The Nonconformists Vindicated, Letter (2 of 3)

The Nonconformists Vindicated · Letter (2 of 3)

p. 54Had Mr. D. clearly and ſolidly determined this queſtion, or had he ſtrongly proved that the Church could not without diſhonour allow more than one geſture in receiving the Sacrament, I could eaſily have forgiven him all the raillery of his book; but he thought he could get preferment at an eaſier rate, & therefore contents himſelf, in a few lines (p. 46, 47.) to inſtance in a very …w Reformed Churches that receive the Sacrament kneeling: Firſt, he inſtanceth in the Reformed Churches of Bohemia, Reformed above two hundred years ago; the remnant of it now left, ſaith he, receive it kneeling. This inſtance little ava…leth our Church, becauſe from the beginning it was not ſo; the Anceſtors of the Bohemians did at firſt, viz. 1494, uſe ſtanding; but being perſecuted on that account, were compelled to leave it off, as Comenius p. 55tells us; ſo that Mr. D. by this only proves the conformity of our Church with the Popiſh Church, in perſecuting thoſe who will not kneel at the Sacrament. Nor is he more lucky in his other inſtances of Polonia major, and Lithuania, for which he refers us to the Conſenſus Poloniae. What a Character Dr. Heylin gives of the Reformation of Poland, let him that loveth railing ſee, Hiſt. of Presb. 31, 32, 33. Indeed the Conſent of Poland doth not much hit our humour here in England; for in the Cracovian Synod, 1573, all Choreae are condemned as diſhoneſt. A queſtion being moved, VVhether the rites in the uſe of the Lords Supper ought to be uniform? It was concluded, That according to the cuſtom of the Primitive Church, men ſhould be left to their Chriſtian liberty, yet with admonition to the brethren, that if any uſed ſitting, they ſhould leave that proper to the Arrian Anabaptiſts. In the Petricovian Synod, Anno 1578, it is determined, That uniformity in the rite of receiving the Lords Supper, ſhould not be preſſed, leſt it ſhould happen that there might be occaſion to exerciſe Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline upon any of the common people, who are not eaſily brought to unuſual ceremonies; whereas the Synod judged it neither agreeable to the will of the Lord, nor the cuſtom of the Chriſtian Church more pure, to ſtrike Chriſtian men with the rod of Diſcipline for external rites, yet ſo as the geſture of ſitting at the Lords Table is rejected for a reaſon I ſhall more ſpeak of by and by. 'Tis the Synodus Wlodiſlavienſis congregated 1583, that Mr. D. pitcheth upon, in which Synod the matter of ſitting at the Lords Table is again debated; and there it is determined, p. 56that ſitting is as free as any other geſture; which being brought in by way of Parentheſis, Mr. D. never Engliſheth or taketh notice of; for he had called it an unmannerly and irreverent geſture; and it was no wiſdom to touch a knife that would be ſure to cut his fingers; but there alſo it was determined, That ſitting ſhould not be uſed at the Lords table in any of the Churches of Poland or Lithuania, for this ceremony is not uſed in Chriſtian Churches, and Evangelical Aſſemblies, and is only proper to the unbelieving Arrians placing themſelves in a ſeat or throne equal to Chriſt. Seeing therefore ſitting crept into ſome of their Churches, eſpecially by occaſion of thoſe who denied the Lord that redeemed us; they deſire and exhort all their aſſemblies and brethren in the Lord, that they would change ſitting into ſtanding or kneeling. Mr. D. tranſlates potiſſimum firſt; and I believe he was the firſt that ſo tranſlated that word. Not content to make ſo bold with Priſcian, he riſeth to greater impudence, ſaying that what they obſerved about the firſt bringers in of ſitting into Poland, may be our obſervation alſo, if what Dr. Owen have ſaid be true, as it is very likely, That there is not a city, a town, ſcarce a village in England, but had ſome of the Miſcreant Socinians. Whether Dr. Owen hath any words of this import, I know not; if he have, 'tis like he referred them to the time in which he did make his book, which was many years after that ſitting was brought into the Engliſh Churches by the two Houſes. Too many there were in the two Houſes, no doubt, that ſought their own things more than the Nations peace; but they never had among them any Socinian that ever p. 57I did hear of, but only one Fry, who was alſo expelled when he diſcovered his blaſphemies: Nor do I find that theſe Hereticks do abound in thoſe places of the Kingdom where I have been, but Papiſts abound extremely; ſo as the ſame thing that moved the Polonians to forbid ſitting, may move us to forbid kneeling, and leave it proper to the wretched Papiſts, who worſhip a piece of bread inſtead of their Saviour.

But this geſture of kneeling would be a little better conſidered: The Fathers of the before mentioned Synods ſeem to ſay (not indeed in that Meeting which Mr. D. quotes, but in the Meeting of 1578.) That thoſe who fell off to Arrianiſm, were the firſt that were authors of ſitting in their Churches. If I miſtake their meaning, detur venia; but if I do not, I humbly conceive they were themſelves miſtaken. John Alaſco, a Noble-men of Poland, was upon Cranmer's perſuaſion ſent for into our England by King Edward the ſixth, about the year 1549. and permitted to have a Church of ſtrangers, eſpecially of Dutch, whom he brought up to receive the Sacrament ſitting; and alſo during his abode here, put forth a book to prove the lawfulneſs of that geſture: After many troubleſome wandrings from place to place, at laſt being invited by at leaſt forty Letters, he returned to his own Countrey, and no queſtion adminiſtred the Sacrament to his flock ſitting, and taught others on whom he had influence ſo to do: Now this Alaſco never fell off to Arrianiſm; perhaps this was the reaſon why in the Meeting 1583. it is not ſaid, that the Arrians firſt brought in ſitting, but that it was chiefly p. 58brought in by them. The aforeſaid Fathers ſeem alſo to affirm, that ſitting had not been uſed by any Evangelical Churches in Europe, at the time of their meeting; but if they ſo meant, they were greatly miſtaken; for ſitting was brought into the Church of Scotland by authority, as the moſt proper and convenient geſture, 1560. and our Confeſſor Mr. Thomas Beacon, in an authorized Catechiſm 1563. ſpeaks of ſitting as a geſture uſed in certain Reformed Churches, and which he himſelf could beſt allow, if it were received by publick authority and common conſent. Who the Arrian-Anabaptiſts were, that had cauſed ſuch a deteſtation of themſelves among the Polonians, I cannot certainly know; but by ſuch ſtories as have come to my hands, I gueſs they were Georgius Blandrata, and Franciſcus Davidis and their Spawn, who both denied the Divinity of Jeſus, and alſo his adorability. Socinus and his followers held the Principle, That Jeſus is not God, and yet denied the concluſion that naturally and lineally deſcended from it, That Jeſus is not to be worſhipped; for they had found out a diſtinction of Deus natus & factus. The former would not ſtick to ſay. That Jeſus was one of their brethren and fellow-ſervants; ſo would the latter: for they aſcribed unto Chriſt a dignity and excellency nearly approaching unto the dignity and excellency of the Creator, but conferred on him by the ſingular bounty and good will of him who created him. Wherefore the Socinians properly ſo called, could not uſe ſitting at the Lords Table as a token of their equality with Chriſt, nor indeed do they much concern themſelves what geſture is p. 59uſed in Sacramental Communion. Volkelius ſaith, They uſe ſitting; but yet ſo, that they damn not thoſe who had rather uſe ſtanding, ſo as there be no appearance of idolatry. They would have us believe they hate the very appearance of Idolatry, and yet they commit Idolatry: for what greater Idolatry, than to worſhip him that by nature is not God, as they blaſphemouſly ſay Jeſus is not, foreign.

The laſt Ceremony, but about which there is the greateſt Controverſie, is the ſign of the Croſs. Nonconformiſts ſay this ſign is made a Sacramental ſign, becauſe it is uſed as a token that the child ſhall not be aſhamed to profeſs Chriſt crucified, &c. and alſo as a ceremony by which it is dedicated unto God. In clearing this ceremony therefore, Mr. D. ſhould have taken moſt pains; but in this he is ſlighteſt of all. He gives us not an inſtance of any one Reformed Church that hath appointed the ſign of the Croſs to be uſed either in Baptiſm or in any other Ordinance; only he tells us of Bibles printed at Geneva for the uſe of the Church, and that before them, Chriſtian Religion is repreſented in an Emblem as leaning upon a Croſs, and that ſome Reformed have Croſſes upon their Churches, and that ſome Miniſters in Pruſſia, to humor the Lutherans, will make a Croſs in the Air with their hand when they ſay, The Dord be with you. All this is to as much purpoſe, as if he had told us, that the Rumpers did uſe the ſign of the Croſs in the Flags of their Ships, and put it on the money which they coined, or that ſome Nonconformiſts have it in their Coat of Arms, as I am ſure they have.

p. 60I believe there is not a Nonconformiſt in England, that queſtioneth the lawfulneſs of making the ſign of a Croſs upon any thing he uſeth: And if the ſign of the Croſs were made ſo, as that it remained, and were viſible after it were made, then perhaps it might have an aptitude to occaſion a good thought concerning a crucified Saviour; but what can be the benefit of a Croſs that leaves no impreſſion on the forehead? I know the Baptiſmal water being applied to an infant, leaveth no ſuch mark on the fleſh as it can take notice of at years of diſcretion; but the Spirit, if he be not grieved, will bring our Baptiſm to our remembrance, and he hath ſo done to many in the hour of temptation; but how ſhall a man be ſecured, that the bleſſed Spirit will engage himſelf to bring our being croſſed to our remembrance? I have made obſervation, and could never find any difference betwixt us that were croſſed, and thoſe who were not croſſed; Do we confeſs the Faith of a crucified Saviour? ſo do they; do we fight under his Banner? ſo do they; do we joyn our ſelves to Chriſts flock? ſo do they; the things that we know, they know alſo; ſo that they are under a temptation to think that the Croſs is an uſeleſs ſign.

