The Harmony Between the Old and Present Non-Conformists

Argument I.

I. They are persuaded that according to the Rubric, the same honor 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 agreeable 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 Rubric after the Psalms are read 'tis ordered, 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 considered 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 until November 24th, beside the Holy days, 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. Solomon's 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 confirmed by Archbishop Bancroft, in the conference held at Hampton Court, where (as the abridgment has it,) he tax'd Jerome for calling these books Apocrypha, and said he was the first that gave them that name, and called his objections against them, the old Cavills of the Jews; And the Bishops of Winchester affirmed at the same time, that they must needs be held, Canonici ad informandos mores. Canonical for the information of manners. To these I will add, what Mr. Hutton in his answer unto the reasons of the Ministers of Devon and Cornwall to this very objection.

In this answer, though he seems without the approbation of the Rubric, 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 agreeable to the word of God, nor can be defended by any sound Protestant.

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

In the second part of the defense of the reasons of the Devonshire and Cornish Ministers, 'tis thus replied to the aforesaid distinction.

By this it seems evident that the distinction between Canon of faith and of manners as used by the Bishops, is idle and impertinent, and that therefore notwithstanding all has been said by Mr. Hutton, it remains as an undoubted truth, that the Service Book doth consider the Apocrypha 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 Apocryphal with the

Thus 'tis evident; That according to the Service Book, and the Sentiments of some great Bishops, the great Bible and Book of Homilies, the Apocrypha is considered 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 Apocrypha are no part of the Holy Scriptures, for this doth but discover the contradiction there is between the book of Articles and the Service book, &c. whereby the Non-Conformists are but supplied with an unanswerable argument against subscription, which I will 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 will proceed to show what has been objected against it; Not that I will trouble the Reader with all, but only with two or three particulars.

1. Hereby their error, who account these Books Canonical Scripture is confirmed;

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

In the defense of the Devonshire and Cornish Ministers reasons, 'tis thus argued.

'It is true hereby a late Order, which was that the wicked Dissenters, if poor receive not Alms, will be defended, for 'tis but according to the command in Ecclesiasticus 12. 5. where 'tis expressly said; Give not to the Ungodly, hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him: least he over-master thee thereby. But how agreeable this Precept is unto the pure word of God, or the light of nature, let a common capacity judge, but though this practice is enjoin'd to the defense of that but now mentioned order, yet there are other allowed, and highly approved practices, which are most odious in the apprehension of the Dissenter, and are really abhorred by all but bloody Papists. For Judiths tricking up herself on purpose to tempt and ensnare the heart of Holofernes to uncleanness, her compassing an Irreligious Governor 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 approved of by the book of Judith, that is appointed to be read in October.

The children of Israel, though now returned from the Babylonian Captivity, yet to the very time Holofernes was murdered by Judith, they remained under the Government of the Emperor. The Emperor though an Idolater, yet their Lawfull Governor, whose Government they should not have shaked off by frauds, by lies, equivocations, and other sinful 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 of the Papists, to which purpose it has been improved by Saunders de schismate, who

This is urged in the defense of the reason of the Devonshire and Cornish Ministers, from whence I would query, whether a person fully convinced 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 practices 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 exposed 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 practiced; if the Apocryphal Books be embraced 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 show the sense, some of the Old Church of England Protestants had of these books, as I find it in the Abridgment.

3.

From the whole hath been said on this particular, I infer 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 Psalms, which is read at the ordinary Lord's days 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 Psalms in the Bible.

The Translation now used 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. days, and is

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

2. Senseless 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, 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 mown 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 looked 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 Psalms 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 approved.

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 Authors of the best Translation that ever was in English.

1. The Psalter has it in Psal. 17. 4. Thus, because of men's works that are done against the words of thy lips: I have kept me from the ways 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 men's works that are done against the words of God's lips kept David right, but concerning men's works, David was kept from the paths of the destroyer, by the words of God's lips.

2. In Psal. 18. 26. The Psalter says, 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 show thyself 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 to the Hebrew, 'tis God setteth the solitary in Families.

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

5. In Psal. 105. 28. The Psalter says, 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 days Service, must not only show 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 itself; 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 itself, unto which the Dissenters refuse to Conform, because of that similitude, likeness and agreement there is between it and the forms of Prayer, which the Papists use.

That the Reader may be the more fully acquainted with the true State of this controversy, 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 show.

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

2. How this came to pass; What occasioned 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 supposed to be between these two books against the English Service.

First, What they say concerning the agreableness that is supposed 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.

