this impleading Plea, against Mr. Crof∣ton's Plea for communion with the Church under those corrupti∣ons, and by that disorderly Ministration to which he cannot con∣form, nor by it Administer: And truly Sir, This Book maketh a great cry, but yieldeth little wool, it may serve the sim∣ple (whose good affections to purity lead their judgement not only from, but against duty) to make a noise Mr. Crof∣ton is answered: but the▪ Iudicious Reader will soon see

there is in it vox preterea nihill, and that Mr. Crofton is as far from being answered, as he was before.

This Author having passed his Mindus like part built on his own Judgement of the expediency of it: (it is reason he enjoy* 1.1 his fancy in his own fabrick) he abruptly assaults Mr. Crofton on the most gross and manifest mistake of the man, the na∣tur of his Book, and the form and force of his Argument, which could possibly befall and misguide any Antagonist whatso∣ever.

Sir, This Gentleman mistaketh Mr. Crofton, and the gene∣rall nature of his book: he accounteth (and that with more then ordinary heat and confidence) Mr. Crofton the Mecae∣nas and Advocate of the Liturgy and Common prayer book, and an accuser of the bretheren: he apprehendeth Mr. Crofton's Re∣formation,* 1.2 not separation to be a Plea for the Liturgy, and an Indictment, or accusation of the Saints, cujus contrarium verum est, how just, sober, or warrantable those his apprehensi∣ons are, let all impartiall, unprejudiced men judge.

Mr. Crofton an Advocate for the English Liturgy, who can have the face to say it? How will that appear? hath he not preached and written against it? did he ever retract? doth he conform to it? or consent to read it? was not his known opposition to it apprehended to be the cause of his vexati∣ons, and bonds he met with in Staffordshire in his late Tra∣vells? can envy it self oppose Mr. Crofton to Mr. Crofton: his enemies being Judges, never was any man more square and stable to himsell then is Mr. Crofton: these things do indeed give cause to call him Jerubbaal and make it suspicious he is the Gideon who threw down the Altar (if the Liturgy must be so accounted) of Baall: on what ground could this pretender, to reason and religion, cry Mr. Crofton is the Mecaenas and Advocate for the Liturgy: hath not Mr. Crofton's Contests, actings and sufferings, manifested him a Monument of Gods Grace and Truth; and Sectarian rage and false∣hood: will men needs reproach him with that, which none hath as he resisted? Oh Sir, Mr. Crofton hath pleaded for Com∣munion in the Liturgy.

It is false sir, he hath pleaded no such thing, his Plea is for Communion with Gods Church, in Gods Ordinances and

worship, though Administred by the Liturgy, and that onely in case of necessity, when we cannot otherwise enjoy solemn publique worship: it is one thing to commnnicate in the Li∣turgie simply and abstractedly considered, this supposeth an assent unto it, and a personall acting in and by it as a Liturgy: for this Mr. Crofton hath never yet spoken one word: It is another thing to communicate in, and Religiously attend Gods Worship Administred by the Liturgy, in which the Liturgy is no more but the vehiculum instrument of conveyance and humane Ministration: the formality of Mr. Crofton's Plea is this: the Liturgie is a rude and disorderly Ministration, an evil which ought to be abolished, by which he cannot Administer, but it is not an evil of that nature, to visiate the Subject, nullify and destroy Gods worship, and so warrant the peoples withdrawing from that because of this.

Vulgus non distinguit, that the over zealous vulgar should account this a Plea for Communion in the Liturgy is no won∣der: whilst a man of learning doth it with all confidence, is a withstanding of an inserence which the premisses will not allow, a justification of the premisses, as true and good, can∣not a man plead: men must in case of need drink water in unclean vessels, or affirm Citizens must not loose all for want of asking by the rude dialect of their Recorder: but he must be concluded the Mecaenas of Barbarisime and nonsence, and Advocate for the Queen of Sluts! may not Mr. Crofton deny such disorder to be a sufficient ground for Secession from Gods worship, but he must needs be the defender of that disorder? According to this sober Logick is Mr. Crof∣ton tauntingly represented the accuser of the brethren: and his Book branded as an Indictment against the Saints, what cause is there for this high charge, whom, when, where, and whereof hath Mr. Crofton accused? This Author calls him his accuser, he shall do well to put him to shame by tell∣ing the world whereof Mr. Crofton accused him, Mr. Crof∣ton doth in his book suggest groundlesse, unwarantable, Secossi∣on* 1.3 from, voluntary non-communion in Gods worship, is a private or negative Separation; the first act towards a positive and totall Sepeparation, but is this to accuse the bretheren? cannot a Mini∣ster suggest the sinful nature of an act, but he must be

arraigned as an Accuser of the bretheren, oh Charity! oh So∣briety!

Sir, Who readeth Mr. Croftons book; and seeth not that it is so far from an Indictment or Accusation of others, that it is a sober, serious, and necessary Apology for himself, and his own practice most groundlesly, unchristianly and incharitably accused by others; and those, some of the bretheren; who ne∣ver administred, or attempted to reprove the things whereof they did accuse him; in his whole Conflicts for Reformation, he had protested he could communicate in Gods worship under that order, by which he could not adminester; comming to practice his principles, what Calumnies what Censures did accuse him of defection and Apostacy? and constrain these Letters by way of Apology for himself, And this, thus extorted by false accusations, is most false∣ly accused to be an accusation of the brethren; Oh! Charity! Oh Sobriety!

Sir, We cannot expect he should rightly take up Mr. Crofton's Argument, who hath so grossely mistaken himself, and the generall nature of his work, let me observe to you his mistake in the very form, and so in the force of what he is pleased humbly to tearm Mr. Croftons Doome Argu∣ment.* 1.4

Having passed his many needless distinctions, he profess∣eth himself a negative and partiall Sepatist; he is best, see to his Warrant, least being loosed from the Harbour he be driven he knows not whither, I am glad he disavoweth Po∣sitive Separation, gathering a select Company into a Corner, some who shreudly guess who this Author is, think they durst presume to charge him as peccant in this respect; but sure I am Mr. Crofton, and other good men, are no little grieved to observe some Presbyters, not only absent from publique assemblies, but also celebrate the Lords day by preaching and Ministration of the Lords supper, to a select Company in private, as if they were designed to verefie that Independant Calumny; (Presbiterated Churches are gathered Churches.)

His Separation stated, this Antagonist assaults Mr. Crofton's Considerations; that he might fence with better successe, he forceth the chief of them into this syllogisme according

to his own fancy, not Mr. Croftons Argument.

Communion with the Church, visible in all acts of solemn Pub∣lique worship; is an essential part of the Sanctification of the Sabbath or Lords day, and indispensable Duty of every par∣ticular* 1.5 Christian to be onely superseded by an inevitable ne∣cessity &c.

This is indeed Mr. Crofton's proposition; on which this man doth assume, as that which he saith, must be the assump∣tion, and accordingly stateth the Conclusion.

• ...But Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy, or Common-Prayer (called Divine Service) is Communion with the Church visible in solemn publique Worship.
• ERGO. Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy or Common-Prayer is an essentiall part of the Sanctification of the Sabbath or Lords day, and indispensable duty, &c.

Sir, this Argument thus framed is a monstrous Argnment; especially to come from Mr. Crofton; they that ever heard him preach, read his writings, know his person, principles or practice can believe him, such a Mecaenas and Advocate for the English Liturgy and Common-Prayer-Book, as to assent and conclude Communion in it, to be an Essential part of the Sancti∣fication of the Sabbath; So as that the Sabbath or Lords day cannot be sanctified where the Service-book is not attend¦ed, assented to, and acted in.

But Sir: What ground or reason in Mr. Crofton's Plea hath this Antagonist, which necessitateth this Assumption and Conclusion as that which he tells us mnst be.

Mr. Crofton's Book is an Epistle to a Friend, his Argument is not (therefore) logically formed, but very legible in the Connexion and scope of his discourse; but this Author doth not in his book, or Margin, cite, or refer his Reader to one single sentence, or word on which he bottometh this assumption and conclusion as that which must be, he indeed hath* 1.6 confidence enough to affirm. Mr. Crofton saith, the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is an act of solemn publique worship: but doth not tell us where he saith it; and I am sure I have read all that he hath written, and I never found that he said it; I

must say, Sir, they say so of this humble Remonstrator, though spoken with so high considence, is not a sufficient ground for credit: the rather, because the question Mr. Crofton did discusse, and was to bring into conclusion was not; whether Communion in the Liturgy or Common-Prayer-Book was an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabboth: Truly sir, Mr. Crofton hath disputed fairly, if onely this Antago∣nist can find his sillogysme conclude, what never came into his question: his logick hath lately failed him very much: Sir, sure I am? whosoever shall read and regard the scope of what Mr. Crofton hath written on this Argument shall find another assumption and conclusion, then what the zeal and prejudice of this Remonstrator hath assumed and concluded: the true state and form of Mr. Crofton's Sillogisme is mani∣fest to be this.

• Communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn publique worship is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty.
• But Communion with the English Church in the worship by her celebrated, is Communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn publique worship.
• ERGO. Communion with the English Church (having no opportunity with any other) in the worship of her Celebrated is to me an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath, and indis∣pensable duty.

This Argument Sir, is far from assuming and concluding the Communion in the Liturgy, is, an essentiall part of the sancti∣fication of the Sabbath, and indispensable duty, and that the worship celebrated in the English Church, must be the Subject predicated in the assumption of Mr. Crofton's Argument: is manifest to every one who observeth these passages in his amplifying the consideration which containeth this Argu∣ment

1 Communion with the English Church in the worship by her celebrated; notwithstanding the defects and disorders in Mini∣stration thereof; was the question Mr. Crofton did dispute, and must bring into his conclusion.