I muſt not diſſemble that Mr. D. takes on him in his Sermon, page 29 to explicate and ſhew the uſefulneſs of this ſign. As when the King having created thoſe noble Knights of his Order beſtows on them the Garter and the Blew Riband, as Badges to be known by of others, and to put them in mind of the great honour done unto them: In like manner, when an infant hath by Baptiſm been enrolled in the p. 61Militia of the King of Glory, Jeſus Chriſt our Lord; this ſign of the Croſs is made upon his forehead, to declare unto all ſuch as are preſent, and as many as ſhall thereafter know it, that he hath received it, and to himſelf when he comes to years of underſtanding, that he was conſecrated to Chriſt crucified, that he hath put on his Livery, and wears his Badge, that he is bound to crucifie the old man, and to bear the Croſs, that to this he is called by our Saviour; that he ought in all places, and in the moſt dangerous occurrences, boldly and openly to own the name of his Redeemer, without ever being aſhamed with bearing his reproach. As the Barrels go rumbling up and down the Streets, ſo my Lord Mayor owes me a Groat. The King, the founder of this noble Order, gives the Knights created by him a Garter and a Blew Riband, as Badges to be known by others, but would not be pleaſed if they ſhould among themſelves invent other badges and cognizances of their Order. Chriſt alſo hath inſtituted Baptiſm to diſtinguiſh Chriſtians from thoſe who are no Chriſtians; How do we know whether it will like him, that we ſhould appoint a Croſs to diſtinguiſh us more, eſpecially ſeeing thereby we ſhall be diſtinguiſhed from a great number of our fellow Chriſtians. Again, the Garter and Blew Riband are things to be worn, and that may be ſeen, and occaſion ſpectators to enquire what they mean, but ſo is not the Croſs that was made on our foreheads after Baptiſm; the Pagans that any of us have been among, could take no notice of it; and if our Parents did at any time admoniſh us of our engagement to crucifie the old man, they p. 62put us in mind, not of being croſſed, but of being baptized with Water, to ſignifie the not only death, but burial of the old man; nor have our Kings of England been ſo fond of all the Rites and Ceremonies uſed at making of Knights of the Garter, but that they have allowed ſome of them to be omitted, where they have conceived they might be leſs acceptable. King James being much pleaſed with the valour and piety of Maurice Prince of Orange, ſent him a Garter, appointing his Embaſſador Sir Ralph Winwood to confer the honour on him freely, and without any Rites or Laws, but what the Prince himſelf would ſpontaneouſly undergo. And the Embaſſador in a French Speech declared, that the Rites wonted to be uſed in creating Knights of the Garter, did ſeem ſomewhat abhorrent from the Diſcipline of the Reformed Churches in Holland, and not altogether congruous to the polity of the Republick; and that therefore the King to avoid offence had appointed it to be conferred without pomp and external magnificence. I ſuppoſe Mr. D. thinks there is no Rite uſed in the creation of the Knights of St. George, that is contrary to the Diſcipline of the Dutch Churches; but the King was of another mind, and choſe rather to confer the higheſt honour without the wonted Ceremonies, than not to confer it upon one who was like not to diſgrace it. And ſhall Miniſters of the Goſpel ſo ſtifly ſtand upon Ceremonies, as rather not to adminiſter baptiſm, than to adminiſter it without the ſign of the Croſs?

I muſt follow Mr. D. who tells, us, That ſeveral p. 63reformed Churches have a Ceremony, of which, Presbyterians ought to have as bad an opinion, as of the Croſs in Baptiſm: The Ceremony he meaneth is Trine aſperſion, page 42. Why ought they to have as bad an opinion of Trine Aſperſion, as of the Croſs in Baptiſm? is there any Law either of God or man, that tieth them to have as bad an opinion of the Trine Aſperſion as of the Croſs? or do their Principles lead them to have as bad an opinion of one Ceremony as of the other? I verily believe they do not; for they ſay, that Chriſt hath commanded Baptiſm, and hath not ſtrictly determined whether it ſhall be adminiſtred by Aſperſion or Immerſion, nor whether by trine or une aſperſion or immerſion; therefore the Church hath power to chuſe the Rite, that to her, having conſulted the general rules of Scripture, and practice of the Primitive Churches, ſhall ſeem beſt. But they alſo ſay, that God hath no where commanded that a Child ſhall be croſſed, or any where appointed his Church to inſtitute any ſymbolical, teaching ſigns at all; if Mr. D. can ſhew them any command that a Child ſhould be croſſed, they will not ſtick to grant, that it is in the Churches power to order, where the Child ſhall be croſſed, and how often, and what kind of croſs it ſhall be: But it is to be feared he can ſhew no ſuch command, at leaſt none ſuch is ſhewed by him; and yet he ſaith, he is confident that if the trine aſperſion were uſed, or if we had retained the trine immerſion, as at the beginning of King Edward the ſixths reign, it would be accounted a groſs ſuperſtition. How may a man do to free him from p. 64this uncharitable confidence ſo contrary to Chriſtianity? I dare undertake to give it him under the hand and ſeal of as many as I am acquainted with, that if the Church ſhall think meet to uſe trine aſperſion, or trine immerſion, ſhe ſhall not be accounted either groſly, or at all ſuperſtitious, provided ſhe declare that ſhe doth not uſe either rite as neceſſary. If by trine either aſperſion or immerſion ſhe ſhould prejudice the Babes in their health, that would be a ſin, but not the ſin of ſuperſtition. But how doth Mr. D. prove, that the Church hath not retained trine immerſion? Immerſion it is plain ſhe hath enjoyned, unleſs the Sureties certifie that the Child be weak (yet never any Miniſter of the Church, in my hearing, demanded ſuch Certificate; never did any Parents bring their Child in a dreſs fit for dipping, that ever I could obſerve, and yet I believe that I have ſeen as ſtrong Children Baptized as are in moſt places of England) and ſhe no where ſaith it ſhall be dipped but once, as neither doth ſhe ſay, that it ſhall be ſprinkled but once; ſo that Biſhop Mountague in his Viſitation Articles poſitively aſſerts, That the Child is to be thrice aſperſed with water on the face; it may be ſome other Prelate of that age did as poſitively aſſert that the Child was to be ſprinkled but once, for thoſe who have been moſt zealous to preſs Conformity, have been at Daggers drawing about the meaning of ſome paſſages in that Liturgy, to which they required ſubſcription. In the Hampton Court Conference, the Metropolitan told the King, That the adminiſtration of Baptiſm by women and lay perſons p. 65was not allowed in the practice of the Church, but enquired of by Biſhops in their viſitations and cenſured; neither do the words in the Liturgy infer any ſuch meaning: But the Biſhop of London replied, That thoſe learned men who framed the Book of Common-Prayer, intended not by ambiguous terms to deceive any, but did intend a permiſſion of private perſons to baptize in caſe of neceſſity, and withal declared that the ſame was agreeable to the practice of the ancient Church, urging both a place in the Acts, and the authority of Tertullian and St. Ambroſe plain in that point: (What could a man have done that had lived in thoſe days to know the meaning of the Church?) But however King James being clear in his own judgment, that a Miniſter is of the eſſence of the right and lawful miniſtry of the Sacrament, carried it, ſo as the words thereafter did run thus, That private Baptiſm ſhould be performed by the Miniſter of the Pariſh, or in his abſence by any other lawful Miniſter that can be procured: Now any man would think Lay perſons are not allowed to Baptize; but Dr. Heylin in his introduction to the life of Archbiſhop Laud, page 27. ſaith, That the alteration was greater in ſound than ſenſe, it being the opinion of many great Clerks, That any man in caſes of neceſſity (that is extream) who can but pronounce the words of Baptiſm, may paſs in the account and notion of a lawful Miniſter. A prodigious aſſertion! for a Turk or Jew may pronounce the words of Baptiſm, Is he a lawful Miniſter of Baptiſm? did ever any that pretended to reverence the authority of the Church thus wreſt her words?

p. 66But to return to the rite of Baptiſm; we have got a trick to ſprinkle, or to let water fall by drops, but the Church allows no ſuch rite, but moſt expreſly requires pouring, even when the Child is at the weakeſt; and ſeeing in the Baptiſm of Infants the Adminiſtrator is required to dip them if they may well endure it, how comes it to paſs that in the Baptiſm of Adult perſons who are appointed by faſting and prayers to prepare themſelves for the receiving of the Sacrament, it is left indifferent to the Miniſters either to dip them in the Font, or pour water on them, though there be a moral certainty, that they may endure dipping well enough? And what Prayers muſt theſe adult perſons uſe to prepare themſelves for Baptiſm, muſt they make them themſelves, or muſt they be made by the Biſhop or Prieſt? or are there any preparatory Prayers to that purpoſe made already? I wiſh Mr. D. would anſwer me theſe queſtions.

Object. Well, but what ſay you in the excuſe of the Presbyterians, who as Dr. Heylin tells us, page 293. would not have their Children Baptized by the names of their Anceſtors, Richard, Robert, &c. but by ſome name occurring in the Holy Scriptures, eſpecially in the Old Teſtament, becouſe meerly Hebrew, and not prophaned with any mixture of the Greek or Roman. Did not Snape and Cartwright in the Book of Diſcipline agree that the Miniſter in Baptizing Children, ſhould not admit of any ſuch names as had been uſed in the time of Paganiſm, the names of Idols and the like? Did they not alſo p. 67take an bumor of giving ſuch names unto their Children, as many of them when they came to age were aſhamed of, Accepted, Deliverance, Diſcipline, Praiſe God, Reformation, Tribunal, Thankful.

