The Nonconformists Vindicated, Letter (1 of 3)

The Nonconformists Vindicated · Letter (1 of 3)

p. 1THE NONCONFORMISTS Vindicated, &c.

SIR,

THough I have of late wholly addicted my ſelf to the Study of Practical Theology, and ſpent all that time I could redeem from my neceſſary occaſions, in Reading ſuch Authors as make it their buſineſs to declare unto us the eſſentials of Chriſtianity; yet it hath been ſome delight to me, from time to time, by your Letters, to underſtand what Books have been Printed about thoſe (comparatively) Petit controverſies that have of late years ſo miſerably divided our Britiſh Churches. I heartily wiſh, you had ſtill continued only to be my Intelligencer, then I had been at liberty, either not to ſend for the Authors you mentioned, or elſe when I had ſent for them, to lay them aſide as ſoon I had enough of them: but you were ambitious to be my Benefactor, and therefore lately ſent me at your own coſt Mr. Durells two Eriſtical Volumes, conjuring me, by all our friendſhip, to read them over, and to return you my thoughts p. 2of them: and though I have again and again importuned you to excuſe me from ſo unwelcome an employment, yet will you take no denial; wherefore that I may not ſeem finally obſtinate, I do, herewith, ſend you ſome Animadverſions, the fruit of a few leiſure hours; in reading whereof, if you either encreaſe the itch of diſputation, or be forced to abate of the eſteem you as yet have of your Author, you know where to lay the blame. I aſſure you, I envy not unto him the Eccleſiaſtical dignities and benefices he enjoys: but I think he was as unmeet a perſon, as any could have been pitched on, to undertake the Cauſe of our Church, againſt the Nonconforming Miniſters: for the grounds of this ſo ſevere cenſure, I refer you to what follows, and at preſent ſhall only lay before you three or four neceſſary qualifications of him that would plead for conformity with any ſucceſs, or credit to our Church.

1. He had need to be free from all ſuſpition of ambition, and of that, which the Apoſtle calls, the root of all evil; elſe his adverſaries will ſay, that in his pleadings for the Church, he ſeeks not her, but hers. The Writings of Mr. Hooker, Mr. Sprint, Dr. Burges, as they are in themſelves ſober, and learned, ſo they are by all, or moſt, read without any prejudice: becauſe they contented themſelves with ſuch ordinary preferments, as they either had before they had written, or might have expected though they had never written for Ceremonies. Nay Dr. Burges profeſſeth, that he loſt more by conforming, than any did by not conforming, (by the way, whereas Dr. Heylin ſaith Hiſt. of p. 3Presby. Pag. 327. That King James occaſioned this Doctors preferring to the Rectory of Colſhill in Warwickſhire: the Reader may take notice that he was never Rector of Colſhill, but of Sutton Goldfield, unto which the King occaſioned not his preferment, for the preſentation was given him without his ſeeking, by Mr. Shilton, after it had been firſt refuſed by Dr. Chetwind); I therefore doubt not but he did write for the lawfulneſs of Subſcription, out of conſcience, and that he would have continued in that opinion, though Authority had frowned upon it.

I dare not ſay ſo much concerning all that were, or would have been, more highly dignified. The firſt Engliſh man that grated hard upon the Preſbyterian Government in the Latin tongue, was Dr. Matthew Suttliffe, Dean of Exeter, in a Book entituled de verâ, Catholicâ & Chriſtianâ, Eccleſiâ, this very man, whether diſcontented, becauſe his Book againſt Mr. Mountague was ſuppreſſed; or angry that he miſſed ſome preferment he aimed at, or for ſome other reaſons we know not of, before his death, profeſſed his hearty ſorrow that he had written ſo much againſt Presbytery and for the power of the domineering Prelates, as may be ſeen in the Jus divinum Regiminis Eccleſiaſtici. Who profeſſed a greater zeal for Hierarchy than Patrick Adamſon? But Hierarchy not being able to pay its quarters in the worlds own coin, how poorly did he Recant all his actings for it? Confeſſing Presbyteries to be an ordinance of Chriſt, and craving Gods mercy that he had called them a fooliſh invention; bewailing his pride and covetouſneſs that had put p. 4him upon undertaking the office of an Archbiſhop, as that wherewith juſtly the ſincereſt profeſſors of the word have found fault, and condemned as impertinent to the office of a ſincere paſtor of Gods word; ingaging alſo that if he had health, he would write a confutation of Sutliffes Book. All which, and much more, is to be found in the Records of the Scottiſh Nation.

2. He that would, with any advantage to the Church, undertake to confute Nonconformiſts, muſt be one that hath ſeen and well conſidered, either all, or the chiefeſt of their Books, and well knows the Hiſtories of the times in which they were written. Elſe, firſt he may commit ſuch foul miſtakes in Chronology, as will render him ridiculous and contemptible to all his Readers. Can the moſt mortified Presbyterian chuſe but laugh, when he finds in Dr. Heylins Hiſtory of Presbyterians, Pag. 264, that about 1570. Mr. Carthwrights grace for Doctor was denied him, by the major part of the Ʋniverſity; which ſo diſpleaſed him, and his adherents, that, from that time, the degrees of Doctors, Batchelors, and Maſters, were eſteemed unlawful, and thoſe that took them reckoned for the limbs of Antichriſt, as appears by the Genevian notes on the Revelations. How can it appear from the Geneva notes, that from the time of denying Mr. Carthwrights grace, degrees were accounted unlawful? when every one knows, that many years before the denial of that grace, thoſe notes had been both made, and publiſhed, perhaps by ſuch as never ſaw or heard of Mr. Carthwright: Nor is that leſs ridiculous which occurs, Pag. 294. where p. 5mention being made of a Pamphlet written by Stubbes of Lincolns-Inne, it is ſaid, that Stubbes had married one of Mr. Carthwrights Siſters, and therefore may be thought to have done nothing without his privity. Mr. Carthwright indeed married one of Mr. Stubbes his Siſters, but that Mr. Stubbes married one of his Siſters is a falſhood; and if it were ſuppoſed to be a truth, what ground is that, why a man ſhould think that Stubbes did nothing without his privity? Do all writers make their Brothers-in-law privy to their deſigns? I acknowledg that Thuanus ſaith it was found out that Mr. Carthwright inſtigated him to write the Libel; but Thuanus is not to be relied on in matters relating to the Engliſh Puritans, becauſe in ſuch, he follows one who was their bitter adverſary; as alſo becauſe Thuanus himſelf was too too Antipuritanical, perfectly in Religion of the ſame mind with Caſſander and Baldwin, whoſe Character need not be given. Doubtleſs had there been either clear proof, or vehement ſuſpition, that Mr. Carthwright was acceſſary to the compiling of the gaping Gulph, he had not eſcaped ſome ſignal token of the Queens diſpleaſure; for her Majeſty was ſo highly incenſed againſt the Author, Printer, and Publiſher of it, that nothing leſs would ſatisfie her, than arraignment of them upon the Statute of Philip and Mary, againſt the Authors and Diſperſers of ſeditious writings; and becauſe ſome of her chief Lawyers were of opinion, That that law was but temporary, and of no force in her reign, ſhe impriſoneth one of them, and turns another out of his place, and prevailed ſo far, that both Stubbes, p. 6and Page (who diſperſed the Copies) had ſentence paſſed upon them, to loſe their right hands: which accordingly were cut off in the market-place of Weſtminſter, with a Butchers knife and a Mallet; but it is obſerved by more than one of our Hiſtorians, that when Stubbes his right hand was cut off, he did pull off his Hat with his left hand, and cry out, God ſave the Queen: and the people by a general ſilence gave their Teſtimony, that the puniſhment was too ſevere. Nor did the Queen her ſelf take much pleaſure in reflecting on this penalty, but rather when the heat of paſſion was over, received Stubbes into ſome degree of favour, as is probable from the imployment that he had under Peregrine Lord Willoughby, ſent by the Queen with four thouſand Soldiers to aſſiſt the King of Navar, in which imployment he ended his days, but by a natural death.

