Englands Reformation Needing to be Reformed

To the Worshipful Peter Heylin, Doctor in Divinity.

YOu have lately presented to the World an History of the Reformation of the Church of England. Your historical abilitiesare sufficiently known, and it is presumed you have said as much as can be spoken upon this Subject; for what can the man do that cometh after Docotr Heylin?

It is not the purpose of these lines to vie abilities of learning and language with you. Take to you the deserved praise of a learned Doctor, and police Orator. But the work at present is, to scan over some passages in your History of the Churches Reformation; and in such a season as this ( a Convocation now sitting) to press onward toward perfection. And in the pursuit of this design, please you to take along the judgment of that Reverend Bishop Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, one whom you often mention with deserved honor in your last History. You style him, pag. 123. in the latter part of your History, The right Learned Mr. John Jewel. Pag. 129. Reverend Jewel, that learned Prelate. Pag. 147. The right Reverend Bishop Jewel, pag. 155.

His Book which he wrote in defense of the Apology of the Church of England, against that foul-mouthed Caviller Harding is yet extant in most Churches in this Kingdom, and next unto the Bible their best Ornament.

From this Book, and some Sermons of this reverend Bishop bound up with it, and several passages in your own, something is tendered to your judicious consideration: Whether the reformation of the Church of England be, or were at any time so complete, and in such Primitive luster as you phrase it, in the close of your History, that nothing is more to be done for the perfection and beauty of it. Be assured, learned Sir, the World shall not be abused with false quotations, with wrested interpretations, either out of your Book, or this blessed Bishops; you shall have the page, the words quoted, without the least prevarication.

And first of all, Sir, What a soul blot doth your pen cast upon the Reformation, when you tell the world

They are your own words, in the fourth pag. of your Epistle to the Reader; And the ground of your account is, Because it is not to be thought (had he lived) but that the rest of the Bishoprics (before sufficiently impoverished) must have followed Durham, and the poor Church been left as destitute of Lovers and Ornaments, as when she came into the world in her natural nakedness. This Vein runs throughout your whole Book. You tell us in the history of Edward, pag. 33. that the Grandees of the Court began to entertain some thoughts of a Reformation, on an hope to enrich themselves by the spoil of the Bishoprics,

You tell us pag. 48.

You tell us pag. 95.

You tell us in the fifth year of King Edward, pag. 99.

You tell us in the second year of Queen Elizabeth, page 121.

Thus, Sir, you have muddied the first Springs of the Reformation, by casting into it the abhorred filth of covetousness.

But, Sir, Did your pen and your heart agree together, when you said you could not reckon it for an infelicity that Edward the sixth died so immaturely; or which in plain English is, 'Twas good for the Church he was taken out of the way?

The Preface to the Book of Homilies makes an honorable mention of him. And when our precious Jewel had occasion to speak of him, page 359. Of his defense, these are his words,

Was it not an infelicity to the Church to lose her chiefest stay and pillar? To have the hopes of a glorious Reformation nipped in the very Budd? To have a fearful Deluge of blood and idolatry rush in upon us by the succession of Queen Mary? in whose Reign more precious blood was spilled, then in all the times of her Predecessors.

The persecution under her Reign, and the carriage of the Papists in it, you relate out of Bishop Jewel, page 81. of your History.

You have given a large testimony of King Edwards Learning, before he wes eight years old, page 12.

Of his tenderness to consent to sign the Warrant for the execution of John of Kent, page 89.

Of his great zeal for God, in resisting the tolerarion of Popery only to his sister the Princess Mary, though pressed to it by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London; resolving rather to venture lite and all things else which were dear unto him, then to give way to anything which he knew to be against the truth▪ expressing his inward trouble by a stood of tears, page 103.

Of his Piety and fervent Charity in his last godly Prayer; wherein he calls upon God,

What better qualities and Principles could be desired in a Prince? And what greater felicity in that kind could the Church enjoy, then so gracious and Godly a King?

And do not you Mr. Doctor shake hands with the shameless railer Harding against our glorious Jewel. When you hear him called Rayler, be not displeased. Look on that large Catalogue of hellish slanders, poured out on that blessed man, sum'd up by himself immediately before his decease. This is offered to you the rather, because when you have occasion to mention Harding (a base Apostate, and grand enemy of the Gospel it is with terms of honor and reverence, viz.

in the latter part of your History. But when you speak of those glorious lights of the Reformation, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin; it is barely Calvin, or John Calvin, as all along your History is evident. That Rabshakeh Harding, dipt his Pen in the same gall and speaks your sense, page 31. of the Defense.

And for your • ear of the poor Church being left destitute of Lands and Ornaments, your Right learned Prelate Jewel gives you a corrective in page 567. of his defense, &c.

Had that glorious King lived to perfect the Reformation ( which you would have accounted an infelicity to the Church ) and taken away more of her Patrimony; yet if you will believe the Right Learned Prelate Jewel, he might have revokit in all those grants made by his Predecessors: See his Defense page 639.

The next thing, Mr. Doctor, to be spoken to, is the Reformation itself; whose History you present to us. And in p. 34. p. 1. you write,

And therefore, Mr. Doctor, you might have spared your pains, p. 108. in seeking the names of those good and godly men, by whom it was altered for ( bona fide ) there was no alteration at all, if you will believe your own Book.

But possibly more may be behind: we shall not follow you in your History of the Church in the reign of Queen Mary, when the Reformation by your own confession went down the wind, and the professors and assertors of it persecuted in all parts of the Nation.

We shall therefore pass on with you to the times of Queen Elizabeth, and see what was more done to the repairing and carrying on this work.

of which according as you have set them down there were thirteen, of which one was an Archbishop, and adding but seven to them, it cannot in reason be imagined, that Church reformation should be so far from growing to perfection, that it is more likely to decrease and wither.

Thus, Mr. Doctor, we have travailed over your History, and have picked up and laid together, the several pieces of this goodly building▪ as you call it, that you and others may have the full prospect of it at once, and for the integrity of this action in these quotations, we appeal to the great searcher of hearts.