2. He saith to his friend, you yet enjoy a liberty of worshiping God in due and right order, and may drink the waters of the sanctuary in clean vessels i. e. VVithout the Liturgy its Rites and order (it is manifest this he intended) long may you en∣joy* 1.7 it, and if God take pleasure in me he will in due time restore me to it, Sr. is it likely Mr. Crofton would assume and conclude the Liturgy is that solemn publick worship which is an essential* 1.8 part of the sanctification of the Sabbath, and indispensable duty; whilst he professeth he had sanctified the Sabbath, and worship∣ped God without it, and hoped for a restored liberty so to do again as a token of divine favour to him; he acknowledgeth it to be his friends priviledge, prayeth the continuance, feareth the loss of it; that he did enjoy a liberty to worship God in due and right order without the Liturgy, he complaineth of of it as his affliction that he had no choice, but was under a necessity of attending Gods worship in this order Ministred, or he must enjoy no solemn publick worship of God. Sr. all men must confess those things will not square with an argument that shall conclude Communion in the Liturgy is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath &c. but they are exactly square with an Argument for Communion with the Church in Gods woship there celebrated, though Ministred with rudness and disorder.

3. Mr. Crofton as a conscientious Christian, and serious Casuist, having concluded Communion in Gods worship was his indispensable duty, in the general; enquireth what specialty might become a moral bar, and warrantable supersedeas to the* 1.9 same, hereupon he considereth what is pleaded by the Separatists who abound among us; and among other things the Liturgie by which Gods worship was ministred in and to the Church, admitting the defects, disorders, and corruption* 1.10 charged on the same, he concludeth they are great, and evil, but not an evil of that nature and quality, as to constitute a suffi∣cient bar to Communion in Gods worship ministred by the same. Sr. it is manifest the worship concluded by Mr. Crof∣tons argument. (and the scope of his whole discourse on this consideration,) is distinct from, though ministred by the Liturgie, and that this is considered as a moral bar, or war∣rantable supersedeas to that, but is found insufficient.

Sr. our Antagonist having thus mistaken and misformed Mr. Croftons argument, must needs be concluded to fight with the fancies of his own prejudice; and so I might dis∣miss him, but Sr. I seek verity, not victory, and would if possible he may see his mistake more plainly upon the whole case of this Controvercy, in wich Mr. Croftons conflict is the more uncomfortable because single, and failed by those whose place and duty oblige them to his succour: but the Conquest is most certain to him fighting for the truth a∣gainst all extreams for vincit veritas: I would therefore di∣rect a word to this Remonstrator, and tell him in his ear, if instead of those many needless and some groundless di∣stinctions he hath multiplied, he had well weighed and closely pursued the Criticismes in this case stated by Mr. Crof∣ton, he had saved this labour, or written with better suc∣cess, and more satisfaction to his Reader, if he will not be offended I will note unto him a distiction or two, accord∣ing to which Mr. Crofton doth move, and on which this con∣troversie doth depend.

Sr. This Remonstrator maketh much adoe, in distin∣guishing* 1.11 solemn publick worship, by persons, place, and real∣lity, in which he fighteth with his shadow, for Mr. Crofton would not differ with him, about them; though I believe he will dislike his expressions concerning them, in∣stead hereof he should have observed Mr. Crofton hath di∣stinguished between.

• 1. The substance of solemn publick worship, which cosisteth in the matter, and essential form of every ordinance, both which must be determined by the Lord and directed in his word.
• 2. The Ministerial mode of worship, or that humane dress, in and by which its celebrated in and to the Church, which is not determined by the Lord, nor directed o∣therwise then as to its general nature, as that it be serious, reverend, grave, and the like, in the word, but is wholy left to the wisdom and faithfulness of such to whom the Ministration of solemn publick worship is committed.

Unto this distinction our Remonstrator should have ad∣ded this second viz.

• Communion in Gods worship, thus or thus administred, which consists in an humble, reverend, attendance on, and acting in the worship of God, as hearkening to the petitions pronounced, and sighing or speaking an Amen to them, and the like.
• Communion in this or that mode of ministration: so as to assent unto it, and act decently in it: as the Mi∣nisters administration by it, or the peoples personal actings in popular Responds, contamations or cor∣poral gestures, required by it without any relation to, or direction from the worship of God.

Sr. These distinctions are manifest in themselves and manifestly necessary to all understanding Christians the wor∣ship of God in its substance consisting of matter, and essential form, is clearly distinct from the humane dress, and ministe∣rial mode by which it is celebrated in and to the Church; preaching the word is Gods worship, by him determined: for matter, his word, will and mind, for form preached, so∣lemnly spoken, discoursed in and to his Church: but that the preaching be an analytical explication, or metaphrastical ampli∣fication of any portion of Scripture, whether it be by Do∣ctrine, Reason, and Ʋse, or onely a discourse argumentative to confirm an Article of faith, or confute an errour is ind••fferent, undetermined by the Lord, left to the wisdom and faith∣fulness of the Preacher; and this or that mode is clearly distinct from Gods Ordinance of preaching, which is fully, for∣mally existent in and to the Church by any, by every mode which the edification of the Church shall dictate, and the ability, wis∣dome and faithfulness of the Preacher shall determine.

The Methods and Phrases of administration of the Sacraments by previous or subsequent exhortation to duty, discourses of their nature, use, and end; and prayers so modified and phrased, are apparently distict from the Sacraments, those parts of Gods worship, which substantially exist, when water, bread and wine, the right matter, are ministerially applied in the name of the Fa∣ther, Son and Holy Ghost, as significant sealing memorials of Christs death, body and blood; the assential form of Gods ordi∣nance and instituted worship. The same Sr. is considerable in prayer, the substance of which ordinance doth consist in a calling upon God in the name of Christ for things agreeable to his will, so

that where things agreeable to his will is the matter; and calling upon God in the name of Christ is the form; by whatsoever hu∣mane mode, order of speech, phrase, words, sentences, the same is performed in, and for the Church it doth substantially exist, is distinct and to be abstracted from the same.

Sr. on this first, the second distiniction doth manifestly arise, viz. it is one thing to Communicate in Gods worship, preaching pray∣er, or Sacraments, substantially existing in any, in every ministe∣rial mode, and dress by which it doth exist in and to the Church; although these cannot be divided when Gods worship doth ex∣ist in to the Church (for God cannot be worshipped by men, without the humane ministration of his ordinances in some▪ su∣table mode) yet they may be easily and plainly distinguished so as that the Church and particular members may know their di∣stinct interest in Communion; the people in the general nature of the worship, substantially existing Gods, in matter and form, in and by any humane mode whatsoever, as that which concern∣eth and so charged on them, all in common, and the Minister the specifical and ministerial mode of administration of Gods wor∣ship between God and his people; which is personally incum∣bent, and charged on him by vertue of that office for modifi∣cation of Gods ordinances, which he hath received from the Lord.

Sr. These distinctions are not more manifest in themselves, then that they are Mr. Croftons, in this very case and controver∣sie; I would not that this Remonstrator should think I come to relieve Mr. Crofton, with any distinctions, which are not his, and plainly legible in the plea he doth implead, be pleased therefore to observe Mr. Croftons own words. Ʋnder all our corruptions, we must not, we cannot, we dare not deny the matter, and essenti∣al form of Gods ordinances and worship is continued to us.

Again Sr. in this very and special case of the Litugy Mr. Crof∣ton* 1.12 thus writeth; I confess the Common-prayer is my burden, by reason of its defects and disorder, and the rudeness of the Ministe∣rial method; I stand convinced it ought to be altered, yee abolish∣ed, &c. Yet I must confess I finde no matter in it, to which on a charitable interpretation, a sober serious Christian may not say or can denie his Amen: and though I distast the Ministerial method,* 1.13 I cannot but observe in it the essential form of prayer viz. a calling 〈…〉〈…〉 the name 〈…〉〈…〉.

Sr. Can any tearms make these distinctions more plain, and yet Sr. these occasion in Mr. Croftons plea for his Communion two more, which do arise from, and depend on these.

The first concerning corruptions, which he considereth to* 1.14 be intrinsecal vitiating the subject, nullifying Gods ordinance, destroying Gods worship, and so necessitating seperation.

• Extrinsecal superadded to, concomitant with, and conversant about Gods Ordinances, which notwithstanding doth exist for matter and essential form perfect and entire, capable of due opperation, as stinking fish doth nourish, or water pudled, or taken in an unclean vessel doth quench the thirst, and preserve life.

This distinction, this humble Remonstrator, doth with some scorn observe, and pass by as of little or no weight, though the case of conscience now controverted, doth depend upon it, and directeth the next distinction viz.

• Reformation which supposeth the subject to continue substan∣tially the same, but attended with some circumstantial cor∣ruptions, the removal of which must be endeavoured, but these notwithstanding the subject may with safety, and it must in duty be used.
• Separation supposing the subject so viciated, that it cannot be used with safety, without sin, and must therefore be shun∣ned.

These distinctions most humbly slighted, I wonder at, that this Remonstrator should flie out so high, as to cry out Mr.* 1.15 Croftons instances of stinking fish, pudled water and unclean ves∣sels yield not the least satisfaction to me; for it is evident to any impartial Reader his prejudice never suffered him, to finde the form, and therefore he could not feel the force of the argument; for if the Liturgie be but a vessel though unclean, this argument extrinsecal corruptions, being consistent with Gods true worship, will not warrant a secession, or negative separation, appeareth very cogent, and is well amplified by the instance of pudled wa∣ter or an unclean vessel.

Sr. These distinctions being not more manifest in themselves, and to be used by Mr. Crofton, in the plea which this Antago∣nist doth implead; then to be Crisis of this Controversie; the the hinge on which this great case of conscience doth turn. I will

presume on my friend so far, as to present you with some short and plain Aphorisms concerning Gods worship, and his peoples communion; you may (if you please) call them Mr. Croftons Creed concerning communion with Gods Church, I cannot but commend them to the observation of Gods people & consideration of Gods Ministers, as those which few sober men will deny to be true, and being well understood would readily direct a godly mans course in the hour of temptation which is come upon us.