Secondly, if our Writers for Conformity know not the State of the controverſies, and the times, in which they were managed, they will go near to contradict one another; and will it not make the Nonconformists good ſport, to ſee their adverſaries at diſſenſion among themſelves? Could Mr. Durells Engliſh Book have been more effectually confuted by any writing, than by Dr. Heylins Hiſtory of Presbyterians? Dr. Stradling licenſeth a Book tending to prove that the Presbyterians in England are a ſingular ſort of men, as contrary to the Presbyterians beyond the Seas, as to their own Biſhops at home; the Vicechancellor of Oxford licenſeth a Book deſigned to prove that all Presbyterians, all the reformed Churches over, are all p. 7acted by one ſpirit, equally prone to ſedition and ſchiſme, alike bent to deſtroy all Kingdoms and Churches into which they are received. Will not the Presbyterians ſay Aha! ſo would we have it? will they not even bleſs themſelves in theſe contradictions of their adverſaries? Dr. Heylin ſaith, Lib. 7. Pag. 275. Whitgift diſſected Carthwrights admonition, in a Book entituled, An anſwer to the Admonition. Carthwright ſets out a reply in the year following, and Whitgift preſently rejoyns in defence of his Anſwer; againſt which Carthwright never ſtirred, but left him Maſter of the field, poſſeſt of all the ſigns of an abſolute Victory. But Sir George Paul ſaith, Mr. Carthwright (glorying be-like to have the laſt word) publiſhed a ſecond reply, fraught with no other ſtuff than had been before refuted, from anſwering of which Whitgift was diſſwaded. Will not ſuch ſweet concord as this, make delicate Muſick in the ears of the Nonconformiſts? Eſpecially conſidering that the Letter of Whitaker mentioned by the Doctor, is pretended by the Knight to be one of the main inducements moving Whitgift not to rejoyn to the ſecond reply. And let me admoniſh the Conformiſts not much to glory in Whitakers letter, reflecting ſo much diſgrace on Carthwrights Book, ſeeing Whitaker was then, 1. Under thirty years of age. 2. Never dreamed that his Letter ſhould be made publick. 3. Afterwards married the Widow of Dudly Fennor. 4. In thoſe writings which were the product and iſſue of his more mature judgment and ſtudy, layeth down ſuch principles as the Nonconformiſts think p. 8their concluſions do naturally and lineally deſcend from. 5. Died in over-ſtraining his diligence to ſuppreſs the Pelagian notions of Peter Baro, ſo much now-adays applauded and admired. Certainly if they are to be accounted Victors who keep the field laſt, the Nonconformiſts have at leaſt as many Victors as the Conformiſts, though we ſhould grant that Whitgift had the laſt word of Carthwright, which yet is not to be granted. But doth not Mr. Fuller ſay in his Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory, he had? Anſwer, He doth; but I have been aſſured, that being before Olivers triers for a living, he ingenuouſly acknowledged his error, and promiſed to certifie it, if ever his Book came to a ſecond Edition, which I therefore give notice of, that it may proceed no further, and that Mr. Iſaac Walton, who is ſtill alive, and hath fallen into the ſame miſtake in his life of Mr. Hooker, Pag. 85. may diſabuſe his Reader. The which if he will vouchſafe to do, we ſhall have encouragement to try, whether we cannot acquaint him with ſome more of his miſtakes, and miſadventures. In the mean time I ſhould be glad to underſtand, what aſſurance can be given us, that Biſhop Jewel ever uſed ſuch words concerning Carthwright as thoſe mentioned by Dr. Heylin. Lib. 7. Pag. 274. and elſewhere, viz. Stultitia nata eſt in corde pueri ſed virga diſciplinae fugabit eam: for it ſeems improbable, that ſo grave a Prelate, ſhould give ſo unhandſome a character of a very learned man, concerning whom he could make no eſtimation, but by a few ſcattered papers, deſigned for a Book that ſaw not the light till Jewel was entred into the chambers of Darkneſs. p. 9All that I can ſee any ground to acknowledg, at preſent, is but this, that Jewel both in a Sermon at Paul's, and in a conference with ſome Brethren, had declared himſelf to be an approver of the Engliſh ceremonies; and that being ready to leave the world, he declared that what he uttered in his Sermon, and conference, was deſigned neither to pleaſe any mortal, nor to embitter or trouble any party that thought otherwiſe than himſelf; but that neither party might prejudg the other, and that the love of God by the Holy ſpirit which is given to us, might be poured forth in the hearts of brethren. See his life written by the Nonconforming Dr. Humpred. Pag. 255. edit. Lond. an. 1573. And if Dr. Heylins friends will pleaſe to conſult, Pag. 275. They ſhall find Jewel died September 23. about three in the afternoon, not as the Doctor affirms, Lib 6. Pag. 270. September the 22. And then they may alſo conſider whether he hath not erred in dating Zanchies Letter to Queen Elizabeth, September the ſecond; for in my edition of Zanchies Letters put forth by his Heirs at Hannouae 1609. it bears date the tenth of September, 1571. Theſe are ſmall matters, it will be ſaid; I confeſs they be; but if men will write Hiſtories, they ought to be very exact, and publiſh nothing that need fear the ſevereſt examination.

Let me be excuſed if I here adventure to give two more inſtances, one of Dr. Heylins imaginary Victories; the other of his contrariety to other writers whom he ſometimes quotes with applauſe. Lib. 8. Pag. 283. He acquaints us that Dr. Bancroft made a moſt excellent and judicious Sermon (let p. 10that paſs) he gives us the heads of that Sermon, ſaying, pag. 284, That they were all proved with ſuch evidence of demonſtration, ſuch great variety of Learning, and strength of arguments, that none of all that party could be found to take arms againſt them in defence either of their leud doctrine, or more ſcandalous Ʋſes. All this with bitterneſs and malice more than enough; but with no regard to truth: for Dr. John Reynolds at the deſire of Sir Francis Knowles, did attaque that ſo much applauded Sermon of Feb. 9th. at St. Pauls Croſs, and pulled down two of the main pillars, viz. The ſuperiority which Biſhops have among us over their Clergy, is Gods own ordinance. 2. Jerome and Calvin confeſs that Biſhops have had ſuperiority ever ſince the time of St. Mark the Evangeliſt. The Letter of Dr. Reynolds in which he doth this, is in many mens hands, and the Hiſtorian doubtleſs had, if not ſeen, yet heard of it, and therefore was inexcuſable in repreſenting Dr. Bancroft to be ſo formidable an adverſary, that none durſt look him in the face. Let thoſe who account Dr. Bancrofts Sermon unanſwerable, reply to Dr. Reynolds his Letter, and if it be thought that Dr. Reynolds hath not refuted all the paſſages of the Sermon, let us know what the particulars be that ſtill remain unanſwered, and yet need an anſwer, and if after ſuch notice given, ſuch terror ſeize on Presbyterians that none dare appear, let the Sermon then be carried about in triumph; till then I hope it will be no preſumption to ſay, that Dr. Reynolds as well underſtood the judgment of the Fathers, concerning Epiſcopacy, as Dr. Bancroft.

p. 11The inſtance of his contradicting others, ſhall be part of the ſtory concerning the infamous ſeparatiſt Browne: Sir George Paul in the life of Archbiſhop VVhitgift, Pag. 53, acquaints us, that Brown in the Archbiſhops time was changed from his fancies, and after obtained a benefice called Achurch in Northamptonſhire where he became a painful Preacher. But Dr. Heylin, Lib. 7. Pag. 297. tells us, he was prevailed with to accept a place, Achurch in Northamptonſhire, beneficed with cure of Souls; a benefice of good value, which might tempt him to it the rather, in regard that he was excuſed as well from Preaching as from performing any other part of the publick Miniſtry. Certainly, if he became a painful Preacher, there was no need of excuſing him from Preaching.

But who is in the truth? I think neither the Knight nor the Doctor; painful Preacher to be ſure Brown never was, after his preſentation to Achurch; nor is it probable that he was excuſed from Preaching, any more than from living quietly with his Wife. Biſhops have ſtrained their power very high, but I am unwilling to believe that any Prelate ſince our Reformation would inſtitute a man healthful and able to Preach, into a cure of Souls, and yet excuſe him from all parts of the publick Miniſtry.

Nay, thirdly, If men take the field againſt the Nonconformiſts before they have ſufficiently tried their ſtrength, they may chance to be maſtered by theſe arguments they imagined themſelves able to maſter; and ſo even face about in the day of battel, fighting againſt thoſe from whom they received p. 12their firſt pay. Mr. Henry Jeanes had never ſeen a Nonconformiſt uſing his own weapon, and therefore thought him contemptible, and adventured to defie him in a Printed Treatiſe upon 1 Theſ. 5.22. But when he came to Read the very Books of the Nonconformiſts themſelves, he found himſelf no longer able to withſtand the dint of their arguments, but went over to them, and died their Convert, as all know who were his Neighbour Miniſters: ſome Papiſts by reading Proteſtant Books, with an intent to confute them, have been converted by them; and therefore the Grandees in the Roman Church, will not give leave to one of a thouſand, to Read all manner of Books; nay in ſome places they will ſcarcely permit Bellarmines works to be commonly ſold, leſt that little which is in them of Calvin ſhould purge all Catholociſm out of their young Students. I wiſh the Prelates of our Church would conſider how far the prudence of Papacy is imitable; certainly every one who is willing to have a Prebendſhip from them, is not able to ſtand under the weight and burden that is laid upon Epiſcopacy. If our Church muſt be vindicated, let it be vindicated by another Hooker, made up of learning and modeſty; as for Mr. Durel, if he have got a lask, and muſt needs eaſe himſelf in the Preſs, it may be worth conſideration, whether he be not fit to ſucceed to Tom Naſh, whoſe ſcoffing Pen was not altogether uſeleſs in Queen Elizabeths days.

I had almoſt added, that he who will to purpoſe defend our Church, muſt not be a Jerſey man; not only, becauſe ſuch a one can ſcarce be ſuppoſed p. 13ſully to know the intrigues of our differences; but alſo becauſe it can ſcarce be thought, that he ſhould be conſcientiouſly a friend to our Hierarchy: for we are not now to be told, that the Epiſcopal Government ſetled here in England, could not get into Jerſey, but by wile, if not force. Jerſey, Guernſey, &c. are the only remainders of the Crown of England in the Dukedom of Normandy, and in former times belonged to the Juriſdiction of the Biſhop of Conſtance, but were governed immediately by a ſubordinate Officer mixt of a Chancelor and Archdeacon; they entertained the Reformed Religion in King Edwards time, and ſome of their Inhabitants ſuffered for it in the time of Queen Mary; Queen Elizabeth reigning, by the help of ſome French Miniſters, the generality were again brought to ſeek after Reformation; but withall Petition the Queen for an allowance of the Presbyterian Diſcipline, Anno 1563; and Anno 1565, obtain it for all, or ſome part of the Iſlands: on which allowance they adventure to put it in execution, and hold a Synod in the Iſle of Guernſey, Sep. 2. 1567. Nor do I find that they had any conſiderable diſturbance in it, till Sir John Peiton was made their Governour, who with the Kings Attorney proteſted againſt that choice of Mr. Brevin, which was made by the Colloquy, upon the deceaſe of the Curate of St. Johns: the ground of the Proteſtation was the prejudicialneſs of ſuch Elections to the Rights and Profits of the King, deprived thereby of Vacancies, and firſt Fruits. This Proteſtation, though over-ruled for a ſeaſon, wrought ſo effectually, that about 1615, p. 14the Governour preſented one Mr. Meſſering to the Pariſh of St. Peters; this Meſſering had been ordained Prieſt by Dr. Bridges Biſhop of Oxford, but his preſentation was ſo offenſive to the Colloquy, that Governour and Miniſters appear before King James, referring the whole concernment to his Majeſties final Judgment; and the Miniſters for ought I find, had continued in Statu quo, had they been unanimous; but Monſieur De la Place being brought into a golden dream, that if a Dean were again eſtabliſhed in the Iſle, he, and no other ſhould be the man, betrayed his brethren, and violated the Oath he had before taken, ſo as it was at length ordered by the Council of England, That an Officer inveſted with the authority of the ancient Dean, ſhould again be eſtabliſhed in the Iſle of Jerſey, and that the Biſhop of Wincheſter ſhould by Commiſſion under his ſeal give authority unto the ſaid Dean, to exerciſe Eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction in the ſaid Iſle: but not Monſieur Place, but Mr. Bandinel, an Italian, is put into the Deanery; which Mr. Places high ſtomack not digeſting, he retires into Guernſey, breathing out nothing but diſgrace to the Engliſh Liturgy, and the Change of Government made in Jerſey, by his own Treachery. The ſum of all is: The Iſlanders of Jerſey had the Engliſh Liturgy tranſlated into their own Language in the reign of King Edward the ſixth; in Queen Elizabeths reign, they forſook it, aeſired the Presbyterial diſcipline, and by Oath bound themſelves to keep and obſerve it. The Epiſcopal Government was obtruded upon them, through the perjury of an Ambitious Miniſter who declaimed againſt it as ſoon as he ſaw he could p. 15not ſerve his own ends by it. Doth any Law oblige us to believe that any Natives of this Iſle heartily embrace it? I think it will be no uncharitableneſs to ſay—Timeo Danaos, & dona ferentes.