And now, Sir, would you have the world satisfied in such a Reformation? Can the conscience of a Protestant comfortably repose itself on such a foundation as you have here laid? We gladly embrace the reformation of Doctrine contained in the book of Articles, because we see (blessed be God) they have a clear and full authority from the Holy Scriptures: but▪ Sir, you have dealt very deceitfully with your readers in your History, in jumbling Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship together: as if, because there was a Reformation in Doctrine, and that grounded upon the Word of God, there must also be a Reformation in the rest too (which was little or not at all) and that grounded upon the Word also; this deceit runs through your book: you tell us ever and anon of a Reformation according to the Word of God and the Primitive practice: but in all your book there are but three instances of the conformity of the Reformation to the rule of the Sacred Scriptures, and they are only in point of Doctrine, and not in Discipline or Worship.

no Protestant, not John Calvin your great eyesore, will deny you this.

The second instance is p. 66. where you mention the Popish exceptions against the Act confirming the Common Prayer not to be upon any other account, but because it was in the vulgar tongue, and then you run out into a large discourse to prove that prayer ought to be made in a tongue understood of the common people; the like you do p. 157. part 2. Calvin and Cartwright that firebrand, as you call him, will conform Mr. Doctor to this Reformation.

The third instance is p. 67. where you take notice of an Act for advancing the work of Reformation, which took away all Laws forbidding Ministers marriage, in allowance whereof you spend many lines: in this Mr. Doctor the Calvinian and Zuinglian faction concur with you.

These are all the Presidents of Scripture or Primitive practice you allege in your whole book for the Reformation of the Church, and in matters of this nature so evident and clear out of the word of God; amongst all the Zuinglian Gospellers as you call them, you shall not have one dissenter, or Nonformist.

And because you mention a memorable challenge publishled by Bishop Jewel against the Romish Clergy, who injuriously you say, pag. 129. part. 2. upbraided the Church of England with the imputation of Novelty, and charged it with teaching such opinion, as were not to be found before Luther's time; the Calvinian and Zuinglian faction which you so blot with your learned pen will willingly be his seconds in this challenge.

Nay, Sir, the Zuinglian Gospellers do renew this Challenge against the sacred Hierarchy, (as you call it) in the same terms as you deliver the stout and gallant challenge of that Learned Prelate Jewel, against the Romish Clergy.

If any learned man of our Adversaries be able to bring one sufficient sentence out of the holy Scripture, or any one example of any Bishop, Minister, or Martyr, either in the time of King Edward the sixth, viz. Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, Farrar, Philpot, Bradford, Taylor, or any other, or in the times of Queen Elizabeth out of Reverend Jewel, who do directly and ex professo plead for, and commend the present Liturgy in the frame of it, or that Episcopacy is Jure divino, or for Adoration toward the Altar, Bowing at the name of Jesus, signing with the sign of the Cross, wearing of Caps, and Surplices, kneeling at the Sacrament, or for the exercise of Church power by lay-Chancellors; if you, Reverend Sir, or any other be able to produce any such authority or example, contending as you do professedly for these things, the Zuinglian Gospellers will be then content to yield and subscribe. These are the things M. Doctor, which administer trouble to the Church of God at this day. Satisfie but our consciences, that these things, ought to be continued in the Church, & we have done: We beseech you read this passage of Reverend Jewel in a Sermon preached by him in St. Mary's in Oxford, it is in the beginning of the Book, called his Defense of the Apology, pag. 6.

If you have been so well acquainted with his writings as you pretend to in your history, you would not have presented the Churches reformation to be so glorious and splendid as you have done, and would have pitched it on a better bottom, then the authority of two acts of Parliaments, the members whereof you have rendered in your history to be too much swayed in their votings and actings by worldly Popish and politick respects.

We do highly reverence the memory of our first Reformers, but is it meet to Idolize them? why should not the Parliaments of succeeding times do the work of the Lord's house according to the light and temper of their generation, as well as they did in theirs? and why should not the present Bishops, who (according to the character of his most Excellent Majesty our Gracious Sovereign) are known to be men of great sufficiency for Learning, prompt them and put them on such a work? Is it not a dishonor to the Church of England, after so many years standing to be fed with the dish and spoon, and suck-bottle, provided for her infancy?

And must it be still with us in matters Ecclesiastical, as Spain would have it to be in Civils, to be wards to the Church of Rome, that we may not espouse a thorough-Reformation, for fear of the Popes curse, and the Spaniards rage?

For this (Mr. Doctor all along your history) was the compass our first Pilots steered by, pag. 58. part. 1. and in pag. 103. part. 2.

Do you not tell us, pag. 12, 13.

And shall our ripe witted times, and more exact methods every way, bow down to their dull forms and patterns? Our heavenly Master (the only Arch-bishop of our souls) had entrusted them with two talents, and they (take it so) traded faithfully, and gained other two talents: and shall not we, who have five talents committed to us, labor to be faithful in a like proportion?

We have justly separated from the Church of Rome, and have departed from her, because she hath departed from the Word of God: what she had remaining according to the Scriptures in doctrine or worship, the Protestant Churches have retained, and embraced, not because it was reserved by her, but because they saw it founded on the Word of God. And (Mr. Doctor) England hath been numbered among the Protestant Churches, and your title page tells of a history of the Reformation of the Church of England: a Reformation of what, but of the Idolatries, Errors, Heresies, Superstitions, and Corruptions (it should be so) which the pride, avarice, ambition of many of the blind Ring-leaders in the Romish Clergy had brought into it? There are yet such things remaining in the worship and appendents to it in the Church of England (for with the doctrine we meddle not, the blood of the Martyrs shed in the defense of it alone by the Word of God, hath washed away the Romish filth cast into it) which are visibly seen, and practiced in the Romish Churches. We have before named them, but that you may know where our shoe wrings us, and what are our just scruples; We tell you again, that the English Liturgy is tantum non the Romish Mass. Do not you tell us, pag. 76. that King Edward tells his Popish Rebells,

We say also, The Ius divinum of Episcopacy, i. e. Prelacy, Bowing toward the Altar, Bowing at the name of Jesus, signing with the sign of the Cross, holy Vestments, Kneeling at the Sacrament, these are found most evidently in the tents of Popery.

