The Nonconformists Vindicated, Remarks · Part
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 being 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 return, 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 Buckinghamſhire, and Divinity-Reader in Magdalen-Colledg) That Dr. Barlow in ſumming up that Conference, 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 Conference, Dr. Reynolds himſelf lighting upon one of the Books at a Stationers near St. Maries Oxford, was found reading of it; and being asked by a friend what Book it was he read? anſwered, It was a Book in which he was concerned and wronged. If any doubt of this, he may (I ſuppoſe) 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 repreſented 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, being 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 conſiderable 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 advice, he would (as I have been credibily informed) 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 ſatiſfied to do all that was incumbent on him, as Preſident of the Colledg, but thought our Church needed a further Reformation, and that the Ceremonies 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 propound it ſeriouſly to the conſideration of preſent 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 proſelytes? why may they not acknowledg and rejoyce in their gifts and graces, and yet peaceably perſevere in their own Non-conformity, only wiping off the aſperſions that are thrown on themſelves, and candidly repreſenting their principles, and practices, 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 Conference 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 Reformation, were permitted to be preſent at the Conference, nor indeed all that were ſummoned to appear as defenders of the then eſtabliſhed doctrine 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 aſſigned; 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 admitted, His Majeſty gave this reaſon, That the Biſhops might not be confronted by the contrary opponents; 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 adherents 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 Miniſters for Ireland. How the providing of fit and able Miniſters for Ireland, could be proper for this days Conference, I underſtand not. Dr. Barlow 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 about that Church, in this Conference, reaſon rather required that the Council for Ireland and the Iriſh Biſhops ſhould have been ſummoned to debate and conclude concerning that affair. Perhaps 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 deſired ſatisfaction about Confirmation, Abſolution, Private Baptiſm.
Confirmation we ſhall find mentioned in the ſecond days conference, and thither I refer my conſiderations concerning it.
Abſolution, His Majeſty ſaid, he had heard likened to the Popes Pardons; If any one had informed His Majeſty, that Abſolution as uſed, or at leaſt, as preſcribed in the Church of England, had any thing in it reſembling the abominable pardons of the Pope, I know not how he can be excuſed from bearing falſe witneſs againſt the Liturgy. The Millenarian Petitioners only pray, that the term Abſolution, might be corrected, which His Majeſty was willing to gratifie them in, appointing 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 ſubverting, 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. Bernard.
Baptiſm, King James thought, was not to be adminiſtred by private perſons, in any caſe whatſoever; and therefore propounded it to the Biſhops, that the words in the Book purporting a permiſſion, and ſuffering of women and private perſons to baptize, might be altered: And here it is pretty, or rather ſad, to obſerve how the Prelates contradicted one another; Whitgift ſaid, The adminiſtration of Baptiſm by women or private 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 doubtful, 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 Compilers 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 perſons 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 alledged Tertullian and Ambroſe plain in that point. The Biſhop of Wincheſter alſo ſpake learnedly and earneſtly to the ſame purpoſe, affirming, that the denying 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 alteration 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 Divines 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 offence, 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 tranſgreſſion 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 female 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 Sacrament.
3. How can we in faith expect that any lay-perſon 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 nothing); 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 adminiſter Baptiſm, who can ſay to them, ne plus ultra, hitherto you have proceeded, but further ye ſhall not proceed, other parts of the Miniſterial 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 Bancroft indeed affirms, that then there were neither Biſhops nor Prieſts beſides the Apoſtles; but if we ſhould grant him that, there might be Deacons, and according to his principles they might baptize; no need therefore of flying to lay-perſons; it is not improbable that the Seventy Diſciples 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 proved 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 Peter 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 Sacrament?
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 return anſwer to this queſtion, in diſtinct propoſitions. 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 queſtioned.
