unlawful constitution and God is not at all worshipped by it or in the use of it he therefore concludeth his crime is in not joyning in prayer in such a dress or form And Sir this sense maketh his words an assertion so horrid and uncharitable that he professing himself an Antisectarian I would if I had once ground to support my Charitie hope he did not intend it for Sir this is the old notion urged by the brain-sick Brownists and others repelled and reproved by the old non-Conformists Sir the truth is in this sense he must be understood or in none to this purpose and then be pleased to observe the height rather then strength of his Argument If the Liturgy be not Gods worship i. e. Gods worship be not celebrated by the modes and forms directed in the Liturgy it then followeth our first Reformers and Marian Martyrs rejoyced in and dyed under a mode of divine worship by which God could not be worshipped all our pious painful preachers ministred by and all the Christians in the time of Queen Elizabeth King James and most of the Reign of King CHARLES the First attended on a mode dress or form by which God was not worshipped all the Ministers who now minister in publick and all the people in England who now attend the same do minister by and attend a mode form and dress by which God is not worshipped and all who have been baptized or received the Lords Supper in and by the modes and forms directed in and by the Liturgy have been mocked and deceived and enjoyed no Sacraments and then Sir judg you whether England be not Paganized and the Independents have not reason to gather Churches in England Sir this man saith his charity must be onely judged by God sure I am he giveth men by such an assertion as this is little cause to think he hath much for a more notorious breach of charity cannot befal the most rigid Separatist the Church of England ever knew But Sir what reason doth this Remonstrator render why God is not worshipped by the Liturgy it is this the manner for the matter he yields and essential form he cannot deny of the worship the form and dress is humane we grant it Sir so is the mode and form of his studied Sermon and conceived Prayer will he be willing we should conclude God is not worshipped by them will he stand by it that the ministerial mode of worship is determined by the Lord in his Word if so a reading ministery may serve Gods Church for there is no need of other ministerial guifts I would advise him to recollect his thoughts and see whether he can deny that it is Gods will in condescention to mens weaknesse that the ministerial mode of his worship be determined digested by the wisdome and faithfulnesse of his Ministers gifted and appointed to that purpose Sir though the Liturgy is a mode of worship obnoxious to exception and unlawful yet it is only a ministerial mode whereby in reference to Prayer right matter is requested from the Lord in the Name of Christ and so Gods worship doth substantially exist for matter and essential form and he is worshipped by the same nor doth it at all vitiate Gods worship because it is in it self an humane mode and form for Gods worship cannot exist in and to the Church but by a ministerial mode and form humane invented digested by men And now Sir where is our Remonstrators inevitable necessity for non-communion in Gods worship ministred by the Liturgy Sir the imposing of this Liturgy may be in it self an evil but it doth not alter the nature of it but that God is as truly worshipped by it when imposed as when left at liberty and his worship is as fully formally though not so orderly ministred and existent in and to the Church by this as any other humane mode form and dresse whatsoever One thing more I must not pass without observation and that is this Antagonist saith I know Mr. Crofton doth attribute the essential form of Prayer to it pag. 25. which he describes to be a Page 39. calling upon God in the Name of Christ but if he understand not by the Name of Christ the will of Christ then I say it is not a right description of Prayer Sir I will assure him Mr. Crofton did not understand by the Name of Christ the will of Christ and yet I must tell him it is but one Doctors opinion that this is not a right description of Prayer he might have been pleased to observe in the same page Mr. Crofton determined the matter must be according to the will of God and the will of Christ doth require some adjunct qualities as gravity of expression fervency of affection and reverence in demeanour which come not into the definition of Prayer as essential to its form but in the Name of Christ that is for his sake merits and mediation cannot be left out Sir I now leave our Remonstrator on his Rack of doubting praying God may shew him mercy not doubting but whatever they be to him you see his doubts are not invincible to others for Mr. Crofton's argument stands yet firm viz. The worship of God existing for matter and essential form his own in substance though