The nonconformists vindicated from the abuses put upon them by Mr. [brace] Durel and Scrivener being some short animadversions on their books soon after they came forth : in two letters to a friend (who could not hitherto get them published) : containing some remarques upon the celebrated conference at Hampton-Court / by a country scholar.

Concerning the Hampton-Court Conference.

1. I say, we have little reason to believe that it is impartially related: for, 1. We have some ground to think that Dr. Barlow who drew up the Relation, did before his death profess himself troubled that he had abused Dr. Reynolds and those who were joined with him. This sorrow of the Doctor is I know denied by many, by none more than by Dr. Heylin against Mr. Hickman: but I have enough to clear Mr. Hickman from be∣ing the inventor, or feigner of that story; for he had it from Mr. Noel Sparkes, a learned and pious Divine, and of the Episcopal perswasion, who died but few years before his Majesties re∣turn, by him he was allowed to put it in print, as told him by one who would not on slight grounds either raise or receive a report against a Bishop, viz. Mr. Henry Jackson, sometime fellow of Corpus Christi Colledg in Oxford. That all this is true, Mr. John Martin, now a Conforming Minister in the Diocess of Hereford, can, and if asked will, I suppose, witness.

2. Dr. Sparks though he spake not a word in the Conference, and after it (if I mistake not) printed a Book for Uniformity; yet told his son (sometimes a Minister in Buckingham∣shire, and Divinity-Reader in Magdalen-Col∣ledg) That Dr. Barlow in summing up that Con∣ference, had very much injured Dr. Reynolds, and those other that then appeared in the behalf of the Millenary Petitioners. This I had from his kinsman before mentioned.

3. I am also pretty well assured, that upon the first coming out of the Sum of that Confer∣ence, Dr. Reynolds himself lighting upon one of the Books at a Stationers near St. Maries Ox∣ford, was found reading of it; and being asked by a friend what Book it was he read? answer∣ed, It was a Book in which he was concerned and wronged. If any doubt of this, he may (I sup∣pose) receive satisfaction about it from Dr. Henry Wilkinson, resident at or about Clapham near London. Yea, I perswade my self, that no man who reads that Conference, can be seriously of opinion that Dr. Reynolds argued with no more strength than is by Dr. Barlow represent∣ed in his Relation.

2. If the Conference should he truly reported, little or no damage could thence accrue to the Nonconformists; for as is said in the Christian and Modest offer of a most indifferent Conference or Disputation printed Anno 1606. pag. 29, 30. Most of the persons appointed to speak for the Ministers, were not of their chusing nor nomination, nor of their judgment in the matters then and now in question,

but of a clean contrary. For being intreated at that time by the Ministers to dispute against these things as simply evil, and such as cannot be yielded unto without sin; they professed unto them, that they were not so perswaded, and therefore could not so do. Being then requested to let his Majesty understand, that some of their brethren were further perswaded touching the unlawfulness of these things, than they themselves were; they refused that also. Lastly, be∣ing intreated either to give them in writing their reasons to prove these things indifferent, or to give them an answer in writing to such reasons as they would give them in writing to prove them simply evil; they would do neither the one nor the other.

Obj. Will Nonconformists then lose so consi∣derable a person as Dr. Reynolds? and are they content the world should look upon him as no Nonconformist?

Ans. No doubt he was one that was loth to be made unuseful in the Church, and loth that others should make themselves unuseful; and therefore when any Minister professing himself dissatisfied with Subscription, came to ask his ad∣vice, he would (as I have been credibily inform∣ed) desire him to give him the grounds of his dissatisfaction, and if he found them weighty, then he would leave him setled in his Nonconformity; but if he found them not weighty, then he would let him know that those reasons notwithstanding he might conform. As for himself, he was satis∣fied to do all that was incumbent on him, as Pre∣sident

of the Colledg, but thought our Church needed a further Reformation, and that the Ce∣remonies were unprofitable; and prayed that in a due and orderly manner they might be taken away: yet would not peremptorily say, that a man should lose his Ministry rather than not use them. And of this mind were most of those who had in those times the honour to be called and accounted Puritans. And let me here pro∣pound it seriously to the consideration of pre∣sent Nonconformists, whether it be not possible for them to be over zealous in pressing others not to conform. Sure I am, that the learned and godly Mr. Anthony Wotton did flatly deny to tell Mr. VVill. Brice still alive, the grounds and reasons of his Non conformity, telling him, That he would not in such matters put scruples into those in whom he found none. And really, may not a Conformist save his own soul, and the souls of those that hear him? may he not keep his eyes open, and yet not have light enough to see the unlawfulness of our Ceremonies? If so, as doubtless so it is, why should Non-conformists think so ill, as some do, of their conforming brethren? why should they be so restless, till they have made them their prose∣lytes? why may they not acknowledg and rejoyce in their gifts and graces, and yet peaceably perse∣vere in their own Non-conformity, only wiping off the aspersions that are thrown on themselves, and candidly representing their principles, and pra∣ctices, that so the present and succeeding ages may see, they do not suffer out of humour and fancy; and that they err not (if they be in an error) without authority and reason.

3. If we should grant that the published Con∣ference were in all things true and impartial, yet have the friends of Episcopacy, and sticklers for conformity, but little reason to boast or triumph. This must be made out by some brief reflections upon the conference.

The first day none of those who desired Refor∣mation, were permitted to be present at the Con∣ference, nor indeed all that were summoned to appear as defenders of the then established do∣ctrine and discipline, but only the Bishops and five Deans; why neither the Dean of Christ-Church, nor the Dean of VVorcester, nor the Dean of Windsor were admitted, nor yet Dr. Field, nor Dr. King, I find no reason as∣signed; nor will I guess, at so great a distance, what might be the reason: but why none of the Plaintiffs (as they are called) were admit∣ted, His Majesty gave this reason, That the Bi∣shops might not be confronted by the contrary op∣ponents; and that if any thing should be found meet to be redressed, it might be done without any visible alteration. I suppose King James thought the things he mentioned in that days Conference, were too too liable to exception, and was resolved to take course with his Bishops and their adhe∣rents to have some little amendment, that if they should happen to be mentioned in the next days designed Conference, they might answer they had already considered them, and would have no more done or said about them.

The particulars of that Cabal-Conference, are said to be touching the Common-prayer-book,

Excommunication, providing of fit and able Mini∣sters for Ireland. How the providing of fit and able Ministers for Ireland, could be proper for this days Conference, I understand not. Dr. Bar∣low saith, p. 9. it was referred to a consultation; if so, and that consultation produced any good effect, all good Christians are to rejoyce, for doubtless that Nation then wanted Ministers. But the Millenary Petition pretended to be the occasion of this Conference, toucheth not upon Ireland; if any thing was meet to be done a∣bout that Church, in this Conference, reason ra∣ther required that the Council for Ireland and the Irish Bishops should have been summoned to debate and conclude concerning that affair. Per∣haps the Doctor mistook Ireland for England, or was willing to have us believe that there was no want of a Learned Ministry here in England; but we shall hear more of this in the second days Conference.

As to the Common-prayer Book, the King de∣sired satisfaction about Confirmation, Absolu∣tion, Private Baptism.

Confirmation we shall find mentioned in the se∣cond days conference, and thither I refer my con∣siderations concerning it.

Absolution, His Majesty said, he had heard likened to the Popes Pardons; If any one had in∣formed His Majesty, that Absolution as used, or at least, as prescribed in the Church of England, had any thing in it resembling the abominable par∣dons of the Pope, I know not how he can be ex∣cused from bearing false witness against the Litur∣gy.

The Millenarian Petitioners only pray, that the term Absolution, might be corrected, which His Majesty was willing to gratifie them in, ap∣pointing Absolution to be explained by remission of sins. There is, that I know, no real difference betwixt those that are called Presbyterians and Episcopal Divines about Absolution: Both allow a general Absolution, and a particular Absolution. Dr. Heylin chargeth Bp. Ʋsher, with utterly sub∣verting, as well the Doctrine of the English Church, as her purpose in absolution; but from that charge, the Primate is acquitted by his Chaplain Dr. Ber∣nard.