A fourth qualification required in him that will go a warfare for our Church, is a good knowledg of all the rules and forms of Argumentation; he that wants ſuch knowledg, will no more be able to manage the Churches Arguments, than David was to uſe Sauls Armor; nay, he will be a ſtumbling-block and ſtone of offence to our young ſtudents. When Dr. Heylin's Certamen Epistolare came abroad, I had ſpent Three years and no more at Cambridg; yet I muſt needs buy the Book, becauſe the Author was famed for his Geography, and had been repreſented to me as a very living Library; thought I, Si pergama dextra Defendi poſſent, certe hac defenſa videbo. But reading his Anſwer to Mr. Baxter, I found my ſelf quite fruſtrated in my expectation; for whereas Mr. Baxter had made a conditional Syllogiſm, and inſtead of aſſuming the words of the antecedent at large, had uſed an allowed brevity, But the antecedent is true: The Dr. tells him Page 80. That it was a ſtrange piece of news to him, to read any one making uſe of that brief form of conditional Syllogiſm. This ſtartled me, for I was ſure that almoſt every Syſtem of Logick, that fell into the mention of conditional Syllogiſms, not only allowed, but commended it to us, for brevity p. 16ſake, after a conditional major to proceed thus, But the Antecedent is true, Ergo, ſo is the Conſequent; or, but the Conſequent is falſe, Ergo, ſo is the Antecedent: I was as ſure that thoſe Schoolmen (in whoſe Logicks and Metaphyſicks I had waſted too much time) did uſually ſo argue, and I had read that long before them, the Stoicks were much pleaſed with this form of Argumentation, and called it foreign; how then (ſaid I within my ſelf) comes it to paſs, that an ancient Dr. in Divinity, who hath combated not only Puritans, but alſo Biſhops and Heads of Houſes, and ſometimes nibbles at Bellarmine himſelf, ſhould upon the reading of ſuch a Syllogiſm fall into ſuch a fit of admiration? What Anſwer I gave my ſelf, is not material; but I reſolved to lay aſide my opinion of the Doctors abilities; but rather to hope that he would make known ſome myſtery that was bid from Duncan, Burgeſdicius, Iſendorne, &c. till I came to his 8, Page, where I met with theſe words, The Antecedent in all Hypothetical propoſitions being conditional, imperfect, and of no full ſenſe, cannot be ſaid to be either true or falſe. When I had read them, I then concluded the Dr. was void of all rational learning, and perhaps did not know what hypothetical ſignified; for certainly every hypothetical Propoſition is a compound Propoſition; and if it be compound, it muſt conſiſt of Two Propoſitions, and one of thoſe Propoſitions muſt needs be the Antecedent: Now if the Antecedent be a Propoſition, it muſt needs be either true or falſe. I know that ſometimes the Antecedent, as well as the Conſequent, is not p. 17formally a Propoſition; but it's evermore, at leaſt virtually a Propoſition, and therefore may be ſaid to be true or falſe; if it could not, why do our Logicks ſo carefully tell us, that we muſt not eſtimate the verity or falſity of a conditional, from the verity or falſity of its parts, but from the true or falſe connexion that is betwixt them? It were perfectly needleſs to tell us, that we are not to eſtimate the verity of a conditional, from the verity of the Antecedent, if the Antecedent neither can be ſaid to be true nor falſe. Beſides, if there may be affirmation and negation in the Antecedent, then may the Antecedent be either true or falſe; but there may be affirmation or negation in the Antecedent, Ergo. The minor I prove from the common rule given for the right making of thoſe conditional Syllogiſms, in which the major only is Hypothetical; the Rule is, That we muſt either proceed from the poſition of the Antecedent, to the poſition of the Conſequent; or from the deſtruction of the Conſequent to the deſtruction of the Antecedent; if we proceed not thus, we may from true premiſes infer a falſe concluſion: Now what is it to put ponere the Antecedent? Why, it is to bring it into the minor, with the ſame quality it had in the major; That is, if it were affirmative in the major, it muſt be affirmative in the minor; if negative in the major, then negative in the minor: Ay, but whatever dull Logicians prate, is not the Antecedent in every Hypothetical, conditional, imperfect? Anſw. Certainly it is not; for the [if] which is commonly prefixed to the Antecedent, is no part of the Antecedent; p. 18but it is the copula that converteth the Antecedent and the Conſequent, juſt as the Verb [is] in a Categorical, coupleth the ſubject and predicate. Let this be the example, if the Sun ſhineth, it is day; here be two propoſitions, the Sun ſhineth, it is day, both are joined into one compound propoſition by the Conjunction if; and the plain meaning is, if the firſt propoſition be true, the ſecond is alſo. No leſs ignorance doth the Dr. bewray, when he ſaith, In every hypothetical Syllogiſm, the major propoſition conſiſteth of two parts, or branches, whereof one is called the Antecedent, the other the conſequent: For I can make him an Hundred Hypothetical Syllogiſms, in which the minor only and concluſion ſhall be Hypothetical, and the major a plain Categorical. It may be Mr. D. will ſay, this ſhakes not his Corn; and indeed it doth not: but he alſo might have done well, before he dabled in the Printers Ink, to read over ſome Compendiums; then would he have amended the Title of above Fifty Pages in his Book, not writing The Conformity of the Reformed Churches, with the Reformed Church of England; for this Enunciation, There is a conformity betwixt the Reformed Churches, and the Reformed Church of England in the things of preſent controverſie, cannot be proved, but by an Induction, ſhewing, that all, or the moſt, or the moſt famous Reformed Churches, agree with the Church of England in all, or moſt, or the chiefeſt of thoſe matters the preſent Nonconformiſts ſcruple. Hath he ſhewed this? he doth as good as confeſs he hath not; for Page 53. Sect. 63. giving us the ſumma totalis of his atchievements, p. 19he plainly ſays, it amounts but to thus much, There is hardly one of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England that is not uſed in ſome one Reformed Church or other. Which ſuppoſe he had proved (as he hath not) he is, many ſtages off from the concluſion he propounded to infer; if he deem he is not, let him write a Book to prove that the Language of the Matachuſes is conformable to the Engliſh Language, becauſe there is ſome one word in which both languages do agree, and ſee whether he will not be laughed at to purpoſe.

But I will free my mind from all prejudices that may be taken againſt Mr. D. on the account of his Country; nor will I create him any odium from the high elogiums he beſtows on the Earl of Clarendon, ſentenced by King and Parliament to perpetual baniſhment, as unworthy to live in England, (though I wonder Mr. D. doth no where bewail his ſin or miſery in heaping ſo many praiſes on him who deſerved ſo few) 'Tis not the man, but his Book I am to undertake, and in it I will ſhew,

1. Where there is a real controverſy betwixt Epiſcoparians and Presbyterians, he quite miſtakes it.

2. That he takes a great deal of pains to prove that which was never queſtioned by any ſober man among us.

3. That he defiles his Paper with many untruths and falſhoods.

4. That he hath let fall not a few paſſages which are manifeſtly prejudicial and deſtructive p. 20to the Church of England, as it is now eſtabliſhed.

As to the real controverſies now on foot, the principal of them may be reduced to three general Heads, Epiſcopacy, Liturgy, Ceremonies.

The Presbyterians ſay, that if they conform, they muſt receive Epiſcopacy as an order by Divine Law, ſuperior to Presbytery, and inveſted with ſole power of order and juriſdiction: Search Mr. Durell's Book with Candles, and if there be in it any one Line tending to prove that either there is any ſuch Epiſcopacy in any one reformed Church, or that any one Reformed Church, if her judgment were asked, would approve ſuch an Epiſcopacy, and I will confeſs my ſelf miſtaken. He reckoneth himſelf moſt ſecure of the Lutheran Churches, and among the Lutherans, eſpecially of ſuch as are governed by a Monarchy, particularly he tells us, That in Denmark they have Biſhops, and Arch biſhops, name and thing, Page 5. How much he is miſtaken in this, will ſoon appear, if we conſult the Hiſtory of the Reformation of that Kingdom. About the year 1537, Bugenbagius is ſent for into Denmark, where the Twelfth of Auguſt, he performed all the Eccleſiaſtical part of the Kings Coronation; and Fourteen days after that Coronation, he ordained Seven Superintendents, to be keepers and executors of all Eccleſiaſtical Ordination, and to do the office of Biſhops: Now I ask, ſeeing Bugenhage was but a Presbyter, whether he put the Superintendents into an order higher than his own? if he did, who gave him an authority ſo to do? If he did not, then are there no p. 21Biſhops properly ſo called in Denmark. Melchior Adam, who relates this of Bugenhagius, relates alſo in the life of Luther, that he, calling Three other Presbyters to join with him in laying on of hands, ordained Nicholas Amdſorf Biſhop, repudiating one choſen by the Colledg of Canons, and very dear to the Emperor; That is, he ordained one by the name of a Biſhop, but he was only a Presbyter, and could not think himſelf to be of an higher Order, being ordained by Luther that was but a meer Presbyter.