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 another Coercion equivalent thereunto, might not be invented 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 excommunication for leſſer matters might not be called 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 deſired. 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 excommunicated for a ſmall matter, they would make but a ſmall matter of Excommunication, or rather 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 about 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 thereunto 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. Reynolds 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 Canon 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, according 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 aſſociates in mind, that the King was very clement, who permitted them to ſpeak contrary to the Statute of 10 Eliz. againſt the Liturgy and diſcipline 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 terrified? 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 remembred, 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 contradicted; 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 Ridleys 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 conformable 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 paſſionate harangue of words might have been ſpared. It may be we may meet with more reaſon in the anſwers 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 Apoſtaſie; 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 ſhewed 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 caution againſt the abuſe of the doctrine of Predeſtination laid down in the foregoing words. As for thoſe who did uſually argue deſcendendo, I ſuppoſe they were only men of wretched and profligate 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 clearly 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 conceive 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 objection, becauſe by the doctrine and practice of the Church of England, none but a licenſed Miniſter might Preach, nor either publickly or privately adminiſter 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 England owned another Sacrament beſides the Euchariſt. Here, foreign, 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 divination 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 Congregation. 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 Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, 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 authority given them in the Congregation, to call and ſend Miniſters into the Lords Vineyard. And the preſent 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 judged 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 added, 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 betwixt the 25th Article, and the words uſed concerning 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 curioſity or malice; for the Article inſinuates, That the making of Confirmation to be a Sacrament, is a corrupt imitation of the Apoſtles; but the Communion book aiming at the right uſe and proper ſource thereof, makes it to be according to the Apoſtles example; and his Majeſty comparing both places, 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 appear 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 inſinuate ſomething more, can hardly be denied by any one that reads the whole ſyntax. But the Biſhop in the Collect for Confirmation, ſaith inter alia, VVe make our humble ſupplications unto thee for theſe thy ſervants, upon whom, after the example 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 Liturgy no one queſtion was to be propounded to the Confirmand; in the new there is one to be propounded, 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, Confirmatition was ſaid to be appointed; the reaſon whereof, as I cannot certainly tell, ſo I will not uncertainly conjecture; though I have heard ſtories about this affair, that ſtartled me.
Biſhop Bancroft ſaith, Confer. p. 32. That Confirmation was not ſo much founded upon the places in the Acts of the Apoſtles, which ſome of the Fathers 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 affirmed 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 ſhewed, 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 concerning 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 cannot much blame thoſe who differ from me in expounding that place; for I find Biſhop Ʋſher referring 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 Goſpel 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 deſire 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 imitation of Chriſt, than in imitation of the holy Apoſtles.
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 Sacrament ſuch as can neither ſay Lords-Prayer, Belief, Ten Commandments, nor anſwer the queſtions in the Common Prayer-Book Catechiſm, nor are either confirmed or deſirous to be confirmed; let alſo the Biſhops themſelves ride through their Dioceſes, and confirm all that are unconfirmed, and ſuſpend ſuch from the Sacrament as either are unwilling or unmeet to be confirmed, and I perſwade 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 Relator 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 Licence, as they do not Preach without their Licence, 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 Relator 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 obſerve the policy of the Biſhop, who reſerved power 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 ordinationis, would have much a-do to prove that he himſelf had any meetneſs to be conſecrated a Biſhop. 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 Ordination he to keep his Biſhoprick, would preſently have replied that he was ordained to be a Presbyter, 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 expected 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 acquaints 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 Sacrament, 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 ſubſcribing they did not declare the aſſent of their minds to the truth of the Articles, but only their purpoſe 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 vindicate 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 conſiderable 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 reformation 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 believe 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 exception 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 himſelf 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 Philoſophy and Divinity as came into England from beyond 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-reſident 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-Patrons 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 Miniſters might be put upon it, to ſubſcribe according to the Statutes of the Realm, viz. to the Articles 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 manifeſt errors directly repugnant to Scriptures, inſtancing 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 opinion, 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 after a ſort he reclaimed upon Ruffinus his challenge.
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 againſt 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 foreign, or after a ſort, may reach, no one can tell: Nor have we the leaſt reference to any place of Jerome's Works in which this diſclaiming 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 imagined why the Jews ſhould leſs eſteem the Apocryphal 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 Apocryphal books by the name of Apocrypha; others before him had given them that name, or one equivalent, as I can make appear. Indeed the Ancients 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 Churches. The Hiſtory of Suſanna was accounted a Fable even by Julius Africanus, contemporary to Origen; and yet our neweſt Calendar appointeth 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 Apocryphal 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 become 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, Elias had in his own perſon while he lived, performed, 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 offenſive, 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 reputation, 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 Tranſlations 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 inſtruction.
