dare not conclude all in Hell who have received and do receive the Elements kneeling I am Sir no Advocate for this Gesture but I abominate your venemous Notion Object 2. pag. 30. Your second Objection is ad hominem thus Corruptions in point of gesture are to Mr. Crofton a warrantable ground of non-communion But corruptions in point of gesture are corruptions extrinsecal and circumstantial Ergo Some corruptions extrinsecal and circumstantial at a warrantable ground for non-communion I pray you Sir when and where did Mr. Crofton say Corruptions in point of gesture is a warrantable ground for non-communion I find it not in any of his writings I say indeed Mr. Crofton put by communion because of the Gesture which is his personal act and he judgeth sinfull is barred by violence driven he doth not go This Sir is not repugnant to what I said The worship attended with circumstantial corruptions may with safety and must in duty be used for Sir every sinfull act personally done becometh a substantial corruption but done by others onely and about Gods worship it is circumstantial and extrinsecal and becometh not my Guilt Again Sir your Argument a fortiori hath the little force of your whole Argumentation If corruption in point of gesture be a warrantable ground for non-communion which you falsly say is confessed then much more the Liturgie Sir here is a meer non sequitur for the gesture if sinfull is the personal act of the Communicant who is wholly mute and passive in the Liturgical ministration in which he needeth not to act at all Your third Querie is in effect the same with the first and second concerning the Communion in the Service or Worship exhibited by the Liturgie In the resolution of which you run round like the Horse in his Mill and whilest I grant you the Liturgie is an evil constitution as it is a Ministerial mode you fly upon the Worship ministred and ministrable by it and tell us The worship ministred by the Liturgie is not performable by faith the worship is sinful the worship is unlawfull to these I shall say nothing more then what I have said before If this Worship ministred be the ministration what it will be cultus adulterinus sinfull worship unlawfull worship God hath no stated publick worship in the world for Word Prayer and Sacraments are the worship In your last Liturgie was the object of your Communion but in this worship distinct from and opposed to Liturgie is the object of your non-Communion that we may know God is not worshipped by the Liturgie you speak out the worship is sinfull not Gods worship not performable in faith Having discoursed at Rovers concerning the subject worship Pag 34. you come to the Predicate ministred by the Liturgie and state my Objection The Liturgie is onely a Ministerial mode which the people are not to be Judges in and therefore all the guilt resulting from thence is personal i. e. peculiar to the Minister To this you gravely answer This twenty-year-old Notion is become an Article of Mr. Croftons Creed and in your Margin you referr to Mr. John Ball. Is age any harm to the Notion Is it the worse for being stated by Learned Judicious John Ball No Sir these add force and lustre to it and acquit Mr. Crofton from novelty and singularity in this notion your notions are not two years old nor can they claim any other Author save acute T. P. Secondly You deny the Liturgie is any Ministrial mode more then the Book of Scripture is in the Ministers reading If so much Sir Pag. 34. is not that enough That Gods Word be read in such a Translation measure and order is the ministration humane And that Prayer be pronounced in such method order and expressions stated or immediately conceived is the humane ministration thereof edifying expressions and reverential manner of delivery you grant is the Ministerial mode these may be both exhibited by a stinted Liturgie But Sir doth the Liturgie whatever be its order do any thing more then exhibite Word Prayer and Sacraments in such an humane mode and dress between God and his People and is not this the formalis ratio of ministration of Gods worship to which edification and order are separable Adjuncts Is yet the Liturgie no Ministerial mode Is Prayer read no Prayer and Sacraments ministred by prescribed forms no Sacraments Is such ministration no ministration Will you say it and stand to it I may commend or rather condemn your confidence You say The Popish Missal may be termed a Ministerial mode It may so it Pag. 35. is so yet it may not be attended by the people because the matter ministred by this Ministerial mode is either no worship or false worship Your parallel between the Popish Missal and Liturgie is very square they are both a Ministerial mode in the Popish Missal the subject matter the worship is vitiated in the Liturgie the subject matter the worship is right and good but the ministration and mode is bad A full agreement an excellent Harp and Harrow The Popish communicants contract guilt by communion in Idolatrous superstitious worship ministred by their Priests and Missal Ergo Our people contract guilt by