These things being so, whoever pleads for the English Service book, doth so far defend the Romish Mass-book, not that 'tis a defense of the whole Romish Service, for in the Anatomy of the Service Book 'tis acknowledged, that everything 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 defense of the Liturgy, and have been considered 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

'It is 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 Jesuits great thanks for what he has written against Dissenters, in defense of the English Service and Discipline.

That Whitgifts Censure concerning the Dissentes subserviency to Popish designs is groundless, being rather the product of his indiscreet passions, than of sound arguings, is evident, in that the great reason given to show that the Dissenters are the Papists promoters, is because they assert that the Papists ought not to be compelled 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 gratify the Papist let the impartial Reader judge.

But that Whitgift has gratify'd the Papist in his writings against Dissenters; I will 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 shows how William Reynolds the Jesuit asserts, that John Whitgift in his discourse against Cartwright, has defended the Catholic Cause, and accordingly the said Reynolds in the preface against Whitaker, makes great use of Whitgift, and in the book itself, he sends Mr. Whitaker unto Dr. Whitgift, for a supply of reasons for the confirming their notion about putting of our caps, and making courtesy at the hearing the Name of Jesus. Scultinyns and Stapleton give the same Character both of the writings of Whitgift and Bancroft against the Puritans, even as Gretzer the Jesuit triumphs in Saravias and Sutcliff's defense 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 defense 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 observed, which is no more than what Dr. King, Bishop of Chichester was acquainted with, as he himself expresses in a letter to honest Isaac.

Furthermore in the Anatomy of the Service Book, we are furnished with an Historical Account of the Papists approving our Liturgy.

2. What is it that occasioned the Church of England's 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 discovered a propension to drive on the Reformation much farther than they did, but were hindered 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 Elizabeth's days, 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,

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

That Queen Elizabeth had a natural propension to favor some part of Popery, is not only manifest from her (I hope) Conscientious conforming so far in Queen Mary's days, 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 engaged in it. But beside this, Dr. Burnet gives us the same Character I have suggested, for says he in his History of the Reformation,

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 of England, the which end, as Dr. Heylin affirms, she so effectually compassed, 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 Council of Trent had commanded it, and Pope Pius the 5th. had Excommunicated the Queen, and discharged her Subjects from their Allegiance, and made the going or not going to Church a sign distinctive, to difference a Roman Catholic from an English Protestant.

I will give you the words of Dr. Heylin, they are in his History of Queen Elizabeth.

To this Heylin within a few years following adds.

Thus from what the sons of the Church, Cambden, Burnet and Heylin have affirmed, 'tis apparent that Queen Elizabeth had a natural propension to favor the Papists, and that this was discovered by her making the Termes of Communion much more easy to the Papists than in King Edward 's time, whereby they became the more difficult and arduous to the Protestant Dissenter. I will 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 Rubric, but also that in the Rubric concerning Apparel, which is now to be found in the Communion Book, even the beginning before morning prayer, 'tis ordered; 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.

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 discovered, when they perceived that her Majesty's Council began to entertain more favorable thoughts of Protestant Dissenters, who continued their cries for a further Reformation.

Cambden assures us, that about the year 1583,

But whoever might be so happy as to be thoroughly 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 proposed 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 profane Priests knew not what it was to be prosecuted for their debaucheries. Neither can it be truly said that the Earl of Leicester was the only great person, that resented the ill proceedings of this Bishop, but even the Lord Treasurer Cecil, and her Majesty's Council.

'It is 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 judged it necessary to essay the putting some color 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 lie 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 will give you Mr. Walton's own words, who speaking of the Nonconformists, says.

But 'tis no part of my present province to comment on this notion, but only from it to infer, 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 easy to conclude, that what is affirmed 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 assigned, 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 showed the ignorant, and scandalous among the Ministry, and the letting out their wrath on the intractible Dissenter as they termed 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 surprised to see that appear in face of the World, which doth so plainly discover what they desire might be concealed.

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 Majesty's Council 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 expressly by a moderate writer in Queen Elizabeth's, who (in his plea of the innocent) doth in the name of the Non-Conformists speak thus of the Lord's of the Council—

By this 'tis evident, that as Queen Elizabeth's Education, natural temper, Interest of State, and I verily believe, Conscience of Duty unto God inclined her to such an establishment in the Ecclesiastical Constitution, as might be most grateful 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 will 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 days, Hooper Lord Bishop elect for Gloucester, scrupled the Episcopal Vestments, because they had been invented chiefly for celebrating the Mass with much pomp, and had been consecrated for that effect. In Queen Mary's time the exiled Protestants at Frankford, such as Knox, and those of his persuasion, 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 days, several manifested their dislike of our Liturgy for this very reason, because 'twas so like unto the Romish Service. I will give some particular instances with those reasons that were by 'em urged against a compliance 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 says that;

But the Abridgment is much more full on this Subject, showing what are the many Scriptural Arguments against all complyances with the Superstitions, the which is farther confirmed, 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 complete, decent and orderly without em but to their reasons, this may appear say they.

