YOu have lately presented to the World an History of the Reformation of the Church of England. You tell us in your Epistle to the Reader, what study and diligence you used in the perfor­mance of the work, p. 10, Your historical abilitiesare sufficiently known, and it is presum'd 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 judgement of that Reverend Bishop Iewel, Bishop of Salis­bury, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, one whom you often mention with deserved honour in your last History. You stile him, pag. 123. in the latter part of your History, The [Page 2] right Learned Mr. Iohn Iewel. Pag. 129. Reverend Iewel, that learned Prelate. Pag. 147. The right Reverend Bishop Iewel, pag. 155.

His Book which he wrote in defence of the Apologie of the Church of England, against that foul-mouth'd 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 compleat, and in such Primitive lustre 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 ‘That you cannot reckon the death of King Edward the sixth for an infelicity to the Church of England.’ They are your own words, in the fourth pag. of your Epistle to the Reader;‘That he was ill principled in himself, and that his Reign was unfortunate, pag. 141. part. 1.’ And the ground of your ac­count is, Because it is not to be thought (had he lived) but that the rest of the Bishopricks (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 inrich themselves by the spoil of the Bishopricks,

You tell us pag. 48. ‘That the first Parliament, in the first year of his Reign, though it consisted of such Members as disagreed among themselves, yet they agreed well enough in one common Principle, which was to serve the present time, and preserve themselves, that they came resolved to [Page 3] further such a Reformation, as should most visibly conduce to the advancement of their several ends, and to prepare a way for exposing the Revenues of the Church unto spoil and rapine.’

You tell us pag. 95. ‘That the alteration of Altars into Tables, and the disfurnishing of the Altars, of the Hangings, Palls, Plate, and other rich utensills was taken up by some great men about the Court, on hopes of profit.’

You tell us in the fifth year of King Edward, pag. 99. ‘Gardiner was lifted out of the wealthy Bishoprick of Win­chester, to give the Courtiers opportunity to inrich them­selves by the spoil thereof. And in pag. 101. That one Iohn Poynet succeeded him to serve other mens turns. And in the same page▪ That the Pyrates of the Court were intent upon all advantages to inrich themselves.’

You tell us in the second year of Queen Elizabeth, page 121. ‘That the Bishops Sees were kept void, till the best flowers in the whole Garden of the Church had been cull'd out of it. That the Queen and her Hungry Courtiers had alienated many fair Mannors from the rich Sees of Winche­ster, Elie, and indeed what not?’

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 honourable mention of him. And when our precious Iewel had occa­sion to speak of him, page 359. Of his defence, these are his words, ‘That noble Prince of blessed memory King Edward the sixth.’ Was it not an infelicity to the Church to lose her chiefest stay and pillar? To have the hopes of a glorious Reformation nipt in the very Budd? To have a fearfull De­luge of blood and idolatry rush in upon us by the succession of Queen Mary? in whose Reign more precious blood was spilt, 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 Iewel, page 81. of your History.

[Page 4] 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 Ioan 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 any thing 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, ‘O my Lord God! Bless my people, save thy chosen people of England. O Lord God! Defend this Realm from Papistry, and maintain thy true Religion, that I and my people may praise thy holy Name, for Jesus Christ his sake: As you have related it page, 140.’

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

And do not you Mr. Doctor shake hands with the shame­less rayler Harding against our glorious Iewel. When you hear him call'd Rayler, be not displeased. Look on that large Catalogue of hellish slanders, poured out on that blessed man, summ'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 honour and reverence, viz. ‘Dr. Iohn Harding, one of the Divines of Lovain, and the most learned of the Colledge, page 128,’ in the latter part of your History. But when you speak of those glorious lights of the Reformation, Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin; it is barely Calvin, or Iohn Calvin, as all along your History is evident. That Rabshakeh Harding, dipt his Pen in the same gall and speaks your sence, page 31. of the Defence. ‘Did not (saith he) your Religion begin first of covetousness.’

And for your [...]ear of the poor Chruch being left destitute of Lands and Ornaments, your Right learned Prelate Iewel gives you a corrective in page 567. of his defence, &c. ‘Ye [Page 5] say (saith he) to Harding: Your Bishops are gay and gal­lant, attended and guarded with Princely routs behinde and before. And thereof ye make no small account, specially in respect of our estate, which you call beggarly. In such disdain the Heathen sometime said, That Christ was the beg­garliest and poorest of all the Gods that were in Heaven. Howbeit, our Bishopricks, saving that certain of your Fa­thers have shamefully spoil'd them, are now even as they were before; certainly the poorest Bishoprick in England, as it is reported, is better in revenues, then some three or four of your Popes Italian Bishopricks in the Kingdom of Naples. Howbeit, the Gospel of Christ standeth not by riches, but by truth. In comparison of the one, we make small reckoning of the other.’

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 Iewel, he might have re­vok't in all those grants made by his Predecessors: See his Defence page 639. ‘If our Kings in that darkness and blinde­ness of the former times, gave them these things of their own accord and liberality, for Religions sake, Now, saith he, when the ignorance and error is espied out, may the Kings their Successors take them away again, seeing they have the same authority the Kings their Ancestors had before. For the gift is void, except it be allowed by the will of the Giver, and that cannot seem a perfect will, which is dimmed and hindered by error.’

The next thing, Mr. Doctor, to be spoken to, is the Refor­mation it self; whose History you present to us. And in p. 34. p. 1. you write, ‘That neither to lose time, nor press too much at once upon the people, it was thought fit to smooth the way to the Reformation, by setting out some prepara­tory injunctions; this to be done, by sending out Commis­sioners, accompanied with certain godly Preachers; who when they went from the people, left behinde them Homilies to instruct the people. The Preachers abovementioned, were more particularly instructed to perswade the people from praying to Saints, for the dead; from adoring of [Page 6] Images, from the use of Beads, Ashes, and Processions; from Mass, Dirges, praying in unknown languages’

‘All which was done to this intent, That the people in all places being prepared, by little and little might with more ease, and less opposition, admit the total alteration, which was intended in due time to be introduced. You mention also cer­tain injunctions appointed for the Bishops, that they should personally preach once a quarter in their Diocess; that they should cause their Chaplains to Preach; that they should Ordain none, but such as were learned in the Scriptures. There was also a Form of Bidding-prayer prescribed, or bidding of the Beads, as you say it was then commonly called in page 37. You lead us next to the Parliament, page 47. which took beginning the 4.Note. of November; in which you tell us of packing the Cardes by Sir Ralph Sadler; that this Parliament, without any sensible alteration of the Members, continued till the death of the King; and you say, page 48. a great part of the Nobility, and not a few of the chief Gentry were cordially affected to the Church of Rome. Note. In the same page you tell us, that several Acts were repeal'd, which touched the Subject in life or liberty for matter of conscience; by which repeal, you say, all men had a liberty of reading Scriptures, and being in a manner their own Ex­positors, (which you scruple whether it may be counted for a felicity.)’

‘There was an Act, you say in the same page, and follow­ing page, against such as spake against the Sacrament of the Altar, and for the receipt thereof in both kinds; with these Provisoes notwithstanding:—If necessity did not otherwise require; as in the case of suddain sickness, and other such like extremities, that wine could not be provi­ded for the use of the Sacrament, nor the sick man depart this life in peace without it. And secondly, that the permitting of this liberty to the people of England, Note. should not be constru­ed to the condemning of any other Church, in which the contrary was observed.’

‘The next great business you say, page 50. was, the re­ceiving of a Statute made in the 27. year of Henry 8. By which all Chanteries, Colledges, Free-Chappels, and Hospi­tals [Page 7] were permitted to the King during his life; but dying before he had taken many of them into his hands, the great ones of the Court not being willing to lose so rich a booty, it was set on foot again, and carried in this present Parlia­ment. And you say page 51. these Chanteries consisted of Salaries allowed to one or more Priests, to say daily Mass for the souls of their deceased Founders and their friends.’

