The Nonconformists Vindicated, Letter (3 of 3)

The Nonconformists Vindicated · Letter (3 of 3)

p. 106Finally, If we have not received the grace of the Goſpel in vain, we muſt look on Chriſt as riſen from the dead, aſcended into heaven, confirmed the Univerſal Prieſt, Interceſſor, and Advocate; ſo could not the Diſciples look on him when Chriſt taught them to pray; which may be the reaſon why he told them, that hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name, Joh. 16.24. wherefore though it be lawful and expedient to uſe the Lords Prayer, as we commonly uſe it; and though the things to be prayed for, cannot be better ſummed up, or more briefly compriſed; yet vulgar people will be in great danger not to ſay the Lords Prayer in the Lords name; not to think of his merit and interceſſion, unleſs they have prayers ſo formed as to force them to a more diſtinct apprehenſion of Chriſts propitiation, than the Lords Prayer doth. Let it be obſerved whether the Doxologies made, or mentioned to be made after Chriſts aſcenſion into heaven, do not lead us diſtinctly and particularly to offer and aſcribe praiſe unto God, in the name of Chriſt, or by Chriſt; or unto God and the Lamb, or unto Chriſt, Epheſ. 3.2…. 1. Tim. 6.16. Rev. 5.13. The more pains that Dr. Lightfoot and others do take to ſhow us the Lords Prayer in the Jewiſh Liturgies, the more do they unawares p. 107ſtrengthen men in a perſuaſion that it was not intended to be a pattern to us to form our prayers unto, any more than as to the matter, or things to be prayed for. It cannot be that the Jewiſh and Chriſtian Liturgy ſhould not differ much in the manner of our addreſſes unto God: it will be hard to find the Holy One called the God and father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, or his God and our God, his father and our father, by any Jew; and yet no expreſſions more meet for the mouth of a Chriſtian.

I paſs to the third calumny in Mr. D.'s p. 144. Moſt of them wholly neglected the Lords Supper for many years. Neglect is when a Miniſter hath opportunity to adminiſter, and doth not adminiſter; Did moſt of the Presbyterians thus neglect the adminiſtration of the Euchariſt? Who doth not know that many of them adminiſtred it oftner than by the Liturgy is required? Hath Mr. D. never heard of their Aſſociations either printed or not printed, in order to the exerciſe of diſcipline? Doth not the Directory ſay, The Lords Supper is to be adminiſtred often? If any ſecluded any one from that Ordinance who was of an orderly life, and underſtood the firſt principles of the Oracles of God, he did it not from Presbyterian principles; but I remember that p. 44. he taxeth the Univerſities of this Kingdom, and ſaith, That the Ʋniverſity of Oxford had no Communion for above twelve years. Yet the Miniſters are known, who did frequently adminiſter the Communion in the Churches and Chappels of that Univerſity, in thoſe p. 108twelve years. But it may be he meant, that in twelve years time the Ʋniverſity as an Ʋniverſity had no Communion. To which I ſay, If that were a fault, it will not much concern the Presbyterians; for the four Vicechancellors of Oxford during thoſe twelve years, were not Presbyterians; and perhaps the Univerſity as an Univerſity, is not a Church: for if it be, who is Paſtor of it? or who hath power to cenſure thoſe who be diſorderly? Both Chancellor and Vicechancellor may be lay-men. The Communions appointed to be at St. Maries at the beginning of the Terms, were lately appointed, and the penalties appointed for thoſe who neglect to come to them, are not Eccleſiaſtical penalties, and I believe the twentieth part of the Univerſity never was at any one of them: was it meet to make ſuch a clamour about the omiſſion of them?

A fourth Calumny is, That in the Presbyterians Congregations, there was a great irreverence at prayer, very few kneeling, many not ſo much as pulling off their hats. Of this irreverence he ſaith he is an eye-witneſs. Was he not well employed the mean while? Could he find nothing elſe to do when in a Chriſtian Congregation, but only to tell how many kneeled, and who had their hats quite off, and who half off, and who never uncovered their head at all? In how many Congregations was he to make this obſervation? if (as is probable) but in a few, what unrighteouſneſs is it to meaſure all Congregations by a few? And is he ſure that the men whom he obſerved to be ſo irreverent, were Presbyterians? Why might they p. 109not be ſome of his own perſwaſion who did come to put an affront on Presbyterians Prayers? Either kneeling, or ſtanding Presbyterians commended to their people, and never practiſed (unleſs in caſe of infirmity) any other geſture in praying that ever I heard of, and yet I have made enquiry. But it was neceſſary that Mr. D. ſhould draw them like Devils or elſe he could not have made them abhorred.

Could a man but obtain leave of his conſcience to lay open the irreverence of the Epiſcopal Aſſemblies, what ſtories might he tell? More I am ſure than Mr. D. would be willing to hear. I believe there is not an honeſt heart but akes to conſider the rudeneſs of the admirers of our Liturgy in their addreſſes to God whether in the Church or in their own houſes. I ſpeak of the vulgar ſort of them; put on their Hats they do not, but they uſually ſit on their ſeats, at publick Prayer, and which is worſe ſtare up and down to ſee who comes in, and who goes out of the Church, if their Landlord chance to come in, in the midſt of their Devotion up they riſe and make their obeiſance. Follow them to their Houſes there you may obſerve them to truſs and pray, to waſh their Faces and to ſay their Prayers. I once met with an old man who had been bred up to Liturgies all his days, dealing with him about his Soul, I found he never prayed any thing at home but the Lords-Prayer, and that he never repeated that Prayer till he was firſt got into his bed, and he told me he thought no man in England uſed any other poſture in ſaying his Prayers. And I was p. 110told by a Miniſter whom I dare believe, that he hapned at an Inn, to lie in the ſame Chamber with a man of a good eſtate, who waking in the morning and thinking the Divine to be aſleep, gets out of his bed, takes his Doublet and Breeches, falls to dreſſing himſelf, but whileſt he dreſſed himſelf he ſaid the general confeſſion and the abſolution in the Common-Prayer-Book; when he was beginning the Lords-Prayer, then he took the Chamber-pot into his hand, and did it may be imagined what. Here's irreverence with a witneſs, I charge it not on Epiſcopacy, yet I may with a better conſcience than Mr. D. chargeth the not putting off of Hats at Prayer on Presbytery, or Presbyterian Nonconformiſts. He that would know what outward reverence they require in the worſhip of God, and upon what reaſons they build it, and how neceſſary they account it, and what thoughts they have of thoſe who uſe it not, may inform himſelf from Mr. Arthur Hilderſhams plain but very ſolid diſcourſe on the fourth of St. John. He that hath not the Book by him may find much quoted out of him by Dr. Nicholat Bernard in his diſcourſe of a ſet form of Prayer, Printed, 1659.

And now that I am fallen upon Mr. D's forty fourth page, it may not be amiſs to advert that he fears not to ſay, all the Reformed world over no man that is not a notorious ill-liver, is debarred from the Sacrament; what will he be afraid to ſay that fears not to ſay this? Is there no reformed Church that debars any but a notorious ill-liver from the Sacrament? Certainly it is not neceſſary p. 111that he who danceth ſhould be a notorious ill liver? and yet Mr. D. knows where any that can be proved to have danced, would be kept from the Sacrament. He that ſhould turn Pelagian may be no notorious ill-liver, yet ſuch a one would be kept from the Sacrament in moſt if not in all reformed Churches, ſo would he alſo that ſhould not be ſatisfied to bring his Child to Baptiſm; and yet I imagine ſuch a one need not be a notorious ill-liver. Suppoſe an Engliſh Proteſtant ſhould think it irreverence to receive the Sacrament not kneeling, ſuch a man if Mr. D. be to be believed cannot be admitted to the Sacrament in France, yet ſuch a one may lead a life not notoriouſly ſcandalous. By a Canon of our own Church, the communion is to be adminiſtred to none but ſuch as kneel, nor to any but ſuch as be preſent at publick Prayers, according to the orders of the Church, yet I know ſome ſuch who are far enough from being notorious ill livers. I am almoſt certain that there is ſcarce a reformed Church whoſe Principles and Rules of diſcipline do not debar ſuch from Sacramental communion as are no notorious ill livers, I wiſh I were as certain that no Reformed Churches did contrary to their own Rules of diſcipline, admit ſuch as are notorious ill-livers, then I ſhould promiſe my ſelf that Chriſt would with more delight walk among his golden Candleſticks.

P. 185. Whatever be the reaſon of it, Our Liturgy hath no other Enemies abroad where it is well known, but the Papiſts. This is an untruth as might be proved, by a thouſand inſtances. But p. 112let us ſee the occaſion of it, that we have in the ſame Page. The Magiſtrate of Paris his ſtopping the Printing and forbidding the publiſhing of the Engliſh Liturgy, (whereas that of Geneva is dayly Printed and ſold there) the reaſon he thinks could be no other, but a fear that it would be better liked by moſt Chriſtians, that have either judgment, learning or true piety, and are void of ſuperſtition, peeviſhneſs, extravagant zeal, and prophaneneſs, be they of what perſwaſion ſoever. This is not very charitable, all or moſt that are not either ſuperſtitious, peeviſh, extravagantly zealous, and prophane will better like the Engliſh than the Geneva Liturgy. If after this the French Miniſters do not Petition their King that they may exchange the Geneva for the Engliſh Liturgy, they know their doom.