by the Liturgy a defective disordered unlawful mode may not be refused or declined this mode only by this reason because it is humane maketh not an inevitable necessity of communion or secession 2. Our Remonstrator cannot communicate in the Lords Supper under the present modes and methods of ministration in the Church of England and his ground is the imposed gesture of kneeling the superstition and corruption which attends it Sir What superstition and corruptions attend the ministration of the Lords Supper in which he must personally act so as to become guilty of the same I see not nor doth he specifie any the gesture of kneeling excepted that the ministerial mode of this Ordinance is disordered I can allow him but this as in other parts of publick worship is personal to the Minister and him onely there is a possibility of his composed reverend attendance on the Ordinance without any personal acting in those popular Responds and Conclamations which are directed to the people in and by the Liturgy As to the gesture of kneeling I do not find that Mr. Crofton doth speak one word for it or that he ever advised any to it I well know he doth not yield it nor approve it I have heard him say that If he be put by the Communion in the Lords Supper because he will not receive the Elements in that gesture he is barred from his duty and priviledge by an act of violence he is driven he doth not goe from Gods Ordinance It is Sir worth the enquiry whether this professed Separatist negative have tendered himself to Communion in the Lords Supper and tryed whether there were not a possibility of enjoying it without the gesture
stateth the Conclusion But Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy or Common-Prayer called Divine Service is Communion with the Church visible in solemn publique Worship ERGO Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy or Common-Prayer is an essentiall part of the Sanctification of the Sabbath or Lords day and indispensable duty c. Sir this Argument thus framed is a monstrous Argnment especially to come from Mr. Crofton they that ever heard him preach read his writings know his person principles or practice can believe him such a Mecaenas and Advocate for the English Liturgy and Common-Prayer-Book as to assent and conclude Communion in it to be an Essential part of the Sanctification of the Sabbath So as that the Sabbath or Lords day cannot be sanctified where the Service-book is not attended assented to and acted in But Sir What ground or reason in Mr. Crofton's Plea hath this Antagonist which necessitateth this Assumption and Conclusion as that which he tells us mnst be Mr. Crofton's Book is an Epistle to a Friend his Argument is not therefore logically formed but very legible in the Connexion and scope of his discourse but this Author doth not in his book or Margin cite or refer his Reader to one single sentence or word on which he bottometh this assumption and conclusion as that which must be he indeed hath Page 22. confidence enough to affirm Mr. Crofton saith the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is an act of solemn publique worship but doth not tell us where he saith it and I am sure I have read all that he hath written and I never found that he said it I must say Sir they say so of this humble Remonstrator though spoken with so high considence is not a sufficient ground for credit the rather because the question Mr. Crofton did discusse and was to bring into conclusion was not whether Communion in the Liturgy or Common-Prayer-Book was an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabboth Truly sir Mr. Crofton hath disputed fairly if onely this Antagonist can find his sillogysme conclude what never came into his question his logick hath lately failed him very much Sir sure I am whosoever shall read and regard the scope of what Mr. Crofton hath written on this Argument shall find another assumption and conclusion then what the zeal and prejudice of this Remonstrator hath assumed and concluded the true state and form of Mr. Crofton's Sillogisme is manifest to be this Communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn publique worship is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty But Communion with the English Church in the worship by her celebrated is Communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn publique worship ERGO Communion with the English Church having no opportunity with any other in the worship of her Celebrated is to me an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty This Argument Sir is far from assuming and concluding the Communion in the Liturgy is an essentiall part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty and that the worship celebrated in the English Church must be the Subject predicated in the assumption of Mr. Crofton's Argument is manifest to every one who observeth these passages in his amplifying the consideration which containeth this Argument 