Gerhard acquaints us, That the Papiſts, or at leaſt ſome of them, did proclaim the Ordinations in their Churches to be void and null, becauſe performed by Luther who was no Biſhop; but that ever any Lutheran thought their Ordinations leſs valid on that account, will never be proved. I have read Hunnius his Demonſtration of the Lutheran Miniſtry; and though he were himſelf a Superintendent, yet he ſo little magnifies his Office, that he ſticks not to affirm, That he who ordains, ordains only as the Officer of the Church; and that any one whatever that ſhould by the Church be ſet to ordain, would ordain as validly as a Biſhop doth. And, if it will do Mr. D. any kindneſs, I can, and will on his deſire, direct him to a Lutheran, who calls us Anglos Papizantes, for ſtraining Epiſcopacy ſo high, and appropriating Ordination to that Order: Chemnitius had occaſion to examine the Anathematizing Decrees of the Conventicle of Trent; one of them was, If any one ſhall ſay that a Biſhop is not ſuperior to a Presbyter, let him be Anathema. There he was neceſſitated to ſhew the p. 22judgment of the Lutheran Churches, and yet he there delivereth nothing, but what the Engliſh-Presbyterians can ſubſcribe to; and though the incomparable Philip Melancthon was blamed for giving more to Biſhops than was meet; yet he hath not given more to them, than what the Engliſh Nonconformiſts are ready to give them.

Thus of the Lutheran Churches. It will not be ſo difficult for me to find out the judgment of the Churches more ſtrictly called Reformed, becauſe I ſhall find the moſt famous of them except the Gallican, meeting together at the Synod of Dort. Of the Gallican therefore by themſelves; and I ſay, that the Writers of thoſe Churches have done more againſt our Engliſh Hierarchy, than the Writers of any, or all Reformed Churches beſides. For,

1. Some of them have made it their buſineſs to overthrow the credit of Ignatius his Epiſtles, from which, more than from any writing whatever, our Hierarchy doth ſtrengthen it ſelf. Did not Salmaſius and Blondell ſtrain their diligence, to prove that even the moſt correct Copy of Ignatius is ſpurious? And when our learned Hammond had taken ſome pains to vindicate the Epiſtles, Mareſius quarrels with B…ondell, becauſe he did not preſently all other buſineſs laid aſide) take the Doctor to task, and maintain againſt him the Apology he had made for St. Hieroms opinion; yet Dally tells us, that Blondell had intended to anſwer for himſelf, had he not been prevented by death. Becauſe death did prevent him, therefore his friend Monſieur Dally hath done that work for him; and it is p. 23ſaid, that Dr. Pierſon hath news ſent him, That if he think meet to reply upon Dally, he ſhall not long want a rejoinder.

2. Thoſe that have defended our Engliſh Hierarchy, have not been more uncivilly dealt with by any, than by learned French-men. I will not now (becauſe indeed I am aſhamed) tell what language Danaeus gave Saravia, becauſe of his Book De diverſis Miniſtrorum gradibus. Salmaſius imagining himſelf diſparaged by a word never intended as a diſparagement, could not forbear calling Dr. Hammond Knave. Mareſius (in the firſt queſtion he handleth againſt Dr. Prideaux) not ſo bluntly, but more virulently, tells us, That Dr. Hammond had proceeded to ſuch a degree of fury, as that he did profeſſedly propugne the cauſe of the Pope; not content to ſpit in a ſingle Doctors face, he thus cenſures all our Biſhops, Melius ſuae foreign conſuluiſſent Praeſules Anglicani, ſi & moderatius in ea egiſſent, & illam cum reliquis Proteſtantibus maluiſſent agnoſcere juris eccleſiaſtici, quam mordicus aſſerere juris Divini. Nam ut arcus nimia intenſione frangitur, ſis & illi nimium intendentes ſuam authoritatem, & dignitatem ea penitus exciderunt, inſtar Cameli in fabula, qui quod cornua affectaſſet, etiam auribus multatus fuit, page 68. And then page 70, ſpeaking of ſome miſchiefs that had befallen the Biſhops, he thus expreſſeth himſelf, Ipſimet Praeſules Angli, fuiſſent ea declinaturi, ſi fortunam ſuam magis reverenter habuiſſent, ne que ex parte collimaſſent ad Papiſmi reſtitutionem, jure poſtliminii, licet majorem aut ſaltem meliorem partem corum haec iniquitatis myſteria latuerint. Quare p. 24nobis eminus hanc cataſtrophem ſpectantibus; id ſolum dicendum reſtat, domine juſtus es, & juſta judicia tua. And then page 111, ſpeaking of our Biſhops arrogating to themſelves temporal juriſdiction, he dreads not to let fall theſe Lines; Haec defenſio Juriſdictionis temporalis pro Eccleſiae Miniſtris portio aliqua eſt, illius fermenti Papiſtici, quo Hierarchiae Anglicanae maſſa, paulatim ſe infici paſſa fuit, dum magis ambit typhum ſaeculi, ut loquar cum patribus Africanis, quam humilitatem crucis meditatur: potuiſſent forte Epiſcopi Anglicani ſuam foreign & ſua rura retinuiſſe, niſi vo…uiſſent penitus ſuum Epiſcopatum ad modulum Romanum componere.

3. But above all, let that be conſidered which is laid down by Peter Moulin in his Letter to the Biſhop of Wincheſter, Where to excuſe himſelf for not making the difference betwixt Biſhops and Presbyters to be of Divine appointment, he pleads, that if he had laid the difference on that foundation, the French Churches would have ſilenced him.

Will the French Churches ſilence him that ſhould aſſert the jus Divinum of Epiſcopacy? and yet will Mr. Durell go about to perſwade us, that they do not condemn our Engliſh Hierarchy, which aſſerts it ſelf to be Divine, and cares not for being at all, if it be not ſuch? The Two Archbiſhops in Dr. Bastwicks Caſe, did proteſt even in open Court, That if they could not prove their Epiſcopal Juriſdiction and Function, which they claimed and exerciſed over other Ministers, and themſelves as they were Biſhops, to be ſuperior in power, dignity, and degree to other Ministers, Jure Divino, p. 25they would forthwith caſt away their Rochets off their backs, lay down their Biſhopricks at his Majeſties feet, and not continue one hour longer Biſhops. If therefore Mr. D. can bring any eminent French Divines that found Epiſcopacy, as diſtinct from, and ſuperior to, Presbytery, on any Divine Law, he will do ſomething to ſtop the mouths of Nonconformiſts; but ſuch he will never be able to bring, unleſs he firſt cauſe the Golden Ball to run before them, or fill them with that which blindeth the eyes of the wiſe. Certain I am, that Dr. Andrew Rivet, in his ſumma Controver. Second Tract. 22. Queſt. thus ſtates the queſtion: We diſpute not whether Biſhops be, de facto, above Presbyters; but whether they be ſo, de jure; nor is the queſtion of Humane, but Divine Law: We deny that Biſhops by Divine Law have any pre-eminence above Presbyters. This is the more conſiderable, becauſe it is dedicated to four great Proteſtant Divines, Peter Moulin, William Rivet, John Maximilian Langle, Samuel Bochart; and becauſe it is again repeated in Rivets Writings againſt Grotius. When ſome Miniſters were by the Aſſembly employed to get foreign Divines, by ſome Letters, to ſignifie their minds in the controverſy of our Epiſcopacy; among others, the ſaid Miniſters went to this Dr. Rivet, then at the Hague, deſiring him, that he would be pleaſed to ſignifie his mind: He excuſed himſelf from Writing, becauſe of his relation to—but took down one of his Books, in which he denied the Divine Right of Epiſcopacy; delaring, That was his judgment, which he would never deny. This I had from the mouth of a p. 26very Reverend perſon ſtill alive, who was one employed to diſcourſe him.

But I have a later teſtimony; when the Scots went to Breda to treat with their King, Dr. Rivet put a Preface to Bodius his Comment on the Epheſians, commending it to the World, and I am ſure in that, the Engliſh Hierarchy is ſufficiently beaten down. I have ſaid all that for the preſent I intend to ſay about the French Churches; of other Reformed Churches I may ſpeak more briefly, becauſe moſt of them met together in a Synod at Dort, to put an end to the differences about the five points: What was done in that Synod? Why, ſaith Mr. Mountague in his Appeal, page 70, In it, and in other Dutch Synods, the Diſcipline of the Church of England is held unlawful. At this Mr. Durell had need to beſtir himſelf; for either Mr. Mountague, or he will be found to be a Liar: I ſhall not determine who is to blame; but by reading the Acts of that Synod, I do find, that Seſſion 144, notice was given, That it was the will of the States, that the Confeſſion of Faith of the Belgick Churches, ſhould be read and examined by the Synod, the Exteri being alſo preſent. The One and thirtieth Article of that Confeſſion, when it comes to ſpeak particularly of the Miniſters of the Word, ſaith, That in what place ſoever they be, they have the ſame power and authority, as being all the Miniſters of Chriſt, the only Ʋniverſal Biſhop, and only Head of the Church. Theſe words would not down with our Britiſh Divines, becauſe directly oppoſite to government by Archbiſhops and Biſhops in England: Whereupon p. 27the Lord Biſhop of Landaff, in his own name, and the name of his Brethren, made open proteſtation, That whereas in the Confeſſion there was inſerted a ſtrange conceit of the Parity of Miniſters to be inſtituted by Chriſt, he declared his own and his brethrens utter diſſent in that point. Now hence, I thus argue, either the words in that Article do condemn our Government in England, or they do not; if they do not, why did our Britiſh Divines concern themſelves to make protestation, open protestation againſt them? If they did, then all at once down falls the one half of Mr. Durell's Book: For then the Holland Churches in their very Confeſſion of Faith condemn the Diſcipline of the Church of England; and if the Holland Churches do ſo, other Churches do ſo alſo: For by the Divines of no other Church beſides the Engliſh, was any diſlike ſhewn to thoſe words, aſſerting the parity of all Miniſters. As for the Deputies of the Gallo-Belgick Churches, they declared, That the French Churches, though not there preſent, had before, in a National Synod held in the City of Vitriack 1583, declared ſolemnly, their approbation, not only of the Doctrine, but alſo of the Diſcipline of their Holland Brethren: No wonder they ſo readily conſented, for an Egg is not more like to an Egg, than is the Gallican Confeſſion to the Belgick, in the matters of Miniſters and Diſcipline; both of them are a note above the Ela of many, who have the ill hap to be called Presbyterians, and loſe their livings here in England: both ſay, That this is one part of the Polity taught in the word, that there ſhould be in the Church of Christ, Pastors, p. 28Elders, Deacons. To this it is like that Mr. Durell himſelf hath ſubſcribed; for he ſomewhere tells us, That he had for ſome years a place among the French Protestants; and he tells us, page 54, That no man is to be ordained a Miniſter, or admitted to any other office in the ſaid hurc…es, but he muſt ſubſcribe, beſides the publick Confeſſion of their Faith, the Canons and Conſtitutions agreed on at Paris, commonly known by the name of their Diſcipline. Now if a man ſhould go to him, and ask him whether he believes it to be any piece of Chriſts Polity, that there ſhould be in his Church Elders, Ruling-Elders, diſtinct from Preaching Elders or Paſtors, he would either ſay no or ſay nothing. Why did he with his hand ſubſcribe to that which he did not with his heart believe? Perhaps he is a Latitudinarian, or hath a Sluce in his Conſcience. But the ſimple Nonconformiſts in England dare not ſay they aſſent to all, and every thing, if there be ſomething unto which they do not unfeignedly aſſent; they ſay, they can promiſe not publickly to contradict any thing delivered in the Liturgy or Book of Ordination; and ſome who are beneficed and dignified, tell them, they mean no more, by profeſſing aſſent and conſent. But Nonconformiſts cannot bring themſelves to imagine, that form of words imports no more. What a miſery it is, that ſo many Families ſhould be ruined for want of a diſtinguiſhing faculty! Epiſcopius hath preſcribed a Receipt, which if they can but take, may cure them of their ſcrupuloſity; (but let them fear leſt it purge them of their Conſcience alſo:) For thus he, What if the Magiſtrate require p. 29words and forms of ſpeaking, by which an opinion directly contrary to our faith and opinion is wont to be expreſſed? Anſw. As long as my opinion is not known, if thoſe forms be ſuch, or conceived in ſuch words which admit a true ſenſe, though a falſe be wont to be expreſſed by them, I allow them for peace ſake. Reſpon. ad 64. Queſt. Page 54.

