Argument I.

I. They are perswaded that according to the Rubrick, [Page 22] the same honour is put on the Apocryphal Books, which is due alone to the Sacred Scriptures. For they are appointed to be read as a part of the Old Testament, without any note of difference from the Canonical.

In a discourse before the Common Prayer concerning the Service of the Church, 'tis asserted that nothing is ordained to be read, but the very Pure word of God, the Holy Scriptures, or that which is agreable to the same, beside this after the order, how the Psalter is to be read, 'tis said in the Title, how the rest of Holy Scripture is to be read, under which Ti­tle several orders are to be found. Namely, 1. The Old Testament is appointed for the first Lessons at Morning and Evening Prayer, so as the most part thereof will be read every year once, and in the 3d. order 'tis said that to know what Lessons shall be read every day, look for the day of the Month in the Kalendar following, and there ye shall find the Chapters that shall be read for the Lessons both at Morn­ing and Evening Prayer, and in the Rubrick after the Psalms are read 'tis order'd, that then shall be read distinctly with an audible voice, the First Lesson taken out of the Old Testament, as it is appointed in the Kalendar, whereby 'tis evident that what is appointed in the Kalendar to be read, for the First Lesson, is consider'd as a part of the Old Testament, the Ho­ly Scripture, the pure word of God; But the Apocryphal books are in the Kalendar appointed to be read for First Les­son for almost Two Months together, even from the latter end of September untill November 24th, beside the Holy dayes, on which these books are appointed to be read. To which add that this is done to the constant neglect of reading a great part of the Sacred Scriptures, namely the two books of Chro­nicles. Solomons Song, and a great part of the Revelations.

That 'tis the appointment of the Church to read the Apo­cryphal books as a part of the Holy Scriptures, is farther con­firm'd by Archbishop Bancroft, in the conference held at Hampton Court, where (as the abridgment has it,) he tax'd Jerom for calling these books Apocrypha, and said he was the [Page 23] first that gave them that name, and called his objections against them, the old Cavills of the Jews; And the Bishops of Winchester affirm'd at the same time, that they must needs be held, Canonici ad informandos mores. Canonical for the in­formation of manners. To these I'll add, what Mr. Hutton in his answer unto the reasons of the Ministers of Devon and Cornwall to this very objection. ‘They, are saith he, called Holy Scriptures in a signification at large, because the sub­ject they entreat of, is God, his Love, Power, our San­ctification and Obedience to him. And they may be held Canonical, wholsom Doctrines being thence deduced, though not simply of themselves, yet wherein they agree with the Canon, as also because they may serve as they alwayes heretofore have done, for a rule to direct and order our Con­versation aright.’

In this answer, though he seems without the approbation of the Rubrick, to make a difference between the Sacred Scriptures, and the Apocrypha books, yet at length falls in with the Bishop of Winchester asserting, that they are a Canon or Rule to direct our Conversation aright.

But in opposition hereunto, 'tis generally by sound Pro­testants asserted. 1. That the Apocryphal books are not a part of the Holy Scriptures, the pure word of God. 2. That there are several things appointed to be read, which are not agreable to the word of God, nor can be defended by any sound Protestant.

To make this point the more clear, I'll give the Reader an account of what is reply'd to the distinction of the Bishop of Winchester about the Canon of Faith, and Manners, and then offer what arguments have been urg'd against this prac­tice of the Church.

In the second part of the defence of the reasons of the De­vonshire and Cornish Ministers, 'tis thus reply'd to the afore­said distinction. ‘But that we may farther see how heart­less and unsound this distinction of Canonical for manners, but not for Faith is, let us observe how they here make a [Page 24] distinction of faith and manners where none is, for all Do­ctrines of God's word are (in this respect) Doctrines of faith, whether they concern matters of believing, or of other Conversation of life, wherefore the Apostle hath coupled them together in that place to Timothy, saying, all Scripture given by inspiration of God, &c. shewing us thereby, that upon one, and the same divine Revelation, our knowledge and practice both must be grounded. And I would entreat these men that give us this distinction, to tell us whether it be not a point of faith, That we must wor­ship one God, and him after his own manner, reverencing his Name, and keeping his Sabbaths, &c. And whether it be not a point of faith, That we must honour our Parents and Superiors, that we must not Kill, commit Adultery, Steal, Slander, Covet; And whether our Consciences be not bound in these things by the Divine Testimony, as well as in any point of our understanding? surely (unless our Divinity faileth) all the word of God is the object of Faith, that as well which directeth to manners, as that which re­vealeth mysteries unto us. There is (I confess) a distincti­on between Faith and Manners, when we come to sort and sever the things contained in the Word, into the kinds of duties imposed, but when we consider them in the Rule and Principle of the word it self, from which the Consci­ence is certainly inform'd and bound, there is no difference, but they are all of faith alike: even as the same sap, which in the branches distinct unto leaves and blossomes, was in the Root but one; whence it followes that nothing can be properly Canonical unto manners, but the same was first Canonical unto faith: for we therefore stand undoubtedly perswaded that thus we ought to do, because we first be­lieve that God himself would have us to do so, and hath re­veal'd it to us as his will.’

By this it seems evident that the distinction between Canon of faith and of manners as us'd by the Bishops, is idle and im­pertinent, and that therefore notwithstanding all has been [Page 25] said by Mr. Hutton, it remains as an undoubted truth, that the Service Book doth consider the Apocripha as Canonical, as a part of the Holy Scriptures, the pure Word of God, which is no more than what may be inferred from their confounding the Apocriphal with the ‘Canonical books, as may be seen in their great Bible Authorized to be read, where dividing the books of the Old Testament into Legal, Historical, Sapiential and Prophetical; In the Historical they place 19 books, amongst which they reckon the third and fourth books of Esdras, the books of Tobith and Judith, the two books of Maccabees, and the rest of the Chapters of Esther, making the book of Esther to consist of 16 Chapters, and then to be part of that book. In the Sapiential they place 5 books, whereof they reckon the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for two, calling the book of Wisdom the Wisdom of Solo­mon. In the Prophetical they place 18 books, of which they reckon Baruch the Prophet, and Susanna, Bell and the Dragon, making the same all one with Daniel, consist­ing of 14 Chapters; What can be more clear than this, sayes the Defender of the Reasons? &c. Where to (sayes the same Author) if we add the book of Homilies, how it divers times calleth these Apocriphal Books Holy Scriptures, in the same sense wherein the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are so called, saying in the alledging To­bith and Ecclesiasticus, the Holy Ghost speaketh so in the Scriptures, thereby giving the same Authority and Title with Zechary, Luke 1. and the Author to the Hebrews Ch. 3. 7. give to the Holy Prophets, in their writing of places out of the Old Testament.’

Thus 'tis evident; That according to the Service Book, and the Sentiments of some great Bishops, the great Bible and Book of Homilies, the Apocripha is consider'd as a part of the Holy Scriptures. The which truth abides in its strength, notwithstanding what is argued from the Book of Articles, where 'tis sufficiently manifest, that the Apo­cripha are no part of the Holy Scriptures, for this doth but [Page 26] discover the contradiction there is between the book of Arti­cles and the Service book, &c. whereby the Non-Confor­mists are but supply'd with an unanswerable argument against subscription, which I'll give in the words of the Devonshire Ministers: viz. That to subscribe to the Service Book is con­trary to our Subscription to the Book of Articles, the 6 Article whereof under the name of Holy Scriptures, understanding on­ly the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, there mentioned, whereof the Apocrypha Books are none, and there­fore they conclude they cannot safely subscribe, because they shall subscribe to two books, one contrary to another.

This being so clear, namely, that the Apochripha Books, are appointed to be read as a part of the Holy Scriptures, and as the Canon and Rule of manners, I'll proceed to shew what has been objected against it; Not that I'll trouble the Reader with all, but onely with two or three particu­lars.

1. Hereby their error, who account these Books Canoni­cal Scripture is confirm'd; ‘This was (sayes the Lincoln Abridgment) the only reason, that moved the third Coun­cill of Carthage to decree, that they should be held Cano­nical, because they had received from the Fathers, that they were to be read in the Church. And Bellarmine makes this one of his best reasons to prove that the authority of these books is Divine and Canonical, because they are now, and have been of old, read by the Church in the publique Assemblies; so do the Papists in that Book they have lately Published, called the Three Conversions of England; And Gregory Martin reasoneth thus; "Their own Service book (saith he) appointeth these books of Toby and Ecclesiasticus to be read for Holy Scriptures, as the other. Do they read in their Churches Apocryphal and Superstitious Books for Holy Scriptures?’ so clear it is that the very Papists are con­firm'd in their error by this practise of the Church.

2. The reading these books, though but as the Canon and Rule manners tends so very much to the corrupting the man­ners [Page 27] of men in some things, that the Dissenters can in no way approve of it.

In the defence of the Devonshire and Cornish Ministers rea­sons, 'tis thus argued. ‘If the Apocriphal Books be Ca­nonical as teaching manners, then whatsoever point of manners those books do commend unto us, either by Pre­cept or allowed Example, we not only may but must observe it for Conscience sake, as a divine Rule or Canon.’

'Tis true hereby a late Order, which was that the wicked Dissenters, if poor receive not Almes, will be defended, for 'tis but according to the command in Ecclesiasticus 12. 5. where 'tis expresly said; Give not to the Ʋngodly, hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him: least he over-master thee thereby. But how agreable this Precept is unto the pure word of God, or the light of nature, let a common capacity judge, but though this practice is enjoyn'd to the defence of that but now mention'd order, yet there are other allowed, and highly approv'd practises, which are most odious in the apprehension of the Dissenter, and are really abhor'd by all but bloody Papists. For Judiths tricking up her self on purpose to tempt and ensnare the heart of Holofernes to un­cleanness, her compassing an Irreligious Governour by fraud, by lies, by oaths and protestations in the name of God, to the end she might the more assuredly murder him, is not on­ly an allowed, but a practice highly approv'd of by the book of Judith, that is appointed to be read in October.

The children of Israel, though now return'd from the Babylonian Captivity, yet to the very time Holofernes was murdered by Judith, they remained under the Government of the Emperour. The Emperour though an Idolater, yet their Lawfull Governour, whose Government they should not have shaked off by frauds, by lies, equivocations, and other sinfull practices, which yet Judith did to the gaining the greatest applause and commendation; The which is read in the Church as the Rule of manners, whereas in truth, 'tis meet only for the countenancing the unjustifiable treasons [Page 28] of the Papists, to which purpose it has been improv'd by Saunders de schismate, who ‘inciting the English Ladies, professing the Popish Religion to murder Queen Elizabeth, and all her Favourers, calling her Holofernes, the Heretical Prince, did prove from this example of Judith, that they might do it, without any the least stain or blot to their Re­ligion.’

This is urg'd in the defence of the reason of the Devon­shire and Cornish Ministers, from whence I would query, whe­ther a person fully convinc'd of that, if the book of Judith must be read as the Rule of manners, this allowed practice of Judith must be in the like case imitated, ought not rather to abandon the reading or hearing of these books, then presume to enter on the practises of murdering by lies, deceits. &c. I verily believe, that the Non-Conformists rather than that they would imitate Judith in these things, would rather be expos'd to the worst of miseries, whereby they would more effectually demonstrate to the World the Loyalty of their Principles, than by their Conformity.

There are several other things that must be practised; if the Apocriphal Books be embrac'd as the Rule of manners, un­to which the Dissenters cannot conform. But designing to be short, I will at this time wave the considering them, and proceed to shew the sense, some of the Old Church of Eng­land Protestants had of these books, as I find it in the Abridg­ment.

3. ‘The Old Church of the Jewes, (saith Dr. Whitaker) never vouchsafed the Apocriphal Books so much honour as to read 'em publiquely, which also the Learned hold to be a good president for us to follow—The Council of Hippo (sayes Bishop Jewell) speaking of the Canonical Scriptures, decreed that besides them nothing might be read in the Church. The Council held at Laodicea decreed, on the Sabbath we may not read any books, that be with­out the Canon, but only the Canonical books of the Old and New Testament. To the like effect Chrysostom speaks, [Page 29] (sayes the same Jewell,) and as Bishop Jewell, so Bishop Horn, and Bishop Pilkinton asserts, the French Church by the constitutions of Lewes and Charles, were against the reading of the Apocrypha.’ Whoever will diligently com­pare what Protestant writers offer against Apocryphal books, with the books themselves will find so many idle stories and fables, so many errors and ill presidents in it, that they can­not but conclude with Dr. Sutcliff. ‘That it is impudence in the Papists, that they match Apocryphal books and Legends, with the Scriptures, or at least read them in the Churches, together with the Scriptures.’

From the whole hath been said on this particular, I inferr that 'tis but charity to conclude that some Dissenters may re­ceive such strong convictions concerning the unlawfulness of conforming to this part of the Liturgy, that their Non-con­formity may be more justly esteemed the product of Consci­ence, than the Off-spring of obstinacy, and an unreasonable Humour.

Argument II.

II. Some Dissenters cannot Conscientiously approve of the Translation of the Psalmes, which is read at the ordina­ry Lord's dayes service, because 'tis not only imperfect, but moreover in some places senseless and absurd, and in other places false, directly contradicting our last Translation of the Psalmes in the Bible.

The Translation now us'd is the same set forth in the times of ignorance, when the light of the truth did but begin to dawn in Henry the 8th. dayes, and is

1. Imperfect, because among many other omissions, all the Titles, though a part of the original and very usefull, are left out.

2. Sensless and absurd, for Psal. 58. 9. where our Tran­slation has it thus, viz. before your pots can feel the Thorns, he shall take them away with a Whirl-wind, both living, [Page 30] and in his wrath. In the Service Book Translation 'tis, or ever your pots be made hot with Thorns, so let indignation vex them, as a thing that is raw. So Psal. 72. 6. He shall come down like rain upon the mowen grass. This in the com­mon prayer is Translated thus, he shall come down like the rain into a fleece of Wool. This our Old Protestant divines look'd upon as a corruption in the Papists, not to be ap­proved, but can it be less so when done by the sons of the Church of England, Fulk, Withers, Bulkley, Whitaker, and others have blamed the Rhemists Translation, because 'tis in many places senseless and absurd, for which reason seeing the Translation of the Psalmes in the Service Book, is as sense­less in some things, as that of the Rhemists is in other, 'tis as much to be blamed, and as little to be approv'd.

But this is not all, for this Translation in Henry the 8th, is not only imperfect, absurd and senseless, but moreover in some places contrary to the original, not only in the opinion of Dissenters, but also in the judgment of those who were the Authours of the best Translation that ever was in Eng­lish.

1. The Psalter has it in Psal. 17. 4. Thus, because of mens works that are done against the words of thy lips: I have kept me from the wayes of the destroyer, but more agreeably to the Original, our Translation is thus, concern­ing the works of men, by the words of thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer, whereby 'tis apparent, that not mens works that are done against the words of God's lips kept David right, but concerning mens works, David was kept from the paths of the destroyer, by the words of God's lips.

2. In Psal. 18. 26. The Psalter sayes, that with the frow­ard, thou shalt learn frowardness, but according to the He­brew, 'tis as our last translation in the Bible has it, with the froward thou shalt shew thy self froward.

3. In the Psalter Psal. 68. 6. 'tis thus, he is the God that maketh men to be of one mind in an house, whereas according [Page 31] to the Hebrew, 'tis God setteth the solitary in Families.