Baptism, King James thought, was not to be administred by private persons, in any case whatso∣ever; and therefore propounded it to the Bishops, that the words in the Book purporting a permis∣sion, and suffering of women and private persons to baptize, might be altered: And here it is pretty, or rather sad, to observe how the Pre∣lates contradicted one another; Whitgift said,

The administration of Baptism by women or pri∣vate persons, was not allowed in the practice of our Church, but enquired of by Bishops in their Visitation, and censured, and that the words in the Book did not infer any such meaning, as that they were permitted to Baptise:

But the words of the Book being pressed by His Majesty,

Bp. Babington confessed that the words were doubt∣ful, and might be pressed to such a meaning; but yet it seemed by the contrary practice of the Church (censuring women in this case) that the Compilers of the Book did not so intend them,

and yet propounded them ambiguously, because otherwise, perhaps, the Book would not then have passed in Parliament.

But on the contrary, Bp. Bancroft for his part declared, That the Com∣pilers of the Book of Common Prayer, intended not by ambiguous terms to deceive any; but did indeed, by those words, intend a permission of private per∣sons to Baptize in case of necessity, as appeared by their letters, some parts whereof he read, declaring that the same was agreeable to the practice of the ancient Church, urging to that purpose, Acts 2. where Three thousand were baptized in one day, a thing which could not possibly, at least probably be done by the Apostles alone, and besides the Apostles. there were then no Bishops nor Priests. He also al∣ledged Tertullian and Ambrose plain in that point. The Bishop of Winchester also spake learnedly and earnestly to the same purpose, affirming, that the de∣nying of private persons to baptize in case of necessity, were to cross all antiquity; and that, it was a rule agreed upon among Divines, That the Minister is not of the essence of the sacrament: But King James persisting in his opinion to have the altera∣tion made, saith the Relator, pag. 19. it was not so much stuck at by the Bishops; it seems that to please His Majesty, they did not much stick to have all antiquity crossed, and a Rule among Di∣vines over-ruled. Had the Presbyterians in a point of so great moment, shewed themselves so facile, what a noise would have been made?

But seeing the alteration is made, and Baptism restrained to Ministers, we may now without of∣fence, I hope, enquire what is to be said in this

controversie, and whether other Churches do well to allow that, which we see not meet to allow.

And first, I would know whether Christ the confessed institutor of Baptism, hath any where commanded lay-persons, in the absence of those to whom the word of reconciliation is committed, to administer Baptism; if he have not, then their not administring it can be no sin, because no trans∣gression of a Law: And how can we think that the party who dies unbaptized shall fare the worse, for not having received that which no one was bound to give him? If it be said he hath laid commandment on lay-persons, where a Minister cannot be had, to Baptize; I desire to see where that command is recorded.

2. I demand whether a lay-person, male or fe∣male do sin in Baptizing? If so, no power on earth can authorize him or her to Baptize. If it be said, there is no sin in the case; then again I demand where is the permission of Christ granted to him or her? for certainly that must needs be sin, which is not allowed by Christ the author of the Sacra∣ment.

3. How can we in faith expect that any lay-per∣son should convey, rem Sacramenti, that is, be the Minister of Sacramental grace? Is it any where revealed in Scripture that he doth any more than the outward act (which of it self availeth no∣thing); if it be not, why might we not as good trust God that he will save the sick child without the outward act, as think and hope he will regard the outward act, when we cannot be assured that any more than the outward act is done?

Lastly, When lay persons are allowed to ad∣minister Baptism, who can say to them, ne plus ultra, hitherto you have proceeded, but further ye shall not proceed, other parts of the Mini∣sterial function you may not meddle with?

But it is said that we have great authorities, and the practice of the Universal Church to warrant Baptism by lay-persons in case of necessity.

Ans. This is confidently affirmed; but he who will not believe every confident affirmation, may find some of the Ancients either condemning, or not justifying Baptism by lay-persons. As for the instance Acts 2. of the three thousand baptized in one day; besides what is said by K. James, that the example was extraordinary, and therefore not to be argued from with any security; we may say further, 1. That there is no consent that at that time there were no more in the Ministerial Function besi••es the twelve Apostles. Bishop Ban∣croft indeed affirms, that then there were neither Bishops nor Priests besides the Apostles; but if we should grant him that, there might be Dea∣cons, and according to his principles they might baptize; no need therefore of flying to lay-per∣sons; it is not improbable that the Seventy Dis∣ciples were then present, and who can assure us that they had no ministerial character on them? 2. The Twelve might if they saw meet Baptize Three thousand in one day. 3. It cannot be pro∣ved that all those souls were Baptized in one day: added to the Church they were in one day; but that they were solemnly entred into the Church by baptism in one day, the Text doth not prove.

Perhaps not any one that heard the words of Pe∣ter gladly, was baptized either the same day, or in the same place in which he heard; but all went to some other places where there was much water, and there were baptized; for that they were baptized in the same place where they heard, is not probable, at least not certain.

Obj. Is it not a rule agreed upon among Divines, That the Minister is not of the essence of a Sacra∣ment?

Ans. The word Essence is an ambiguous term, and so acknowledged to be by Philosophers; and it is not worth while to distinguish it, and so re∣turn answer to this question, in distinct proposi∣tions. King James answered, that the Minister is of the Essence of the right and lawful ministration of the Sacrament. Till that answer be overthrown, it will not be safe to commit the administration of Baptism to lay-hands; nor wisdom for any man to doubt concerning the salvation of his child, because he died unbaptized, when he could get none to baptize him whose authority to baptize is not que∣stioned.

Obj. But will not this bring in rebaptization, so much abhorred by the Church?

Ans. It cannot bring in rebaptization; for if baptism by Laicks be only nomine tenus baptism, the baptism that succeeds it, will not be the second, but first baptism, especially if it be administred in the conditional form, Si non sis baptizatus, &c.

The next point his Majesty propounded to his Bishops, related to excommunication in causes of lesser moment; asking, VVhether the name might not be altered, and yet the same censure be retained? Or 2dly, VVhether in place of it ano∣ther Coercion equivalent thereunto, might not be in∣vented and thought of?

The Relator saith, This was a thing very easily yielded to of all sides (and yet there was but one, or at least but two sides there) because it hath been long and often desired, but could not be obtained of her Majesty, who resolved still to be semper eadem, and to alter nothing which she had once setled, pag. 19.

I am here at a great loss; for I cannot believe that Queen Elizabeth, so much famed for piety and judgment, was so resolved not to alter any thing she had once setled, as not to yield so much as to the alteration of a name, if she were long and often desired by her Bishops. Nor do I find that her Bishops long and often desired her, that ex∣communication for lesser matters might not be cal∣led Excommunication, or that instead of it some other Coercion equivalent thereunto, might be thought on. Nor do I understand to what end any such thing should be so long and so often de∣sired. What desirableness is there in this, that men for small matters should be excommunicated, but not under the name of Excommunication? ••r that they should not be excommunicated, but suffer some Coercion equivalent thereunto? Those that fear the Lord, do account no Coercion that man can inflict, equivalent to Excommunication

duly pronounced. As for those who do not fear the Lord, if they should chance to be excom∣municated for a small matter, they would make but a small matter of Excommunication, or ra∣ther count it a priviledge to be freed from the trouble of going to the publick assemblies. For such, if they should owe 4 d. to their Minister, and refuse to pay it, an Attorney may sooner force them to be just, than an Apparitor. All this while I have not touched on the chief ground of my admiration, which is, how it came to pass (if the thing which his Majesty propounded a∣bout Excommunication was so easily yielded on all sides) that no alteration ensued thereupon? How comes it to pass that Excommunication, name and thing, passeth upon men in matters of small moment, and no Coercion equivalent there∣unto is as yet devised in the room of it?

This is all I have to advertise about the first days Conference.