‘But in the same page you say, That which made the great­est alteration, and threatned most danger to the State Ecclesiastical, was the Act for Election of Bishops, and what seals and styles should be used by Spiritual persons. In the compounding of which Act you say (in the same page) there was more danger couched, then at first appeared; for you say it was the intent of the Contrivers, to weaken the autho­rity of the Episcopal Order, by forcing them from their strong Hold of Divine Institution, and making them no other then the Kings Ministers, only his Ecclesiastical She­riffs; and such use was made of this Act, that the Bishops were not in a capacity of conferring Orders, but as they were impowered by especial Licence; the tenour whereof you mention page 52. and in the same place you say, The true drift of the design of this Act, was to make Deans and Chapters useless for the time to come, and thereby to pre­pare them for dissolution.’

‘The next Church-business you mention, is page 55. where you tell us, the first heats of the Visitation beginning to cool, there were two Orders sent forth for the taking down of Images.’

‘Page 57. you tell us, Some godly Bishops and other learn­ed and Religious men were busily imploy'd in the Castle of Windsor, appointed by the Kings Command to consult about one uniform Order for the administring the holy Communion in the English Tongue, under both kindes of Bread and Winde, according to Act of Parliament before mentioned. You are in the dark who the persons were, but you think they were the same which made the Liturgy in this Kings time; and you say, being convened together, ta­king into consideration as well the right rule of Scripture, [Page 8] as the usage of the Primitive Church (How doth this appear good Dector) agreed on such a form and order as might com­ply with the intention of the King and the Act of Parliament, without giving (note these following words good Sir) any just offence to the Romish party, for they so ordered it, that the whole office of the Mass should proceed, as formerly in the Latine Tongue, even to the very end of the Canon, and the receiving of the Sacrament by the Priest himself; which be­ing passed over, they began with an exhortation: Dearly beloved in the Lord, ye coming to this holy Communion, which afterwards remained in the publick Liturgy. Then followed the invitation: You that do truly repent, &c. pro­ceeding to the general confession—distribution of the Sacrament to the people upon their knees; which godly Form you say was presented to the King, and published by Proclamation; which Proclamation you have at large, page 58, 59.’

‘The next care was you say, page 59. to send abroad print­ed copies to the several Bishops: But now you come to han­dle the chief Key to the whole work of Reformation the Liturgy (as you phrase it) page 65. and the same men which drew up the Order for the holy Communion, were now again imploy'd as you confess, page 64. Calvin being reject­ed, though offering his assistance.’

‘The Liturgy you say is finished, accepted by the King, Enacted by Lords and Commons then assembled in Parlia­ment, though you say the passing of the Act gave great of­fence to the Romish Party; not that they could except against it,Note. in regard either of the matter or manner of it; but because it was communicated to the people in the vulgar Tongue, page 66. Which exception you take a great deal of pains to prove to be an error.’

‘You tell us page 106. That the Reformation under King Edward proceeded more vigorously then before, by review­ing the Liturgy, and composing of a book of Articles. You say page 107. Calvin and his followers had taken some of­fence at some parts thereof, and did excite the King and Council to a further Reformation.’

‘And you say he prevaild so far in the first two years, that [Page 9] in the Convocation there were debates about such doubts as had arisen about some things contained in the Common-prayer book; but you say, page 107. and 108. not one alte­ration made in it. For though you say it was brought under a review, and being so reviewed, was ratified by Act of Parliament; yet by the tenour of the Act you mention, it doth appear first, That there was nothing contained in the said first book, but what was agreeable to the Word of God, and the Primitive Church. Secondly, That such doubts as had been raised in the use and exercise thereof, proceeded rather from the curiosity of the Minister and mistakers, then any worthy cause: they are the very words of the Act as you quote them.’

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.

‘You tell us p. 121, 122. part 1. of the hand the Convocati­on had in canvasing the Articles of Religion: but you que­stion whether they had any such hand in reviewing the Liturgy; and you speak of digesting of such alterations; as were considered and resolved on, but shew not what they were in the least, and possibly you say it might recieve the like authority from the Convocation (you cannot say it did receive) as the book of Articles had. But whether so or not, say you, it received as much authority and countenance as could be given unto it by an Act of Parliament, by which it was imposed, you say, upon the subject under penalties— (A worthy foundation for divine service.)’

‘And then page 121. p. 1. Mr. Doctor, you begin to triumph, as if you had got a firm bottom for the Liturgy▪ the Liturgy (you say) thus setled and confirmed in Parliament, was by the Kings command—And p. 123. you say, we have seen a reformation made in point of doctrine and setled in the forms of worship, the superstitions and corruptions of the Church of Rome entirely abrogated (good news if it were true) and all things recteifed according to the Word of God, (How prove you this, Sir) and the Primitive practice (we can see nothing, but an Act of Parliament.)’

[Page 10] ‘This is all account you give us in your History of the Reformation of the Church, in the time of King Edward the sixth, saving that p. 125. you speak something of Holy dayes, and Fasting dayes, which were to be abolished or re­tained.’

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.

‘And when we consider, what you say in the 103. page of your History of her reign, that she retained such as had been of privy Council to Queen Mary her sister, to be of her Council:’ 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.

‘And so it proved, for the Parliament that was summoned which passed an Act as you say p. 110, 111. for recom­mending and imposing the Book of Common Prayer, and administration of the Sacraments, took care to revise the book, and to make alterations and corrections, (now Mr. Doctor we have found some alterations in the Liturgy, and what are they) why say you, p. 111. great care was taken for expunging (mark Mr. Doctor) all such passages in it,Note. as might give any scandal or offence to the Popish party: in the Le­tany (you say) the Pope and his detestable enormity were expunged, as giving offence: and in the delivery of the Sacrament, though by Calvins means (as you say) some Re­formation had been made in the second Liturgy in King Edwards time,Note. now it is returned back into the first form: and besides (you say) a whole Rubrick was expunged as not favouring (the figment) of Transubstantiation,Note. and not only so, but there was made alteration in the Bread of the Sacra­ment in Alters, and the standing of them, in gestures, vest­ments, [Page 11] musick and what not? by which compliances (with Rome your plain dealing is commendable) the book was made so passable (you say, p. 111.) amongst the Papists, that they repaired to our Parish Churches without scruple.Note.’

‘And to give us a more full account of the State of Religion in these times: you tell us, p. 172. part 2. Such a well tem­pered piety did at that time appear in the Devotions of the Church of England, Note. that generally the English Papists still resorted to them: moreover you tell us, p. 131. that Queen Elizabeth doing all this in the form and fashion of our devotions, did so far satisfie the Pope then being, that he shewed himself willing to confirm all by his Papal power,Note. and that Parpalio was instructed to offer in the name of his Holiness, that the English Liturgy should be confirmed.’

‘And now you triumph again, p. 173. part 2. as if the matter were past all doubt; telling us, Thus we have seen the publick Liturgy confirmed in Parliament, with divers penalties on all those who either did reproach it, or neglect to use it, or willfully withdrew their attendance from it.’

‘But pray you Sir, look back to what you say of this Par­liament which confirmed the Liturgy,Note. p. 107. there wanted not (say you) some rough and furious spirits in the house of Commons, who eagerly opposed all propositions which seemed to tend unto the prejudice of the Church of Rome, of which number, none so violent as Story Doctor of the Laws, and a great instrument of Bonners butcheries;Note. others there were (say you) and doubtless many others also in the house of Commons, who had as great a zeal as he to the Papal interest.’

Thus, Mr. Doctor, we have travailed over your History, and have pickt 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 it self on such a foundation as you have here laid? We gladly embrace the reformation of Doctrine contained in [Page 12] 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.

