as Christians and Brethren of the same Communion with us is because these differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christ's Body I Answer by denying that to be the true and adequate Reason for the true Reason is because in the Case supposed of two Churches independent one on the other and not subject to any Common Governour the one Church has no Power to impose Rites and Ceremonies on the other and consequently no sufficient ground to quarrel with it meerly for disagreeing from it in matter of Ceremony but if any of the members of one of the Churches refuse to submit to the Rites appointed by their own proper Governours their Agreement in Fundamentals is no sufficient ground why either their own or the other Church should receive them to Sacramental Communion He says indeed that those Differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christs Body But 1. does he hold that every one who is really a member of Christs Body ought eo nomine to be admitted to all the Privileges of Christian Communion if he does he must either deny that any real member of Christs Body can do any notorious wrong to his Neighbour by word or deed or else he must condemn our Church for requiring the Minister of each Parish to repell such a Person from the Communion till either he makes actual recompence for the Injury or declare himself fully resolv'd to do it when conveniently he may If not then the meer consideration that such a man is really a a member of Christs Body does not oblige any in whose Power it is to admit him to all those Privileges 2. Does he hold that meer agreeing in Fundamentals is all that 's required to the being a real member of Christ If not then neither is that sufficient to qualifie a man for all the Privileges of Christian Communion 3. I suppose he will not deny that there are Practical as well as Speculative Fundamentals and I presume he is of Opinion That Obedience to our Lawful Governours in things Lawful is one of the Fundamentals of Practice If he denies the former he contradicts the Doctrin of some of his own Testimonies which affirm That there are Fundamental Articles of Faith without which Christian Faith cannot subsist nor Everlasting Life be obtain'd and That there are also Fundamental Heads of Discipline p. 56. and that those are so which promote and maintain the means of Salvation and without which we cannot live a Christian Life And that whosoever perishes must be separated from the Foundation by some Fundamental Error in Doctrin or in Practice which supposes that there are Fundamentals of Practice as well as Belief As to the latter he confesses pag. 187. of his Book That in those matters which are not apparently forbidden by the clear Word of God men ought to yield Obedience to the Commands of their Superiours and if he will own that they ought to do so on pain of Damnation as I hope he will then 't is a Fundamental Duty even in his own account That Christian therefore that does not think it such a Duty is by this Doctrin guilty of a Fundamental Error in reference to Christian Practice and he who does think it his duty and does not Act accordingly is guilty of a damnable Neglect Now I desire to know of this Author 1. Whether meer agreeing to Fundamentals whether of Belief or Practice that is assenting to them will constitute and continue a man a real member of Christs Body without at least resolving to Act accordingly if there be not time for more and the performance of that Resolution if there be 2. Whether differences in the Fundamentals of Practice will not hinder men from being real members of Christs Body 3. Whether though they agree in the Fundamentals of Practice that is own and assent to them as matter of necessary Duty in order to Salvation yet if they persist in the Neglect of any part of such Duty they ought to be own'd by the Church either as real members of Christ or as Persons to whom belong all the Privileges of Christian Communion If he says they ought I desire to know 4. Why they should be acknowled'gd as Persons rightly qualified for the Privileges of Christianity here or its Rewards hereafter who are either so Ignorant as not to know or so negligent as not to Practise that which Christianity has made Fundamentally necessary to Salvation to be both Known and Practised Particularly I would willingly be inform'd by this man whether account the preservation of the External Unity of the particular Church whether National Diocesan or Parochial of which men are members a Fundamental of Practice or no. If he does how can he account those Persons real members of Christs Body who are so far from preserving that Unity in either of those Churches that they industriously destroy it in all of them not submitting themselves to the Rules of Order and Government appointed for either of them If he does not then why does he 1. expresly Acknowledge That Schisms and Divisions do apparently dissolve the Church-Vnity And 2. by asking those questions pag. 28. of his Book implicitely Acknowledge That Persons become Schismatical by refusing to be One with us in Discipline and by renouncing Communion with us in our Publick Worship supposing there be nothing Evil in it And 3. pronounce all Separate Congregations Schismatical for their not being subject to the Government of our Diocesans p. 59. And then 4. Acknowledge the Sin of Schism to be an heinous destructive and pernicious Evil one of those fleshly works which they who do shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Chap. 2. pag. 24. 