Anſw. As for the Diſcipline of Jerſy and Guernſey, made by Mr. Cartwright and Snape, I never ſaw it but once, when I minded not what was in it; now I know not where to get it, and therefore leave it to Mr. D. to anſwer for his forefathers and neighbors. The Presbyterians have not hired me to be their Advocate, I am only for peace, and would not have men made worſe than they be: 'Tis doubtleſs an unjuſt ſcrupuloſity for any man to queſtion the lawfulneſs of calling his Child either Robert, or Richard, or Arthur, or VVilliam; but if the Queſtion be not what is lawful, but what is expedient, I ſay, caeteris paribus, it is more expedient that Children be named by the names of ſuch perſons as were famous in their generations for piety and learning.

Dr. Rivet tells Baily, Tractatu 3. page 33. Queſt. 8. That they uſed diligence to bring Parents to give to their Children names borrowed from them whoſe life was laudable in the Church, that they may be ſtirred up to the imitation of thoſe whoſe name they bear, for ſuch better agree to Chriſtians, than either the ambitious or ſuperſtitious names of Heathens. He alſo tells us, that in his remembrance a vain-glorious fellow whoſe name was Le Grand, would needs name his Child Alexander, but the Miniſters refuſed to gratifie his ambition, they would not have a mean fellows Child called p. 68Alexander the Great; but that ever any Presbyterian refuſed to Baptize a Child becauſe it was to be called Richard, may well paſs for a Story of Dr. Heylin's (which many times are none of the trueſt) As for the reaſon he gives out of his own head, of the Presbyterians chuſing Old Teſtament names, becauſe the Old Teſtament is meerly Hebrew; it argueth his great ignorance, ſome of the Presbyterians Children, before they come from School, know that the Old Teſtament is not meerly Hebrew. Where our Engliſh Tongue can afford happy compoſitions, I ſhould think ſuch a compoſition in a Childs name would not make Baptiſm contemptible, nor the Impoſer ridiculous; yet I confeſs I ſhould never adviſe any man to name his Child Praiſe God, nor, The Lord is near, for though he may excuſe himſelf, by the names of Quod vult Deus, A deo-datus, uſual in St. Auſtin's time, yet it ſavors of affectation to give ſuch names, and it may occaſion the taking of the Lords name in vain, nor do I find that Presbyterians have delighted themſelves in ſuch names. Accepted was the name of Dr. Frewen late Archbiſhop of York, was he ever aſhamed of it? or had he any reaſon to be aſhamed of it? or was his Father a Presbyterian? Let the Church Books from 1582 be ſearched, and it will be found to the ſhame of this Hiſtorian, that Presbyterians have given ſuch names to their Children as other people did, and that none of their Children are called by ſuch uncouth names as are mentioned in the Objection.

p. 69My next task is to give in a Catalogue of Mr. D's impertinencies, which are indeed many, and too many to be inſiſted on particularly.

Page 51. He gives us ſome ſayings of ſome Churches againſt Sacriledg: A thing that hath been done more copiouſly by Dr. John Hoornbeck in his examination of the Popes Bull, ſent forth to nullifie the peace of Germany; and if Mr. D. pleaſe, he may read a very ſmart Diſcourſe againſt the ſin of Sacriledg in Mr. Baxters defence of the VVorcesterſhire Petition. If Anceſtors through miſtake have given maintenance to Idolatrous uſes, Magiſtrates may convert that maintenance to uſes truly pious. If there be a true ſuperfluity of Church revenues for ſome one good uſe, Magiſtrates may out of that ſuperfluity provide for ſome other good uſe. If the Soveraign power pleaſe in caſes of true neceſſity, to make uſe of Church-mens Lands, as well as others, to maintain the Nation againſt foreign Invaſions, &c. what is there in ſuch an action blame-worthy? Theſe and ſuch like caſes excepted, I profeſs I know not the Presbyterian alive or dead, that was not againſt the alienation of Church-Lands. Mr. D. tells us, he ſaw ſome Preſbyterian Miniſters made nothing of purchaſing and detaining Church-Lands, and in his Margin nameth Dr. Burges; ſo that it ſeemeth, Dr. Burges is ſome Presbyterian Miniſters: But he ought before he ſo called him, to prove that he was ſo much as one Presbyterian Miniſter; he was not that Dr. Burges, of whom we heard before, that made the Book againſt Dr. Ames his reply to Dr. Morton, p. 70but he was the Dr. Burges that overſaw that Book in the Preſs, and adorned its Margin to make the reading more pleaſant and delightful; and he was that Dr. Burges who did write for Baptiſmal Regeneration (a Doctrine diſtaſtful to the Presbyterians). He took the Covenant indeed, but not (as I have heard) till he was like to be turned out of the Aſſembly for not taking it. It is true, that once he made a Speech againſt the continuance of Deans and Chapters, but in that Speech he declared the utter unlawfulneſs of converting their Lands to any private mans uſe; it ſeems that he himſelf afterwards purchaſed ſomething belonging to the Dean of VVells, intending to ſettle it on his Children; how he could ſatisfie his Conſcience ſo to do I know not; perhaps when he ſaw that that part of the Houſe of Commons which favoured Presbytery was ſecluded, and that Deans and Chapters Lands deſigned to mend poor Livings, muſt be ſold for other uſes, he reſolved to do as Luther ſaith a Dog which he knew at Erford did, when he could defend his Maſters diſh of meat from other Dogs no longer, viz. got as good a ſhare of the prey as he could. He hath given his accounts to his Maſter, I am not to judge anothers Servant, and therefore I ſhould tremble to write that which Mr. D. hath written, viz. That a loathſom ſore which brought him to his Grave, was ſent to puniſh him for his Sacriledg; neither dare I ſay, for all the world, that the Diſeaſe that befell Biſhop Gauden (and of which he died) beſel him for his fierceneſs againſt the Bresbyterians; and yet, it was the very diſeaſe unto which he had compared the Presbyterians Sermons, and it befell p. 71him not long after he had made that odious compariſon.

England hath ſuffered much by mens undertaking to fetch their Divinity out of the Providences of God, which are always righteous, but ſometimes hidden.

A greater noiſe is made in ſome Books, on the account of the Aſſemblies Annotations; in the which, or in the firſt Edition of which, it is ſaid, Nothing is to be found againſt Sacriledg; and it is eaſily acknowledged, that in the Aſſemblies Annotations nothing is to be found againſt Sacriledg, for the Aſſemblies Annotations are not to be found: But as for the Engliſh Notes made by ſundry Divines, who were all of them before the Wars, Conformiſts, and commonly miſcalled the Aſſemblies Annotations; and for the Aſſembly it ſelf, hear an ingenuous, but cordial and through-paced Son of the Church, in a Diſcourſe entituled, Church-Lands not to be ſold, printed Anno 1648. he quotes with approbation the Note on Rom. 2.22. p. 14. having ſpoken p. 27. of honeſt Mr. Geree, who avers, That to aboliſh Prelacy, and to ſeize the Lands of the Prelates to any private or civil intereſt, undoubtedly could not want ſtain nor guilt: he adds, I am confident, by the diſcourſe I have had with the moſt able of the Aſſembly of Divines at Weſtminſter, that at the leaſt three parts, if not all of them, are of the ſame judgment; and that they would openly profeſs as much, if they were put to anſwer the queſtion. The ſame Author quotes with approbation the Note on Gen. 47. and on Mal. 3.8, 9. I will not go off from this ſubject of Sacriledg, till p. 72I have alſo obſerved, That ſome, conſiderable for Learning, and of no ſmall authority, have not feared to ſay, That Impropriations are ſacrilegious. I have not much ſtudied the point, and therefore interpoſe not my own judgment; but it looks very ugly to take away ſo much of the tythes and profits of any pariſh, as not to leave a competence for him who hath the cure of ſouls in that pariſh: yet it hath been obſerved, that no Pariſhes have ſo ſorry and pitiful an allowance for the Preaching miniſter, as thoſe of which Clergy men are the Impropriators; if the Kings Letter ſince his return hath ſo kindly operated upon our Cathedraliſts, as to make them more bountiful to the Incumbents, it is well; but if it have not, Mr. D. may do well to conſider whether he and his brethren be without fault, before he throw ſtones at the head of others, elſe he may chance to have ſuch an anſwer as the Biſhop of Scotland, who having objected Sacriledg to the Presbytery of that Nation, is told by Mr. Baily in his Hiſtorical Vindication, p. 26, 27. That the Biſhops when they profeſſed their greateſt zeal to recover all the Church out of the hand of the Laity, were found to be but too ready to dilapidate unto Noblemen, and others too much of the Churches Patrimony: you your ſelf may remember what bargain you made, as I think with the Earl of Seaforth, which you know was the firſt occaſion of diminiſhing your reputation with your great Patron Land of Canterbury, I am ſure your Colleague Spotſwood did ſell the whole Abbacy of Kilwinning to the Noblemen and Gentlemen of Guningham, to the great prejudice p. 73and grief of the Univerſity of Glaſgow, and the Miniſters of the bounds, who had great intereſt therein. At the Parliament of Lithgow, 1606, our good Biſhops for their own baſe ends did conſent in the name of the Church (though they never conſulted her in that buſineſs) to the greateſt dilapidation that ever was heard of in Scotland, the Impropriation to Noblemen and Gentlemen of no fewer than ſixteen Abbacies, every one whereof had incorporate the Rents of a number of Pariſh-Churches.

