FROM the Reformation to the Reign of King JAMES I. England was as remarkable for its religious Obfervation of the Lord's-Day, as Scotland is at this day. And I can meet with no publick remarkable Inftance of the Breach of that Holy Day, during the long Reign of Queen ELIZABETH, unless at *AYLMER the Bishop of London's House in Fulham, where his Lordfhip and others fuppofe his Chaplains) used to play at Bowls on Sunday. But King JAMES publifh'd a Proclamation for Sports on that Holy Day, obliging all Minifters to read it in their Churches. And † feveral Priests in his Reign, and that of his Succeffor CHARLES I. (whether in compliance with the Profaneness of the Court, I fhall not determine) wrote Books to few that Sunday was no Sabbath, and that there was no Morality in obferving the Lord's-Day: all which were answer'd and refuted by feveral other Godly and Orthodox Divines. Nor is this Controverfy yet bury'd; for very lately a High and Reverend Prieft has wrote for the Lawfulness of Sports on that Holy Day.

7. OUR Priefts difpute whether Epifcopacy be of Divine or Human Inftitution;

* Strype's Life of Aylmer, p. 215, 294.

Prideaux, Brerewood, White, Heylin, Dowe, Pocklington, Mede, dre

Morer on the Name, Notion, &c. of the Sabbath.

a

a Question which, according to most of them, concerns the very Effence of the Church.

THAT the latter was the Opinion of our Church (and of course once the Opinion of many Priefts) from the Reformation to the Restoration of King CHARLES II. is evident; for as a Noble Peer obferv'd in a* Speech made in the House of Lords, Pref byterian Ordination was allow'd and practis'd in the Church from the Beginning of the Reformation till the Act of Uniformity (which allow'd of no Ordination but Epifcopal) and Several Bishops were made of fuch as were never ordain'd Priefts by Bishops. But yet fome

few Priefts before the Restoration, and ↓ more fince, have wrote for the Divine Right of Epifcopacy; and 'tis now become a confiderable Squabble in the Church. There are not only Priefts on both fides of the Question, but one eminent Prieft, Dr.STILLINGFLEET, is himself on both fides: when he was a Presbyter, he wrote a || Book to prove the human Inftitution of Epifcopacy; and when he was a Bifhop, he (a) wrore to prove it of Divine Institution; juft like AYLMER Bifhop of London, who before he was made Bishop thought (b) the Lands

(a) Charge to his Clergy, in 1690.

(b) Aylmer's Life by Strype, p. 225, 258, 269.

E 4

of

of the Clergy ought to be given to Queen ELIZABETH to maintain her Wars against -France and Spain; but when he was a BiShop, he apply'd to himself these words, When I was a Child, I fpake as a Child, I thought as a Child.

8. THE Doctrine of Original Sin, and whether Men are now liable to be damn'd for ADAM's Sin (which is the Foundation of the whole Chriftian Religion) was formerly difputed between Bishop TAYLOR and the Bishop of Rochester, and is at this day between the Reverend Dr. WHITBY and the Reverend Dr. EDWARDS of JefusCollege in Oxford.

9. WHETHER our Saviour's Soul exifted in Heaven before his Incarnation, was lately debated between Dr. FowLER, the present Bishop of Gloucester, and Dr. SHERLOCK, who have each of them had other Priests for their Seconds.

10. LAY-BAPTISM was exprefly al low'd of in the Rubrick of our Liturgy, just before the Office of private Baptifm, till JAMES I's Reign, in these words: Let thofe that are present at the Baptifm call upon God, and fay the Lord's Prayer if the time will fuffer. And then one of them shall name

* Polemick Works, p. 863.

the

the Child, and dip him in the Water, or pour Water upon him, Saying in these words, l'baptize thee, &c. And as far as my Knowledg in the Priefts Books reaches, the Validity of Lay-Baptifm was a fettled Point among the best Churchmen till very lately. For I find the Reverend Mr. SELLERS (who was fo good a Churchman as to be a Jacobite Separatift) affirming, * That the Baptism adminiftred in Sport by ATHANASIUS, when he was a Heathen School-Boy, to his Heathen Playfellows, was valid and not to be reiterated, as was defin'd by ALEXANDER then Patriarch of Alexandria, and oppos'd by no other part of the Church. But of late many Censures have been pass'd on the Bishop of Sarum, and Books written against him by Priests, for afferting, † That Faith in the Trinity gives every Man a right to Baptifm; and that this has been the conftant Senfe of the Courch for above 1400 Tears; which in a ritual matter is certainly of great Authority. They reckon'd that Baptifm was the Gift of Christ to his Church, when given in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. It is Christ's Baptifm, be they who give it Orthodox or Hereticks, Clergy or Laity; and in the latter Ages, Men or Women.

* Remarks on J. H's View of Antiquity, p. 380, 381. + Two Sermons printed in 1710.

11. THE

11. THE Reverend Mr. BLAXTON has collected the Opinions of the most Learned and Famous Divines of the Church of England from the Reformation to the Year. 1634. all condemning Ufury as unlawful and forbidden by God's Word. To which I could add a great many more who have follow'd our primitive Clergy in this point, and easily make Mr. BLAXTON's Book as big as the Hiftory of Paffive-Obedience. I will only throw in the Opinion of that great Cafuift and profound Divine, Bifhop SANDERSON, who makes † Six in the Hundred to be Sabbath-breaking, and every one that takes lawful Intereft for his Mony to be guilty of the Breach of all the ten Commandments; and particularly of the fourth, because the Plough goes on Sundays. But our Priefts are now almoft univerfally chang'd in this matter. And I have not heard of any one of late, except the Reverend Mr. DAVID JONES, who takes Ulury to be a Sin. On the contrary, it ought to be fuppos'd that they now account it a Chriftian Vertue, fince there are fo many among 'em who are common Stockjobbers on the Change, and who act the of Attorneys and Scriveners in their Parifhes, in placing out Mony on Securitys at Intereft.

* Printed anno 1634.

Notes on the Paftoral Letter, p. 44.

part

12. THEY