How come they then to be found in the Protestant Church of England? Hath she received them from Scripture? Where is anything there that gives the least shadow? Shew us, good Dr. And therefore these are some dregs of that disease, and some relics of those abominations which England was overwhelmed with in the times of Papacy; which through a strong Zeal to these in some, State-policy in others, and a fear of giving offense to the Romish party at home and abroad in others of our State and Church Physicians, have not to this day been purged out, but suffered to remain.

But you will say, it may be, Mr. Doctor, that the Apostles rule, Let all things be done decently and in order, will warrant all these things (tending to decency and good order.)

This is a rule of Natures teaching, for the Apostle tells the Corinthians to whom he spake, 1 Cor. 11. 13, 14. Jugde in yourselves, Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? doth not nature itself teach you, that if a man have long Hair, it is a shame unto him? And in chap. 14. of the same Epistle, where these words are, ver. 40. he taxeth some for over-priding themselves in their gifts, not aiming at the Edification of the Church, ver. 5. and saith he, ver. 23. If the whole Church be come together in some place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in some that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will not they say, that ye are mad? And in ver. 29, 30. That the Prophets should speak but one at a time, and the rest should hold their peace, while any one speaketh. And in ver. 34, 35. he gives order, That women should not speak in the Church, and saith, It is a shame (that is, it is not decent, as the speaking of many at once, was not orderly) for women to speak in the Church. And then he concludes with a general rule founded in nature, Let all things be done decently and in order, ver. 40. What is here (Mr. Doctor) to warrant any such things as are before mentioned, which neither nature nor reason direct to, but are taken up by the will and pleasure of men, and receive their legitimacy, not by any connaturalness to the worship of God, but by forinsecall Canons and Constitutions? Let us put the case thus, Mr. Doctor.

Suppose you, or some of the Prebends of Westminster should forsake your Cloister, and go down into the Country, to someone of your Parsonages, and coming among an ignorant and unlearned people, should officiate the Liturgy after the Roman order, and so turn the Common-Prayer into the Mass again; Or suppose you should preach to them in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, which they understand not: or suppose, while you are preaching in the Abbey, another of your fellow-Prebends, puffed up with his knowledge and gifts, should at the same time take upon him to stand up and speak together with you; Or that women should usurp authority to speak, or teach, thinking they can speak more to the edification of the people, then you or any of your Brethren: in these cases this rule of the Apostle is to be pressed and observed, Let all things be done decently and in order; for to remedy such unnatural disorders and confusions, the Apostle left it; and your Zuinglian Gospellers are as much as your self for this decency in the church.

But you will reply, Mr. Doctor, These things, though they be indifferent, yet the Church having judged them meet and expedient to be used in the worship of God, it becomes every man to observe them, though they have not any express warrant in the Word; there is nothing in the Word against them, and there is an express command to obey the laws and constitutions of our Superiors, and therefore obedience is due, though not for the things themselves, yet for the Authorities sake enjoining them.

In answer to this weighty objection, we shall propose these Queries,

[ 1] Whether the talent of Authority be faithfully and rightly laid out and improved in making that necessary, which God in his Word hath in silence past by, and so left indifferent? We do not dislike Dr. Pierce his Scala of Obedience mentioned pag. 33. of his Synodica Concio, à Synodo ad Regem à Rege statim ad Deum: that we must proceed in the path of our obedience from the Convocation to the King, from the King immediately to God: we are very well pleased with this order (though the Doctor would have it otherwise, pag. 39.) We know, God hath tied every soul to be subject unto the higher powers, Rom. 13. 1. and God requires the higher powers to be subject unto himself, Deut. 17. 18, 19, 20.

[ 2] Whether by parity of reason, Authority may free us, where God hath bound us, as bind us to observe such things where [ 3] God hath left us free? Whether if Authority judge it meet to bind us to indifferents, such things be to be enjoined, which administer offense to the Reformed Churches abroad, and to many good men at home, and link us in a conformity to that Church, from which in many other things we have separated.

We shall take a little liberty to debate upon this last Query, waving at present the two former. We shall speak first to the first branch.

First therefore, we say, that the things before mentioned, Liturgy, Vestments, &c. have been an offense to the Reformed Churches abroad. You tell us, pag. 79. part. 1.

Would you have it so, Mr. Doctor? The Church and people of God are then little beholding to you: The Churches rule is the Word of God, and the people of God have found far better helps for their instruction by painful and able Preachers (and hope it shall be so still) then the reading of a Homily by a simple non-preaching Curate.

You add concerning Calvin, pag. 80. That he must needs trouble the Protector about the Ceremonies, that he writes to him (you quote his own words in the Margin) to this effect, you say,

Do not you see, Mr. Doctor, that these Ceremonies have ever been the occasion of trouble.

You tell us, pag. 107. part. 1. That Calvin desiring esteem here in England as well as in other places, writes to King Edward (after the Refomation had gone as far forward as ever it went) that many things were still amiss in England, which needed Reformation.

Thus (Sir) by your own confessions, Liturgy and Ceremonies have been an offense and trouble to the Reformed Churches abroad, Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr, and Calvin the glorious lights of these Churches, men of renown in the Church of God, have struggled and born witness against them. The last but not the least of which three worthies (for he is the chiefest of the three) Mr. John Calvin (then whom the Church of God since the time of the Apostles never had a more choice and happy instrument both for learning, piety, wisdom, moderation and diligence) you and most of the sacred Hierarchy, as you style it, do still decry and vilify as Joseph's Brethren did him, because he brings your evil report amongst the Churches, and cries down your Diana (Liturgy and Ceremonies) as not warranted by the Word, and so not to be endured in the Church of God.