1 Communion with the English Church in the worship by her celebrated notwithstanding the defects and disorders in Ministration thereof was the question Mr. Crofton did dispute and must bring into his conclusion 2. He saith to his friend you yet enjoy a liberty of worshiping God in due and right order and may drink the waters of the sanctuary in clean vessels i. e. VVithout the Liturgy its Rites and order it is manifest this he intended long may you enjoy Reformation not Seperation it and if God take pleasure in me he will in due time restore me to it Sr. is it likely Mr. Crofton would assume and conclude the Liturgy is that solemn publick worship which is an essential Pag 6. part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty whilst he professeth he had sanctified the Sabbath and worshipped God without it and hoped for a restored liberty so to do again as a token of divine favour to him he acknowledgeth it to be his friends priviledge prayeth the continuance feareth the loss of it that he did enjoy a liberty to worship God in due and right order without the Liturgy he complaineth of of it as his affliction that he had no choice but was under a necessity of attending Gods worship in this order Ministred or he must enjoy no solemn publick worship of God Sr. all men must confess those things will not square with an argument that shall conclude Communion in the Liturgy is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath c. but they are exactly square with an Argument for Communion with the Church in Gods woship there celebrated though Ministred with rudness and disorder 3. Mr. Crofton as a conscientious Christian and serious Casuist having concluded Communion in Gods worship was his indispensable duty in the general enquireth what specialty might become a moral bar and warrantable supersedeas to the Reformation not Separation same hereupon he considereth what is pleaded by the Separatists who abound among us and among other things the Liturgie by which Gods worship was ministred in and to the Church admitting the defects disorders and corruption Pag. 25. charged on the same he concludeth they are great and evil but not an evil of that nature and quality as to constitute a sufficient bar to Communion in Gods worship ministred by the same Sr. it is manifest the worship concluded by Mr. Croftons argument and the scope of his whole discourse on this consideration is distinct from though ministred by the Liturgie and that this is considered as a moral bar or warrantable supersedeas to that but is found insufficient Sr. our Antagonist having thus mistaken and misformed Mr. Croftons argument must needs be concluded to fight with the fancies of his own prejudice and so I might dismiss him but Sr. I seek verity not victory and would if possible he may see his mistake more plainly upon the whole case of this Controvercy in wich Mr. Croftons conflict is the more uncomfortable because single and failed by those whose place and duty oblige them to his succour but the Conquest is most certain to him fighting for the truth against all extreams for vincit veritas I would therefore direct a word to this Remonstrator and tell him in his ear if instead of those many needless and some groundless distinctions he hath multiplied he had well weighed and closely pursued the Criticismes in this case stated by Mr. Crofton he had saved this labour or written with better success and more satisfaction to his Reader if he will not be offended I will note unto him
with the Church but did he ever confine the Church to any place he saith private perticular members may not withdraw themselves or deny communion with the holy Convocation or Church assembly wheresoever it is held but he never denyed the Church or holy corrvocation was convened and if necessitated may be again convened in woods caves dens or poor cottages Mr. Crofton doth grant the Church is an holy convocation in any place assembled but he doth deny that 10. 20 30 or 40. private particular Members among whom may be a Minister by his office a Publique officer assembled in a place distinct from it may be opposite to the Publique Assembly is a Church or holy Convocation and truly should he grant this he must be at a losse how to know a Conventicle or determine a Schismatical Assembly and throw down the Bankes of all Church order That the Church of Englands Liturgie or Common-Prayer Pâ— 28. 