A ſecond impertinence relates to Confirmation, which Mr. D. p. 43. ſaith, he finds uſed in almoſt all Reformed Churches, in ſome with greater, in ſome with leſſer ſolemnity. To what purpoſe doth he tell us this? Would he have the world believe, that the Presbyterians are againſt Confirmation? or that they do not earneſtly deſire it? Have not Mr. Hanmer and Mr. Baxter written books to ſhew the uſefulneſs and neceſſity of it? Do not ſome of them ground it on Heb. 6.2. and draw thence an argument for Infant-baptiſm? Mr. Tombs knows they do, and ſo do many others of the Antipaedobaptiſts. For my part I bleſs God that hath put it into the hearts of the Convocation, to inſert into this laſt Edition of the Liturgy, a queſtion to be propounded to thoſe who are confirmed: let conſcience be made never to confirm any but thoſe who are well inſtructed in the Church Catechiſm, and are well reported of for their converſation, and I ſhall think then that nothing is to be blamed in our order for admiſſion to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. But if men will pretend a great reverence p. 74to Confirmation, and yet ſuffer the far greateſt part of the Nation to communicate unconfirmed; and if Biſhops will confirm perſons groſly ignorant and ſcandalous in the higheſt degree, and never require Certificates from the Miniſters of thoſe Pariſhes to which they belong, God forbid that I ſhould juſtifie them.

The only queſtion conſiderable about Confirmation, betwixt thoſe called Presbyterians, and their adverſaries, is concerning the Miniſter thereof: Presbyterians ſay. That no Law of God hath appropriated it to a Biſhop ſtrictly ſo called. If Mr. D. can ſhew us any ſuch Law, or if he can prove that in all or in any Reformed Church, a meer Presbyter is not accounted to have power to confirm, as well as to baptize, he ſhall do ſomething; let him therefore ſhew himſelf a man, and undertake this work, and when he hath his hand in, let him alſo wipe off a blot thrown upon the Church of England and Geneva by Dr. Heylin, with the Pen of a virulent Papiſt, VVilliam Reynolds, Hiſtory of Presby. pag. 283. viz. That, 1576, the Common-prayer-Book was Printed by Richard Jugg the Queens Printer, the whole order of private Baptiſm, and confirmation of Children being omitted, which omiſſion was deſigned to bring the Church of England into ſome Conformity to the deſired Orders of Geneva.

Pag. 47. he is ſo prodigal of his Ink and Paper, as to tell us, That in all reformed Churches Matrimony is celebrated in the publick Congregation, and by the Miniſter. This may be true of all reformed Churches in reference to their own Members, at leaſt I hope it is; but if he ſhould intend to aſſert, p. 75That Reformed Churches allow not that any who are conſtant livers in the ſame Cities with them, ſhall be married otherwiſe than by the Miniſters, and in the Church, he is miſtaken. Yet let it be ſuppoſed, that Papiſts, dwelling with Proteſtants, are forced to marry in the Church, and to make uſe of a Miniſter; what is this to the Presbyterians? The compoſers of the Directory ſay, VVe judge it expedient that Marriage be ſolemnized by a lawful Miniſter of the word, that he may counſel them and pray for them; In the ſaid directory, care alſo is taken, that before any marriage the perſons intent of marriage be publiſhed by the Miniſter three ſeveral ſabbath days in the congregation at the place, or places of their moſt uſual and conſtant abode reſpectively, and all Miniſters are to have ſufficient teſtimony of this publication before they proceed to ſolemnize Marriage. By the Liturgy alſo ſufficient proviſion is made that of all that are to be married, the Bannes be publiſhed in the Church, three ſeveral ſundays, or Holy days in the time of Divine ſervice, but any one, that hath mony may have a licence to be Married without any ſuch publication of Bannes, by which means great inconveniences have ariſen in Church and State. Care alſo is taken by the 62 Canon of 1603. That none ſhall be married, unleſs the Parents, or Governors of the parties to be married being under the age of twenty one, ſhall either perſonally, or by ſufficient teſtimony, ſignifie their conſent given to the ſaid marriage. The directory is ſomewhat more ſtrict, requiring, that perſons though of age ſhall be bound to have a Certificate of p. 76their Parents conſent, if it be their firſt marriage: And really it ſeems but rational, that a man and a woman, though of the age of Thirty, if never married before, ſhould be bound to ſignifie their Parents conſent, before any Miniſter adventure to marry them.

The greateſt differences I find among Proteſtants about Marriage, are reducible to Two Heads:

1. We ſay here in England, That though Children he bound to ask the conſent of Parents, yet if the marriage be made, no ſuch conſent asked or obtained, the marriage is valid; fieri non debet, factum valet, is our Rule; but beyond Seas, ſuch marriages are by many held to be void and of no effect. Mr. D. hath ſo many obligations laid on him by our Church, that it would be but gratitude to take her part, and to anſwer the Arguments of Diſſenters.

2. Our Church hath thought meet to prohibit marriage for certain times and ſeaſons, which are particularized in our common Almanacks. Other Churches leave it free to perſons to marry all the year about, to theſe the Presbyterians joyn themſelves, they ſay marriage is not to be forbidden at any time, unleſs on ſuch days, in which God calls to faſting, weeping, mourning; to confirm them in this opinion, they had the judgment of a whole Convocation in England aſſembled in the year 1575, agreeing, That Biſhops ſhould take order that it be publiſhed and declared in every Pariſh Church within their Dioceſſes, that marriage might be ſolemnized at all times of the year; but though the Church thought meet to put this Article into p. 77the Book, the Head of the Church, Q. Elizabeth, did not ſo think, and therefore ſuffered it not to be Printed. Dr. Heyl. Hiſt. of Presb. 282, 283.

Object. Ay, but there are ſome who ſcruple the Ring in Marriage, which Mr. D. ſaith is uſed in Heſſen, Poland, Lithuania.

Sol. If there be any ſuch, the more is the pity, for rational ground of ſcruple there is none, any more than there is to ſcruple taking ſeiſin by a Turf: Nor do I know any one Presbyterian now living, that doth ſcruple the uſe of a Ring in Marriage.

Pag. 48. we are informed by Mr. D. That in moſt places of the Reformed Churches, they have Funeral Sermons, in Hungary and Tranſilvania, two or three, in Bohemia but one, and that at the Grave. As if he would ſuggeſt to us, that either Presbyterians are againſt Funeral Sermons, or the Epiſcopal extreamly for them; whereas the truth is, there never were more Funeral Sermons than in thoſe days, when the Presbyterians had their Churches and Pulpits; and now that they are thruſt out, when any one of them dye, 'tis ſeldom but ſome body is hired to Preach a Sermon, I ſay, hired, for they are as rare as Black Swans, that will Preach a Funeral Sermon under an Angel or a Noble. And whereas he tells us, ibid. of the Miniſter with ſinging Boys going before the Corps; he knows, that in England we have ſinging Boys but in few places, ſcarce any where but in Cathedrals, which do not uſe to ſend their ſinging Boys to go before the Corps at every Funeral. p. 78Civil reſpects, or differences at Burials may be ſuted to the rank and condition of the party deceaſed, whiles he was living; as for the Religious part of Funerals, why ſhould it not be alike to all that have attained like precious faith? Doth Mr. D. know any Churches where only the moneyed Chriſtians are honoured with Sermons; the poor being laid in their graves without any? If he did not, why would he lay open the nakedneſs of his Fathers, why would he tempt ſtrangers to think, that with them there is reſpect of perſons? The Scots ſay, Either let us have Sermons at all Funerals, or at none, ſo ſay the Hollanders. ſo I ſuppoſe the French either ſay or think: But Mr. D. Page 49. quotes a ſcrap of a Letter from Monſieur Drelincourt ſaying, I am ſo far from allowing the cuſtom of the Reformed Churches of this Kingdom, where the Miniſters are ſilent at dead mens Burials, that I would think it unſufferable were it not for the condition under which we live. I believe Mr. Drelincourt, if he be ſtill alive, thinks Mr. D. dealt not civilly with him, in publiſhing this piece of his Letter, for he ſure took no delight to let the world know, that he accounted the cuſtom of the Holland Churches unſufferable, eſpecially ſeeing the French Churches in Holland comply with them, and yet cannot plead that they fear perſecution. The ſame Drelincourt, if we may believe Mr. D. ſaid, that he found upon peruſal of the Common Prayer Book office for Burial of the dead, nothing that was contrary to piety, or pure Doctrine, and the ſervice of God.

p. 79Is not this a rare commendation of the Liturgy, that it hath nothing in it contrary to piety, &c. But what Common prayer Book did this learned Divine read over? in all but this laſt there were expreſſions to be uſed at Burials, that were apt to harden men in their impenitence, which therefore are now either changed, or left quite out. At preſent I know little liable to exception, ſave only, that Burial ſeems appropriated to a Prieſt: may a Deacon Baptiſe and Preach, and may he not bury our dead out of our ſight? In the Old Liturgy, it was ſaid, the Miniſter meeting the Corps at the Church ſtile ſhall ſay; in this laſt edition of the Liturgy it is ſaid the Prieſts and Clerks, and ſo throughout the whole Office we have no other word but Prieſt, which is never applied to any that are but Deacons; there is ſome myſtery in this which Mr. D. can expound, or elſe take no notice of. 2. By the Liturgy the form of Burial is not to be uſed for any that dye unbaptized. What's the meaning of this? If Chriſtian Parents loſe a child before they can get it to be baptized, muſt they, to all other their ſorrow, have this alſo added, That their child ſhall not have Chriſtian b… rial? Shall the Idolatrous Papiſts child be buried, and ſhall the child of the Antipaedobaptiſt not be buried according to the Liturgy? How will Mr. Tombs, after all the pains he hath taken to deſend the Liturgy, brook this? 3. Seeing the Office is to be read at the burial of all baptized, being neither excommunicate nor murderers of themſelves, why is the Prieſt appointed to ſay, His …ope is that every one who is buried, reſts in the Lord. What if a p. 80man be killed in bed with another's Wife? What if he be killed in a Duel, or in an Alehouſe half drunk? What if he be by God ſtruck dead with an oath or blaſphemy upon his tongues end? muſt we uſe the very ſame words for him, that we uſe for one that led a moſt Chriſtian life, and died a comfortable death? I have much more charity for ſome that laid violent hands on themſelves, than for thoſe who contrary to all laws of God and man, do dye in Duels by the ſword of another?