4. In the Psalter, Psal. 107. 40. Though he suffer them to be evil intreated through Tyrants, but according to the Hebrew in our Bibles; He poureth contempt upon Princes. But,

5. In Psal. 105. 28. The Psalter sayes, And they were not obedient unto his word, but the Hebrew, And they rebelled not against his word, or were not disobedient to his word. And in Psal. 106. 30. The Psalter has it; Then stood up Phineas and Prayed, and so the Plague ceased; But our Bibles, then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment, and the Plague ceased, which is not only most agreeable to the Hebrew in this place, but moreover to the History in number 25. 7, 8.

Such as conform to the ordinary Lord's dayes Service, must not only shew their approbation to the many idle Stories in the Apocryphal books, and give 'em that countenance that alone pertains to the pure word of God; but besides must lay aside the Translation that is most exactly agreeable to the Original, and use one that is not only imperfect, absurd and senseless, but in some things so contrary to the Original. But some Dissenters think that their Conformity in this re­spect cannot but prove pernicious to the Christian Religion, as it casts a reproach not only on the last and best translation, but even on the Original it self; They know how jealous God is about his word, unto which no additions, diminuti­ons or alterations can be made, but to the provoking the most high, and the wounding their Consciences, and therefore are afraid to conform.

Argument III.

III. The third Argument doth more immediately concern the very Service it self, unto which the Dissenters refuse to Conform, because of that similitude, likeness and agreement there is between it and the formes of Prayer, which the Pa­pists use.

[Page 32] That the Reader may be the more fully acquainted with the true State of this controversie, about the agreeableness there is between the English, and Roman Service Books, and what 'tis the Dissenters aim at by their insisting so very much on it, I must shew.

1. What they say concerning the agreableness that is sup­posed to be between these Service Books.

2. How this came to pass; What occasion'd our adhering so closely to the Popish Service Book even when we forsook their Communion.

3. The Reasonings of some Dissenters from that agree­ableness is suppos'd to be between these two books against the English Service.

First, What they say concerning the agreableness that is suppos'd to be between these two Service books.

The Dissenters do out of King Edward's Letter unto the Devonshire and Cornish Rebels give this following account of it, namely. ‘As for the Service in the English Tongue thus manifest reasons for it, and yet perchance it seemeth to you a new Service, and indeed is none other but the old; the self same words in English, which were in Latine. The differ­ence is, that you our Subjects should understand in English, that which before was spoke in Latine. If the Service of the Church was good in Latine, it remaineth good in Eng­lish, for nothing is alter'd, but to speak with knowledge, that which was spoke with ignorance.’ Furthermore these Dissenters add, as I find in their Anatomy of the Service Book. ‘That every piece and parcel of the Liturgy, word for word is out of these Popish peices, namely the Breviary out of which the Common Prayers are taken, the Ritual, or book of Rites, out of which the Administration of the Sa­craments, Burial, Matrimony, visitation of the sick are ta­ken. The Mass-book, out of which the consecration of the Lord's Supper, Collects, Epistles and Gospels, are ta­ken: As for the book of ordination of Arch-bishops, Bi­shops and Ministers, that is out of the Roman Pontifical.’

[Page 33] These things being so, whoever pleads for the English Service book, doth so far defend the Romish Mass-book, not that 'tis a defence of the whole Romish Service, for in the Anatomy of the Service Book 'tis acknowledged, that eve­ry thing in the Mass-book is not in our Liturgy, though all that is in our Liturgy is word for word in the Mass-book. But so far as our Liturgy is defended, so far that part of the Romish Service is defended, for which reason, the greatest Champions, who among our Church men have most zealous­ly written in defence of the Liturgy, and have been consi­der'd by the Church of Rome as men; who have done great Service to the Roman Religion. Thus Whitgift and Hooker, have had their applauses from the Romanists

'Tis not unworthy observation to find Arch-Bishop Whit­gift reproaching Cartwright, and the Dissenters as a people eminently serviceable to the Papist, and Dean Stilling fleet to give the utmost countenance he could thereunto, whereas the truth is, that that on which Whitgift grounds his censure, will not bear it, and though none of Dean Stilling fleet's ad­versaries have taken any notice of it, that I can find, yet Whitgift himself is the man, who has had from the Jesuites great thankes for what he has written against Dissenters, in defence of the English Service and Discipline.

That Whitgifts Censure concerning the Dissentes subservi­ency to Popish designes is groundless, being rather the pro­duct of his indiscreet passions, than of sound arguings, is evident, in that the great reason given to shew that the Dis­senters are the Papists promoters, is because they assert that the Papists ought not to be compel'd to receive the Supper of the Lord, so long as they continue in their Popery, that is, they ought not to act contrary to their Conscience, nor dissem­ble with Almighty God, by professing themselves to be Pro­testants, even when they are really, and in heart Papists; whether this be to gratifie the Papist let the impartial Reader judge.

But that Whitgift has gratify'd the Papist in his writings [Page 34] against Dissenters; I'll evince by producing what the learn­ed Parker in his Ecclesiastical policy, lib. 1. chap. 33. insists on, in answer to this objection of Whitgift, Bancroft, and others, where he shews how William Reignolds the Jesuit as­serts, that John Whitgift in his discourse against Cartwright, has defended the Catholick Cause, and accordingly the said Reignolds in the preface against Whitaker, makes great use of Whitgift, and in the book it self, he sends Mr. Whitaker un­to Dr. Whitgift, for a supply of reasons for the confirming their notion about putting of our caps, and making curtesie at the hearing the Name of Jesus. Scultinyns and Stapleton give the same Character both of the writings of Whitgift and Bancroft against the Puritanes, even as Gretzer the Jesuit triumphs in Saravias and Sutcliff's defence of the Episcopal Authority in Civils.

And as Whitgift, even so Hooker, for the service done the Church of Rome, by what they have writ in defence of the worship and discipline of the Church of England, hath had the praises of the Romanists. This Mr. Walton in the life of Hooker has observ'd, which is no more than what Dr. King, Bishop of Chichester was acquainted with, as he himself ex­presses in a letter to honest Isaac. ‘I am glad you mention (sayes the Bishop) how much value Robert Stapleton, Pope Cle­ment the 8th, and other eminent men of the Romish perswa­sion have put upon this book, having been told the same in my youth by persons of worth, that have travelled Italy.’ And what doth this discover less than that such is the agree­ment between the Service and Discipline of the Church of Eng­land, and that of Rome, that whoever pleads for the one, defends the other.

Furthermore in the Anatomy of the Service Book, we are furnished with an Historical Account of the Papists appro­ving our Liturgy. ‘There be, sayes the Author thereof, abundance of instances for the Papists approving our Litur­gy, witness Mortons Appeal, Pope Pius the 4th, and Gregory the 13th. offered to Queen Elizabeth to confirm the English [Page 35] Liturgy; Witness Dr. Abbot then Prelate of Canterbury, and Mr. Cambden in the life of Queen Elizabeth, who sayes the common fame went for truth, that the Pope promised to confirm out of his own authority the English Liturgy, provided her Majesty should rank her self with the Roman Church: To thefe I adjoyn Dr. Boyes, who was a bitter expositor of the English Liturgy, as Heiga by the Doc­tors of Dowayes appointment was of the Mass, after he hath whetted his teeth upon the Schismaticks in his Epistle to Bancroft, he produceth the letter of Pope Pius, for the approbation of the Service Book, and notes also the Te­stimony of approbation from Bristow, in his motives, Queen Elizabeth being interdicted by the Popes Bull. Se­cretary Walsingham wrought so, that he procured two In­telligences to be sent from the Pope, as it were in secret in­to England, to whom the Secretary appointed a State Intel­ligencer to be their Guide, who shew'd them London, and Canterbury service in all the pomp of it, which the popish Intelligencers viewing and considering well, with much ad­miration they wondred, that their Lord the Pope was so ill advised, or at least ill informed as to interdict a Prince, whose Service and Ceremonies so Symobiliz'd with his own, and therefore returning to Rome they possest the Pope, that they saw no Service, Ceremonies or Orders in England, but they might very well serve in Rome, whereupon the Bull was recalled, to this also Doctor Carrier, consid. p. 45. a dangerous seducing Jesuit gives ample evidences; The Common Prayer book, (saith he) and the Catechism contained in it, held no point of Doctrine expresly contrary to Anti­quity, that is, as he explaineth himself contrary to the Ro­mish Service, &c.’ Much more might be spoke to this pur­pose, but I wave it, judging that what hath been already of­fer'd is sufficient to evince, that there is, at least in the judg­ment of many, a very great agreableness between the two ser­vice books.

[Page 36] 2. What is it that occasion'd the Church of Englands adhe­ring to so great a part of the Romish Service Book, even when she forsook the Communion of that Church?

Whoever considers the State of the Church in Edward the sixth his time, will find that Cranmer and others discover'd a propension to drive on the Reformation much farther than they did, but were hindred by the iniquity of the times. Thus Bullinger, as I find it in a difcourse of the troubles of Franckford, reports to Mr. Williams, Whittingham, Gilby and others, that Cranmer Bishop of Canterbury had drawn up a book of Prayers an hundred times more perfect than this we now have, but the same could not take place, for that Cranmer was matched with a wicked Clergy and Convoca­tion with other enemies.

There were also reasons of a like nature that might hinder the furtherance of the reformation in Queen Elizabeths dayes, for even then the ignorance of the vulgar accompanied with a proportionable hatred to true Religion was very great; Whence 'tis that Cambden assures us, ‘that the change of Religion was not suddenly made, but by little and little, by degrees, for the Roman Religion continued in the same State it was first, a full Month, and more after the death of Queen Mary. The 27th of December it was tolerated to have the Epistles and Gospels, the Ten Commandments, the Symbole, the Litany, and the Lords Prayer in the vulgar Tongue. The 22 of March the Parliament being Assem­bled, the order of Edward the sixth was re-established, and by act of the same, the whole use of Lord's Supper, granted under both kinds. The 24th. of June by the Au­thority of that which concern'd the Uniformity of Publique Prayers, and Administration of the Sacraments. The Sa­crifice of the Mass was abolished, and the Liturgy in the English Tongue more and more Established. In the Month of July, the Oath of Allegiance was proposed to the Bi­shops, and other persons, and in August, Images were thrown out of the Temples and Churches, and broken, and burn'd.’

[Page 37] Furthermore, as the illness of the times did impeed a sud­den Reformation, in like manner the moderate temper, and favourable disposition the Queen had to some part of Popery, was such as hindred a full Reformation; whereupon it was not so far carryed on by this Queen, as 'twas sometime before by her Brother Edward the sixth.

That Queen Elizabeth had a natural propension to favour some part of Popery, is not only manifest from her (I hope) Conscientious conforming so far in Queen Maries dayes, as to hear Divine Service according to the rule in the Romish Church, and her oft going to confession, and afterwards when she came to the Throne, her choosing to be Crown'd by a Popish Bishop, according to the order of the Roman Pon­tifical, which had so much in it of the Ceremonies and Su­perstitions of the Church of Rome, that 'tis thought very probable, the Protestant Bishops would not act in it, but with great alterations, and that therefore she desired 'em not to be ingaged in it. But beside this, Dr. Burnet gives us the same Character I have suggested, for sayes he in his Histo­ry of the Reformation, ‘Queen Elizabeth receiving some impressions in her Fathers Reign in favour, of such Old Rites as he had still retain'd, and in her own Nature loving State, and some Magnificence in Religion, as well as in eve­ry thing else, she thought, that in her Brother's Reign they had stript it too much of External Ornaments, and had made their Doctrine too narrow in some points, therefore she intended to have some things explained in more general Termes, that so all parties might be comprehended by them. She inclin'd to keep up Images in Churches, and to have the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament left in some general words, that those who believed the Corpo­ral presence might not be driven away from the Church by too nice an explanation of it.’ So far Dr. Burnet.

In pursuance of these resolves, the Queen attempts the accommodating matters of Religion so unto the Romish Clergy, as to take 'em into the Communion of the Church [Page 38] of England, the which end, as Dr. Heylin affirmes, she so effectually compass'd, that for several years the Papists continued in the Communion of the Church, and when they did forsake it, it was not because they approved not of our Liturgy, but upon political considerations, and because the Councill of Trent had commanded it, and Pope Pius the 5th. had Excommunicated the Queen, and discharg'd her Sub­jects from their Allegiance, and made the going or not go­ing to Church a sign distinctive, to difference a Roman Catho­lick from an English Protestant.

I'll give you the words of Dr. Heylin, they are in his History of Queen Elizabeth. ‘There past another Act for recommending and imposing the book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, according to such alteration and corrections as were made therein by those who were appointed to revise it, as before is said. In the pursuance of which service, there was great care taken for expunging all such passages in it, as might give any scandal or offence to the Popish party, or be urg'd by them in excuse for their not coming to Church, and joyning with the rest of the Congregation in God's publique worship. In the Litany first made and published by King Henry the Eight, and afterwards continued in the two Liturgies of King Ed­ward the sixth, there was a Prayer to be deliver'd from the Tyranny, and all the detestable enormities of the Bishops of Rome, which was thought fit to be expung'd, as giving matter of scandal, and disaffection to all that party, or that otherwise wish'd well to that Religion. In the First Liturgy of King Edward, the Sacrament of the Lord's Body was deliver'd with this benediction, that is to say, the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for the preservation of thy Body and Soul, to Life Everlasting; The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. which being thought by Calvin and his Disciples to give some countenance to the gross and car­nal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which passeth by the name of Transubstantiation in the School of Rome, was [Page 39] alter'd into this form, into the second Liturgy, that is to say, take and eat this in remembrance that Christ dyed for thee, and feed on him, in thy heart by faith with Thanksgiving; Take and drink this. &c. But the Revisers of the book joyn'd both formes together, least under colour of rejecting a carnal, they might be thought also to deny such a real pre­sence as was defended in the writings of the antient fathers. Upon which ground they expung'd also a whole Rubrick at the end of the Communion Service, by which it was decla­red, that kneeling at the participation of the Sacrament, was required for no other reason, than for the signification of the humble and gratefull acknowledging of the benefits of Christ given therein unto the worthy Receiver. And to avoid that prophanation and disorder which otherwise might have ensued, and not for giving any adoration to the Sacramental Bread and Wine, there bodily received, or in regard of any real and essential presence of Christ's Body and Blood. And to come up closer to the Church of Rome, it was ordered by the Queens injunctions that the Sacramental Bread (which the book required onely to be made of the finest Flower) should be made round, in fashion of the wa­fers used in the time of Queen Mary. She also order'd that the Lord's Table should be placed where the Altar stood, that the accustomed reverence should be made at the name of Jesus, Musick retained in the Church, and all the old festi­vals observ'd, with their several Eves; By which comply­ances, and the expunging of the passages before remem­bred, the book was made so passable amongst the Papists, that for ten years they generally repair'd to their Parish Churches, without doubt or scruple, as is affirm'd not only by Sir Edward Cook in his Speech against Garnet, and his charge given at the Assizes held at Norwich, but also by the Queen her self, in a Letter to Sir Francis Walsingham, then being her Resident, or Leiger Embassador in the Court of France, the same confessed by Sanders also in his book de Schismate.’