Never shall you or any man by all your starcht Oratory, bring Mr. Calvin out of credit in the Churches of God, they have tasted such a soul edifying and strengthening sweetness in his learned and happy labors, that you may as soon persuade the Church of God that the Sun is dark, and Honey bitter, as that Mr. Calvin was not a heavenly spiritual holy man. But this is no new thing (Mr. Doctor) to hit men (desirous to see the Church perfectly reformed) in the teeth with Calvin and Zwingli, as if they were a couple of pestilent fellows, of whom all men that loved themselves or the Church had need to beware. How is your History all along chequered with Calvin, Zwingli, and the Calvinian and Zuinglian faction? as your betters (Mr. Doctor) will honor and have honored these blessed men (for see what a testimony Bishop Jewel gives of Luther and Zwingli in page 360. of his defense, &c. saith he,

so worse men then you (we are sorry to see you tread so much in their steps) have labored to make this the reproach of our chief Reformers, that they have been too much addicted unto Calvin. You may read a passage in Bishop Jewels Preface to his defense or to the Reader, where in the tenth page are these words. Mr. Jewel honoreth that Idol Calvin, more then Jesus Christ, so that you see (Doctor) Bishop Jewel had a very high if not too high an esteem of Calvin, whose assistance in our reformation Cranmer rejected, and whom you have so causelessly asperst.

Not only the reformed Churches abroad, but also many holy and learned men (who suffered Martyrdom in Queen Mary's time) have had a continual grudge against the Ceremonies, professed their dislike of them, and suffered as Non-conformists in the time of King Edward the sixth. And to make this evident, we will use no other proof, but your own history.

And if you please to compare the number of those that were for the Ceremonies, with those that were against them (though preferment and ease, Mr. Doctor, will never want numbers) we shall find (considering the bias of preferment) no great odds, between their numbers, as you have cast up the account for us.

You cannot tell us certainly, who were the compilers of the Liturgy, for page 57. You say, you think they were such as you there name, but p. 126. p. 2. Having occasion to mention Queen Elizabeth's Coronation, and wondering that the Bishop of Eli should refuse to Crown her, having his first preferments from her Father; you say this Bishop assisted in the composing of the public Liturgy, and appeared forward in the Reformation, but afterwards he was one of those which were sent to Rome to tender the submission of this Kingdom to the Pope then living; upon this ground he refused to Crown Queen Elizabeth; this was one whom you call Thomas Goodwick, p. 57. p. 1. Sure you will set him aside, as not fit to be reckoned: and besides him you reckon thirteen more, who (you think) compiled the Liturgy.

p. 78. p. 1. but surely you have cast a fly into this ointment of their great names, which doth very much defile and debase their reputation: when you tell us, p. 103. p. 1.

You bestow no encomiums on any other in all your history of Kings Edwards time, but on these two, who were so stiff in point of Ceremonies: these are your only sticklers for them.

On the other side you say, p. 90. p. 1. John Hooper the designed Bishop of Gloucester (whom you commend for his constant Preaching, and learned writings, and note his humility, that the King bestowed on him the Bishopric of Gloucester without his seeking) applying himself to the Arch-Bishop for his consecration, desires to be forborne in some Ceremonies at his hands, and to be dispensed with for the oath of Canonical obedience to his Metropolitan. Cranmer and Ridley would, you say, by no means yield. And the King being moved by the Earl of Warwick, wrote to the Archbishop (which Letter you mention, p. 91. p. 1.) in favor of Hooper: notwithstanding this gracious Letter, you say, the two Bishops would not obey the King: but Hooper persisting in his obstinacy and willful humor (as you term it) was for his disobedience and contempt committed prisoner.

Here you see a good man, and a designed Bishop, boggle at the Ceremonies, and choosing a prison before conformity; he could not swallow these gnats, though lapped up in so great honor and preferments.

And when Ridley and he came together to the stake in the times of Queen Mary, did Hooper or Ridley then sigh out a recantation: Hooper for his indiscreet obstinacy, or Ridley for his unchristian and unbrotherly rigor? look on what you say (Mr. Doctor) on this occasion, you tell us page 51. in the history of

that Hooper and Ridley being both prisoners ( you see, Mr. Doctor, what dealing both Conformists and Non-conformists receive at the hands of Rome, if we think to charm her with some fond compliances, we are mistaken ) the

Do not you perceive (Sir) how his conscience pricked him for his overhasty violence toward his tender Brother, doth not he shame himself for his folly in pressing so hard upon the conscience of his Brother in such by-matters (which Jewel calls babbles, follies, trifles) commending his wisdom (which you brand with obstinacy and a willful humor) for his generous fortitude in contending against them, even to the loss of his precious liberty.

As stout and resolute a Prelate as he was, yet his courage comes down, he dares not look death in the face, till he had washed away the stain and guilt of that unchristian action by a humble and penitent confession of the folly of it. The wind of persecution, and the apprehensions of death made a strange alteration in his thoughts; the dust and cobwebs of his Prelatical dignity and glory, were now blown over, and he sensibly perceives a good conscience (holding fast the truth and standing steadfast in the liberty of the Gospel) to be a more desirable portion then the Bishopric of London.

Verily (Mr. Doctor) it is a bad cause which doth not answer for itself; when death knocks at the door, the hot contests which you and others sweat in for these by-matters of Ceremonies, are not like you see to contribute anything to your comfort and joy in the evil day.

You are yet warm in your Cloister, lined with manifold favors, your zeal for the Church cannot want its recompense; but sir, it is good to remember your latter end, you know not, but that your conscience may be then awakened, and read over this history you have written, and pinch you for the Errata's of your zeal and charity against your poor Brethren: we are confident, that much of that you have laid into the foundation of the Reformation of the Church of England (though you and others judge it gold, silver, precious stones) will be found wood, hay and stubble, when he appeareth, who is like a refiners fire.

There is one very naughty passage in your book, pag. 38. part 1. utterly unbecoming the mouth of a Christian, much less a Doctor of Divinity, where you are not ashamed to say,

Sir, we are confident that the intention of that Act did not reach to allow so gross a profanation of the Lord's day; and you that are so versed in Acts of Parliament, (for they are the only sphere wherein Liturgy and Ceremonies move) cannot you find an Act of Parliament restraining this abuse? If you cannot (which we know you may) it had been the duty of a Protestant Reformed Doctor of Divinity, to have discovered the evil of such abuses, and to have labored with all your might, that such an Act may pass.