25. It must follow therefore from his own Principles and Concessions That they who are guilty of Schism are guilty of Erring in a Fundamental of Practice Now since Schism is by his own Confession so pernicious an Evil since by his own Confession also refusing to be One with the Church of England in Communion with its Publick Worship is a Breach and Dissolution of Church-Unity since also refusing subjection to the Government of our Diocesan Bishops is dissolving the Unity of Discipline and therefore Schismatical and since all separate Congregations in this Nation are in his own Opinion guilty of Schism 't is evident 1. That the members of those Congregations either do Not Agree in all the Fundamentals of Practice or else do Not Act suitably to that Agreement but are so far from it that they persist in Schismatical Practices contrary to the dictate of their Judgement and Conscience 2. That they are not of the same Communion with us and 3. That the Pleas which this Prefacer makes use of in their behalf pag. 58. viz. Their Agreement in Fundamentals and their being real members of Christs Body are very insufficient because by dissolving as much as in them lie the Unity of the Church of England and its Discipline they practically differ in a Fundamental
with those Constitutions also And I doubt himself is not so strong and hardy as to affirm that our Lyturgy and Diocesan Episcopacy are things founded on a Divine unchangeable Law And if they be not his Arguments will conclude against them as well as against the imposition of Ceremonies As for the Testimonies which follow pag. 23. 24. c. my Remarks on them are these 1. Some of them I confess seem to speak home to this Author's design and pretend that our Ceremonies ought to be abolish'd but if this Man's Book be fraught with no better Reasons to prove it than those mention'd by him out of the Epistles of Judicious Beza and Learned Zanchy I 'll be bold to say that it is good for little but to prove the Author a very weak Brother 2. He shewed himself too near of kin to such aâ— Brother in pretending pag. 23. That Calvin styl'd our Ceremonies Follies but owning that affirmed them Tolerable Follies and then writing a great Book himself to prove them intolerable But as to that Censure which Calvin is said to pass upon our Ceremonies see Durell's Vindiciae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Cap. 12. where he makes it more than probable That that Censure was not meant of our Ceremonies nor of the English Lyturgy as it wa in it self at that time but as it was knavishly represented to him by the English Sectaries of those days 3. I observe that several of his Testimonies pag. 38. c. seem not to speak of the duty of the Governours of this or that particular Church to bear with and indulge the Members of their own Church in matters indifferent but of the Duty only of one Protestant Church pag. 40. 41. towards another viz. That if both Churches agree in Fundamentals their differences in other matters may be Tolerated pag. 38. 40. The Reformed Churches say the Geneva-Doctors pag. 40. ought to maintain a Brotherly Affection towards one another c. The Protestant-Churches says the Transylvanian pag. 41. are to be mov'd notwithstanding their differences to exercise Moderation Compassion and Mutual Toleration And so the Professors of Aberdeen pag. 42. 43. The possibility of this Exception the Prefacer himself was aware of and therefore endeavours to enervate it pag. 57. by Asking What reason can be given why these conditions of Communion betwixt Reformed Churches should not obtain amongst the Member of the same Christian Church And pag. 58. Why that Agreement in Fundamentals which is sufficient to preserve Communion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies and Doctrines of inferior moment may not be sufficient also to preserve Communion among the members of the same Church though disagreeing in like matters As if there where no difference between two Societies neither of which is subject to or dependant upon the other nor have any Governour common to them both and the members of the same Society or several Societies united under and subject to such or such a Governour or Governours Where two Societies are independent one upon another there being no common Governour to take care of Order and the things relating to it among them each of them is left to the management of its respective Governour or Governours and to them the care of the Publick Worship to be perform'd by that Society belongs who therefore ought to see that it be performed in an orderly decent and reverent manner and to constitute such Modes Rites and Ceremonies as they judge most convenient to that End And when they have so done what has any other Church which in the Case suppos'd cannot justly pretend to any superiority over them I say what has such a Church to do to call in question their Constitutions in any Authoritative way I mean And therefore to talk of its being the duty of one Protestant Church to tolerate another that 's Independent upon it and differs from it in matters of outward Order is at least a very improper way of speaking If by tolerating those Testimonies mean only that they should not Censure and Condemn the other Church that so differs from them and if this Writer be of the same mind in this with the Authors of those dictates and if he be not why does he quote them as Testimonies favouring his pretensions then himself ought to pronounce Beza and Zanchy a little too pragmatical in quarrelling the Governours of the Church of England for their thinking fit to retain such and such Ceremonies But what does this Prefacer mean by Conditions of Communion and Preserving Communion in these questions Does it follow that because these Testimonies make it the Duty of