[Page 40] To this Heylin within a few years following adds. ‘And now we may behold the face of the Church of England, as it was first setled and established under Queen Elizabeth. The Government of the Church by Archbishops and Bi­shops;—The Liturgy conform to the primitive patterns, and all the Rites and Ceremonies therein prescri­bed, accommodated to the honour of God, and encreafe of piety. The Festivals preserved in their former Dignity, observ'd with all their distinct Offices peculiar to them, and celebrated with a Religious Concourse of all sorts of peo­ple, the weekly Fasts, the Holy time of Lent, the Embring weeks, together with the Fast of the Rogation, severely kept by a forbearance of all kind of flesh, not now by vir­tue of the Statute, as in the time of King Edward, but as appoynted by the Church in her publique Calendar, before the book of Common Prayer, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper celebrated in most reverend manner, the Holy Ta­ble seated in the place of the Altar, the people making their due reverence at their first entrance into the Church, kneeling at the Communion, the confession and the publique prayers, standing up at the Creed, the Gospels and the Glo­ria Patri, and using the accustomed reverence at the name of Jesus; Musick retain'd in all such Churches in which pro­vision had been made for the maintenance of it, or where the people could be trained up at least to plain Song; All which particulars were either Established by the Lawes, or commanded by the Queens injunctions, or otherwise re­tained by virtue of some antient usages, not by Law pro­hibited. Nor is it much to be admired that such a general Conformity to those antient usages was constantly observ'd in all Cathedrals, and the most part of the Parish Churches, considering how well they were presidented by the Court it self, in which the Liturgy was Officiated every day, both morning and evening, not only in the publick Chappel, but the private Closet, celebrated in the Chappell with Organs, and other Musical Instrments, and the most excellent voi­ces [Page 41] of men and children, that could be got in all the King­dom. The Gentlemen and Children in their Surplices, and the Priests in Copes as oft as they attended the Divine Ser­vice at the Holy Altar. The Altar furnished with rich Plate, two fair Gilt Candlesticks with Tapers in them, and a Massy Crucifix of Silver in the midst thereof, which last remained there for some years, till it was broke in peices by Pach, the fool (no wiser man daring to undertake such a desperate Service) at the sollicitation of Sir Francis Knolles, the Queens near Kinsman by the Caries, and one who open­ly appeared in favour of the Schism at Franckford. The antient ceremonies accustomably observ'd by the Knights of the Garter, in their Adoration towards the Altar, abolished by King Edward the 6th, and reviv'd by Queen Mary, were by this Queen retain'd as formerly in her Fathers time—for which she received both thankes and honour from her very enemies, [i. e. the Papists] as ap­peares by Harding's Epistle Dedicatory before his answer to the Apology, &c.’ So far Heylin.

Thus from what the sons of the Church, Cambden, Bur­net and Heylin have affirm'd, 'tis apparent that Queen Eliz­abeth had a natural propension to favour the Papists, and that this was discover'd by her making the Termes of Commu­nion much more easie to the Papists than in King Edward's time, whereby they became the more difficult and arduous to the Protestant Dissenter. I'll only add one observation of the Jesuit Reignold against Whitaker, whereby the Reader may perceive, not only that the Papists take notice how the practice of the Church of England contradicts their Ru­brick, but also that in the Rubrick concerning Apparel, which is now to be found in the Communion Book, even the beginning before morning prayer, 'tis order'd; That the Minister at the time of Communion, and at all other times in his Ministration, shall use such Ornaments in the Church, as were in use by Authority of Parliament, in the second year of the Reign of King Edward the 6th.

[Page 42] But Queen Elizabeth was not the only cause of driving back the Reformation, but the Clergy themselves had an hand in it, which was sufficiently discover'd, when they perceiv'd that her Majesties Council began to entertain more favourable thoughts of Protestant Dissenters, who continued their cries for a further Reformation.

Cambden assures us, that about the year 1583, ‘The Queen (who held it for a maxime that she ought not to be more remiss in Ecclesiastical Affaires,) advancing Whitgift from the Sea of Worcester, to that of Canterbury, above all commanded him to re-establish the Discipline of the Church of England, that as then lay dismembred by the conniven­cy of Prelates, the obstinacy of Innovators, and by the power of some great ones, whilst some Ministers—using to their own fantasie new Rites of Services in their private Houses, utterly condemning the Liturgy, and the appointed manner of Administring the Sacrament, as be­ing in many things contrary to the Scriptures, and therefore many refus'd to go to Church.—To abolish which things, and to reduce 'em in Unity, Whitgift propounded Three Articles to the Ministers, by them to be subscribed. But (adds Cambden) 'tis incredible what controversies and disputations arose upon this—What troubles and in­juries Whitgift suffer'd of certain noble men.’ So far Camb­den.

But whoever might be so happy as to be throughly ac­quainted with a just, impartial and particular History of those times would suddenly see, that the true cause of all Whitgifts troubles was his intemperate persecuting Godly and Conscientious men, who rather like a Spanish Inquisitor pro­pos'd a multitude of Articles to ensnare, than as a good Pa­stor to reduce his erring Brethren to the truth; For even when he was most violent in letting out his rage on the Con­scientious Dissenter, even then the wicked, the ungodly and prophane Priests knew not what it was to be prosecuted for their debaucheries. Neither can it be truly said that the [Page 34] Earl of Leicester was the only great person, that resented the ill proceedings of this Bishop, but even the Lord Trea­surer Cecill, and her Majesties Councill.

'Tis sad to consider with what severity Whitgift treated the Couscientious Dissenter, and with what mildness the drunkard, glutton, &c. The which was so palpable, that some zealous Conformists, since that time have judg'd it ne­cessary to essay the putting some colour on it, as Isaac Wal­ton in the life of Hooker, most Satyrically represents the Non­conformist to be much more vile than the drunkard or glut­ton, even when he could not impeach 'em as being guilty of any such enormities. But that somewhat might be said to expose the Dissenter, and defend the Bishops, an encroach­ment is made on the divine prerogative and vain man, who cannot but with much difficulty look into his own heart, pre­tends to see into the secrets of the Dissenter, where he finds so many Spiritual wickednesses that lye hid to lodge, that he must be warm in discovering his abhorrence to such Villanies, judging not according to the outward appearance, but like un­to the all-knowing God, according to the heart. I'll give you Mr. Walton's own words, who speaking of the Non­conformists, sayes. ‘Of this party there were many that were possest with an high degree of Spiritual wickedness; I mean with an innate restless radical pride and malice, I mean not those lesser sins, that are more visible, and more properly Carnal, and sins against a mans self, as gluttony and drunkenness, and the like, (from which good Lord deliver us) but sins of an higher nature, because more un­like to the nature of God, which is Love and Mercy, and Peace, and more like the Devil, (who is not a glutton, nor can be drunk, and yet is a Devil:) those wickednesses of malice and revenge, and opposition, and a complacence in making and beholding confusions.—Men whom Pride and Self-conceit had made to over-value their own Wisdom, and become pertinacious, and to hold foolish and unmannerly disputes against those men, which they ought to [Page 44] reverence, and those Lawes which they ought to obey.’ As if disputing freely with the Bishop, and not giving him the desir'd respects by rendring obedience to his commands, even when they could not without sinning against God, had been the Overt Act of that Pride, Malice, &c. which makes men more vile than Gluttony and Drunkenness.

But 'tis no part of my present province to comment on this notion, but only from it to inferr, that as the dignified Clergy did consider the Non-Conformity of the Dissenter to be a sin most odious, much more high and great, than that of gluttony, even so 'tis easie to conclude, that what is af­firm'd in History concerning the Bishops treating the drunk­ard with more candor than the Conscientious Dissenter, is very true; For which no stronger reason can be assign'd, than that the debauchees wickedness, not being so great an impe­diment to the accommodating the difference between the Church of England, and of Rome, as the Non-Conformity of the Dissenter, the wickedness of the former might be to­lerated, even when the Dissent of the latter would not be born.

That this is so, namely, that the Arch-bishops and Bishops in the respects they shew'd the ignorant, and scandalous among the Ministry, and the letting out their wrath on the intractible Dissenter as they term'd it, was a plain evince­ment, that they thereby aimed at the gratifying the Papist, will appear with conviction to such as will be so just to them­selves, as to weigh impartially the import of those Letters, are added to the end of this Treatise, where he will not only see into the reason, why the Episcopal would by all means hide 'em from the Light, but moreover perceive the matter of fact, I have suggested to be very true.

That these Letters are nor spurious, nor feigned, but co­pies from an Anthentick Original is well known to some zea­lous Sons of the Church, who it may be will be surpriz'd to see that appear in face of the World, which doth so plainly discover what they desire might be conceal'd.

[Page 45] In these Letters, 'tis apparent, that when the prosecution was most brisk against Protestant Dissenters, several among the dignified Clergy were very covetous, and scandalous in their Conversations. (Numb. 1.) Even those who antecedently to their preferment, were well affected, when they came to the Ca­thedral Churches did so strangely degenerate, that the Lord Treasurer Cecil (Numb. 2.) did fear the places did alter the men; whence 'tis that her Majesties Councill in their Let­ter to the Bishop of London and Canterbury, (Numb. 3.) did observe from the many complaints brought unto them, that the worst of men met with no trouble, when Conscientious and Learned Ministers were greatly molested for their Non-Confor­mity.

But that which doth most fully discover the temper, and de­sign of Whitgift, as one who acted rather like a Spanish Inquisi­tor, than a good Protestant, imposing Articles that were of an ensnaring tendency, is what I find in the Letters of the Lord Cecil unto the Arch-bishop, with Arch bishops reply. Numb. 4. 5, 6. The which is more generally suggested in Cambden, who mentions the dissatisfaction of several noble men, with the Bishops proceedings, but more expresly by a moderate writer in Queen Elizabeths, who (in his plea of the inno­cent) doth in the name of the Non-Conformists speak thus of the Lords of the Councill—‘And this is not all, that bindes us to their honours: for in our private troubles about the Ceremonies and Subscription, we the poor and faithfull Ministers of Christ, whensoever we have opened our cause, and humbled our selves unto them, we have found great justice and equity, and divers times great relief and ease from our troubles; No doubt they seeing our inno­cency, that of meer Conscience without any the least incli­nation to disloyalty to our Sovereign, we did forbear to do those things, they have tendered our cause, and lovingly effected, that we might not be too much over-burdened.’ Moreover concerning the Bishops they say; ‘What could we do less, or better, than to repair to the Reverend Bi­shops [Page 46] for Counsell and Comfort, which for the space of ten years, (or the most part thereof,) they did in some good measure afford unto us, till as I take it by the relation of some in the same broyles, the Papists had cunningly wrested our good Fathers from us, that they could, and would do no further for us. Then yet complaining of our case, and opening our doubts unto them, we did as the Law afford­eth, that the cause should be brought before the Ordinary, in all doubts about ceremonies of the Church Established by Law: and finding not our selves resolv'd by our ordina­ries, alas what could we do less, than quietly to suffer our selves (with great grief bewailing our flocks) to be suspen­ded, imprisoned and deprived. And this hath been the cause of all them, which have not used the Ceremonies so fully as some other of their Brethren.’

By this 'tis evident, that as Queen Elizabeth's Education, natural temper, Interest of State, and I verily believe, Con­science of Duty unto God inclin'd her to such an establish­ment in the Ecclesiastical Constitution, as might be most grate­full unto the Papist, even so some of the Clergy (who by Hey­lin are called Melancthonians of whom Whitgift and Ban­croft were principal in their times,) did their utmost by insist­ing so very much on the Ceremonies, Subscription, &c. to the same end the Queens Majesty did, whereby to the great grief of many Sound Protestants, the Service of our Church was made to resemble as much as possible, that of the Church of Rome. But,

3. I'll now consider the reasonings of some Protestant Dissenters from this similitude, likeness and agrement there is between these two service books against the ordinary use of the English Liturgy.

Whoever will make a due enquiry into the History of the Reformation, will find that in Edward the 6th, his dayes, Hooper Lord Bishop elect for Glocester, scrupled the Episco­pal Vestments, because they had been invented cheifly for ce­lebrating the Mass with much pomp, and had been consecra­ted [Page 47] for that effect. In Queen Maries time the exil'd Prote­stants at Frankford, such as Knox, and those of his perswa­sion, refused to Minister the Communion by the book of England, for that there were some things in it placed only by warrant of man's Authority, or no ground of God's word for the same, and had also a long time very Superstitiously in the Mass been wickedly abused. See discourse of the troubles at Franckford. Moreover in Queen Elizabeth's, and King James's dayes, several manifested their dislike of our Liturgy for this very reason, because 'twas so like unto the Romish Service. I'll give some particular instances with those reasons that were by 'em urg'd against a complyance with a Ser­vice Book, so like that of the Papists.

In a part of the Register you have the sense of Mr. Edward Deering, who sayes that; ‘The similitude that this book has, with the form of Prayer which the Papists used; I think declineth from the equity of these Lawes, Deut. 7. 25. Deut. 12. 30. Deut. 18. 9. which things our fathers so much regarded in the Primitive Church, that their books are full of great complaints, against all similitude to be had with the Gentiles. Yea the second Councill of Bracca made a decree, that no Christian should have either Bay-Leaves, or Green Boughes in their houses, because the Gentiles so accustomed; And at this day all Reformed Chur­ches in France, Polonia, Helvetia, Scotland, and other places have changed that form of Prayer, which prudence of all ages, if we shall condemn, the rebuke of the Apostle, I think will touch us. 1 Cor. 14. 36. Came the word of God out from you, or came it else to you only? Secondarily, we have the Psalmes, Venite, Benedictus, Magnificat, nunc di­mittis, usual in our Ministry, of which we can give no good reason. Nor I see no cause why we should more leave out the Ave Maria. And because of parting the Scriptures again into the Epistles and Gospels (which was not heard of before the dayes of Popery,) I dare not avow that this is that reverent handling of the Scripture, and the right di­viding [Page 48] of the word of truth, which St. Paul requireth 2 Tim. 2. 15.’

But the Abridgment is much more full on this Subject, shewing what are the many Scriptural Arguments against all complyances with the Superstitions, the which is farther con­firm'd, not only from the Fathers, the Transmarine Prote­testant Divines, but also by our own Old Protestant Doctors of the Church of England. Take it as in the Abridgment, where 'tis asserted, that 'tis contrary to the word of God, to use such ceremonies in the worship of God, as man has devised, if they be notoriously known to have been of old, and still to be abused unto Idolatry or Superstition, by the Pa­pists, especially if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church; Where note, that the Ceremonial part of the Eng­lish Service that is like unto that of the Romish, is what has been abused by the Papists to Idolatry or Superstition, but yet are not so necessary to Divine Worship, but that the worship may be compleat, decent and orderly without em but to their reasons, this may appear say they.

1. ‘By the Second Commandment which forbids all pro­vocation unto spiritual fornication, as the 7th. doth unto that which is Carnal.’

2. ‘By the Commandment and direction God hath given us in his word to separate our selves from Idolaters, and be as unlike to them as may be, especially in their Religious Observations and Ceremonies, to abolish not only all Idols, but also all the Ceremonies and Instruments of Idolatry, and that so as we may best shew our utmost detestation to them, and root out the very memory of them, to cast away even such things as had a good Original, and use (if they be not still necessary, or commanded of God) when once they are known to have been defiled by Idolatry, or abused un­to it.’