29. the great Apple of strife is a part of this Real solemn worship of God and Communion with her therein is an indispensable duty I must saith this Antagonist take leave to deny and Mr. Crofton will reply to him do so and welcome for greater zealots for the Liturgy then ever Mr. Crofton is like to make will not once affirm that the Liturgie is a part of reall solemn worship of God it is not properly any worship at all it cannot then be reall solemn worship of God the Liturgy in the strict forme and generall nature of it is not worship but a Politicall though Ecclesi stique order and direction unto praying reading the Scriptures and Ministration of Sacraments methinks this learned man should not confound reall solemn worship and a Political order relating to solemn worship they are in themselves manifestedly distinct wherein the Liturgie doth prescribe and impose set formes and certain words by and in which Prayer or other parts of worship must exist in and to the Church it is only a Ministerial mode exhibiting worship it is not worship it self I hope this acute disputant will not affirm the form or mode into which he casteth and by which he expresseth Prayer is real solemn worship I hope calling upon God in the name of Christ for things according to his will is the formality of solemn worship and that his or other mens formes expressing the same is only the ministerial mode by which it is exhibited in and to the Church Sr How vain and frivolous are these high-flown Epethites which this humble Remonstrator doth give the Liturgy humane ordinance super-erogatorie worship arbitrary service Scripturebitten worship whilst it is not at all worship but almost a Politick Order and Ministerial mode of Worship but I must take up least by correcting a mistake I also be branded to be the Mecaenas and Advocate of the Liturgy We shall hear more of this in the next part of his answer which he saith is by way of Retortion And what is it that he recorted on Mr. Crofton Communion with the Church of England may be superseded by reall inevetable necessity exeoncessis by Mr. Crofton's own Doctrine and assertion but mine that I may put in for a supersedeas Page 31. is a reall inevetable necessity saith the Remonstrator If so sir is this a Retortion I should have thought it to have been more properly accounted ajoyning Issues according to Mr. Crofton's Rule which he could not doth not deny to be a Rule of truth not to be avoided but binding all non-communicants in Gods worship to assigne and plead the inevetable necessity which must be their warrant for secossion so as to acquit them from Schisme or sinfull separation Let us hear sir his inevetable necessity pleaded and herein he tells us He cannot communicate in two things 1. In the Liturgie 2. In the Sacrament of the Lords Supper He cannot communicate in the Liturgy nor did Mr. Crofton ever advise he should But I hope he will assigne a good reason why he cannot communicate in Gods worship Ministred by the Liturgy he saith he joyneth with the Church in Prayer praises and hearing the word he sure will not deny the reading of the word to be a Publique Ordinance of God and part of publique solemn worship he will I hope manifest an inevitable necessity for his own non-communion in that and for his absence from any those Prayers which are by the Church put up unto God The necessity of my noncommunion in the Liturgy saith this Remonstrator is grounded on invincible doubts about the Lawfulness of such a constitution Sir I cannot but pitty the man doubts are a Rack to the Pa. 32. minde and being invincible he is like to live in constant bondage Sure I am Mr. Crofton will consent he follows his conscience though erroneous being duly carefull and humbly studious to certifie rightly inform the same But sir methinks he vexeth his soul entangleth himself and seeketh to ensnare others with a needless scruple viz. Whether he may communicate where the constitution of a thing is unlawful Mr. Crofton is at no distance with this Remonstrator as to the lawfulness of the censtitution of the Liturgie he will not stand to admit his 3. Maximes in reference to Gods worship What is unusefull is unlawfull What is unnecessary is unlawfull What is in his general nature not commanded is unlawfull But they come not into his Question nor hath these things any thing of answer to any thing pleaded by Mr. Crofton for Communion in worship ministred by the Liturgie But Sir the constitution of the Liturgy being granted to be unlawful and what ought not to be the Question yet abides Whether the Liturgy being an unlawfully constituted mode of solemn publique worship be so far unlawful or unlawful in that kind and quality of unlawfulnesse which will constitute a warrantable reason for non-communion in that worship of God which is ministred by the same Sir all things unlawful and relating to Gods worship will not warrant non-communion in Gods worship he must therefore specifie an unlawfulnesse in the Liturgy which will be of the kind and quality which riseth thus high or he doth nothing and I confesse were it not for some fallacie in his tearms more then I apprehend is in his minde he doth this Pa. 29. 35 to purpose it is this The Liturgy is no worship of God but will-worship c. no reason then he should communicate in it as such But Sir how shall we understand his words they are capable of a good and true sense for the Liturgy is no worship of God nor is it any will-worship for as I have before noted it is not any worship at all but a political order at the most an bumane ministerial mode relating to Gods worship But Sir the whole scope of his Book and bent of his spirit maketh me assured this sense came not into his minde but rather this The Liturgy is not Gods worship i. e. it is an Page 30.