‘The first instance is p. 49 of your History of Edward the sixth, where having mentioned an Act of Parliament, de­claring, that it is according to Scripture, that the Sacrament be administered to all Christian people under both the kinds of Bread and Wine: you spend a great many lines borrowed out of Bishop Iewel, to prove that this Declaration of Par­liament and the words by which it was enacted, do every way agree with Christs institution:’ 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 alledge in your whole book for the Reformation of the Church, and in matters of this nature so evident and clear [Page 13] 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 Iewel 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 Lu­thers 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 Iewel, 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 Liturgie in the frame of it, or that Episcopacy is Jure divino, or for Adora­tion toward the Altar, Bowing at the name of Iesus, 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 Iewel in a Sermon preached by him in St. Maries in Oxford, it is in the beginning of the Book, called his Defence of the Apology, pag. 6. ‘This only, saith he, will I speak, and that in a word, They which brought in Transubstantiation, Masses, calling upon Saints, sole life, Pur­tory, [Page 14] Images, Vows, trifles, follies, bables into the Church of God, have delivered new things, and which the Scri­ptures never heard of, whatsoever they Crie or Crake, they bring not a jot out of the Word of God. And these, as I have said, are the things wherewith the Church of God is disquieted at this day: upon these lieth the watch, and ward of the Church. These they honour instead of the Scri­ptures, and force them on the people instead of the word of God, upon these men suppose their salvation and the summ of Religion to be grounded. And that which is much more grievous, notwithstanding at this present by the great good­ness of God, religion is restored (note Mr. Doctor) almost (not to the lustre you Mr. Doctor imagine) to her former dignity and light, yet (poor and pitifull fouls!) they set great store by these things, they to them again, and teach them (do you see, Mr. Doctor) as though without them the Church could not be in safety. O if the Word of God might be heard among so many clamours, and in so great a Hurly burly; if we would suffer God himself to sit as Judge in his own case, the matter would be passed over with less tumult a great deal, and more easily might we agree about the whole mat­ter. Wherefore if all the worship of God, all godliness, all religion be to be sought out of the word of God: if the institu­tions of men have miserably perverted all things in all times; let us my Brethren (beware Doctor) unto whom the office of teaching is allotted. Consider how dangerous a thing it is to speak more: and let all who will be, and will have themselves accounted to be Christians, remember how dangerous a thing it is to believe more.’

‘You say, Mr. Doctor, pag. 130, 131. Reverend Iewel in his learned writings, is a magazin of all sorts of learning, and that all our Controversors have, since he wrote, furnisht themselves with Arguments and authorities from him.’

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 pitcht it on a better bottom, then the authority of two acts of Parliaments, the members where­of you have rendred in your history to be too much swayed [Page 15] in their votings and actings by wordly 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 succeding times do the work of the Lords 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 Soveraign) are known to be men of great sufficiency for Learning, prompt them and put them on such a work? Is it not a dishonour 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. ‘You say Queen Elizabeth resolved to proceed to a Reformation as the times should serve: so also pag. 116.’

Do you not tell us, pag. 12, 13. ‘That though the Letters written by Prince Edward to his father, may be used as good evidences of his great proficiency with reference to the times in which he lived; Yet in our days, in which either the wits of men are sooner ripe, or the method of teaching more ex­act and facile, they would be found to contain nothing which is more then ordinary? And speaking of Doctor Ridley one of the greatest of them, pag. 53. you say, he was a man of great learning as the times then were.’

And shall our ripe witted times, and more exact methods every way, bow down to their dull forms and paterns? Our heavenly Master (the only Arch-bishop of our souls) had intrusted 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, labour to be faithfull in a like proportion?

We have justly separated from the Church of Rome, and have departed from her, because she hath departed from the [Page 16] 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 numbred 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 defence of it alone by the Word of God, hath washed away the Romish filth cast into it) which are visibly seen, and pra­ctised 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, ‘It is in­deed saith he, somewhat altered, and pag. 66. That the Trans­lation of the Mass (which used to be served up in Latine) into English, was the cause why the Romish party were offended with the Act confirming the Common-prayer book.Note.’

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 any thing there that gives the least shadow? Shew us, good Dr. And therefore these are some dreggs of that disease, and some reliques 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 offence to the Romish party at home and abroad in others of our State and Church Physicians, have not to this [Page 17] day been purged out, but suffered to remain.

But you will say,Objection. it may be, Mr. Doctor, that the Apostles rule,Concio Synod. pag. 29. 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,Solution. 1 Cor. 11. 13, 14. Jugde in your selves,1 Cor. 14 40. explained. Is it comely that a woman pray unto God unco­vered? doth not nature it self 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 Cloyster, and go down into the Countrey, to some one 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 Latine, 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, [Page 18] 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 prest and ob­served, Let all things be done decently and in order; for to remedy such unnaturall 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,Object. 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,Dr. Pierce his Concio Synodi­ca, pag. 37. 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 enjoyning them.

In answer to this weighty objection,Sol. 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 enjoyned, which ad­minister offence 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.

[Page 19] We shall take a little liberty to debate upon this last Querie, 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 offence to the Reform­ed Churches abroad. You tell us, pag. 79. part. 1. ‘That Bucer (who was sent for over to be Regius Professor in Cambridge) was not well satisfied in some particular branches of the Liturgy: you tell us, he had given an account to Calvin of the English Liturgy, desiring a Letter from him to the Lord Protector, which you say, pag. 80. proved the occasion of much trouble to the Church, and Orders of it.’

‘In this Letter, you say, Calvin approving well enough of set forms of Prayer, descends particularly to the English Li­turgy, and makes it his advice (it is wholsome counsel Mr. Doctor, and for this alone, your rash pen flings so much scorn on that learned and blessed man) that all these Ceremonies should be abrogated, that he should go forwards to reform the Church without fear, (but not, as you say, without wit) with­out regard of peace at home, or correspondency abroad, such considerations being to be had in Civil matters, but not in matters of the Church, wherein (as you quote his own words in latine in your Margin) not any thing is to be exacted which is not warranted by the Word (doth not Jewel say so?) and in the managing whereof there is not any thing more di­stastefull in the eyes of God then worldly wisdom, either in moderating, cutting off, or going backwards, but meerly as we are directed by his will revealed. You tell us in the same page, he toucheth on the Book of Homilies, permits them very faintly for a season, (you say) but by no means allows of them for along continuance, or to be looked on as a rule of the Churches, or constantiy to serve for the instruction of the people.’ 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 painfull 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 [Page 20] trouble the Protector about the Ceremonies, that he writes to him (you quote his own words in the Margin) to this effect, you say, ‘That the Papists would grow insolenter every day then other, unless the differences were composed about the Ceremonies: But how, say you? not by reducing the oppo­nents to conformity (which it seems you would have) but by encouraging them rather in their opposition, and that he solicited the Protector in behalf of Hooper, who was then fallen into some trouble about the Ceremonies.’

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

‘You tell us next of Peter Martyr, a great and eminent Divine (as you report him) pag. 97. part. 1. yet pag. 92. you tell us, That Caps and Surplices were utterly opposed by him, That he thinks it (you quote his own words in your Margin) most expedient to the good of the Church that they and all others of that kind should be taken away. And he gives (you say this reason for it) That where such Ce­remonies were so stifly contended for, which were not war­ranted and supported by the Word of God, there common­monly men (lay your hand upon your heart, Doctor) were less solicitous of the substance of religion, then they were of the circumstances of it; and you say, he tells of himself in one of his Epistles, that he had never used the Surplice when he lived in Oxford, though he were then a Canon of Christs-Church, and frequently present in the Quire.’

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 offence 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 strugled and born witness against them. The last but not the least of which three worthies (for he is the chiefest of the three) Mr. Iohn Calvin (then whom the Church of God since the time of the Apostles never had a [Page 21] more choice and happy instrument both for learning, piety, wisdom, moderation and diligence) you and most of the sacred Hierarchy, as you stile it, do still decry and vilifie as Iosephs 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 strengthning sweetness in his learned and happy labours, that you may assoon per­swade 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 Zuinglius, 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, Zuinglius, and the Calvinian and Zuinglian faction? as your betters (Mr. Doctor) will honour and have honoured these blessed men (for see what a testimo­ny Bishop Iewel gives of Luther and Zuinglius in page 360. of his defence, &c. saith he, ‘Martin Luther, and Hulderike Zuinglius are most excellent men, even sent of God to give light to the whole world)’ so worse men then you (we are sorry to see you tread so much in their steps) have laboured 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 Iewels Preface to his defence or to the Reader, where in the tenth page are these words. ‘He telleth the world, saith Bishop Iewel (meaning Harding) Mr. Iewel is the open enemy of the Church, Mr. Iewel is the enemy of God,’ Mr. Iewel honoureth that Idol Calvin, more then Jesus Christ, so that you see (Doctor) Bishop Iewel had a very high if not too high an esteem of Calvin, whose assistance in our reformation Cranmer rejected, and whom you have so causelesly asperst.