Perhaps Mr. D. will plead that the French living in France, would be denied the uſe of the Engliſh Liturgy Tranſlated into their own Language though they ſhould deſire it. But what will he ſay to thoſe French Churches that are ſcattered up and down in this Nation, they are not ſure quite void of judgment, learning, true piety, yet it is known, that they when they might have had thanks from Archbiſhop Laud, if they would have received the Engliſh Liturgy for the French, which they had been accuſtomed to, did not care for receiving of it, but uſed all poſſible endeavours to keep themſelves in ſtatu quo. Dr. Heylin relates the Hiſtory of their wreſtlings againſt the introduction of our Liturgy among them, from him Mr. D. may take it at his leiſure. If I have not p. 113forgot ſince I read it, one argument made uſe of to keep the Metropolitan from preſſing them to Conformity, was drawn from the juſt fear there was, that by ſo rigorous calling for Uniformity, the Chriſtian King might be moved to perſecute his Proteſtant Subjects; for Cardinal Richlieu had given out ſuch a ſpeech, If the King of England being a Proteſtant will not ſuffer two diſciplines, why ſhould the King of France being a Papiſt ſuffer two Religions? A ſhrewd ſpeech and well to be thought on by any Metropolitan that ſhall go about to bring all foreign Churches to comply with our own, or elſe to diſſolve them.

I take no notice of the High commendations given of our Liturgy, by the noble Princeſs of Turenne, and the Dutcheſs of la Force her own Mother, he that will may ſee them Page 78, and 186. I only wiſh that if the Engliſh Liturgy be of ſo great force to edifie people in the Proteſtant Religion, it had been put into the hand of the Noble Marqueſs of Turenne to prevent his revolt to Popery, for it is ſaid that he is grown a Roman Catholick.

In his Sermon P. 20. He is not aſhamed to ſay that whoſoever hath devotion and leiſure enough to come to the Church, and be preſent at Divine Service every day morning and evening may hear the whole Bible read every Year, the old Teſtament once, and the new no leſs than thrice, and the Book of Pſalms no leſs than twelve times.

This can only be practiſed by thoſe who live near to Cathedrals, let us imagine that any ſo p. 114living, had devotion, and leiſure enough, to come to his mother Church, from the firſt of January, to the laſt of December, this man would not hear the whole Bible, neither the Old Teſtament once, nor the New Teſtament thrice. The Liturgy ſaith ſo, yet Mr. D. in a pang of zeal, dare ſay otherwiſe. Whether the Church do well to leave out 188 Chapters of the Old Teſtament, and to appoint 121 of the Apocrypha, is not the queſtion, we are on a matter of fact, and I ſay Mr. D. hath falſified in that, and will have no thanks for his falſification, the Church not deſiring him to lie for her ſake.

Another tale in P. 23. of his Sermon. It is required of the People that they repeat aloud the confeſſion of Sins, that they may be more ſenſibly affected therewith.

This is juſt like giving a reaſon why the Swan ſings juſt before her death whenas we know that ſhe doth not ſo ſing. The people are not required to repeat aloud the confeſſion of ſins, rather they are exhorted to repeat it with a ſubmiſs, or lowly voice. But now we are fallen on this word Loud, I would fain know what the meaning of it is. In the firſt Book of Edward the ſixth the Prieſt being in the Quire was appointed to begin the Divine Service with the Lords-Prayer, uſing a loud voice; in the late Liturgies he is appointed after the Abſolution, to begin it with a loud voice; in this laſt with an audible voice, the people kneeling and repeating it with him; in the Precatiuncles after the Creed, the Miniſter, Clarks, and People are ordered to ſay the Lords-Prayer with a loud p. 115voice, in former and later Books. But in K. Edward's firſt Book the people were not to ſpeak till deliver us from evil; at evening prayer t's appointed that the Miniſter ſhall kneel, and ſay the Lords-Prayer, the people kneeling, and repeating it with him, no mention being made of the kind of voice to be uſed, yet after the Creed at evening prayer, all are to ſay the Prayer with a loud voice. I never obſerved any Miniſter or people to ſpeak louder, in repeating the Lords Prayer at one time than at another, nor know I what is meant by a loud voice, or whether there be any difference betwixt it and an audible voice, nor if there be none, what's meant by an audible voice, for to whom muſt the peoples voice be audible, to thoſe that ſit next to them? or to the Miniſter? or to the whole congregation? Mr. D. doth converſe with great perſonages, and he knows the meaning of theſe terms.

P. 265. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth before the making of the Act of Uniformity, thoſe that did not love white, made a great noiſe within and without this land, and beſtirred themſelves on all ſides that they might be diſpenſed with for wearing the ſurplice. Among other means uſed by them to come to their ends, they applied themſelves to ſome in the reformed Churches beyond the Seas, and perſwaded them that if the ſurplice was impoſed, huge numbers of Miniſters, nay many of the Biſhops themſelves, would leave their Miniſtry. Whereupon the Prince Elector Palatine that then was, commanded Zanchius to write to the Queen, to diſſwade her Majeſty p. 116from impoſing the uſe of ſuch Veſtments, which he did accordingly; but the buſineſs not ſucceeding according to their deſires, and the Nonconformiſts giving out ſtill that there would be a great diſſipation in this Church by the deſertion of ſo many Biſhops and Miniſters, what did Zanchius thereupon, &c.

Such an Harangue of impertinence and falſhood have I ſeldom or never met with; and yet we are in the Margin directed to Zanchy's Epiſtle to Juel, as if thence all the materials of it had been fetched. In my books Zanchy's Letter to Juel bears date juſt the very day next to that written to Q. Eliz. ſo that in twenty four hours time the Nonconformiſts of England muſt know that a Letter came from heidelberg to London, was received by the Queen, and proved not effectual with her, and thereupon give out ſtories of Biſhops that would leave their Sees, and hope for another Addreſs to be made on their behalf; if ſo, they muſt needs have the Intelligences that move the Primum mobile for their Secretaries and Meſſengers. Zanchy's Letter to Juel I am ſure doth not in the leaſt intimate, that the Engliſh Nonconformiſts made any applications to ſome in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas; all that can thence be collected, is but this, that the June before he did write his Letter, one called Montius returned out of England, and told him beſides others, that a great difference was ſtirred up in the Engliſh Church about Veſtments, and therefore deſired him that he would by a Letter both admoniſh the Queen of her Office, and alſo write to thoſe Biſhops that were p. 117known to him, and eſpecially to Juel. Upon his and others entreaties, and his Princes command, Zanchy did write to the Queen a Letter, as he was confident, not evil, (which is to be ſeen) and not knowing what the Queen would do, he writes alſo to Juel, That he would by his Authority, Learning and Prudence, endeavour with the Biſhops not to leave their Sees, rather than wear linnen; yet ſo, that they muſt know that the Queen is inexorable; and alſo when they wear linne, make a proteſtation.

This Letter, 'tis like, never came to Juel's hands, he dying about twelve days after it was written. Nor need it trouble us, that Juel never ſaw it, ſeeing there was no Biſhop then in any danger to loſe his Place for not wearing linnen; nor can I think there is any one Miniſter now ſo much out of love with white, as rather to leave his Miniſtry, than put on a Surplice, provided he may but make lawful proteſtation how and on what accounts he uſeth it. Indeed the foreign of ſome Nonconformiſts in the late times was this, that they loved white too well; for their woollen clothes were white, or next to white; their locks were powdered with white powder, their white Halfſhirts were very viſible, to the great offence of ſome ſerious perſons both in Countrey and Univerſity. But let not Mr. D. rejoice becauſe ſome Nonconformiſts did thus habit themſelves; for theſe Nonconformiſts were not Presbyterians, but either inclined to ways of ſeparation, or elſe ſuch as had new…y laid by their Canonical dreſs, and were reſolved no longer to be called black-coats. p. 118Here therefore let me beſeech all who would not be deceived in reading our Hiſtories concerning the diſorderly carriages of Miniſters in the late times, well to conſider who they were that were ſo diſorderly; and if they find that any of them were of the old Nonconforming Presbyterians, I am much miſtaken: if they find none were ſuch, how unreaſonable is it to charge on Presbyterians the faults of ſuch as returned to Conformity ſo ſoon as His Majeſty required them; and left not off to conform till they could not keep their Conformity and Livings too?

Too too long I have been in detecting falſhoods, had it not been neceſſary to try whether I could put Mr. D. to ſome ſhame. I am now to ſhew you, as briefly as I can, in how many things he hath wronged his Munificent and Bountiful Mother of England.

P. 10. He takes pains to tell us of an Oath of Canonical obedience ſworn by Miniſters in Hungary to the Biſhop and to the Seniors: in the Oath he that ſwears, acknowledgeth himſelf to receive his Miniſtry from both Biſhop and Seniors. Theſe Seniors are but a more eminent ſort of Preſbyters, as his quotation p. 11. intimates. What is this but to bring in Hungary's witneſs againſt the ſole power of Order and Juriſdiction of the Engliſh Biſhops?

P. 12, 13. He relates a tedious ſtory of the fratres Bohemi, and the care that they took to preſerve a ſucceſſion of Miniſters. They ſent Michael Zambergius and two more to the poor Waldenſes (who never had a Biſhop among them but in title only) p. 119and two titular Biſhops, with ſome that had not ſo much as the title of Biſhops, made Zambergius and his two Collegues Biſhops, giving them power of Ordination. This is manifeſtly to put a weapon into the Presbyterians hands; they were wont only to quote the ſtory of Pelagius the Pope being ordained by a Presbyter with two Biſhops, now Mr. D. hath afforded them another Story, to prove that a Presbyter may lay hands on, and ordain Biſhops; Is this his kindneſs to the Prelates?