communicating in Gods true and own worship ministred by the Liturgie Rare Reason but I must remember the worship is cultus adulterinus and the Liturgie is not a Ministerial mode But Who is this that crieth out that is a dangerous Principle That people may lawfully communicate by that form mode and order of worship which a Minister cannot lawfully administer by D. G. redivivus This quarrel is proper for a Liturgical Considerator But Pag. 35. wherein lieth the danger of this Principle Such Opiniators fondly try an experiment how near they may approach to sin without sin How Sir Is distribution of different capacities of Minister People and determination of the proper Duties of each a fond experiment Is an approach to sin without sin so greatly dangerous especially in the critical necessarily casuistical part of Divinity Is a serious consideration of a Case of Conscience the wanton act of the wild School-men Will not an Act of Parliament a penal Law clear this dangerous Principle and make you and many your Proselytes make this near approach to sin without sin Doth not the Law publick Peace and Order with Self-preservation conclude the man under sin whose condescensions came not near to sin without sin If we scape the sin shall we not bless God and do any thing with comfort But Your third Answer is The people have Judicium discretionis you grant not of Order and Method to direct and determine that Pag. 36. this is proper to the Minister We are Sir in this agreed but your fancy doth confound the medium cultus with the modus ministerialis the last you will not allow and the first you do not understand there is the reason of the strife I pray you Sir
wants in the Church and both are the Scene for the variety of Gifts to exercise upon But Sir your next makes work for the Terraefilius Mr. Croftons instance of the Parish Clerk and People is not to our prejudice or his purpose for they are a general part of the holy priesthood St. Peter speaks of and it is their duty to bear a part in Gods solemn worship Well levell'd Doctor I hope we shall no more hear of Clergie distinct from Laitie The Parish Clerk and People are part of the holy Priesthood very true they ought to bear a part in Gods solemn worship undoubtedly true but must that part be ministration such ministration as is the formal act of Gospel ministry either so or you have said nothing and if so farewel Holy Orders yea solemn Ordination to the Ministery a man may make himself a Priest Enter Indepency the Archdeacon hath opened the door All the Lords people are holy the holy priesthood Ergo may minister in the Ministers Office Your next concerning School-boys doth suggest some Boy read Mr. Croftons Position to you for otherwise you might have observed he doth distinguish the Ministerial Office and Ministerial Act and tells you a boy may perform the Act and queries Must he therefore be admitted to the Office He never allowed a Butcher a blow at an holy Oxe or Lamb because he can kill them he never allowed Qualification to conferr an Office Sir upon what you have said Mr. Crofton appears not self-condemned nor condemned by others but if a Jury of Fresh-men condemn not your Logick you shall have my Vote to be Senior Lecturer Ending your dispute you pass to your former Swada and affirm Mr. Crofton and his party are bound to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgie Negatur You undertake to prove it thus To do whatsoever is morally possible for uniformity and peace sake is your duty But to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgie is morally possible Ergo to the submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgie Pag. 3. is your duty Though I could in love to peace I will not quarrel at the terms of your Major Proposition and deny it but I deny your Minor Proposition viz. To submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgie is not morally pessible You proceed to prove this What is not sinfull and is within our natural power is morally possible But to submit to a prescribed Liturgie is not sinful and is within our natural power Ergo To submit to the use of a prescibed Liturgie is morally possible The Major is allowed you the Minor as to the last Branch may be allowed you but sometimes our natural power may be under violent restraint and then possibility may fail As to the first branch it is denied and you proceed to prove it viz. that to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgie is not sinfull and you thus argue What is forbidden by no Law is not sinfull But to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgie is forbidden by no Law Ergo To submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgie is not sinfull The Major is allowed you the Minor I deny For to submit to the use of a prescribed Liturgie is forbidden in the first Command which doth require faithfulness in the Office committed to us by the Lord himself Ministers of God cannot without sin become the Ministers of men 2. In specialty the Law of the Ministerial Office in its special nature which must give Rules to the