My Lord of Landaff's Proteſtation hath ſet my Pen a running further and faſter than I deſigned; yet I will not give it check, until I have alſo taken notice of ſomething elſe, which his Lordſhip relates in his Book againſt Mountague, viz. That he told ſome Divines of the Synod, the cauſe of all their troubles was, becauſe they had no Biſhops amongſt them, who by their authority might repreſs turbulent ſpirits, that broached novelty, every man having liberty to ſpeak or write what they iſt. It ſeems his Lordſhip was of opinion, thas if Holland had but been bleſſed with Biſhops, Arminianiſm had never come to ſuch an Head in the Low-Countries; and ſo the Papiſts tell us, That if we would but ſubmit our ſelves to the Biſhop of Rome, we ſhould then have no differences about the ſenſe of Scripture; yet never any Pope of Rome hath ſet out any infallible Commentary upon the Bible; nor hath any Epiſcopal authority in England proved ſufficient to root up Arminianiſm among us. Mr. Mountague when he firſt ſowed the ſeeds thereof, was of Biſhop Carleton's own Dioceſs, why did he not prevent his innovations taking root? Why could he not keep his own Book againſt them, from being ſuppreſſed? What was the matter that no Convocation ever decided ſo important a controverſy?

p. 30I find indeed His Majeſty (Mountague having been much vexed by the Commons) about the year 1626, commanding all the Biſhops to come before him, reprehending ſuch as appeared, for not making known to him what was meet to be done about the Five points that made ſuch a noiſe: but Biſhop Andrews and Biſhop Laud laying their heads together, thought it was not ſafe to adventure the determining of thoſe points to a Convocation, till they could get a Convocation more of their own minds; wherefore after all expectations, nothing came forth, but a Proclamation from His Majeſty, Charging his Divines not to vent their heats, by raiſing any doubts, or publiſhing and maintaining any new inventions or opinions concerning Religion: Much like to an Order, the Remonſtrants by means of Barnevelt procured from the States of Holland, on purpoſe to prevent the calling of a Synod. Of late indeed, I find Arnold Poelenberg, in a Preface to the 2d Volume of Epiſcopius his Works, boaſting of the great favour that the Remonſtrant opinions and Authors, find with our Prelates, and with the leading men in both Univerſities; but perhaps he reckons, as the Proverb is, without his hoſt. All experience tells us, that Epiſcopacy without the Aſſiſtance of the Civil Magiſtrate, will not put an end to our ſtrifes and contentions; and with the aſſiſtance of the Civil Magistrate Presbytery may do it. But I return to Mr. D. whom I oppoſed with an Argument drawn from the Synod of Dort; I muſt not forget that he alſo takes notice of the Synod of Dort, and from the civil and reſpectful language given in it by Bogerman to p. 31the Biſhop of Landaff, concludes, That Holland condemns not our Hierarchy. And look how many Tranſmarine Divines he finds dedicating Books to our Biſhops or Archbiſhops, and giving them the titles by which they are commonly called among us; ſo many good mediums he conceives he hath found to prove that beyond the ſeas the office of a Biſhop or Archbiſhop is liked and honoured. I only deſire him, if he can, to be as good natured to our Engliſh-men, and to believe Thomas Cartwright was a Convert, becauſe writing to the Archbiſhop he gives him his Titles; and that Mr. Prynne had no deſign to unbiſhop Timothy and Titus, becauſe he dedicates his book to the right reverend Fathers in God, William of Canterbury, and Richard of York, Primates of all England, and Metropolitans. And if his heart do not fail him, let him alſo infer, That Francis Maſon had no diſlike of Popiſh Hierarchy, becauſe in a Dedicatory to Henry Biſhop of Paris, he calls him Ampliſſimum Praeſulem, and Antiſtitem Clariſſimum, and Virum Reverendiſſimum. Dr. Heylin was not Maſter of ſo much charitable Logick; for ſpeaking (Hiſt. of Preſ. p. 282.) of Biſhop Grindals holding correſpondence with Calvin and Beza, Zanchy, Bullinger, Gualter, and ſome other of the chief Divines among the Switzers, he concludes at length, That they all had their ends upon him, for the advancing of Presbytery and Inconformity in the Church of England. And really I have obſerved, that moſt of the Divines that have by their Letters ſtroaked our Biſhops, have in ſome places of their Writings given a ſhrewd knock to the Cauſe defended by them. Mr. Durell, p. 281. tells us, p. 32That Danaeus his calling the Archbiſhop Reverendiſſimum in Chriſto Patrem, &c. is as much as can be wiſhed to teſtifie his good liking of the Church of England as it is by Law eſtabliſhed: And yet John Canne a very troubleſome Separatiſt, makes uſe of a paſſage in Danaeus to juſtifie his ſeparation from the Church of England. Mr. Ball clearly proves that the paſſage doth not warrant ſeparation; but yet Dan…us might have written more moderately: for theſe are his words on 1 Tim. 5. Ex his omnibus apparet quam nulla ſit, vel non legitima eorum verbi D…i miniſtrorum vel Eccleſiae paſtorum vocatio, qui ſolius Regis, vel Reginae, vel Patroni vel Epiſeopi vel Archiepiſcopi authoritate diplomate, bullis, juſſu & judicio fiunt vel eligun tur. Id quod dolendum eſt, fieri adhuc in iis Eccleſiis, quae tamon purum Dei verbum habent, & ſequuntur, veluti in media Anglia. Nan Anglos homines alioqui ſapientiſſimos, acutiſſimos, & pientiſſimos, in iſtis tamen Papiſticae Idololatriae, & tyrannidis reliquiis agnoſcendis, & tollendis, ſcientes prudenteſque caecutire mirum eſt. Itaque praeclare ſentiunt, qui omnem illam chartulariam, & Epiſcopaticam Curionum & paſtorum Eccleſiae ereandorum rationem, item ex ſolo Epiſcopi conſenſu & diplomate miniſtrorum verbi coeleſtis vocationem, approbationem, & inaugurationem damnant, tollendam que ex reformata ad Dei verbum Eccleſia cenſent: quod ordo Dei verbo praeſcriptus in ordinatione hujuſmodi perſonarum ſit praetermiſſus, ac violatus, ſicut perſpicue apparet. Denique & ſenatui Eccleſiaſtico, & populo Chriſtiano inſomne ſuum at que ſuffragium miſere ſit hac ratione, & in hee genere vocationum Eccleſiaſticarum ademptum, & in unum quendum Epiſcopum magna tyrannide p. 33at que abuſu tranſlatum. Dominus Deus talibus corruptionibus, quae adhuc in Eccleſiis ipſius ſuperſunt, & defenduntur, mederi magna ſua miſericordia dignetur, & velit, quae tandem certe magnam Eccleſiae Dei ruinam ſecum trahent, & ipſum ſacroſanctum verbi Miniſterium reddent efficientq. vel mercenarium, vel omnino contemptibile & abjectum. Quod Dominus avertat.