Another prejudice and miſchief he deſignes to the Church is as he tells us, Page 14. To ſet forth a Collection of the ſeveral Liturgies of all the Proteſtant Churches. This may pleaſe him, becauſe it is the brat of his own brain, but will not ſure pleaſe the Reverend Fathers of the Church. Doth he not know that Archbiſhop Laud did put a ſtop to the Letters Patents, for a Collection for the Palatinate, becauſe it was ſaid in them, that the Palatinate Religion, and ours was the ſame, and that Popery was an Antichriſtian yoke? Doth he not alſo know that when a Book was Publiſhed here in England intituled a Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Palſgraves Churches, Archbiſhop Laud took a courſe to call it in? I adviſe him, if he love his preferments, no more to meddle in this kind. Had Dr. Peter du Moulin any thing beſtowed on him ſince he anſwered Philanax Anglicus?

P. 45. He quotes Calvin ſaying that the cuſtom of diſtributing the Sacrament but thrice a year is vitious, and yet that is the cuſtom of our Church, p. 120and that not obſerved in all places neither, for the generality communicate but once a year, and ſo follow, if Mr. D. be in the right, the Devils invention.

P. 53. He ſaith by juſt and evident conſequence that there is not a wiſe underſtanding Chriſtian in our Church, for theſe are his words: That every national Church ought to have Ʋniformity within it ſelf, hath always been the judgment of all ſober Chriſtians: I aſſume, That every national Church ſhould have Ʋniformity within it ſelf, hath not been the judgment of the Church of England. I tremble for Mr. D's ſake to infer the concluſion. The Minor I prove from the Canons of 1640. where a difformity is allowed, and the Apoſtolical rule commended to diſſenters, not to judge, not to deſpiſe.

Follow him but to P. 93 and there you ſhall have him charging Rebellion and Schiſme on the major part of his Conforming brethren. For there he tells us of a great perſecution againſt all Miniſters who adhered to the King and Church of England during the late troubles, this perſecution was ſo gentle to ſome as only to plunder and turn them out of their livings, but caſt others out of the Land, or forced them to a voluntary exile. Thus therefore I argue:

All Miniſters that adhered to the King and Church, were either turned out of their livings or baniſhed, or left the Land.

The major part of the Conforming Miniſters did neither loſe their livings, nor were baniſhed, nor went into voluntary exile.

p. 121The… …re the major part of the Conforming Miniſters neither adhered to King, nor Church, and by juſt conſequence were Traitors and Schiſmaticks.

The Minor is as clear as the Sun, to all that obſerved the management of things in England, he that Licenſed Mr. D's Book had the ſame Fellowſhip in All Soules, at his Majeſties return, that he had at the decollation of his Father.

P. 95. He tells us, that he and ſome others were admitted to livings in France, the Synod deſiring them only to conform to their Rites, Ceremonies, and Orders, for the time they ſhould live amongſt them, (for a Nonconformiſt Miniſter is a thing unknown and never ſuffered in thoſe Churches.) This is nonſenſe to an Engliſh ear, for the Church may be full of Nonconformiſts if men are admitted into livings, being deſired only and not enjoyned to conform to Rites and Ceremonies and Orders. But he told us P. 54. All admitted to livings muſt ſubſcribe to the confeſſion of faith, wherefore we may think he ſubſcribed to the parity of Miniſters, and by an order paſſed at Charenton all are to ſwear they will propugne the Canons of the Synod of Dort, if that order be not reſcinded, then 'tis like he is under Oath to defend a Doctrine which moſt of the Fathers of this Church think, if not againſt our own Doctrine, yet ſubverſive of the Doctrine according to Godlineſs.

P. 96. He ſaith that it is a principle common to all reformed Churches in the World, That every national Church hath power to make Laws for her ſelf, in all ſuch outward things as are not either p. 122expreſly commanded, or forbidden in the word of God.

God forbid that any ſuch principle ſhould be maintained, by all or by any Reformed Church in the whole world. There are many outward as well as inward things not commanded nor forbidden expreſly, but only by juſt and neceſſary conſequence, about which the Church hath no power to make Laws to her ſelf any more than about thoſe things that are expreſly either commanded or forbidden, elſe there would be mad work in the World. Where doth Mr. D. find family Prayer, or infant Baptiſme, or the obſervation of the Lords days expreſly either forbidden or commanded in Gods word? He will ſay that the Church may make Laws about theſe, I grant ſhe may, but no other than what ſhe can make about things either commanded or forbidden expreſly. So that he wrongeth not only our own Church, but all Reformed Churches in affixing ſuch a principle to them. Dr. Heylin aſcribes to Calvin a quite contrary principle. Hiſt. of Presb. 238. That in carrying on the work of a Reformation, there is not any thing to be exacted, which is not warranted, and required by the word of God; that in ſuch caſes there is no Rule left for worldly wiſdom, for moderation and compliance, but all things to be ordered, as they are directed by his will revealed.

Page 241. He makes this Calvins rule, and Martyrs judgment to be grounded on it, That nothing ſhould be acted in a Reformation, which is not warranted expreſly in the word of God. Are p. 123Eaſt and Weſt more oppoſite than Dr. H. and Mr. D. yet neither truly repreſents the opinion of the Reformed. I beſeech thoſe who are at leiſure, and have well ſtudied the point, to ſtate plainly and clearly unto us the due matter of Eccleſiaſtical Laws, and to ſhow us the meaning of the term, indifferent, ſo frequently made uſe of in this Controverſy: for it ſeemeth ſomewhat an uncouth aſſertion that Church governors may command all things that are uſually called indifferent, for then many of their Laws would be very contemptible. The old definition of things Adiaphorous was, that they were things neither commanded, nor forbidden; this definition ſeemed to me innocent enough, but of late there are Divines ſprung up, that ſay, the higheſt acts of love to God are not commanded, neither I trow are they forbidden, muſt we call them then things indifferent? And hath the Church power to determine who ſhall put forth thoſe Acts, and how often they ſhall be put forth? It may be Mr. D. thinks the higheſt acts of love are commanded, (and ſo do I) but he had beſt not to be too forward in publiſhing that notion.

P. 99. He falls into an high commendation of the Bohemian Churches, as he doth alſo in many other Pages of his Book; this is little to the advantage of our Church; for if that Church be to be imitated, we muſt have lay Presbyters and lay Presbytereſſes alſo, Paſtors of Pariſhes muſt confirm, people muſt come under examination every time they receive the Sacrament, we muſt have no dancings, and we may have particular Synods p. 124without a Biſhop, if we communicate the acts thereof preſently to the abſent Biſhops, and we muſt have none brought into Communion but thoſe who are willing, and yet we here can by cenſures, if we pleaſe, make Papiſts communicate with us, or elſe have them excommunicated and clapt into Priſon.

P. 107. He gives the Presbyterians lame Cauſe a cruth. For he ſaith, God only hath power to bind the Conſcience immediately; ask him when mens Conſciences are bound immediately, he tells you, when humane Laws and Conſtitutions are thruſt upon men, as if they were Divine.

Here will the Presbyterian ſay, Epiſcopacy which is but an humane inſtitution, is thruſt on us as Divine, and not only as good and profitable; therefore unleſs we will give men juriſdiction over our conſciences, we cannot conform. Mr. D. cannot bring himſelf off here, but by maintaining that Epiſcopacy is a Divine inſtitution, and it would be too great impudence to ſay that in ſo ſaying he ſhould not contradict every reformed Church almoſt beſides our own.

P. 118. He mentions the ſending of a Printed Copy of the Acts of the Synod of Dort to King James, Prince Charles, Archbiſhop of Canterbury by Feſtus Hommius, this is to rub a ſore place, and to tell the World, that we who now ſuffer our Divines and Students to beſpatter that Synod, did once well approve of its deciſions.

P. 126. He mentions a Letter of Monſieur le Moine, out of which he ſaith he will ſet down as much as fits his preſent deſign: what doth he ſet p. 125down? Why Page 136. That the Engliſh have a natural fierceneſs, and withal a natural inclination to ſuperſtition. Is this for Mr. Durells deſign, to blaft the people of that nation where he hath been ſo highly preferred? Are we indeed fierce and ſuperſtitious? Naturally fierce, and naturally Superſtitious? What kind of ſuperſtition is it to which we are ſo naturally inclined, that ſo we may know how to enquire after the cure of ſo dangerous a diſeaſe? It is no matter if we may believe Mr. Moine to enquire further, let but Epiſcopal Authority be eſtabliſhed, that will keep us from going beyond our bounds. Very good, but by whom ſhall this Epiſcopal Authority be managed? By Engliſh men I hope, but how then can we be aſſured that their natural fierceneſs and inclination to ſuperſtition will not remain in them? We never could obſerve that a mans being conſtituted a Biſhop did make him leſs fierce or ſuperſtitious, any more than leſs an Engliſh man. Perhaps this Learned Predicant would have all our Divines come and ſtudy in France, that they may loſe their diſeaſe of ſuperſtition, as ſometimes they do their Conſumptions in ſo refined an Air, but that Plot will not take. He hath another argument for Epiſcopacy, it cannot enter into a rational mans imagination, that a great Kingdom ſhould come by cuſtom to be content to ſee its Biſhops no more, having honoured and reverenced them for the ſpace of 1400 Years. If this be ſo, then may the Biſhops be ſecure, we are ſo accuſtomed to love them, that we cannot be content to be without them, and have been a great Kingdom and honoured and p. 126reverenced them 1400 Years. Where may we that live in England find theſe things recorded concerning our ſelves? for the Hiſtories we read uſually, do not make us a great Kingdom, but many petty Kingdoms 1400 Years ago.