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 eminent Divine, though not much known by any writings 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 acknowledg 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 accepted by God, as to entitle his child to Baptiſm, than that the child of a believer doth believe in his believing 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 Infancy, 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 exceptions 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 acquainted with Controverſies in Religion. As for Miniſters, 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 adminiſter 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 ſcandalize 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 croſſing. 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 informed 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 foreign, though affirmed 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 moneys, 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 Heathens conſider, whether without this figure, men could adminiſter any thing, or have any converſe with one another. The Unicorns horn, as he deſcribes 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 Moſes thought of any ſuch thing when he bleſſed Joſeph, 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, foreign. 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 ſuffered, 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 unto 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 falſely, as the more ingenuous Papiſts acknowledg. Nicephorus 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 account 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 blaſphemer 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 preſerved, 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 Jeruſalem 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 redemption, 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 prophane 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 applied, 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, foreign, 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, foreign, cloſeth it thus, foreign, &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 reported as ſtrange matters concerning the Croſs, been ſo ingenuous, as to let us know that they went but upon common fame, Staurolatry had not proceeded 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 replied 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 reply 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 ceremony uſed, and perhaps commanded by the Apoſtles, 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 ceremonies 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 Nonconformiſts ſcruple; for the ſcrupled ceremonies are ſuch as have humane inſtitution, ordained ſignification, myſtical ſignification, appropriation to Gods ſolemn 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, remembred 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 Supper, 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 ſuperſtructure raiſed on it. The foundation is, that the Jews unto the inſtitution of the Paſſover preſcribed 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 Rabbins, 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 Inſtitution; ſowr herbs were as much commanded as unleavened 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 Vinegar 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 traditions and ceremonies of the Jews that had no Divine 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 Apoſtles times, nor did the Biſhops or any of their adherents ſay it was uſed by them) but the difficulty was, whether it were of that ancient uſe in Baptiſm? To remove this difficulty, the Dean of Weſtminſter 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 reply, 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 croſſing in Baptiſm? Anointing alſo was uſed in Baptiſm by the Fathers; yet it is accounted a piece of our Reformation not to uſe anointing; what diſparagement 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 expect 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. Finally, 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 Medulla, who defends Euſebius againſt Baronius.)
Mr. Knewſtubb's ſecond queſtion was, ſuppoſing the Church had power to add ſignificant ceremonies, whether ſhe might there add them where Chriſt had already ordained one? Which he ſuppoſed was no leſs derogatory to Chriſts Inſtitution, than if any Potentate of the Land ſhould preſume to add his Seal to the Great Seal of England.
To this Dr. Barlow ſaith, p. 70. the King anſwered, 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 mention of the Croſs is made.
I dare not think this was King James his anſwer: for it is only fitted and ſuted to our own Church as then it was ordered, and ſtill continues. In the firſt Book of King Edward, croſſing was appointed before Baptiſm could be pretended to be perfected, or indeed begun; which was alſo the uſage of the ancient Churches. 2. I conceive 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 needleſs; 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 without 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 worded 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 ſuperſtitiouſly 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 Popery. As if nothing had been abuſed by the Papiſts in Divine Worſhip, but what had been once well uſed. 2. That there is no reſemblance between 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 ſuperſtition 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 Croſſes, which in time of Popery were made for men to fall down before them, to worſhip, are removed, 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 Eccleſiaſtical cenſures unto Lay-chancellors, the King promiſed to take order to reform, p. 78. And Archbiſhop Grindal's propheſyings it is like enough 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 Tranſlation 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 Sacraments in the Church-catechiſm, &c. ſo that Dr. Heylin in his Hiſtory of Presbyterians, quarrels with King James for giving any way to the Conference.
There is but one thing more I will concern my ſelf to take notice of in Mr. Scrivener's Action 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 over-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 acknowledg 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 later times I could inſtance in men that for their Learning and Piety deſerved to be Metropolitans, 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 permitted 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 expoſitions that are given of 1 Tim. 5.17 Scultetus cenſures the anſwers given by Bilſon, another condemns the anſwer given by Scultetus; others confute all the anſwers given by Mr. Mede. Among all that have written againſt Elders, whether unlearned 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 foreign, from the two participles foreign, and foreign, from the two articles foreign, from the two ſpecies or kinds of Elders, from the two participles, two articles, two ſpecial Elders divided and ſeparated foreign by the diſcretive particle foreign. 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 Nonconformiſts; 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 railings and calumnies laid open by others. Quod erat exorandum.
FINIS.
End of the text · William Barrett, The Nonconformists Vindicated (1679)