exercise being superseded and he resolved into the state and capacity of a private member of the Church considereth 1. This ministerial mode is evil but not such an evil as vitiateth the subject Gods worship doth truly formally salvably though not comfortably or so prositably as by another exist in and to the Church by it and I cannot have Gods Ordinances in communion with Gods Church without it 2. In this ministerial mode the members of the Church are purely passive they according to their duty assemble to worship God the Minister charged with the bumane mode doth assume a Minister by this the which the members of the Church do not advise or choose nor any way act in but composedly attend the worship of God hereby ministred unto them and exhibited for their Amen so that the sin is personal not publique and common no way derived to me unlesse by my neglect to mourn for this as any other sin in another 3. Though this mode of worship do direct some acts to be done by the people yet I am Master and Judg of my own action and can with-hold and refuse it so that in the whole ministration I act not but in my Amen to the prayer thus modified and my attention to the worship thus ministred and the sinful mode is by and to the Minister and him alone Sir Let not any infer that on these grounds we may attend a Masse and be innocent For Sir the corruptions in a Masse are such as vitiate the Subject and destroy the worship of God 1. It is celebrated in an unknown tongue and so doth not exhibit any worship it is to the people vox preterea nihil it is a frivolus objection I understand Latine when the Church who understandeth it not is the subject of the worship to be done to God the Question is of publique communion not my private and personal adoration 2. The Masse doth pray to the Saints a wrong object in the name of the Saints a wrong ground for some unlawful things wrong matter of prayer Gods worship is not herein existent but destroyed 3. The Masse maketh the Sacraments Sacrifices for the quick and dead transubstantiateth the Elements and so changeth the nature of the Ordinance in the very nature and esse thereof We are Sir at last arrived at the last quarrel our Remonstrator picketh at Mr. Croftons Plea in which he is exactly square to his mistaken self Mr. Crofton saith I am not without the caution and conduct of sober godly learned promoters and pursuers of a perfect and compleat Reformation To this the Remonstrator saith It is strange Mr. Crofton Page 54. should argue from communion amongst distinct Churches against the non-communion of present members of one and the same Church since that is a communion not by participitatiâ—â— and joint fellowship How Sir not by participitation and joint fellowship that is strange though not by constant participitation personal by their individual members yet by joint fellowship in the same substantial worship and occasional perticipation reciprocally each with other by their particular members cast into this or that Country Sir can other Reformed Churches hold communion with England if her worship be no worship of God will-worship Scripture-bitten will-worship Moreover Mr. Crofton observed Reformation not Separation the Reformed Churches disowned not on occasion declined not never advised their travelling members to decline communion with England her Liturgy notwithstanding they sure concluded Page 43. Gods worship was therby ministred Again this Remonstrator telleth us Mr. Croftons instance in the primitive Non-conformists is wide of that of the modern it is true and Mr. Crofton tells us in his Plea He was sensible of it they administred by this ministerial mode which Mr. Crofton saith He can better excuse than justifie yet the distance is not Page 44. so great as this mans wild fancie doth dream they were under the same corruptions for kind which are returned upon us yet Hildersham Ball Nichols Hind and others maintained the duty of communion in Gods worship under in and by them against Brown Barrow and other Rigid Separatists who urged this mans grand Argument it was not Gods worship and it was will-worship I know our Remonstrator disowns relation to these men and their Sects yet sheltereth himself under their shield and fighteth with no weapon but what was forged on their Anvil and in their Shop only he addeth ours is an estate of relapse that is indeed true and aggravateth our sin but altereth not the nature and quale of the corruptions if these corruptions returned do vitiate the subject and destroy Gods worship they did so when first inovated or continued in the first Reformation for as I have before urged it is only the quality not the degree of the evil must vitiate Gods worship to make it poyson express poyson Sir I have done with this Remonstrator when I have told him Mr. Crofton is a Peter who can receive the rebukes of a brother Paul but the rebukes of a Zeal mistaking matter of fact doth only retort on the Censurer with a what doth your arguing reprove I am Sir Your Obliged Friend R. S. Febr. 13. 