If ever any made their ungratefulneſs notorious, certainly they are the Engliſh oppoſers of Epiſcopacy, who will not conſider that they owe their Reformation to the care and zeal of their Biſhops, who did ſo wonderfully well repurge the Church of England an hundred years ago, and ſo happily ſet up the holy truth again, in its genuine luſtre. But this is not all they owe unto them: they owe them alſo their Chriſtianity. For whether it was brought over into England by Joſeph of Arimathea, or by Simon Cannaeus, or by St. Paul, or by St. Peter, or by Luke diſciple of Philip, or by Phaganus and Peruſianus, in the time of King Lucius, it is conſtant that it was done by the Miniſtry of Biſhops, and that they are endebted to their charity, zeal, and abilities, for the holy Reformation they now enjoy.

Do we indeed owe our late Reformation from Popery unto Biſhops? Wickliff the day-ſtar of our reformation, was no Biſhop; thoſe that ſuffered in King Henry the eighths time were no Biſhops: Cranmer when he firſt ſet himſelf to diſpute againſt the Marriage was no Biſhop, when under that King he obtained to be a Biſhop he had his hand in the blood of the Saints. Yet we honour his memory, for what he did towards Reformation in King Edward the ſixth's time, and for what he had p. 111begun to do in his fathers reign, we can eaſily forgive him his Petitioning the King for liberty for his ſiſter Mary, and his fierce oppoſition to Mr. Hooper; but we ſhould be againſt the truth, if we do not ſay, that our Reformation had been very imperfect, if not ſtrenuouſly promoted by the Presbyters and Nonconformiſts of that age. We muſt need ſay, that Cranmer did recant, and that Biſhop Ridly had begun in the Tower to go to Maſs, and left not off, till reclaimed by the Letter of his Nonconforming friend and Pupil Mr. John Bradford. Thoſe that leaſt loved ceremonies did leaſt love their lives when they were to loſe them for Chriſts ſake. I take no pleaſure in this compariſon, nor had I made it, but that Mr. D. aſcribes a ſtrange weakneſs to Mr. Hooper, and makes Peter Martyr to ſcruple a Cap becauſe it was too Mathematical. As for our firſt converſion from Paganiſme, Mr. Moine writes very ſtrangely about it.

P. 40. Elſe he would not ſaint Peter and Paul, and not Joſeph of Arimathea, nor Philip, nor Simon Cannaeus. Nor ſecondly would he have left out Ariſtobulus whom ſome have affirmed to Preach the Goſpel among us, and to be Biſhop of Britan, and to have ended his days in Britan, and inſtead of him put in Luke a diſciple of Philip: for what conſiderable Author ever aſcribed the firſt bringing of Chriſtianity among us unto Luke a diſciple of Philip? We have indeed a ſtory that St. Philip, (but whether the Apoſtle or Evangeliſt none can tell) ſent over twelve Preachers into Britan perhaps Mr. Moine hath met with ſome Autho, p. 112who tells him that one of their names was Luke, but the chief of them being Joſeph of Arimathea, as all agree, unto him we muſt aſcribe the work under God.

But he will ſcarce be proved to be a Biſhop, or to have left any Biſhop behind him. It may be in the reign of King Lucius we ſhall meet with Biſhops. The ſtory of him runs thus; That about the year 160 he began to have a good liking of Chriſtianity, being convinced by the Miracles he ſaw or heard to be wrought by the Chriſtians of that age. He had with him, Elvanus, and Medvinus two holy men, and well verſed in the Scripture whom he ſends to Eleutherius (or as ſome would have his name written Eleutherus) Biſhop of Rome, deſiring that by him he might be made a Chriſtian, that is Chriſtned or Baptized, for he is conceived to have believed with the heart before. Why did he ſend ſo far to procure Baptiſme? had he no Miniſters in that Iſland over a part of which he was an under King? Perhaps he had, but thought it more Royal to ſend to Rome for Miniſters; from Rome he had two ſent him, the Roman Martyrology calls them Fugatius, and Donatianus, alias Damianus, others write them Faganus and Derwianus or Dunianus, others Phaganus and Duvianus, (none I think Phaganus and Peruſianus but M. M. and D.) That either of theſe was a Biſhop there is no evidence, Maſon ſaith plainly, neither of them did ever attain that dignity. Elvanus ſome ſay was made a Biſhop, and Medvinus a Doctor or Presbyter. Hitherto we have but a Biſhop, no Biſhops, to whoſe zeal p. 113we are endebted for our Chriſtianity. And I am of opinion that as Elvanus was as much a Doctor as Medvinus, ſo Medvinus was as much a Biſhop as Elvanus, and that there never was Biſhop properly ſo called among us till Auſtin the Monk was ſent hither from Rome. The ſtories of 28 Biſhops made in the room of 28 Flamens, and 3 Archbiſhops made in the place of 3 Archflamens, ſeems to me as well as to Mr. Fuller, Flammes, and Archflammes. I know that at the Council of Ariminum, Sulpitius makes three Biſhops out of Britan, to be preſent, Anno 259. As alſo that Athanaſius ſpeaks of Britiſh Biſhops at the Council of Sardis, Anno 347. Nor will I deny that Reſtitutus Biſhop of London is reported to have ſubſcribed to the Council of Arles in France, Anno 314: but if he and others ſubſcribed to the determinations of that Synod, how comes it to paſs that the Churches to which they belonged did not account themſelves concerned to leave off their old, and almoſt ſingular way of obſerving Eaſter? ſurely it muſt be becauſe Biſhops were not then thought to have ſo much authority over their Churches as now they would be thought to have. When Auſtin the Monk had got entertainment in the Kingdom of the Mercians, and was made Archbiſhop of Canterbury, he calls a Council to be made up of Britiſh, and Saxons, and now if ever, we ſhall find what the Government Eccleſiaſtical of the Britiſh was, and pity it is we muſt fetch our account of it, only, or principally, from Bede, a venerable man indeed, but a Saxon, and profeſſed enemy to the Britiſh.

p. 114Two Meetings Auſtin and the Britiſh had: To the firſt came certain Biſhops, ſaith Bede, lib. 2. c. 2. but let his phraſe be obſerved, Epiſcopi, ſive Doctores being come, Auſtin layeth to their charge, That they practiſed many things contrary to the unity of the Church. But they continuing to prefer their own rites to thoſe that Auſtin would have commended to them, the crafty Archbiſhop perſwades them to refer the deciſion to God himſelf, but ſo that the Britiſh who were in poſſeſſion, muſt firſt try whether God would work a miracle in favour of their opinion; not being able to cure a blind man brought before them. Auſtin falls on his knees, praying the Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, that by reſtoring ſight to that one blind man, he would enlighten the eyes of many; and forthwith the blind was enabled to ſee. What was the effect? the Britiſh ought to have condemned themſelves for conſenting to tempt God; but if we may believe Bede, they acknowledge that Auſtin declared the way of righteouſneſs (as if the way of righteouſneſs had conſiſted in rites and ceremonies); but that they could not without the conſent and leave of theirs, depart from their old cuſtoms. It ſeems theſe Biſhops did not think that their conſent could conclude their Presbyters and people. Well, another meeting is agreed on, to which came no fewer than ſeven Biſhops and many very learned men, eſpecially out of the famous Monaſtry now called Bangor, but anciently Bancornaburgh; theſe, before they came to the place appointed, ask counſel of a wiſe and pious Anchoret, whether they had beſt deſert their Traditions upon p. 115the preaching of Auſtin: If he be a man of God, quoth this Counceller, then follow him; and if when you come into the room, he riſe up to you then take him to be a ſervant of Chriſt. Auſtin not riſing up to them when they came into the place of conference, they contradict him in every thing he propounded. In three things at laſt, ſaith Auſtin, if you will comply, I will bear with all other your diverſities; 1. You muſt celèbrate Eaſter as we do. 2. You muſt adminiſter Baptiſm according to the manner of the holy Roman Church. 3. You muſt preach with us the Goſpel to the Engliſh Nation. Of the many other things in which the Britans differed from the Romiſh, I conceive this was one, that they left both Ordination and Excommunication to a Presbyter as well as to a Biſhop. And this Auſtin would have tolerated. The reaſons of this my opinion are many, and probable, grounded on the Hiſtories of thoſe times; one I ſhall mention, viz. that the Scots were mingled with the Britiſh when they had theſe meetings; now that the Scots did originally commit acts of order and juriſdiction to Presbyters, is a thing well known; if any doubt concerning it, he may receive ſatisfaction from the large Preface of Mr. Selden to the Hiſtories publiſhed by Mr. Bee not twenty years ago. I am the more confident in this my opinion, becauſe I find that when our Britiſh Churches had throughly imbibed the Romiſh modes and cuſtoms, then at a Synod held at Celichyth A. D. 816. it was decreed, That none of the Scottiſh Nation ſhould be permitted to uſe the ſacred Miniſtry among us.

This was all I had intended about our old Britiſh p. 116Churches when loe there came to my hands the Hiſtory of Mr. Petry quoted by the Latin Apologiſt; that Hiſtorian goeth a little more confidently to work, than I have done; for thus ſaith he, Century 11. Pag. 282, 283.