Ministers acts qua Ministerial acts doth forbid such submission as inconsistent with and destructive to the formal act of the Ministerial Office viz. modifying worship by personal abilities notwithstanding what our Opponent hath urged to the contrary 3. The edifying of the Church by variety of Ministerial Gifts is a Law which doth forbid such submission as destructive to that end The Apostle indeed bids us hold fast the form of wholsome words but not to hold to the same words to speak the same things but not in the same syllables for if so the Liturgie must be catholick to all Christians in all places and ages of the World and that in the Greek Language onely Had this Doctor read Mr. Croftons Argument on this Question against D. G. he sure would not have thus disputed Submission to Superiors is a duty but our judicium rationale must judge their Mandate to be licitum honestum which in this case we cannot do and then our Dilemma is manifest Shall we obey God or man judge you Now Sir your holding your Conclusion is not in my power to hinder but if your Premisses be not push'd down let all men of reason judge You have Sir been at the pains to transcribe Mr. Crofton's Creed in point of Church Communion praeterea nihil you deny no one Article nor dispute not against them Herein then we are agreed onely Sir let me tell you that freedome from corruptions and disorders must be secured to the Church by the ways God hath directed not by words which men have dictated and by their unwarranted power determined I having repelled the assaults and dissipated the Forces of the Jerubbaal Rediviv Right must now encounter the Left Wing of this Armado In address to which my courage is checked by observing the Antesignanus and Captain that appeareth in the Front not afraid of his force but ashamed that any called a Presbyter should engage in such a Church-subverting design and that with such weapons which the most rigid Separatists will be ashamed to take up but be he Son or Brother the Relation may restrain what the weight of the Warfare doth necessitate With him therefore I must take a turn the rather for that many have sounded in my ears his proud alarm That Mr. Crofton himself cannot now have any thing to say against him his opinion and practice unless he mind to have the last word and resolve he will not be convinced That this man may not abide wise in his own conceit I must once more enforce the Rebuke given him and advise him to reflect the wilfull affectation of a Title which can no way appertain to him viz. Jerubbaal whereas Baal is not the object of his Plea nor is he the Gideon that threw down and pleaded against Baal With what face doth this man conclude the common-Common-Prayer Book is Baal and not once consider or resolve Mr. Croftons expostulations hereupon My good friend let it be seriously resolved is there no differbetween Israel and Judah Rome and a Reformed Church between Reformat not Separat p. 26 36. a calling on God the onely true God in the Name of Christ though in a defective rude confused and unfitting order and praying unto Saints and dumb Idols Though our order of Divine Service be a Roman dreg of some dangerous distastefull influence yet it is not Popery Shall we not bless God and rejoyce in England as brought out of Babylon though some
that then suffered minister their last publick and dying devotions by the Liturgie Did not the Congregations who then necessarily served God in corners worship by the Liturgie Did not they wish and wait for the return of the Liturgie and rejoyce in its revival by Elizabeth Came not Life and Liturgie in competition when the Articles objected against and on which Thomas Watts Thomas Osmond Derrick Carver John Launder Mr. Rough the Minister and Cuthbert Sympson Deacon of the congregation in Bowe Church-yard were condemned was that they used attended loved laboured to restore the English Service or Liturgie Concluded not good Mr. Bradford They fell under Gods curse for calling good evil and evil good who condemned the English Service of Heresie How far short is he who concludeth and confidently affirmeth the worship administred or administrable by the Liturgie is not Gods worship but cultus adulterinus God is not worshipped by the Liturgie Sir turn over the Book of Martyrs you may run and read these demonstrations of the matter of fact it cannot be denied Yet I tell the Zealots for the Liturgie they inferr more upon this practice then these premisses will allow for whilst I am forced to produce them against this most rigid Separatist to prove God worshipped by the Liturgie I do deny their practice to be any way cogent to confine all or any ministration of Gods worship to this mode and Liturgie Your third Answer of the disparity between their case and ours hath been fully answered by Mr. Crofton and me who hath told you the difference is gradual not real the worship of God was Reformat not Separ p. 44 45. is and must be always one and the same though the Ministerial mode do and ought to vary Your fourth Answer ad hominem is indeed most judicious I affirm