1662. POSTSCRIPT Worthy Sir YOu cannot but have heard that Mr. Crofton in his late travels had a Paper taken out of his pocket it was a rough Draught of his high-way thoughts which he committed to paper to communicate to a now Conformist a good friend of his himself had not another Copy for whilst it was in his hand it was never transcribed by himself or any other I having with some difficulty procured a Copy thereof from one relating to the Gentleman who took it from Mr. Crofton have presumed to send it you that if you think good you may make it publique and thereby capacitate our conforming Clergy to resolve if they can one of the great Scruples which barreth Mr. Croftons Conformity and Ministration by a Liturgy however the world will see what a Mecaenas and Advocate he is for Liturgies This Paper being since his Plea for Communion Vale. FINIS
of Gods worship we are under a necessity of having what we so much complain against and cast off viz a fixed Liturgy for the mode of Prayer Preaching Ministration of Sacraments must then be kown to the people and judged by them free from all defect and disorder before the people can attend Gods worship in that Ministration it must be confessed impossible for a single Minister constantly to communicate to every particular member of his Congregation the mode into which he hath by his personal abilities and ministerial Gifts cast the word Prayer and Sacraments no serious sober Christian can think the people to be guilty of those rude methods indigested raw expressions tautologies solecismes and disorders which a Minister may utter in his preaching and praying yet this is inevitable if the people have a publike judgement by special office of the ministerial mode of Gods worship it is indeed true the defective disordered mode of worship which is fixed stated and so from time reiterated is more obvious and offensive then what is transient and so by the judgement of charity more burdensom to the people the grief of it being continued and renewed but it is the judgement of office armed with power to correct deriveth the guilt of the one or of the other I hope Sir our Remonstrator will by this time see that he hath most grossely mistaken Mr. Crofton and the whole scope and nature of his Plea and the very Crissis of our present Controversie he will sure now see Mr. Crofton pleadeth not for Communion in the Liturgy he is positive in it a Minister cannot without sin minister Gods worship by this or a much better mode if generally and exclusively imposed of worship he never yet advised justifyed or defended the peoples personal acting by conclamations popular responds and groundlesse variation of Gestures the part allotted to the people in and by it and this is Sir properly Communion in the Liturgit Sir Mr. Crafton doth consider the Liturgy in its general nature a Ministerial mode conveighing some part of Gods shorship in and to the Church the which he confesseth is defective and disorderly and therefore the grief and burden of the Lords people but it doth not vitiate destroy or nullifie the worship ministred by the same but that it substantially existeth for matter and form Gods worship capable of operation to its end by reason whereof the people having no choice of a better and more orderly ministerial mâ—de must though with grief and a burdened spirit attend the same blssing God they have his ordinances though in aâ— unclean unhandsome vessel or rudely mangled or ill favouredly carved so that Communion in Gods worship thus ministred not Communion in this ministerial mode is Mr. Croftons Question Sâ— I havering corrected this Remonstrators most gross mistakes shall now take a veiw of the strength of his argumentation in Pag. 16. 17. what he supposeth to be an answer to Mr. Crofton's plea. To his falsly formed argument or Syllogisme he saith his answer shall be by Concession Distinction Retortion In the first part of his answer viz. his Concession he yieldeth to Mr. Crofton the truth of the Church of England about this we dispute no longer onely some who will clap him on the back for appearing an Antagonist against Mr. Crofton will think by this Concession he hath given away his cause Sâ— One thing I cannot pass without observation and that Pag. 19. is an expression wildly let fall to which I cannot consent to him viz. personal corruptions in scandalous professors or other Church members Minister as well as others the Hophni and Phineas of our age defils the Church this I understand not nor doth he tell us whether it defile the Church immediately and of it self or consequently and by accident the defect of the Church in some duty incumbent upon her intervening to derive the sin unless by this last way personal sin and Church guilt are a contradiction the prophanesse of Elies sons was indeed charged on their Father Eli and that by accident onely but I never read nor can finde it was charged on the Church of Israel the God fearing Israelites did deliver themselves by their robukes of their disorder without forbearing to bring their offerings to the Lord though they were rudely Ministered by prophane hands By way of Distinction Here he distinguisheth between Communion by Pag. 19. 