one Protestant Church so far to Accord with another that agrees with it in Fundamentals and differs from it only in Rites and Ceremonies or other matters extra-Fundamental as not fastidiously to reject or Anathematise that Church P. 43. on Account of any such difference that therefore they make it the duty of each Church to admit the members of the other Church to all sorts of Communion meerly because they agree in Fundamentals If he fancy that to be their meaning let him instance if he can in any one Protestant Church that will receive others to Sacramental Communion meerly because they hold the Fundamentals of Christian Faith This Man has undertaken to maintain That things Indifferent ought not to be imposed as Conditions of Communion or as Conditions without which none shall partake of the publick Ordinances but does he imagine that if he go to Geneva he shall be admitted to the Communion there without submitting to the Ceremonies of Reception there enjoyn'd in particular that they 'll give it him unless he stands when he receives it I am sure Durell in the foremention'd Vindiciae Cap. 22. where he defends the Church of Englands imposing Kneeling on all Communicants tells us that in that it challenges no greater a Power to it self than other Reformed Churches do pag. 235. And that as the Churches of the Lutheran Confession will give the Communion only to those that Kneel so the French and Geneva Churches will give it to none but such as Stand in the Act of Receiving Whereas therefore this Author would gladly know pag. 58. Why that Agreement in Fundamentals which is sufficient to preserve Communion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies may not be sufficient also to preserve Communion among the Members of the same Church though disagreeing in such Matters I Answer That the Communion which his own Testimonies speak of as preserv'd thereby is only for ought I see that which consists in not Censuring and Anathematising or Disowning them as True Churches though differing in such matters which as it scarce deserves the Name of Communion so 't is too far remov'd from the Nature of that Communion which this Book pleads for to make these Testimonies pertinent to that Plea And whereas he pretends in the same Page that the reason why Christian Churches which do thus differ should be received and owned
as lawful Nay I do not discern what consistency there is between one part of the Preface and another part between the allowing the fore-mentioned mutations as reasonable and necessary Pag. 82. and 93. and this passage Pag. 89. which implies they are neither necessary nor reasonable For there he says we do heartily and sincerely desire Vnion with our Brethren if it may be had on just and reasonable Terms but they must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it so as to condemn its Constitution or make the Ceremonies unlawful which have been hitherto observed and practised in it if any Expedient can be found out for the Ease of other mens Consciences without reflecting on our own if they can be taken in without Reproach or dishonour to the Reformation of the Church I hope no True Son of the Church of England will oppose it Now whether the fore-mention'd dispensings with and Retrenchments of our Church-Orders and Practices upon the fore-mention'd Reason and Argument for the sake of Union with them whom he is pleas'd to call Brethren be not so far a giving up the Cause of the Church as to condemn its Constitution and to make the Ceremonies unlawful which have hitherto been observed and practised in it I leave you to judge as also whether the taking in Dissenters upon such Terms will not necessarily reflect reproach and dishonour upon the Reformation of that Church which at her first Reforming thought fit to retain and impose those Constitutions and Ceremonies as just and reasonable and as such hath ever since continu'd them without imagining that continu'd Imposition inconsistent with Christian Wisdom or with any regard that 's justly due to the Scruples and Exceptions of troublesome men relating to the Administration of Sacraments in a Christian Church To which troublesome Men the Dr. is pleased to give the Title of Brethren more than once in the later end of the Preface which is it self in my Opinion too absurd a contradiction to that Book whose main design is to prove them Schismaticks He tells us Pag. 364. That 't was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to Practice than were made so at the Settlement of the Reformation but whether there be sufficient reason to alter those Terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose Scruples are groundless and endless I do not says he take upon me here to determin And I wish he had not taken it upon him in the Preface especially to determin it so much to the Reproach and Dishonour of our Church as to imply she hath hitherto been guilty of Transgressing the Obligation of Christianity in not making those Alterations for the sake of Union with such Persons whose Scruples are groundless and endless and which as himself Affirms p. 372. might be remov'd by a little Impartiality and â—lue consideration there being no depth of Learning no subtilty of Reasoning no endless quotation of Fathers necessary about them but the dispute lies in such a narrow compass that men may see light if they will And why ours or indeed any Church should be Reproached as Defective in Christian Wisdom for not complying with such humersom Persons or not altering her Constitutions for the sake of such wilfully blind and perverse Dissenters I confess I do nor understand Now these Premises being duly consider'd