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

3.

4.

To which I will 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 join with the Church in the use of the English Service: especially at such a time as this, wherein we are under the fearful apprehensions of Popery.

If ever a Popish Successor should enter the English Throne, we may easily suppose, he will 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 Catholic 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 Heretic only.

'It is 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 practicing on the Church of England, and what use they'll 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 jealousy, should they give countenance to the Service Book, which may be so easily improved to the advancing the superstition of the Roman Catholic.

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 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.

Argument IV.

There is in this Service Book a strange disorder and confusion unworthy the grandeur and Majesty of that God, unto whom we make our approach in Prayer. God is a great King, his Name is dreadful 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 uttered 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 urged (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,

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 profane instead of honoring the name of God in Prayer. I durst not plead for such an Irreverent or uncomely practice. Neither 2. Do I design to offer anything 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 public, for many may be endowed with the Grace of God's Spirit, who abound not with its Gifts, and 'tis not enough that a man has the Grace of God's 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 public, or public 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.

In the Abridgment 'tis urged,

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 urged. 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 public 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 fervor 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 prays, O Lord let thy Mercy be shown on us, to which Petition the people either add, their sense, or Limitation, or Reason of the Prayer, as we put our Trust in thee.

Beside at someone meeting of the Assembly, the Pater-Noster, or Lord's Prayer is to be repeated Six or Eight several times, and the Gloria Patri Twelve, beside the many Kyrie Eleesons and Christ 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 used such a practice!

This Argument receives strength from what I find insisted on by by some of His Majesty's Commissioners in the Account of all the proceedings of the Commissioners of both persuasions, where 'tis thus Argued, Vid.

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 Lord's 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 Lord's Prayer, or were against its use, whereas in truth the Dissenters are much more for the Right use of the Lord's Prayer, than the Conformists are.

Whoever will understand the true State of this Controversy, 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 Words 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 Lord's 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 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 Lord's Prayer; Let not one Prayer be made without the Repetition of this Prayer. If so, then, whereas now the Lord's 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 show, 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 Matthew, when you pray say after this manner, that is, The Lord's 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 Christ's 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 Rubric a part of the Lord's 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 Lord's Prayer, for such things, as are more generally contained 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 Lord's Prayer than these Conformists, who, by keeping to the Rubric, 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. 'It is said,

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 Governors, will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person?

Argument V.

In the Abridgment, an Argument against the Ceremonies, to which those who join with the Church of England must show their approbation is fetched from the mystical significancy of 'em thus;

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 Human Ceremonies to God's worship.

1. whoever will consult the Learned of most persuasions, 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 near as an English Translation can well be to a Latin Original. Whoever will but compare 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 (says Bellarmine) est actus externus Religions, 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 honor. Thus Covel, who borroweth his explications, as well as arguments from Bellarmine, in order to the making the stronger defense 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 virtuously serveth to the inward worship of God, 'tis an outward sign representing the inward frame of the Spirit, as 'tis after God. 2. 'It is also a virtuous furtherance of inward Religion, which is to the honor 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.) strengthened and confirmed in grace; Then is a man edified when his graces are suscitated, stirred up, strengthened, increased or confirmed.

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.

The same is asserted in the Discourse that is prefixed unto the Common Prayer, concerning the Service of the Church, where 'tis expressed, That the Ceremonies are by some notable signification, designed 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 human Ceremony, 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 human 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 Controversy are of the same Nature with some of those in use among the Papists, Jew, and Heathen; for which reason, whoever can justly appropriate the English Ceremonies to God's 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 human Ceremonies unto God's Worship. By human 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 God's Worship, they mean 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 complete and exactly agreeable to the word of God without them.

This appropriating human Ceremonies to God's Worship is not only an Unaccountable adding unto God's Worship, but a making that a part of Christ's 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.

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 answered.