As for England ſince the Saxons, or Engliſhes receiving the faith by Auguſtine, they had always Biſhops; for they had their Pattern from Rome as it was then: but if we look up to the Ancient Britans in that Land, we ſhall find it otherways. I have ſaid in Century 7. Chap. 4. that ſeven Biſhops and one Archbiſhop, came from the Britans unto Auguſtin: and there I followed the words of Biſhop Juel, in the defence of the Apology, Page 14. An. 1520. where he quoteth Bede, Hiſ. lib. 2. cap. 2. and in the ſame Page he quoteth Galfred, lib. 8. cap. 8. repeating the ſame words. What I wrote then upon truſt, I have afterwards examined: and I find that Bede ſpeaks not ſo: for in the Edition in Fol. Camb. An. 1643. he ſaith, Auſtin called the Biſhops or Doctors of the neareſt Province of the Britans; and in the ſame Page, he, ſpeaking of the ſame perſons, ſaith, a blind Engliſh Boy was brought unto the Prieſts of the Britans, and again they ſaid they would not depart from the Ancient Cuſtoms, without the conſent and licence, ſuorum. In the Margin it is ſaid, in the Saxon Language it is ſaid, without the permiſſion, and licence of their Nation. Then ſpeaking of their ſecond conference, he ſaith, then came ſeven Biſhops as they ſaid, and more very Learned men, eſpecially of that Famous Monaſtry, of which the p. 117Governour at that time was Dinooth. In a word, Beda hath not one word of an Archbiſhop; nor in all his Hiſtory nameth he one Biſhops-See, nor any Biſhops name: and whom he calleth Biſhops of Britan, he calleth them Doctors, or Teachers, and Prieſts, yea he calleth them oftner Prieſts; nor calleth he them ſimply Biſhops, as he calleth them ſimply Prieſts, but Biſhops, as they ſay, or Biſhops, or Teachers. Yet Beda could diſtinguiſh between a Biſhop and a Prieſt—What can be concluded from hence, but that no Biſhop or Prelate was among the Britans other than Prieſts? As for Galfrid, it is no marvail that he wrote according to the ſtile of his own time, that is the year 1150. The ſaid Author alſo quotes Gildas a Britan Presbyter diſtinguiſhing Church-men into Biſhops or Prieſts, and the Clerks, but naming no other degree of Churchmen, calling the firſt ſort ofteſt Sacerdotes ſimply, but never Epiſcopos, unleſs he adds ſive Sacerdotes.

What think I of all this? truly whatever I think, I will not ſay very much, for I have not by me either Juels Apology, or the Cambridg Edition of Bede, or Galfrid, or Gildas. Only thus much I may ſay, that if Gildas who lived before Auſtin was ſent to us, and Bede who was born as Thomas Stubbes computes but Anno 677. can give us no tidings of any Church Officers above Presbyters among the Britans, it will not ſignifie much that Jeffry Monmouth who lived but in King Stephens time makes mention of Biſhops. To put an end to this matter.

p. 1181. He who firſt converted this Iſland to Chriſtianity was no Biſhop.

2. Thoſe two whom Eleutherius ſent (upon the Petition of Lucius) to inſtruct us, were no Biſhops.

3. Auſtin himſelf and his aſſociates when they firſt attempted the converſion of the Mercian Saxons were no Biſhops but only Monks.

4. Wickliffe and his followers were no Biſhops, but being Presbyters were wont to ordain Presbyters.

5. No one Biſhop ever ſuffered death in England for ſtriving againſt Popery till Queen Maries Reign.

6. Of thoſe Biſhops who ſuffered in Queen Maries Reign the Nonconformiſts may lay claim to as many at leaſt as the Conformiſts can do, and perhaps there was not one Martyr in all her Reign that afferted the Jus divinum of Epiſcopacy. Now if all theſe things be true, what means the clamor of ingratitude againſt Presbyterians, for not owning thoſe to whom they owe the Nations Reformation from Popery yea and its Chriſtianity alſo? But let us view more of Mr. Moines Letter. Pag. 139. If the French had kept Biſhops, and as many Ceremonies as would ſerve to fix the attention of the people without ſuperſtition, they ſhould have ſeen for certain, far greater progreſs of Reformation, and the reſiſtance of a great many perſons overcome who are frighted from their communion by the irregularity of their government and the bareneſs of their ſervice. If this were certain I could wiſh that they had Biſhops and Ceremonies among them p. 129to morrow, but we in England have not been able to obſerve that the number of Papiſts is leſſened ſince the reſtitution of Biſhops and Ceremonies, nay ſince that ſome among us have fallen off to Popery who before profeſſed the Reformed Religion. It is not any form of Government, or external mode of worſhip, that muſt put the Papiſts to ſhame, but the exemplary lives of Miniſters and people who ſeparate from them. When men once feel in their hearts the power of Godlineſs, they are in no great danger to turn Roman Catholicks. He hath another conceit, P. 139, 140. that the not receiving of Epiſcopal Government, may hinder the much deſired union with the brethren that do follow the confeſſion of Auſpurg. In this I do vehemently diſſent from him, for the yielding to Epiſcopal government would rather alienate them from us. Tell them that the ordinations made by Luther are invalid becauſe he was but a mere Presbyter, or that as many of them as come over hither, muſt be reordained before they are capable of any Eccleſiaſtical preferment, unleſs they have been ordained by Biſhops properly ſo called, they will quickly let you ſee that no reconciliation is to be hoped for. I dare boldly ſay the generality of Presbyterians in England are againſt no Epiſcopacy but what the Lutherans themſelves abhor.

There are ſundry other things in Mr. Moines Letter for the which I could expoſe him, but I forbear, and deſire Engliſh men not to eſtimate him by this Letter, which is ſo interpolated that he need not own it as his. I undertake at any time to bring a credible witneſs, that ſhall ſwear, that p. 120Mr. Moine hath both by word of mouth, and alſo by Letter under his hand declared that his mind about Epiſcopacy is not truly repreſented by this Letter, as Printed by Mr. Durel, many things being left out that would as much have croſſed his deſign, as thoſe which he hath publiſhed, do further it.

I come now to the Aſſembly that Mr. Durell hath called to decide our controverſies for us, he will have Joannes Amos Comenius the only ſurviving Bohemian Biſhop permitted to ſpeak firſt, and the Presbyterians deſire nothing more, they have ſome of them tranſlated a great deal of his Book into Engliſh, they refuſe not to ſtand or fall by his Paraeneſis directed by name to the Church of England, when it ſeemed ſollicitous concerning the beſt form of Church Government. Had not Mr. D. picked and culled out of the writings of the Divines whom he quotes juſt ſo much as would ſerve his turn, he had manifeſtly betrayed the cauſe of thoſe who have preferred him, in the judgment of unintereſted men; he hath done it conſequentially by referring Scholars to the Books of the Authors themſelves. For let a man go to the Letter of Monſieur Bochart written to Dr. Morley, and there he ſhall find that Presbytery is Ancienter than Epiſcopacy. The Reader alſo is directed to go to a Letter of Monſieur Vauquelins to prove that he thought the Book of common prayer very far from Popery and Superſtition, Page 278. but if he go to Page 189. he ſhall find he ſaith only that there is not in the Book any formal ſuperſtition, which certainly is not to ſay it is very far from ſuperſtition.

p. 121I profeſs I know not any one Member of that Aſſembly Mr. D. would have called, that hath not in his writings ſaid more againſt the Church of England in the Controverſies now on foot than for it. Of Danaeus I have ſpoken before, and ſuppoſe Mr. D. will be willing enough to have him left out of the Synod; if he will not, let him at his leiſure read what he ſaith of Aerius in his Comment upon St. Auguſtine de Haereſibus. I ſhall enquire into the mind only of two or three more, and they ſhall be ſuch as I ſuppoſe he will have no quarrel againſt, becauſe they are Frenchmen, viz. Capell, Rivet, Caſaubon. Capell tells him his mind plainly, in his Theſes de divini verbi neceſſitate, Parag. 29. he ſaith, that there were by the Apoſtles themſelves inſtituted Churches, and in every one of them before their death, there was conſtituted by them a Colledge of Presbyters, by whoſe Labor, Miniſtry, and dayly Preaching, the Doctrine of the Goſpel might be propagated to the end of the World. In his Theſes about the vocation of Evangelical Miniſters, Parag. 11. The ordinary power of Preaching the Goſpel is that which by the Apoſtles is committed to their ſucceſſors, Presbyters being by them appointed in every City, in the Churches founded by them. In his Theſes de diverſis Miniſtrorum Evang. Ordinibus & gradibus, He vohemently contends that the Miniſtry was properly inſtituted by God to procure the eternal Salvation of men, and that the order of Presbyters alone may ſuffice to that end, and that the dignity and ſuperiority of Biſhops above Presbyters is meerly of humane conſtitution, and that there was no cauſe p. 122why the Biſhops and their Patrons ſhould ſo much on this cauſe and account, inſult and wax inſolent againſt thoſe whom invidiouſly they call Puritans, and Presbyterians. In his Theſes of the various Regiment of the Church, Parag. 15. He ſeverely cenſures the pompous mode of worſhip uſed in our Cathedrals, but Parag. 24. he ſaith plainly, that the Engliſh-men did not do unwiſely who threw the yoke of Epiſcopacy off their necks.