1. The Church Catholick visible distributed (through ne∣cessity, and good order) to particular Assemblies must sanctifie the Lords day by an holy Convocation.

2. The Congregation of perticular Christians convened in full and open joynt Assembles, to celebrate Gods solemn worship, is the formality of an holy Convocation: in which every particular Christian must make conscience to be present, and continue from the beginning to the end of the ministration of Gods worship, they must assemble on the sound of the silver trumpets, and not depart without the Priests blessing.

3. The worship celebrated in the holy Convocation for the mat∣ter and essential form by which it substantially existeth, must he determined by the Lord, and by him alone: all other matter though in a form by God directed; or the matter without the form by him appointed, is supperstition to be avoided; a dogs∣head or Swines blood offered by a lawful Priest, and with Levi∣tical Rights, and Incense in the hands of Chora Dathan, and Abiram, or a Lamb and Bullock offered by the lawest of the people at Dan and Bethel, are eqully abominable to the Lord, Baptisme by fire in the name of Father Son and holy Ghost or by water in the name of God the Father, and time the Mo∣ther of all things is equally void and vile, no worship of God.

4. All worship of mens invention superadded to Gods apoint∣ment must be avoided, abandoned by every of Gods people, but Gods worship substantially existing with the same must not be disowned or declined: the mountains of Israel, the Temple must be frequented, devoutly resorted unto, though the high places be on the

one, and the Image of jealousy be in the other; these super∣added evils provoke God, but the Simbolls of his presence con∣tinued, bind his people to due and constant attendance: the Crosse in Baptisme is to be (if possible) avoided but Bap∣tisme formally existing must not be disowned, declined, be∣cause the other is superadded.

5 Gods worship celebrated by and among men, must be mini∣stred, and exist in an and by an humane mode and dresse suitable to, and so fit to edefie such a Creature and society. Gods word and Sacraments, his peoples prayers, must be ministred in, and by modes, methods, words and actions, invented by the minde, expressed by the tongue, and performed by the hands of men.

6. The humane mode and dresse, words and phrases, by which Gods worship must exist, and be ministred in and to the Church is not determined by the Lord, but wholly left to the wisdom and faithfulnesse of them who minister the same, hence it comes to pass, that the substance of Gods worship continueth the same, in re∣spect of matter and essential form by and under various mini∣sterial humane modes; Gods word is preached, though some times one way, and sometimes another; the Sacraments are for∣mally administred, prayers are truly made, and the one and the other is Gods Ordinance, the same unto all subjected to it, though the ministration thereof doth varie according to the various Gifts of the administrator.

7. The humane Ministerial modification of Gods Ordinances in and to the Church is the formall act of the Ministeriall Office to be fulfilled, and performed by the Ministerial guifts, the personall abilities, of every individuall Minister, who is guifted of God, and ordained by the Church for that purpose. Gospel Ministry is an office in Gods Church authorizing enabling, its subjects not to institute any new worship for matter or forme, but to Mini∣ster the worship appointed by the Lord in an humane mode, and order, such as may edefie the Church: the matter is the de∣termination of God, the Ministeriall mode is the digestion of the man, invested with an office to that purpose the word and the preaching of it is appointed by God, the mode, and tearms in which it is preached, to reproof instruction, or correction is the work of the officer, ordained to preach; he is guifted, and autho∣rized to dicotomize, divide the word aright; the case is the same▪

in Sacraments, Prayer, Censures, all which must exist in, and too the Church by the Ministerial mode and order, words, and ex∣pressions, in which the Minister entrusted with them, doth exhibit the same to them: herein each Minister must employ his Ciniste∣rial guifts, his personal abilities; this is the service he must do to God, and his Church; he is a steward of the Misteries of God, to distribute his masters Goods with the utmost of his skill and faithfulnesse: dicotomization of Gods word, modification of Gods worship, is the work in, and by which he must approve himself a werkman which needeth not to be ashamed: in this he cannot without sloath and porfidie assume, another mans mode, or suffer himself to be imposed upon; so as to vail his own received guifts and to administer by the modes, and formes digested and composed by others.

8. The ministerial mode, and order of Gods worship being wholy humane, determined by mens Wisdom and faithfulnesse, it is and cannot but be subject to much & great corruption in defect, & disor∣der rudenesse, & irreverence in expressions; some Ministers are rash and inconsiderate, unaffected with the Majesty of God to whom they approach, in whose stead they stand, in and to his Church unacquainted with the nature of the ordinance to be administred by him: and the quality of the Church in and to which he doth minister (which things are the only dictators of that mode by which they minister) there are many times rude, preposterous, rash, irreverent full it may be of non∣sence, and cautologies, in the modes by which he doth minister; some are proud and curious, and in their carnal policy compell an vniformity, in ministerial mode, not ne∣cessary, yea sinfull; (restraining ministeriall guifts, and the Churches profit by their variety) these pretend to correct some mens. rudenesse, and irreverence, by imposing their own prescribed composed formes and modes of ministrati∣on (to the open violence, and almost subvertion of the o∣ffice of the Ministry) these again met, with men of sloath∣full, or slavish spirits, who are idle and neglect their own ministerial guifts; whilst others (on pretence to peace and obedience to superiors) do admit them the formes com∣posed by others; betraying the office they have received

from the Lord, no wonder to find defects and disorders in the ministerial mode of Gods worship, whilst the same is wholly dependent on men of weaknesse, subject to folly and infidelity: the best of men and Ministers need a Priest to make attonen ent for their holy things.

6. The guilt of all defect and disorder in the humane ministeri∣al mode of Gods worship is immediately, properly, and directly personal, charged on the Minister, and on him alone: not on the Church, or any the members thereof. The guilt is proportio∣ned to the duty, modification is a personal duty, charged on the officer appointed to that office: this guilt may indeed (as other sins) by accident be derived to the Go∣vernours of the Church, who should, but do not set up, and ordain men to the Ministry, and suspend, and put down such who want ability, well and rightly to modifie and minister Gods worship and Ordinances: and to the peo, ple and individual members, when they observing de∣fects and disorders in the Ministerial mode of worship, do∣not grieve for the sin of others, and complain of it as bur∣densom to themselves; and in liberty of choice, if they do not choose better, but sit contentedly under the same. Eli by the first, brought on himselfe the sin of his sons, pro∣phane ministration, and the God-fearing Israelites delive∣red themselves by the last▪ but there is no common rea∣son which can derive the sin of rude Ministration on the people.

10. All defects, disorders, rude and impertinent expressions, in the hnmane, ministerial mode of Gods worship: are corrupti∣ons, circumstantiall, and extrinseal in, and by which Gods wor∣ship may substantially exist in matter, and essential form, capable of operation to its appointed end. The Scriptures are read, though in parts and parcels, and in a corrupt, imperfect translation: all which are evil: and abate the efficacy to edification: but are not such evil, on which we may con∣clude the Seriptures are not read, or cannot edifie the hea∣rers: the word is preached, and may profit the hearer, though the Sermon be raw, rude, indigested, immethodi∣cal, and in wild and unfit expressions. Prayer is presented to God, though defective in some matter, to be desired,

disorderly in the manner of expressions, uttered with ab∣ruptions, abreviations, pauses, and postings one again: None of these evils do vitiate the subject, or alter the mat∣ter or essential form of Gods Ordinance, so as to destroy the substance: these make Gods worship not so serious, grave, and reverend as it should be: but these, notwith∣standing it doth truly, fully, formally exist Gods worship: the third, not second Commandement is hereby broken. God's name is truly but not rightly used: he is truly worshipped, but th••se adjunct qualities which should attend his wor∣ship are wanting: the want of reverence and right order in the ministration of his Ordinance doth provoke▪ God, but will not conclude he is not at all worshipped.

11. Defects disorders and corruptions in the ministerial mode of Gods Ordinances fixed, continued and reiterated, are more sin∣ful and offensive to God, and his people then those which are pre∣sent and transient, but both these are sins of one and the same nature and quality, and of equal influence on Gods worship mi∣nistred by the same. Corruptions fixed and reiterated, are more wicked because more deliberately, and wilfully used: more offensive to Gods people because foreknown: like the rude ministrations of Elies sons, they make the Lords peo∣ple loath the offerings of the Lord, but yet they enter not into Gods Ordinance, so as to vitiate the same, and make it cease to be his prayer, is no lesse prayer when pronounced by the defective, disordered forms which are fixed and reite∣rated; then when expressed by the raw, rude, irreverent modes, presently conceived by the Minister: the last may be more excusable in the Minister, and more comfortable to the people: but prayer is as truly formally, existent Gods worship under the first: the fixed reiteration of a defective, disordered ministerial mode of worship addeth to the degree: but altereth not the nature and quality of the sinne.

12. No defects, or disorders in the humane ministeriall mode, (whether fixed and reiterated in, and by imposed, and prescribed forms, or expressed in, and by present, transient conceived forms, in and by which Gods worship

doth substantially exist, for matter and form his, in and to his Church) will warrant any Christians secession, volun∣tary withdrawing from the holy Convocation, or non-commu∣nion in Gods worship so ministred: for these, notwithstand∣ing Gods worship doth truly, fully, formally exist, capable of operation to its appointed end: 2. This sin is purely personal, chargeable on the Minister, who standeth charged with the office of ministerial modification of Gods worship, in, and to the Church: the people or particular mem∣bers of the Church, may and must passe on this (as other personal acts) a judgement of charity, which doth direct them to grieve for the sin existent; to complain of it, and as they have opportunity to admonish the sinner: (though the sons of Eli) of it, and seek the correction and removal of the same; but they have not of it any judicium publicum, judgement of Office, charged on them, by the specialty of duty: and armed with a just morall power of correction, so as that the same should be the neglect of this publique duty become their sin, and leave its guilt on their souls: that Gods worship formally exist in every mode of ministration: every Christian and member of the Church must judge and see: for by this corruption, the holy Convocation ceaseth, and they worship not God: but the mode it selfe is personally charged on the Minister: the defect and disorder is an accident resulting from the sloth, negligence, ignorance, weaknesse and unfaithfulnesse of the Minister, and an adjunct separable from Gods wor∣ship existent by the same.