3. ‘By the equity and reasons of these Commandments which we find set down in Holy Scripture, viz. 1. The detestation which the Lord our God (being a jealous God) [Page 49] beareth unto Idolatry, and all the Instruments and Tokens thereof, as unto Spiritual Whoredom. 2. That we cannot be said sincerely to have repented of the Idolatry or Supersti­tion, whereby we or our Fore-fathers have provoked the Lord, unless we be ashamed of, and cast away with detestati­on all the Instruments and Monuments of it. 3. That we shall be in danger to be corrupted in the Substance of Religion, and purity of Doctrine, and even to fall back again unto idolatry, if we conform our selves to Idolaters in their Ceremonies, and retain the Monuments of their Superstition, yea if we shew not all detestation unto them. 4. That our holding of Conformity with Idolaters in their Ceremonies (wherein they repose the greatest part of their Religion,) will be a spe­cial mean to harden them in their Superstition. 5. That see­ing the Pope is reveiled to be that great Antichrist, and his Idolatry troubleth the Church, at this day more than any other, and our people converse more with Papists than with any other Idolaters, there is more danger in the retaining of the Ceremonies and Relicks of Popery, than of any other Ido­latry whatsoever.’

4. ‘By the judgment of the Godly Learned of all Churches and Ages, who have constantly taught and given Testimony to this Truth, that Christians are bound to cast off the Ceremo­nies and Religious Customes of Pagans, Jewes, Idolaters and Hereticks, and carefully to shun all Conformity with them therein.’

‘In the Councell of Nice it was decreed, that Christians might not keep the Feast of Easter at that time, nor in that manner as the Jewes did: Let us (say they) in nothing agree with that most detestable rout of the Jewes.’

‘And in another Councill, that none should fast on the Lord's day, because the Manichees had taken up that day to fast on, which also Augustine alledgeth and approveth of in another That such Altars as were set up in the Country, and High­ways, in memory of the Martyrs, should be abolished, al­though they were pretended to be set by Revelations or Vi­sions, and that solemn request should be made to the Empe­rour, that all Reliques and Monuments of Idolatry might [Page 50] be utterly destroyed. And this decree we find cited by Dr. Fulk.’

‘In another Councill it was decreed, that none of the Clergy should forbear or make scruple to eat Flesh, that they might shew themselves to differ from the Priscillianists. In another, that Christians should not deck their houses with Bay leaves, and Green Boughs, because the Pagans did use so to do. That they should not rest from their labours those dayes that the Pagans did, and that they should not keep the first day of every Month as they did. In another, that Christians should not celebrate Feasts on the Birth dayes of Martyrs, because that was the manner of the Heathen. Tertullian is large and vehement in this point, as (saith he) we may give nothing to the service of an Idol; So may we borrow nothing from the service of an Idol; If it be against Religion to sit at Table in an Idols Temple, what is it to be seen in the habit of an Idol. Again, no habit or apparel is esteemed Lawfull amongst us, that hath been dedicated or appointed to so unlawfull an Act. Thou that art a Christian must hate those things, the Authors and Inventors whereof, thou canst not choose but hate. In another place he affirmeth, that Christians might not wash their hands, nor lay aside their Cloakes before Prayer, nor sit upon their Beds after Prayer, because the Heathen used so to do. Melchiades Bishop of Rome decreed, that no Christians should fast on the Lord's day, or on the Friday, because it was a known custom of the Pagans to fast on those dayes. Ambrose taught Monica, the Mother of Augustine, as Augu­stine himself reporteth it, which is also alleadged by Bishop Jewel, to leave bringing of Wine and Cakes to the Church, as she was wont to do, because she might not Lawfully give such a shew of Conformity with the Gentiles. Augustine him­self also prescribing a direction how to winn the Pagans, hath these words, if you ask how the Pagans may be won, how they may be enlightned, how they may be called to Sal­vation? leave all their Solemnities, forsake their Toyes. Gregory (as we find him cited by Bishop Jewel) alleadgeth and approveth of a decree of the Councell of Toledo, which forbade the Ceremony of thrice dipping in Baptism, because [Page 51] it was the custom of certain Hereticks. Leo adviseth all Chri­stians to shun the viperous conference of Hereticks, and that in nothing they would be like unto them, who in name only are Christians. The judgment of the Church of Scotland, appeareth in a Letter, written from a general Assembly held at Edenborough 1566. unto the Bishops of England. In which (besides many other sentences to this purpose,) thus they write; If Surplice, Corner Cap and Tippet, have been badges of Idolaters in the very Act of Idolatry, what have the Preach­ers of Christian Liberty, and the open Rebukers of Super­stition to do with the dregs of the Romish Beast. And more plainly in the confession of their Faith, whereunto his right excellent Majesty, with others of the cheif states of that Kingdom, did solemnly swear and subscribe, where we find these words. [We detest all the Ceremonies and false Doc­trine of the Roman Antichrist, added to the ministration of the true Sacraments; We detest all his vain Allegories, Rites, Signes and Traditions brought into the Church without the Word of God.]’ ‘—Thus have such as have been chief Pillars in our own Church, judg'd of the Monuments of Idolatry, a [...]d all Conformity with Papists in their Ceremo­nies. Mr. Rogers (that Holy Martyr) would not consent to a Canon that was to be made in King Edward's dayes for the Clergies Uniformity, in Cap, Tippet, and the rest of the Ap­parel, unless it might be decreed that the Papists for a differ­ence between them and others, might be constrained to wear upon their sleeves a Challice with an Host upon it.’

‘Our late Queens injunctions require, that all Monuments of Idolatry and Superstition be so utterly extinguished and de­stroyed, that there may remain no memory of them either in our Churches or Houses. And the Book of Canons made An­no Dom. 1571. That no man wear the grey Amice, or any other garment defiled with the like Superstition.’

‘Bishop Jewel in one place approveth the judgment of Ter­tullian, and the Fathers of that Age: who forbade Christians to wear Garlands of Bay, not for that (saith he) the thing was ill of it self, but for that they would not seem to follow Idolaters. It had some appearance of evil. And in another [Page 52] place, speaking of sundry of the Popish Ceremonies, you have (saith he, speaking to the Papists,) so misused these things, or rather so defiled and bewrayed them with your Superstitions, that we can no longer continue them without breach of Consci­ence.’

‘Bishop Pilkinton misliked, that in our Liturgy we are so like the Papists; In Marriage (saith he) and many other things besides, we are but too like unto them; That is our fault ge­nerally, that we differ not more from them, in all our Mini­stry.’

‘Bishop Westphaling (in his Treatise of Reformation) al­leadgeth to this purpose, and alloweth this sentence of Augu­stine, whosoever (be he Jew or Gentile,) that shall observe the Ceremonies of the Jewes, not only he that doth it unfeign­edly, but even he that doth it to any other intent, tumbleth himself into the Bottomless pit of the Devil.’

‘Bishop Bilson (defending the Reformed Churches against a slander of the Papists,) reporteth thus of them, as approving and allowing them in it; The Reformed Churches (saith he) are so far from admitting the full dose of your Heresies, that by no means they can digest one dram of your Ceremonies.’

‘Dr. Humfrey speaking of Constantines zeal in forbidding all Conformity with the Jewes, affirmeth; That all men ought to imitate him therein, and refuse to conform them­selves to the enemies of God in any of their Ceremonies. And in another place he professeth plainly both his desire and hope of the utter abolishing of the Ceremonies, and of all the Monuments of Popish Superstition that yet remain in our Church.’

‘Dr. Fulk in one place saith; If any man mislike our form of Service, as not differing sufficiently from yours, he shew­eth his greater zeal in detestation of your Idolatry and Blas­phemy. And in another; We abhorr (saith he) whatsoever hath but a shew of Popery. In another place he gives this for a reason, why our Ministers use to stand at the North-side of the Table at the Communion, that we might shew our selves thereby unlike to the Papists,’

[Page 53] ‘Dr. Andrews now Dean of Westminster hath this Speech in his Catechism, if it be true that is in Jude 23. that we must hate the very Garment that the flesh had spotted, surely, because the Idol is as unclean and abominable, no less abomi­nable must that Garment be, that it hath spotted.’

‘Dr. Sutcliffe maketh this one of his principal Arguments against the Papists; that they have derived most of their Ce­remonies and Customs from the Jewes and Pagans. See also a most plain and pregnant Testimony of Mr. Greenham for this our first Argument in the last Edition of his Workes. But above all others that ever were read, Marbury is most pe­remptory and bitter in this point. And as all these Divines agree with us in this our first Argument against the Ceremo­nies, so do they and others also, in the reasons we have brought out of the Scriptures to confirm it by.’ For they hold.

1. ‘That those Lawes, that we have alleadged out of the Old Testament against the Monuments of Idolatry, do bind us as much as they did the Jewes, and from them they con­clude as we have done, that all Reliques of Popish and Hea­thenish Superstition, are to be banished out of the Church of of Christ; Of this judgment are Calvin, Martyr, Grineus, Wolphius, Ʋrsinus, Macabeus, Zanchius, Simterus, Zepperus, our own Book of Homilies;’ Dr. Fulk and others.

2. ‘That Ezekiah, Josiah, and the rest of the Godly Kings of Judah, which shewed most zeal in abolishing those things which had been abused to Idolatry, did no more than they were bound by the Law of God to do, and that from their example the Argument holds strong against the Monu­ments of Idolatry now, because all Christians are bound to imitate their zeal therein. Of this judgment was Augustine, Calvin, Martyr, Wolphius, Lavater, Zanchius, Zadeel, Bishop Jewel, Bishop Bilson, Dr. Fulk, Dr. Rainold, Dr. Andrewes, Mr. Perkins, and others.’

3. ‘That the retaining of the Popish Ceremonies will cer­tainly be a means to indanger the doctrine that we profess, and to bring the people back again to Popery. This was the judgment of the divines of Saxony, and of them of Ham­burgh, of Luther, Oecolampadius, Calvin, Bucer, Martyr, [Page 54] Wolphius, Chemnitius, Pezelius, Zanchius, Dr. Andrews, Mr. Greenham, and others.’

4. ‘That the retaining of the Ceremonies of Idolaters will cause them to insult over our Religion, as if it could not stand without help from them, and so harden them in their liking of their own Idolatry. This reason hath been used against Conformity with the Jewes, by Constantine the Empe­ror, and by all the fathers in the first Councell of Nice, and against Conformity with the Papists, by Brentius, Musculus, Bishop Jewel and others.’

‘Fourthly, we are confirmed in this our perswasion that it is unlawfull to retain the ceremonies of the Papists, by experi­ence of the great hurt they have done, and do daily in the Church.’ For we find.

‘That some of the learnedst of our English Papists (namely Martial, Bristow, and he that penned that Petition for the Papists, which Dr. Sutcliffe and Mr. Powel have answered,) have by this Argument justified their Church and Religion, that we have borrowed our ceremonies from them, yea some of them (as Harding, Martial, and he that wrote the Apologe­tical Epistle for our English Papists,) have professed, that this was to them an evident Argument, that Queen Elizabeth did in her conscience like well of their Religion, because she liked and maintained their ceremonies, and the superstitious multi­tude, do usually defend the blessing of themselves with cros­sing their Breasts and Foreheads, by our Crossing our children in Baptism.’ So far the Abridgment.

To which I'll not make many an addition, because I think that the reasonings of those Reverend Divines, those great Doctors and Bishops of the Church of England are so weighty and important, that an impartial Reader cannot but conclude: that though the influence this Argument may have on some be inconsiderable, yet it may be strong and very cogent in the judgment of others, in order to the obliging 'em to refuse to joyn with the Church in the use of the English Service: especi­ally at such a time as this, wherein we are under the fearfull ap­prehensions of Popery.

[Page 55] If ever a Popish Successor should enter the English Throne, we may easily suppose, he'll do his utmost for the re-introducti­on of his own Religion amongst us, the which now cannot be done with more ease and speed, than the first establishing the Protestant Religion in this Kingdom has been. For, as the generality of the people were for Popery then, they are now as much against it, and therefore as the first Reformers suited the progress of the Reformation to the temper of the vulgar, so must the Papist now, and as King Edward argued for the English Liturgy, from its agreableness with the Romish; So now the Papists will argue on behalf of the Romish Service, from its agreableness with our English, and say, if 'twere good un­der an Heretical Under, why shall it be less so under a Catho­lick King, then (they may say) you have with the approbation of his Holyness the Pope, what formerly you had by the good liking of the Heretick only.

'Tis not improbable that at first the Pope will be content, we shall use the same Liturgy we now have, with very little alte­rations, and to gain England under his Tyranny, will consent to what Pope Pius would have done in Queen Elizabeth's days, and a late Pope in Laud's time: and then by little and little add unto the Liturgy, sometime a few Prayers, and again for the greater Solemnity, Decency and Order in the Administration of Baptism, may add to the sign of the Cross, that of Salt and Spittle, and Lights, &c.

Seeing then this may be so, there are many among the Dis­senters, who are afraid to comply with the use of the English Liturgy, least by their practice they give an unanswerable ad­vantage to their implacable enemy the Papist. They are aware of the design, they are sensible how the Romanists have been practising on the Church of England, and what use they'l make of their not driving on the Reformation much farther, and therefore now, in this day do think, they shall highly provoke the Lord to jealousie, should they give countenance to the Ser­vice Book, which may be so easily improved to the advancing the superstition of the Roman Catholick.

But if after all it be said by any, that these things are Light-points, and not so much to be insisted on, no other answer shall [Page 56] be given, but that of the Reverend Mr. Dering in his reply to an objection of a like nature, as 'tis in a part of the Register. ‘If I seem curious, or stand upon light points, (beside that in the worship of God there is nothing light,) so the Conscience of man is exceeding tender, that it will neither be troubled nor touch'd in the least tittle, contrary to the perswasion of truth The weight of sin is not in substance of matter, but in the Majesty of God, that is offended, and be the thing ne­ver so little, yet the breach of his Commandment deserveth death. This faith we have learn'd of him, that is the wisdom of the father, and our only Prophet, that is, whoever shall break one of these least Commandments, these words which are shall break one of the least, have every one a greater weight than may be contemn'd of any man.’

Argument IV.

There is in this Service Book a strange disorder and confusion unworthy the grandure and Majesty of that God, unto whom we make our approach in Prayer. God is a great King, his Name is dreadfull even among the Heathen, he is great and greatly to be feared and reverenced even in the Assembly of his Saints. God is in Heaven, we on the Earth, and therefore as our words must be few, even so must they be utter'd in the gravest, and most serious manner. God is a jealous God, and 'tis dangerous to trifle with him, when we come to wor­ship him; Yea God is a God of Order, and not of Confusion, and therefore our Addresses should be in the most Solemn Or­der.

This all will grant, but the question is, whether there be any such disorder in the Common Prayer Book; For this has been formerly objected against the extempore and free Prayer of Dis­senters, who are said to enter rashly into God's presence, and pray after the most disorderly manner conceivable, how then comes this to be urg'd (may some say) against that set form of Prayer, which has been with the greatest deliberation of the Fathers of the Church Compos'd. I reply,

[Page 57] That the Reader may the more distinctly Comprehend what I have to offer on this Fourth head of Argument, I must beseech him to consider. 1. That I am not defending such as will inconside­rately Rush into the presence of Almighty God, and prophane in­stead of honouring the name of God in Prayer. I durst not plead for such an Irreverent or uncomely practice. Neither 2. Do I design to offer any thing against those, who will seriously medi­tate on what they have to do, when they make their approaches unto the Throne of Grace. Premeditation on the matter to be prayed for, on the Method of the Address, yea, and on the choice of Expressions, is so far from a Sin in my Judgment, that I verily believe it to be a duty. Neither, 3. Do I Object against the prudent and necessary Use of some set form of Prayer in pub­lick, for many may be endow'd with the Grace of Gods Spirit, who abound not with its Gifts, and 'tis not enough that a man has the Grace of Gods Spirit to enable him to be the Mouth of Others to God in Prayer, 'tis the Gift, that in this Case is requi­site, the which some may not have who yet must pray in publick, or publick Worship must be totally omitted, in which Case the using a Form of Prayer is not only lawful, but highly expedient.