I. That all things that are in themselves matter indifferent, are not lawful to be done in Divine Service, though' the Magistrate should Command them, the which they judge will be very clear to such as will but consider what things are

By this we may see, That there is not so much Innocency in the mere Indifferency of an Action, that it should on that Account be meet enough to be appropriated to God's Worship. Neither,

2. Can the significancy of a Ceremony, or its aptness to edify and stir up grace, be reason enough to appropriate a Ceremony to God's Service, unless the playing a Game at Cards may be lawfully introduced into the solemn Worship of God. For says a late Author, a Son of the Church of England in his Answer to Melius Inquirendum, pag. 57.

Thus, no good Argument may be fetched 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 Topics, there will not (as Dissenters think) be enough to balance what is offered against the lawfulness of the Ceremonies, or of a compliance 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 people's dull minds to their duty, and enjoined by public Authority, but of this more in the reasons against the appropriating human significant Ceremonies to the worship of God; The which I will give the Reader out of the Abridgment, the Authors of which assert them to be unlawful, because;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

To all which I will 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 burden'd, which reason is distinct from that of their Multitudes, and 'tis taken from their significancy, and the likeness they had with those in use among the Jews, 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 days of Popery, they add,

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 abused to Superstition, as others, and have no other Foundation than Mans Wit and Will 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 will 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 abused to superstition, and the Difficulty of separating the Superstitious abuse from the using '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 Lord's Supper, Bowing at the name of Jesus: Have not all these been as much abused to Superstition, and still are as any of the rest, especially considering what Divisions they have made in the Church, why not then abolished? 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 God's Worship by Protestants, which may not the Papists, where they have Authority by their Impositions, impose 'em on the people as in France, &c. and appropriate 'em to God's Worship?

Methinks Mr. Greenham expresseth himself very full on this particular in his Answer unto the Bishops of Eli, as 'tis in the Register.

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 join with any in) the use of those Ceremonies. They are fully convinced, they should sin if they did, the which they durst not do, least they provoke God to jealousy.

There are in the Writings 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 offered, I will 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 join 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 Wit of Jesus Christ, and that the Primitive Christians 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.

'It is generally agreed by all Protestants, that in the Apostolical and most Primitive Days of the Gospel all things were most exactly conformed to the Will 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 inquire 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 imposed on any Pastors of particular Churches, the First Four Hundred years after Christ. The which may be be further confirmed out of what Dr. Burnet in the Second part of the History of the Reformation doth acknowledge, who, speaking of Liturgies, doth say,

About this time, which was in the Fourth Century St. Ambrose composed his Service Book, which was the first that gained any confiderable Reputation in the World. 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 busy in composing Prayers, in making Additions to what was done by such as went before 'em. But no Liturgy as yet imposed on any Churches, Every Pastor, though' 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 assured, there was nothing of Error in 'em) yet none imposed. 'It is very probable that St. Ambrose 's Liturgy in Divers places finding Acceptance was much in use: But 'tis most certain, that until Pope Adrian the first, who lived in the Eighth Century there was no general Imposition of any Liturgy.

In Petries Church History 'tis storyed.

'It is very certain that the Christian Religion did many an hundred years flourish in this Kingdom before 'twas troubled with a Romish Liturgy, which came not hither till about the year 600, and then rejected by the British Christians, who severely suffered for their refusing to comply with the prelatick Impositions of that proud Monk Augustine, who, stirring up the King of Kent to fight against the Christians, thereby to bring 'em, if possible, to a compliance 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, though' he never received any such advice from Gregory.

An account of Pope Gregory's Moderation we have in Dr: Burnet, who gives us also a short History of the Rise and Progress of Ceremonies thus.

Thus the Liturgy as it's first rise was in Augustine '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.

Out of these was the English Service taken, which as it had no higher Rise than that of Gregory '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 will 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. Jerome at the request of Pope Damasus, But as Walfrid Strabo, 'twas composed by the Nycene Council sometime before Jerome, it may be to show their Detestation to the Arian Heresy, which was some hundred years after Christ.

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

3. Dominus Vobiscum, or the Lord be with you, An ancient Salutation, used 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 Liturgy as a part of solemn and set Worship until the first Council at Bracca, Can. 21. enjoin'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, though' it be not found in the Sacred Scriptures, yet 'twas (saith Bellarmine) given the Church by Inspiration at the Baptism of St. Augustine, at which time St. Ambrose and St. Augustine did extempore, and alternately to the Astonishment of the people sing this Hymn, as Dacius Episcopus Mediolanensis reports.

6. After the Lessons, the Responses, which are so called, says Rabanus, because one who begins is answered 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 Liturgy, which was taken out of Gregory's, A Liturgy not so ancient, as that of Ambrose, and which in process of time was strangely altered 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 persuaded that until all things in Religion be reduced to the ancient Constitution established by the Lord Christ, and his Apostles, adhered 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 join with the Church of England in her Liturgy, 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 satisfy 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 Liturgy may see thas 'tis not Honnour, nor Fancy, but Conscience, that is the ground of their Non-Conformity.