Ministers may not lawfully minister by the Liturgie therefore all that did or do hereby minister do minister by a sinfull and unlawfull Form of Worship a formal positive evil I did I do so affirm what then I did not affirm The Worship administred or administrable by this finfull mode was not Gods Worship or cultus adulterinus or that God was not worshipped by the Liturgie But I affirm the contrary I did also affirm this evil formal positive evil to be a personal evil consistent with whilest conversant about Gods true worship and therefore no ground of separation I affirmed salvability under this evil positive evil And herein your Censure is a manifest breach of Charity you conclude the Martyrs had not Gods worship but adulterate false worship which is inconsistent with salvation for otherwise the very Devils may dance in hope of Heaven for they believe and tremble yea and profess true Doctrine I charge a defect in circumstantials you in the subject and substance I reprove a sin of weakness consistent with salvation you the heighth of wickedness adulterate worship which concludeth its subjects living and dying as you cannot deny the Martyrs to have done if your Notion be true under it in utter impossibility of salvation Have you not cause to sing jam sumus ergo pares Your fifth Answer is The Martyrs devotion was not confined to the Liturgie Nor is theirs who use it and administer by it or ours who attend the same Your third Proposition resolving this first Query concerning Pag. 21. the expulsion of the Liturgie I pass as not concerned in it consenting to your Conclusion though grieved to see you give so much advantage to Liturgical Zealots as by your weakness and wildness of Argumentation you have done I say it ought not to be but being will not warrant a separation The Objections you take from me I will observe your Answers to The first is Mr. Crofton's sence of scandal Your Answer doth witness you either did not read or did not regard and consider Mr. Croftons Plea to the Barr of Scandal you would else have seen his care of and compassion to the weak his concession of scandal in all acts of liberty sui juris and his neglect of scandal onely when it doth obviate his duty But you insult here as every where on manifest mistake wonder at the charge whilest you will Your fifth Proposition is your Conclusion built on the forenoted horrible and erroneous premises and must be consonant Pa. 26 27. thereunto I will to it say no more but I deny the Conclusion Your second Query as a species of the first is of the same nature Quaer 2. and in it included discussed and resolved yet you do particularly state it thus What is that which may warrant and acquit from Schism a persons non-communion with the Church of England in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper under the present mode manner and method of administration In this Query I cannot but note that the Lords Supper as in the former worship abstracted from the Ministerial mode is proposed as the Object of non-communion Your Answer to this Query is general and granted you in Thesi That if one cannot communicate in the Lords Supper without sin he is warranted in his non-communion But your Hypothesis and Assumption is yet denied Nor can your horrid breach of Charity pass without observation That the mode manner and method of administration maketh the Lords Supper poyson whereby you must conclude that all who have all who do communicate in this Ordinance thus ministred have received poyson Yet you give us no proof for this Martyr-blaspheming Saint-damning Notion But you pretend to answer some of mine Objections 1. What superstitions and corruptions attend the Ministration of the Lords Supper in which he must personally act so as to become guilty of 1 Object pag. 98. the same You answer Two the Service and the Gesture Common-prayer and kneeling But Sir you have not proved the communicants personal acting in Common-prayer nor an impossibility of receiving the Lords Supper without this gesture Suppose these warrantable reasons your secession cannot be warranted by them until you have essayed all means for publick communion without them in which I am sure you might have found a possibility of enjoying this with at least connivance as to those Ceremonies which call for personal action Your Plea that the gesture of kneeling is imposed is meerly frivolous King James his Proclamation was no Law the Statute of 25 Hen. 8. extendeth not to Successors but if it do his now Majesties Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical affairs hath discharged the Canon challenging this Authority the common-Common-Prayer Book doth imply and suppose not impose this gesture your reason is as weak in matters of Law as of Divinity And Sir personal acting in the Service and Ministration being as it may be avoided it will be an hard dispute whether the Gesture imposed will constitute a sufficient Barr to so great Priviledge and so certain Duty But that it maketh the Lords Supper poyson express poyson is out of dispute to men of modesty and charity who