These things premised, the Reader may easily perceive who it is, for whom I do not Apologize, as well as that I am not arguing against the Divine Service Book, as it Contains a Form of Prayers, nor as it a form imposed, which yet I approve not of, but as 'tis such a form so disorderly, and Confused a Form.

This is insisted on in the Altar of Damascus, and in the Lincoln Abridgment. In the Altar it is thus expressed.

‘Then again their Prayers are shred into so many small pieces, They pray in Two or Three Lines, and then after having read, some other things come, and pray as much more, and so to the Twen­tieth or Thirtieth time, with pauses between. Prayers should be continued together, not cut off, and interrupted, or cut in small pieces. They do with their Prayers, as they do with their Go­spels and Epistles which they rent from their Contexts, which would serve for memory and greater Edification.’ So sar he. To whom I add, That if a Dissenting Minister in Pulpit before his Sermon, when he addresses himself to God in Prayer, should utter Three or Four Sentences in Prayer, and then go off to ano­ther thing, to the reading Two or Three Verses in the Bible, and then to his Prayer, and then to Reading, would not the gene­rality [Page 58] of the Church say, this Dissenting Minister, by Confound­ing Reading and Prayer, offers up his Requests after a most dis­orderly manner. But to the Abridgment.

In the Abridgment 'tis urg'd, ‘That by this Book sundry things, that bring great Disorder and Confusion unto the Worship of God are appointed As that the People should say after the Minister whole Sentences of Prayer and Scripture, yea the Mi­nister one part of the Prayer, and the people another, and in sundry parts of the Letany, the people make the Prayer, and the Minister only directs them what to pray for.’

The Minister at some time must pray, and the People give the reason of the Prayer; for Instance. The Minister Prayes saying, Give peace in our days O Lord, and the people make their Answer, Because there is no other that fighteth for us, but only thou O God, as if Almighty God alone had not been able to defend them in the time of War, whence they Pray unto God for the sending Peace. But cannot that God, who sendeth Peace by putting an end unto Wars, preserve and protect in the day of Trouble. If he can, to what purpose is this Argument urg'd. Again an alteration is made in the State of this Affair. The Minister gives instruction, or rather as a beginner of the Prayer, mentions the Matter or Thing to be prayed for, and the people must proceed to the mak­ing it a formal Prayer, whence 'tis, that whereas the Minister in the publick Assembly should be the Mouth of the people unto God, The Minister being silent, the people altogether with a loud voice, a distracting Murmur are their own Mouth. Thus, From Forni­cation, and all other deadly Sin, (as if some sins were not Mortal, but Venial) and from all the Deceits of the World, the Flesh, and the Devil, so far the Minister proceeds, and then make a stop, from whom the people take it adding Good Lord deliver us. Again, O Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the World, says the Minister with the greatest seeming fervour and affection, but yet in the midst of the sentence, his warm affection is ended, and the people proceed to say, Grant us thy peace O Lord. Again they must be as they were in Statu Quo, and the Minister prayes, O Lord let thy Mercy be shewed on us, to which Petition the people either add, their sence, or Limitation, or Reason of the Prayer, as we put our Trust in thee.

Beside at some one meeting of the Assembly, the Pater-Noster, or Lords Prayer is to be repeated Six or Eight several times, and [Page 59] the Gloria Patri Twelve, beside the many Kyrie Eleesons and Christe Eleesons, Lord have mercy on us, Christ have mercy upon us, the Responces, the Versicles, &c. Alas how ridiculous would this be interpreted by the generality of those who are now Sons of the Church, should the Dissenters have us'd such a practice!

This Argument receives strength from what I find insisted on by by some of His Majesties Commissioners in the Account of all the proceedings of the Commissioners of both perswasions, where 'tis thus Argued, Vid. ‘As we find that the Minister is the Mouth of the people to God in publick (which Scripture, and the necessity of Order do require,) So we are loath to Countenance the people's Invading of that Sacred Office, so far as they seem to us to do, By reading half the Psalms and Hymnes. 2. By saying half the Prayers as the Minister doth the other half,—4. By being the only Petitioners in the far greatest part of all the Letany by their [Good Lord deliver us] and [We beseech thee to hear us good Lord.] While the Minister only reciteth the Matter of the Prayer, and maketh none of the request at all; we fear least by purity of reason, the people will claim the work of preaching and other parts of the Ministerial Office. 3. And we mentioned, that which all our Ears are witnesses of, that until half the Psalms and Hymns, &c. are said by such of the people as can say them, the Murmur of their Voices in most Congregations is so unintell­gible and Confused, as must hinder the Edification of all the rest; for, who is edified by that which he cannot understand.’ This you'l find page 29, but in page 60, we have account of the Rule, and Order of Prayer, with a full Demonstration, That the Com­mon Prayer is not agreeable unto any just Rule, or Order.

‘There are (say they) Two Rules of Prayer; One is the Nature of the things Compared (in Matter and Order) with Nature and Necessity; The Other is the Revealed Will of God in his word, in Ge­neral the Holy Scripture, more Especially the Lords Prayer: The Liturgy (for the greatest part of the Prayers for dayly Ʋse) is Confused by whichsoever you measure it. You seem much to ho­nour the Lords Prayer by your frequent Use of it (or part of it) we beseech you dishonour it not practically, by denying it by Matter and Order, to be the only Ordinary and Perfect Rule; We know about particular Administrations, where it is but cer­tain select Requests, that we are to put up, suited to the part­cular Subject and Occasion, we cannot follow the whole Me­thod [Page 60] of the Lords Prayer, which containeth the heads of all the parts, where we are not to take in all the parts; we cannot take them in that Order. But that none of all your Prayers should be form'd to that perfect Rule; that your Letany, which is your Comprehensive Prayer, and that the Body of your dayly Prayers, (broken into several Collects) should not (as set together) have any considerable respect unto that Order, nor yet to the Order, which reason and the Nature of the thing requireth (which is observed in all things else) and yet that you should so Admire this, and be so tenacious of that which is conceived Prayer, you would call by worse names than Confusion, this sheweth us the power of prejudice.’

By this the Reader may perceive how much the Non-Conformists are for a decent Order, and Comely Method in Prayers, but the Conformist against it, and how much the Non-Conformist are for the right use of the Lords Prayer, even when the Confor­mist are not at least practically for it. Whence we may see how unreasonable it is to make such a Noise and Clamour, as if the Dissenters rejected the Lords Prayer, or were against its use, whereas in truth the Dissenters are much more for the Right use of the Lords Prayer, than the Conformists are.

Whoever will understand the true State of this Controversie, must consider what the great design of the Disciples in Asking, and of Christ in granting their Request about Prayer was, the which he can no sooner with just deliberation, and impartially do, but will be satisfied, that the thing the Disciples desired was to be Taught how to Fray, Lord Teach us as John taught his Disciples How to Pray, and they desire to be taught, not that they prescribe unto Jesus Christ a Method in which he should teach 'em, for that became not Disciples, even Scholars, who are to Learn, but not to teach. This being the desire of the Disciples to be taught to pray, not to have a form of VVords to be Verbally and Sylla­bically rehearsed, or repeated, but Rules or Presidents for the directing 'em, how to pray. The answering of their Request was the Design of Christ in giving 'em the Lords Prayer, which was principally intended for the Direction of the Disciples, who were as Matthew expresseth it, Oblig'd by that Command when ye Pray, say, Our Father, so say after that manner, when you [Page 61] pray, or whenever you pray. The Command is perpetual, Ob­liging at all times of prayer so far, as the particular Occasions of Prayer will admit, every Prayer we make must be according to this Command of Christ.

But will any say, That the meaning is, when ever you pray, repeat the very words, and Syllables of the Lords Prayer; Let not one Prayer be made without the Repetition of this Prayer. If so, then, whereas now the Lords Prayer is repeated in the Church six or eight times some Mornings, it should be so Twenty or Thirty, even at the end of every Collect, or other short Prayer. This none will assert, which is enough to shew, that none do understand the words of Luke, [when you pray say] to be in this sense, namely, when ever you pray, repeat these words and Syllables, for none do it, none of the Church of England, nor among the Papists. The true sense then of those words in Luke is more fully given us in Mathew, when you pray say after this manner, that is, The Lords Prayer is given as a Form, a Rule, a Directory of our Prayers, A Rule to be prayed by, which Rule is transgressed by such, who when they pray, will cut their Prayers into many shreds and pieces. The Lord Christs Prayer was but One continued Prayer, all its parts most admirably con­nected, he did not say, Our Father, and teach his Disciples to add, Which art in Heaven.

This is enough to evince that the Common Prayer Book is not ac­cording to the Rule of Christ, and that although according to the Rubrick a part of the Lords Prayer is so frequently rehears'd in one Morning, as if the rehearsing several Pater nosters was ex opere Operato sufficient to procure the pardon of Sin; yet the Dissenters, who do pray unto him, unto whom they are directed by the Lords Prayer, for such things, as are more generally contain'd in it, keeping as near as they can to the same Method, do not only keep more close to the command of Christ in Luke, but moreover set an higher value on the Lords Prayer than these Con­formists, who, by keeping to the Rubrick, at most do make it but the end of some of their Prayers.

But to return from this necessary Digression, to what is farther insisted on by the aforesaid. Commissioners, p. 62. 'Tis said, [Page 62] ‘But if we may (according to the Common Prayer Book) begin and end, and seem to withdraw again, and make a Prayer of every Petition or two, and begin every such Petition with God's name, and Christ's merits, as making up half the Form, or near; Nothing is an affected empty tossing of God's name in Prayer, if this be not, we are perswaded, if you should hear a man in a known ex tempore Prayer do thus, it would seem strange and harsh even to your selves.’

This being so, there are some among the Dissenters, who con­sidering how jealous God is in matters of his worship, how pure, and how holy, are afraid to draw near to God in this disorderly and confused manner, when they have the opportunity of addres­sing themselves to the Throne of Grace, in a way more agree­able to his Holy and most Blessed Will; When they have a Male in their Flock, they are afraid to offer a corrupt thing, least they thereby expose themselves to that curse in Mal. 1. 14. If they should make their approaches in this disorderly manner unto God, will he not say, offer it now unto thy Governours, will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person?

Argument V.

In the Abridgment, an Argument against the Ceremonies, to which those who joyn with the Church of England must shew their approbation is fetch'd from the mystical significancy of 'em thus; ‘All humane Ceremonies (say they) being appropriated to God's Service, if they be ordain'd to teach any Spiritual Duty by their mystical signification, are unlawfull.’

That this Argument may appear in its fuller strength, 'twill be requisite to consider the nature of Religious Worship, as well as a Religious Ceremony, and to make some enquiry after the power, man has given him to appropriate Humane Ceremonies to God's wor­ship.

1. whoever will consult the Learned of most perswasions, will find 'em to agree in the general about the nature of external wor­ship, and a Ceremony of Religion. Dr. Covel, a great asserter of the English Ceremonies in his modest and reasonable examination &c. Chap. 6. has very handsomely given the sense of the Church of England, in Bellarmine's words▪ as neer as an English Transla­tion can well be to a Latine Original. Whoever will but com­pare [Page 63] Bellarmine's 29th. Chapter de effectu Sacramentorum, with what Dr. Covel has in his 6 chap. will find the agreement to be al­most verbatim; Ceremonia (sayes Bellarmine) est actus externus Re­ligionis, qui non aliunde habet laudem, nisi quia fit ad Dei honorem; that is, as Covel, without making any mention of his Master Bel­larmine, Translates it, ceremonies are all such things as are the ex­ternal Act of Religion, which have their commendation and allow­ance from no other cause, but only that in God's worship, they are virtuous furtherances of his honour. Thus Covel, who borroweth his explications, as well as arguments from Bellarmine, in order to the making the stronger defence of English Ceremonies, is so bold as to take the whole substance thereof from him, without any considerable variation, whereby we may find that the Church of England agrees so far with the Church of Rome in this matter, as to make a Ceremony of Religion to be. 1. An external Act expressive of inward worship. Actus externus interno respondens, qui est quaelibet externa actio, quae non aliunde est bona, nisi quia fit ad Deum colendum; That is, as Covel Translates it, the External Act answering the internal, which is no otherwise good or commenda­ble than that it vertuously serveth to the inward worship of God, 'tis an outward sign representing the inward frame of the Spirit, as 'tis after God. 2. 'Tis also a virtuous furtherance of inward Religi­on, which is to the honour of God; It is apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some notable and special signification, whereby he might be edified. Ceremonies of Religion are means whereby the dull mind is stir­red up to the remembrance of duty, and whereby the Soul is edifi­ed (i. e.) strengthned and confirm'd in grace; Then is a man edi­fied when his graces are suscitated, stirred up, strengthen'd, en­creas'd or confirm'd.

This description of a Religious Ceremony is not only what Bel­larmine and Covel out of him give us, but also the same, to which a late Author in his verdict apon the Dissenters Plea, gives his ap­probation. Page 57. ‘That such mystical Ceremonies, or Sym­bolical representations are not sinfull, (sayes he), I am fully con­vinc'd, because they are good for the use of edifying; For what­soever is apt to inform me, and put me in mind of my duty, and to excite me to perform it; That is certainly for my edification, because to inform, to admonish, and excite is to edifie, and that some mystical Ceremonies are of this nature, is too notorious to [Page 64] be deny'd.’ So far the Answer to Melius Inquirendum.

The same is asserted in the Discourse that is prefix'd unto the Common Prayer, concerning the Service of the Church, where 'tis exprest, That the Ceremonies are by some notable signification, de­sign'd to stir up the dull minds of Men to the Remembrance of their Duty. Their use is for the exciting to Duty as well as for instru­ction.

This is that they say concerning the Nature of a Ceremony, whereby it seemeth to some very evident, That there is a great Difference between a Religious Ceremony, and a necessary Circum­stance of Religion. The former is a part of External Worship, the latter but an Appendix. Some Circumstances, such as time, and place, &c. are necessary unto, though no parts of Worship, but an humane Ceremonie, though not necessary unto, yet is made a part of Worship. We cannot worship God but in some time, and in some place, but can do so without any of these humane sig­nificant Ceremonies, which yet are made a part of external Wor­ship, which is but the expressing and setting forth of the Internal by outward signs, by which as by certain outward bodily Sha­dows and Colours the Spiritual and Inward Worship of God is made visible, and sensible to others, as the Learned Bradshaw ex­presses it.

Much more might be said by way of Explication, but this is enough to evince, that a Religious Ceremony is significant of those inward motions of the heart that are directed unto God, and conse­quently a part of External Worship; and more than a Circum­stance. That the Ceremonies in Controversie are of the same Na­ture with some of those in use among the Papists, Jew, and Hea­then; for which reason, who ever can justly appropriate the En­glish Ceremonies to Gods Worship, may, for the same reason appropriate those of the Papist, Jew, or Pagan, and, that there is too much of the Nature of a Sacrament assigned unto 'em, in that they are not only significant, but moreover adapted for the stirring up the dull mind unto an edifying Remembrance of duty.