I am 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 required 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, 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 humor nor fancy that occasions their Dissent from the Church, so 'tis more than mere 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 persuaded, 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 desired 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 controversy; 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 strengthened 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 urged for the confirmation of this truth, in the opposition they make to the blind obedience of the Papist. Whence I infer.

That these Dissenters in refusing to join with the Church of England in the Liturgy, do but discharge their duty unto God. Their not joining with the Church is not the sin of Schism; Schism is asserted by Protestants to be a causeless 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 convinced of the unlawfulness of those Termes of Communion that are imposed on the people, yet 'tis not enough to justify the separation of those, who do not only think it lawful, but expedient to join with the Church of England in their Prayers and Ceremonies, &c. who if they will separate from the Church of England, and justify their separation, they must argue from other Topics, for certainly the peace of the Church, and the authority of the Magistrate, cannot but engage a people to do what is both lawful 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 Chapels 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 causeless.

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 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, though' 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 (says 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 obliged 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 Baptism? That cannot be, because by Baptism we are only made Members of the Catholic 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 people's 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 join with some particular Church in all Ordinances, as many Parishioners, who, by their Ordinary holding Communion with the Parish Church in all Ordinances, do practically, and interpretatively (though not expressly) 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 mere Cohabitation, even so they never were by their own Consent, either expressly, or interpretatively. They never held Communion with the Church of England in all Ordinances, were never confirmed 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 choosing their own Pastor, cannot be an Act Schismatical.

By this 'tis manifest, That those who never expressly 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 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 proved 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 justify 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 cannot 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 Unity 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 justify 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 Heretics 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.

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; whoever 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 lie, and therefore Woe 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 Unity, 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 convinced, 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 liable 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 convinced 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. 'It is not to be questioned, but that a man may join with a Church that is less pure than another, even with a Church that hath several Spots in it (or he must join 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 Ministry, 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 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 query is, what they must do, whether live without some Ordinances all the days of their Life, or Assemble themselves together for Communion in all Ordinances, in such a way as they are fully convinced is agreeable to the Sacred Scriptures.

That they must not constantly neglect any Ordinance of God, nor the public attendance on his worship, somewhere is so clearly revealed 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 designed for the strength and increase 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 public 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 people's 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 people's duty of assembling themselves together for public worship, as about the place where, and the Minister with whom. The Church of England says, 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 agreeable to God's Holy word, but when he is once fixed, 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 convinced in Conscience is a sin, does greatly dishonor 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 persuasions of conscience about some lesser things, as there are considering minds, 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 conformed, 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 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 ways 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 works; 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 justify? 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 join'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 answered by joining yourselves to the Church of England, and you can with a safe Conscience do it, you do well in joining with that Church, but if you cannot with a safe Conscience join with the Church of England, but can with the Non-conformists, you must apply yourselves 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.

3. My third request is to such as are join'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 produced them to the end the Conformist may be moved 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 yourselves are, and therefore must be esteemed 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 Clergy would consider, that the above mentioned 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 cannot 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.

Numb. 1.

THere is a Letter written to the Bishop for the execution of her Majesty's Proclamation for the Uniformity set forth in the book, and other injunctions, penned (as is supposed) by Sir Thomas Smith; The which I will not fully transcribe. There is one clause only that is for my purpose, which is concerning the meetings of the Clergy, which were first ordained to keep all Churches in the Diocese, in an Uniform and Godly Order, which now is commonly said (the more is the pity) to be only used of you [i. e. the Bishop and his Clergy,] and your Officers to get money, or for some other purposes; This passage shows the corruption of the Clergy.

Numb. 2.

A Letter written by the Lord Treasurer Cecil to Arch-bishop Whitgift, in answer to one received from the Arch-bishop.