Pag. 50. he hath other words of Drelincourts as little to purpoſe, If we were permitted, ſaith he, to preach at Paris, and there to miniſter the holy communion, I am of this perſwaſion, that it would be a pious and charitable work to give that comfort to thoſe poor ſick perſons who have kept their bed for many years, and are not able to go as far as Charenton, which is the place of our ordinary exerciſes of Religion. This is a marvellous wary ſpeech, 1. If they were permitted. 2. If they were permitted both to preach and adminiſter the Sacrament. 3. Then, it would be pious and charitable to give the Communion to ſuch as have kept their beds for many years. Can Mr. D. think that the Engliſh Presbyterians will be offended at a perſwaſion thus qualified? It may rather be queſtioned, Whether ſome of them would not judg it charitable and pious to adminiſter the Sacrament in ſuch caſes, though they had no permiſſion from the King; at leaſt it may be conceived, that they would adventure, if they ſhould be permitted only to adminiſter the Sacrament, though no leave were given them to preach; for a Sermon is not of the eſſence of a Sacrament; p. 81and I deem they would perform this act of charity and piety to ſuch as had been confined to their beds, though only for one or two years, which are not many. There is not one word in all the Directory againſt private Communion.

P. 40. Mr. D. gives us notice, That in the Bohemian Churches, the people do alway ſay Amen at the end of the Prayers, in the ſame manner that we do here in England. Which is ſo far from croſſing the Presbyterians, that they, as many think, by their good will, would have the people ſay nothing but Amen.

P. 39. he fancieth he may put the Presbyterians to ſilence, by telling them of Churches that ſing Hymns and ſpiritual ſongs, beſides Pſalms. But he may know, that Presbyterians are as much at liberty to ſing any godly Hymn or ſpiritual Song, as he himſelf is. Let him but procure the Te Deum or the Lords prayer to be ſet to ordinary times, and then he ſhall ſee whether the Presbyterians will make any ſcruple for conſcience-ſake to ſing thoſe forms, or the three Creeds which are ſaid to be ſet with muſical notes in the French and Dutch Churches, but not ſung by the French Churches, by reaſon both the Rhime and the language are ſomething courſe and old. Presbyterians are not ſo dainty, they continue to ſing the old Pſalms, though the language and rhime be odd and uncouth in many places.

P. 183. he goes about to ſtab the Presbyterians with a declaration of a National Synod met at Figeac 1579. What is the declaration? Why, it is a declaration againſt reading verſes aloud before they p. 82be ſung, as being inept, threatning cenſure to ſuch Churches as uſed it. The Presbyterians think this cuſtom unfit, and therefore exhorted all Congregations to get Pſalm-books, and to learn to read; they allowed reading of Pſalms line by line, only for neceſſity, when ignorance had prevailed ſo far, that many in moſt Congregations could not read at all. Let Mr. D. but take care that all be taught to read, or learn the pſalms without book, and I dare half undertake for Presbyterians, they ſhall leave off ſo inept or unmeet a cuſtom. Till then, they, and Epiſcopal men too, muſt do as they can, and remember that they are debtors to the unwiſe as well as wiſe.

P. 22. Mr. D. makes mention of Churches, whoſe Miniſters wear commonly either a long cloak, or a gown and long cap; nay, Calvin (ſaith he) did wear a gown and a cap, as often as he taught either in the Divinity-School, or in the Church at Geneva. If Presbyterians do not wear a cap when they teach in the church, they may eaſily be pardoned by Mr. D. As for a gown, let him but get them liberty to preach, and they will promiſe never to need his pardon for want of that. I am ſure I have ſeen thoſe whom the Parliament ſent down to Cambridg into the places of ſuch as were ejected, preach both in gowns and hoods, and ſo I have heard they did at Oxford when they preached Latin Sermons; for which they have been ſcolded at by filly women, as Calvin was by the Wife of Frumentius.

I had almoſt forgot another Impertinence, p. 37. The French Churches require that the Miniſters, p. 83who ought to uſe Impoſition of hands, upon thoſe that are to be admitted to the miniſtry among them, ſhould pray standing on that occaſion, the new received Miniſter and the Congregation kneeling at the ſame time. This was the conſtant practice of the Presbyterians, as to Ordainers and Ordained, in all places where I have been, or of which I have heard. As for the people, they were commonly ſo numerous at Ordinations, that they could not without huge inconvenience kneel. I alſo find that I have paſſed over ſomething, page 32. They have the Ten Commandments in Letters of Gold upon two great Tables where they are able to be at the charge of it; and in ſome places they have alſo the Creed and the Lords Prayer in the ſame manner, conformable to one of the conſtitutions of the Church of England to the ſame purpoſe. Who are meant by they, I cannot tell; the precedent words were, in Princes Chappels in Germany, and other parts they have them (i. e. Chalices) gilt. Are there any Princes in Germany or other parts who cannot be at the charge of having the Ten Commandments in Letters of Gold upon two great Tables? Or doth Mr. D. mean the French Churches, as many as have ability, do ſet up the Commandments in Letters of Gold upon two great Tables? If ſo, I doubt he wronged his Conſcience. But let it be ſuppoſed that in all French Churches that are not very poor, the Ten Commandments are ſet up in Letters of Gold, what mean thoſe words, in ſome places they have alſo the Creed and the Lords Prayer in the ſame manner, conformable to one of the conſtitutions of p. 84the Church of England? Have the rich French Churches, the Lords Prayer and Creed on two Tables, and in Letters of Gold? If they have not, why is it ſaid that they have the Creed and Lords Prayer in the ſame manner? The Churches of France I am certain may be conformable enough to the conſtitution of the Church of England, and yet not have either the Commandments in Two Tables or in Letters of Gold; for all the conſtitution requires, is but that the Ten Commandments be ſet upon the Eaſt-end of every Church and Chappel, where the people may beſt ſee and read the ſame, and other choſen ſentences written upon the walls of the ſaid Churches and Chappels in convenient places. Here is no mention of two great Tables, no mention of Letters of Gold, no mention of Creed or Lords Prayer.

But why did Mr. D. trouble himſelf to bring in all, or any of this Stuff? Did Presbyterians ever deny the lawfulneſs or expedience of having either the Decalogue, or Creed, or Lords Prayer, ſet upon conſpicuous places in the Temple? I know an eminent Nonconformiſt now living, who was wont to rejoyce that the Painter had ſet the Lords Prayer juſt over againſt his Pulpit, that if it had hapned he had been out, he might by his eyes help himſelf. Had the Creed been ſo placed it had been well for Mr. D. for they ſay, that not long ſince, he was horribly out in repeating the Articles of Faith after Sermon.

I ſhall conclude this Catalogue of Impertinencies with Mr. D's ſtories concerning reformed Churches, that …eep the very ſame Temples that were uſed p. 85in time of Popery, pag. 28. ſo did the Presbyterians, and Mr. Paget hath defended the lawfulneſs of uſing ſuch places againſt the frivolous exceptions of Mr. Ainſworth; and now let the world judge, whether Mr. D. deſerve not to be called and accounted Mr. Impertinent.

I muſt come to a third part of my task, which will be perhaps neceſſary, but is ſomewhat more unpleaſing than any of the other, viz. to muſter up ſome of thoſe Speeches of Mr. Durell, which Countreymen call Wiskers, you may call them by another name, but will not know how to excuſe, except by the Engliſh Proverb, that Travellers may—by authority.

Pag. 8. Bellarmine was an eye-witneſs in his time, much againſt his will, of Oecolampadius his being called Biſhop of the Church of Baſil: Oecolampadius on his Tomb in Baſil, is called Templi hujus verus Epiſcopus. Bellarmine in his fourth Book, De notis Eccle. cap. 8. ſaith, That when he was at Baſil, he read him, called on his Tomb, the firſt Biſhop of that City, which is a Lye; but then he alſo faith, that he read this, non ſine riſu, if theſe words do not ſignifie, much againſt his will, where is Mr. D's veracity?

Pag. 13. All underſtanding men amongſt the French ſay plainly, That if God Almighty were pleaſed, that all France ſhould embrace the Reformed Religion, as England hath, the Epiſcopal Government muſt be eſtabliſhed in their Churches. Do all underſtanding men ſay this, and ſay it plainly? I ſhall manifeſt the contrary ere I have done, and indeed have manifeſted it already.

p. 86Pag. 16. He dreads not to affirm, That Smectymnuus and all Smectymnuans being bound moſt of them by their Oath to uſe ſet forms, never uſe them. S. M. T. Y. when Mr. D. Printed this, were dead, and ſo not bound by Oath to uſe ſet forms; as for E. C. M. N. W. S. who were then alive, how will it be proved that either they were bound by Oath to uſe ſet forms, or that they never uſed them?

The Smectymnuans, if by them he mean the Nonconformiſts (and whom elſe can he mean) were never the moſt of them by Oath bound to uſe ſet forms, and yet ſometimes ſome of them have uſed them, yea did uſe them at that very time when Mr. D. was hammering out this Book.