This said, of Religious Worship and Ceremonies. The next enquiry is concerning what power man has given him to appropriate humane Ceremonies unto Gods Worship. By humane Ceremonies the Dissenters (If I mistake 'em not) understand such Ceremonies as are neither Natural, nor of Divine Institution, but of Mans Invention only, By appropriating 'em to Gods Worship, they mean [Page 65] an Ordaining, or an using them after a solemn and Religious man­ner for Spiritual uses, and ends, not for Civil or Temporal, but as outward Notes and Testimonies of those things that make us Spiritual. The ordaining or Using 'em as significant of in­ward Grace, and for the suscitating and stiring up those graces thereby signified. The which is supposed to be done even when the Worship may be compleat and exactly agreeable to the word of God without them.

This appropriating humane Ceremonies to Gods Worship is not only an Unaccountable adding unto Gods Worship, but a making that a part of Christs Religion, which God never made to be so, which is as unlawful in Protestants, as 'tis in the Papist. The Papists may as lawfully appropriate to Religion a Shaven Crown, a Monks habit, Spittle in Baptism, Holy Water, and all the Missal Rites (as Bradshaw has it) as a Protestant Magistrate can make a Surplice, a Cope, a Cross in Baptism, Imposition of hands in Confirmation, Ring in Marriage to be Ornaments of Religion and Holy Ceremonies, yea, as Bradshaw. ‘Those that may bring in, without special Warrant from God, Piping [vid. of the Organ, &c.] into his Service, might as well bring in Danc­ing also; those that have Authority to joyn to the Sacrament of Baptism, the Sign of the Cross have Authority also (no doubt) to joyn to the Sacrament of the Supper, Flesh, Broth, Butter, or Cheese,’ and worse matters than those, if they will [seeing they are equally capable of significancy, and apt for the stirring up our dull minds to the Remembrance of many a necessary duty] Yea, ‘those that have power to make peculiar forms of Religion and VVorship, have power to make and invent a Religion of their own.’

There are two things, on which the Church men do seem to insist very much.

• 1. If the Ceremonies imposed be in their own Nature indiffe­rent. And
• 2. Such as do teach good Doctrine, they may be lawfully im­posed. To this the Old Non-Conformists answer'd.

I. That all things that are in themselves matter indifferent, are not lawful to be done in Divine Service, tho' the Magistrate should Command them, the which they judge will be very clear to such as will but consider what things are ‘indeed indifferent, or go under the Name and Title of indifferent things, that the [Page 66] Magistrate cannot lawfully command, nor the people lawfully observe 'em if Commanded.’ e. g. Eating and Drinking, the ‘avoiding the Superfluities of Nature, Spinning and Carding, Killing of Oxen and Sheep, which of themselves have in them neither vertue, nor vice, and are therefore indifferent Actions; and yet I think (saies Bradshaw) none except professed Atheists, but will hold it a foul Sin to do some of these Actions in any Assembly, much more in the solemn Worship of God, though the Magistrate should Command the same even upon pain of Death. But if it be further considered, That Carding and Diceing, Masking and Dancing, For men to put on Womens Apparel, and VVomen Mens, Drinking to Healths, Ribaldry, Stage-Playes are things indifferent to be done upon the Lord's own day, [at least it was esteemed so when the Book for Plays was to be read] may a Minister of the Gospel upon the Magi­strates Command do any of these in Divine VVorship?’

By this we may see, That there is not so much Innocency in the meer Indifferency of an Action, that it should on that Account be meet enough to be appropriated to Gods VVorship. Neither,

2. Can the significancy of a Ceremony, or its aptness to edifie and stir up grace, be reason enough to appropriate a Ceremony to Gods Service, unless the playing a Game at Cards may be lawfully introduced into the solemn VVorship of God. For says a late Author, a Son of the Church of England in his Answer to Melius Inquirendum, pag. 57. ‘The other day as I remember, I saw a Pack of Cards, which according to this Account may very well be call'd a Pack of Sacraments, [that is as a Sacrament is Considered to be a Outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace] for each Card had the Matter of a Sacrament, that is, an Outward, and Visible sign of some Inward, and Spiri­tual Grace in the Martyr [Sir Edmund. Godfrey] (whose barba­rous Murder they were design'd to represent;) and sure the ingenious Contrivers of those Cards intended some effect from them, to excite, to stir up, to encrease Grace and Devotion by the sight of them, Viz. an utter abhorrence of Treason, and all Popish Principles, which lead to it, and must this poor pack of Cards be condemn'd to the Flames for the Ingenuity of the Author?’ So far our Author. Who should have said and may not this pack of Cards, so like unto other humane significant Ce­remonies, or Sacramentals, be appropriated unto the solemn Wor­ship [Page 67] of God, May not the Minister and People in the midst of so­lemn VVorship apply themselves to those Cards, seeing they in their play turning 'em frequently over, may be excited to an utter abhorrence of Treason, and whether any sober Divine of the Church of England would so far approve of the appropriating this indifferent but significant Ceremony, namely this pack of Cards to their solemn Religious VVorship, is not difficult to determine. To return to what Mr. Bradshaw adds, who speaking of the above mention'd Ceremonies, saies, ‘There is none of these but may have applyed unto them, by the VVit of Man, a Mystical and Religious Sense, even the filthiest Actions, and things that are, may teach good Doctrine. The Holy Ghost resembleth the Soul polluted with Sin to a Menstruous Cloth, A man fallen again into Sin to a Sow wallowing in the Mire: Might therefore a filthy Sow, and such unclean Clothes be brought into the Church, to be visible Shadows, and representations of such things? Pray, what may not by this means be brought into Gods VVorship, and yet by this reason he defended to be a good Ceremony, if the Magistrates and Bishops should decree the same.—A Mi­nister clothed with such Apparel as those that Act the Devils part in a play may teach this, That by Nature we are Limbs of Satan and Fire-brands of Hell: Bear-baiting may teach us how Christ was baited before the Tribunals of the Pharisees, or the Com­bate between the Flesh, and the Spirit.’ But shall these be there­fore appropriated to God's Worship?

Thus, no good Argument may be fetch'd either from the in­differency, or significancy of Ceremonies for their lawfulness in God's worship, though commanded by the Magistrate. For not­withstanding the utmost can be said from either of these Topicks, there will not (as Dissenters think) be enough to ballance what is offer'd against the lawfulness of the Ceremonies, or of a comply­ance with 'em in God's Worship; On the which I have the ra­ther insisted, because the hot Sons of the Church, by adheering over zealously to significant Ceremonies which are considered, be­cause of their being in their own nature indifferent, as very harm­less, do but open the way to the letting in an over-running flood of Popish Ceremonies, against which the Zealots for Ceremonies have nothing to offer, because the Ceremonies they impose, are in their own nature indifferent and very significant, instructive of good Doctrine, stirring up the peoples dull minds to their duty, [Page 68] and enjoyned by publick Authority, but of this more in the rea­sons against the appropriating humane significant Ceremonies to the worship of God; The which I'll give the Reader out of the Abridgment, the Authors of which assert them to be unlawfull, because;

1. ‘The Second Commandment forbids us to make to our selves the likeness of any thing whatsoever, for Religious use. And so is this Commandment understood by Bucer, Virell, Dr. Fulk, and others.’

2. ‘Christ is the only Teacher of his Church, and appointer of all means, whereby we should be taught, and admonished of any Holy Duty, and whatsoever he hath thought good to teach his Church, and the means whereby he hath perfectly set down in the Holy Scriptures, so that to acknowledge any other means of teaching, and Admonishing us of our duty, than such as he hath appointed, is to receive another Teacher into the Church besides him, and to confess some imperfection in those Means he hath ordained to teach us by. Our Saviour by this Argu­ment (amongst others) Condemns the Jewish purifyings and and Justifieth himself and his Disciples in refusing that Ceremo­ny, because (being the precept of men) it was taught and used as a Doctrine by way of signification to teach what inward puri­ty should be in them, and how they ought to be cleansed from the pollutions of the Heathen. And so we find this place inter­preted by Chrysostom (whose Judgment also is alleadged and ap­proved by Dr. Whitaker) the Church of Wittemberge Calvin, Virell, Zeipperus, Dr. Fulke, Dr. Reinolds and others. This Reason we find alleadged by such Divines as have been of chief credit in the Church of Christ, namely. Mr. Calvin, Chemnitius, Lavater. Dr. Fulke, and others. So to them that say Images may stand in Churches as helps to stir up Devotion, and to put Men in re­membrance of good things; It is answered (by Peter Martyr, Gualier, Lavater, Ʋrsinus, Polanus, and others) that the Lord himself hath appointed means enough to do that; and that no means may be used to that end, but such as he hath Ordained. So the Churches of France and Flanders in their Observations upon the harmony of Confessions gives this Reason against all Mystical Ceremonies, that they are parts of the Holy Doctrine, and Dr. Andrews alleadgeth this for the first Root of all Supersti­tion and Idolatry, that men thought they would never have [Page 69] admonitions and helps enough to stir them up to VVorship God, yet God (saith he) had given four means, viz. The Word writ­ten, the Word Preached, the Sacraments, and the great Book of the Creatures.’

3. ‘This gives unto Ceremonies a chief part of the Nature of Sacraments, when they are appointed to teach or Admonish us by their Signification. This is affirmed and given as a reason against Significant Ceremonies, by Augustine, the Churches of France and Flanders, in their Observations upon the harmony of Confessions, Calvin, Martyr, Beza, Sadcel, Danaeus, Zepperus, Polanus, Bishop Jewel, Dr. Humfry, and others.’

4. ‘In the time of the Law, (when God saw it good to teach his Church by significant Ceremonies) none might be brought into, or received in the Worship of God, but such only as the Lord himself did institute. This reason is used against the Popish Ceremonies by [...]alvin, Junius, Lubbertus, and others.’

5. ‘It is much less lawful for man to bring significant Ceremo­nies into Gods Worship now, than it was Under the Law. For God hath abrogated his own, not only those that were ap­pointed to prefigure Christ, but such also as served by their sig­nification to teach moral Duties, so as now (without great Sin) none of them can be continued in the Church, no not for signifi­cation. Of this Judgment were the Fathers in the Councel of Nice and Austin, Martyr, Bullinger, Lavater, Hospinian, Piscator, Cooper, Bishop Westphaling, and others.’

‘And if those Ceremonies that God himself ordained to teach his Church by their signification may not now be used, much less may those which man hath devised. This Reason our Di­vines hold to be strong against Popish Ceremonies, namely Calvin, Bullinger, Hospinian, Arcularius, Virell, Dr. Bilson, Dr. Rainolds, Dr. Willet, and others. Yea, this is one main Difference which God hath put between the State of that Church under the Law, and this under the Gospel, that he thought good to teach that by other mystical Ceremonies, besides the ordinary Sacraments, and not this. And of this Judgment is Calvin, Bullenger, Chemnitius, Danaeus, Hospinian, Arucularius, our book of Homilies, Dr. Humfrey, Dr. Rainolds, Dr. Willet, and others. All which Divines do teach that to bring insignificant Ceremonies into the Church of Christ is plain Judaism. Besides this, 'tis a special part of that Christian Liberty which Christ [Page 70] hath purchased for us by his death, and that which all Christians are bound to stand for: that the Service we are to do unto God now, is not mystical, Ceremonial, and Carnal (as it was then) but plain and spiritual. And of this Judgment were the Divines within the Territories of Hamborough) in an Epistle they wrote to Mèlancthon) and Virel, Piscator, Dr. Rainolds, and others.’

6. ‘This will open a Gap to Images, Oyl, Lights, and Spittle, Cream, and all other Popish Ceremonies, especially if they shall be judged as fit to Teach and Admonish by their signification, as these which we retain. And indeed this is a chief Reason where­by both Papists and Lutherans justifie the Use of Images; and whereby Bellarmine commendeth all other their Ceremonies, that they are fit to teach and put men in remembrance of good things. The Popish Custome of the Priests sprinkling men with Holy Water, and using with all these words, Remember thy Baptism, (as their manner was in some Countries can with no reason be held for Unlawful, if such significant Ceremonies as ours are to be defended. With such Respects and Relations, Remembrances and Apprehensions (saith Dr. Fulke) all Idolatry and false Worship may be defended.’

7. ‘VVe are further confirmed in this our Argument by the Judgment of the Godly Learned, who, (besides the Testimony they have given to every several proof we have brought for it) do also speak directly with us in this General. That no Mystical and significant Ceremony devised by Man, and appropriated to Gods Service may be retained in the Church of Christ. Of this judgment is the Church of Wittenberg, the Churches of France, and the Low Countries, in their Observations upon the Harmony of Con­fessions, Mr. Calvin, Mr. Beza, Mr. Perkins, and others. Yea, Dr. Whitgift himself professeth, that he did not like that any pre­script Apparel should be used in Gods Service for Signification. And no good reason can be given why the Church may not as well enjoyn a prescript Apparel for signification, as any other Ceremony.’

To all which I'le add one Argumentative Consideration which the Church of England doth afford us, which is given in their Dis­course of Ceremonies before the Common-Prayer-Book, as a reason why they did put away any of those many Ceremonies, with which the Church was burthen'd, which reason is distinct from that of their Multitudes, and 'tis taken from their significancy, [Page 71] and the likeness they had with those in use among the Jewes, on which account they were not suited to the Gospel Dispensation. After mention is made of the great excess and Multitude of Cere­monies in the dayes of Popery, they add, ‘And besides this, Christ's Gospel is not a Ceremonial Law (as much of Moses Law was) but it is a Religion to serve God not in Bondage of the Fi­gure, [i. e. significant Ceremony] or Shadow, but in the Free­dom of the Spirit.’ As if it had been said a great part of Gospel Liberty consists in being freed from those significant Cere­monies, which are not now of Gods appointment, These words do seem to suggest that one reason of the abolishing the significant Ceremonies of the Papists was because they being significant, were so like unto the Jewish Service, and so different from the Gospel State, and such as have been so much abus'd to Superstiti­on, that 'twas not easie to retain the Ceremony, and abandon the Superstition.

This being the Sense of the Church of England, seeing the Ceremonies retained are of the same significant, or Jewish Na­ture, with those abolished, that have been as much abus'd to Su­perstition, as others, and have no other Foundation than Mans VVit and VVill for their support, why were not these, that are left, rejected for the same reason, those still retained by the Papists have been. If you'l argue from the significancy, the likeness that is between Popish Ceremonies, and the Jewish; and there­fore reject 'em, seeing the English are of the same kind, is not the Argument as strong against them. Is not a Surplice as like the Jewish Garment, as some of the Popish Rights are to the Jewish Ceremonies; why then shall the one be abolished, because of that likeness, and the other kept, or, if their being abus'd to su­perstition, and the Difficulty of separating the Superstitious abuse from the useing 'em be sufficient to abolish the Rites of Salt, and Spittle, Lights, &c. why not as sufficient for the abolishing the Surplice, the Sign of the Cross in Baptism. Kneeling at the Lords Supper, Bowing at the name of Jesus: Have not all these been as much abus'd to Superstition, and still are as any of the rest, especi­ally considering what Divisions they have made in the Church, why not then abolish'd? Or if it be a sin to conform to the Popish Rites, How a Duty to Conform to these that of the same kind with 'em? Or, if these without Sin may be appropriated to Gods VVorship by Protestants, which may not the Papists, where they [Page 72] have Authority by their Impositions, impose 'em on the people as in France, &c. and appropriate 'em to God's VVorship?