Oh Sir, must Jesus Christ our Lord, have no preeminence above our Lady? and must John the Baptist be lifted up to an equality with him, whose shoe-latchet he confessed he was not worthy to unloose?

What! have Peter, and Paul, and Philip, and Jacob done as much for us as Jesus Christ? and where is the least hint that one hour is to be set apart to their honor?

Must every paltry holy-day be set in equality of reputation with the Lord's day, which Christ sanctified by his resurrection, (the accomplishment of a far greater work then that of Creation) and his Apostles instituted by their constant solemn Assemblies upon it?

You say in page 38. part 1. in the latter times, the Lord's day began to be advanced into the reputation of the Jewish Sabbath; If by latter times, you mean the Apostles times, it is true, for then it began; and when ever it began, why should not Christians be as zealous to advance the Lord's day unto the highest pitch of reputation, that ever the Jewish Sabbath was in (abateing the Ceremonious rigor?) have not Christians greater obligations, greater encouragements to glorify God, and lift up his name, which is Holy, Holy, Holy?

Oh Mr. Doctor, the time past may suffice you for this folly. You need not have now told us, that men may do anything at their pleasure, if they say they have necessity, on the Lord's day, and seek to establish this mischief by a Law. We would be loath to be in your coat in the day of the Lord, for your debasing the Lord's day, for the best preferment the Church of England can give us. We say to you, as Bishop Jewel said to Harding, Arripe severitatem Christianam, & palinodiam cane.

Well Sir, to go on with our reckoning, you have seen one Non-conformist, and Ridley's recantation for his Prelatical rigor, which amounts to another, and so he is to be taken off the file, and you have two less then you had. We shall pass on with more speed in the numbering up the rest. You tell us, page 93. part 1. of one Trins a Deacon, who refused to wear the vestments appointed to be worn: Of one Mr. John Rogers Prebend of Saint Paul's, and Divinity Reader of that Church, who could never be persuaded to wear them: The like averseness (as you call it) you ascribe unto Mr. John Philpot, Archdeacon of Winchester, who suffered in Queen Mary's time. So that here you have Hooper, Ridley (when in his cold blood) Trins, Rogers, and Philpot, all disgusting these Ceremonies. Many more there were, but these you have left upon record with your own pen.

To proceed to the times of Queen Elisabeth, you have heard Jewels testimony in part, who was the glory of her Reign for learning, and you will see it more fully by and by. You tell us, page 120. part 2. that one Whitehead who had been Chaplain to Anne Bollen the Queens mother, was offered the Archbishopric of Canterbury, but you say he refused it, because he was more inclined to the Presbyterians, then the Episcopal form of Government.

And page 123. part 2. you say Coverdall waved the acceptation of the Bishopric of Oxford, or any other then vacant, out of a disaffection to the Habit of that Order.

And page 124. part 2. you say, Alexander Nowell Dean of Saint Paul's, Preaching before Queen Elisabeth, spake irreverently of the sign of the Cross, for which she from her closet window immediately checked him, commanding him to retire from that ungodly digression.

And page 165. part 2. you tell us that Father John Fox the Martyrologist, being called on to subscribe, appeared before the Bishop with the New Testament in Greek, To this, said he, I will subscribe, and if this will not serve, take my Prebend of Salisbury, the only preferment I hold in the Church of England, and much good may it do you.

You tell us of Sampson Dean of Christ-Church, who was deprived, you say, pag. 164. part 2. for refusing to wear the Habit belonging to his place. You tell us also of one Hardiman page 115. part 2. a Prebend of Westminster deprived also, for throwing down the Altar, and defacing the vestments. And in the same page you say, both the Professors of divinity in the two Universites, and Whitington Dean of Durham were Non-conformists.

These instances are your own, and so you have no reason to except against them. We have not wronged you ( as far as we know ) in a syllable, and now, Sir, we leave it to you to judge, Whether the point of conformity to such Ceremonies, (which have been a continual occasion of offense to the Reformed Churches, both at home and abroad) be still to be pressed with accustomed rigor?

A second branch of the third Query was, Whether such Ceremonies which link us in a conformity with that Church, from which in many other things we have justly separated, be to be continued and enjoined? We say, that the Church of England having renounced Communion with the Church of Rome, in all material points of Doctrine, ought in point of Prudence and Conscience, to reject conformity with her in Worship and Discipline; for the same reason which moved us to depart from her doctrinal corruptions, binds us to leave her to herself in the superstitions of her worship and discipline. The reason, why we reject Communion with the Church of Rome, is for that the Popes Supremacy, Infallibility, Transubstantiation, Merit of good works, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Latin Service, Worshipping of Images, half Communion, and such like, which are the Pillars of the Romish Fabric, cannot be proved and made good out of the Word of God. And is not this reason of like force against the Ceremonies of that Church yet in use among us? Is there a scriptum est for one of them, without which authority, the Devil the father of lies, pretends not to be believed and adored.

Though Doctor Pierce in his Synod. concio, p. 44. be pleased to lay the maintenance of the Ministry, Infant Baptism, the Sanctification of the Sabbath, yea the Personalities of the Godhead, in an even level of authority, with the Orders of the Church about Liturgy and Ceremonies, as if the one as well as the other, must depend on his Traditionis fulcimentum, his shore of Tradition, and would all otherwise fall to the ground: Yet we can by no means give way to this Traditional unscriptural assertion; if he will please to produce but one Text of Scripture, as fairly concluding for Service-Book and Ceremonies, as have been and can be produced in great numbers for those four things, we will never put him to the trouble of a hard word more; and we shall be as ambitious to advance the reputation of the Ceremonies, as well as of the Sabbath.

You may possibly say, these Ceremonies are small matters, far from the foundation, and if men had not more of humor and will in them, then reason or conscience, they might down with them well onough.