Sir▪ I pray you take good notice of this, that the pri∣vate Christian, and particular members of the Church have no publike judgement of office, concerning the Ministerial mode of Gods worship: for Sir, it is a notion of much weight, and use in this Case, and it appeareth plainly true, if the modifying of Gods worship, be, as it cannot be denyed to be the personal act of an Officer appointed to that end: moreover Sir, if the people have a publique judgement of the ministe∣rial mode of Gods worship, we are under a necessity of ha∣ving what we so much complain against, and cast off, (viz▪)

a fixed Liturgy for the mode of Prayer, Preaching, Mini∣stration of Sacraments: must then be kown to the peo∣ple, and judged by them free from all defect and disorder, before the people can attend Gods worship in that Mini∣stration: it must be confessed impossible, for a single Mi∣nister constantly to communicate to every particular mem∣ber of his Congregation: the mode into which he hath (by his personal abilities and ministerial Gifts) cast the word Prayer and Sacraments: no serious, sober Christian can think the people to be guilty of those rude methods, indi∣gested, raw, expressions tautologies, solecismes, and disorders, which a Minister may utter in his preaching, and praying, yet this is inevitable if the people have a publike judge∣ment by special office, of the ministerial mode of Gods worship: it is indeed true, the defective, disordered mode of worship which is fixed, stated, and so from time reiterated is more obvious and offensive, then what is tran∣sient, and so by the judgement of charity more burdensom to the people, the grief of it being continued and renew∣ed: but it is the judgement of office, armed with power to correct, deriveth the guilt of the one, or of the other.

I hope Sir, our Remonstrator will by this time see, that he hath most grossely mistaken Mr. Crofton, and the whole scope and nature of his Plea, and the very Crissis of our pre∣sent Controversie, he will sure now see Mr. Crofton plead∣eth not for Communion in the Liturgy, he is positive in it: a Minister cannot without sin minister Gods worship by this (or a much better) mode (if generally and exclusively imposed) of worship, he never yet advised, justifyed, or defended the peoples personal acting, by conclamations, po∣pular responds, and groundlesse variation of Gestures, the part allotted to the people in, and by it; and this is Sir, pro∣perly Communion in the Liturgit. Sir, Mr. Crafton▪ doth consider the Liturgy in its general nature, a Ministerial mode, conveighing some part of Gods shorship, in, and to the Church, the which he confesseth is defective and disor∣derly, and therefore the grief and burden of the Lords

people; but it doth not vitiate, destroy, or nullifie the worship ministred by the same; but that it substantially existeth for matter and form Gods worship, capable of operation to its end, by reason whereof the people having no choice of a better, and more orderly ministerial m••de, must, (though with grief, and a burdened spirit) attend the same; blssing God they have his ordi∣nances, though in a•• unclean, unhandsome vessel, or rudely mang∣led, or ill favouredly carved; so that Communion in Gods wor∣ship thus ministred; not Communion in this ministerial mode is Mr. Croftons Question.

S••. I havering corrected this Remonstrators most gross mistakes, shall now take a veiw of the strength of his argumentation, in* 1.16 what he supposeth to be an answer to Mr. Crofton's plea.

To his falsly formed argument, or Syllogisme he saith, his answer shall be by

• Concession.
• Distinction.
• Retortion.

In the first part of his answer, viz. his Concession he yieldeth to Mr. Crofton; the truth of the Church of England; about this we dispute no longer, onely some who will clap him on the back, for appearing an Antagonist against Mr. Crofton will think by▪ this Concession he hath given away his cause.

S••. One thing I cannot pass without observation; and that* 1.17 is, an expression wildly let fall, to which I cannot consent to him viz. personal corruptions in scandalous professors, or other Church members, (Minister (as well as others) the Hophni, and Phineas of our age) defils the Church: this I understand not, nor doth he tell us whether it defile the Church immediately, and of it self, or consequently and by accident,

the defect of the Church, in some duty incumbent upon her, intervening▪ to derive the sin unless by this last way; personal sin, and Church guilt, are a contradiction: the prophanesse of Elies sons was indeed charged on their Father Eli, and that by accident onely: but I never read, nor can finde it was charged on the Church of Israel; the God fearing Isra∣elites did deliver themselves, by their robukes of their disor∣der, without forbearing to bring their offerings to the Lord, though they were rudely Ministered by prophane hands.

By way of Distinction.

Here he distinguisheth between Communion by* 1.18 Profession, Participation.

How warrantable, and well grounded this distinction is, I shall not now consider; I do not finde Mr. Crofton to be con∣cerned in it; onely I must tell this Remonsttator, I understand not the necessity, and prrviledges he appropriateth to Commu∣nion by profession, (if that profession be abstracted, from, and op∣posed to participation) calling upon God, worshipping, God, and the visio salvit••ca are not had▪ or done by a ba••e profes∣sion of the true religion, but do require personal participation, pation, to make man enjoy, the priveledges to them be∣longing.

Again I must tell this Remonstrator, Mr. Crofton will denie* 1.19 there are many, or indeed any members of the universal Church; (he sure means visible and militant, or it squareth not with his discourse) who never had opportunity of assonating themselves with, or joynt communion in the solemn worship of God; for if they be actual, formal members of the Church visible, they had an opportunity to be made such; men as we are not mem∣bers of the Church; saving faith may give relation to the

Church Catholick invisible, but membership with the Church Catholick visible, could not be had without an opportunity of joynt Communion in Gods worship in some particular As∣sembly.

The Whole improvement of this distinction by this Anta∣gonist is onely to infer what Mr. Crofton had yielded, yea inter∣minis stated, viz. Communion in Gods worship, with Gods Church is an indispensable duty of every soul called by the name of God; to be onely superseded by the real inevitable necessity of some natural (such as is humane violence) or moral (such as is the certainty of sin by such Communion) ba••e. About this therefore we are agreed.

The Remonstrator maketh another distinction of publick so∣lemn worship in respect of

• Persons worshiping.
• Place of worship.

Reality of matter, and Constitution of the worship.

On what ground he multiplieth these distinctions I see not, unless on a meer fancie that Mr. Crofton determined the wor∣ship of God to be solemn publick in, and because of those pla∣ces appointed, and used to that end in this nation; unto this* 1.20 conjecture I am lead by his hot assertion, locallity under the Gospel is meer matter of indifferency; God having only stamped sanctity on places among the Jews. Mr. Crofton bearing me wit∣ness: for which in his Margin he quoteth Mr. Crofton his Altar worship. page 77. but good Sir, what needs this heat? Mr. Crofton did witness this assertion in his Altar worship: hath he unsaid it in his Reformation not Separation? he pleadeth for communion with the Church: but did he ever confine the Church to any place? he saith private perticular members may not withdraw themselves, or deny communion, with the holy Con∣vocation or Church assembly, wheresoever it is held; but he ne∣ver

denyed the Church or holy corrvocation was convened, and (if necessitated) may be again convened in woods, caves, dens, or poor cottages. Mr. Crofton doth grant the Church is an holy convocation in any place assembled, but he doth deny that 10. 20, 30, or 40. private particular Members, (among whom may be a Minister by his office a Publique officer) assembled in a place distinct from: it may be opposite to the Publique As∣sembly, is a Church or holy Convocation: and truly should he grant this, he must be at a losse how to know a Conventicle or determine a Schismatical Assembly, and throw down the Bankes of all Church order.

That the Church of Englands Liturgie, or Common-Prayer* 1.21 (the great Apple of strife) is a part of this Real solemn worship of God, and Communion with her therein is an indispensable duty I must (saith this Antagonist) take leave to deny: and Mr. Crofton will reply to him, do so and welcome; for greater zealots for the Liturgy, then ever Mr. Crofton is like to make, will not once affirm that the Liturgie is a part of reall so∣lemn worship of God: it is not properly any worship at all; it cannot then be reall solemn worship of God: the Liturgy in the strict forme, and generall nature of it is not worship but a Politicall (though Ecclesi stique) order and direction, unto praying, reading the Scriptures, and Ministration of Sacraments; methinks this learned man should not con∣found; reall solemn worship, and a Political order relating to solemn worship; they are in themselves manifestedly di∣stinct. wherein the Liturgie doth prescribe, and impose set formes; and certain words by, and in which Prayer, or o∣ther parts of worship must exist in, and to the Church it is only a Ministerial mode, exhibiting worship; it is not wor∣ship it self: I hope this acute disputant, will not affirm the form or mode into which he casteth, and by which he ex∣presseth Prayer, is real solemn worship: I hope calling upon God in the name of Christ, for things according to his will, is the formality of solemn worship, and that his, or other mens formes expressing the same, is only the ministerial mode, by which it is exhibited in, and to the Church.

Sr, How vain, and frivolous, are these high-flown Epe∣thites, which this humble, Remonstrator doth give the Li∣turgy humane ordinance, super-erogatorie worship, arbitrary service, Scripturebitten worship: whilst it is not at all worship: but almost a Politick Order; and Ministerial mode of Worship: but I must take up: least by correcting a mistake, I also be branded to be the Mecaenas and Advocate of the Liturgy: We shall hear more of this in the next part of his answer, which he saith is by way of

Retortion.

And what is it that he recorted on Mr. Crofton?

Communion with the Church of England, may be superseded by reall inevetable necessity, exeoncessis: by Mr. Crofton's own Doctrine, and assertion; but mine (that I may put in for a su∣persedeas,* 1.22 is a reall inevetable necessity saith the Remonstra∣tor: If so sir, is this a Retortion? I should have thought it to have been more properly accounted ajoyning Issues, ac∣cording to Mr. Crofton's Rule: which he could not, doth not, deny to be a Rule of truth, not to be avoided: but binding all non-communicants in Gods worship to assigne and plead the inevetable necessity which must be their warrant for se∣cossion, so as to acquit them from Schisme, or sinfull separa∣tion: Let us hear sir his inevetable necessity pleaded, and here∣in he tells us.