In the second days Conference, omitting all Prefatory Speeches, I take notice, that Dr. Rey∣nolds reduced all he and his Brethren had to say, to four heads: The first related to doctrine, praying that the doctrine of the Church might be preserved in purity, according to Gods word; and to that end, that the Articles concluded 1562. might be explained in places obscure, and enlarged where some things were defective. Particularly, the Dr. moved something about the 16. the 23. the 25. Articles; and being about to move more, the Bishop of London cut him off, and kneeling down, prayed the King,

that the ancient Ca∣non

might be remembred, Schismatici non sunt audiendi contra Episcopos, and that if any of the four Plaintiffs had subscribed the Communion-Book, and yet lately exhibited a Petition against it, they might be removed and not heard, ac∣cording to the Decree of a very ancient Council; providing, that no man should be admitted to speak against that whereunto he had formerly subscribed. 3dly, He put the Dr. and his asso∣ciates in mind, that the King was very clement, who permitted them to speak contrary to the Statute of 10 Eliz. against the Liturgy and dis∣cipline established. Lastly, He desired to know the end they aimed at, alledging a place out of Mr. Cartwright, affirming, that we ought rather to conform our selves in Orders and Ceremonies, to the fashion of the Turks, than of the Papists, which position he doubted they approved, because contrary to the Orders of the Universities, they appeared before His Majesty in Turky Gowns, not in their Scholastical habits sorting to their degrees.

Musa mihi causas memora, quo numine laeso, — Tantaene animis coelestibus irae?

So much wrath at the first dash? when men are summoned by the King, and bid by him open their grievances, must they as soon almost as they have opened their mouths, be thus schooled and terri∣fied? are the Articles of our Religion so sacred, that to propound a doubt about them, is no less a crime than schism? May not a man think that

the Bishop feared he should not be able to answer the Doctor, who took so much care that he might not be put to answer him at all? Is this to shew forth meekness of wisdom?

Let us a little reflect on the particulars of this great Diocesans passion.

1. He would have the ancient Canon remem∣bred, Schismatici contra Episcopos non sunt audiendi. This Canon might have been kept in store, till Dr. Reynolds had been condemned for a Schismatick, or till the Bishops had said something which he con∣tradicted; but seeing it is now brought into the field we may be allowed to view it, and see what metal it is made of. May not a King so much as hear what Schismaticks can say for themselves? Must it be taken for granted, that Bishops are not culpable causes of the Schism that is made in a Church? Such a Canon as this would have done excellent service at the Council of Trent.

2. So would the other Canon, That no man should be admitted to speak against that whereunto he had formerly subscribed, have done the Popish Bishops excellent service in Queen Maries Reign; by it, I suppose, Bishop Cranmer and Bishop Rid∣leys mouths might have been quite stopped; for I doubt they had subscribed to something they were to speak against.

3. The Statute 10 Elizabethae did not make it penal for any man having leave from the King to propound his objections against the Liturgy or discipline of the Church of England.

4. Dr. Reynolds his Turky-Gown was not a Turkish habit, nor was his University habit con∣formable

to the habit of the Papists; nor doth any order of the University require, that a Doctor should have on his Doctors habit every time he appears before the King. So that all this passio∣nate harangue of words might have been spared. It may be we may meet with more reason in the an∣swers to what the Doctor moved.

1. He moved the 6th Article; After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace, might be worded so, as that it might not so much as seem to favour the Doctrine of the Saints Apo∣stasie; and that therefore the words neither totally nor finally might be added.

What replied the Bishop of London to this? why, that too many in these days neglecting holiness of life, presumed too much of persisting in grace, laying all their religion on Predestination, If I shall be saved, I shall be saved; which he said was contrary to the true doctrine of Predestination, wherein we should argue rather ascendendo, than descendendo; thus, I live in obedience to God, and therefore I trust God hath elected and predestinated me to salvation: not thus, which is the usual course, God hath chosen me to life, therefore though I sin never so grievously, yet I shall not be damned; for whom he loves, he loves to the end. And then shew∣ed his Majesty the doctrine of England ouching Predestination, VVe must receive Gods promises, &c.

But under favour, these words do not contain the doctrine of Predestination, but are only a cau∣tion against the abuse of the doctrine of Predesti∣nation laid down in the foregoing words. As for

those who did usually argue descendendo, I sup∣pose they were only men of wretched and pro∣fligate lives, and we must not bauk a truth lest they should stumble at it; or if we must, then must we also forbear to say, God is merciful, and Christ died for sinners, lest men should thence conclude, Therefore I shall be saved, though I live in many sins; for so it is argued usually. Wherefore the Bishop hath shewed no reason why the Doctor's addition might not be made for the comfort of the trembling penitent; and more full and apert confutation of those who assert a total apostasie from grace received. Yet I confess Dr. Reynolds needed not to have made this motion, because the seventeenth Article clear∣ly enough asserteth perseverance.

The second thing moved by the Dr. related to the 23d Article, in which it is said, That it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of preaching or administring the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called. What could Dr. R. take exception at in this Article? why, saith the Relator, at those words, In the Congregation; as implying a lawfulness for any man whosoever, out of the Congregation, to preach and administer the Sacraments, though he had no lawful call thereunto. He that can think the Doctor argued at this rate, must think he was not the Dr. Reynolds, whose praise is in all the Reformed Churches. I should rather con∣ceive the Dr. took exception at the words in the Congregation; as not sufficient to express (what was needful to be expressed in all Articles of

Religion) that men may not in private preach and administer the Sacraments, though they have no lawful call thereunto. This sure was the Doctors arguing; but was not to be so propounded, lest it should have been thought necessary to say more for the perfection of the Churches Articles than could well be said. But supposing Dr. R. to have disputed as the Relator hath reported, what was answered to him? Why, that it was a vain ob∣jection, because by the doctrine and practice of the Church of England, none but a licensed Minister might Preach, nor either publickly or privately ad∣minister the Eucharist or the Lords-Supper, pag. 30, 31. We are not told by whom this was answered, if we had, we might have been apt to think they were not the profoundest men in the world; for the rejoynder is easie, that the Church of Eng∣land owned another Sacrament besides the Eucha∣rist. Here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the King must be brought in to answer for those who were not of one mind to answer for themselves; and what is he said to have answered? why, that he had taken order for private baptism with the Bishops already. I ask, had the Doctor a spirit of divina∣tion to know what had been ordered in the first days conference? If he had not, this answer of the Kings proved not the Doctor's objection to be frivolous, but rather handsomely implied it to have some weight in it.

The Doctor being already acquitted of vanity, let us now see what the framers of the Article might mean by inserting the words in the Congre∣gation. King Edwards Article was thus worded,

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministring the Sacra∣ments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully call∣ed, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called by men who have publick autho∣rity given them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lords Vineyard. And the pre∣sent Article doth not differ, unless it be altered since Mr. Rogers his time. Out of the last clause of the Article I argue thus: Those ought to be judg∣ed lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to the work of the Ministry by men who have publick authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lords Vineyard. Some not ordained by Bishops have, &c. ergo. This syllogism might, if urged, make some work and stir, and therefore I do not so much as form it in words at length. Still I am unsatisfied why the words [in the Congregation] are added either in the first or second clause of the Article; but at adventure I am glad they are ad∣ded, until it be in some publick Record of our Churches doctrine defined what preaching is; for if Reading be Preaching, then I should not be over-forward to subscribe that it is not lawful for Laicks to preach privately.

About Confirmation the Doctor observed (as the Relator tells us, p. 25) a contradiction be∣twixt the 25th Article, and the words used con∣cerning it in the Collect for Confirmation in the Communion-book; and therefore desired that both the contradiction might be considered, and

the ground of Confirmation examined.

In this we are told, p. 31. was observed a cu∣riosity or malice; for the Article insinuates, That the making of Confirmation to be a Sacrament, is a corrupt imitation of the Apostles; but the Com∣munion book aiming at the right use and proper source thereof, makes it to be according to the Apo∣stles example; and his Majesty comparing both pla∣ces, concluded the objection to be a meer cavil.