Not only the reformed Churches abroad, but also many holy and learned men (who suffered Martyrdom in Queen [Page 22] Maries time) have had a continual grudge against the Cere­monies, profest 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 Elizabeths Coronation, and wondring that the Bishop of Ely should refuse to Crown her, having his first preferments from her Father; you say this Bishop assisted in the composing of the publick 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. ‘And amongst these you very often glory in Cranmer and Ridley, whom you call a learned, stout, and resolute Prelate,’ 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. ‘That these two moved King Edward so importunately to license, or at least to connive at the exercice of the Romifh Religion by the Princess Mary, that they forc't tears from him, whereupon, you say, with admiration they withdrew.’

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

On the other side you say, p. 90. p. 1. Iohn Hooper the de­signed [Page 23] Bishop of Gloucester (whom you commend for his constant Preaching, and learned writings, and note his hu­mility, that the King bestowed on him the Bishoprick of Gloucester without his seeking) applying himself to the Arch-Bishop for his consecration, desires to be forborn 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 favour of Hooper: notwithstanding this gracious Letter, you say, the two Bishops would not obey the King: but Hooper persisting in his obstinacy and willfull humour (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 lapt up in so great ho­nour 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 ‘Queen Mary,’ 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 ‘Controversie concerning the Episcopal habit which Hooper refused, reviv'd in Bishop Ridley's thoughts; and he writes to him in these words as you say, p. 51. My dear Brother, for­asmuch as I understand by your books, that we throughly agree and wholly consent together in those things which are the grounds and substantial points of our Religion, against which the world so furiously rageth in these our daies, how­ever in times past, in certain by-matters and Circumstances of Religion,Note. your wisdom and my simplicity (I must confess) have a little jarred, each of us following—’

Do not you perceive (Sir) how his conscience prickt him [Page 24] 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 Iewel calls bables, follies, trifles) commending his wisdom (which you brand with obstinacy and a willfull humour) for his gener­ous fortitude in contending against them, even to the loss of his pretious 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 washt 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 stedfast in the liberty of the Gospel) to be a more desireable portion then the Bishoprick of London.

Verily (Mr. Doctor) it is a bad cause which doth not answer for it self; 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 any thing to your comfort and joy in the evil day.

You are yet warm in your Cloyster, lined with manifold favours, your zeal for the Church cannot want its recom­pence; 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, pretious 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, ‘That because in the twenty fourth Injunction in King Ed­wards time, that upon Holy and Festival dayes, it shall be lawful for men to labour in harvest, you extend this [Page 25] liberty, as well to the Lords day, as the Annual Festivals, and then you quote an Act of Parliament, to authorize this li­berty, and say that by that Act, any man, either in harvest, or or at any other times in the year (when necessity shall so require, who will not pretend necessity) may labour, ride, fish, or work any kind of work at their pleasure upon the Lords day. And you tell us what was done at Court on that day.’

Sir, we are confident that the intention of that Act did not reach to allow so gross a prophanation of the Lords 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 laboured with all your might, that such an Act may pass.

Oh Sir, must Jesus Christ our Lord, have no preheminence above our Lady? and must Iohn 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 Iacob done as much for us as Jesus Christ? and where is the least hint that one hour is to be set apart to their honour?

Must every paltry holy-day be set in equality of reputation with the Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 glorifie God, and lift up his name, which is Holy, Holy, Holy?

[Page 26] Oh Mr. Doctor, the time past may suffice you for this folly. You need not have now told us, that men may do any thing at their pleasure, if they say they have necessity, on the Lords day, and seek to establish this mischief by a Law. We would be loth to be in your coat in the day of the Lord, for your debasing the Lords day, for the best preferment the Church of England can give us. We say to you, as Bishop Iewel 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 numbring 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. Iohn Rogers Prebend of Saint Pauls, and Divinity Reader of that Church, who could never be perswaded to wear them: The like aversness (as you call it) you ascribe unto Mr. Iohn Philpot, Archdeacon of Winchester, who suffered in Queen Maries 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 Iewels 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 Archbishoprick 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 Bishoprick of Oxon, 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 Pauls, 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.

[Page 27] And page 165. part 2. you tell us that Father Iohn 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 offence to the Reformed Churches, both at home and abroad) be still to be pressed with accustomed rigor?

A second branch of the third Querie 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 enjoyned? 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 her self 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, Purgatorie, Latine Service, Worshipping of Images, half Communion, and such like, which are the Pillars of the Ro­mish Fabrick, 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 [Page 28] 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 levell 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 humour 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 Iewel, in the 11. page of a Ser­mon of his preached upon this Text, Ioshua 6. Now Iericho was shut up, &c. which is bound up in the same Book of his de­fence, in the end of it.

‘Ioshua▪ (saith that learned Bishop) suffered nothing to stand, he burnt all together, he left nothing remaining, were it never so little—In Religion, no part is to be called lit­tle, a hair is but little, yet it hath a shadow, in the body a little disquiet is often-times cause of death: The Ciniphes are but little, yet are they reckoned among the great plagues of God.—Paul saith, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I speak not this, because I think nothing at all may be left to any special purpose. For even in Iericho, where [Page 29] was made a general destruction, God himself commanded that all silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron should be saved, and brought into the Lords Treasury. Howbeit, the things that may be reserved, must not be dust or chaff, or hay, or stubble, but gold, and silver, and iron, I mean, they may not be things meet to furnish (do you see Doctor) and maintain superstition.’ 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 Canopie, ‘Moses, saith he, was commanded to make the Tabernacle, neither durst Moses or his work-men add or diminish, to do any thing more or less, otherwise then God had appointed him. Solomon built the Temple, but he followed not there­in any part of his own fancy, but only that self-same plat and proportion that God had given to his father, for so saith David, I Chron. 28. Here mark (good Christian Reader, saith he) in these examples God hath bridled our devotion, and hath taught us to worship him, not in such sort as may seem good in our eyes, but only as he hath commanded us. Yet Mr. Harding by his cunning, would make use of these examples to prove, that we may honour God in such sort, as we of our selves can best devise. This was (saith this learned Bishop) evermore the very root of all superstition.’

Therefore Mr. Doctor, I wish you would learn of that an­tient worthy Father Chrysostom, as Iewel quotes him, page 280. in his Defense. ‘Discamus Christum ex ipsius voluntate honorare: Nam qui honoratur, eo maxime honore laetatur, quem ipse vult, non quem nos optamus. And because you see Chrysostom cited, give us leave to pass an observation upon one passage you let fall, in page 123▪ part 2. you are there ad­miring the beauty of the face of the Church of England, and this is one part of her comeliness, that the Priests as you call them, executed not any divine Office but in their Sur­plice, a vestment set apart for Religious Services, you say in the Primitive times, as may be gathered, you say, from Chrysostom for the Eastern Churches, and from Saint Hierom for the Western.’ But Sir, what if this vestment come not from the Primitive times, but from the usages of the Heathen. Then either Chrysostom and Hierom were mistaken in saying [Page 30] so, or you have abused their names, in fathering an heathen­ish vanity on them, and the Primitive times.

Pray you, hear the Right Learned Iewel, page 281. of his Defense. ‘Neither, saith he to Harding, may ye justly and truly say (take heed of lying, Doctor) you have received none of your orders and usages from the Heathen. Nico­laus Leonicenus saith, Isidis sacerdotes in Aegypto utebantur lines vestibus, & semper erant detonso capillo, quod etiam per manus traditum ad nostra usque tempora pervenisse videtur, siquidem ii qui apud nos divino cultui & sacris Altaribus praesident, barbam comamque nutrire prohibentur & in sacris utuntur lineis amictibus: The Priests of the goddess Isis in Aegypt, used to wear linnen Surplices (rub your eyes, Doctor) and evermore had their head shaven, which thing seemeth to have been derived from them, unto our time from hand to hand; for they that among us minister Gods service, and serve the holy Altars, are forbidden to suffer the hair of their head or beard to grow, and in their divine Service they use linnen garments.’

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 Iewel, please you to peruse page 325, 326. of his Defence.