MAY it please your Grace; I perceive that the Bishop of Rochester through your persuasion is contented to be removed to Chichester, whereof I am glad, whereby the Dean of Westminster may be placed, as your Grace may think fit, and I do desire her Majesty will new place all the Bishops in the void room, whereof I am very mindful and desirous for the benefit of the Church, wishing that the Church may take that good thereby, that it hath need of, for surely your Grace must pardon me, I rather wish it, than look, or much hope for it; I see such Worldlyness in many that were otherwise affected before they came to Cathedral Churches, that I fear the places alter the men, but herein I condemn not all: but few there be that do better, being Bishops (in the void rooms whereof I am very mindful,) than being Preachers they did; I am bold thus to utter my mind of Bishops to an Arch bishop, but I clear myself, I mean nothing in any conceit to your Grace, for though of late I have varied in my poor opinion, in that by your order, poor simple men have rather been sought for by inquisition to be found Offenders, than upon their facts condemned, yet surely I do not for all this differ from your Grace in Amity and Love, but I do reverence your Learning and Integrity, and wish that the Spirit of gentleness may win, rather than severity; But therefore enough of the misbehaviour of Browning, towards the Master of Trinity College; I am sorry to hear as I do, esteeming him meeter for Bethlehem than for that College. The Queen's Majesty asked me, what I thought of Travers to be the Minister of the Temple, whereunto I answered, that at the request of Dr. Alney in his sickness, and of a number of honest Gentlemen of the Temple, I had yielded my Allowance of him to that place, so as he will show himself Conformable to the order of the Church, whereunto I was informed, that he would so be; But her Majesty told me that your Grace did not so allow of him, which I said might be for something supposed to be written by him, Tituled, de Disciplina Ecclesiastica, whereupon her Majesty commanded me to write to your Grace, to know your opinion, which I pray your Grace to signify unto her, as God shall move ye, surely it were great pity, that any impediment should be occasion to the contrary, for he is well learned, very honest, and well loved, and allowed of the generality of that house. Mr. Bond told me, that your Grace liked well of him, and so do I also, as of one well learned, and honest, but (as I told him) if he came not to the place with some applause of the Company, he shall be weary thereof, and I commended him to her Majesty, if Travers should not, but her Majesty thinketh him not fit for that place, because of his infirmity. Thus I end, wishing your Grace Assistance of God's Spirit to govern your charge unblameably

Numb. 3.

A part of a Letter sent unto the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and Bishop of London, from her Majesty's Council about September 20. 1584.

AFter our hearty commendations to both your Lordships, although we have heard of late times sundry complaints out of divers countries of this Realm, of some proceedings against a great number of Ecclesiastical Persons, some Parsons of Churches, some Vicars, some Curates, but all Preachers, whereby some were deprived of their livings, some suspended from their Ministry, and preaching, yet we have forborne to enter into any particular examination of such complaints, thinking, that howsoever inferior Officers, as Chancellors, Commissaries, Arch-Deacons, and such like, whose Offices are of more value and profit by such kind of proceedings, might in such sort proceed against the Ministers of the Church, yet your Lordship the Arch-Bishop of that Province of Canterbury, have beside your general authority, some particular interest in the present jurisdiction of sundry Bishoprics vacant, and you also the Bishop of London, both for your own authority in your Diocese, and as head Commissioner Ecclesiastical would have a Pastoral regard over the particular Officers, to stay, and temperate them in their hasty proceedings against the Ministers, and especially against such as do carnestly profess, and instruct the people against the dangerous Sects of. Papistry; but yet of late, hearing of the lamentable estate of the Church in the County of Essex, that is, of a great number of zealous and learned Preachers, they are suspended from their cures, the vacancy of the place for the most part without any Ministry or Preaching, Prayers and Sacraments, and in some places of certain appointed to those void rooms, being persons neither of learning, nor of good names, and in other places of that County, a great number of persons occupying the cures, being notoriously unfit, most for lack of learning, many charged or chargable with great and enormions faults, as drunkenness, filthiness of Life, Gamesters at Cardes, hunting of Alehouses, and such like, against whom we hear not of any proceedings, but that they are quietly suffered to the slander of the Church, to the offense of good people, yea to the famishing of them for lack of good teaching, and thereby dangerous to the subverting of many weaklins from their duties to God, and the Queens Majesty, by secret Jesuits, and counterfeit Papists, and having thus in a general sort heard out of many partes of the like of this lamentable Estate of the Church, yet to the intent, we should not be deceived in the generality of the reports we sought to be informed, &c.

Numb. 4.

A Letter from the Lord Treasurer to the Arch-bishop. July 5. 1584.