Methinks Mr. Greenham expresseth himself very full on this particular in his Answer unto the Bishops of Ely, as 'tis in the Re­gister. ‘If your VVisdom think (says he) that I deceive my self in my Supposition, for that in Lutheranism more and worse abu­ses be maintained, I answer, (that Consubstantiation excepted) they be all ejusdem generis of the like kind.’ [This he speaks of the Ceremonies of the Lutherans, who keep up Images, compa­ring 'em with our Ceremonies] seeing they are not retained ‘ad Cultum Dei, to the VVorship of God, but as they say, Ad Aedificationem, Decorum, et Ordinem Ecclesiae to Edification, &c. and differ only from us secundum Majus, & Minus, as great things and less, Therefore as more and worse Ceremonies are less to be tolerated, so no more are the fewer, or lesser evils to be allowed, and as you and other good men have great Consci­ences in the Multitude of Ceremonies I beseech you to think, that I, and others may have some Consciences in the fewer sort, when they be of the like nature with others.’

Seeing what has been said doth sufficiently prove the unlawful­ness of the Ceremonies in the judgment of many a Dissenter, they are afraid to Comply with (or joyn with any in) the use of those Ceremonies. They are fully convinc'd, they should sin if they did, the which they durst not do, least they provoke God to jea­lousie.

There are in the VVritings of the Old Non-Conformists such a multitude of weighty Arguments against the Lawfulness of the Ceremonies, &c. that a giving the Reader all would take up a very large Volume, but 'tis not my business to insist on all that may be offer'd, I'le therefore close with this one Argument.

Argument VI.

Notwithstanding the great Cry that has been made about the Antiquity of the English Service, and the reasonableness of con­forming unto it, for that reason, some Dissenters refuse to joyn in the use of it, because such a practice is not agreeable to the best Antiquity.

They think that the Apostles were best acquainted with the Mind and VVit of Jesus Christ, and that the Primitive Chri­stians [Page 73] in the First, Second and Third Centuries kept more exactly to the Rule of Christ than those, who lived in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Seventh, &c. whence the Antiquity the Dissenter pleads for is that which is most Ancient, and most pure, unto which pat­tern such as will aim at a thorough Reformation, must attempt the reducing all things in matters of Religion.

'Tis generally agreed by all Protestants, that in the Apostolical and most Primitive Dayes of the Gospel all things were most ex­actly conformed to the VVill of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the nearer any keep to his Rule, the better. A Deviating from the Primitive practice has been but the beginning of all those many corruptions that have infested the Church of Christ.

Seeing this is a truth acknowledged by most, let us enquire af­ter the Antiquity of such Liturgies as this in use among us, and after the time when Liturgies were first imposed, and from whom and when the present English Liturgy had its rise.

1. From what has been already suggested, 'tis manifest That there were no stinted Liturgies impos'd on any Pastors of particular Churches, the First Four Hundred years after Christ. The which may be be further confirm'd out of what Dr. Burnet in the Second part of the History of the Reformation doth acknowledge, who, speaking of Liturgies, doth say, ‘That they were not made the Subject of any publick Consultation till St. Austins time; when in their Dealings with Hereticks, they found they took advan­tages from some of the Prayers, that were in some Churches. Upon this, he tells us, it was order'd, that there should be no Prayers used in the Church, but upon common Advice. After that the Liturgie came to be more carefully confidered. Formerly the Worship of God was a pure, and simple thing, and so it conti­nued till Superstition had so infected the Church, that those Formes were thought too naked, unless they were put under more Artificial Rules, and dressed up with much Ceremony, &c.’ So far Dr. Burnet.

About this time, which was in the Fourth Century St. Ambrose compos'd his Service Book, which was the first that gained any confiderable Reputation in the VVorld. The Spurious Liturgies that are ascribed unto the Apostles are such, as have enough in 'em to convince the Reader, that they were not so ancient as is pre­tended. After this time the Pastors, or Bishops of Churches were very busie in composing Prayers, in making Additions to [Page 74] what was done by such as went before 'em. But no Liturgie as yet impos'd on any Churches, Every Pastor, tho' he communi­cated the prayers he had composed for his own use unto others (The which he did only for the satisfaction of his Brethren that they might be assur'd, there was nothing of Error in 'em) yet none impos'd. 'Tis very probable that St. Ambrose's Liturgie in Divers places finding Acceptance was much in use: But 'tis most certain, that until Pope Adrian the first, who liv'd in the Eighth Century there was no general Imposition of any Liturgie.

In Petries Church History 'tis storyed. ‘That about the later end of the Eighth Century, there was a great contention for re­ceiving the Mass of Pope Gregory into the Churches, first by Au­thority of Pope Adrian, and then of Charles the Great; some Churches had one Directory, and some another, who would not change, VVhen the Pope saw so great Opposition (and it may be understood, that it was not small, when the Pope was put to such a shift) he said he would refer it to the VVill of God, whither he would by any visible sign approve the Mass of Grego­ry, or Ambrose: so these two Books were laid together upon the Altar in St. Peters Church, and he cal'd upon God which of the Two he approved. The Doors were shut all Night, and the next Morning, when they were return'd into the Church, the Book of Ambrose was found lying as it was laid down, and the other was all torn and dispersed through the Church. The Pope maketh the Comment (if we will belive Jacob de Voragine in Vita Gregorij) That the Mass of Ambrose should be un­touch'd, and the Mass of Gregory should be used through the VVorld, and so he did Authorize and Command that it should be used in all Churches, and Chappels. But many did expound that sign the contrary way, and would not receive it, till Charles did command all Bishops and Priests to use it through his Dominions, he caused the Mass of Ambrose to be burned and threw many Priests into Prison, who refused to accept the new Mass [or Pope Gregories Liturgy] The Church of Millaine would not change. Walifred Strabo (who lived about the year 900) testifieth in his Book de Exordijs rerum cap. 25. That in his time the Roman Mass was not universally in all Churches, but almost (saith he) in all the Churches of the Latines, and no Benedictine Monks did read it, &c.’ Thus Adrian the Pope, and Charles the Emperour were the first hot Zealots for Gregories [Page 75] Liturgy, who were much more fond of it, than Gregory himsel [...] was, for Gregory did as much detest the Ʋniversal Imposition, as he did zealously reject the Title of an Ʋniversal Bishop, whence he was not fond of imposing it on us in England.

'Tis very certain that the Christian Religion did many an hun­dred years flourish in this Kingdom before 'twas troubled with a Romish Liturgie, which came not hither till about the year 600, and then rejected by the British Christians, who severely suffer'd for their refusing to comply with the prelatick Impositions of that proud Monk Austine, who, stirring up the King of Kent to fight against the Christians, thereby to bring 'em, if possible, to a complyance with his Ceremonies, was the cause of the De­struction of above a Thousand Godly Monks, besides the many others who were cruelly slain at that time. The which Austin most wretchedly did, tho' he never receiv'd any such advice from Gregory.

An account of Pope Gregories Moderation we have in Dr: Burnet, who gives us also a short History of the Rise and Progress of Ceremonies thus. ‘Gregory the Great was the first, that took much care to make the Church Musick very regular, and he did also put the Liturgies in another Method, than had been former­ly used. Yet he had no such fondness of his own Composures. But left it to Austine the Monk, whom he sent over into England, when he consulted him in it, either to use the Roman, or the French Rituals, or any other, as he should find they were most likely to edifie the people. [But] After this there were great variations; for as any Prelate came to be Canonized, or held in high esteem by the people; some private Collects, or particular Forms, that he had used, were practised in his, or per­haps as his Fame, spread in the Neighbouring Diocess.’

Thus the Liturgie as it's first rise was in Austine's time, or thereabout, which was occasioned by the Errors that then did infest the Churches, at which time the Ministers would vent their Errors in their very Prayers, even so by degrees it received re­markable Additions, some part brought in at one time, and some at another. So says Dr. Burnet. ‘In every Age there were nota­ble Additions made, and all Writers allmost in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries employed their Fancies to find out Mystical Sig­nifications, for every Rite, that was then used; and so as a new Rite was added, it was no hard matter to add some Mystery to [Page 76] it. This had made the Office swell out of measure, and there was a great variety of them, Missals, Breviaries, Rituals, Pon­tificals, Portoises, Pies, Graduals, Antiphorals, Psalteries, Hours, and a great many more.’

Out of these was the English Service taken, which as it had no higher Rise than that of Gregorie's or at most Ambrose's Liturgy, in like manner it was a Composition of time, the Remaining parts having different Fathers, some hundred years younger than the Apostles.

This I'le evince particularly out of Bellarmine, who (as his Interest prompted him) made diligent search after the Antiquity of the several parts of the Romish Service Book.

1. The Versicle, Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost was as Alcuinus thought Composed by St. Hierome at the request of Pope Damasus, But as Walfrid Strabo, 'twas composed by the Nycene Council sometime before Hierome, it may be to shew their Detestation to the Arrian Heresie, which was some hundred years after Christ.

2. The Kyrie Eleison (i. e.) Lord have mercy on us, is foolish­ly supposed to be us'd ever since the Apostles days, because 'tis found in St. James's feigned Liturgy, but Bellarmine cannot say that 'twas us'd in the Roman Liturgy Two Hundred years before Gregory the Great who liv'd about the year 600.

3. Dominus Vobiscum, or the Lord be with you, An ancient Sa­lutation, us'd by Believers in the Old Testament times, about which Petrus Damianus wrote a Book with this Title, Dominus vobiscum. Tho' this was an ancient Salutation in use among old Believers, when they met one another, yet we have no evidence, that 'twas brought into the Liturgie as a part of solemn and set Worship until the first Council at Bracca, Can. 21. enjoyn'd it the Bishops and Priests.

4. The Collects, which were the short Prayers of several Popes and others Cannoniz'd for Saints, were brought into the Liturgy by Pope Gregory almost 600 years after Christ.

5. The Te Deum Laudamus, or that Hymn which begins thus. We praise thee O God, tho' it be not found in the Sacred Scriptures, yet 'twas (saith Bellarmine) given the Church by In­spiration at the Baptism of St. Austine, at which time St. Ambrose and St. Austine did extempore, and alternately to the Astonishment of the people sing this Hymne, as Dacius Episcopus Mediolanensis reports.

[Page 77] 6. After the Lessons, the Responses, which are so call'd, saies Rabanus, because one who begins is answer'd by the rest, were first invented by the Italian Churches, was not within several hun­dred years after Christ.

By these Intimations concerning the Antiquity of some parts of the English Service 'tis evident, That as all stinted Liturgies com­pared with the most primitive practices are new, so our Liturgie, which was taken out of Gregories, A Liturgie not so ancient, as that of Ambrose, and which in process of time was strangely alter'd is much more new, unto which the Dissenters cannot firmly adhere, if they will as they think they ought, make the most Primitive Practice the pattern and Rule of theirs.

What need any other Impositions on the Ministers of the Go­spel, or on the people now, than were on 'em the first 300 years? And why shall we be wiser than our first Fore-Fathers? Is it not a duty to have a just respect to Antiquity? Why not then to that Anti­quity that comes nearest unto the Apostles days? Whatever some may think, there are many among the Dissenters, who are fully perswaded that untill all things in Religion be reduc'd to the an­cient Constitution established by the Lord Christ, and his Apostles, adher'd unto by those who for some hundred years followed 'em, the Church of God will never flourish.

This is the Rule they must walk by, &c. or Sin against God, to avoid which Sin, they refuse to joyn with the Church of Eng­land in her Liturgie, that is so beside the practice of the Primitive Christians.

Let these few of the many Arguments, which the Dissenters have offered against the lawfulness of the English Liturgy satisfie the Reader, On this I have the more fully insisted to the end those Sober Conformists, who it may be have not considered the Reasons why the Dissenters cannot conform to the English Liturgie may see thas 'tis not Honnour, nor Fancy, but Conscience, that is the ground of their Non-Conformity.

I'm very Confident, that a great part of the Dissenters (I speak not of all because I know 'em not) would with all their Hearts Conform to all is requir'd of 'em by the Church of England, could they do it with a safe Conscience, and surely, such among the Conformists, who will consider these Reasonings of the Dis­senters, and who do not measure the Consciences of other Men by the Light and Latitude of their own, cannot but conclude, [Page 78] that there are some Nonconformists who cannot with a safe conscience conform, but should they do it, 'twould be against the plain convic­tions of consciences.

As 'tis not humour nor fancy that occasions their Dissent from the Church, so 'tis more than meer scruple of conscience. These Dissenters are under strong convictions of Conscience, that they sin, if they conform; This is certainly the case of many, who are as fully perswaded, that the Conformists do err, as the Confor­mist can be that they do so.

This being their case, the question is, whether notwithstanding these plain convictions of Conscience, they must conform, and act contrary to their convictions? Whether they may safely sin against God, to the end they may render the Obedience required by man? It hath been heretofore asserted by all sorts of Christians, whether Protestant or Papist. 1. That God must be obeyed rather than man; And, 2. That no authority is sufficient to oblige any to act contrary to the plain convictions of Conscience. Yea Medina himself doth as­sert, that a man must rather obey an erroneous Conscience, than the command of any Prelate, that is contradictory thereunto.

Supposing these Dissenters do err, yet they must not act contra­ry unto an erroneous Conscience, the whole that can be justly desir'd is, that they use all regular means to depose and shake off the er­ror of Conscience, which must be done by a sincere seeking God for more light, that they may come to the knowledge of the truth, and by a diligent and impartial enquiry into the true State of the controversie; Moreover, there must be if possible, a con­sulting the writings of the Learned on both sides, or a conversing with 'em, with a readyness to weigh all things with deliberation, and a resolution to embrace the truth, where ever 'tis found; But if after all their old convictions are rather strengthned than other­wise, they must beware they act not contrary to their Conscience. They must not resign up their reason, their Conscience, nor their Religion unto the pleasure of the greatest Potentate on Earth. This I take to be the Doctrine of all sound Protestants of the Church of England, yea I can, when there shall be an occasion, prove it to be so by a Collection of the several Arguments of the Learned Drs. of the Church, which they have urg'd for the confirmation of this truth, in the opposition they make to the blind obedience of the Papist. Whence I inferr.

That these Dissenters in refusing to joyn with the Church of Eng­land [Page 79] in the Liturgy, do but discharge their duty unto God. Their not joyning with the Church is not the sin of Schism; Schism is asserted by Protestants to be a causless separation, whence if there be a good cause why they separate, 'tis not causeless, and can there be a better cause than the avoiding sin? They separate, be­cause they should sin if they did not separate.

But though this be enough to clear the Dissenter, who is fully convinc'd of the unlawfulness of those Termes of Communion that are imposed on the people, yet 'tis not enough to justifie the sepa­ration of those, who do not only think it lawfull, but expedient to joyn with the Church of England in their Prayers and Ceremonies, &c. who if they will separate from the Church of England, and justifie their separation, they must argue from other Topicks, for certainly the peace of the Church, and the authority of the Magi­strate, cannot but engage a people to do what is both lawfull and expedient.

These therefore (I think) deny, that they separate from the Communion of the Church. Although they worship God in Meetings, locally distant from the Parish Church, yet their Meet­ings are but as Chappels of Ease, and the Preachers but as Cu­rates to the Parish Churches.

That the Episcopal Party may effectually demonstrate a Religi­ous Assembly locally distant from the Parish Church to be Schisma­tical, they must prove.

• 1. That the people of this Assembly were once actually Members of the Parish Churches.
• 2. That these people do ordinarily separate themselves from the ex­ternal Communion of their Parish Churches.
• 3. That their separation is causless.