He cannot communicate in two things:

• 1. In the Liturgie
• 2. In the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.

He cannot communicate in the Liturgy, nor did Mr. Crofton ever advise he should: But I hope he will assigne a good reason why he cannot communicate in Gods worship Ministred by the Liturgy: he saith he joyneth with the Church in▪

Prayer, praises, and hearing the word: he sure will not deny the reading of the word to be a Publique Ordinance of God, and part of publique solemn worship: he will I hope ma∣nifest an inevitable necessity for his own non-communion in that: and for his absence from any, those Prayers which are by the Church put up unto God.

The necessity of my noncommunion in the Liturgy (saith this Remonstrator) is grounded on invincible doubts, about the Lawfulness of such a constitution:

Sir, I cannot but pitty the man, doubts are a Rack to the* 1.23 minde: and being invincible he is like to live in constant bondage: Sure I am, Mr. Crofton will consent, he follows his conscience though erroneous being duly carefull, and humbly studious to certifie, rightly inform the same: But sir, methinks he vexeth his soul, entangleth himself and seeketh to ensnare others with a needless scruple, viz. Whe∣ther he may communicate, where the constitution of a thing is un∣lawful: Mr. Crofton is at no distance with this Remonstrator as to the lawfulness of the censtitution of the Liturgie he will not stand to admit his 3. Maximes in reference to Gods worship

• What is unusefull is unlawfull
• What is unnecessary is unlawfull
• What is in his general nature not commanded is unlawfull.

But they come not into his Question: nor hath these things any thing of answer, to any thing pleaded by Mr. Crofton, for Communion in worship ministred by the Liturgie.

But Sir, the constitution of the Liturgy being granted to be unlawful, and what ought not to be; the Question yet abides, Whether the Liturgy, being an unlawfully constituted mode of solemn publique worship, be so far unlawful, or unlawful in that kind and quality of unlawfulnesse, which will constitute a warrantable reason for non-communion in that worship of God, which is ministred by the same: Sir, all things unlawful, and relating to Gods wor∣ship, will not warrant non-communion in Gods worship; he must therefore specifie an unlawfulnesse in the Liturgy, which will be of the kind and quality which riseth thus high, or he doth no∣thing; and I confesse, were it not for some fallacie in his tearms, more then (I apprehend) is in his minde, he doth this* 1.24 to purpose, it is this, The Liturgy is no worship of God, but will-worship, &c. no reason then he should communicate in it as such: But Sir, how shall we understand his words? they are capable of a good and true sense, for the Liturgy is no worship of God; nor is it any will-worship; for, as I have be∣fore noted, it is not any worship at all, but a political order, at the most an bumane ministerial mode relating to Gods wor∣ship: But Sir, the whole scope of his Book, and bent of his spirit, maketh me assured, this sense came not into his minde; but rather this, The Liturgy is not Gods worship, i. e. it is an* 1.25 unlawful constitution, and God is not at all worshipped by it, or in the use of it; he therefore concludeth, his crime is in not joyn∣ing in prayer in such a dress or form.

And Sir, this sense maketh his words an assertion so hor∣rid, and uncharitable, that he professing himself an Antisectari∣an, I would (if I had once ground to support my Charitie) hope he did not intend it; for Sir, this is the old notion urged by the brain-sick Brownists, and others repelled and repro∣ved by the old non-Conformists.

Sir, the truth is, in this sense he must be understood, or in none to this purpose; and then be pleased to observe the height, rather then strength of his Argument.

If the Liturgy be not Gods worship, (i. e.) Gods worship be not celebrated by the modes and forms directed in the Litur∣gy: it then followeth, our first Reformers and Marian Mar∣tyrs, rejoyced in, and dyed under a mode of divine worship, by which God could not be worshipped: all our pious painful preachers

ministred by, and all the Christians in the time of Queen Eliza∣beth, King James, and most of the Reign of King CHARLES the First, attended on a mode, dress, or form, by which God was not worshipped: all the Ministers who now minister in publick, and all the people in England who now attend the same, do minister by, and attend a mode, form, and dress, by which God is not worship∣ped: and all who have been baptized, or received the Lords Supper in and by the modes, and forms directed in and by the Liturgy, have been mocked and deceived, and enjoyed no Sacraments; and then Sir, judg you whether England be not Paganized, and the Indepen∣dents have not reason to gather Churches in England.

Sir, this man saith, his charity must be onely judged by God; sure I am, he giveth men (by such an assertion as this is), little cause to think he hath much; for a more notorious breach of charity, cannot befal the most rigid Separatist, the Church of England ever knew.

But Sir, what reason doth this Remonstrator render, why God is not worshipped by the Liturgy? it is this, the manner (for the mat∣ter he yields; and essential form he cannot deny, of the wor∣ship) the form and dress is humane: we grant it Sir, so is the mode and form of his studied Sermon, and conceived Prayer; will he be willing we should conclude God is not worshipped by them? will he stand by it that the ministerial mode of worship is determined by the Lord in his Word? if so a reading ministery may serve Gods Church, for there is no need of other ministerial guifts; I would advise him to recollect his thoughts, and see whether he can de∣ny, that it is Gods will, in condescention to mens weaknesse, that the ministerial mode of his worship, be determined, digested, by the wis∣dome and faithfulnesse of his Ministers gifted and appointed to that purpose.

Sir, though the Liturgy is a mode of worship obnoxious to excepti∣on, and unlawful; yet it is only a ministerial mode, whereby in re∣ference to Prayer, right matter is requested from the Lord, in the Name of Christ, and so Gods worship doth substantially exist for matter▪ and essential form, and he is worshipped by the same; nor doth it at all vitiate Gods worship, because it is in it self an humane mode and form; for Gods worship cannot exist in, and to the Church, but by a ministerial mode and form humane, invented, digested, by men: And now Sir, where is our Remonstrators in∣evitable

necessity for non-communion in Gods worship ministred by the Liturgy.

Sir, the imposing of this Liturgy may be in it self an evil, but it doth not alter the nature of it; but that God is as truly worshipped by it when imposed, as when left at liberty, and his worship is as fully, formally, though not so orderly ministred, and existent in, and to the Church by this, as any other humane mode, form, and dresse whatsoever.

One thing more I must not pass without observation, and that is; this Antagonist saith, I know Mr. Crofton doth attribute the essential form of Prayer to it, (pag. 25.) which he describes to be a* 1.26 calling upon God in the Name of Christ, but if he understand not by the Name of Christ the will of Christ, then I say it is not a right description of Prayer.

Sir, I will assure him, Mr. Crofton did not understand by the Name of Christ, the will of Christ, and yet I must tell him, it is but one Doctors opinion that this is not a right description of Pray∣er; he might have been pleased to observe in the same page, Mr. Crofton determined the matter must be according to the will of God; and the will of Christ doth require some adjunct qualities, as gravity of expression, fervency of affection, and reverence in demean∣our, which come not into the definition of Prayer, as essential to its form; but in the Name of Christ, that is, for his sake, merits, and mediation, cannot be left out▪

Sir, I now leave our Remonstrator on his Rack of doubting, praying God may shew him mercy; not doubting, but whatever they be to him, you see his doubts are not invincible to others▪ for Mr. Crofton's argument stands yet firm, viz. The worship of God ex∣isting for matter and essential form, his own in substance, though by the Liturgy, (a defective, disordered, unlawful mode) may not be refused or declined, this mode only by this reason because it is hu∣mane, maketh not an inevitable necessity of communion or secession.

2. Our Remonstrator cannot communicate in the Lords Sup∣per, under the present modes and methods of ministration in the Church of England: and his ground is the imposed gesture of kneeling, the superstition and corruption which attends it.

Sir, What superstition and corruptions▪ attend the ministration of the Lords Supper? in which he must personally act, so as to become guilty of the same, I see not; nor doth he specifie any, the gesture

of kneeling excepted: that the ministerial mode of this Ordinance is disordered, I can allow him, but this, as in other parts of publick worship, is personal to the Minister, and him onely, there is a possi∣bility of his composed, reverend attendance on the Ordinance, without any personal acting in those popular Responds, and Concla∣mations, which are directed to the people in and by the Liturgy.

As to the gesture of kneeling, I do not find that Mr. Crofton doth speak one word for it, or that he ever advised any to it; I well know he doth not yield it, nor approve it: I have heard him say, that If he be put by the Communion in the Lords Supper, be∣cause he will not receive the Elements in that gesture, he is barred from his duty, and priviledge, by an act of violence he is driven, he doth not goe from Gods Ordinance. It is Sir, worth the enquiry, whether this professed Separatist negative, have tendered himself to Com∣munion in the Lords Supper, and tryed whether there were not a possibility of enjoying it without the gesture of kneeling: for Sir, secession without all endeavours, and under any possibility of Com∣munion without what we conceive to be sinful, cannot be acquit∣ted of Schism or sinful Separation.

Sir, I cannot but conceive this Remonstrator to have in himself a faire latitude concerning the Gesture of kneeling; he saith, I could goe near to approve of the Gesture of kneeling, being left arbitrarie, and* 1.27 commended or practised onely as an outward badge of more then ordinary thank fullnesse, under the reception of an extraordinary blessing, and not as an act of pietie, necessity and worship. Sir, the now Zealots for the English Ceremonies? will joyne issues with our Antagonist, and tell him kneeling at Sacrament is not act of worship, but only a reverend and pious badg▪ of more then ordinary thankfulnesse, in reception of an extraordinary blessing; and will referre him for proof to the Ru∣brick in their new booke, which doth declare kneeling is a signifi∣cation, of our humble and gratefull acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to every Receiver? and the imposition is justly capable of a dispute; the Rubrick seemeth to do littte more than commend this Gesture, onely directing the Minister to deliver the Elements to the people all meekly kneeling; and the le∣gality of the Canon, by him quoted is justly questioned; so that his reasons on which he could go neere to approve the Gesture, seems to be so cleare, that we may wonder he should not communicate in the Lords Supper, much more that he should flie so high as to

conclude Poison positive poyson; his Charity is large; who can judge all that ever did; all who do now communicate in the Lords Supper, celebrated by the Service-Book, and by the Gesture of kneeling are poysoned, expresly kild by poyson, this Charity will better become a totall and positive Separatist.