We might reply, that any action (especially conversant about the worship of God) not undertaken in faith, is sin; and faith hath no ground to stand upon, but Divine Authority.

But we refer you to Bishop Jewel, in the 11. page of a Sermon of his preached upon this Text, Joshua 6. Now Jericho was shut up, &c. which is bound up in the same Book of his defense, in the end of it.

And if you will know what he accounts superstition, he tells you in his Reply unto Hardings Answer, page 310. in the ninth Article of the Canopy,

Therefore Mr. Doctor, I wish you would learn of that ancient worthy Father Chrysostom, as Jewel quotes him, page 280. in his Defense.

But Sir, what if this vestment come not from the Primitive times, but from the usages of the Heathen. Then either Chrysostom and Jerome were mistaken in saying so, or you have abused their names, in fathering an heathenish vanity on them, and the Primitive times.

Pray you, hear the Right Learned Jewel, page 281. of his Defense.

And Sir, to draw to a conclusion in this argument, we say it is unlawful for the Church of England to retain, either in Doctrine, Worship, or Discipline, any Conformity to the Church of Rome.

And because we know this will hardly go down with you, by any reasons we can lay before you: We shall commend it to you under the credit of your Right Learned Prelate Jewel, please you to peruse page 325, 326. of his Defense.

You may read more to this purpose.

There is one particular which we know you will very much distaste, and that is the Divine Right of Episcopacy; which we deny, and you with great confidence assert, page 51. part 1. for there mentioning one Act of Parliament, you say,

We hope Sir, you will not assume so much upon you in the Divinity school, wich is given to Aristotle in the Logic, that your Dixit must suffice us.

We might produce the unanswered Treatise of Mr. William Prinne (a fast friend to Monarchy, and as earnest an Antagonist to your Ius Divinum) in his unbishoping of Timothy and Titus, to batter your strong hold: but that learned and pious Gentleman, being a Lawyer, and also a sufferer under your Ius Divinum is very low in your thoughts; and whatever comes to you in his name bath little credit with you, as being looked upon to be either the fruit of his ignorance, or desired revenge.

And therefore we shall oppose the judgment of a Bishop; an English Bishop, one whom you in your History do very much extol for his great learning, from whom you say all

it is Reverend Jewel: from this Magazine we will take some weapons and Artillery to assault and batter your strong hold.

Sir, you are no stranger to the distinction of Episcopus praeses, and Episcopus princeps, the former we allow, as being for order and decency in the government of the Church: but Episcopus princeps (which is Prelacy and not Episcopacy) this as you contend for, so we to this, oppose the judgment of Bishop Jewel.

Harding (page 196. of the Defense) pleading against the sufficiency of the Scriptures, and for the credit of Traditions; among these Traditions he reckoneth the distinction of a Bishop and a Priest, and saith, that they that denied this distinction between a Bishop and a Priest were condemned of heresy: in the Margin over against these words in the letter R. Jewel saith it is an untruth, that ever any were condemned for heresy for denying this distinction of a Bishop and a Priest, for if it were so saith he, both

Afterward page 202. of the Defense having taken notice and answered what Harding had said against the sufficiency of the Scriptures and for Traditions: he comes at last to the forementioned words, and saith, But what meaneth Mr. Harding here to come in with the difference between Priests and Bishops?

Doth not your strong hold shake, if not fall before the face of these Authorities, Doctor?

However we will charge once more, see page 100, and 101. of the Defense.

quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio major est: the office of a Bishop is above the office of a Priest, not by authothority of the Scriptures (this is Jewels Parenthesis) but after the names of honor, which the custom of the Church hath now obtained.

Thus, Sir, you see Bishop Jewel with his own breath hath blown down your strong hold of Divine institution.

And therefore you have no other hold for your Episcopacy, but Ius Politicum; and truly Mr. Doctor, if our most Gratious Sovereign, whom we are bound to obey, and honor as our lawful and rightful King, and to love and reverence for his Gratious and most acceptable indulgence expressed in his refreshing Declaration, please to cast the beams of his countenance

such is our high esteem of his Majesty's pleasure, that we shall strain to the very utmost (so that we may preserve the incommunicable Jewel of a good conscience) to conform unto it.

The meanest groom receiving the impression of his Majesty's favor, shall become venerable in our eyes.

And though you are pleased to say in some of your last lines, that our interest is incompatible with the Rights of Monarchy (wherein we understand you not, and entreat you to give the particulars of our so inconsistent interest) yet though we will not vie with you in learning and oratory, we have and shall ever (according to his Majesty's expectation in his Princely and pious Declaration) in our several vocations with all our parts and strength, as much endeavor to indear the hearts and affections of his people both to his Person and Government, as you or any other whosoever.

And we hope and pray, that the Bishops and others met together in Convocation, will be so tender of his Majesty's Honor and the peace of his Kingdoms, that they will not suffer these by-matters of Liturgy and Ceremonies to be a partition-wall between a Gratious King and a willing people.

You are afraid (we suspect Mr. Doctor) that that covetous piratical hungry humor, which you say was at work so busy in our first Reformers, is lurking in us, and that we have an evil eye upon your great preferments and revenues (our jealousy is not causeless, if you please to peruse a passage in your fourth page of your Epistle to the Reader, and compare it with another passage page 95. part 1.) But, Sir, we deal clearly with you; we envy not any man's titles and dignities; we have food and raiment, and are contented with our portion, and seek not great things. All that we beg at the hands of our Superiors, is a liberty to worship God according to his Word, that we may have nothing imposed upon us, but what we may be directed in our compliance with, by the rule of the Scriptures; we desire that men may not command, where God is silent, voniat verbum Domini, and you shall lead us with a twine thread, nay we will gladly follow and bless God for any example: we desire not to be judged stubborn or factious, if we bow not down to the single authority of a Canon; we can do nothing against the truth.

(Sir) we hope this is a fair request, and we are sure ought to be granted.

As for the Bishops, we say of them, as Jewel said of the Pope, page 366. in his Defense.