do I think abundantly justifie the first charge and make it too reasonable to adhere to this conclusion that the Doctors Preface hath destroyed what he had said for our Church in his Book And in reference to the other charge that the Preface has effectually destroy'd that Church of England which the Doctor had taken pains to defend in his Book The same premises do really contribute so much to the making it good that for ought I see no more need to be added to that End than the bare application of them to that Censure and to the Doctor 's own Notion of the Church of England For he asserts p. 249. of his Book that the National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastors and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are Establish'd by the Laws of this Realm And Pag. 302. All Bishops Ministers and People taken together who profess the Faith so Establish'd and worship God according to the Rules so Appointed make up this National Church of England And this is the Church of England which the Doctor has taken pains to defend in his Book If therefore the Church of England takes its denomination not only from the Profession of that Faith but also from its consent in Worshipping God according to such and such Rules he that would destroy those Rules will consequently destroy that Church which is denominated such and diversified from other Churches by its embracing and adhering to those Rules But it appears from the premises that the Doctor 's Preface would have several considerable Alterations made of those Rules and that upon such an account and for such reasons as do consequentially destroy that Order and those Rules of Worship that are Established by Law and therefore that Preface does effectually destroy that Church of England which he had taken pains to defend in his Book These are all the things says the Dr. which appear to me reasonable to be Allowed in order to an Vnion and which I suppose may be Granted without detriment or dishonour to our Church And says this Writer these are all I plead for in this Book But 1. there is this little difference between these Authors The Reverend Dean supposes they may be Granted but this Author endeavours to prove they ought to be Granted 2. Though that Author mentions only such and such things as appearing to him reasonable to be Allowed yet to make them appear so to others he urges an Argument which will infer it as reasonable to dispense with a great many other things not mention'd And so though this Author pretends that these are all he pleads for in his Book yet the Arguments he makes use of if they prove any thing prove it the duty of our Governours to dispense with a great many more Constitutions even all that enjoyn any Indifferents whereby our Brother is offended Chap. 3. And therefore whereas he adds here As for those who deny the lawfulness of Lyturgy and the right Constitution of our Churches and who would be exempted from the Jurisdiction of their Bishop and set up Congregations separate and independent upon him I know not how to plead for them without pleading for Schism Confusion and Disorder I doubt his Arguments will if they prove any thing prove it as unlawful for Governours to impose a Lyturgy and require Obedience to Episcopal Government as to impose Ceremonies For I am confident he is very sensible that a great many whom he seemed to account weak Brethren are mightily offended
of Christianity And by being Schismaticks they disown themselves to be Persons of the same Communion with us nay are guilty of a capital Error and a customary Crime which excludes men while impenitently persever'd in from the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore they ought not while in those circumstances to be accounted persons of the same Communion with us or real members of Christs Body I have now consider'd several things which I thought fit to be taken notice of in this Preface and in the many Testimonies quoted by the Prefacer as so many justifications of the design of his Book But how ill they are suited to that purpose at least for the generality of them is I think apparent enough from the Reflexions I have here made upon them But I wish heartily I had been in or near some Library where I might have had the opportunity of examining the quotations and consulting the Authors quoted for then possibly I might have discovered much more impertinency in the quotations and insincerity in the quoter 'T is plain the Author has ingag'd himself in a very bold Attempt He has undertaken to prove That things indifferent which may be changed and altered without sin ought not especially under our present Circumstances to be impos'd by Superiours as the Conditions of Communion or of ministration in Sacred Things And consequently he has undertaken to prove That all Churches or States who have so imposed Indifferents have by that Imposition been guilty of violating the Law of God To Excuse which Attempt from the prejudice of Singularity he pretends pag. 3. to strengthen it in his Preface against that and other prejudices by the concurrent suffrages of many worthy persons both of our own and other Churches who have declar'd themselves as he would perswade us to be of the same Judgment and have pursu'd the same Design Now besides all that has been already objected to those Suffrages if I had the opportunity of doing it I would challenge the Author to evince that any tolerable number of the Suffrages which he has produc'd are pertinent and punctual to his design as worded by himself That design consists of Two Parts one more general That things indifferent which may be alter'd without Sin ought not to be impos'd