Our Remonstrator having (as he conceived assigned) a sufficient warrant for his confessed separation; in what he seemeth to an∣swer to Mr. Croftons 2d▪ and chief Consideration; proceedeth to consider some others, his next assault is on Mr. Croftons argu∣ment from the high places in Israel, the high places were not taken a∣way, but the people went thither to worship; yet I find not that any God∣fearing Israelite, who loathed those reliques of Idolatry, ever barred them∣selves,* 1.28 because thereof, from Gods Altar and worship.

Sir, I cannot but observe what a fair leap our Antagonist ma∣keth; passing many considerable Arguments, urged as most pro∣per, pertinent, and regent in our Case, amongst others the instance in the sons of Eli, who failed in the Ministration of Gods worship, taking their owne part, before they had burnt the fatt, according to Gods own appointment; and not contented with the portion God had allotted to them, they tooke by violence what came next hand; inso∣much that the people of the Lord loathed, yet never durst leave the offerings of the Lord; this disorder in the Ministeriall mode of worship; runs higher then that of the English Liturgy? yet the sin is not charged on the people; but this, and arguments of the like nature, are not worth the observation of our humble Remonstrator? but be it so, let us consider his batteries against Mr. Croftons plead from the high places in Israel.* 1.29

1. He tells us the retention of Jewish Ceremonies in the Christian Church, is (God knowes) a just cause of complaint, did Mr Crofton e∣ver deny it?

2. Reduction of them after sacred and solemne expulsion is more grei∣vous, who denies it? what reason doth Mr Crofton give for his and shall we not complain? whose complaints for retrogradation of Re∣formation, have been more audible and affectionate then Mr Crof∣tons? who hath more pressed or provoked the Complaints of Gods Israel? and shall we cry to him; what and shall we not com∣plaine?

3. M•• Croftons alledged Case of the Israelites high places, (he saith) is infinitely wide of ours, Sir, it must be ours according to his wide

mistakes? for according to Mr. Croftons close argumentation, it is very neer, and pertinent; the objection M. Crofton doth obviate by the Israelites high places, he hath indeed transcribed; but not once regarded, or considered? (viz) do men complaine of some Roman Rites retained? let them consider the high places in Israel: what is the forme, and force of this analogicall argument? Roman Rites reteined, is unlawful matter super-added to Gods worship? which substantially existeth with the same; the high places were unlawfull matter super▪ added to Gods Temple and Altar, which subsisted with the same, the Israelites left not Gods Altar, because of the super▪ added matter of the high places; nor may Christians leave Gods true worship, because of the super∣added matter of Roman Rites: Sir, are not these cases now infinite∣ly wide? but we will weigh the distance he observeth.

1. He saith the high places were retained; our Roman Rites re∣stored: what then restoration may aggravate the evil, but doth it change the nature of the corruption; high places and Roman Rites whether retained or restored, are only evils superadded to Gods Altar and worship, with which these doe truly formally exist, may and must bee attended; the relapse of a Church reformed doth adde to its guilt, but not abstract its being; returne of expelled evils do much more provoke God but not vitiate the subject his ordinance to which it is superadded; restoration of corruption maketh sin sink deeper in the Church, or subject of such restoration, but it is the qulle of the Corruption must sinke into and subvert the worship of God to which it is affixed, so as to vitiate and destroy the same.

2. He saith the Israelites were confined to Gods Altar in a certain place;* 1.30 and Mr. Crofton saith Christians are confined to Gods worship in certain assemblies; true constituted Churches, such as our Antago∣nist yieldeth Englands Congregations to be; Mr. Crofton de∣nieth not local liberty, or the place of worship to be the matter of indifferencie; the man is mistaken, locallity never became a To∣pick of any force to Mr. Crofton he saith to a true Church, a lawfully constituted Christian assembly, meet, assemble where you will and can, that which he saith against the loose affections of some Christians, apt to wander, is, forsake not the Assembling of your selves together, as the manner of some is: let Christs flock lie where it will or can, all particular members must keep Company with them; and have good reason before they refuse it; Christs true assemblies

are to Christians, what the fixed place, and altar was to the Jews.

3. The high places were at most but Idolatrous places, but our worship is superstitions worship: and into this runs his fourth note of di∣stance, and disparity in this Analogy, the Israelites worship was good, and place bad, but our place is only good and our worship is bad: No marvell Sir, if Master Croftons inference be to him a Non-sequitur: but Sir, This Charity is againe the fruite of his separation, and will carry him beyond the negative part of it; how? our worship superstitious? our worship bad? this cannot be admitted; who is the object of it, is it not God in Christ? what is the matter of it, it is not things instituted, appointed by the Lord him∣self, Word, Prayer, Sacraments? what is the form which giveth the esse to it? is it not what God determined, that his Word be read, preached, that he be called upon in the Name of Christ for things according to his will; that the symballs by him deter∣mined, be given and received as significant, sealing memorials, of the death, bodie, and blood of Christ? is not this the substance of the worship ministred in the English Church, and much of it by the English Liturgy? is this superstitious worship? bad worship?

Had our Remonstrator said, the Ministerial mode of Gods worship by the Liturgy had been bad, disordered, and not without some mixtures of superstition; he had not had Mr, Crofton for his Antagonist; but this vitiateth not its subject; entreth not into the worship; so as to make it superstitious worship, bad worship, the wor∣ship hereby existeth truly, fully, formally, Gods worship though not so comfortable, not so profitable to Gods people, as a better and more orderly mode for Ministration; but this will not do his work, his inevitable necessity faileth; his separation appeareth sinfull, a schisme unlesse he confound the worship and Ministe∣rial mode, so as to make the worship bad, superstitious, and not Gods worship.

Sir, before we pass this part of our Remonstrators Answer, I cannot but observe he is at a losse for what he pleads against: he crieth, What doth Mr. Crofton plead for?* 1.31

Alas man, that should have been known before now, and at the beginning of your Debate; it might have saved you this la∣bour and time; What saith he, Is it my presence in the Church at the time of Divine Service? yes it is: but not as his large Conscience, can yield it, in an Idol Temple, at the Masse, or Turkish Alchoran;

which I am sure Mr. Crofton, or any good understanding Chri∣stian could not yield: nor will his necessity to avoid poenal Lawes, or to bear a good Sermon justifie his so doing: no matter what Religion is publickly professed, this man is secured from suffe∣ring, for he (to save his Estate) can foot it with a Church-Papist, to a Popish Masse, or Protestant Service; and if presence in the Idol Temple in the time of Idol Worship may be made the Chara∣cter by a poenal Law, you shall never know him for a Christian; if this necessitie would have been sufficient, we should have had a much shorter Catalogue of Martyrs, both under Pagan, and un∣der Papal power, then by Gods grace we have for our encourage∣ment.

But Sir, that he and others may certainly know what Mr Crofton pleadeth for; I will tell him, It is for this Christian, care∣ful carriage on Gods Sabbath. It is a presence in the solemn pub∣lique Assembly from the first to the last of their approach to God, out of Conscience to begin and end the holy Convocation.

A presence with a mind informed, a judgment convinced, that this Assembly is Gods Church, in which Gods true Worship is truly cele∣brated.

A presence with an heart affected with, and afflicted for the su∣peradded Rites, which are affixed to Gods Worship, and the sinful defective, disordered mode, by which Gods Worship is mi∣nistred.

A presence with a Conscience convinced these Corruptions are e∣vil, but not so evil as to destroy Gods Worship; but that the same doth (even by this sinful mode) exist truly, formally Gods Worship; so as to use Gods Ordinance with delight, though grieved, bur∣dened by the disorder of the ministration.

A presence with a mind perswaded the modifying of Gods Wor∣ship is the personal duty of the Minister, and so the defects and dis∣orders therefore his personal sin; so as that these may be the good mans burden, (being bound to mourn for other mens sin, especial∣ly in what so much concerneth his own profit, and edification) but cannot be his sin, who hath thereof no publique judgment by speciallity of Office.

A presence with a mind soberly vigilant over its own personal actings, so as to decline all popular responds, conclamations, and va∣riation of Gestures, and the like actions, which are unduly requi∣red,

from him; so as to contain himself under such disorder in a composed silence.

A presence with a serious apprehension of God to whom the ser∣vice is di••ected; and the nature of the Worship ministred; so as with reverence to attend the Word read, and Prayers pronounced, though in parts, parcels, with unfit intermixtures, abruptions, a∣breviations, and pauses; so as to sigh and speak out an affectionate Amen, the whole, the only vocal part of the people in publique Worship.

Sir, this is the presence which Mr. Crofton pleadeth for, as that which true Religion, and good order doth require, and direct, whilst Christians cannot enjoy Gods Worship in communion with his Church, by a ministerial mode▪ more regular, perfect, and profita∣ble, digested by the personal abilities of each Ministrator.

Sir, our Remonstrator proceedeth to another of Mr. Crofton's Considerations, and that he accounted his second, but in the order of Mr. Crofton's Book it is the third, viz.

Communion with the Church under▪ many and great corruptions, is not inconsistent with zeal, care and contest for Reformation.Page 46, 47, 48.