Certainly this is not as much as can be wiſhed to teſtifie Danaeus his good liking of the Church of England as it is by Law eſtabliſhed. Friderick Spanhem is another whoſe complaiſant Dedicatory to the great Ʋſher ſeems to Mr. D. a ſufficient argument to prove that the Reformed Church of Geneva is no enemy to the Biſhops of the Church of England; and yet Spanhem in that very third part of his Evangelical Doubts, which he dedicates to the Archbiſhop, determines it lawful for the innocent perſon after divorce to marry another wife; quite contrary to Eccleſiaſtical Laws ſtill unrepealed in the Church of England. Well, that is but a Peccadillo, becauſe many of our own Conformable Divines are of the ſame mind, and as I ſuppoſe, ſome of our Biſhops alſo. Dr. Abbot anſwering Biſhops Second part, p. 315. ſaith, That the limitation of divorce which our Saviour giveth, maketh it lawful for the party innocent to marry again, the delinquent being left to the cenſure of the Church, until ſatisfaction be given of true repentance for ſo hainous a ſin. The Church of England notwithſtanding, for the preventing of ſome miſchieſs that by the wickedneſs of men do ariſe by the abuſe of the liberty of marriage upon divorce, uſeth a reſtraint of that liberty, p. 34that the parties divorced ſhall put in caution not to marry again as long as they both live. As for the Authors of the reformation of our Eccleſiaſtical laws de Adult. & divort. c. 6. they determine plainly, Cum alter conjux adulterii damnatus eſt, alteri licebit innocenti novum ad matrimonium (ſi volet) progredi: and c. 7. Judex quoties alterum conjugem adulterii condemnat, alteri ſincerae perſonae libertatem denunciare debet ad novum matrimonium tranſeundi. And cap. 19. Menſae ſocietas & thori ſolebat in certis criminibus adimi conjugibus, ſalvo tamen inter illos reliquo matrimonii jure; quae conſtitutio cum à ſacris literis aliena ſit, & maximam perverſitatem habeat, & malorum ſentinam in matrimonium comportaverit, illud authoritate noſtra totum aboleri placet. But this, it ſeems, is not current doctrine now, and ſo let it paſs. The aforeſaid Friderick Spanhem makes Ruling-Elders to be one of thoſe orders of Officers that are deſigned by Chriſt for the ruling of his Church, and affirms them to be grounded on Scripture, 1 Cor. 12.8. 1 Tim. 5.17. So I find him quoted by Hornbeck Inſtitut. Theol. p. 523, 524. And it will be difficult for Mr. Durell to prove that he can approve the divine right of Epiſcopacy, who makes Lay-Elders (commonly ſo called) a divine inſtitution.

Leaving Epiſcopacy, let us come to Liturgy, that we may ſee whether Mr. Durell be any more happy in managing that Controverſie. I do eaſily grant, that he hath by a whole cloud of witneſſes proved,

1. That ſet-forms of prayer are lawful.

2. That moſt Churches reformed do uſe ſet-forms of prayer.

3. That the old Engliſh Common prayer-book p. 35was not ſo corrupt, as that a man could not without defiling his conſcience, joyn with thoſe who made uſe of it in the ſervice of God. But all theſe things had been proved many years before, by an old Nonconformiſt (who died about the beginning of the late Wars) Mr. John Ball, both in his tryal of the grounds tending to ſeparation, and in his anſwer to Mr. Cann and others.

If Mr. Durell will do any thing to purpoſe in this Controverſie relating to Liturgies, he muſt prove,

1. That it is lawful for any Church ſo ſtrictly to tye up her Miniſters to a form, as not to allow them to make any uſe of their own gifts in prayer in publick.

Or elſe, 2dly, That our Church hath not ſo tied up her Miniſters, but that they may ſtill, any Rubrick or Canon to the contrary notwithſtanding, uſe their own prayer at ſome times, and upon ſome occaſions in the publick.

If he will endeavour to prove the firſt, the Preſbyterians will be concerned to anſwer him. If the ſecond, there are many of his Conforming brethren will ſoon be upon his bones; but for ought I ſee or can find, Mr. D. never goes about either to prove the one or the other propoſition; and therefore I might be excuſed if I did wholly diſmiſs him, and leave him to ſome of his friends to reconcile him to his own ſhadow; yet becauſe he ſwaggers, and accounts that he hath by one thruſt left the Aſſembly of Divines, and the two Houſes of Parliament weltring in their blood, I will try quid tanto dignum feret hic promiſſor hiatu.

p. 36The things laid to the charge of the two Houſes, and the Aſſembly choſen by them, are manifeſt untruths, and thoſe uttered in an Ordinance, and in a preface to a Directory for the publick Worſhip of God throughout the three kingdoms, vid. p. 3. If any manifeſt untruths are delivered by them, let them (for me) lye down in their own ſorrow and ſhame, till they have made reparation to the parties injured. But firſt, we muſt ſee whether this heavy charge can be made good againſt them, elſe the penance muſt be laid on him that brought in the charge. The firſt untruth is, That the book of Common prayer had proved an offence to the Reformed Churches abroad. Is this an untruth, and a manifeſt untruth too? Why, are not the Walachian Churches in Zealand, Reſormed Churches? and was not the Liturgy uſed in the Church of England, an offence to them? Let Mr. D. read what Apollonius in the name of the whole Claſſis hath written againſt it, and then tell us his mind; let him alſo read the ſeveral Letters written by Calvin and Beza touching our Liturgy, and it will be very evident, that ſome things in our Engliſh Liturgy were offenſive at Geneva; and a man would think ſomething in it was offenſive to the Proteſtant Churches in France, or elſe certainly they would have uſed their intereſt with the French Churches here in England to receive it from Biſhop Laud, who laboured with all his might for many years to impoſe it on them, but could not prevail at laſt. Laſtly, for ought I know the Scotiſh Churches may properly enough be called Churches abroad, and Mr D. will not ſure deny but that our Liturgy was offenſive to them.

p. 37The ſecond manifeſt untruth is, that the two houſes did take away the book of Common-prayer to anſwer the expectation of other Reformed Churches. If there were other Reformed Churches beſides thoſe, for which the Directory was appointed, that expected the two Houſes ſhould take away the Common-prayer-book uſed in England, then was there no manifeſt untruth in the before-mentioned expreſſion: Let us ſee whether there were not. The aboliſhing of the Common-prayer-book was forth Kingdom of England, and Dominion of Wales. Can Mr. D. imagine that no other Churches reformed, expected the taking away of the Engliſh Liturgy? What thinks he of the Reformed Churches of Scotland? The Churches of New England? thoſe Engliſh and Scotiſh Churches that were planted up and down the Low-Countreys, and other places of Traffick? Will he nullifie all theſe Churches? or had they not deſires as well as expectations that the Liturgy ſhould be removed? Did he never read with how great regret that Liturgy was obtruded upon thoſe Engliſh that trafficked in foreign Nations? If he have not, let him vouchſafe to read over the Hiſtory of Archbiſhop Laud, written by Dr. Heylin, and then tell us whether he was not too raſh to give ſo many Nobles, Gentlemen, and Divines the lye. If that Hiſtory bring him under no ſenſe of his temerity, then I entreat him to enquire of the Aſſembly-men ſtill alive, whether they cannot help him to a ſight of the Anſwers of Foreign Churches, returned to the Latin Letter of the Aſſembly of Divines; and by moſt of them he will find, that the deſigned Reformation was not diſguſted by them. p. 38Till he have ſuch an opportunity, it will be wort his while to beſtow a little time in reading Apo lonius his printed Epiſtle.

Mr. D. again falls upon the two Houſes, p. 14. thither I will follow him; where conceiving wrath and fiery indignation againſt an expreſſion in the Ordinance of the two Houſes, he makes a Manifeſto, That there was never, nor is yet any one Reformed Church, that hath only a Directory, and not a book of Common-prayer for the publick worſhip of God. To which Manifeſto I ſay, That the Church of Scotland had, when the two Houſes made that Ordinance, no Book of Common-prayer for the publick worſhip of God, but what was in the nature of a Directory; and that the Church of Scotland was principally in their eye in the management of their Reformation; and I alſo ſay, that the Dutch Liturgy is but in the nature of a Directory, for ſo I underſtand thoſe words, cap. 11. art. 11. in the Harmony of the Belgick Synods, Miniſter preces vel dictante ſpiritu, vel certa ſibi propoſita formula concipiet. It may be Mr. D. will put another conſtruction on them, for he ſeems to have uſed other Dictionaries than thoſe we have opportunity to conſult in England. In one of the French Rubricks it is ſaid, that upon Sundays in the morning the following form is commonly uſed; he tells us, p 17. the meaning is, That that form is to be uſed always, and no other. Could any Presbyterian have thought of ſuch a meaning? or how can any one of them be convinced that commonly and always are all one? why, he may be convinced by conſtant and uniform practice, ſo he tells us, ibid. But I ſay, conſtant p. 39and uniform practice will never make commonly, to be always. I have been a member of the Church of England for theſe Thirty years, and my occaſions have called me to be in moſt Counties of the Nation, and in all theſe years I never heard any Miniſter, whether Prelatical or Presbyterian read King James his Statute againſt Swearing, and yet the words of the Law are plain, That it ſhall be read twice every year, were I not a wiſe man if I ſhould ſay, the meaning of the Law is, that the Statute ſhall never be read, as conſtant and uniform practice doth ſhew? Thus have I examined what Mr. D. had to ſay againſt the Two Houſes, and the Aſſembly, and muſt now try not the words, but the power of Ludovicus Capellus a man of great Learning; but which in his later days eſpecially, he made uſe of, to the diſturbance of the Church: better had it been for the Chriſtian world, that Saumur had never had a profeſſor of Hebrew, than a Profeſſor that took ſo much pains to make the Hebrew Points, or Vowels, and Accents, a late invention of the Tiberian Maſſarites, long after ſundry Tranſlations were extant in the World. All his Theſes will not do ſo much good, as his Arcanum punctationis revelatum, and Critica Sacra have done hurt. Let us notwithſtanding hear what he hath concerning Liturgies, Mr. D. himſelf being Tranſlator.

A Hundred and fourty years ago, when the ſeparation was made from the Church of Rome, and that the Chriſtian people, coming out of Babylon, did caſt off the Popes tyranny, the ſacred Liturgy was purged of all that Popiſh ſuperſtition p. 40and idolatry, and all ſuch things as were over-burdenſom, or which did little or nothing contribute towards the edification of the Church; and ſo were framed and preſcribed in ſeveral places, divers ſet forms of holy Liturgies by the ſeveral Authors of the Reformation that then was, and thoſe ſimple and pure in Germany, France, England, Scotland, the Netherlands, &c. differing as little as poſſible from the ancient ſet forms of the Primitive Church: which ſet forms the Reformed have uſed hitherto with happineſs and profit, each of them in their ſeveral Nations and Diſtricts: Till at laſt of very late, there did ariſe in England, a froward, ſcrupulous and overnice (that I ſay not altogether ſuperſtitious) generation of men, unto whom it hath ſeemed good for many Reaſons, but thoſe very light, and almoſt of no moment at all, not only to blame, but to caſhier, and to aboliſh wholly the Liturgy uſed hitherto in their Church, (together with the whole Hierarchical Government of their Biſhops) inſtead of which Liturgy they have brought in their Directory as they call it.