Seeing the Article is by all Ministers to be subscribed, I shall be glad if it can be made ap∣pear that the meaning is only, that the making of Confirmation to be a Sacrament, is a corrupt following of the Apostles; but that it seems to in∣sinuate something more, can hardly be denied by any one that reads the whole syntax. But the Bi∣shop in the Collect for Confirmation, saith inter alia, VVe make our humble supplications unto thee for these thy servants, upon whom, after the exam∣ple of thy holy Apostles, we lay our hands. In which words I would fain know who are included in the [we]; for I take it, that the Bishop alone lays on hands; and let no Minister desire to join with him in imposition of hands for confirmation, if he must be supposed to say that he doth it after the example of the holy Apostles; for that ever the Apostles laid hands on any that had been duly baptized in their in••ancy, to confirm them, may be sooner said, than firmly proved; yet if it can be proved that they did, I shall heartily rejoyce; for the more apostolical Confirmation proves to be, the more easily and chearfully I hope it will be submitted to. This I find, that in the old Litur∣gy

no one question was to be propounded to the Confirmand; in the new there is one to be pro∣pounded, and it is such a one as may make all ungodly wretches afraid to have it propounded to them: sure I am, without horrible hypocrisie they cannot answer to it affirmatively. But then the new Liturgy hath chopped off two of the Considerations for which, in the old, Confirmati∣tion was said to be appointed; the reason where∣of, as I cannot certainly tell, so I will not uncer∣tainly conjecture; though I have heard stories a∣bout this affair, that startled me.

Bishop Bancroft saith, Confer. p. 32. That Con∣firmation was not so much founded upon the places in the Acts of the Apostles, which some of the Fa∣thers had often shewed; but upon Heb. 6.2. where it is made a part of the Apostles Catechism: In the first days Conference he had said, It was set down and named in express words, Heb. 6 2. and affirm∣ed it to be an Institution Apostolical, p. 11.

Here I may, I hope, enquire what the Bishop meant by saying, Confirmation was not so much founded on the places in the Acts, which some of the Fathers had often shewed. What doth which relate to? Have some of the Fathers often shew∣ed, that Confirmation is not so much founded upon the places in the Acts of the Apostles? If they have, down falls presently much of many of our Episcopal brethrens building concerning Episcopacy, if they have shewn no such thing; I cannot make sense of the Bishop's saying con∣cerning the places in the Acts. As for Heb. 6.2. I am willing to think that by laying on of hands

there, may be signified Confirmation: but I can∣not much blame those who differ from me in ex∣pounding that place; for I find Bishop Ʋsher re∣ferring the laying on of hands, to the ordaining of Ministers; others refer it to that and sundry other things performed by imposition of hands; these would count themselves wronged, if one should say, That they deny that which is set down and named in express words.

The Bishop of Durham (I must not forget that) is related p. 11. to have noted something out of the Gospel of St. Matthew, for the imposition of hands upon children. He might out of that Go∣spel have observed many things concerning Christs laying of hands on the children brought to him. But the difficulty will be, how to make those things pertinent to the laying on of hands upon those who are too big many times to be called little children, and are already baptized, and de∣sire to be orderly admitted to the Lords Supper; and when these are made appear pertinent, then it will be worth consideration, whether the Bishops should not rather say, VVe lay on hands in imita∣tion of Christ, than in imitation of the holy Apo∣stles.

Obj. But all this while the main Controversie about Confirmation is not touched, which relates to the Minister of Confirmation, which Dr. Reynolds and his party would have had in their own hands, whereas none of all the Fathers ever admitted any to confirm, but Bishops alone, as said the Bishops of London and Winchester, p. 34, 35.

Answ. To me this is not the main question, let our Bishops censure those who admit to the Sacra∣ment such as can neither say Lords-Prayer, Belief, Ten Commandments, nor answer the questions in the Common Prayer-Book Catechism, nor are ei∣ther confirmed or desirous to be confirmed; let also the Bishops themselves ride through their Dio∣ceses, and confirm all that are unconfirmed, and suspend such from the Sacrament as either are un∣willing or unmeet to be confirmed, and I per∣swade my self, the Presbyters will not be vexed that so much work is taken off their hands.

As for what His Majesty is made to say, pag. 36. That it suits neither with the Authority, nor decency of Confirmation, that every ordinary Pastor should do it and that there was as great reason that none should confirm without licence from the Bishop, as none Preach without his licence. I doubt the Re∣lator hath both wronged the King and the Bishops cause; The King, for we can scarce conceive he should have such high thoughts of the Authority or decency of confirmation, as to imagine, that either was lessened by being administred by those by whom Baptism is administred. And the Bishops cause also, for it will not serve their turn that Presbyters should not confirm without their Li∣cence, as they do not Preach without their Li∣cence, unless it be also made appear that none can be licensed to confirm but themselves. Before I pass from this, I must also advert, That the Re∣lator makes the King to tax St. Jerome for asserting, that a Bishop is not Divinae ordinationis; and the Bishop of London to insert, That if he could not

prove his ordination lawful, out of the Scriptures, he would not be a Bishop four hours. Wherein I ob∣serve the policy of the Bishop, who reserved pow∣er to himself to continue a Bishop if he could prove his ordination lawful by the Scriptures; he knew well enough that his Ordination might be lawful, and vet a Bishop not be Divinae Ordinationis. That is lawful by Scripture, which no Scripture Law condemns, or forbids; but he that should say, that every thing not prohibited, is Divinae ordi∣nationis, would have much a-do to prove that he himself had any meetness to be consecrated a Bi∣shop. I suppose I can prove that it is lawful for me to wear a Beaver; but when I had so proved, should I not be ridiculous, if I should say that a Beaver was Divinae ordinationis? Besides, if Dr. Reynolds had chanced to gravel the Bishop with an argument about the lawfulness of his Ordina∣tion he to keep his Bishoprick, would presently have replied that he was ordained to be a Presby∣ter, but he was only consecrated to be a Bishop, and by that means he might have kept his lands and his credit too.

Let us now proceed with Dr. Reynolds, who is made to say, that the words in the 37th Article, The Bishop of Rome hath no authority in this land, be not sufficient unless it were added, nor ought to have. It is like the Doctor had observed that the Oath of Supremacy runs to that or the like effect.

And he had never heard, it is as like, that the King and his Council heartily laughed at the framers of that Oath, and therefore scarce ex∣pected

to be told, that a Puritan was a Protestant frighted out of his wits, for propounding that the Article might be as fully worded as the Oath; yet it seems he had the hap to be laughed at for his honest well-meant motion; so the Relator ac∣quaints us, p. 37.

P. 38. The Dr. moved that this proposition, The intention of the Minister is not of the essence of the Sacrament, might be added unto the Book of Articles, the rather, because some in England had preached it to be essential. Had it been told him that if he would name those men who so Preached, they should be suspended, till they had recalled so false and uncomfortable an opinion, or that there was enough in the Articles to infer that the intention of the Minister is not essential to the Sa∣crament, it had been sufficient; but to say that His Majesty utterly disliked this motion for two reasons, and to name but one of the two, and to stuff up that with a story concerning Mr. Craig, was to put the world under a temptation to think too meanly of their King. It is unfit to thrust every position negative into the Book of Articles, for that would swell the Book into a volume as big as the Bible, and also confound the Reader; therefore I may not insert this short position, the Ministers intention is not of the essence of the Sacrament, into the English Articles. This is made to be the Kings argument; to which, whether Dr. Reynolds could reply nothing, others may judge.

Here we might also speak of the Nine Articles of Lambeth, put into the Irish Confession, not long after this Conference, but never put into

ours, though it seems the Doctor moved twice they might be put in. For my part I am not sorry they are left out; for some honest men may question the truth of them, and not be able in faith to subscribe them, and so the Church lose the benefit of their parts: As for Latitudinarians, they would have subscribed them in a sense of their own devising, though they had thought them false in the sense of the framers and imposers of them; or they would have said, that by subscrib∣ing they did not declare the assent of their minds to the truth of the Articles, but only their pur∣pose not to publish their dissent to them, so as to make a disturbance in the Church about them. A Jesuit Papist, and a Latitudinarian Protestant will stick at no subscription whatsoever.