What he saith to this is partly true, That endeavours of Refor∣mation are a duty; that Connivance is an argument of Affection▪ Com∣munion an argument of Connivance; the negative part of Reformation, bindeth ad semper, and the like; all which Mr. Crofton hath as∣serted, and amplyfied in his Plea: nor doth he detract or deny them; but these are generals, in the application of which our Re∣monstrator followeth the mistake of the Question, which hath mis∣guided him throughout his whole Remonstrance.

Herein, like an acute Disputant, he correcteth Mr. Crofton's state of the Question, and profoundly tells us; Mr. Crofton* 1.32 had done well to have stated the Question aright, de ecclesia reformanda, & de ecclesia reformata: Good Mr. Remonstrator may not ecclesia eadem, be eodem tempora reformata, & reformanda, what if a re∣formed Church relapse into some of tee same Corruptions, which were solemnly expelled, is she not ecclesia reformanda? is there no cure for her but ruine? and no carriage towards her, but to relin∣quish and run from her? doth the Crisis of the Question lye in her relapse, and retrogradation in Reformation, and into the same cor∣ruptions

which had been solemnly expelled; or in the quality and na∣ture of the corruptions which are returned into her? if her relapse be into extrinsecal, circumstantial corruptions, which notwiths••••n∣ding the substance of Gods Worship, and salvability of Gods peo∣ple is continued, and secured, is not the Question then plain, Whether communion with her relapsed into such corruptions be not consistent with zeal, care and contest for▪ Reformation? and who will deny that? but if the relapse into intrinsecal, and substantial corruptions which vitiate the subject, and destroy Gods Worship, and the salvability of Gods people; then indeed separation, not only negative, but positive is a duty.

But Sir, I wish the Remonstrator may review Mr. Crofton's Plea, and see that he doth consider the English Church reformed, relap∣sed, and to be reformed, and pray he will consider relapse, and re∣tr••gradation is the aggravation of the Church's sin, and provoca∣tion of Reformers zeal; but, the quale of the corruptions, whether first introduced, or after solemn expulsion returned into it, is that which must direct, and determine Communion or Separation.

But Sir, no state of the Question doth, nor indeed can be ex∣pected to suite his mis-guided zeal, but what is square to his mi∣staken judgment; he therefore here again c••ieth out of Communion in Corruption; Communion in the Liturgy; and according to the uncharitable fancy of the old brain-sick Brownists, and most rigid Separatists, his Dialect is, It is no Worship; God is not Worshipped; it is a going back into Egypt; it is poyson; I. will dye of famine rather then of poison; and the like, which is every where scattered up and down his Remonstrance.

To all this I know, Mr. Crofton will grant to him Communion in the Corruptions, Communion in the Liturgy is not consistent with endeavours for reformation: But Sir, herein lyeth the difference between Mr. Crofton and this Antagonist, the one maketh cor∣ruptions the direct immediate object of Communion; the other doth make Gods worship substantially for matter and forme, only Ministred by such a corrupt mode, and with such and such corrupt appendants conversant about it, which enter not into it, the object of Com∣munion; Mr. Crofton saith, we must communicate in Gods wor∣ship hereby Ministred; and the Remonstrator saith, we do commu∣nicate in the corūptions, in the Liturgy; Mr Crofton is so farre from pleading for Communion in the Liturgy, that he saith Mini∣sters

cannot without sin use it, for they are Judges? and stand char∣ged with the Ministerial mode of worship; and non-ministration by it is the least Art of reformation; nor doth he plead for, or justifie the personal actings of the people, in those popular Responds,* 1.33 Conclamations, and groundlesse change of Gesture, which is their part of Communion in it as a Liturgy; nay, so farre is Mr. Crof∣ton f••om pressing Communion in the Liturgy, that he maketh atten∣dance on Gods worship ministred by the form of the result necessity; and blameth the same in a case of choice, or liberty, to enjoy Gods worship in a more orderly and regular mode.

If Sir, the Remonstrator will not take the question as it is stated, the case of Conscience as it stands, and came close to the crisis of the Controversie, if he will not distinguish between his foode, and the unclean vessel, and ill-favored carving which doth trans∣mit it to him, if he will not differ between a necessity of feeding in such vessels on good wholsome food, ill-favouredly carved▪ and mangled, or starving, and a liberty and choice of a better and more orderly ministration; he may be afraid of and all his dayes fight with his shadow; for he fighteth not with Mr Crofton whose question is manifest in, and through his whole booke, to be about necessitated Communion in Gods worship in such an un∣fitting Ministerial mode.

Sir, Mr Crofton would not have any reforming Christian goe back, or retreat from the degree of Reformation they have at∣tained: but this is the case, and private Christians duty; the forum of the Church visible (at least the particular to which they relate) is changeable, and changed, yet confisteth of such who are true and lawfull though it may be not pious) Ministers of the Gospell, these are Judges; and do assume, & by their office impose on the Church a Ministerial mode of Gods worship, which is rude, disorderly, and was solemnely expelled; the people and particular members do nau∣seate, are burdened at this mode, yet cannot deny Gods worship doth truly, formally and salvably exist in and by it, they have no publique Judgement of, nor moral power to correct this mode, may passively attend, & personally act their part in Gods publick worship, without any personal acting in the Ministeriall mode; must they in this case not keepe their places? but recede from Communion, and resolve to live without solemne publique worship, not knowing how or where to have it better Ministred? Sir I would

intreat our Remonstrator to let his future discourse turne on the binge of the controversy; or his answer will be rejected as a groundlesse and forced creaking, not more unpleasant then un∣profitable.

Our Remonstrator doth suggest somthing from the Oath, called the Solemn League and Covenant, (of which he speaketh in such tearms, as speak little of wit, or honesty, and lesse Scotch zeal) as making for his fancy argumentum ad hominem at least.

Sir, we all know that Oath is become a Noli me••tangere, I must not plead for it, but this I will tell you, Mr. Crofton who hath reason, (having studied and disputed it, and deeply suffered for it) to understand that Oath will undertake to plead his principle, as that to which that Oath doth oblige; I will in his behalf note these three things considerable in this Case, to which that Oath doth bind: they are these.

1. It obligeth to Reformation in Worship, which supposeth worship doth fully and formally exist, defiled with some extrinsecal corruptions which must be removed, expelled; but still the subject must be owned and secured; not declined or refused whilst we conscientiously attend Worship, we must carefully endeavour it may be as pure, as it is true.

2▪ This Reformation must be endeavoured in our places and Calling by lawfull meanes, but the private capacity of particular members of the Church, dispose them to endeavours by no means but what result from the Judgement of Charity, viz. observing o∣ther mens sin, they must grieve for it; admonish even Elies sons to forbear it; Complaine to God and superiors, humbly petitioning a Reformation by their publique authority; and in case of choice, and liberty, attending Gods worship ministred in a better Mini∣sterial mode; but in case of necessity, rather then not attend Gods worship truly, salvably existing, their place doth binde them to attendance on it in this mode? but with a greived, burdened, complaining, supplicating spirit; that this evill may be reformed, bringing their offerings to the Lord, whilst they loath and rebuke, are greived for, and complaine against the Prophane Mini∣stration of the sons of Elie.

3. This Reformation must consist with reall sincere indeavours to extirpate schisme, as well as superstition; Mr Crofton hath well cautioned us, that the Divell doth labour to reforme the one, by

running as upon the other sin; but the grace of God keep∣eth* 1.34 us in an equal opposition to both: Now▪ unwarrantable secession from Gods worship, this very Remonstrator grants is a separation, and a sin, and although it be but negative and* 1.35 partial, yet it hath in it the formality of Schisme: our Re∣monstrators inevitable necessity we have found before doth varlish; on his mistake he must assign another, and that from the nature and quality of corruption, or impossibility of communion in Gods true worship, without communion in the ministerial mode, which is evident may be abstracted from the worship; and Mr. Crofton doth affirme is a personal act, though of a publique Officer to a publique end

Sir, the whole of what the Remonstrator saith in this point of Reformation is this: Mr. Crofton saith, the matter, (and he should have added the essential form, for so Mr. Crofton saith)* 1.36 is good, but the outward mode is bad, and to be reformed; this our Remonstrator very often and with great humility calleth Mr. Crofton's recocta Crambe; and yet as often as it is boyled by Mr. Crofton, it hath no good connection in this mans stomack; all the nurture he draws from it, is but like Scotch Keal, which turneth into winde and vapour.

Sir, our Remonstrator must yet have this crambe recocta, it is the Crisis of this Controversie, till it be digested, this Case of Conscience cannot be resolved; Mr. Crofton grants, that the whole frame and constitution of the Liturgy is to be refor∣med, removed; but he deemeth it to be adulterate worship and affirmeth it to be only a desective, disorderly ministerial mode of Gods true worship, of which the people hath not pub∣lique judgment, and by which they may enjoy Gods Ordi∣nances, capable of operation to their end, without any communion in this mode, which is personal in a publique Of∣ficer to a publique end, and must therefore be reformed by the endeavours of all in their places, and without unwar∣rantable secession, negative separation, formal Schism, and so a sinne.

They who have made a Schism between Pastors and People by an act of violence, and exaction of what must not be yielded, must be pittyed and prayed for, but not

paid in their own Coyn by us, or repelled by our personal sin and Schism: I desire to serve God, but God keep me from serving him by my sin; where sin is Gods instru∣ment, judgment (his strange work) is his businesse, and the fire is usually prepared for such Instruments, when their work is done.

Our Remonstrator stumble••h on another Sentence of Mr. Crofton's Plea, for indeed he no where taketh the scote, or understandeth the form and force of any Argument; he* 1.37 faith Mr. Crofton saith, I cannot without trembling consi∣der the circumcised Sects in the Church of Corinth, (Colosse he meant) are charged to have left the head, by leaving the body: This our Antagonist saith is a strange Argument, unlesse his non-Communicants be proved to be circumcised Sects, and guilty of such corruptions as will amount to a not holding the head.