Pag. 18. There is not one Miniſter in all France, but hath made unto himſelf a ſet form which he uſeth always and no other. What confidence is this! hath he received Letters from every Miniſter in France, or ſpoke with every Miniſter in France? Hath he certain knowledg that every Miniſter made a form unto himſelf? did never any uſe a form that he had learned from another? did never any make to himſelf above one form? I muſt needs doubt there is untruth in this, till I ſee the thing proved under the hands of all Miniſters in France.

Pag. 22. In Hungaria and Tranſilvania, Miniſters never go abroad without their long Cloak and Caſſock just as here. Here, I am ſure, Miniſters go abroad without long Cloak and Caſſock, and are by the Canons of the Church allowed ſo to do. Si non caſte, tamen caute.

p. 87Page 26. ſpeaking of the fratres Bohemi, and the Moravians 'tis ſaid, that they have days for commemoration of the Bleſſed Virgin, and of the Holy Apoſtles, and other Saints and Martyrs, as alſo one for the commemoration of all the Saints; all which days they keep after the ſame manner, that they are kept here in England according to the Eccleſiaſtical conſtitutions, and common uſe of the Church. I ſuppoſe the Bohemians and Moravians were to have Sermons on Holy days, are we bound to have any? They are not appointed to faſt the Eves of any Saints days, but ſo are we; they are not ordered on the Saints days to ceaſe from the works of their callings, but ſo are we, and are puniſhable with ſeverity enough if we do not.

Page 27. mention being made of the Helvetick confeſſion, and of the Holy days commended by it, 'tis ſaid it was ſubſcribed by the Kirk of Scotland, 1566. The Miniſters of that Church being then of a different judgment from what their ſucceſſors have ſhewed of late years, which is a moſt egregious falſhood, for the Kirk then diſcovered her diſlike of the feſtivals appointed, or commended in the Confeſſion of Helvetia, and ſo have the Miniſters of late years, ſo as they concur in judgment fully as to this matter, and I believe in every thing elſe.

Page 28. Croſſes have not been pulled down from the top of Churches unleſs in ſome popular tumults. The Latin Apologiſt hath ſhewen the falſity of this.

p. 88Page 29. The fratres Bohemi have their ſolemn dedication of Churches, which ceremony is to be performed with them by the Biſhop, in the ſame manner, as with us here in England. The manner of dedication of Churches is not here agreed upon in England, nor is there any Law that requires dedications, and ſome places we have that never were dedicated, and the ceremonies uſed in dedication with us are ſuch as are not uſed in Bohemia.

Page 30. At Baſil, and Breme, they have their Fonts of ſtone and uſe them for the Baptiſm of Infants; by which we ſee, that they are not of the ſame judgment with the Directorians who find Popery and Superſtition in the very placing of them. All the Directory ſaith is, that Baptiſm is to be adminiſtred in the face of the Congregation, where the people may moſt conveniently hear, and ſee, and not in the places where Fonts in the time of Popery were unfitly, and ſuperſtitiouſly placed. Are the Fonts at Baſil, and Breme, placed where the people cannot hear and ſee? Are they placed unfitly, as in times of Popery? if they be, I ſee not how they can juſtifie themſelves; if they be not, how can we ſee that the Divines of Baſil and Breme are of a different mind about the placing of Fonts, from the Directorians?

Page 31. I know none that did ever ſo much as move the queſtion in what place and which way the Communion table ought to ſtand, (ſo it be ſeated where the people may ſee and hear) except the new Scotch and Engliſh Presbyterians. p. 89Either his knowledg is very ſmall, or elſe he did write this againſt his knowledg, and conſcience.

Page 30. In all Reformed Churches men uſe to enter into the place of publick Worſhip with their Hats off. If this be meant of ſuch times in which the congregation is performing publick Worſhip, the Presbyterians do ſo, and are enjoyned by the Directory ſo to do; but if it be meant, of entring at all times, and upon all occaſions, it is known to be an untruth to all that have been in Holland. The Divines there would laugh to ſee any ſo ſuperſtitious as to pull off his Hat every time he hath occaſion to go through one of their Temples.

Ibid. In France the women that are perſons of quality unmask themſelves, and the devouteſt ſort both of men and women uſe to kneel and make a ſhort Prayer for Gods bleſſing on the ſervice they come to perform, before they fit down; yet the Directory though it pretendeth conformity with them, prohibiteth theſe very things. If the French Ladies unmask themſelves to ſhew that they are not aſhamed to be ſeen at Proteſtant Aſſemblies, what Directorian is he that will blame them? But if by ſo unmasking themſelves they deſign to ſhew their beauty, &c. then there is ſomething in the 1 Cor. 11. that they may do well to think of. The Directory forbids not private Prayers for Gods bleſſing, unleſs any come in when the ſervice of God is begun, and if the devouter ſort of men and women in France are wont to fall on their knees, when the congregation is ſinging, &c. the Directory pretends not conformity with them, they may do p. 90well to conſider, that God is the God of Order, and not of Confuſion; an ejaculation in ſuch caſes, is as much as can be needful, provided it be joyned with ſhame, or trouble for coming ſo late.

Page 37. In the Churches of Poland and Lithuania, and likewiſe in them of Tranſylvania and Hungaria the people uſeth alway to ſay the Prayers aloud after the Miniſter juſt as we do in the Church of England. Such was alſo the uſe of the Churches of the Ʋnity of the fratres Bohemi.

Our people do not much uſe to ſay the Prayers after the Miniſter, that is certain, except the Clerk be the people, and there are but few Prayers they are enjoyned to repeat after him, the Lords prayer is appointed to be ſaid not after, but with him. What the uſe of the fratres Bohemi was, I do not well know, nor hath Mr. D. directed me how I may inform my ſelf. But I have met with ſomething in Biſhop Amos Comaenius which I commend to the diligent conſideration of Mr. D. and all others that are zealous in this matter; it is in his Annotations on the Ratio Diſciplinae Ordiniſq, &c. Page 100. The Ritual Books (the forms of performing the ſacred Miniſtries which they call Agenda) are not with us appended to the Catechetical Books, ſo as to come into the hands of the Common people, but being put forth by themſelves, are given only to the Paſtors, not privately in a corner, but in the ſight of the Church. After the death of the Paſtor the ſame Books are put into the hands of the Seniors. Some one wil ſay what ſuperſtition is this? Anſ. Let others have their liberty of judging: I do p. 91not think things are ſo to be managed, that nothing myſtical (to be rather adored by the people, than proudly to be looked on, and afterwards vilely eſteemed) ſhould be left to the Prieſts. Religion rejoyceth in veils: And our chief Maſter himſelf was wont to ſpeak ſome things to his diſciples by themſelves. The Apoſtle when he commands Biſhop Timothy to commit ſome things to faithful men who are apt to teach others, 2 Tim. 2.2. doth he not intimate a certain difference, betwixt theſe things that are given to all, and thoſe that are given to the Teachers of others? Certainly the word foreign, which he uſeth ſignifieth, to commit or concredit ſome thing ſingular. And when we read it written of Chriſt, that having read the ſacred Text, and laid aſide his Book, be began his ſpeech ſo, that all fixing their eyes on him, admired the words that flowed from his mouth; do we think theſe things happen otherwiſe to others? viz. If words flow from the mouth of Gods meſſenger not ſeen before, that the hearers are rendred more attent and more profound admirers of the grace of God. For if preſcribed things only be always recited, what will there be to excite attention? Curioſity rather will be excited, whileſt this and the other by beholding the ſame things in his Books attendeth whether they be accurately read, what place is here for devotion? Neither is it to be thought that ours are bound to the Books delivered to them, to words and ſyllables, it is free to them to uſe any thing drawn out of the treaſures of myſtical wiſdom which make to excite zeal according to variety of p. 92occaſions. Whence it comes to paſs that Godly hearers are ſcarce ever preſent at Sacred myſteries without new motion of heart.

Page 61. It is ſaid that the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, take thoſe things in which they differ from the Reformed Church of England, to be ſinful, and that therefore they would have her conform to them.

By whom is this ſaid in ſuch indefinite terms as are here made uſe of? I doubt it will be found that none have ſo ſaid, at leaſt none that are called or accounted Presbyterians; and if none can be found, what opinion will the world have of Mr. D's veracity? But if any have ſaid that ſome reformed Churches abroad have accounted ſome things in which the Engliſh Church differs from them to be ſinful, it is a thing ſo manifeſt that I wonder Mr. D. can find a forehead to deny it. He mentioneth in this place the Reformed Churches in the Electorate of Brandenburg, and I do not obſerve him to have mentioned them any where elſe, I ſuppoſe (by the Churches he joyneth them with) that he meaneth ſuch as cloſe with that Reformation that the Elector himſelf affecteth, and would fain have introduced, and it will not be amiſs to let our Countrymen underſtand what that is. The heads of it are recited in the Continuation of Thuanus at the year 1614. Page 396, 397. Edit. Francof. 1628.

1. Images, Croſſes, Statues, are to be removed out of Churches.

2. Altars remaining ſince Popery, and built to perform the Sacrifice of the Maſs, are to be taken p. 93away, and in place of them are to be put oblong wooden Tables covered with black cloth, a linnen cloth when the Supper is to be adminiſtred, being put upon it.

3. Inſtead of Hoſts, Wafers are to be uſed, which being cut into long pieces, ſhould be received and broken by the hands of thoſe who come to the Lords Table.

4. That inſtead of Chalices uſed in Maſs, Cups ſhould be uſed in the adminiſtration of the Lords Supper.

5. The Caſiolae (which may very well ſignifie the Surplice, as well as other Veſtments) are to be left to the Popiſh Prieſts.