as the Condition of Communion or ministration in Sacred Things The other more particular That especially they ought not to be impos'd under our present Circumstances as the Conditions of Communion with us of the Church of England The Suffrages produc'd to rescue this design from the imputation of Singularity amount in the Contents of the Preface to about 35. Now let him manifest if he can 1. That so much as one of those Suffrages speaks particularly of our present Circumstances here in England I mean those Circumstances that were present to the publishing of his Book 2. Let him manifest if he can That among his 35 Suffrages there are so many as five that affirm it unlawful to make Indifferents which are Alterable without Sin the Conditions of Church-Communion and Ministration Nay I doubt he cannot manifest that so much as one of them comes fully up to this design of his Book But if the major part or two parts in three of the Testimonies be impertinent what shall we think of that man who has the confidence and conscience to write at such a rate and pretend so much when the proof falls so intolerably short of the pretense Besides if my memory fail me not I have seen a Book heretofore which Answer'd Cressy against Dr. Pierce's Sermon meerly by quoting passages out of Authors extant before that Book of Cressy's which contained sufficient Answers to the most material parts of it And I believe that this Author could have done the like in reference to this Preface I mean that he could have heaped up as many and as pertinent Testimonie out of the Writings of single Persons and Acknowledgments of Church-Societies in favour of this Position That it is lawful to make things Indifferent which may be altered without Sin the conditions of church-Church-Communion and Ministration as he has pretended here in favour of the Contradictory and if he could I leave it to you to judge with what sincerity he could profess Pref. pag. 1. that he was most unwilling to do the least dis-service to the Church of which he is a member when he has in this Preface done it the grand dis-service of heaping up such a multitude of pretended Testimonies against the lawfulness of her Practice and omitting the much greater number of pertinent Suffrages which I have some reason to believe himself could have as easily produced in defence of that Practice But this Profession of his is very obnoxious upon another Account for if he were at all sincere in making it what ail'd him 1. to Print his Book at such a time And 2. in English At such a time when he Acknowledges pag. 9. that the Bishops themselves have neither any Power to make such Concessions as his Book would have to be made no nor any Power to make any Proposals for the healing of our breaches till by his Majesty's Authority they meet in Convocation for that end And I do not think that this Gentleman had any prospect of a Parliaments being called soon after the publication of his Book or that it is an Article of his Faith that his Majesty may summon a Convocation to meet to that end out of Parliament and then what could the publishing of such a Book at such a time be but the promoting on his part that which has been of late the grand Fanatical Design of such weak Brethren as Baxter Alsop Troughton c. viz. the rendring our Governors both in Church and State odious by representing their Constitutions as unlawful and attempting to prove them contradictory both to the Commands and Example of Christ and his Apostles But what ail'd him 2. to compose and print his Book in English was it because he expected either a Parliament or Convocation whose major part should be made up of Clergy-men or Gentlemen so ill bred as not to understand Latin or did not the Author understand it himself so well as to write a Book in it or did he publish it in English for the sake of the weak Brethren and the devout Sisters that they might be furnished with Arguments against Ceremony-Imposing-Laws from one end of the Gospels and Epistles to the other For he has shewed himself so dexterous in discerning and multiplying prejudices and exceptions against such Constitutions that 't is to be hoped a little more improvement of his Topical Parts may gain him Parker's faculty of Espying in those Impositions in general as he did in the Use of the Cross in particular a contradiction to all the Ten Commandments Now for a man to put forth such a Book against those Impositions for the sake of illiterate English men who 1. have no power at present to retrench or null the
Impositions nor 2. are ever like to have who 3. are like to make a most mischievous use of it to the dishonour and prejudice of the Church and yet to pretend himself most unwilling to do the least dis-service to the Church is so palpably Protestatio contra factum that hardly any thing can be more so But why talks he only of doing dis-service to the Church as if that only were concern'd when the contents and design of his Book cast as great a slur upon and tend as much to the reproach and disparagement of the State as of the Church for he knows well enough that the Laws enjoyning Uniformity and imposing our Ceremonies are made by the King and that with the Consent not only of the Lords Spiritual but Temporal also and the Commons so that this Author in thus attempting to prove those Laws repugnant to the Law of God and inconsistent with so many of the grand momentous obligations of Christianity is so far from shewing himself unwilling to do dis-service to the Church that he has spent a great deal of time and pains and employed as one may guess the utmost of his Art and Industry to do as great a dis-service to that and the