‘The learned and godly men, at whose persons it pleaseth you so rudely to scoff, (saith Jewel to Harding, Mr. Doctor, Harding used to scoff at Calvin and Zuinglius, and to upbraid Jewel with them) that refuse either to go in your apparel, or otherwise to shew themselves (note Sir) like unto you▪ have age sufficient, and can answer for themselves. Notwith­standing thus much I may say in their behalf: Neither do they commend any manner of apparel as holy, nor do they condemn any apparel as unholy—They say not therefore, that the apparel is either holy or unholy, but they may truly say, the same apparel on your part hath been fouly abused to filthy purposes. They may justly say, [Page 31] they would not gladly in any appearance (good Doctor, note this) shew themselves like unto them, that have so untruly and so long deceived the world. And herein they are not without sundrie Authorities, and examples of the godly Fathers. Saint Augustine saith, his mother left bringing of Wine and Cakes to the Church, but only for that she was warned, it was a resemblance of the superstition of the Heathens, and so she left it. Saint Gregory speaking of the three sprinklings or dippings into the holy Font, saith thus, In unâ fide nihil officit consuetudo Ecclesiae diversa; Tamen quod Haereticiid fecerint, negant idem esse à Catholicis facien­dum: The faith being one (but it is not so between us and Rome) the diversity of customs hurteth nothing; yet for­asmuch as Hereticks have thus done, they say the Catholicks may in no wise do the same.’

‘Tertullian reasoneth vehemently, That a Christian man ought not to go with a Laurel Garland upon his head, and that for none other reason, but only for that the Heathen used so to go. Whereupon Beatus Rhenanus giveth this note, Non solùm ab his remperandum fuit, quae manifestam praese ferrent impietatem, sed etiam ab illis quae possent indifferentia vocari, hoc est, quae essent neque bona, neque mala. Partim (pray mark Sir) ne quisquam infirmior ex Christianis offenderetur, partim ne ethnici (did not Calvin say the Papists would grow more insolent) in suis erroribus confirmarentur, dum rectius putant esse, quod etiam Christianos observare vident: It was meet for them to refrain, not only from such things as have a manifest shew of wickedness, but also from such things as might be called indifferent, that is to say, neither good nor ill: Partly, left any of the weaker Christians should be offended: Partly also, lest the Heathens (we say Papists) should be encouraged in their errors, thinking that thing, for that the Christians themselves do it, to be the better.’ 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, ‘The contrivers of that Act, did intend by degrees to weaken [Page 32] the authority of the Episcopal order, by forcing them from their strong hold of Divine institution.’

We hope Sir, you will not assume so much upon you in the Divinity school, wich is given to Aristotle in the Logick, 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 lookt 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 extoll for his great learning, from whom you say all ‘Controversors have furnisht themselves (being a Magazin of all sorts of learning, page 131. part 2.) with arguments:’ it is Reverend Iewel: from this Magazin 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 Iewel.

Harding (page 196. of the Defence) 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 heresie: in the Margin over against these words in the letter R. Iewel saith it is an untruth, that ever any were condemned for heresie for denying this distinction of a Bishop and a Priest, for if it were so saith he, both ‘St. Paul and St. Hierome, and other good men are condemned of heresie.’ Afterward page 202. of the Defence having taken notice and answered what [Page 33] Harding had said against the sufficiency of the Scriptures and for Traditions:If Dr. Pierce be pleased to read the right learned Pre­late Iewel, he may learn from him (we hope he will not take it in scorn) to learn less upon tra­dition and more upon the Word of God. 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? ‘Thinketh he that Priests and Bishops hold only by Tradition? (he mean­eth not the distinction but the office) Or is it so horrible an heresie as he maketh it, to say that by the (do you see Doctor) Scriptures of God a Bishop and a Priest are all one? Or knoweth he how far, and unto whom he reacheth the name of an heretick?’

‘Verily Chrysostom saith, Inter Episcopum & Presbyter um interest ferme nihil, Between a Bishop and a Priest in a man­ner there is no difference. St. Hierom saith somewhat in rougher sort, Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam, ut Diaconos Presbyteris (id est, Episcopis) anteforret: cum Apostolus perspicue doceat eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episco­pos, Note. I hear say, there is one become so peevish, that he setteth Deacons before Priests, that is to say, before Bishops, whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us, that Priests and Bishops be all one.’

‘St. Augustin saith, Quid est Episcopus nisi primus▪ Presby­ter, hoc est, summus sacerdos, what is a Bishop, but the first Priest, that is to say, the highest Priest.’

‘So saith St. Ambrose, Episcopi & Presbyteri una ordinatio, uterque enim sacerdos est, sed Episcopus▪ primus est: There is but one confecration of Priest and Bishop, for both of them are Priests, but the Bishop is the first.’

‘All these and more holy Fathers, (saith learned Iewel) together with St. Paul the Apostle, for thus saying, by Mr. Hardings advice, must be holden for Hereticks.’

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 Defence. ‘But Mr. Harding saith, the Primates had authority over other inferiour Bishops. I grant saith Bishop Iewel, they had so. Howbeit, they had it by agreement and custom, but neither by Christ (observe Doctor) nor by Peter, nor by Paul, nor by any right of Gods Word. St. Hierom saith, Noverint Episcopi, se magis consuetudine, quam dispo­sitionis [Page 34] Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores, & in com­mune debere Ecclesiam regere: let Bishops understand (would to God they would) that they are above Priests, rather of Custom, then of any truth or right of Christs institution, and that they ought to rule the Church altogether. He proceeds in other passages out of St. Hierom—’

‘Augustin saith, Secundum honorum vocabula,’ 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 Iewels Parenthesis) but after the names of honour, which the custome of the Church hath now obtained.

Thus, Sir, you see Bishop Iewel 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 Soveraign, whom we are bound to obey, and honour as our lawful and rightful King, and to love and reverence for his Gratious and most acceptable indulgence exprest in his refreshing Declaration, please to cast the beams of his coun­tenance ‘upon the Bishops, and to make them (as you say) his Ministers only, his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs to execute his will, page 51. part 1.’ such is our high esteem of his Maje­sties pleasure, that we shall strain to the very utmost (so that we may preserve the incommunicable Iewel of a good con­science) to conform unto it.

The meanest groom receiving the impression of his Maje­sties favour, 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 intreat 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 Majesties expectation in his Princely and pious Declaration) in our several vocations with all our parts and strength, as much endeavour 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 [Page 35] together in Convocation, will be so tender of his Majesties Honour 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 humour, which you say was at work so busie in our first Reformers, is lurking in us, and that we have an evil eye upon your great preferments and revenues (our jealousie is not causeles, 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 mans titles and dignities; we have food and raiment, and are contented with our por­tion, and seek not great things. All that we begg 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 thred, 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 Iewel said of the Pope, page 366. in his Defense.

‘Let the Pope do the duty of a Bishop: let him exhort: let him preach: let him dispense Gods mysteries: let him fulfill his office: let him do the part of an Evangelist: and we will love him and reverence him, although not as Christs Vicar general, yet at least as a Bishop; otherwise we must say unto him, as St. Gregory said sometime to Cyriacus the Bishop of Constantinople: Omnes magnos esse & honorabiles cupio, quorum tamen honor honori omnipotentis dei non detra­hat: nam quisquis se contra deum honorari appetit, mihi hono­rabilis non est, I wish that all men might be great and honourable, so that their honour be not prejudicial to the [Page 36] honour of Almighty God; for whosoeve shall desire him­self to be honoured against God, shall not be honourable unto me.’

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 prophane insulting rabble, to see their maintenance duely paid to them, to hold Provincial Synods, to set up Lectures in all the chief Market Towns of their Diocesses, to watch against and punish such as preach treason, sedition, heresie, 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 prophane disorders, especially on the Lords day: Hic labor, hoc opus, this will finde 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 Gods 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 be­haviour 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 admonisht, 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, [Page 37] 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 Cloyster, 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 savour and efficacy.

To bring you in love with Preaching, we shall offer to you Bishop Iewels 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 Maries in Oxon, which is to be found before the Book called the Defence, it is upon these words, 1 Pet. 4. 11. If any man speak, &c.

In the third page are these words.