6. No linnen is to be put under, or offer'd to thoſe who come to the Lords Table; nor are they to kneel as if Chriſt were corporally preſent.

7. The ſign of the Croſs is not to be added at the end of the benediction.

8. The Miniſters of the Goſpel are not to turn the back to men.

9. Prayers and Epiſtles are not to be ſung before Sermon, but read.

10. Auricular Confeſſion is to be left off.

11. At the Name of Jeſus knees are not to be bowed, or head uncovered.

12. Prayers in the Pulpit are not to be muttered, but pronounced with a loud voice.

13. The Supper of the Lord is not for fear of danger to be adminiſtred to ſick perſons, eſpecially when the plague is abroad.

14. Stone-Fonts are to be removed, and Baſons ſubſtituted in their rooms.

p. 9415. The Decalogue is not to be recited imperfect, but intire.

16. The Catechiſm in ſome things that are exroneous, is to be amended.

17. The Sacred Trinity (a myſtery to be adored, and ineffable) is not to be repreſented by any images either carved or painted.

18. The words of the holy Supper are to be interpreted by Sacramental analogy, and collation of other places of holy Scripture.

19. To the Goſpels and Epiſtles which are explicated on Lords days, and yearly repeated, Miniſters ought not ſo to be bound, that they may not inſtead of them, read and preach upon any other notable Text of the Bible.

Dr. Heylin hath exemplified the heads of this deſigned Reformation, on purpoſe to ſhow, as he tells us, Hiſt. of Presby. 412. how Calvinian and Lutheran Churches differ, and how near ours approacheth to the latter; and I have exemplified them to ſhew, that if Ceremonies be but gnats, Engliſh Presbyterians are not the only perſons that do ſtrain at them; declaring alſo my juſt abhorrence of the Hiſtorians impudence in aſcribing the deſignment of this Reformation to the plots and practices of a ſubtil Lady.

P. 85. Mr. D. having before recited a Letter of Mr. Chabrets, in which he makes a queſtion whether the Liturgy received at the Savoy Congregation, be the ſame that was uſed in Q. Eliz. King James, or King Charles I.'s time, or another compiled by Archbiſhop Laud, that had been occaſion p. 95of much trouble, adds words of great reproach againſt thoſe who accuſed the late Lord Archbiſhop of making a new Book of Common-prayer, other than thoſe that were uſed in the times of our laſt three Soveraigns: this he makes a thing that never was.

But he is now to know, that Archbiſhop Laud did make, or cauſe to be made, a Common-prayer-book for the Kirk of Scotland, different in many things from any that had been uſed here in England, in any of the three laſt Soveraigns Reigns; which Common-prayer-book, among other things, occaſioned great diſturbances betwixt the two Kingdoms: nay, he made ſome alterations in the Liturgy for England, that were not very pleaſing to ſome palates among the ſons of the Church; what they were, if Mr. D. pleaſeth he may ſee in Mr. Prynnes Epiſtle Dedicatory to his Quenchcoal. It is not for ſuch a poor creature as I am, to blame or find fault with thoſe alterations, which I find imitated in our laſt edition of the Liturgy. Only I wonder why in the Office for the Fifth of November Miniſters are not directed to read the Statute for the obſerving of that day, ſeeing it is by law appointed to be read.

Ibid. He complains that our Convocations are beyond ſeas repreſented to conſiſt only of Archbiſhops and Biſhops; and that the inferior Clergy is not permitted to ſit and vote in them. Really if any gave ſuch information, he was but too like to Mr. D. ſpeaking of that which he either did not, or would not underſtand. The Convocations of England do conſiſt of an upper and lower Houſe; and p. 96though the Upper Houſe conſiſts but of Archbiſhops and Biſhops, yet the Lower conſiſts of the inferior Clergy, Deans, Prebendaries, Arch-deacons and Proctors of the Clergy. P. 116. Mr. D. calls our Convocations a Council conſiſting of above ſixſcore reverend, grave, and learned Divines, choſen out of many thouſands, whereof twenty-ſix are Archbiſhops and Biſhops, a greater number Deans, and Prebends, and Archdeacons: Which ſhews he underſtandeth not the frame and conſtitution of our Convocations, though they be the Church-Repreſentative, that he pretends to write for. The Convocation for the very Province of Canterbury, (beſides which, there is one for the Province of York) conſiſts of an Archbiſhop, twenty-one Biſhops for the Upper Houſe; the Lower Houſe conſiſt; of Deans twenty-two, Prebendaries twenty-four. Arch deacons fifty-four, Clerks repreſenting the Clergy, forty-four; ſo that the very Lower Houſe for this one Province, conſiſts of One hundred forty-four perſons. But how theſe are choſen out of many thouſands, they are men of rare faculties that can underſtand. If we ſpeak of the members of Convocation, neither Biſhops, nor Deans, nor Arch-deacons, are choſen to it, but come of courſe, juſt as Peers do to the Houſe of Lords. As for the Prebends, they are choſen only by the Chapters, which I hope are not many thouſands; the Dioceſan Clergy may be ſaid to be choſen out of many thouſands; but they for the Province of Canterbury are but forty-four. It may be Mr. D. meant that theſe Divines are choſen to their Dignities out of many thouſands; but that will be a p. 97groſſer untruth than the other: for Biſhops are choſen by the Dean and Chapter of that Church to which they are ſent, but they have not many thouſands to chuſe out of; there is but one nominated to be choſen, and him I believe the Dean and Chapter muſt chuſe, and return his Election; and the Election being returned and ratified by Royal aſſent, the Metropolitan muſt either conſecrate or confirm, as occaſion requireth. That which the Puritans were wont to complain of, was the inequality of the Repreſentative; they ſay for example, If all who are choſen by the Dioceſan Clergy for the whole Province of Canterbury, ſhould deſire a Reformation, yet they could not carry it; becauſe the Arch-deacons who are the Biſhops creatures, as being choſen ſolely by them, are ten in number more than they; and they alſo were wont to ſay, That the Biſhops would take on them to nominate the two Clerks for the Dioceſs; and if it be ſo, they ſaid it was in effect all one as if the Convocation had conſiſted only of Biſhops. This notwithſtanding, Dr. Taylor in his Epiſcopacy aſſerted, ſeems to envy the Presbyters ſo much as ſitting in Councils: 'Tis evident, ſaith he, Epiſc. aſſert. p. 283.) that the Laws of Provinces, and of the Catholick Church, were made by Conventions of Biſhops, without the intervening or concurrence of Presbyters, or any elſe, for ſentence and deciſion; the inſtances of this are juſt as many as there are Councils. The pariſhes of both Provinces in England, are above nine thouſand two hundred; the paſtors of theſe pariſhes ſend about Fifty-two to repreſent them and in the very Houſe p. 98where they ſit, there are above twice as many (in whoſe election they were no way concerned) that have equal votes with them; and beſides, there is an Upper Houſe of Biſhops. Mr. Durell would exceed Plutarch himſelf, if he could find in any Reformed Church a parallel. Let him try how ſuch a Synod as this will hit with that which the Theſes of Saumur ſay concerning Councils.

But I have almoſt forgotten my ſelf. Let Mr. D. go on to wipe off falſe aſperſions caſt on our Biſhops. P. 86. Men beyond the ſeas are told that every one of our Biſhops is a Pope, nay more than a Pope in his Dioceſs; preſcribing and impoſing of himſelf what he pleaſeth to his Clergy; whereas every Biſhops authority is limited by his ſubſcription to the 39 articles, &c. by the Conſtitutions and Canons Eccleſiaſtical, and by the Laws of the Land, according to the preſcript whereof he is to rule his dicceſs, and no otherwiſe; calling always to joyn with him in impoſition of hands, and other matters of weighty concernment, ſome of the Prebends of his Cathedral, or other grave Miniſters of the Dioceſs. Certainly this Preacher knows not what a Pope is, if he think that what theſe calumniators report of the Biſhops, makes them worſe than Popes. But let them deſerve to keep the Whetſtone for their tale, Mr. D. will have it from them again; for nothing is more falſe, than that by any Conſtitutions or Laws Biſhops are bound to call unto them either Prebends or grave Miniſters to joyn with them in impoſition of hands, and in all other weighty matters. The Biſhops lay on hands in confirmation of children, who is to joyn with him in that Impoſition? p. 99They lay on hands when they ordain Deacons, are they to call any to joyn with them in that impoſition of hands?

Ay, but they cannot ordain a Presbyter regularly, unleſs ſome Presbyters joyn with them in laying on of hands.

Really they cannot: but now the queſtion is, What the hands of the Presbyters ſignifie? And truly if we ask thoſe that ſtickle for Hierarchy, they will ſay, they ſignifie juſt nothing, or next to nothing: this conjunction of Presbyters is not ad eſſentiam operis, but ad dignitatem ſacerdotii. The Presbyters hands confer nothing of the power of Order upon the party ordained, but only teſtifie their conſent unto the buſineſs, and approbation of the man. So Dr. Heylin Hiſtory of Epiſcopacy, p. 162. and to the ſame purpoſe Dr. Taylor in Epiſcopacy aſſerted. Is not the Presbytery fairly advanced? it may do what the Laity did, or at leaſt may do, teſtifie conſent and approbation of the man? Again, the ſuſpenſion of a Miniſter is a weighty thing; who is appointed to joyn with the Biſhop in this? Excommunication alſo is a weighty thing; Who muſt joyn with the Biſhop in that? Finally, Mr. D. would oblige me greatly if he would fully ſatisfie me what Canons and Conſtitutions the Biſhops are to govern their Clergy by. I hope no Canons are in force but thoſe of 1603. which I am ſure are more than be well obſerved; but there were Legatine Canons in number Seventy-ſeven, made by Otho and Othobone; and Provincial Canons made under Stephen Langthon and Henry Chichly Archbiſhops of Canterbury, p. 100digeſted into a body by William Lindwood, as the former were by John Mon, Canon of Lincoln; and ſome ſay, that ſo much of all theſe Canons as is not contrary to the Laws and Cuſtoms of the Land, is ſtill in force; if ſo, as ſo it may be for ought I know, then I am ſure a great many of the Clergy know not how they are to be governed; but if any ſhould know all Canons and Conſtitutions, and underſtand that the Biſhop preſcribes things contrary to all Law and Canons, what then? Why then there lyes an Appeal, or a Prohibition may be obtained, to the coſt of neither of which a poor Countrey-Vicar can eaſily raiſe his purſe.