We conceive (Sir) there is work enough for the Bishops, (though they trouble not their heads about the by-matters of Ceremonies ( as your stout Prelate Ridley at last called them ) either in contriving Canons to establish them, or in seeing to the execution of those Canons) to preach frequently as his Majesty expects, to-govern their Clergy, to preach to them, to exhort and quicken them to their duty, to direct them in their studies, and guiding of their flocks, to punish the negligent and scandalous, to turn out the insufficient and incorrigible, to countenance them against the profane insulting rabble, to see their maintenance duly paid to them, to hold Provincial Synods, to set up Lectures in all the chief Market Towns of their Dioceses, to watch against and punish such as preach treason, sedition, heresy, to take care that Church censures be duly executed upon ignorant and scandalous sinners, to see that the ordinances of Christ be kept up in due reverence, neither disused through idleness, nor polluted by reminess and lukewarmness; to discountenance the heathenish customs of May-poles, revellings, dancings, and all other profane disorders, especially on the Lord's day: Hic labor, hoc opus, this will find them work enough, and this is to be a Bishop indeed. And if Episcopacy (after it hath lain so long fallow) bring forth such a fruitful crop, we shall be so far from muttering and repining, that we shall cry, Grace, Grace unto it.

Mr. Doctor, we are not against external decency in God's worship; Ministers habits ought to be grave and comely becoming their function, and if any be garish, or fantastical, or clownish and slovenly, let the Bishop punish him; the behavior of Minister and people ought to be very reverent, both in coming in, going out, and during their abode in the Congregation, and if any be rude and irreverent, let him be admonished, and censured; we say, the Churches ought to be kept in a handsome decorum free from nastiness and sluttishness; that the Pulpit, Reading place, great Bible, Communion-table, Seats, Pavements, Windows, Walls, Roof, Cushions, Carpits, Church-yard, be all kept neat and comely, and in good repair. And what would you have more? We know you miss the Common-Prayer-Book, and some other Ornaments.

Truly, Mr. Doctor, we desire to deal plainly with you, the greatest part of the people of this Nation are very ignorant, (Oh that you would leave your Cloister, and make some experiment, by questioning and reasoning with them) and we conceive plain and frequent preaching to be far more necessary for them, and more required at all our hands, then the reading of prayers, or decking and adorning of Churches.

Would you commend that Nurse, that should spend the greatest part of her time in decking and tricking up a child, and in teaching it to speak and say after her, and in the mean time suffer the child to pine away for want of milk? While here is a great stir about Ceremonies, Ornaments, Liturgy, the people perish for lack of knowledge: Sermons decay apace, it is come to once a day already, and in some places to once a fortnight.

Sir, diligent and frequent preaching, is the great wheel should be kept going, without which, Prayers, Sacraments, Sabbaths, will be but blind and blunt devotions, and will quickly lose their savor and efficacy.

To bring you in love with Preaching, we shall offer to you Bishop Jewels esteem of it, who is of so great esteem with you.

And first, we shall commend to you part of that Sermon preached at Saint Mary's in Oxford, which is to be found before the Book called the Defense, it is upon these words, 1 Pet. 4. 11. If any man speak, &c.

In the third page are these words.

Much more excellent matter to this purpose you may there read. And he concludes his Sermon thus,

And Mr. Doctor, this great office of preaching is mightily hindered by non-residence and pluralities, by reason, of which the Church is pestered with a generation of silly Curates, who can scarce read the Common-Prayer, or an Homily as they should, who neglect preaching, which Bishop Jewel complains of as a sure in-let to Popery, in his Sermon upon Joshua 6. from these words, Now Jericho was shut up, &c. page 14.

These either be a Remnant ( do you see, Sir, we are not yet fully reformed ) of the wicked inhabitants of Jericho, (i.e. Rome ) that resist the passage of God's people ( we are yet in the Wilderness, Doctor ) towards the Land of promise— These be they that seek the restoring of Jericho, (do you know no such in the Convocation Sir? ) and the over throw of Jerusalem; therefore the curse of God will fall upon them, the blood of God's people shall be required at their hands, because they bring the abomination of desolation into the holy place, because they suffer Christ's flock to perish for lack of knowledge—God grant ( Amen ) all such, that they may see with their eyes, and understand with their hearts, and know the gracious goodness of the Lord▪ that the people be not through their negligence like Horse and Mule; but that they may discern between darkness and light, and between Jericho and Jerusalem. —

Let us go on, Mr. Doctor, to his next Sermon to this, about Jericho, upon Haggai cap. 1. V. 2, 3, 4. Thus speaketh the Lord of Hosts, saying, This people say, that the time is not yet come, that the Lord's house should be built, &c.

After much excellent matter, which you may there read, page the fifth, he speaks thus,

We desire you would at your leisure read page 480, 481. of his Defense, and page 365. where, and in many other places, you will find this Right Learned Prelate not so shy, as in this Sermon, to pronounce the Pope Antichrist. And we put this Reverend Bishop in the scales with Gr. Williams Bishop of Ossorie, and leave it to you to judge who weigheth heaviest in in this point: If one be as you call him, Right learned, then the other must be Wrong.

Let us go on Sir, with this Sermon, page 8. Here saith he,

Let us remember whatever they do or have done, to do the contrary.

Consider this last passage (Mr. Doctor) you have little reason to find such fault with Sir▪ Stephen (as you call him, page 93. part 1.) or with other Reformers since, who were desirous to be as contrary to Rome as the Word would warrant them: if it were a peccancy of humor, a right learned Prelate would not have advised to it.

This precious Jewel sparkles once more concluding his Sermon with a sharp reproof, and moving exhortation.

and so this blessed Bishop goeth on most excellently and seasonably for our times.

In the following Sermon upon these words, Psal. 69. 9. The zeal of thine house, &c. he hath these words.

He directs his speech to Queen Elizabeth.