‘If the Sun were taken away from the world, all things should be left dark, disparkled and confounded; so if the voice of the Pastor be taken out of the Church, Religion is left at sixes and sevens, it is left blind, troubled, all things are mingled with error, superstition and idolatry; of so great weight it is to be a Steward of the house of God. The Go­spel, Religion, Godliness, the health of the Church, depend­eth of us alone. This is our office, this we take upon us, and [Page 38] this we profess. And except we do this, we do nothing, we serve to no use at all. It is not enough to know I know not what learning, the Devils perhaps know more then any of us all, it belongeth to a Pastor not so much to have known many things, as to have taught much. Let it shame us, that the basest kind of men, even Coblers and Porters, do that which belongeth unto them, and we which ought to give light to all others, are idle and do nothing: For God would not have us to be idle bellies, but he would have us to be interpreters of his mind, Ministers of Jesus Christ, the light of the world, salt, Angels, and the sons of God.—’

Much more excellent matter to this purpose you may there read. And he concludes his Sermon thus, ‘Whatsoever we are able by nature, whatsoever by counsel, whatsoever by wit or cunning, let us bestow it all to serve the Church of God—If we be the Brethren of Christ, let us hear Christ, let us feed his Lambs, let us feed his sheep, let us go, let us preach, let us teach—’

And Mr. Doctor, this great office of preaching is mightily hindred 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 Iewel complains of as a sure in-let to Popery, in his Sermon upon Ioshua 6. from these words, Now Jericho was shut up, &c. page 14. ‘But when, saith he, we see the great blindness and ignorance in all places abroad: (how could you, Mr. Doctor, so admire the face of the Church of England, page 123. part 2. when you see her so blind, for this Sermon was either preached before Queen Elisabeth, or at Pauls Cross in her Reign) what hope may we have to see Iericho (he meaneth Rome) suppressed or quite overthrown? It cannot be, but great inconveniences shall follow in the Church of God, as confusion of Order, and dissolution of life, to the indangering of the State, unless by godly care of the Magi| strates, some help be provided. This care must shew it self in removing blind Watch-men, who have no knowledge (he doth not say, that cannot read the Common-Prayer) who are but dumb dogs that cannot bark, who lie and sleep, and de­light [Page 39] in sleeping. These greedy dogs can never have enough, faith the Prophet Isaiah. Non-residence and absence from their Cure, is a fault that would be amended in the Shepherds of the Lords flock▪ Though they be never so able to instruct, and therefore worthy to have the Rooms in the Church, yet if they have not a desire to do good, if they feed not Christ's sheep, if they be strangers to the people of their charge, if they be not at hand to give their flocks their bread in due season, what let may here be (the Common Prayer could not prevent it) but that ignorance and blindness shall grow and increase in the people.’

‘Another fault, saith he, no less hurtful to the Church of God, is the suffering of Pluralities, when one man taketh the profit of two or more Benefices, which is not worthy of one. These Non-residents and Plurality-men teach not, they know not, nor care for the people of their charge; they have brought this confusion (do you see, Doctor, what a glorious Church we had in the time of Queen Elisabeth?) and shame into the House of God, they are blind guides, they are the darkness of the world. Against those which are such, God sheweth his heavy displeasure, Ezek. 34. Ier. 2. Ier. 10.’

These either be a Remnant (do you see, Sir, we are not yet fully reformed) of the wicked inhabitants of Iericho, (i.e. Rome) that resist the passage of Gods people (we are yet in the Wilderness, Doctor) towards the Land of pro­mise— These be they that seek the restoring of Iericho, (do you know no such in the Convocation Sir?) and the over| throw of Ierusalem; therefore the curse of God will fall upon them, the blood of Gods people shall be required at their hands, because they bring the abomination of desolati­on into the holy place, because they suffer Christs 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 Iericho and Ierusalem.—

Let us go on, Mr. Doctor, to his next Sermon to this, about Iericho, upon Haggai cap. 1. V. 2, 3, 4. Thus speaketh the [Page 40] Lord of Hosts, saying, This people say, that the time is not yet come, that the Lords house should be builded, &c.

After much excellent matter, which you may there read, page the fifth, he speaks thus, ‘What greater disorder can be in the Church of God, then when Antichrist shall come and sit in the place of God? I know many are offended to hear the Pope pointed out for Antichrist, and think it an uncha­ritable point of doctrine; therefore I refrain to use any such names, and only will report to you of others, by what tokens Antichrist may be known when he cometh. Gregory, as it were in the Spirit of Prophesie, writing against Iohn Bishop of Constantinople, saith, Rex superbiae prope est, & quod dici­nefas est, sacerdotum est praeparatus exercitus: The king of pride is at hand, and which is unlawful to be said, an army of Priests is prepared; by these tokens, saith Gregory, you may know him, he shall be the Prince of pride, and he shall have an army of Priests to wait upon him. In another place he saith, Quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in Elatione suâ Antichristum praecurrit: Whosoever calleth himself the Universal Priest▪ or desireth so to be called in the pride of his heart, is the fore-runner of Anti­christ— When the woman of Samaria saw the Miracles that Christ had done, and heard some men doubt whether he were the Messias or no, Why, quoth she, when Messias shall come, shall he do more signs then this man hath shewed? So may we say by the Bishop of Rome, when Antichrist shall come▪ shall he work more signs, then they of that See have done? Shall he work more disorder in the Church? Shall he do more to the dishonor of God, and against Christ?’

We desire you would at your leisure read page 480, 481. of his Defence, and page 365. where, and in many other places, you will find this Right Learned Prelate not so shie, 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, ‘must I touch the causes that withhold men from the building of Gods Temple▪’

[Page 41] ‘The first seemed to be despair of the cause, for they saw it was a long travel from Babylon to Ierusalem.—’

‘Others charged them with sedition, and said, if these men may once recover their City, they will pay no more tri­bute—Look in your Chronicles, and you shall find that the Jews have ever been traitors.’

‘Even so when the man of God Luther, was raised up by God to reforme the Church, a friend of his said unto him: O Father Luther, you shall never be able to prevail, the Pope and Princes and all the world are against you, the matter is past recovery, go into your study, and say, Deus misereatur nostri.—’

‘Even now that it hath pleased God to restore his Gospel, they that are of the contrary part (of which side are you Doctor) cry out, these men be rebels, they would have no Magistrate, they would have all things in common, behold what they have done in Helvetia, behold what they have done in Germany▪ look out your Chronicles, you shall find that all the uproars and seditions which have been these forty years, have been stirred up by some one of them.’

‘But all this discouraged not the good Prince Zorobabel— some confess many things are out of frame, but they say it is no time to fall a building, we must look for a general Council.’

‘Some others say it is not yet time, the Bishops be they should redress the Church, would to God they would; for they should be lux mundi, the light of the world; they should be Shepherds and Watchmen, they should be builders of Gods Church: but what if the light become darkness? What if the Shepherds become Wolves? What if the Watch| men lie asleep? What if the builders become overthrowers? Ieremy saith, the Pastors have overthrown the Vineyard, and is it likely they will reare it up again? I pray God lighten their hearts with his holy Spirit, and make them to be that they profess themselves to be, the light of the world, and true labourers in Gods Vineyard, and faithful builders of his house (Amen).’

‘In the mean season let us remember, that in the old Law, whensoever the Bishop grew out of order, God raised up [Page 42] sometimes Prophets▪ sometimes Princes to reform the Church—For the Prince is Keeper of the Law of God, and that of both Tables, as well of the first that pertaineth to Religion, as of the second that pertaineth to good order—By that authority Moses rebuked Aaron the Bishop: Ioas redressed the riot of the Priests: Salomon put down high Bishop Abiathar, and set up Sadoc.—’

‘After the coming of Christ, Constantine a godly Emperor, threatned the Bishops if they would not be ruled, he would take upon him to see them punished, as having indeed autho­rity and power over Bishops.—’

‘Other impediments there be that keep men from building of Gods house, but that which God complaineth of by the Prophet, is, that every man fell to build his own house, and left the house of God unbuilded.—’

‘Oh that Aggeus the Prophet were now alive and saw the rearing up of Gods Temple here in England! (he doth not mean the repairing of Pauls Church, but teaching and feeding Gods people) what, think you, he would say, You build your own houses, and leave the house of God forsaken: nay he would say, you build your own mansions, and pull down the house of God.’