P. 87. Mr. D. is at his old trade of over-reaching: for he deſcribeth Monſieur Goyon to be a man as well verſed in antiquity, as is poſſible.

Yet neither he nor I can tell the bounds of poſſibility in the skill of antiquity; and perhaps both of us can tell of ſome that are more skilful in Church-Hiſtory than this Monſieur.

P. 103. The Church of England is be-lied, for of her it is ſaid, that ſhe holdeth ſubordination of Miniſters in the Chriſtian Church, to be of Apoſtolical, nay of Divine Inſtitution, having (as ſhe conceiveth) for grounds of this her judgment, beſide Scripture, the practice of the holy Apoſtles in their times, of the Univerſal Church ever ſince, until this latter age; and which is more, of Chriſt himſelf, who ordained the Apoſtles and the Seventy, in an imparity, as two diſtinct Orders of Miniſters in his Church; yet notwithſtanding ſhe doth but ſimply aſſert the lawfulneſs of her own Government.

p. 101Certainly this man doth not pretend to know the conceptions of our Church, till they be diſcovered; and the Church hath no where declared her conceptions to be theſe, That ſubordination of Miniſters, beſide Scripture, is grounded on the practice of the Apoſtles, and of Chriſt himſelf. The practice of the Apoſtles, and of Chriſt, is not beſide Scripture, but recorded in Scripture; nor doth the Church any where ſay that Chriſt inſtituted the Apoſtles and the Seventy as two diſtinct Orders of Miniſters in his Church; if ſhe do, then Dr. Hammond did not know her mind, or elſe plainly contradicts her.

P. 144. contains no fewer than four calumnies againſt Presbyterians, which muſt be manifeſted in their order.

1. The Presbyterians had no ſet-forms, nor indeed would receive any, whether for Common-prayer or for adminiſtration of Sacraments, Matrimony, &c.

I believe ſome Presbyterians had ſet-forms for all theſe; and I am ſure they do not account it unlawful to receive ſet-forms for any of theſe, only they may, and ſome of them do judge it inexpedient to have Miniſters ſo tied up in all theſe, as never in the leaſt to vary, either by addition or ſubſtraction. I never heard of Presbyterian that adminiſtred Baptiſm in any other form of words than thoſe appointed in the Liturgy. I baptize in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt; nor the Lords Supper in any other form of words but what is Scriptural; nor Marriage but in a ſet-form, either that in the Common-prayer-book, or that in the Directory.

p. 1022. For a long time many of them had left off the uſe of that very form our Lord hath taught us, p. 37. He had ſaid, That moſt, if not all Directorians, had left out of their Service, for a long time, that moſt complete, moſt divine form of prayer.

Mr. Paget, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hodges, have printed Apologies for the uſe of the Lords prayer; hundreds of thoſe who now ſuffer deprivation, have thouſands of witneſſes that they have uſed it in their Churches and in their Families, on Sundays, on Faſting-days, and yet they muſt have this filth thrown into their diſh. However, on this occaſion let us try what Mr. D. can ſay: Suppoſe ſome Presbyterians had never uſed this prayer in the Pulpit, but only at the Lords Supper, had they not preſident in the ancient Church to juſtifie them in ſo doing? yea, ſuppoſe ſome ſhould ſay that it were no ſin never to uſe this prayer, provided a man took it as the pattern of his prayer, how would Mr. D. ſtop their mouths, and prove them tranſgreſſors? In his Sermon p. 26. he brings the words Luke 11. When ye pray, ſay; and this place is commonly urged, but perhaps is not ſo ſtrong as ſome imagine it to be, at leaſt when managed as they manage it: for I ask, What is the meaning of, When ye pray, ſay? Is the meaning, When ye pray, ſay after this manner, or ſay theſe words? … but after this manner, then the ſword is not long enough to reach Mr. Ainſworth and his diſciples, for they pretend to ſay after that manner, (and not to conceal any part of the truth, the Syriack tranſlation in Luke requires it to be rendred, ſic, or ad hunc modum eſtote dicentes), but p. 103let the words mean, ſay theſe words, then I ask, Whether the words in St. Matthew, or St. Luke? If the words that occur in Luke, then we have no precept for the Doxology, as it is in Matthew. And really I have wondred what they meant, who were wont to ſay at the concluſion of their Pulpit-prayers, In his name and in his words we further pray, ſaying as he hath taught us; and yet had never ſatisfied themſelves, that the Doxology which they conſtantly in that caſe uſed was of our Lords own inditing. There is reaſon (ſaith Dr. Hammond) to believe that the words of Doxology came in out of the Greek Liturgies; and that the ancienteſt Greek Copies have them not, Pract. Cat. lib. 3. ſect. 2. Grotius had ſaid as much before. Thoſe who believe theſe two Learned men, had need alter the form of words with which they uſher in the Lords Prayer. 'Tis not ſafe to aſcribe to Chriſt any thing but what is his; but how ſhall a man know that the copies in which the Doxology is wanting, are the moſt ancient?

Eraſmus ſaith he found the Doxology in all the Greek Copies: Lucas Brugenſis, that it was in all the Greek Pariſian Copies but one. And if one look into the various readings collected in our late Polyglot Bibles, he ſhall find the Copies that want theſe words of Doxology, to be but few; wherefore Grotius hath got no credit by ſaying, Seeing that they are not extant in the moſt ancient Greek Copies, but are extant in the Syriack, Arabick, and Latin Context, we may learn not only that the Arabick and Latin Verſion, but alſo the Syriack, was made after that the Liturgy of the Churches was p. 104brought into a certain form. For the Doxology is not in ſome Arabick Verſions, not in that which is inſerted into the Polyglot Bibles. If the Syriack and Arabick (which Grotius ſaw) had put in the Doxology out of the Greek Liturgies, why did they not alſo put it in in the Goſpel of Luke? unleſs it could be made appear that the Greek Liturgies varied, I know not how he can anſwer this queſtion. Let me add this caution to young Scholars, that they be not too haſty to give credit to every Copy that ſome men magnifie. That Syriack Tranſlation which is followed in the New Teſtament in our Polyglot Bibles, if it were the ancienteſt, would be a good argument of the Antiquity of Feſtivals or Holy-days; but the Tranſlation which Immanuel Tremelius followed, for ought I know may be much ancienter; and in it there appeareth no ſuch diſtinction of days. To return to St. Luke, if his foreign import that we muſt uſe his very words in Greek, or words in our language as near as may be to his, then muſt we not follow our Liturgy; for though it ſometimes inſerts the Doxology, and ſometimes omits it, yet it never tranſlateth the Lords Prayer according to St. Luke; Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our treſpaſſes as we forgive them that treſpaſs againſt us; is not to tranſlate, but paraphraſe on St. Luke. It is a little odd, that in the whole Liturgy the Lords Prayer ſhould never be put in the ſame words that are uſed in all our Tranſlations of the Bibles that were authorized, whether new or old. Will Mr. D. ſay, If Chriſt bid us uſe theſe very words, that we may uſe other of like p. 105nature and import; and yet that if the Church bid us uſe her words, that we muſt uſe them and no other? The Browniſt will ſay the Church may well allow as much liberty as ſhe taketh. Beſides, what aſſurance can Mr. D. give the Browniſts what words the Lord Jeſus uſed when his diſciples deſired him to teach them how to pray? Grotius the great, ſaith, It is credible, that ſeveral things are thrown into the Greek copies of St. Luke, out of St. Matthew; and the things he ſuppoſeth to be thruſt in, are all that are left out of the old Latin copies; if ſo, the Lords Prayer muſt be made much ſhorter than ever it is made in our Liturgy; we muſt not ſay which art in heaven; nor thy will be done as in heaven, ſo on earth; nor, but deliver us from evil. The Browniſt hath not yet done with Mr. D. but will ask him how often he is bound to ſay the Lords Prayer by virtue of the foreign: p. 27. of his Sermon he tells them, that this and another reaſon by him there mentioned, obliged thoſe Proteſtants which follow the Auguſtane Confeſſion, and thoſe of the Reformed Churches of Holland. to ſay it ordinarily before and after meals, at the end of their Graces. Had theſe men reaſon to think themſelves obliged to this cuſtom? If they had, then is Mr. D. obliged alſo, and ſins every time he doth not uſe the Lords Prayer before and after meals: if it were their miſtake to think themſelves obliged, how will he give ſecurity that he is not miſtaken in counting himſelf obliged to ſay a Pater noſter every time that he bends his knee to God in prayer, either in the beginning, or middle, or end of his prayer? p. 106If he plead a command of Chriſt, as he doth in that Sermon, he muſt prove the quoties, which it will be hard for him to do; and if he talk of Chriſts ſanctifying a form with his own mouth, he muſt give us either the very words Chriſt ſpoke, or elſe a juſter tranſlation of them than any he will find in the Common-prayer-book.