Let us follow him to his next Sermon on these words, Mat. 9. 37, 38. The harvest is great, but the laborers are few, &c. —He saith not the harvest is great, and there are but few

Let us follow him in his next Sermon, on Luke 11. 15. He casteth out Devils through Beelzebub, &c.—

WE might, Sir, have been much more plentiful in our gatherings out of this holy Bishop, there is not a waste line in all his Sermons. Some we have not touched upon at all, but so much we thought good to present unto you, that you may see both the complexion and constitution of the Church of England in the time of Queen Elisabeth. You see by the judgment of the best Bishop (the rarest Jewel the Church of England ever had, who was an eye-witness, lived, and preach ed, and writ in the prime of his age, for he was not full fifty years old when he died) a good part of her reign, the Church of England to be full of blindness, disorder, profane con tempt of the Word of God, yea to have something of Rome remaining in her, of necessity to be purged out.

And truly, Sir, when we have read over the Sermons of this Reverend Bishop, and your History, we should rather judge you to be the Pupil of Doctor Harding (whom you would be thought to oppose) then of Bishop Jewel, whom you do seem to reverence. Bishop Jewel doth not think he fouls either his tongue or his pen, in naming the Gospel of Jesus Christ: But how oft in your History, do you by way of scorn, tell us of the Zuinglian Gospellers, as if this were some reproach to them, and you had nothing to do with the Gospel; which in an hun dred places your Doctor Harding upbraids Bishop Jewel with?

There are some parcels and odd passages in your History, which we shall only mention, and refer you to learned Jewel to answer yourself out of him; page 53. part 1. you say,

See Jewels reply to Harding, page 235▪ in the Article of Real presence; and there you shall see, how▪ Jewel takes him up; and you will understand to speak more like a Protestant Doctor; and in page 262. of the Defense, saith he to Harding, You will there see how pitifully he baffles Harding. Mr. Doctor, it was wont to be said, sursum corda, but now it is deorsum corpora, your stickling for a Real presence effectually made forth by Grace and Spirit, doth very well sort with your low postures and cringings to the holy Altar, which was a thing unknown to Bishop Jewel. You shall find these words in his answer to Mr. Hardings Preface, page 5.

You say also, page 140. part 2. That the Zuinglian Gospel lers, or the Genevian party ( why cannot you call them Prote stants? ) did rejoice at a lamentable accident which happened to Paul's Steeple; and there you fall into the praises of that Idolatrous Fabric; and to quit it of the displeasure of heaven, you have got a tale by the end, of an old Plumber, who confessed, that woeful accident came by his negligence, in leaving carelessly a pan of coals in the Steeple when he went to dinner.

We shall be as careless of examining the truth of this story, as your plumber was of his coals; and shall only tell what Jewel saith in his Treatise of the Holy Scriptures, (bound up with the Defense) page 30▪ speaking of Kingdoms and Coun tries, which were in times past Heathenish, mentions England also, and saith he,

In ten of your last lines, you threaten the world with a Presbyterian History, for the carrying on of whose designs since the days of Calvin, (you may say Luther as well ) they have most miserably, you say, embroiled all the States and Kingdoms of these parts of Christendom, the Realms and Churches of great Britain more then all the rest. Mr. Doctor, where was your conscience and modesty when you writ thus? Where was your Loyaltie and Obedience to your Dread Sovereign, which you profess in your Epistle Dedicatory? Will not your bitter spirit be conjured down, neither by Royal command, nor Sovereign example?

Sir, you know, or may know, that Bishop Jewel is fain to Apologize for the Church of England, to wipe of that slander you have cast upon the Presbyterians, page 10. of his Defense.

That which this Reverend Bishop returns to Harding, by way of answer to these filthy slanders, will very well serve to take out that blot your unhappy and uncharitable pen flings upon the Presbyterians. We will not justify the seats and passions (oppression makes a wise man mad) of every individuum of that persuasion, but having been all this time rather standers by then actors, and seriously weighing their rule by which they desire all Church concernments may be regu lated, and considering that you, as the mouth of the Hierarchy, have pleaded nothing but two Acts of Parliament (the Members whereof, you more then once tell us were led mostly by politique and Popish considerations in what they did) for authorizing and confirming all the matters in difference, we are bold to say; they are got upon the better ground, (though the wind be against them) and their advantages for inward peace (though not for outward preferments) are so much greater, as the Word of God is greater then an Act of Parliament, and the authority of God, then the authority of men.

Oh, Mr. Doctor, when shall the voice and authority of Christ be heard and bear sway in the Church of God? Non est Ecclesiae loqui ( saith Beza) sed meritum loquentem audire▪ ( Good Mr. Doctor, consider these words of Beza in his Epistle Dedicatory before his Annotations on the New Testament ) Hic vero mihi in mentem venit vox▪ illa hominum (ut sibi quidem videntur acutissimorum) qui non transformandam sed reformandam Ecclesiam arbitrantur. Reformationem vocant, eorum rituum (qui florente, ut loguuntur, Ecclesiâ obtinuerunt; sublatis nonnullis, quae temporum injuriae velut rubiginem quandam ills obduxerunt) restitutionem: Quae nisi à nobis admittatur, Ecclesiam transformari, & penitus suo decore ( Note Sir ) privari contendunt. Bella certe & speciosa oratio, sed à satanae spiritu profecta, qui tum demum se prodit, quum adrem ventum est. Tum enim nihil adeo turpe est—Quod si qui objiciat no omnia ab Apostolis vel à Luca fuisse perscripta. Quaeso cur ita censent? An quia pauca continent? Imo vero utinam eâ paucitate contenti fuissent, qui se Apostolis jactant successisse. Neque enim voluit abrogari Dominus Mosaicos ritus, ut alii substituerentur, etsi Iudaiz • re non licuit, multo minus Gentilizare oportuit; quod si veteribus Episcopis in mentem venisset, Christiana religio neque tam cito neque tam turpiter, primum ( Note Sir ) in Ceremonias vanas, & Ludicras Liturgias, deinde etiam in manifestissimam superstitionem, ac tandem in Atheismum degenerasset—

Mr. Doctor, we are sorry, that having travailed over your History, we must say of you, as Reverend Jewel said of Harding in his Preface to the Reader of his Defense,

〈1 page duplicate〉