As for the Dean of Paul, his discourse to vin∣dicate himself, I am not concerned to contradict him in it; but I think he contradicts himself, if Dr. Barlow doth him no wrong, p. 41, 42.

The motion made by the Dr. and related p. 43. concerning a Catechism, produced a very consider∣able addition to the old Catechism, which was all he aimed at in it; also he succeeded in his motion, that a straiter course might be taken for reforma∣tion of the general abuse and prophanation of the Sabbath day; for that, the Relator saith, found a general and unanimous assent. So that the Bishops then did not think it Judaism to call the Lords day Sabbath, nor to provide for its sanctification.

Nor did he miscarry in his motion for a new Translation of the Bible; for not long after the Conference, a new one was published, which hath

been generally used ever since, to Gods glory, and the Churches edification.

As for his Majesties profession that he could never yet see a Bible well translated into English, and that the Geneva Translation was the worst of all; I be∣lieve his Majesty repented of it, or else he had not given leave to Dr. Morton to defend the two places in the Geneva Notes, that he took particular ex∣ception to.

Dr. Reynolds for conclusion of what concerned doctrine, moved, That unlawful and seditious books might be suppressed, at least restrained and imparted to a few. This a man might think would have been entertained with a general assent and consent, but contrariwise, the Bishop of London supposing him∣self to be principally aimed at, answereth to what he was never accused of, and saith, but without any proof, That the Book, De Jure Magistratus in subditos, was published by a great disciplinarian, but named him not; and the King is said to tell the Doctor, that he was a better Colledg-man than Statesman; and by this means no course was taken to prevent such Commentaries both in Philo∣sophy and Divinity as came into England from be∣yond the Seas to the corrupting and poisoning of young students in the University.

The motion about Pastors resident and learned, pag. 51, 52, 53, is handsomly avoided by the King, with an answer, that he had consulted with his Bishops about that, whom he found ready and willing to second him in it, &c. yet all that Kings days, and ever since, the Nation hath groaned under the burden of an unlearned and non-resi∣dent

Ministry; if the Law of the Land admit of very mean and tolerable sufficiency in any Clerks, why have not the Bishops petitioned that the Law be altered so as to require greater sufficiency? And if the Lay-Patrons are to blame, who present very mean men to their Cures; are Ecclesiastical-Pa∣trons to be excused, who present Clerks every way as mean?

Now come the Bishop of Londons motions to be considered, in number Three:

1. That there might be amongst us a praying Ministry; he meant a Ministry that might read the Common-Prayer-Book, to which very little learning indeed would suffice; but I suppose there was then no want of such a Ministry, nor is there now; so that the motion might have been spared.

The Second motion was, that till a sufficient and learned Minister might be placed in every Congregation, godly Homilies might be read, and the number of them encreased. This motion sure was not liked, for unto this day neither is a learned Minister setled in every Congregation, nor the number of Homilies encreased.

His last motion was, that Pulpits might not be made Pasquils, wherein every humorous fellow or discontented, might traduce his superiors.

This the King graciously accepted, and so did the complaining Ministers, as I suppose; for that the Pulpit should be made a Stage is certainly a very lewd custom, but obtains too too much among I know whom.

Proceed we with Dr. Reynolds to Subscription,

as to which, we find him only desiring, that Mi∣nisters might be put upon it, to subscribe accord∣ing to the Statutes of the Realm, viz. to the Ar∣ticles of Religion, and the Kings supremacy; to subscribe otherwise they could not, because among other things, the Common Prayer-Book enjoined the Reading of some Chapters, in which were ma∣nifest errors directly repugnant to Scriptures, in∣stancing particularly in Ecclesiasticus 48.10. where the words inferr, That Elias in person was to come before Christ; and if so, Christ is not yet come.

Now let us take notice of what is answered:

1. Bishop Bancroft answers,

That the most of the objections against the Books of Apocrypha, were the old cavils of the Jews, renewed by St. Jerome in his time, who was the first that gave them the name of Apocrypha; which opi∣nion, upon Ruffinus his challenge, he, after a sort, disclaimed; the rather, because a general offence was taken at his speeches in that kind.

This, I must needs say, was a politick answer: for first we are told, that not all the objections, but some of the objections against these books, are the old cavils of the Jews renewed by St. Jerome. 2. We are told, that St. Jerome was the first that called these Books Apocryphal; which opinion af∣ter a sort he reclaimed upon Ruffinus his chal∣lenge.

What can any man reply to such an answer? should one bring an objection against these books, that the Jews never would have brought, he would have been told, That not all objections a∣gainst them, but only some, are Jewish cavils:

Should one say that Jerome disclaimed not his opinion concerning books Apocryphal, he would be told, That he did not indeed disclaim his opinion absolutely; but yet after a sort he did; and how far 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or after a sort, may reach, no one can tell: Nor have we the least reference to a∣ny place of Jerome's Works in which this dis∣claiming of his opinion is recorded (whether St. Jerome disclaimed his opinion, he who hath not St. Jerome's Works by him, may find discussed in Dr. Cosens his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture): I say, it cannot be imagi∣ned why the Jews should less esteem the Apocry∣phal books than they deserved; they retain the Canonical books of the Old Testament, which make more against them than the Apocrypha. Nor is St. Jerome the first who called the Apo∣cryphal books by the name of Apocrypha; others before him had given them that name, or one e∣quivalent, as I can make appear. Indeed the Anci∣ents of the Church have so blasted some especially of the Apocryphal Writings, that I cannot but wonder how they came to be read in our Chur∣ches. The History of Susanna was accounted a Fable even by Julius Africanus, contemporary to Origen; and yet our newest Calendar appoint∣eth it to be read, as also the story of Bell and Dragon. There is a common saying in mens mouths, that these books are Canonical, not for the confirming of our faith, but the regulating of our manners; but he who shall make all Apocry∣phal books a rule for his manners, may chance to set more on his Doomsday-book than he will

quickly get off again. As for him who shall make them a rule of Faith, he will undoubtedly be∣come a Heretick.

Dr. Reynolds his instance the Bishops would not meddle with; but the King, who was not in conference to be contradicted, p. 62. is made 1. To argue and demonstrate, That whatsoever Ben Sirach had said, Ecclus. 48.10. of Elias, E∣lias had in his own person while he lived, perform∣ed, and accomplished. 2. To check Dr. Reynolds for imposing on a man that was dead, a sense never meant by him. 3. To use a pleasant apostrophe to the Lords, VVhat trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus? By my soul I think he was a Bishop, or else they would never use him so. 4. Yet after all, to will Dr. Reynolds to note those chapters in the Apocrypha-books that were of∣fensive, and bring them to the Lord Archbishop on VVednesday following.

Had the Relator consulted the Kings honour, he had not inserted one of his Jeers managed with an Oath, into a Conference concerning Religion; nor would he, had he regarded his own reputati∣on, have called a sarcasm, in which was an oath, an unnecessary oath, a pleasant apostrophe. To the place it self, I say the Greek copies, (Ecclus. 48.10.) much differ among themselves, and as much from the Latin Translation; our English Transla∣tions also greatly vary; but I could never yet meet with any Copy or Translation from which at least an unwary Reader or hearer would not ••ollect that Elias was to come before the day of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lord, either first or second. Junius saith the

place argueth the ignorance of the author, blind in the promises concerning the Kingdom of Christ. Grotius acknowledgeth little less. The Syriack and Arabick Translatour carry it clearly for Elias his being to come before the day of the Lord, to turn the hearts of the children to the Parents, as may be seen in the Polyglotts. So that if the Doctor was mistaken about the meaning of Ecclesiasticus, his mistake was common to him with many more of great esteem, and deserved not to be put off either with a check or a flout. Whether D. R. ever brought in a list of the offensive chapters in the Apocryphal books, I cannot tell; but I can find, that since King James his time, the people have had in Parochial Churches less Apocrypha, and more Canonical Scripture; perhaps at last the divinely inspired Writings that have in and on them so many express signatures of Holiness and Majesty, shall prevail to have the sole honour of being read in the Churches for Christians in∣struction.

