A41326:119
The liturgical considerator considered, or, A brief view of Dr. Gauden's considerations touching the…
The liturgical considerator considered, or, A brief view of Dr. Gauden's considerations touching the liturgy of the Church of England wherein the reasons by him produced for imposing the said liturgy upon all, are found to be so weak, his defence of things offensive in it so slight, the arguments against the liturgy by himself afforded, are so strong, that some, who upon His Majesties declaration did incline to the liturgy, are now further from it, by reading his wordy discourse about it : also some reasons humbly rendered, why many ministers, as yet cannot conform to that liturgy, but not out of disloyalty, pride, ingratitude, peevishness, nor schismatical petulancy, as the sarcastical pen of this uncharitable doctor hath published ... / by G.F.The liturgical considerator considered, or, A brief view of Dr. Gauden's considerations touching the liturgy of the Church of England wherein the reasons by him produced for imposing the said liturgy upon all, are found to be so weak, his defence of things offensive in it so slight, the arguments against the liturgy by himselfe afforded, are so strong, that some, who upon His Majesties declaration did incline to the liturgy, are now further from it, by reading his wordy discourse about it : also some reasons humbly rendered, why many ministers, as yet cannot conform to that liturgy, but not out of disloyalty, pride, ingratitude, peevishness, nor schismatical petulancy, as the sarcastical pen of this uncharitable doctor hath published ... / by G.F.
London: printed for Ralph Smith, 1661
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
In general I may only say this, if the giving of seeming reasons for a thing (in which the Doctor hath some advantage through great words and Rhetorical flourishes) will prove it a truth in Divinity, what Heresy shall not be a truth? Then those reasons which Perronus offered to give the King of France to prove there was no God, might have proved that to have been a Truth, which Atheistical hearts would have to be true, and Vaninu like a simple man could suffer in the defence of.
In general I may onely say this, if the giving of seeming reasons for a thing (in which the Doctor hath some advantage through great words and Rhetoricall flourishes) will prove it a truth in Divinity, what Heresie shall not be a truth? Then those reasons which Perronus offered to give the King of France to prove there was no God, might have proved that to have been a Truth, which Atheistical hearts would have to be true, and Ʋaninu like a simple man could suffer in the defence of.
But in these things I provoke Doctor Gauden to King Charles the First his Rule, i.e. the Scriptures of God. To Deut. 4.2. to Isa. 8.22. Matth. 28.19, 20. 2 Tim. 3.15, 16. Is the Word a perfect Rule or no? if it be, what do Carpenters and Masons with their Rules, do they not apply them to their works and see how they answer them? Do you the same with this Divine Canon, apply it to your whole discourse, and see how it agrees, apply the second Commandment, if all you have said accord with that Rule, we will readily obey, and fools we were to stand out, to hinder our liberties and carnal preferments.
But in these things I provoke Doctor Gauden to King Charls the First his Rule, i.e. the Scriptures of God. To