present Romish Church holds but he who holds them solely or principally on the account of the present Churches Infallibility More particularly I do not say he is a Papist who holds Transubstantiation because as he thinks the Scripture teacheth it but he who therefore believes the Scripture to teach Transubstantiation because the Pope in or out of a Council hath decreed or warranted the same Should I deny the Popes Infallibility in a cause of faith I were to a Trent-Papist a Heretick as well as if I denied all the Articles of the faith because I deny the formal reason upon which all are to be believed Should I hold the Popes Infallibility as the ground and foundation of my faith then I were to him a good Catholick though I were mistaken in many of the things to be believed because I am upon the true and sure foundation of faith Now if any one can shew me any whole ancient Church or any one ancient Doctor of the Church who believed the Article of the Bishop of Romes Infallible Supremacy and made that the ground of believing all other Articles I will be his Convert if he will promise to be my Convert provided I can shew him ancient Doctors and Councils that have either not acknowledged or denied this foundation of the Papal faith And if we speak of the things believed by Papists the most of them are utterly destitute of all primitive Antiquity But there are others in the world generally decried as despisers of the Fathers who had they but men among them able and willing to search the Fathers might from them say more for themselves than would easily be answered I instance 1. In the Anabaptists or Antipaedobaptists as they had rather be called some of great esteem among the sons of the Church have said that the opinion of these men cannot be confuted by Scripture at least not by Scripture alone In this they give these men as much as the generality of them desire or care for But of late one of good learning hath espoused their Cause and finding it granted by too too many that Infant-baptism cannot with sufficient evidence be proved from Scripture alone he enquires what it is that together with Scripture will prove it Being referred to the Ancients he there joins issue and hath so acquitted himself that for my part if I were not perswaded from Scripture that Infants are to be baptized I should hardly be brought to be of that perswasion by any thing quoted from the Fathers One deservedly dignified in the Church hath suffered it to be printed as his opinion that there is neither precept nor practice in Scripture for Paedobaptism nor any just evidence for it for about two hundred years after Christ The first who bears witness to Infant-baptism practised in the Church is Tertullian but so as he expresly dislikes and condemns it as an unwarrantable and irrational custome and Nazianzen a good while after him dislikes it too c. with much more of that nature Really were I of this learned persons judgment that there is neither precept nor practice in Scripture for Paedobaptism I should much haesitate in the matter for if there be no precept or example of Paedobaptism in Scriptures I ask whether the Church succeeding the Apostles had any reason or authority to take up that custom if she had then the present Church also hath authority to take it up though it had never before been taken up for the Church hath now the same authority that the Church succeeding the Apostolical times had It will be said that the Church succeeding immediately to the Apostles had better opportunity to know the practice of the Apostles than the present Church hath Ans That must needs be granted and if the Church succeeding the Apostles have given any undoubted testimony that the Apostolical Churches practised Infant-baptism her testimony cannot be refused but that that Church hath given any such testimony is easie to say but not so easie to prove Nothing out of Ignatius or Clemens Romanus is produced to such a purpose The Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox doth indeed qu. 56. plainly insinuate that in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were baptized and gives some account what difference should be in the resurrection betwixt those who were baptized and those who were not baptized and of the reason why the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are accounted worthy of Baptism viz. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And were this Author Justin Martyr the testimony were considerable not to prove that Infant-baptism was practised in the time of the Apostles but that Infant-baptism was soon practised but the Author of those Questions and Answers must needs be some one that lived long after Justin Martyr Origen I believe will be found to be the first that speaks of Infant-baptism as an Apostolical tradition in his Com. on Rom. But the Antipaedobaptist to him and all others may say It is manifest from the Ancients that divers children of Christian Parents were not baptized in their infancy nor till they were come to maturity of judgment and that it was accounted no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no bar to their preferment that their Baptism was so long deferred that they were not before their baptism looked upon as unclean now if this be so how cometh it to pass that in a Church professing to follow and reverence Antiquity they are excommunicated and thrown into prison if they do not bring their children to be baptized Let any man prove out of Antiquity that Nazianzen and his father were accounted Heathens and Publicans till the Son was baptized which was not till he was about thirty years old 2. I hear there are sundry among us here in England that refuse to take an oath judging any oath unlawful in Gospel-times The opinion of these men is very pernicious manifestly tending to perpetuate strifes and contentions which cannot in our Courts of Judicature be ended but by an oath and I doubt not at all but that the opinion may be clearly refuted out of Scripture where the present Patrons of it especially seek to shelter themselves but if from the Scriptures we remove their Cause to the Fathers among them I doubt they will find more friends than adversaries For that an Oath is not at least in any secular matter to be required or taken seems clearly to have been the opinion of Athanasius Nazianzen Chrysostom Isidore Peleusiota Theophylact Hilary Ambrose Hierom and I think to the Greek Fathers I might have added Basil Artifices I know are used to evade their testimonies but such as will not hold when they are examined by those who can understand the languages in which those ancient Doctors did write 3. Men usually exclaim against the Presbyterians as persons who forsake all antiquity to follow Calvin who is but of yesterday and I think if any of them say that Calvin affords a student more light to understand Scripture than
Ames his reply to Dr. Morton but he was the Dr. Burges that oversaw that Book in the Press and adorned its Margin to make the reading more pleasant and delightful and he was that Dr. Burges who did write for Baptismal Regeneration a Doctrine distastful to the Presbyterians He took the Covenant indeed but not as I have heard till he was like to be turned out of the Assembly for not taking it It is true that once he made a Speech against the continuance of Deans and Chapters but in that Speech he declared the utter unlawfulness of converting their Lands to any private mans use it seems that he himself afterwards purchased something belonging to the Dean of VVells intending to settle it on his Children how he could satisfie his Conscience so to do I know not perhaps when he saw that that part of the House of Commons which favoured Presbytery was secluded and that Deans and Chapters Lands designed to mend poor Livings must be sold for other uses he resolved to do as Luther saith a Dog which he knew at Erford did when he could defend his Masters dish of meat from other Dogs no longer viz. got as good a share of the prey as he could He hath given his accounts to his Master I am not to judge anothers Servant and therefore I should tremble to write that which Mr. D. hath written viz. That a loathsom sore which brought him to his Grave was sent to punish him for his Sacriledg neither dare I say for all the world that the Disease that befell Bishop Gauden and of which he died besel him for his fierceness against the Bresbyterians and yet it was the very disease unto which he had compared the Presbyterians Sermons and it befell him not long after he had made that odious comparison England hath suffered much by mens undertaking to fetch their Divinity out of the Providences of God which are always righteous but sometimes hidden A greater noise is made in some Books on the account of the Assemblies Annotations in the which or in the first Edition of which it is said Nothing is to be found against Sacriledg and it is easily acknowledged that in the Assemblies Annotations nothing is to be found against Sacriledg for the Assemblies Annotations are not to be found But as for the English Notes made by sundry Divines who were all of them before the Wars Conformists and commonly miscalled the Assemblies Annotations and for the Assembly it self hear an ingenuous but cordial and through-paced Son of the Church in a Discourse entituled Church-Lands not to be sold printed Anno 1648. he quotes with approbation the Note on Rom. 2.22 p. 14. having spoken p. 27. of honest Mr. Geree who avers That to abolish Prelacy and to seize the Lands of the Prelates to any private or civil interest undoubtedly could not want stain nor guilt he adds I am confident by the discourse I have had with the most able of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster that at the least three parts if not all of them are of the same judgment and that they would openly profess as much if they were put to answer the question The same Author quotes with approbation the Note on Gen. 47. and on Mal. 3.8 9. I will not go off from this subject of Sacriledg till I have also observed That some considerable for Learning and of no small authority have not feared to say That