As to the next scruple about subscription, grounded on, Jesus said to his disciples, when he spake to the Pharisees; it seems the King took order to have the Translation reformed.

Now must Dr. Reynolds for a season give way to Mr. Knewstubbe a Cantabrigian, and a very emi∣nent Divine, though not much known by any wri∣tings he left behind him. He is said by Dr. Barlow to have objected against the Interrogatories in Baptism propounded to Infants; but what it was he said against propounding those Interrogatories to the Infants, we are not told; but rather made

believe his discourse was so perplext, that the King professed he understood it not. The Bishop of VVinton aiming at his meaning, shewed the use of such Interrogatories out of St. Austin, adding his reason, Qui peccavit in altero, credat in altero. Glad am I to find that one English Bishop, without contradiction from any other joined with him, did allow St. Austin's saying that an Infant may peccare in altero; I hope if any now laugh at the notion of our sinning in Adam, they will acknow∣ledg themselves to have embraced an opinion quite different from the opinion of those to whom they succeed. In the mean time I shall be glad to hear it proved, that a child can credere in altero; for I rather opine, that a Parents Faith is so far accept∣ed by God, as to entitle his child to Baptism, than that the child of a believer doth believe in his be∣lieving father: for if he believe in him, he must be saved in him, if he dye in his Infant-state; and I would give all I am worth to hear it proved, that all the Infants of godly Parents dying in their In∣fancy, are saved. But of this no more. Our new Liturgy hath almost taken away the ground of the dispute concerning these Interrogatories; for it ordereth that the first Interrogatory should be thus propounded: Dost thou in the name of this child, &c. which words I have not observed in the old Liturgy. But yet I would fain know why we may not as well ask the Father, Wilt thou that this child be baptized in this faith?

Pass we from the Interrogatories, to the cross in Baptism, which Mr. Knewstubbe took excepti∣ons to, in number two: First, the offence of weak

brethren, grounded on the words of St. Paul, Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. viz. the consciences of the weak are not to be offended. These places being the chief seat of the doctrine of scandal, deserve a most serious consideration; for certainly we should take heed not to destroy those for whom Christ died.

And this care is principally to be taken by the Church in making Canons; if she only command things which Christ hath commanded, who is he that can blame her, or think she exceeds the bounds and limits of the power given her? but if she command that which she confesseth she need not command, and which she cannot but know many account unlawful; and if she command such a thing under the highest penalty; then hath she reason to consider whether such precepts will be pleasing to her Lord? It will signifie little to ask how long people will be weak? for no doubt they will be weak while the world stands. As little will it signifie to say, Subscriptions are not required of Laicks and Ideots, but Preachers and Ministers; for it is notorious that Subscriptions are required of Fresh-men at their matriculation in the University, when to be sure they are Laicks, and not acquaint∣ed with Controversies in Religion. As for Mini∣sters, they should not be weak in faith, but they must consider that they have under them such as are weak; and not suddenly engage never to admi∣nister necessary Ordinances unto them, unless they will receive them with disputable Ceremonies. If a single Minister were left to his own choice either to cross the child he baptizeth, or not to cross it, ought he not to say, If by crossing I shall scanda∣lize

my brother, I will not cross a child while the world stands. It will be said, that a single Minister is not left at his liberty. True; but the Church was at liberty to make or not to make a Law about cros∣sing. Had she made no Law to cross children that are baptized, then I suppose no Minister would have crossed any child; and what damage the child would have sustained by not being crossed, it is past my skill to imagine; by making a Law that all children that shall be baptized publickly, shall be also crossed, many learned Ministers are put out of Livings, many are made to lay aside the thoughts of being Ministers, and divert to Law or Physick, a bone of contention is cast among the common people, &c. What ought the Church to do in this case?

Mr. Knewstubbe's second Argument is said to have consisted of three interrogatories:

I would ask one question that was not then by him asked, viz. Whether it will be as profitable for the Child to be signed with any other sign, as with the sign of that Cross upon which our Saviour did suffer death? If it will not (as no doubt, most will say it will not) then we must be first inform∣ed what figure our Saviours Cross was of, lest in going about to make the sign of it, we should make the sign of somewhat else. And how shall we know what figure our Saviours Cross was of? The New-Testament will afford us little light in this matter; for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though affirm∣ed by a great Critick, first to signifie the same with Furca, then with Crux, yet is known by those who have observed its use in Hemer and other Authors,

to have no other original signification than of a Stake. If we betake our selves to the Fathers, they speak strangely and variously concerning the figure of the Cross: Origen and Jerome say, that the Samaritan letter Tau represents the figure of a Cross, than which saith Scaliger nothing is more false; nothing more true, saith Dr. Walton in his Prolegomena; yet the character of the Samaritan Tau, now in use, hath no resemblance with a Cross, what character it may have in old medals and mo∣neys, sober men will not much regard. Justin Martyr, dealing with Trypho the Jew, will find figures and types of the Cross in the Old Testament, where the Spirit never intended any. Yea, in his second Apology for Christians, he bids the Hea∣thens consider, whether without this figure, men could administer any thing, or have any converse with one another. The Unicorns horn, as he de∣scribes it, doth indeed fairly represent such a kind of Cross, as it is most probable our Saviour suffered on, for that seemeth to have been made of a piece of wood fixed in the earth, with a transverse beam fastned unto it towards the top, and another piece of wood infixed into, and standing out from that which was erected and straight up; but that Mo∣ses thought of any such thing when he blessed Jo∣seph, Deut. 33.17. or that the Psalmist aimed at any such thing, Psal. 22.21. is so improbable, that it is well we have other types and prophecies of the Old Testament, to produce against the Jews, to whom a crucified Christ is a stumbling block. But now, which of our Deacons or Priests doth, in crossing a Child, represent the five extremities

of the Roman Cross? The aforesaid Justin Martyr in his Apology suggests, that Philo having read the story in Moses concerning the Brazen Serpent, and not understanding that it was the sign of a Cross which he made, but rather a decussation, said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Yet I believe it were no hard matter to find some Christian Writers that make the Roman X to be the Cross, and that is crux decussata, or an Andrews Cross, as I think we were taught to call it when we learnt Arithmetick. To be brief, I think that if Christ had intended his Picture should have been set up in Churches, he would have left us some sure way to know his visage. 2. If he had designed the Cross on which he suf∣fered, any honour, he would have taken care that it should be preserved. 3. If he had ordained to teach his Church by the sign of the Cross, he would have left us at no uncertainty how to make it. As for the visage of our Saviour, that that is unknown, I would fain think that no man now doubts. For though it be reported by Damascen and Evagrius, that our Saviour sent his Picture un∣to Abgarus Prince of Edessa; yet it is by them reported on the credit of they tell us they know not whom, and neither of them describe what a kind of man he was: Besides Eusebius who wrote the story of matters supposed to pass betwixt Christ and Abgarus out of the Records of Edessa, hath not one word of this Picture. Of another image of our Saviour made by Nicodemus, mention is made in a piece attributed to Athanasius, but false∣ly, as the more ingenuous Papists acknowledg. Ni∣cephorus