IT may please your Grace, I am sorry to trouble you so often as I do, but I am more troubled myself, not only with many private Petitions of sundry Ministers, recommended for persons of credit, for peaceable persons in their Ministry, and yet by complaints to your Grace, and other your Collegues in commission, greatly troubled, but also I am daily now charged by Counselors and public persons to neglect my duty in not staying these your Graces proceedings, so vehement, and so general against Ministers and Preachers, as the Papists thereby are greatly encouraged, all evil disposed persons and subjects animated, and thereby the Queen's Majesty's safety endangered; with these kinds of Arguments I am daily assailed, against which I answer, that I think your Grace doth nothing, but being duly examined, tendeth to the maintenance of the Religion now Established, and to avoid Schism in the Church, I also have for example showed your papers sent to me, how fully the Church is furnished with Preachers, and how small a number there are that do contend for their singularity, but these occasions do not satisfy all persons, neither do I seek to satisfy all persons, but with Reason and Truth. But now my good Lord, by chance I have come to the sight of an Instrument of 24 Articles of great length and curiosity, formed in a Romish Style, to examine all manner of Ministers in this time without distinction of persons, which Articles are Entituled apud Lambeth, May 1584 to be executed ex officio mero, &c. and upon this occasion I have seen them. I did recommend unto your Graces favor two Ministers Curates of Cambridge-shire to be favourably heard, and your Grace wrote to me, that they were contentious, seditious, and persons vagrant, to maintain this controversy, wherewith I charged them sharply, and they both denied these charges, and required to be tried, and so to receive punishment, I answered, that your Grace would so charge them, and then I should see afterwards, what they should deserve, and advised them to resort to your Grace, comforting them that they should find favorable proceedings, and so I hoped upon my former commendations the rather. What may be said to them I know not, nor whether they have been so faulty as your Grace have been informed, neither do I mean to treat for to favor such men, for pardon, I may speak upon their amendment; but now they coming to me, I asked how your Grace proceeded with them, they say, they are commanded to be examined by the Register of London, and I asked them whereof, they said of a great number of Articles, but they could have no copies of them, I answered, that they might answer to the truth, they said, that they were so many in number, and so diverse, that they were afraid to answer to them, for fear of captious interpretation, upon this I sent for the Register, who brought me the Articles, which I have read, and find so curiously pen'd, so full of branches and circumstances, and I think, the Inquisitors of Spain use not so many questions to comprehend, and to trap their preys. I know your Canonists, can defend these with all their particles, but surely under your Graces correction, this Juridical and Canonical sifting of poor Ministers is not to edify and reform, and in charity I think they ought not to answer to all these nice points, except they were very notorious Offenders in Papistry or Heresy. Now good my Lord, bear with my scribbling, I write with the Testimony of a good Conscience; I desire the peace of the Church, I desire concord and unity in the exercise of our Religion, I fear no sensual willful recusant, but I conclude that according to my simple judgment, this kind of proceeding is too much savouring the Romish Inquisition, and is rather a device to seek for Ossenders, than to reform any; This was not that charitable instruction that I thought was intended. If these poor Ministers should in some few points have any scrupulous conceptions meet to be removed, this is not a charitable way to send them to answer to your common Register upon so many Articles at one instant, without commodity of instruction by your Register, whose office is only to receive their answers, by which the parties are first subject to condemnation, before they be taught their errors; It may be that I say that Canonists may maintain this proceeding by Rules of their Laws, but though omnia lice • t, omnia non expediunt. I pray your Grace bear this (one, perchance a fault) that I have willed them not to answer these Articles, except their Consciences may suffer them. And yet I have sharply admonished them, that if they be disturbers in their Churches, they must be corrected, and yet upon your Graces answer to me, ne suitor ultra erepidam, neither will I put falcem in alterius messem. My paper teaches me to make an end.

Numb. 5.

The Treasurer's reply to an answer of the Arch-bishop's unto the former Letter. July 17. 1584.

I Have received your Graces loving Letter, answering Speeches (as I think) delivered by your Chaplain Dr. Cossins, and I perceive you are sharply moved to blame me, and clear yourself, I know I have many faults, but I hope I have not given such cause of offense, as your Letter expresseth, I deny nothing that your Grace thinketh meet to proceed in with these whom you call factious, and therefore there is no controversy betwixt you and me expressed in your Letter. The controversy is passed in your Grace's Letter in silence, and so I do rest satisfied, your Grace promised me to deal (I say,) only with such as violate order, and to charge them therewith, which I allow well thereof; But your Grace not charging men with such faults, seeketh by examination to urge them to accuse themselves, and then I think you will punish them. I think your Graces proceedings is, (I will not say rigorous nor captious) but I think it is scarce charitable. I have no leisure to write more, and therefore I will end, for writing will but increase offense, and I mean not to offend your Grace. I am content that your Grace, and my Lord of London where I hear Brown is, use him as your Wisdomes shall think meet. If I had known his faults, I might be blamed for writing for him, but when by examination only it is to sift him with 24 Articles I have cause to pity the poor man.