Impropriations are sacrilegious I have not much studied the point and therefore interpose not my own judgment but it looks very ugly to take away so much of the tythes and profits of any parish as not to leave a competence for him who hath the cure of souls in that parish yet it hath been observed that no Parishes have so sorry and pitiful an allowance for the Preaching minister as those of which Clergy men are the Impropriators if the Kings Letter since his return hath so kindly operated upon our Cathedralists as to make them more bountiful to the Incumbents it is well but if it have not Mr. D. may do well to consider whether he and his brethren be without fault before he throw stones at the head of others else he may chance to have such an answer as the Bishop of Scotland who having objected Sacriledg to the Presbytery of that Nation is told by Mr. Baily in his Historical Vindication p. 26 27. That the Bishops when they professed their greatest zeal to recover all the Church out of the hand of the Laity were found to be but too ready to dilapidate unto Noblemen and others too much of the Churches Patrimony you your self may remember what bargain you made as I think with the Earl of Seaforth which you know was the first occasion of diminishing your reputation with your great Patron Land of Canterbury I am sure your Colleague Spotswood did sell the whole Abbacy of Kilwinning to the Noblemen and Gentlemen of Guningham to the great prejudice and grief of the University of Glasgow and the Ministers of the bounds who had great interest therein At the Parliament of Lithgow 1606 our good Bishops for their own base ends did consent in the name of the Church though they never consulted her in that business to the greatest dilapidation that ever was heard of in Scotland the Impropriation to Noblemen and Gentlemen of no fewer than sixteen Abbacies every one whereof had incorporate the Rents of a number of Parish-Churches A second impertinence relates to Confirmation which Mr. D. p. 43. saith he finds used in almost all Reformed Churches in some with greater in some with lesser solemnity To what purpose doth he tell us this Would he have the world believe that the Presbyterians are against Confirmation or that they do not earnestly desire it Have not Mr. Hanmer and Mr. Baxter written books to shew the usefulness and necessity of it Do not some of them ground it on Heb. 6.2 and draw thence an argument for Infant-baptism Mr. Tombs knows they do and so do many others of the Antipaedobaptists For my part I bless God that hath put it into the hearts of the Convocation to insert into this last Edition of the Liturgy a question to be propounded to those who are confirmed let conscience be made never to confirm any but those who are well instructed in the Church Catechism and are well reported of for their conversation and I shall think then that nothing is to be blamed in our order for admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper But if men will pretend a great reverence to Confirmation and yet suffer the far greatest part of the Nation to communicate unconfirmed and if Bishops will confirm persons grosly ignorant and scandalous in the highest degree and never require Certificates from the Ministers of those Parishes to which they belong God forbid that I should justifie them The only question considerable about Confirmation betwixt those called Presbyterians and their adversaries is
Elizabeths days did in Q. Maries days either recant or play the Nicodemites But this is a performance that I have no mind to be put upon how soon some other may put himself upon it I cannot tell Here I might with credit enough take my leave of Mr. Scrivener yet because there be two particulars in his Book that have not in these Papers been accounted for I will before I conclude essay whether the Non-conformists cannot be acquitted therefrom The first is the Hampton-Court Conference The second is the matter of Ruling Elders About both Mr. Scrivener is full of confidence and triumph If a good account can be given of these I may think the reproach to be rolled away from the Nonconformists for as for railing invectives against particular persons I need only say Lord lay them not to his charge Concerning the Hampton-Court Conference 1. I say we have little reason to believe that it is impartially related for 1. We have some ground to think that Dr. Barlow who drew up the Relation did before his death profess himself troubled that he had abused Dr. Reynolds and those who were joined with him This sorrow of the Doctor is I know denied by many by none more than by Dr. Heylin against Mr. Hickman but I have enough to clear Mr. Hickman from being the inventor or feigner of that story for he had it from Mr. Noel Sparkes a learned and pious Divine and of the Episcopal perswasion who died but few years before his Majesties return by him he was allowed to put it in print as told him by one who would not on slight grounds either raise or receive a report against a Bishop viz. Mr. Henry Jackson sometime fellow of Corpus Christi Colledg