Calistus also, Lib. 10. cap. ult. hath given us a very particular account of Christs face and body, as to figure and form. James Nailor, as I have been told, when brought to give an ac∣count of his blasphemy in making himself Christ, had, as near as he could, made himself to look like such a man as Nicephorus hath described; but as I suppose that no man in his wits took that blas∣phemer to be Christ, so no man that hath much wisdom will believe, that Nicephorus, at above a Thousand years distance, is to be much credited concerning our Saviours feature and complexion, especially, till he have named the authors whom he follows. The Cross of Christ, we are told, was found by Helena the Mother of Constantine the Great, Three hundred years after his sufferings: but the Story appeareth to have little probability in it. We must suppose that there were in that place just Three Crosses and no more, and that by a miracle those Three Crosses were preserved from putrefaction; now if any man can think that our Saviours Cross was so miraculously preserved, yet to what end should the two Thieves Crosses be pre∣served, unless it were to trouble and perplex those, who should be so simple as to look after that which was nowhere to be found? But how did the seekers after this Cross, distinguish it from the Crosses of the two Thieves? were the Crosses only found, and not the Titles signifying what the crime was for which they were crucified? St. Ambrose saith the title was found; yet Queen Helen not trusting to that, by the counsel of the Bishop of Jerusa∣lem expects a miracle, applies the Crosses of the

two Thieves to a dead man taken out of the Bier, but they put no life into him, which the Cross of Christ, as soon as it touched him, presently did; others say, that the Cross at that time did not restore a dead man to life, but only recovered a Jerusalem woman that lay sick of a very desperate disease: and Sozomen, as I take it, reports it to have wrought both these miracles at one time. O! how little sound knowledg was then in the world, when Christians of prime note took such pains to find out that which no way cooperated to our re∣demption, but was only a passive instrument of our Saviours sufferings materially considered? Is that Cross of wood, if it could now be found, a meet object of religious, or so much as civil honour? What use could it be of, unless there should appear something in the make of it, that would serve to illustrate some form of speech in sacred or pro∣phane Authors? As for stirring up of sorrow, the Word and Sacraments are much more apt to do that than any sight of the Cross on which our Saviour did hang. But great miracles have been wrought by the Cross, and fragments or pieces of it, yea, by the sign of it. I must not deny but that many things very wonderful are reported to be done by the Cross. But perhaps sometimes these wonders were wrought by the Devil, to deceive inordinate worshippers of such images, God permitting, and the infidelity of men necessarily requiring it, that I may make use of Biels words. 2. If God at any time did do a miracle, the Cross it self being ap∣plied, or the sign of it made, it must be the Faith and Prayer of the person using the Cross, that God

respected in putting forth his power, and not the Cross. 3. I do much doubt that the one half of those things which are reported to be done by the Cross, were never done at all. The highest story that ever I read concerning the effects of the Cross, and which is made use of by almost every Popish Writer in this matter, is the delivering of Julian the Apostate from the spirits with which he was frighted, upon the making the sign of the Cross, though he had before renounced it. Such a thing I find indeed in Nazianzen's first invective against Julian. But the Father reports it only on hearsay, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but I would fain know how the report was first raised, none pretended (that we find) to have had it either from Julian himself, or from the Conjurer that was with him; yet if men had it not from them, they must needs feign it themselves. The same Father had before told us, that when Julian was sacrificing, the intrails of the Beast shewed him a crowned Cross; but he prefaceth that Story thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, clo∣seth it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. by which it may appear, that this Father did not stick to put into his writings, such stories as he would not averr to be true, when he conceived they might serve his turn. Had all that have re∣ported as strange matters concerning the Cross, been so ingenuous, as to let us know that they went but upon common fame, Staurolatry had not pro∣ceeded to such an height as it hath now attained in the Romish Church. But let us now consider Mr. Knewstubbes questions:

1. Whether the Church had power to institute an external significant sign?

For answer, it might have been expected that the Churches charter to institute such significant signs should have been produced and read to the Questionist; but instead of doing so, it was repli∣ed to him:

1. That he did mistake the use of the cross with us, which was not used in Baptism any otherwise than only as a ceremony. Which was a pretty re∣ply indeed, and implieth that a ceremony cannot be an external significant sign, or else was a most insignificant answer.

2. That they themselves made imposition of hands in their ordination of Pastors, to be a sign significant. Which Reply supposeth, 1. That they ordained Pastors (the which I never heard they did.) 2. That there is the same reason of a cere∣mony used, and perhaps commanded by the Apo∣stles, that there is of ceremonies never used nor commanded by them.

3.

The kneeling on the ground, the lifting up our hands, the knocking of our breasts, are cere∣monies significant, and yet are and may lawfully be used, said the Bishop of Winchester.

But he might as well have held his peace; for though these be significant ceremonies, yet they are not of that class of significant ceremonies which Nonconform∣ists scruple; for the scrupled ceremonies are such as have humane institution, ordained signification, mystical signification, appropriation to Gods so∣lemn Worship and Service. And the ceremonies the Bishop instanced in, though lawful, are none of

them commanded by the Church, nor will be (I suppose) in haste.

4.

Dr. Montague Dean of the Chappel, re∣membred the practice of the Jews, who unto the Institution of the Passover prescribed unto them by Moses, had, as the Rabbins witness, added both signs and words, eating sowr herbs, and drinking wine, with these words to both, Take, eat these in remembrance, drink this in remembrance; upon which addition and tradition of theirs, our Saviour instituted the Sacrament of the last Sup∣per, in celebrating it with the same words, and after the same manner; thereby approving that fact of theirs in particular, and generally that a Church may institute and retain a significant sign. Which satisfied his Majesty exceeding well.

Here is a foundation laid, and then a superstru∣cture raised on it. The foundation is, that the Jews unto the institution of the Passover prescri∣bed unto them by Moses, had added both signs and words, &c. but is not this foundation laid in the sand, depending on the testimony of later Rab∣bins, whose testimonies are by wise men esteemed lighter than vanity? The apostate Jews were no doubt grown wretchedly superstitious; but I am loth to believe, unless I needs must, that they used all the fopperies their Rabbins mention as in use with them. But be this as it will, I wonder what made the Reverend Dean say, that the eating of sowr herbs was an addition to the Paschal Instituti∣on; sowr herbs were as much commanded as un∣leavened bread. The Jews had indeed of their own heads added to the Paschal provisions a dish of

thick sawce made of Dates, Figs, Raisins and Vi∣negar mingled together (as some Authors say) to put them in mind of the clay in which their fathers laboured.

Allowing them to have used this sauce and wine, and whatever else superstition could dictate to them, how appears it, that upon any addition or tradition of theirs Christ instituted his Sacrament? or that he had not instituted the supper before the Jews made these additions? If we look upon Christ in the days of his abode here on earth, we find him to have shewed no great respect to the tradi∣tions and ceremonies of the Jews that had no Di∣vine institution, as may be made appear by many instances, if it were worth while; so far was he from allowing his Churches to add any thing to his own institutions that nature did not call for.

We are told by the Relator, p. 68. That here the King desired to be acquainted how ancient the use of the Cross was. Dr. Reynolds confessed it to have been ever since the Apostles times (mark, he did not confess it to have been used in the Apo∣stles times, nor did the Bishops or any of their ad∣herents say it was used by them) but the difficulty was, whether it were of that ancient use in Bap∣tism? To remove this difficulty, the Dean of West∣minster produceth Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, saying it was in use in immortali lavacro. The Bp. of Winchester added, it was in use in Constantines time, pag. 69. whereupon the King concluded, If then it were used, I see no reason, but it may still be retained.

As for the antiquity of signing with the sign of

the Cross in Baptism, the Nonconformists may re∣ply, That it was as ancient to use the sign of the Cross when people went abroad, or entred into the Church, or prayed, as when a child was baptized. If we may leave off the frequent use of crossing upon other occasions, without any dishonour to the Fathers, why may we not also leave off cros∣sing in Baptism? Anointing also was used in Bap∣tism by the Fathers; yet it is accounted a piece of our Reformation not to use anointing; what di∣sparagement to the Reformation would it be to leave off crossing also? Besides, there was an use among the Fathers of the sign of the cross, which holds not for our times; and sundry effects they expected from it, which we cannot, dare not ex∣pect from it, because we cannot find in Gods word a promise that any such effect shall follow upon the crossing our selves. All along Queen Elizabeths reign it was customary for the Queen to apply the sign of the cross to the tumour of the Strumosi; King James discontinued that ceremony; and yet we do not find that he had less success in the curing of the strumous disease, than the Queen. So that the strange and wonderful things pretended to be wrought by the sign of the Cross in the days of our ancient Doctors, were either not wrought at all, or if they were wrought, the sign of the Cross nothing contributed to the working of them. Fi∣nally, I marvel why the Dean of Westminster, to prove the antiquity of the Cross in Baptism, did rise no higher than Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen; they are not the ancientest Fathers that speak of Baptism; the two first erred in the very point of

Baptism; the last (if his Translators have not abused him) was scarce sound in any thing.