Ay, but in his Theſes about Liturgies he retracts what he had written about aboliſhing Hierarchical Government. Anſ. No man can ſee ſuch retractation but Mr. D. himſelf, who ſees by extramiſſion and not by intramiſſion, as we may obſerve, Page 193, 194. Had Capell intended any retractation he would have uſed plain words importing a revocation, or retractation of what he had before written, but he uſeth no words but what may well conſiſt with what he had before ſaid. When the ſame Capell comes to deliver his judgment about feſtivals, he even laughs at the reaſon or argument uſed by our great Hooker, to prove them by. But go we from Capell to Dr. Andrew Rivet, whoſe engagements and obligations to our Biſhops were perhaps greater, for that he was civilly treated by ſome of them, as he doth ſomewhere acknowledge; as alſo that at Oxford he had the Honorary degree of Doctor conferred on him. His judgment about Epiſcopacy we have ſeen before; about other things let him now have leave to ſpeak. Firſt, it is like enough that at the Univerſity be might obſerve that form of Oath, Ita me Deus adjuvet, & ſancta Dei Evangelia, p. 123whether that Oath ſtuck in his ſtomach or no, I cannot tell, but in his explication of the Decalogue, he puts this queſtion, What is to be thought of that cuſtom which obtaineth in ſome Churches that have in other things thrown off the Popiſh ſuperſtitions, that he that ſweareth ſhould touch the Holy Bibles, or the Goſpels, or ſome part thereof. And anſwereth, if the words be conceived as among the Papiſts, ſo God help me and theſe Holy Goſpels, I ſee not how the reliques of ſuperſtition can be excuſed. In the ſame explication of the Decalogue putting the queſtion concerning the Saints days obſerved here in England, he ſaith he cannot approve the judgment of thoſe who accuſe our Church of Idolatry on that account, but wiſheth withal the cuſtom were amended, becauſe of the peril of Idolatry. Juſt as our Presbyterians are accuſtomed to ſay. In his Comment on Exod. cap. 28. He handleth a queſtion about the ſpecial and peculiar veſtments of Miniſters, and hath theſe words. Whereas in England Miniſters put on linen veſtments, it were not to be indured, if they did this in imitation of the Jews, or for any myſtical ſignification. But how if they do it only for ſome diſtinction, yet ſtill we muſt be afraid of Gideons Ephod.

Of the novelty of Organical Muſick, he ſpeaks expreſly and largely, eſpecially in his Preface to his comment on Hoſea, and in his Catholicus Orthodoxus againſt Baily. Where alſo he may be ſeen decrying the obſervation of Lent if it pretend to be Apoſtolical. He is indeed a moſt profeſſed Champion of the Presbyterian cauſe in almoſt every thing under debate.

p. 124As for Iſaac Caſaubon he was indeed a very Learned Critick, and for ought I know a perſon truly pious. Mr. D. accounts him his own, and therefore in the very title Page of his Vindiciae brings in his teſtimony to the Church of England, out of an Epiſtle written to Claudius Salmaſius, Quod ſime conjectura non fallit, totius Reformatoinis pars integerrima eſt in Anglia, ubi cum ſtudio veritatis viget ſtudium antiquitatis.

Theſe words are indeed found in an Epiſtle written raptim haſtily, by Caſaubon to Salmaſius much about that time when ſome of our Biſhops had declared their approbation of ſome of Caſaubons Theological Eſſaies, which ſundry Divines both from Holland and France had diſliked. In this good mood Caſaubon commends the Engliſh for the ſtudy of Antiquity, but at other times he grievouſly complains to Thuanus and Heinſius that we encourage no ſtudy but Theology. In the 604 Epiſ. he asks what good could come of inſtructing his two ſons in learning. Medicina hic ſane non viget. Juriſprudentia illa vetus & vera plane jacet, vix de nomine paucis nota. Epiſtle 799. he intimates his deſign to ſend his ſon Merick to Heinſius, becauſe he deſired to have him well exerciſed in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and could not hope that ſhould be done in England. Is not the ſtudy of Antiquity like to be carried on well where a young man cannot he trained up to any eminent skill in Hebrew, Greek or Latin?

I ſuppoſe we had not in this laſt Epiſtle been ſo extremely undervalued, had not the learned man been exaſperated by Mr. Mountague, whoſe endeavours p. 125againſt Baronius, he judged very injurious to his own credit and reputation, as may be ſeen Epiſtle 717, 718. This may ſuffice to make us not to be proud of Caſaubons commendation; if I thought it not ſufficient, I could go near to prove, that Caſaubon judged men more or leſs ſtudious of antiquity, according as they were more or leſs zealous againſt the Arminians.

But I let paſs his ſynodical determinations, and come to his Sermon where I find him, Pag. 16. giving leave to Rome to rank our Reformers among the Contentious, if it can be found that either they have laid aſide, or taken up any one thing whereof it may be ſaid that the Holy Apoſtles, or Apoſtolick Churches had or had not ſuch a Cuſtom: he addes indeed, Rome was never able to do it, nor never ſhall. But ſhe knows well enough that ſhe can, for ſhe knows, that we have taken up Surplices which were not uſed by the Holy Apoſtles or any Apoſtolick Churches, and we give Baronies to our Biſhops which neither the Apoſtles nor any Apoſtolick Churches did, and we place our Baptiſteries in our Temples, which was done neither by Apoſtles nor Apoſtolical Churches. On the other ſide we have left off Unction, and Love-feaſts, and the Holy Kiſs, all which were uſed by the Apoſtles, and Apoſtolical Churches. So that Rome by Mr. D's careleſly worded propoſition hath leave to reckon our Reformers among contentious ones.

P. 17. He uſeth a plain Turkiſh Argument to confirm and uphold the cauſe of the Church, for he ſaith, that the miraculous manner whereby it hath pleaſed God to raiſe her up ought to be to all an evident p. 126proof that ſhe is her beloveds, and her beloved is hers, and an argument that her Reformation is certainly the work of God, and his Counſel which ſhall ſtand. Juſt thus the Papiſts were wont to prate when Popery was reſtored by Q. Mary, and juſt thus alſo did the Fanaticks argue when they were permitted by God to conquer three flouriſhing Kingdomes, and to put all the Nations round about into a pannick fear. Let us not be high minded, but rejoice in trembling. God hath pleaded with us by his ſtrange judgments ſince Epiſcopacy was re-eſtabliſhed among us, we have had a ſharp war, a dreadful fire, a ſweeping Peſtilence; I do not ſay becauſe Epiſcopacy is reſtored, but becauſe ſin doth abound, and prophaneſs runs like a river and mighty flowing ſtream; if we do not ſoundly humble our ſelves, God may ſoon take from us, his worſhip, our Miniſters, and all that Reformation in the which we glory, and yet his Counſel will ſtand nevertheleſs.

Pag. 22. He perfectly affronteth the expreſs words of our Church in the Liturgy, for there it is ſaid, that the commination of ſinners is uſed until the Primitive diſcipline of putting perſons convicted of notorious ſins to pennance at the beginning of Lent, and only until that diſcipline can be reſtored which is much to be wiſhed. But Mr. D. ſaith, there can be nothing more powerful to touch ſinners to the quick, and to draw them from their evil courſes, than the Commination to which the whole Congregation is bound to ſay Amen, after every particular denunciation of Gods curſe, upon all ſorts of ſinners who perſiſt in their ſins. And indeed it is meet he ſhould p. 127ſay ſo, for he had before given Rome leave to call us Contentious, if we had left off any cuſtom uſed in the Apoſtolick Churches, and we here do confeſs, that we have left off one that was very godly; indeed we ſay, it is to be wiſhed it were reſtored, but who hinders the reſtoring of it but our ſelves? Have other Churches power to enjoyn Penance, and have we none? Or will other people ſubmit to that diſcipline and not ours? Are not fornicators put to open pennance, and why may not other ſinners be ſo puniſhed too? But not to multiply interrogatories, the Church holds pennance would be more powerful than the form of commination ſhe uſeth; Mr. D. ſaith, nothing can be more powerful than the commination; he will ſure impoſe ſome pennance on himſelf for this boldneſs, and watch his Pen better for the time to come. Perhaps he will ſay his meaning was honeſt, and wholeſome, viz. that the form of Commination is very powerful to touch ſinners to the quick, if ſo, he may do well to conſider, 1. Whether it be conducible to tye Miniſters never to uſe it but on Aſhwedneſdays unleſs they have particular order from their Ordinaries, for why ſhould ſo powerful a preſervative againſt ſin be uſed but once a year, eſpecially ſeeing the uſe of it but once a year is found inſufficient to reclaim profaneneſs cum primis ſaluturis eſt caeremonia, ſed non video cur debeat exhiberi ſolum uno die, & non ſaepius, ſaid the Great Bucer when he ſaw it reſtrained by the firſt Book of K. Edward to one day, thereupon it was altered in following Liturgies to divers times in the year. Grindals Articles enjoyned it to be uſed on ſome Sunday near the three great feaſts of the Church, p. 128Eaſter, Pentecoſt, Chriſtmas, Aſhwedneſday not excluded, but now no day is allowed but Aſhwedneſday, unleſs there come an order from the Ordinary, which I have not heard that any Ordinary hath ſent ſince the return of his Majeſty. 2. What meaneth that mincing of the commination, Deut. 27.16. the Text ſaith, Curſed is he that ſetteth light by Father and Mother, we ſay Curſed is he that curſeth Father and Mother, what if any ſhould from this take occaſion to think that there is no great danger in ſetting light by Father and Mother, provided they do not riſe ſo high in their impiety as to curſe them, (an iniquity that I hope few are guilty of) and what meaneth that addition to the curſe of the man that maketh any carved or molten image, viz. to worſhip it. In the Text there is no ſuch addition, and the Church did afterwards in the laſt commination curſe the worſhippers of images though now it be changed into Idolaters. The very making of ſome images, viz. of God, the Trinity, &c. doth entitle to a curſe whether they be worſhipped or no, and what hurt were it if people were made to know ſo much. 3. Why have we no curſe againſt prophane ſwearing ſo common among us, nor any againſt Rebellion? The Scripture affordeth plenty of ſuch curſes.