Mr. D. tells us, pag. 15. That from hence the Reader may obſerve five things:

1. That all reformed Churches have Liturgies; but I ſay, That from no words of Capellus, any ſuch obſervation can be collected; if Mr. D. think otherwiſe, his Logick is his own, let him make uſe of it.

2. That the Liturgy of the Church of England is judged by this great man, not only ſimple, and pure, and free from all Popiſh Superſtition and Idolatry; p. 41but alſo from all ſuch things as were over onerous and troubleſom, or which did contribute but little to the edification of the Church. No ſuch obſervation can be made from Capellus his words, for he only ſpeaks of the Liturgies that were introduced by the firſt Authors of our Reformation, betwixt which and the preſent Liturgy there may be, for ought Mr. Capell ſaith to the Contrary, a vaſt difference: But I believe this great man commended he knew not what, and talked at an high rate of confidence concerning Liturgies of the firſt Reformers which he never ſaw. A Papiſt will not deſire greater advantage againſt the Praeſes in Saumur, than to have it granted, that in the Liturgies made by the Authors of Reformation in all the places Capell mentioneth, nothing was contained onerous, or of little edification. The Divines of King Henry the 8th were Authors of a Reformation, their Liturgy had ſomething in it ſuperſtitious, idolatrous, leſs profitable. So had alſo the firſt Liturgy made by our Divines in King Edwards time, elſe we muſt count it profitable to pray for the dead, and to commend our Prayers to be preſented by the holy Angels, &c. And if we ſpeak even of the preſent Lutherans Liturgies, every thing that hath little or nothing of profit in it, is not taken away; for what is the profit of Latin Cantions? or where is the advantage of Exorciſme? What good is to be got by the Doctrine of Conſubſtantiation? I might urge other queſtions which no friend of Capellus would much care for anſwering.

p. 423. If Liturgies ought to recede as little as poſſible from that of the Primitive Church, as he doth intimate, undoubtedly the Liturgy of the Church of England is the best, and moſt perfect of them all as coming neareſt unto it. How the Reader ſhould be able to obſerve this from any words of Capellus cannot I divine; it may be Mr. D. heartily thinks that our Liturgy cometh neareſt to the Primitive Liturgies, and ſo is the moſt perfect, becauſe primum in unoquo que genere eſt menſura reliquorum: But Capellus neither did think ſo, nor could think ſo, without egregious contradiction to his own Principle; for he had ſaid juſt before, That from the beginning the Formula's were moſt brief, and moſt ſimple, which without pomp and train, and manifold variety, conſiſted of a few Prayers, and Leſſons out of the Pſalms and other Scripture: Now certainly if our Liturgy be moſt ſimple, yet it is not moſt brief, nor doth it conſiſt of but a few Prayers; let Mr. D. read all that by the Liturgy is appointed to be read without defalcation, and I will undertake he ſhall be under no temptation to make his Sermons tedious.

4. That of all men who call themſelves Reformed, the Presbyterians are the firſt that ever left the uſe of ſet forms of Prayers. Capellus uſeth not the word Presbyterians, and if he had uſed it, it would have been a very blind. Mr. D. ſeems by Presbyterians to mean the major part of thoſe Divines, who by vertue of an Ordinance of Parliament did meet to give advice, concerning Doctrine, Diſcipline, Worſhip: If Capellus ſay, that theſe were the firſt that left off the uſe of ſet forms of Prayer, p. 43he was much miſtaken; ſet forms of Prayer had been long before laid aſide and condemned as unlawful, by ſuch as were as little in love with Presbytery as Hierarchy; he may know whom I mean, if he will enquire who they were that left old England. Dr. Heylin hath written the Hiſtory of Presbyterians, under which name, he ſeems to bring all thoſe Proteſtants who are not Lutherans, nor ſatisfied with the Reformation of the Church of England: This Hiſtory his Son hath dedicated to the Two Houſes of Parliament now ſitting. In the 2d Page of that Book it is ſaid, The Zuinglian Reformation was begun in defacing Images, decrying the eſtabliſhed Faſts and appointed Feſtivals, aboliſhing ſet forms of worſhip, denying the old Catholick Doctrine of a Real Preſence, and conſequently all external reverence in the participation of the bleſſed Sacrament; which Luther ſeriouſly laboured to preſerve in the ſame eſtate in which he found them at the preſent. And page 89. ſpeaking of the Palatine Churches, he would have us take them for Antilutherans in defacing Images, aboliſhing all diſtinction of Faſts and Feſtivals, and utterly denying all ſet forms of publick Worſhip. I know a great deal of this is falſe, maliciouſly falſe, as is almoſt every thing in that Book which relates to the foreign Churches; and therefore I hope the Biſhops, or others that have Authority, will either call in the Book, or ſome other way diſcover how much they abhor the deſign of it; in the mean time, here is work for Mr. Durell's Pen, if he will not be partial, and reſpect perſons; if he have any zeal left for Zuinglius, p. 44Calvin, Beza, let him wipe off the aſperſion of Rebellion, Schiſm, Aerianiſm from their faces, or elſe let him know, that ſeeing Dr. Heylins Book came out laſt, his will be thought ſufficiently confuted.

5. Mr. D. tells us, we may obſerve that the many reaſons for which the Presbyterians have rejected the Book of Common Prayer, are very light, and almoſt of no moment at all. Capell ſaith not ſo, but that the Reaſons for which it ſeemed to ſome ſcrupulous men, that the Liturgy uſed by their Church was not only to be diſapproved, but alſo to be plainly abrogated, and wholly to be aboliſhed and obliterated, were light and almoſt of no moment; ſo that if any man do only, improbare, having no deſign plainly to abrogate and wholly to obliterate the Liturgy compoſed by our firſt Reformers, he may have Reaſons good enough, for ought Capell affirms to the contrary.

6. That as for the Presbyterians (who are the known Authors of the Directory) they are in Capell's judgment a froward, peeviſh and ſuperstitious generation of men. Capell was indeed a man who was free enough in his cenſures, of any one whether Presbyterian or Epiſcopal that ſtood in his way, not ſearing to throw dirt in the face of the great Hooker himſelf, as appears in his Theſes about Feaſts or Holy days: But I would fain underſtand how the Presbyterians are the known Authors of the Directory; moſt of thoſe who were called to give advice about the Directory, were when called to give their advice. Readers of the Liturgy, and had ſubſcribed to the Three Articles in the p. 4536th Canon: When His Majeſty was reſtored few of them were alive, of thoſe few, ſome at this day are Conformiſts; let Mr. D. ask them whether they were Presbyterians when they conſented to the laying aſide of the Liturgy? and how they came to widen their Throats ſo, as to be able to ſwallow the preſent Declarations, much bigger than any heretofore enjoyned.

And now I will try whether I can make ſome truer obſervations upon Capellus his Theſes about Liturgies; in doing which I ſhall follow the edition of Saumur, 1651.

1. He ſaith it is certain that the Apoſtles and Apoſtolical men had no preſcript form of Liturgy, and that they never did write, and leave or preſcribe to their ſucceſſors any ſuch; for the Apoſtles needed no ſuch form, nor did thoſe need any whom they made prefects of the Church, and that preſcript Liturgies were not neceſſary, till perſecution ceaſing, the number of profeſſors much increaſed, and Piety began to grow cold, and Teachers waxed lazy, ſo as there could not every where be had Paſtors ſufficiently learned, and Hereſies began to multiply; and that the firſt preſcript forms that were made, were made for the ſake of unlearned and ſimple Paſtors, page 706.

2. That Liturgies firſt began to be made in the more famous Metropolitan and Patriarchal Churches, and that in the Countries called by the name of Gallia, there were ſeveral Liturgies in almoſt every ſeveral famous Biſhoprick, and that every ſeveral did contain ſomething proper and ſingular, and different from the reſt, until p. 46at laſt by the tyranny of the Pope, the Roman Liturgy obtained through all the Weſt.

So that it ſeems, with him, Liturgies are no older than Metropolitan and Patriarchal Churches; how old ſuch Churches were in his judgment, and upon what occaſion firſt erected, is at large declared in his Theſes, 337, 338, 339, &c. little as I ſuppoſe to the guſt of Mr. D.

3. He doth, Page 707, plainly miſtake the meaning of the Directory, and the Compoſers of it, when he ſuggeſts that by it, 'tis left free to Miniſters to pray and adminiſter the Sacraments in what words they pleaſe; for the Directory tieth Miniſters to a certain form in the adminiſtration of Baptiſm and the Lords-Supper, as alſo in the ſolemnization of Marriage. Throughout the whole Directory there are, though not Prayers preſcribed to be uſed totidem verbis, without any variation, yet ſuch Heads of Prayer, as that he who needs greater help and furniture to enable him for Confeſſion, Petition, Thankſgiving, may well be thought unfit for the Office of a Paſtor. And I obſerve, That the Directory orders Miniſters in Prayer before Sermon, to commend to Gods bleſſing the Parliament if ſitting, and the Ʋniverſities, and all Schools, and Religious Seminaries of Church and Common-wealth, but in no Liturgy beſides this laſt, was there any Prayer for the High Court of Parliament; nor in this laſt is there any Prayer for the Univerſities or Schools of Learning; yet in the Conſtitutions of 1603, In all Colledges and Halls in both Ʋniverſities, order, form, ceremonies are to be obſerved, as they are ſet down, p. 47and preſcribed in the Book of Common Prayer, without any omiſſion or alteration. Is not this in effect to tie the Univerſities never publickly to pray for themſelves? If any one ſhould preſcribe a Family a form of Prayer, in which was no mention of a Family, it would be thought a ſtrange form.

The ſaid Capell, page 708. tells us, That ſacred Sermons to the people, and exhortations, ſhould be made and compoſed by the Paſtors themſelves, and recited to the people either by heart, or out of a Paper, if they can do no other. Poſtills and Homilies as much as may be are to be driven out of the Church; yet it is better, ſaith he, that men ſhould hear one reading anothers Sermons, than hear none at all. In this the Nonconformiſts throughly agree with him, but ſome of them will not ſtick to ſay, that if ſome in authority had been as zealous for Sermons as they might have been, we needed not before this time, have wanted for any Cure, a Miniſter able to make a Sermon of his own: And whereas Capel ſaith, That Homilies ſhould not be read, leſt they prove, pulvinar ignaviae & ſocordiae, & fomes ignorantiae, they are wont to urge the ſame Argument againſt ſet forms of Prayer; he might have done well to ſhew that the Reaſon is not alike forcible in both.