‘The Masters of the work▪ build Benefice upon Benefice, and Deanry upon Deanry,Note. as though Rome (note, Sir) were yet in England. The poor flock is given over to a Wolfe, the poor children cry out for bread, the bread of life, and there is no man to break it to them.’

‘The Noble man or Gentleman, the Patrons of Benefices, give presentations of Benefices, either to be Farmers them­selves, or else with exception of their own tenths, or with some other condition that is worse then this. The poor Minister must keep his house, buy him books, relieve the poor, and live, God knoweth how, and so do you too.’

‘O good my Lords and Brethren, I come not hither to be a patron for money matters God seeth my heart, before whom I speak it: but I see Gods Temple by this means is for­saken—’

‘There lack Ministers throughout the Realm, to teach the people (here is not a word (Sir) of the Liturgy) and to build [Page 43] up the walls of Gods Church, one poor hireling is driven to serve two or three Parishes—If there be none to be found, nor hope of any to be hereafter: be you well assured (good Doctor consider this) that Acts of Parliament and Pro­clamations are not enough to content the conscience of the people, and to build up the Temple.’

‘Oh that the Queens Majesty knew the great scarcity, and miserable need of Ministers that is abroad! And I beseech you, good my Lords, and other Honourable and Worshipful that are here, that have or may have access unto her, to put her in remembrance, that her Grace will be mindful of the house of God, and redress the greediness, both of corrupt Patrons, and of such who ingross and gather into their hands many livings, being themselves the remnant (do you see Do­ctor) of the ignorant and persecuting Babylon; and yet leave to take charge over the people; blind Sir Johns, not only lack Latin,Note. but lack honesty, and lack conscience, and lack Religion. It would be a great furtherance to the Church of God (Doctor commend the care of this to the Con| vocation) and a wonderful way to increase Schools and the Universities. Now I come (saith he) to the manner of the building. And what better way can be devised to restore Christs Church (Doctor tell the Convocation so) then that we see used by Christ himself; when in any matter he was opposed by the Pharisees, he calleth them back to the Scriptures; so Iosias, so Ezechias, so Iosaphat reformed the Temple of God when it was polluted, according to the pattern of the Scri| ptures.—’

‘Wherefore the foundation of this building whereupon all the whole work must rest,See Dugdales History of Pauls Cathe­dral. p. 5. must be Christ and his holy World.—’

‘Whatsoever we see that they have done which were our latter Fathers before us, that have destroyed Christs Church, let us remember to do the contrary (note Sir▪) Their founda| tion is ignorance, let our foundation be Christ and the know­ledge of Gods' Word—They build Gods Word upon the Church: let us as Paul doth teach us, build the Church on Gods Word.—’

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

[Page 44] 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 humour, a right learned Prelate would not have advised to it.

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

‘We are in love (saith he) with our own corruption, and as the people saith, we rejoyce when we have done wickedly; we cannot abide to have our faults touched, our pride is grown up as high as heaven, and our covetousness is sunk as deep as hell: our poor weak brethren be offended, and think that these be the very fruits of Christs Gospel; yet we can in no wise suffer to be reproved, we say to the Preacher, Peace, and talk not to us in the Name of the Lord, tell not us of the Scriptures, tell not us of Christ, of Peter, and Paul; We bid him speak us fair, and bless those things that be ac­cursed by Gods own mouth: We say, he is too busie, he medleth with that he knoweth not. Yes, yes man he know­eth it well enough, he knoweth that pride is pride, that sin is sin, and thou and thine own conscience knoweth it too, if thou wouldst be known of it, and this is extream misery that we are so far plunged in sin, that we can neither abide our own faults, nor yet the amending of them. Are these the fruits of Gods Gospel? Are these the fruits of the innocent blood, that we see shed before our eyes? Are these our tears for the sins we have committed? Are these the thanks we render unto God for giving unto us so great blessings? But, what said I, blessings? would God we were so blessed that we might consider our blessedeness. Many already bewray the weakness of their stomacks, they brook not the Gospel, yea they seem already weary of these Preachers, they call them Pulpit-men of the Spirit, and I know not what; as though they themselves had nothing to do with Gods Spirit. Ah merciful God—’ 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.

[Page 45] ‘All men ought to be patient and gentle in matters pertain| ing to themselves; but in Gods cause no man must yield or be patient, where all along he presseth for a learned and Preach­ing ministry, but not a word for the Common-Prayer.’

He directs his speech to Queen Elizabeth. ‘Oh that your Grace did behold the miserable disorder of Gods Church (where is your glorious reformation, your goodly building Mr. Doctor?) or that you might foresee the calamities that will follow. It is a part of your Kingdom, and such a part as is the principal prop and stay of the rest. I will say to your Majesty, as Cyrillus sometimes said to the godly Emperor Theodosius and Valentinian, Ab eâ quae erga deum est pietate, reipublicae vestrae status pendet, the good estate and welfare of your Commonwealth hangeth upon true godliness: you are our Governor, you are the nurse of Gods Church, we must open this grief before you. God knoweth if it may be redressed,We say also help O King. it hath grown so long, and is run so far; but if it may be redressed, there is no other besides your Highness that can redress it.’

‘I hope I speak truly,Fully verified in our graci­ous King. that which I speak without flattery, that God hath endued your Grace with such a measure of learning and knowledge as no other Christian Prince. He hath given you peace, happiness, the love and true hearts of your Subjects. Oh turn and employ these to the glory of God, that God may confirm in your Grace the thing which he hath begun.—’

Let us follow him to his next Sermon on these words, Mat. 9. 37, 38. The harvest is great, but the labourers are few, &c. —He saith not the harvest is great, and there are but few ‘Scribes, but few Pharisees, but few Sadduces, but few Priests, but few Levites.—Their number was almost infinite.—’

‘I say not, there be but few Cardinals, few Bishops, few Priests that should be Preachers (not Common-prayer-book| men, Sir) few Archdeacons, few Chancellors; few Deans, few Prebendaries, few Vicars, few Parish Priests, for the number of these is almost infinite—Cardinals have Pillars and Poleaxes carried before them in token that they be Pillars and Stayes of the Church, and Poleaxes to beat down all evil doctrine. And what shall I speak of Bishops, their [Page 46] cloven Miter signifieth the perfect knowledge of the Old Te| stament and the New: their Crosier staffe signifieth their di­ligence in attending the flock of Christ. Their purple Boots and Sandals, signifie that they should be ever Booted and ready to go abroad thorow thick and thin to teach the Go­spel (not a word of the Liturgy, or ordering of Churches or Ce­remonies.)—’

‘O lift up your eyes, and consider how the hearts of your poor brethren lie wast without instruction (had they not the Common-prayer?) without knowledge, without the food of life, without the comfort of Gods word, such a misery as never was seen among the heathens—(where is your Primitive lustre Mr. Doctor?)—’

‘In such a state as a flock is in, which hath no Shepherd, as the ship which hath no Pilot to guide it, or the sucking-child which hath no nurse to feed it; even in such state are your souls, if you have not the Ministery of Gods Word.—’

‘Laborers they must be and not loiterers, for Christ com­pareth the teaching of his people to things that be of great labor, as to plowing, to planting—’

‘Therefore if they be Pastors, let them feed the flock; if they be Doctors (consider Sir) let them teach the people—’

‘This is the way to build up the Church of Christ (Common­prayer will not do it)—’

‘This is the only instrument wherewith we may cut down and have in the harvest of God.’

‘For all mans devices, acts, laws or commandments (good Doctor let the Convocation know so much) be the authority thereof never so great, yet are not sufficient to content one mans conscience (why then, Mr. Doctor, do you talk of obstinacy and willfull humour?)’

‘Aristotle the great wise Philosopher on a time being sick, when the Physitian came to him to minister him a potion, and shewed him not what was in it, began to chafe and take on with him, why said he, heal not me as thou wouldft heal an Ox or a Horse, but shew me what thou givest me. Even so must the people be healed of their errors. Fides, faith Ber [...]. suadenda est non imponenda, faith may not be compulsed by [Page 47] force or rigor, but gently brought in by perswasion. Saint Paul saith, Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.’