But as the Comminations is now ordered, I can ſay Amen to it, taking Amen not only as it ſignifieth, ſo it is, but as it uſually ſignifieth ſo be it, ſo run the words in the Bible, Deut. 27. ſo alſo, Jer. 17.5. And he is unworthy to be continued a Church member, who is like to curſe himſelf by p. 129any ſuch imprecation, nor ſhall any man that ſo prayeth ſin againſt another that is guilty of thoſe ſins, for when we ſay Curſed is ſuch a ſinner, our meaning is if he continue, and whileſt he continueth ſuch, and with that reſtriction we may ſay curſed be, as I doubt not but the Iſraelites did as often as they uſed this ceremony appointed by God, ſo thought the Septuagint; elſe they would not have Tranſlated foreign.

The Lords-prayer few ſcruple to ſay, yet he that uſeth that form doth virtually curſe himſelf if he have any malice reigning in his heart.

P. 23. He ſaith we are appointed to be confirmed, to receive the bleſſing from our Paſtor (as if none were our Paſtor but a Biſhop) and he gives it with the Impoſition of hands, and with prayers, without Chriſme, or any ſuch ſuperſtitious or ſuperfluous Ceremony. What words are theſe? they do indeed directly only reflect on the ancient Church and our firſt Reformers, and the compilers of the firſt Liturgy of Edward the ſixth, by which chriſm was appointed at Baptiſm, though not that I find in Confirmation, by the Ancients I am ſure it was uſed in Confirmation; Mr. D. dare adventure to call it ſuperſtitious and ſuperfluous. But his words will by juſt conſequence reach the croſs in Baptiſm, uſed alſo in confirmation by the firſt Reformers, for why ſhould chriſme be accounted a ſuperſtitious and ſuperfluous Ceremony, rather than the croſs, the one is as Ancient as the other, and as innocent as the other, both were equally abuſed in Popery, of the two the Croſs may ſeem more ſuperfluous, for in Baptiſm, we p. 130have an outward rite ſignifying the ſame thing that the Croſs is pretended to ſignifie; but to ſignifie our unction by the Holy Ghoſt, which was in the firſt Liturgy prayed for, and ought ſtill to be prayed for, we have no outward rite at all; Nor do I fee why unction may not as well be uſed to certifie confirmed perſons of the unction from the Holy one, as impoſition of hands, to certifie them of Gods gracious favour and goodneſs towards them, which is made the end, in the Office of Confirmation.

P. 26. If the ſeveral repetitions of the Lords-prayer, which are to be found in our Liturgy, were made immediately one after another, or within a ſhort time, &c. I ſay upon ſuch an account we might juſtly be cenſured for uſing vain repetitions. This wounds the Liturgy ſorely if it do not ſtrike it to the very heart, for not to ſay that it doth appoint ſeveral Lords-prayers to be ſaid within a ſhort ſpace, (which may truly be ſaid) it manifeſtly appoints repetitions of gloria Patri within a ſhort ſpace, and this will bring us within the guilt of vain repetitions, unleſs a reaſon can be given why gloria Patri may be repeated within a ſhort ſpace, and Pater noſter may not, which reaſon Mr. D. will give ad Graecas Calendas.

Thus have I given you an account of Mr. D's Engliſh Book under four heads, and now you will expect to have my judgment as touching his Latin Book called vindiciae ſacrae Eccleſiae Anglicanae. I ſay firſt that I know not what he means by his Eccleſia Anglicana, doth he mean the company of true believers or good Chriſtians (really or reputatively p. 131ſo) in England? if he do, quis Lacedaemoniorum vituperat? why doth he make a vindication of that Church which none went about to accuſe? doth he mean by it the Biſhops of the ſeveral Dioceſſes in this Kingdom of England, 'tis like he cannot mean them, for they call themſelves the Sons of the Church, and we look on the Church as that to which the laſt complaint muſt be made, for ſo our Saviour directs, if thy Brother offend firſt tell him, then take with thee two or three, then tell the Church, now if any one ſhould injure a Biſhop (as for my part I judge Mr. D. hath grievouſly injured every one of them by dedicating ſuch a Volume of raileries to them) the Biſhop muſt firſt tell him by himſelf, and then take with him two or three, and if he regard not them, then he muſt tell the Church, that is himſelf if a Biſhop be the Church. 'Tis like by the Church he means the Church repreſentative, or Convocation, now there is a Canon, that denounceth an heavy penalty againſt thoſe, who deny the Convocation to be the Church of England by repreſentation, and I am fully reſolved not to come within the reach of that Canon, I love not excommengement. But if Mr. D. will take up the patronage of this Church Repreſentative, his beſt way had been firſt to prove that it is the Church Repreſentative, or elſe the Presbyterians will ſay that his whole diſcourſe is de non-ente.

Mr. Henry Jeanes had before he knew how things went in the world ſet forth a treatiſe (which it was my hap to read over) aſſerting the obligation that lay upon Engliſh Divines, to comply with p. 132the Church: but in his retractations and repentings, thus he recalls himſelf, I wonder upon what account I or any man elſe could think the Convocation to be the Church of England; if in any ſenſe it can be called the Church of England, it was becauſe it repreſented the Miniſtry of England, and that it did not, becauſe the far major part of it were Cathedral-men, Biſhops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, and ſuch as were choſen by the reſpective Chapters of each Cathedral: it might then be a Repreſentation of the Cathedral Miniſters, but not of the Miniſtry of England, and that I make good by two Parallels. The firſt ſhall be betwixt our Convocation, and the Council of Trent: many ſober and moderate Papiſts accuſed this to be a pack'd Aſſembly, a Repreſentation of, not the Catholick Church, but the Court of Rome, becauſe the greateſt part of it were of the Popes Faction, and depended wholly upon him: So the major part of our Convocations were of the Biſhops Faction, and minded chiefly the intereſt of Cathedrals: and therefore were not a Repreſentative of all the Miniſters in England. I ſhall exemplifie this by inſtancing in the Dioceſs of Bathe and Wells, wherein I lived: In this there were Members of the lower houſe of Convocation, one Dean, three Arch-Deacons, and one choſen by the Chapter of Wells: and to ballance theſe, there were but two Clarks choſen by the Miniſtry of the whole Dioceſs: Now what impartial man but will determine that theſe ſeven could be no due repreſentation of the Miniſters of the Dioceſs of Bathe and Wells, as long as five of p. 133them were Members of the Cathedral, in whoſe Election the Miniſters of the Dioceſs had no hand at all? A ſecond parallel ſhall be betwixt our Convocation and a civil Aſſembly, wherein we will ſuppoſe that the Prince chuſeth three hundred, who are his Courtiers, or elſe ſuch as have their dependance, either wholly, or in great part upon him, and the Nation chuſe only a hundred: you may call this Aſſembly a Parliament, or what you will; but ſurely no rational man can think it to be a repreſentation of the Nation, and as irrational, were it to call the Convocation a repreſentation of the Miniſters of England, ſeeing thoſe choſen by the Miniſters were an inconſiderable part of the Convocation. Mr. D. belongeth to a Cathedral, nay as report goes to ſeveral Cathedrals, and therefore he had done but a piece of gratitude, to vindicate the Church from the Arguments of a backſlider from Conformity. Well, let him mean what he will by his Holy Church of England, we are told that he himſelf is Presbyter of this Holy Church of England, and that is a ſtrange and very unuſual phraſe. Dr. Hammond, who deſerved well of the Hierarchy, in his Title page of his Diſſertations, calls himſelf, Presbyterum Anglicanum, and yet he was born in England, and ordained in England, and by an Engliſh Biſhop, John Durell was born in Jerſey, ordained in France, and by a Scotiſh Biſhop, and yet he calls himſelf Eccleſiae Anglicanae Presbyterum. I doubt if things were throughly ſearched into, he would appear to be no Engliſh Presbyter, for we admit no Presbyters, but thoſe who are canonically ordained, i. e. by a p. 134Biſhop; you'l ſay Mr. D. was ordained by a Biſhop, and he tells you the name of the Biſhop, and his title: I know he doth, but I ask who made him a Biſhop and a Presbyter? I much fear we ſhall find him one that was never ordained Presbyter but by Presbyters, or by thoſe who had been themſelves created Presbyters by meer Presbyters, though conſecrated in England by Biſhops; and if ſo, then vitium primae concoctionis, non corrigitur in ſecundá aut tertiâ. Let him well conſider this, and if occaſion be, get himſelf re-ordained by ſome Biſhop of Engliſh Blood and Ordination, elſe any one who envies him his preferments may chance to pick a hole in his coat. If he know not the Pedigree of the Scotiſh Biſhops, it is in brief thus. In the year 1610, King James ſent for Mr. John Spotſwood, Mr. Gawen Hamilton, Mr. Andrew Lamb into England, that an Epiſcopal Character might be imprinted on them; to that end he iſſued out a Commiſſion under the great Seal of England, to the Biſhops of London, Ely, Wells, and Rocheſter, requiring them to proceed to the Conſecration of three Scotch-men deſigned to be Biſhops, which Conſecration they did perform accordingly, Octob. 2…, 1610. But Biſhop Andrews moved a ſcruple how the perſons to be conſecrated, were capable of Epiſcopal Conſecration, ſeeing none of them had been formerly ordained Prieſts. Dr. Heylin tells us Hiſt. of Preſ. p. 387. The ſcruple was removed by Archbiſhop Bancroſt, alledging, that there was no ſuch neceſſity of receiving Prieſthood, but that Epiſcopal Conſecrations might be given without it; but he neither tells us the Objection nor Anſwer aright: p. 135the Objection was, That the three Scots could not be conſecrated Biſhops, becauſe they had never been made Presbyters, but by Presbyters; to which Bancroft replyed, That the Ordination of Presbyters by Presbyters was valid. But our preſent Biſhops are not of the ſame mind, and therefore before they would conſecrate Mr. James Sharp, they firſt ordained him Deacon, then Prieſt, and this they did not out of a pike or ſpleen againſt the man, but from judgement, conceiving he would not ordain others legitimè, unleſs he were ſo ordained; ſuch as are by him ordained are capable regularly of preferment among us, but ſo are not any of the former brood of men, that were ordained by Scotch Biſhops. This diſcourſe is only deſigned to keep Mr. D. from deſpiſing the Presbyterians too much, to which he would be tempted if he ſhould conceive himſelf to ſtand on a baſis as firm as ſome of his fellow Prebends. I adviſe him alſo not to be too forward to publiſh to the world how he hath let the Miniſters of forreign Churches, Preach in his Church at the Savoy, for doubtleſs it is againſt the Act of Uniformity to let them Preach, though but occaſionally in that Church, unleſs they have been ordained by ſome Biſhops, becauſe that Church at the Savoy hath ſubmitted to the Biſhop of London as Paſtor, and ſo hath not the immunities, that other French Churches may claim, and do claim.