First, They must prove, that the people of this Assembly, that is locally distant from the Parish Church, were once Members of the Parish Church, that they were under an obligation of holding ex­ternal Communion with their Parishes.

1. All External Communion must be in Parish Assemblys, or sin­gle Congregational Churches; For a Diocesan, Provincial or Na­tional Assembly of all the Members of those Societies for Exter­nal Communion, is, on the account of the multitude of the peo­ple, impossible, 'tis impossible they should meet in one and the same Assembly, and hold Communion with each other in Prayers, in the Word, and in the Sacrament; Their External Communion [Page 80] in Prayers, &c. must be in lesser Assemblies, or not at all.

2. Those who are under any Obligations of holding external Communion with this, or the other Parish must be Members of this or the other Parish Church. Such as are not Members of this or the other Parish Church, cannot be said to separate from it, tho' they meet in places locally distant, because they not being Members of the Parish Church, are not under any Obligation of holding external Communion with that Parish, A Man (saies Dr. Stilling fleet) is not said to separate from every Church, where he forbears or ceases to have Communion, but only from that Church with which he is obliged to hold Communion, and yet withdraws from it, This sufficiently evinces, That unless the Conformists can prove that the Dissenters were oblig'd to hold Communion, as Members of the Parish Churches, they cannot prove a Separation. To separate from a Church doth suppose, that person to have been once of that Church.

But the Quaerie is, how the Conformists will prove all the Dissenters to be Members of some particular Parish Church? Will they say that they were all made Members of some particu­lar Parish Church by their Baptisme? That cannot be, because by Baptism we are only made Members of the Catholick Church. Doth our being born English Men, and our Inhabiting in such a Parish make us Members of the Parish Church? No, for there are no Grounds in Scripture for this, Our Lord Jesus Christ, nor his Apostles did not leave any Intimations concerning such a Rule, neither can any precept, but what is fetch from God's word, fasten any such Obligation on the Conscience, that whoever lives within such a precinct must be a Member of such a Church, How then must it be? The Answer of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and the Primitive Christians for the first 300 years, and of most Protestants, is full for this, which is, That it must be by the peoples consent. For as the people are invested with a Right to chose their own Pastor and the Church with which they would hold Communion. Even so they cannot be Members nor under any Obligation of holding Ordinary Communion with this, or the other particular Church without their own consent. Consent is as absolutely necessary to the constituting a particular Parish Church, as a National, which consent may be discovered not only Expresly, but also implicitly, which is when a people do ordinari­ly joyn with some particular Church in all Ordinances, as many [Page 81] Parishioners, who, by their Ordinary holding Communion with the Parish Church in all Ordinances, do practically, and interpre­tatively (though not expresly) discover their consent to be of that Church, whereby (I think) they are under an Obligation to constant Communion with that Parish Church so long as they find it lawful: Tho' these may Occasionally hold Communion else­where, yet their ordinary, and constant Communion must be with their Parish Church. For which reason, if they do ordina­rily forbear, or cease to have Communion with their Parish-Church, it may be justly said, that they do separate from it.

But there are many an Inhabitant in most Parishes, who, as they were not made Members of the Parish Church by Baptism, nor can be by meer Cohabitation, even so they never were by their own Consent, either expresly, or interpretatively. They never held Communion with the Church of England in all Ordinances, were never confirm'd by the Bishops, nor ever did participate of the Lord's Supper, and therefore I think it cannot be truly said, That they Separate. How can they cease that Communion which they never had? For which reason to prove these Schismatical Sepa­ratists, who never separated from the Church, seems an Impossi­bility. Surely their exercise of that Right, and Power, with which they are invested as Christians in chosing their own Pastor, cannot be an Act Schismatical.

By this 'tis manifest, That those who never expresly nor im­plicitly consenting to hold communion with any Parish-Church in all Ordinances were never actually obliged to hold Communion with such particular Parishes, and consequently their forbearing such Communion or their Assembling in places distant from the Parish Church cannot be a Separation, and if not a Separation, it cannot be a Schism.

Thus the Reader may easily perceive how necessary 'tis, that the Conformists prove, that those Dissenters, who now meet in Assemblies locally distant from the Parish Churches, were once Members and under an Obligation of holding external Commu­nion with the Parish Churches, if they will prove 'em Separa­tists, Furthermore they must prove.

2. That this people do ordinarily Separate themselves from the external Communion of their Parish Church. For seeing the Sin of Schism consists in causeless Separation, there must be a Separation, or there can be no causeless Separation, (that is) there can be no [Page 82] Schism, but how the Conformist can prove a Separation any otherwise than by insisting on the people's, not holding Communi­on in the same manner, or same place with the Church, is difficult to suppose. And if they take either of their ways without the Addition of some other Consideration, they must either make many of their own Meetings Separate, which are in places local­ly distant from the Parish Church, where their Modes of Admi­nistration are different, or clear many Dissenters from the Re­proach of Separation, what do they think of such Meetings in which the Common Prayer is read, are they Separate and Schis­matical? But after they have prov'd both these, they cannot prove all Dissenters Schismatical, unless they can also evince.

3. That the Separation is Causeless and Sinful, But how they can prove that those who, if they separate, do so on no other Ac­count, than that they may forsake Sin is a point worthy of Consi­deration.

If there be any sinful Imposition made the term of Communion, 'tis sufficient to justifie the Separation of those, who withdraw themselves from the external Communion of that Church. If a Church that is sound in the Doctrine of Religion, though it de­tests an Idolatrous Worship, yet if it make the least Sin the Term of Communion, whereby the people cannnot have Com­munion with that Church but by a deliberate committing that Sin, Separation from the Communion of this Church is justifiable. For whatever some may suggest, we must not commit the least Sin that good may come thereof.

To insist then so much on the Peace and Ʋnity of the Church, as if it were a Good for the Obtaining which we might venture on a little Sin, is a Notion of a very dangerous Tendency, giv­ing too great Countenance to a Doctrine of the Papists, whereby they justifie all their Villanies. A Little evil (say they) may be done for the Obtaining a great Good, for instance. The Salvation of the many Souls in Three Kingdoms is a great, a very great Good, the Killing One, Two, or Three Hereticks in order thereunto, at most is but a little evil which may be done for so great a good. Moreover this justifies all their Officious Lying and Equivocating, they tell a Lye that some great good may come thereof. But this is so contrary to the pure Nature of a Holy God, and his Holy, Good, and Just Command, that whoever will indulge himself in a practical embraceing such a Notion, doth but prepare the greater Damnation for his own Soul.

[Page 83] God is a great God, and the least Sin being an Offence to his Dread Majesty, cannot knowingly with deliberation and al­lowance be committed, but the person that does it, exposeth him­self to Divine Indignation; who ever breaketh the least of these my Commands, says Christ. Matth. 5. 19. is in danger of loosing Heaven, for, though a man keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2. 10. We must not speak nor act wickedly for God, he is not glorified by Mans lye, and therefore Wo unto them that will do evil that good may come thereof. Rom. 3. 8. If the least sin be made the Term of Communion, no Consideration of Peace and Ʋnity, or of Obedience to the Magi­strate can excuse those from guilt, that will venture on that sin. Whence 'tis evident,

That all those who by the Reasons insisted on in this Treatise are fully convinc'd, That somewhat sinful is imposed as a Term of Communion with the Church of England, they do but discharge their Duty, and keep a good Conscience in separating, and yet by se­paration do not accuse the Church, as if she had been no true Church, or as if Salvation could not by others be had in it. A Church that is sound in the Faith, that 'tis a true Church in a Theological Sense, being lyable to Error, may, even while Sound in the great things of Religion, impose some Error, as a Term of Communion, from which those, who are convinc'd of the Sin, must separate. A sound Church in the great things, may err in lesser matters, and may Impose Assent and Consent unto that Er­ror, as a Term of Communion, with the which these Dissenters durst not comply, but seeing they cannot have Communion on easier Terms, must separate.

There is a great Difference between the Errors or Corruptions of a Church which are made Terms of Communion, and those which are not. 'Tis not to be question'd, but that a man may joyn with a Church that is less pure than another, even with a Church that hath several Spots in it (or he must joyn with none) and may be under an Obligation of continuing with that Church, although he may go elsewhere and be better edifyed, otherwise there being variety of Gifts, those who are more eminent than the rest among the Ministery, must have most of the people round, when other honest, though not so able; Preachers have few, or none. However if they make the least Spot, or Impurity a Term of Communion, he dares not comply. As long as he may [Page 84] may continue Communion without being made a partaker of the impurities, (as in many instances he may) he must not separate, but when they impose their corruptions as Termes of Communion, so that he cannot have Communion but by complying with the corruption, he must not sin for the sake of Communion, nor on any other consideration whatsoever.

But seeing they cannot hold Communion with the Parish-Chur­ches; The next great quaerie is, what they must do, whether live without some Ordinances all the dayes of their Life, or Assemble themselves together for Communion in all Ordinances, in such a way as they are fully convinc'd is agreable to the Sacred Scriptures.

That they must not constantly neglect any Ordinance of God, nor the publick attendance on his worship, somewhere is so clear­ly reveal'd in the word of God, that whoever is not so far in love with Quakerism, as to neglect the Testimony of God's written Word, cannot but acknowledge it; That the Lord Jesus who has instituted a Ministry, and made it the peculiar work of some men in special to preach the Word, not only for conversion of sin­ners, but for the edisication of the converted, for the help and be­nefit of whom there is instituted not the Ordinance of Baptism alone, but that of the Lord's Supper, which is design'd for the strength and encrease of Grace in Christians, I say this Lord Je­sus, who hath so graciously instituted a Ministry and Ordinances, hath made it the duty of Christians to assemble themselves toge­ther, to the end they may be made partakers of the Blessings of his Institutions and Ordinances; And such is the Relation between Minister and People, that is, between a Gospel Minister, and an orderly Christian Assembly, that the one cannot be without the other, neither can the one ordinarily perform some Relational Du­ties, but in an Assembly with the other, and therefore must as­semble themselves together, 'tis their duty.

I cannot at present enlarge on this head, and therefore as to this I can only add, that the sense of all Protestants generally is, that all Christians ought to assemble themselves together for publick worship; Viz. for Prayer, the Word and Sacraments, and that 'tis the duty of a Pastor to take heed to himself, and the Flock over which he is made over-seer, and that 'tis the peoples duty to attend Ordinarily on the Ministry of their own Pastor.

The great difference between the Church of England and Dis­senters, is not so much about the peoples duty of assembling them­selves [Page 85] together for publique worship, as about the place where, and the Minister with whom. The Church of England sayes, it must be in the Parish Church with the Minister of the Parish, but the Dissenter asserts, that every Christian is invested with a right to choose his own Pastor, and that therefore he must go where he finds the worship to be in a way most agreable to God's Holy word, but when he is once fix'd, he is under those Obligations of Duty unto his Pastor, that the Church of England do say, a Pa­rishioner is unto the Minister of the Parish. But seeing on these things I cannot now enlarge, I will conclude with an humble and affectionate request to all good Christians, whether Episcopal or Dissenter.

I beseech you to consider, that conscience is a tender thing, its wounds unsupportable, frequently accompanied with such horror as is very like unto the pains and torments of the damned; No man therefore must act contrary to the plain convictions thereof. What man soever does, what he is convinc'd in Conscience is a sin, does greatly dishonour and provoke Almighty God. All care must be taken to obtain the knowledge of the truth, and gain a freedom from error, but there must not be an acting against the plain convictions of conscience, though erroneous.

On this I insist as a sound part of the Protestant Doctrine, stre­nuously defended against the many feeble assaults of the Papist, by several worthies of the Church of England; And really this is a Rule all good Christians must walk by, in doing which, seeing there are almost as many different perswasions of conscience about some lesser things, as there are considering mindes, there will be as many different practices where there are different Sentiments about matters of practice, there the practice will be different, for which reason, the strong must take heed that they despise not the weak, and the weak look to it that they judge not the strong; For whether we conform, or conform not, if we do what we do conscientiously to the Lord, we shall be accepted of him.

I verily believe that many do think themselves bound in consci­ence to conform, the which they would not do to gain a world, if they did think it a sin, and 'tis as true, that many among the Dissenters are as conscientiously Non-conformists, and would re­ally have conform'd, did they not think that so conforming they should sin against God. Both these must be tenderly regarded by such as will walk by the Christian Rule; A Non-conformists cen­suring [Page 86] a conformist as one that acts against his conscience is unchri­stian, and a Conformist's censuring all Dissenters as Hypocrites, looking on their conscience to be but fancy, their Religion to be faction, is no less unchristian than the former. But to be more particular, my humble desire is,

1. That those who are of the Communion of the Church of England, would continue it so long as they can with a safe consci­ence. Let not every little dissatisfaction with some men drive you off from those wayes you have nothing, beside the miscarriage of some men of that profession, to object against, 'tis true, your duty is to mind the glory of God in the edification of your own Soul, and if your Parish Minister be one whose incapacity for the Ministerial work is such, as not to answer the end of the Ministry, you must look out for a better, and be where you may have more than the shadow of a Minister, even one who is competently qualified for the workes; But do this in a way as little offensive to the Church of England, as your conscience will permit. Why will you separate from that Communion, where you may be with­out sin, especially seeing by doing so you do what you cannot ju­stifie? But if you cannot continue your Communion without com­plying with sin, you must rather withdraw than sin.

2. That such as are not actually of any Communion, (i. e.) neither joyn'd with the Church of England, nor with the Dissent­er, of which fort there are many, especially among the younger people, would remember that they have, as Christians, a right to choose their own Pastor, in the exercise of which right, 'tis their duty to have a special regard to the Glory of God, the good of their own Soul, and the peace of the Church, and therefore if you may have all these ends answer'd by joyning your selves to the Church of England, and you can with a safe Conscience do it, you do well in joyning with that Church, but if you can't with a safe Conscience joyn with the Church of England, but can with the Non-conformists, you must apply your selves to those of the Non-conformists who do in your judgments keep most exactly to the rule of the Gospel. You must regard God's Glory as your ultimate end, the Salvation of your Soul as an end subordinate, and God's word as your Rule, by which in pursuance of these great ends, you must walk. Study therefore seriously the Rule, and be sure you do not knowingly and with deliberation deviate there from.

[Page 87] 3. My third request is to such as are joyn'd with the Non-Con­formists, that you Censure not those who continue their Commu­nion with the Church of England, Are you Conscientious in your way, So ought you to esteem them to be in their way? Would not you have them consider you as Hypocrites, or fanciful Hu­mourists, neither do you judge them to be such, what, though those Reasons I have Collected out of the Writings of the Old Nonconformists, may fasten powerful Convictions on your Con­science, yet they may not be of any such weight in the esteem of others. Tho' I have produc'd them to the end the Conformist may be mov'd to look on you as conscientious persons, yet do you not abuse it, as if all Conformists were as much Convinc'd by 'em as you your selves are, and therefore must be esteem'd to act contrary to their Consciences in conforming. Take heed of such censuring.

Finally my humble desire is, That such as are of the conforming Clergie would consider, that the above mention'd Arguments may be (as indeed with many they are) of great Force, and that al­though the Conformist may be able easily to answer 'em; Yet Thousands among the Dissenters can not shake off the Convicti­ons they receive from such Arguments. Oh then be not too se­vere in your censure! But consider that these Dissenters cannot con­form but by wounding their Consciences, be therefore very tender how you impose on 'em, but do your utmost both for a Comprehension, and Indulgence of those sound Protestants, who walk conscientiously.