He ſaith, ibid. Thoſe he had to deal with, deny not but that Leſſons, Pſalms and Hymns may be read out of a Book to the people, recited and ſung; only Hymns and Songs compoſed by others than men divinely inſpired, he ſaith, they allow not to have any uſe in the publick Congregation. Therefore, ſay I, he did not intend to deal with the Presbyterians, p. 48who will never be found any where to have ſaid, that no Hymns may lawfully be ſung, but ſuch as are compoſed by men divinely inſpired; I my ſelf have heard ſome of them ſing others, without blame from any of their brethren, nor is there any one tittle in the Directory to the contrary. Let me here enquire whether the Engliſh Church hath taken any care to have any Pſalms ſung in the Congregation; tranſlation of the Pſalms into meter we have none generally known, but only that compoſed by Hopkins, Sternhold, &c. 'Tis ſaid that Tranſlation is allowed (allowed, not enjoyned) to be uſed in the Congregation; but Dr. Heylin again and again, denieth that ever there was any allowance of it given by any lawful authority; ſo that the whole ſervice of God with us may be performed, it ſeems, without any ſinging at all; for though the Common Prayer Book hath ſundry parts in it which may be ſung, yet it hath nothing that is appointed to be ſung, but indifferently, either ſung or read. I believe in this we are a ſingular Church, there being no other that I ever heard, or read of, that hath not enjoyned her Congregations to ſing ſome Pſalms. Mr. D certainly can either prove that our Church hath allowed, and enjoyned us to ſing Pſalms, or elſe he can ſhew us ſome Reformed Church, that doth not enjoyn Pſalmody. But ſuch is my weakneſs that I cannot.

6. Capellus asketh us, p. 709. Whether it were not better wiſely to preſcribe certain forms of Prayer, fit for the publick edification of the Church, than to permit them to the liberty of many Paſtors, unlearned p. 49and unexerciſed, where others cannot be had? The Presbyterians will anſwer yes; but they think, in a wealthy Nation, where the King is a Proteſtant, there is no neceſſity to take any into the Church for Miniſters, if they be unlearned, and unexerciſed.

7. Page 100. He asketh whether in all the Prayers that are to be made in the Church, Paſtors can perpetually vary them, or expreſs themſelves in divers Words and Phraſes concerning the ſame Argument; yea, he asketh what Prophet or Apoſtle can do this with edification? Sure he forgets himſelf, for he before told us, Apoſtles could and did do it, and I am ſure we have had ordinary Paſtors here in England that have done it, and we have ſtill hundreds and thouſands that can, and would do it, might they be permitted: Nor can I underſtand how it can be difficult to any one who hath well ſtudied the Scriptures, and obſerveth the Providences of God, and is affected duly with his own and peoples wants and neceſſities. I in my Family find it not difficult to vary as I pleaſe.

8. Page 710, 711. He contends that the Creeds are to be recited in a certain form of words; but adds, thoſe whom he dealt with did bewray a manifest hatred against certain forms of Symbols, Confeſſions and Catechiſm. Whence again I infer, that he dealt not with the Directorians, for they liked the uſe of Confeſſions and Catechiſms in ſet forms.

9. Page 713. He thinks the Apotomy and rigor of thoſe men worthily to be condemned, who under pretext of certain and preſcribed forms of Liturgy, p. 50do ſtudy to eliminate out of the Church all uſe of Prayers conceived by Miniſters themſelves. This will touch Mr. D s Copyhold, unleſs he can prove againſt Dr. Heylin and others, that ſome Prayers, beſides thoſe preſcribed in the Liturgy, are allowed to Miniſters in publick miniſtration.

10. Page 716. He determines, that it is better by much, and more convenient and ſafe, that thoſe writings only ſhould be publickly read which are truly Canonical, and divinely inſpired. What will the peremptory enjoyners of the Apocryphal Chapters ſay to this?

11. Page 719. Drawing up the ſum of all his conceptions, he ſaith, 1. That forms are not ſimply and abſolutely neceſſary. 2. That they are not commonly neceſſary, but only for order and decorum ſake. 3. That they are plainly neceſſary, where we cannot have learned Miniſters. 4. Where there are learned and skilful Paſtors, a publick form of Liturgie is very uſeful and neceſſary to the common edification of the Church, in the ſame communion of Divine worſhip. 5. The uſe of Liturgies cannot of right be condemned or diſallowed. To all theſe Propoſitions there are Hundreds of Non-conformiſts can ſubſcribe, and are ready to ſubſcribe, the two laſt only being qualified with ſuch diſtinctions, as I believe, were not either againſt, or beſides the mind of this Profeſſor. The Arguments of the Browniſts and others which he ſcattereth up and down, were fully propounded, and clearly anſwered by Mr. John Ball, before his Theſes ſaw the light. Let Mr. Baxters propoſitions concerning Liturgies be read and weighed, and p. 51it will be found, that they come very near to theſe of Capellus.

I muſt now come to Ceremonies: The firſt I mention, is the uſe of a Surplice; concerning which, the Nonconformiſts ſay, That if they receive it, they muſt receive it not only as ſerving to a decent order and godly diſcipline; but as apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by ſome notable and ſpecial ſignification, whereby he might be edified; but they have never found any ſuch aptneſs in it to ſtir up their dull minds to the remembrance of their duty, and that they dare not pretend to uſe a thing in order to ſuch an end, as they never expect to attain by it. I my ſelf have talked with ſome conformable Miniſters, and asked them, whether they ever found their dull minds ſtirred up by the uſe of it? they have been loth to give me any anſwer, but what moved on the Latitudinarian hinge: One indeed told me, he did verily believe there was a wonderful vertue in it to excite his dull mind; but asking him further, whether it was apt to excite him as a man, or as an Engliſh man, or as a Miniſter? He gave me a reply, which for Friendſhip ſake, I will not here inſert; but ſuch it was, that I eaſily ſaw the Surplice had not cured him of all his dulneſs. Nor can I chuſe but wonder why they who pretend to be ſtirred up to a remembrance of their duty by a Surplice, do uſe it ſo ſeldom: there are but few that uſe it conſtantly, ſome uſe it not above once a quarter, few uſe it in the Pulpit, yet I ſuppoſe their minds are apt p. 52to be as dull in the Pulpit as in the Desk; and the Church as much requires them to uſe the Surplice at all times of their Miniſtration, as at any time. Perhaps we muſt ſay of Surplices, as of pleaſure, commendat rarior uſus.

Well, but how doth Mr. D. diſcourſe of Surplices? Truly very innocently: He tells us, Page 23, 24. That in Aquitan when a Miniſter is buried, the neighbour Miniſters that be preſent muſt all have their Gowns, if Gowns can conveniently be had (that was wiſely put in). Now this changing of apparel for divine ſervice (it ſeems burving of a Miniſter in France is Divine Service) is the very ſame thing for which the Church of England is by ſome men reputed Popiſh and ſuperſtitious, when ſhe will have her Miniſters to wear Surplices on the ſame occaſion. It ſhould ſeem with him the Surplice is no Symbolical Veſtment, and that he reckons all thoſe who put on their ſolemn apparel and beſt Clothes do the ſame thing that he doth, when he puts on ſignificant Garments: But he is ſo kind, that leſt this ſhould not ſatisfie, he will find out ſome of the beſt Reformed Churches, that count it no ſuperſtition for their Miniſters to wear a Surplice, and he inſtanceth in the Bohemians, Polonians, Lithuanians, who did put on the ſurplice as oft as they preached in the Churches of the Auguſtan confeſſion: But it ſeems they loſt nothing by this condeſcenſion, for the Lutherans officiated in their Churches without a Surplice. To requite him for this diſcovery, I will tell him of ſome Lutheran Miniſters (viz. the Lutherans in Holland) that do not uſe a Surplice, no not in their own p. 53Churches; ſo little do they find it to contribute to edification, that they forbear it, where they would not be blamed if they ſhould uſe it: So the Presbyterians are out of his debt.

A ſecond Ceremony controverted is kneeling at the Sacrament; about which, I may ſay, [Iliacos extra muros peccatur & intra] I cannot by all that I have read, ſee any unlawfulneſs in it, and I hope the Presbyterians, if they ſhould be asked by any, whether they had better forbear the Sacrament than receive it kneeling, would well bethink themſelves what anſwer to give. I find not that ever any of our authorized Liturgies did allow any other geſture; yet I have read in a Book, called Treaſure out of rubbiſh, That ſome Commiſſioners of Q. Elizabeth did about the beginning of Her Reign, at Coventry, and other places appoint, not kneeling, but ſtanding to be uſed at the Lords Table: The Book was Printed by the Reverend Mr. Simeon Aſh ſince His Majeſties return to his Throne; and I hear that many conforming Miniſters are ſo compaſſionate, as to deliver the conſecrated Elements to thoſe who do not kneel; how they can ſo do, non violata fide quam dederunt eccleſiae, I underſtand not, they themſelves I hope have ſatisfied their own Conſciences, and can give a reaſon of their practice to their Governors though I cannot. The Church in the 2d Book of King Edward inſerted a Rubrick againſt Tranſubſtantiation, unhappily left out in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, King James, King Charles the 1ſt, but through the goodneſs of our preſent Soveraign, now again put into the laſt p. 54Edition of our Liturgy; may it never more be left out, but continue to the ſhame of thoſe who feared not to ſay, we left it out, becauſe it ſeemed too much to favour the Sacramentarians. The Church alſo appoints the Miniſter to uſe a kind of a Prayer, in delivering the Euchariſt, whilſt he uſeth that Prayer, the Communicant is to kneel meekly; but when he hath taken the Bread into his own hands, he may then ſit and eat it, or ſtand and eat it; I wiſh this could ſatisfie private Chriſtians, but there are Hundreds that cannot ſo quiet their own minds; and yet if you diſcourſe with them, they can make Syllogiſms, and they live peaceable and godly lives: Now here the Shoe pincheth the Nonconformiſt Miniſter, whether he can promiſe never to give the Sacrament to any one who ſcrupleth kneeling?