But the Cross was used in Constantine's times, and why may it not now be used? shall we accuse Constantine of Popery and Superstition? Thus is the King said to have argued in the Conference; and by his argument he gave us to understand, that he liked not that any one should charge Constantine with Popery or Superstition; I therefore will lay neither to his charge; but yet his purpose not to be baptized till he might be baptized in the same River where Christ was baptized, viz. Jordan, if it did not proceed from superstition, proceeded from a very odd humour. God crossed him in that his design, and put him under a necessity either to receive Baptism in another place than Jordan, or not to receive it at all. (In this I follow Ensebius, for whom should I rather follow than him who so well knew Constantine, and hath transmitted his History to posterity? If any man incline to those who would have Constantine baptized many years before at Rome, I leave him to Scultetus in his Me∣dulla, who defends Eusebius against Baronius.)

Mr. Knewstubb's second question was, suppo∣sing the Church had power to add significant ce∣remonies, whether she might there add them where Christ had already ordained one? Which he supposed was no less derogatory to Christs In∣stitution, than if any Potentate of the Land should presume to add his Seal to the Great Seal of Eng∣land.

To this Dr. Barlow saith, p. 70. the King an∣swered, That the case was not alike; for that no sign or thing was added to the Sacrament which was fully and perfectly finished, before any menti∣on of the Cross is made.

I dare not think this was King James his an∣swer: for it is only fitted and suted to our own Church as then it was ordered, and still conti∣nues. In the first Book of King Edward, crossing was appointed before Baptism could be pretended to be perfected, or indeed begun; which was al∣so the usage of the ancient Churches. 2. I con∣ceive the presumption of any subject would be great, if he should add his own seal to confirm or signifie any thing that the King's Great Seal was appointed to confirm and signifie, though the Great Seal had been set before he set his Seal. 3. Methinks the argument stands still in its full force; If applying of water to a believer in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost do signifie all that the Cross signifies, to what end is the Cross used? The child that is baptized with us, is obliged by Baptism obediently to keep Gods holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of his life; what can the Cross oblige him to more? Is not confessing the saith of Christ crucified, one of Gods commandments? I know a learned man hath replied, that constancy is not distinctly signified in being baptized, as it is in being crossed. But I ask, Is it any benefit to a man to have some ceremony used that doth more distinctly mind him of his constancy than Baptism did? If it be none, then such a ceremony is need∣less;

if it be some benefit, how came it to pass that no Apostle ever used any such ceremony? and why do we not excogitate other ceremonies to admonish us as distinctly of other duties?

Mr. Knewstubbes third question was, In case the Church had power to institute such a sign, how far such an Ordinance was to bind them with∣out impeaching their Christian liberty?

The King charged him never more to speak to that point. And therefore I will not speak to it at all, but must needs say it was an odd question if it were so propounded as the Relator hath word∣ed it.

Dr. Reynolds is again brought on the stage, p. 71. objecting the example of the Brazen Serpent stampt to powder, because the people abused it to Idolatry; wishing the Cross, because superstiti∣ously abused, might be abandoned also.

To this the King is made to say, 1. If it were abused to Superstition in the time of Popery, that plainly implies, that it was well used before Po∣pery. As if nothing had been abused by the Pa∣pists in Divine Worship, but what had been once well used. 2. That there is no resemblance be∣tween the Brazen Serpent, a material visible thing, and the sign of the Cross made in the air. As if a thing made in the air, might not be abused to su∣perstition as well as a material visible thing. 3. That the Papists themselves did never ascribe

any power or spiritual grace to the sign of the Cross in Baptism. Whether they did or no, their Writings will best testifie. 4. The material Cros∣ses, which in time of Popery were made for men to fall down before them, to worship, are remo∣ved, as they desired. Whereas most present at the Conference knew that in many places they were not removed.

The next thing objected, was the wearing of a Surplice, a kind of Garment which the Priests of Isis used to wear.

To which His Majesty answered inter alia, That if Heathens were commorant among us, so as they might take occasion to be strengthned or confirmed in Paganism, then there were just cause to suppress the wearing of it. A notable answer, and which the Nonconformists may do well to treasure up, as like to stand them in good stead in these controversies.

With my body I thee worship, is an old and odd phrase; and if it may not be altered, it must be explained, and then Mumpsimus may do as well as Sumpsimus.

The Ring in Marriage Dr. Reynolds approved, and the corner'd cap. Committing of Ecclesia∣stical censures unto Lay-chancellors, the King promised to take order to reform, p. 78. And Archbishop Grindal's prophesyings it is like e∣nough His Majesty would not have disliked, if he had not misunderstood the design of them.

And now I would fain know whether what the Bishops got by this Conference, may not be put in a mans eye, and he never see the worse. Dr. Reynolds got a great deal by it, viz. a new Tran∣slation of the Bible, such an explication of the use of the Cross, as (if the story be true) he did acquiesce in; a large addition concerning the Sa∣craments in the Church-catechism, &c. so that Dr. Heylin in his History of Presbyterians, quarrels with King James for giving any way to the Con∣ference.

There is but one thing more I will concern my self to take notice of in Mr. Scrivener's A∣ction against the New Schism; he desires to have one place in which Presbyter signifies a Lay-man. Though I think I could satisfie his desire in this, yet I find not my self on any account obliged so to do; for the English Nonconformists are not o∣ver-fond of Ruling-Elders; those Churches that retain such Officers, will not acknowledg them to be lay-men; nor indeed have they any reason to ac∣knowledg them to be such. For why should Church-officers chosen by the Church, and commended to the grace of God by prayer, be called laicks? because they labour at some employment to keep themselves from being chargeable to the congregation? why then the Apostle Paul was for some part of his time a Laick, for he laboured. And in la∣ter times I could instance in men that for their Learning and Piety deserved to be Metropoli∣tans, who yet were fain to preach and work.

It were to be wished, that many in England to whom the care of souls is committed, were per∣mitted

and enjoyned to follow some calling in the week-days, for by that means they would be less scandalous than now they are. Why should men that know not what it is to study, be forbidden to dig?

Are they Laicks, because they do not preach? Many we have in England who would think scorn to be termed Laicks, that never did preach, never had licence to preach.

Are they Laicks because they are not ordained by laying on of hands? It will be hard to prove that that ceremony is essential to make a man a Church-officer.

But yet Mr. Scrivener hath good leave to fall upon these Ruling-Elders, to bring them into any Court by a Quo VVarranto; and if he do chance to cast them, there be but few Nonconformists that will be at cost to bring the business to a new Trial. These Elders in some places are made the more pert, because of the multiplicity and variety of answers that the Prelatical give to those places of Scripture on which their divine institution is pretended to be built. It would tire an ordinary patience to reckon up the various ex∣positions that are given of 1 Tim. 5.17 Scultetus censures the answers given by Bilson, another con∣demns the answer given by Scultetus; others con∣fute all the answers given by Mr. Mede. Among all that have written against Elders, whether un∣learned or learned, I have not met with any that have satisfied me (yet I can satisfie my self) about this place. For those Churches that argue heartily for these Elders, do argue from the general

word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the two participles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the two articles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the two species or kinds of Elders, from the two participles, two articles, two special Elders divided and separated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the discretive particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let Mr. Scrivener face this argument with some of the old answers, and see what will come on it. And let him take heed how he strikes at these Lay-Elders, as he will call them, lest he wounds those among us known by the name of Lay-chancellors. In the mean time I beseech him to commune with his own heart, and to consider with what spirit he writ his books against Daillee and the English Non∣conformists; by so doing he will be brought, I doubt not, to take shame unto himself, and so prevent the far greater shame of having his rail∣ings and calumnies laid open by others. Quod erat exorandum.