Numb. 6.

The Arch-Bishop's Answer to the Lord Treasurer.

MY singular good Lord; God knoweth how desirous I have been from time to time to satisfy your Lordship in all things, and to have my doings approved to you, for which cause, since my coming to this place, I have done nothing of importance without your advice, I have risen early, and sat up late, to write unto you such objections and answers as on either side were used, I have not done the like to any man, and shall I now say that I have lost my labor, or shall my just dealing with two of the most disordered Ministers in a whole Diocese (the obstinacy and contempt of whom, especially of one of them yourself would not bear in any subjected to your Authority) cause you so to think and speak of my doings, yea and of myself, no man living should have made me believe it. Solomon saith, an old friend is better than a new, and I trust your Lordship will not so lightly cast off your old friend, for any of those new fangled factious Sectaries, whose fruits are to make divisions, wheresoever they come, and to separate old and assured friends. Your Lordship seemeth to charge me with breach of promise, touching my manner of proceeding, whereof I am no way guilty, but I have altered my first course of depriving them for not subscribing, only justifiable by law and common practice, both in the time of King Edward, and from the beginning of her Majesty's Reign. Your Lordship also objecteth that I took this course for the better maintenance of my book, &c. mine enemies said so indeed, but I trust my friends have a better opinion in me; Why should I seek for any confirmation of my book after years, or what should I get thereby more than already? And yet if subscription may confirm it; it is confirmed long ago, by the subscription of all the Clergy almost in England before my time, even of Branie also who seemeth now to be so willful. Mine enemies and tongues of this slanderous and uncharitable Sect report, that I am revolted, become a Papist, and I know not what; But it proceedeth from their lewdness, not from any desert of mine, and I disdain to answer to such notorious untruths, which the best of them dare not avouch to my face. Your Lordship seemeth further to burden me with willfulness, I am sure, that you are not so persuaded of me, I will appeal to your own Conscience, there is difference between willfulness and constancy, I have taken upon me the defense of the Religion, and Rights of this Church of England, to appease the Sects of Schisms therein, to reduce all the Ministers thereof to Uniformity and due obedience, herein I intend to be constant, and not to waver with every wind, the which also my place, my person, my duty, the law, her Majesty, and the goodness of the cause doth require of me, and wherein your Lordship and others all things considered, ought in duty to assist and countenance me. It is strange that a man in my place dealing with so good warranties as I do, should be so encounter'd, and for not yielding should be accounted willful, but I must be contented, vincit, qui patitur, and if my friends herein forsake me, I trust God will not, neithe law, her Majesty, who hath laid the charge on me, and are able to protect me; But of all other things it most greiveth me, that your Lordship should say, that the two Ministers fare the worse because your Lordship sent them; Hath your Lordship ever had any cause so to think of me, it is needless for me to protest my heart and affections towards you above all other men, the world knoweth it, and I am assured that your Lordship nothing doubeth thereof, I have rather cause to complain to your Lordship of yourself, that upon so small occasion, and in the behalf of two such, you will so hardly conceive of me, yea and as it were countenance persons, so meanly qualified in so evil a cause against me your Lordship's so long tried friend, and their ordinary, that hath not so been in times past, now it should least of all be, I may not suffer the notorious contempt of any of them, especially unless I will become Aesop's block, well, because I would be loath to omit anything whereby your Lordship might be satisfied, I have sent unto you certain reasons to justify the manner of my proceeding which I marvel should be so much misliked in this cause, having been so long practice'd in the like, yea in the same, and never before this time found fault with, truly my Lord, I must proceed this way, or not at all, the reasons I have set down in this paper, and I heartily pray your Lordship not to be carried away either from the cause, or from myself upon unjust surmises or clamours, least you be some occasion of that confusion, which hereafter you would be sorry for: For mine own part, I desire no farther defense in these occasions of your Lordship, nor any other than justice and law will yield unto me. In my private affairs I know I stand in need of friends, especially of your Lordship, of whom I have made always an assured account, but in these public actions I see no cause why I should seek for friends, seeing they to whom the care of the common weal is committed, ought out of duty therein to join with me, to conclude, I am your Lordships assured, neither will I ever be persuaded, but that you bear an hearty good will towards me.

So far Whitgift. If Dr. Burnet would undertake the carrying on the History of Ecclesiastical Affairs all the time Q. Eliz. lived, and in order thereunto, might he be so happy as to obtain a sight of all those great things were then on the stage, the world would see how little they are owing unto Heylin for his History, and also understand how unjustly the Old Protestants called Puritans, have been represented as factious. &c.