State both as for ought I know he could possibly do it with his Pen for what greater dis-service can there be done in that way to any Government than to Assert and Maintain a Position from which it follows by undeniable consequence That the Governours of this or that Nation have for multitudes of Years successively agreed in Enacting Laws contradictory to the Practice and Commands the Exhortations Arguings and Examples of both Christ and his Apostles For this is the immediate consequent of this Position and his manner of proving it That Superiours ought not to impose things Indifferent and Alterable without Sin as the Conditions of church-Church-Communion and Ministration Besides what greater Affront could be offer'd to the King himself then to publish such a Book at that very time when His Majesty gave such demonstration of his Resolutions to uphold and defend the Act for Uniformity and of his Zeal for the Church by requiring a strict and vigorous Execution of the Laws against Dissenters This man's undertaking therefore thus manag'd in contradiction to the Laws of the Land at a time when the King himself and inferiour Magistrates were more industriously zealous in executing those Laws than they have been for many years is in my Opinion such a daring and impudent pragmaticalness as ought to be encountered and chastised with a Punishment as notorious as the Crime Especially since as was before intimated I doubt not but this very Writer could have fill'd as many sheets as this Preface contains with Testimonies justifying the Constitutions of our Church and State in matters indifferent and I am confident had I had but my own Library about me three parts whereof are still at Oxford I could have done so my self But in some of the few Books I have here I meet with such passages as abundantly confirm me in that Confidence and withall make me very much suspect this Prefacer's sincerity and ingenuity in quoting For whereas he has in this Preface quoted Beza as an Enemy to all Symbolical Rites pag. 25 and affirming that they should be entirely excluded from the Christian Church and Zanchy as an Enemy to our Ceremonies and besides pretended pag. 35. That 't were endless to set down all that Bucer Calvin Chamier Daneus Farel Povanus Vrsin and Zipper with many others have said against the Vse and Imposition of them and pag. 36. that Cassander testifies without telling us where he so testifies that most have conceiv'd them fit to be condemned and abolished as foppish ludicrous ridiculous yea as noxious and pernicious Durell has given us such a different Account of things as is very opposite to this Prefacer's pretensions For in his forementioned Book Cap. 17. He Affirms that the Christian Church from the Apostles time to this day was never without nor in the judgment of the most Learned and Famous Protestants either can or ought to be without some significant Ceremonies pag. 182. to which purpose he quoted the sentiments of Luther Melancthon and Calvin pag. 186. and then said I could here produce very many more of the most Learned and Renowned Persons in the Reformed Churches of the same Opinion with Luther Melancthon and Calvin in this point Nor says he do I remember to have read any Reform'd Writer of any Note especially of those who were at the beginning of the Reformation whose Judgment and Authority is principally to be attended to in this dispute who Condemns significant Ceremonies meerly as such if so be no supernatural vertue be attributed to them for the producing Spiritual Effects nor Religion placed in them nor Merit or Justification expected from the use of them Out of which number he do's not except Beza himself but proceeds to Vindicate him as to that very Passage which this Prefacer has quoted out of his Epistle to Bishop Grindal as if it were for his turn and manifests that it ought not to be understood of such Symbolical Rites as are design'd to signifie only mens duty but such only as are meant to signifie and exhibit Spiritual Priviledges and the Divine Grace And in his Sixteenth Chapter he largely Answers that Epistle of Zanchy quoted at large by this Prefacer pag. 28. c. against imposing Linnen Garments and most of his Answers are taken out of Calvin Bucer P. Martyr and Zanchy himself And as to our Churches retaining the Use of the Cross in Baptism its Thirtieth Canon Acquaints us that That resolution and practice hath been allowed and approved by the Harmony of Confessions of later years Now this Assertion of the Composers of that Canon and those other of Durell as to the number of Persons approving the Imposition of Ceremonies makes me very much suspect this Author's ingenuity and honesty in quoting And I doubt he has contented himself with quoting many Testimonies besides those out of Gesselius pag 38. c. only by Retale and at second hand from others without examining the quotations himself and consulting the passages as they lye in the Original Authors which is an intolerable Neglect in any man that undertakes to Write and Publish a Discourse and Preface of this Nature and Consequence And one quotation which makes me suspect this is that Pag. 45. and 46. out of Baxter's Disput of Human Ceremonies Chap. 24. it should be 14. Sect. 3. R. 2. where he says 'T is shrewdly Argued by Mr. Baxter against our Ceremonies This seems to be coming after Christ to amend his Laws correct his Works and make better Laws and Ordinances for his Church than he himself hath done for if Christ would have such Rites imposed on the Churches he could better have done it himself than have left it to man for these Rites are equally necessary or unnecessary throughout all Ages and