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

‘The Religon of the Jews, was the true worship of the only God, yet Pliny saith, it was Contemptus omnium numinum, the despsing of all the gods. The Jews suffered no images to be in their Churches, (because God had forbidden them) yet Cornelius Tacitus said, they worship their God in the form of an Ass; others said, they worship a God whom they call Sabaoth, in the shape and fashion of an Hogg; and therefore that they were forbidden to eat Swines-flesh; others, that they worship Saturnus, because they were com| manded to keep holy Saturday.’

‘The wicked and cruel Haman, to bring the people of God into hatred with the King Ahashuerus, made his complaint of them in this wise, May it please your Majesty, saith he, to understand, you have a people here in your Realm, that useth a new kind of Religion, and will not be ordered by your Graces Laws—’

‘This is Gods holy will, that for our exercise, whatsoever we say or do, be it never so well, it shall be ill taken.’

‘Iulian the Apostate, found fault with the simplicity and rudeness of Gods Word.’

‘Tertullian saith, the Heathens in the time of the Primitive Church, were wont to paint out in mockery, the God of the Christians, with an Asses head and a Book in his hand, in token that the Christians professed learning, but indeed were Asses, rude and ignorant. And do not our Adversaries the like this day, against all those that profess the Gospel of Jesus Christ? O, say they, who are they that favour this way? None but Shoemakers, Taylors, Weavers, Appren| tices, such as never were in the University, but be altogether ignorant and void of Learning. Thus you have been born in hand, that you might be brought to mistrust the Go| spel.—’

‘Saint Paul was counted a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition.’

[Page 48] ‘Tertullian saith, that in his time the Christians were called hostes publici, that is, enemies and destroyers of all common States. And these reports they did not only scatter among the common people, but also dropt them into the Magistrates and Princes ears, that they might have an ill opinion of Christian Religion, and suppress (Note Sir) the Ministers and Preachers of it. So unkind commonly men have been, towards the Messengers of Gods Word.’

‘In these latter times it hath been laid to Preachers and Professors of Christs Gospel, that they have been Godless, seditious, rebells, despisers of good orders—Such things as would not be believed, spoken of a thief or murtherer, will soon be believed of him that professeth the name and Gospel of Jesus Christ.—’

‘Despise not, good Brethren, despise not to hear Gods Word, (not a word of the Liturgy) as you tender your own souls, be diligent to come to Sermons.—’

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 judgement of the best Bishop (the rarest Iewel 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 dyed) a good part of her reign, the Church of England to be full of blindness, disorder, prophane 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 Iewel, whom you do seem to reverence. Bishop Iewel 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 [Page 49] 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 Iewel with?

There are some parcells and odd passages in your History, which we shall only mention, and refer you to learned Iewel to answer your self out of him; page 53. part 1. you say, ‘The Zuinglian Churches were in an error, in that they deny| ed a Real presence, and held there was nothing else in the blessed Eucharist but signs and figures; and that Ridley, whom you encline to, affirmed, That in the Sacrament are truly and verily, the body and blood of Christ made forth effectually by Grace and Spirit. Sir, Harding saith the very same as you do.’ See Iewels reply to Harding, page 235▪ in the Ar­ticle of Real presence; and there you shall see, how▪ Iewel takes him up; and you will understand to speak more like a Protestant Doctor; and in page 262. of the Defence, saith he to Harding, ‘You call our doctrine naked and cold, for that we say, the Sacrament is a figure.’ 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 Iewel. You shall find these words in his answer to Mr. Hardings Preface, page 5. ‘You say we have overthrown Altars, verily Mr. Harding, we have overthrown nothing, but that which Gods good will (note Sir) was should be overthrown. Christ saith, Every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. An Altar we have, such as Christ and his Apostles had, the Table of the Lord, and stood not at the end of the Quire, but in the midst of the people,Note. as many wayes it may appear—’

You say also, page 140. part 2. That the Zuinglian Gospel| lers, or the Genevian party (why cannot you call them Prote| stants?) did rejoyce at a lamentable accident which happened to Pauls Steeple; and there you fall into the praises of that Idolatrous Fabrick; and to quit it of the displeasure of hea­ven, you have got a tale by the end, of an old Plumber, who [Page 50] confessed, that woful accident came by his negligence, in leaving carelesly 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 Iewel saith in his Treatise of the Holy Scriptures, (bound up with the Defence) page 30▪ speaking of Kingdoms and Coun| tries,See Dugdales History of Pauls Cathe­dral▪ page 3. which were in times past Heathenish, mentions Eng­land also, and saith he, ‘Here in England, Pauls Church in `London was the Temple of Diana, Peters Church in West­minster was the Temple of Apollo—’

In ten of your last lines, you threaten the world with a Presbyterian History, for the carrying on of whose designs since the dayes of Calvin, (you may say Luther as well) they have most miserably, you say, imbroyled 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 Sove­raign, which you profess in your Epistle Dedicatory? Will not your bitter spirit be conjured down, neither by Royal command, nor Soveraign example?

Sir, you know, or may know, that Bishop Iewel is fain to Apologize for the Church of England, to wipe of that slander you have cast upon the Presbyterians, page 10. of his De­fence. ‘They cry out upon us (faith he) at this present every where, that we are all Hereticks, and have forsaken the Faith, and have with new perswasions and wicked learn­ing utterly dissolved the concord of the Church. And again, page 15. That we labour and seek to overthrow the state of Monarchies and Kingdoms. Nay Sir, do not you shake hands with that Varlet Harding, pag. 18. Before Luthers time saith he, (before Calvins time say you) all Christian people came together peaceably into one Church, in one accord, but after, &c.’

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 justifie the seats and [Page 51] passions (oppression makes a wise man mad) of every indi­viduum of that perswasion, 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 certè & speciosa oratio, sed à satanae spiritu profecta, qui tum demum se prodit, quum adrem ventum est.Note. Tum enim nihil adeò turpe est—Quòd si qui objiciat no omnia ab Apostolis vel à Luca fuisse perscripta. Quae­so cur ita censent? An quia pauca continent? Imò verò utinam eâ paucitate contenti fuissent, qui se Apostolis jactant successisse. Neque enim voluit abrogari Dominus Mosaicos ritus,Note. ut alii sub­stituerentur, etsi Iudaiz [...]re non licuit, multo minus Gentilizare oportuit; quod si veteribus Episcopis in mentem venisset, Christiana religio neque tam citò neque tam turpiter,Note. primum (Note Sir) in Ceremonias vanas, & Ludicras Liturgias, deinde etiam in manifestissimam superstitionem, ac tandem in Atheismum dege­nerasset—

[Page 52] Mr. Doctor, we are sorrie, that having travailed over your History, we must say of you, as Reverend Iewel said of Harding in his Preface to the Reader of his Defence, ‘When Scriptures fail, then discourse of wit must come in place (of your Acts of Parliaments) and when wit and discourse will not serve, then good plain round railing must serve the turn▪ Then he discourseth and flingeth now at his Lutherans; now at his Hugenotes; now at Brown; now at the Puritans▪ now at Bale; now at Illyricus (Now at the Calvinists▪ now at the Zuinglian Gospellers▪)’

‘Thus he, saith Iewel, jumpeth and courseth this way and that way, as a man roving without a mark, or a Ship fleeting without a Rudder. Thus he sheweth us a mountain of words without substance, and a house full of smoak without fire and imagineth that his little Elder-pipe, by discourse of [...] will resemble the sound of a double Canon. When [...] we may say of him, as the poor man said that shore [...] Here is a great crie, and little wool.’

‘Bring us but the authority of Scripture (that wisdom that is from above) to justifie our obedience in these points in difference, you shall find us gentle and easie to be intreated▪ But if you resolve to turn us off (as you say Weston did Mr. Iohn Philpot, and the five other Divines, page 30. part 2) It is not, saith he, the Queens pleasure, that we should spend any longer time in these debates, and ye are well enough al­ready, for you, saith he, have the Word, and we have the sword, if you resolve to assault us with this Argument, the Lord put on you the bowels of mercy, and on us the Armour of patience.’