20. Profession Participation How warrantable and well grounded this distinction is I shall not now consider I do not finde Mr. Crofton to be concerned in it onely I must tell this Remonsttator I understand not the necessity and prrviledges he appropriateth to Communion by profession if that profession be abstracted from and opposed to participation calling upon God worshipping God and the visio salvitâ—ca are not had or done by a baâ—e profession of the true religion but do require personal participation pation to make man enjoy the priveledges to them belonging Again I must tell this Remonstrator Mr. Crofton will denie Pag. 21. there are many or indeed any members of the universal Church he sure means visible and militant or it squareth not with his discourse who never had opportunity of assonating themselves with or joynt communion in the solemn worship of God for if they be actual formal members of the Church visible they had an opportunity to be made such men as we are not members of the Church saving faith may give relation to the Church Catholick invisible but membership with the Church Catholick visible could not be had without an opportunity of joynt Communion in Gods worship in some particular Assembly The Whole improvement of this distinction by this Antagonist is onely to infer what Mr. Crofton had yielded yea interminis stated viz. Communion in Gods worship with Gods Church is an indispensable duty of every soul called by the name of God to be onely superseded by the real inevitable necessity of some natural such as is humane violence or moral such as is the certainty of sin by such Communion baâ—e About this therefore we are agreed The Remonstrator maketh another distinction of publick solemn worship in respect of Persons worshiping Place of worship Reality of matter and Constitution of the worship On what ground he multiplieth these distinctions I see not unless on a meer fancie that Mr. Crofton determined the worship of God to be solemn publick in and because of those places appointed and used to that end in this nation unto this Pag. 26. conjecture I am lead by his hot assertion locallity under the Gospel is meer matter of indifferency God having only stamped sanctity on places among the Jews Mr. Crofton bearing me witness for which in his Margin he quoteth Mr. Crofton his Altar worship page 77. but good Sir what needs this heat Mr. Crofton did witness this assertion in his Altar worship hath he unsaid it in his Reformation not Separation he pleadeth for communion
of kneeling for Sir secession without all endeavours and under any possibility of Communion without what we conceive to be sinful cannot be acquitted of Schism or sinful Separation Sir I cannot but conceive this Remonstrator to have in himself a faire latitude concerning the Gesture of kneeling he saith I could goe near to approve of the Gesture of kneeling being left arbitrarie and Page 41. commended or practised onely as an outward badge of more then ordinary thank fullnesse under the reception of an extraordinary blessing and not as an act of pietie necessity and worship Sir the now Zealots for the English Ceremonies will joyne issues with our Antagonist and tell him kneeling at Sacrament is not act of worship but only a reverend and pious badg of more then ordinary thankfulnesse in reception of an extraordinary blessing and will referre him for proof to the Rubrick in their new booke which doth declare kneeling is a signification of our humble and gratefull acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to every Receiver and the imposition is justly capable of a dispute the Rubrick seemeth to do littte more than commend this Gesture onely directing the Minister to deliver the Elements to the people all meekly kneeling and the legality of the Canon by him quoted is justly questioned so that his reasons on which he could go neere to approve the Gesture seems to be so cleare that we may wonder he should not communicate in the Lords Supper much more that he should flie so high as to conclude Poison positive poyson his Charity is large who can judge all that ever did all who do now communicate in the Lords Supper celebrated by the Service-Book and by the Gesture of kneeling are poysoned expresly kild by poyson this Charity will better become a totall and positive Separatist Our Remonstrator having as he conceived assigned a sufficient warrant for his confessed