Here Sir, our Remonstrator (who taketh no Argument right) is run out into another mistake; as if Mr Crofton did allude to the circumcised Sects for their corruption, who alludeth to them for their separation, not holding in the body, and so not holding the head; be the corruptions of any Church or People what they will; a separation, and unwarrantable separation from Gods true Church is a leav∣ing the body, and so not holding the head; the estate of which is so dreadful, that every good man cannot but tremble to see any in the least appearance thereof, motion, or tendency thereunto.

Sir, What our Remonstrator doth urge in case of scan∣dal is no contradiction in these to Mr. Crofton, in what he hath asserted: but in hypothesi he hath run on his old mistake, Is communion in the Liturgy a positive duty? is* 1.38 his Quaerie: Mr. Crofton saith, No; but communion in Gods worship ministred by the Liturgy, is a positive duty to such who have no choice, and cannot enjoy Gods worship in communion with Gods Church Catholique visible, in a better ministerial mode and order.

2. Saith he, is not the Liturgy indifferent? Mr. Crofton faith, No; it is not: not as the Bishop told him, because

imposed, but because a formal positive evil, but yet it is not an evil of that nature and quality, as to intercept the in∣dispensible duty of communion in Gods true worship mi∣nistred by it, when we have no choice.

3. Saith he, Will not scandal accrue by Mr. Crofton's communion, as well as conformity in the Liturgy; Mr Crof∣ton saith, It will; but he denieth all communion in the Li∣turgy; and his non-conformity is the act of non communion in his capacity, as a Minister; his non-personal acting in a∣ny the popular Responds, Conclamations, and groundlesse va∣riation of Gestures, is the evidence of his non-communion, as a Member of the Church.

Mr. Crofton is sensible, men, and good men, are, and will be scandalized by his communion in Gods worship, mi∣nistred by this mode; but this is by accident, not from the nature of his act, but from the ignorance and weaknesse of those who take it, and therefore are no bar to his duty; indeed weak, though good men may well stumble, when this man of Learning hath no more brains, then to con∣found communion in Gods worship ministred by the Liturgy, with communion in the Liturgy, and so conclude Mr. Crofton a Mecaenas and Advocate for the Liturgy.

Sir, That which is the great stick, and stumble with ma∣ny, though this acute Disputant doth not urge any thing against it, is this principle which some men (whose judg∣ment should be better) is pleased to call proprium Degma to himself, (viz.) I can communicate in Gods worship mini∣stred in that humane ministerial mode and order, by which I cannot administer.

Sir, The general reason of this his resolution, is the mo∣dification of Gods worship in, and to the Church, is the per∣sonal act of the Minister: If Sir, this act be personal, the Minister may not be imposed on, all sins in the ministerial mode, are his, who ministreth; and they extend not to the Church, unlesse by accident through some defect of their own: Sir, this general might be amplyfied by these parti∣culars.

1. A Minister by his Office stands charged to modifie Gods wor∣ship

by his ministerial gifts, and personal abilities; he may not therefore be imposed on, be the modes imposed never so good; he may as well admit composed Sermons, as com∣posed Prayers, and forms for Administration of Sacra∣ments.

2. Every Minister hath a publique judgment of the mini∣sterial mode by which he ministreth the worship of God, and doth qua Minister, as a publique Officer, receive this, and reject that; so that if he receive a mode defective and dis∣orderly, the sin becometh his.

3. Every Minister is personally active in the ministerial mode by which he ministreth, so that he mangleth Scripture, and doth personally act all that disorder which is in it.

These things are well illustrated by Mr. Croftons al∣lusion to the Recorder of the Citie, or Speaker in Parliament, and shew good reason why he cannot conforme to, Minister by such and such a ministerial mode.

But his ministry (as to exercise) being superseded, and he resolved into the state and capacity of a private member of the Church, considereth,

1. This ministerial mode is evil, but not such an evil as vitiateth the subject; Gods worship doth truly, formally, salvably, (though not comfortably or so prositably as by an∣other) exist in, and to the Church by it, and I cannot have Gods Ordinances in communion with Gods Church without it.

2. In this ministerial mode, the members of the Church are purely passive, they according to their duty, assemble to worship God; the Minister charged with the bumane mode, doth assume a Minister by this, the which the members of the Church do not advise or choose, nor any way act in, but com∣posedly attend the worship of God hereby ministred unto them, and exhibited for their Amen: so that the sin is personal, not publique and common, no way derived to me, unlesse by my neglect to mourn for this, as any other sin in an∣other.

3. Though this mode of worship do direct some acts to be done by the people, yet I am Master and Judg of my own action, and can with-hold, and refuse it, so that in the whole ministration I act not, but in my Amen to the prayer thus modified, and my attention to the worship thus ministred, and the sinful mode is by, and to the Minister, and him alone.

Sir, Let not any infer, that on these grounds we may attend a Masse and be innocent: For Sir, the corruptions in a Masse are such as vitiate the Subject, and destroy the worship of God.

1. It is celebrated in an unknown tongue, and so doth not exhibit any worship; it is to the people, vox & prete∣rea nihil, it is a frivolus objection, I understand Latine, when the Church, who understandeth it not, is the subject of the worship to be done to God, the Question is of pub∣lique communion, not my private and personal adoration.

2. The Masse doth pray to the Saints, a wrong object; in the name of the Saints, a wrong ground, for some unlaw∣ful things; wrong matter of prayer, Gods worship is not herein existent, but destroyed.

3. The Masse maketh the Sacraments Sacrifices for the quick and dead; transubstantiateth the Elements, and so chang∣eth the nature of the Ordinance in the very nature and esse thereof.

We are Sir, at last, arrived at the last quarrel our Re∣monstrator picketh at Mr. Croftons Plea, in which he is exactly square to his mistaken self.

Mr. Crofton saith, I am not without the caution and con∣duct of sober, godly, learned promoters, and pursuers of a perfect and compleat Reformation.

To this the Remonstrator saith, It is strange Mr. Crofton* 1.39 should argue from communion amongst distinct Churches, against the non-communion of present members of one and the same Church, since that is a communion not by participitati•••• and joint fellowship.

How Sir, not by participitation and joint fellowship? that is strange; though not by constant participitation personal, by their individual members, yet by joint fellowship in the same substan∣tial

worship, and occasional perticipation reciprocally, each with other, by their particular members cast into this or that Coun∣try: Sir, can other Reformed Churches hold communion with England, if her worship be no worship of God? will-wor∣ship, Scripture-bitten, will-worship? Moreover, Mr. Crofton ob∣served* 1.40 the Reformed Churches disowned not, on occasion declined not, never advised their travelling members to decline communion with England, her Liturgy notwithstanding, they sure con∣cluded* 1.41 Gods worship was therby ministred.

Again, this Remonstrator telleth us, Mr. Croftons instance in the primitive Non-conformists, is wide of that of the modern; it is true, and Mr. Crofton tells us in his Plea, He was sensible of it, they administred by this ministerial mode, which Mr. Crofton saith, He can better excuse than justifie; yet the distance is not* 1.42 so great, as this mans wild fancie doth dream; they were un∣der the same corruptions for kind, which are returned upon us; yet Hildersham, Ball, Nichols, Hind, and others maintained the duty of communion in Gods worship, under, in, and by them, against Brown, Barrow, and other Rigid Separatists, who urged this mans grand Argument, it was not Gods worship, and it was will-worship: I know our Remonstrator disowns relation to these men, and their Sects, yet sheltereth himself under their shield, and fighteth with no weapon, but what was forged on their Anvil, and in their Shop, only he addeth ours is an estate of re∣lapse; that is indeed true, and aggravateth our sin, but alter∣eth not the nature and quale of the corruptions; if these cor∣ruptions returned do vitiate the subject, and destroy Gods wor∣ship, they did so when first inovated, or continued in the first Re∣formation; for as I have before urged it is only the quality, not the degree of the evil must vitiate Gods worship, to make it poyson, express poyson.

Sir, I have done with this Remonstrator, when I have told him Mr. Crofton is a Peter, who can receive the rebukes of a brother Paul; but the rebukes of a Zeal, mistaking matter of fact, doth only retort on the Censurer, with a what doth your arguing re∣prove?

I am Sir,

Your Obliged Friend, R. S.

Febr. 13. 1662.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Page 15.
• * 1.2

  Pa. 14. 30.
• * 1.3

  Page 29.
• * 1.4

  Page 15.
• * 1.5

  Pa. 15. 16.
• * 1.6

  Page 22.
• * 1.7

  Reforma∣tion not Seperati∣on
• * 1.8

  Pag 6.
• * 1.9

  Reforma∣tion not Separati∣on.
• * 1.10

  Pag. 25.
• * 1.11

  Pag. 22.
• * 1.12

  Reforma∣tion not Separati∣on.
• * 1.13

  Page 25.
• * 1.14

  Pa. 20. 21 22, 23.
• * 1.15

  Page 24.
• * 1.16

  Pag. 16. 17.
• * 1.17

  Pag. 19.
• * 1.18

  Pag. 19. 20.
• * 1.19

  Pag. 21.
• * 1.20

  Pag. 26.
• * 1.21

  P••. 28. 29.
• * 1.22

  Page 31.
• * 1.23

  Pa. 32.
• * 1.24

  Pa. 29. 35
• * 1.25

  Page 30.
• * 1.26

  Page 39.
• * 1.27

  Page 41.
• * 1.28

  Page 43.
• * 1.29

  Page 44▪
• * 1.30

  Page 45.
• * 1.31

  Page 46
• * 1.32

  Page 47.
• * 1.33

  Read h••s Reforma∣tion not Separati∣on.
• * 1.34

  Reforma∣tion not 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.35

  P••ge 46.
• * 1.36

  Page 48▪
• * 1.37

  Page. 5.
• * 1.38

  Page. 53.
• * 1.39

  Page 54.
• * 1.40

  Reforma∣tion not Separati∣on.
• * 1.41

  Page 43.
• * 1.42

  Page 44.