in Oxford That all this is true Mr. John Martin now a Conforming Minister in the Diocess of Hereford can and if asked will I suppose witness 2. Dr. Sparks though he spake not a word in the Conference and after it if I mistake not printed a Book for Uniformity yet told his son sometimes a Minister in Buckinghamshire and Divinity-Reader in Magdalen-Colledg That Dr. Barlow in summing up that Conference had very much injured Dr. Reynolds and those other that then appeared in the behalf of the Millenary Petitioners This I had from his kinsman before mentioned 3. I am also pretty well assured that upon the first coming out of the Sum of that Conference Dr. Reynolds himself lighting upon one of the Books at a Stationers near St. Maries Oxford was found reading of it and being asked by a friend what Book it was he read answered It was a Book in which he was concerned and wronged If any doubt of this he may I suppose receive satisfaction about it from Dr. Henry Wilkinson resident at or about Clapham near London Yea I perswade my self that no man who reads that Conference can be seriously of opinion that Dr. Reynolds argued with no more strength than is by Dr. Barlow represented in his Relation 2. If the Conference should he truly reported little or no damage could thence accrue to the Nonconformists for as is said in the Christian and Modest offer of a most indifferent Conference or Disputation printed Anno 1606. pag. 29 30. Most of the persons appointed to speak for the Ministers were not of their chusing nor nomination nor of their judgment in the matters then and now in question but of a clean contrary For being intreated at that time by the Ministers to dispute against these things as simply evil and such as cannot be yielded unto without sin they professed unto them that they were not so perswaded and therefore could not so do Being then requested to let his Majesty understand that some of their brethren were further perswaded touching the unlawfulness of these things than they themselves were they refused that also Lastly being intreated either to give them in writing their reasons to prove these things indifferent or to give them an answer in writing to such reasons as they would give them in writing to prove them simply evil they would do neither the one nor the other Obj. Will Nonconformists then lose so considerable a person as Dr. Reynolds and are they content the world should look upon him as no Nonconformist Ans No doubt he was one that was loth to be made unuseful in the Church and loth that others should make themselves unuseful and therefore when any Minister professing himself dissatisfied with Subscription came to ask his advice he would as I have been credibily informed desire him to give him the grounds of his dissatisfaction and if he found them weighty then he would leave him setled in his Nonconformity but if he found them not weighty then he would let him know that those reasons notwithstanding he might conform As for himself he was satisfied to do all that was incumbent on him as President of the Colledg but thought our Church needed a further Reformation and that the Ceremonies were unprofitable and prayed that in a due and orderly manner they might be taken away yet would not peremptorily say that a man should lose his Ministry rather than not use them And of this mind were most of those who had in those times the honour to be called and accounted Puritans And let me here propound it seriously to the consideration of present Nonconformists whether it be not possible for them to be over zealous in pressing others not to conform Sure I am that the learned and godly Mr. Anthony Wotton did flatly deny to tell Mr. VVill. Brice still alive the grounds and reasons of his Non conformity telling him That he would not in such matters put scruples into those in whom he found none And really may not a Conformist save his own soul and the souls of those that hear him may he not keep his eyes open and yet not have light enough to see the unlawfulness of our Ceremonies If so as doubtless so it is why should Non-conformists think so ill as some do of their conforming brethren why should they be so restless till they have made them their proselytes why may they not acknowledg and rejoyce in their gifts and graces and yet peaceably persevere in their own Non-conformity only wiping off the aspersions that are thrown on themselves and candidly representing their principles and practices that so the present and succeeding ages may see they do not suffer out of humour and fancy and that they err not if they be in an error without authority and reason 3. If we should grant that the published Conference were in all things true and impartial yet have the friends of Episcopacy and sticklers for conformity but little reason to boast or triumph This must be made out by some brief reflections upon the conference The first day none of those who desired Reformation were permitted to be present at the Conference nor indeed all that were summoned to appear as defenders of the then established doctrine