separation in what he seemeth to answer to Mr. Croftons 2d and chief Consideration proceedeth to consider some others his next assault is on Mr. Croftons argument from the high places in Israel the high places were not taken away but the people went thither to worship yet I find not that any God-fearing Israelite who loathed those reliques of Idolatry ever barred themselves Page 43. because thereof from Gods Altar and worship Sir I cannot but observe what a fair leap our Antagonist maketh passing many considerable Arguments urged as most proper pertinent and regent in our Case amongst others the instance in the sons of Eli who failed in the Ministration of Gods worship taking their owne part before they had burnt the fatt according to Gods own appointment and not contented with the portion God had allotted to them they tooke by violence what came next hand insomuch that the people of the Lord loathed yet never durst leave the offerings of the Lord this disorder in the Ministeriall mode of worship runs higher then that of the English Liturgy yet the sin is not charged on the people but this and arguments of the like nature are not worth the observation of our humble Remonstrator but be it so let us consider his batteries against Mr. Croftons plead from the high places in Israel Page 44 1. He tells us the retention of Jewish Ceremonies in the Christian Church is God knowes a just cause of complaint did Mr Crofton ever deny it 2. Reduction of them after sacred and solemne expulsion is more greivous who denies it what reason doth Mr Crofton give for his and shall we not complain whose complaints for retrogradation of Reformation have been more audible and affectionate then Mr Croftons who hath more pressed or provoked the Complaints of Gods Israel and shall we cry to him what and shall we not complaine 3. Mâ— Croftons alledged Case of the Israelites high places he saith is infinitely wide of ours Sir it must be ours according to his wide mistakes for according to Mr. Croftons close argumentation it is very neer and pertinent the objection M. Crofton doth obviate by the Israelites high places he hath indeed transcribed but not once regarded or considered viz do men complaine of some Roman Rites retained let them consider the high places in Israel what is the forme and force of this analogicall argument Roman Rites reteined is unlawful matter super-added to Gods worship which substantially existeth with the same the high places were unlawfull matter super added to Gods Temple and Altar which subsisted with the same the Israelites left not Gods Altar because of the super added matter of the high places nor may Christians leave Gods true worship because of the superadded matter of Roman Rites Sir are not these cases now infinitely wide but we will weigh the distance he observeth 1. He saith the high places were retained our Roman Rites restored what then restoration may aggravate the evil but doth it change the nature of the corruption high places and Roman Rites whether retained or restored are only evils superadded to Gods Altar and worship with which these doe truly formally exist may and must bee attended the relapse of a Church reformed doth adde to its guilt but not abstract its being returne of expelled evils do much more provoke God but not vitiate the subject his ordinance to which it is superadded restoration of corruption maketh sin sink deeper in the Church or subject of such restoration but it is the qulle of the Corruption must sinke into and subvert the worship of God to which it is affixed so as to vitiate and destroy the same 2. He saith the Israelites were confined to Gods Altar in a certain place Page 45. and Mr. Crofton saith Christians are confined to Gods worship in certain assemblies true constituted Churches such as our Antagonist yieldeth Englands Congregations to be Mr. Crofton denieth not local liberty or the place of worship to be the matter of indifferencie the man is mistaken locallity never became a Topick of any force to Mr. Crofton he saith to a true Church a lawfully constituted Christian assembly meet assemble where you will and can that which he saith against the loose affections of some Christians apt to wander is forsake not the Assembling of your selves together as the manner of some is let Christs flock lie where it will or can all particular members must keep Company with them and have good reason before they refuse it Christs true assemblies are to Christians what the fixed place and altar was to the Jews 3. The high places were at most but Idolatrous places but our worship is superstitions worship and into this runs his fourth note of distance and disparity in this Analogy the Israelites worship was good and place bad but our place is only good and our worship is bad No marvell Sir if Master Croftons inference be to him a Non-sequitur but Sir This Charity is againe the fruite of his separation and will carry him beyond the negative part of it