As to the Book it ſelf, common fame ſpreads abroad, that an Anſwer in Latin is preparing for it. We muſt expect and ſee what kind of thing it will be; for we may well conceive it will diſcover Mr. p. 136D. to be John Lack-truth, John Lack-modeſty. Certain I am, there be School-boys in England, that can diſcover him to be no familiar of Priſcian; we lay-men can manifeſt that he had no regard to truth; and for modeſty, he doth all-along bid defiance to it. The Reverend Giſbert Voet, Profeſſor of Ʋtrecht, of eminent learning and piety, the only ſurviving member of the Synod of Dort, is with him but a pitiful fellow. He dares venture to cenſure Thomas Gataker, than whom England ſcarce ever had either a more exact Critick, or accompliſhed Divine. Nay, that you may ſee his pride to the full, he was not aſhamed to tell an Honourable perſon of this Nation, that one reaſon which moved him to fall upon Mr. Baxter was, becauſe the Latin Apologiſt for the Nonconformiſts, had repreſented him as no equal match for Mr. Baxter. Could you think it poſſible that Mr. D. ſhould conceit himſelf meet to cope with ſuch an Antagoniſt, whom the Reformed Divines (who can underſtand the language in which his books are written) admire; to whom Amyrald not long ſince ſent a Letter on purpoſe to let him know that he had never ſpoken contemptibly of him. Mr. Gaches is ſufficiently depredicated by Mr. D. as an Eloquent Preacher, and as one of the beſt men living His Letter to Mr. B. is printed; by that let the world make eſtimation of him: or if Mr. Gaches teſtimonial can be diſcredited, then let the Saints everlaſting reſt, the Treatiſe againſt Anabaptiſm, and whatever elſe he hath written, be read and meditated upon ſeriouſly, there will ſcarce be found a Divine in whom there was a more happy p. 137conjunction of eloquence and judgment, of holineſs and peaceableneſs. Not to detain you long, I ſhall make a few general animadverſion on the Book, and ſo put an end to theſe papers which are grown too big.

1. The Author of the Vindiciae egregiouſly violates the Act of Indempnity and Oblivion, that buried all former miſcarriages, he rakes them all out of the grave, as if he had no belief of the general judgment. If any Presbyterians made any application to ſuch as in the late times took upon them ſupreme authority, he ſcores that up as an argument againſt Presbytery. Could any Presbyterian be ſo vile as to imitate him, how eaſily might he tell him of a Primate of England, and Metropolitan, who took up arms in the cauſe of the two Houſes, and had a great ſum voted him for his good ſervice: Of a Conformiſt who was the prime Author of Jus Divinum regiminis Eccleſiaſtici: Of an Epiſcopal Divine now enjoying a good Living, who did write Politica Sacra & Civilia: Of ſundry dignified men who came into ſequeſtred places, and verſified in behalf of the Protector. The late Wars began when I was a Child, and were finiſhed before I was a man; but I have made the beſt enquiry that I could, and do find that ſundry of the moſt eminent Nonconformiſts were alway unſatisfied about the Parliaments War, and did not ſtick as occaſion was offered to declare their diſſatisfaction. I have found alſo, that the Divines moſt buſie to bring about the late unhappy and deplorable changes, were ſuch as had been of the moſt rigid Sect of the Conformiſts; Mr. Edwards p. 138in his Gangraena hath named ſome of them: I muſt not without leave from thoſe who ſit at the Stern, do ſo; but I profeſs I know not that Theologue who did either ſpeak or write for putting of the King to death, that had not been a Conformiſt before the Wars. The men now in place who loſt any thing for refuſing the Engagement, will be found to be very few; ſome will be ſound to come into the places of thoſe who were turned out for not engaging. Dr. Heylin himſelf (as hot as he is againſt thoſe who go by the name of Presbyterians) did Anno 1657. put forth his Eccleſia vindicata, much of ſuch a ſtrain as Mr. Durell's Vindiciae; in the general Preface to that Book, he addreſſeth himſelf to thoſe who were then in power, and pleads for the men of his perſwaſion, by this argument, That they lived ſo peaceably and inoffenſively in their ſeveral ſtations, as that they could not be reproached with any diſaffection to the then preſent Government in word or deed. Had ſome eminent man called a Presbyterian, ſaid ſo much for thoſe of his perſwaſion, what would Mr. D. have made of it? But the Reformed Religion may ſay, All theſe things are againſt me. Mr. D. makes the Principles of the Engliſh Presbyterians to lead to Rebellion. Dr. Owen long ſince equalized the Puritans beyond the ſeas, with the Jeſuits, in point of diſloyalty. Dr. Heylin in his Hiſtory of Presbyterians, hath driven the ſame nail further and deeper; nothing is wanting but ſome hot-headed fellow among the Proteſtants to lay Treaſon at the door of the Lutherans, and then the cry of the Romaniſts will be fulfilled. But ſtill the Engliſh p. 139Proteſtant will be white as ſnow; in vain is it ſo to think. The Parliament of England hath determined the matter of the Militia, and declared it unlawful on any account whatſoever to take up Arms againſt the King. Men will acquieſce in this Declaration, if not for Conſcience-ſake, yet at leaſt for fear. I know no Book put out ſince his Majeſties return, that hath aſſerted the lawfulneſs of ſubjects riſing againſt their Soveraign, but one ſet forth as Mr. Rich. Hookers, and dedicated with the reſt of his Works by Biſhop Gauden to the King himſelf. Mr. Iſaac Walton would have us think the Book is not his; and I wiſh he had brought better arguments to bring us to that perſwaſion. But I am ſure that Biſhop Bilſon hath left things upon record which may vye with any thing quoted out of Calvin or Beza, by Dr. Heylin.

2. This Vindex when he meets in the Apologiſt with that he dares not juſtifie, preſently puts it into his Catalogue of Legends, yet brings no probable arguments to prove it a Legend. The Apologiſt, whoever he was, ſeems to have written his Book under much bodily weakneſs, and hath pleaded for his brethren in Nonconformity rather honeſtly than fully; but as for the things that Mr. D. calls ſables, I my ſelf know many, if not all of them, to be true, and dare undertake to produce thoſe who will atteſt them upon oath; yet if I could meet with the Apologiſt handſomely, I would ſeverely rebuke him for putting ſome of them into print, for all truths are not to be publiſhed at all times. I remember I once heard him that is the reputed Author of the Apology, ſay in p. 140a Sermon, A man can ſcarce do a worſe office to the Church, than to render Paſtors deſpicable in the eyes of thoſe whom they are to govern.

3. This Vindex when he falls into the mention of any Controverſie that ſhould be debated by him, takes his heels, and runs away from it, and drops ſome queſtion about the which there was never any diſpute. Twenty and ten inſtances might be given of this kind; I only take notice of one; he hath a Chapter utris magis faverit Calvinus, &c. Whether Calvin moſt favoured the Schiſmatical Presbyterians, or Prelates? If this be to anſwer the Apologiſt, then let ſome one that replies, put a queſtion, Whether Calvin moſt favoured Arminian Prelates, or Presbyterians? What hath Schiſm to do in the Controverſie about Nonconformity? The greater part of Nonconformiſts cannot be guilty of Schiſm, except they were guilty of it in their mothers womb, or when they ſucked, or whilſt they were School-boys: for thus the caſe ſtood with them; they were by their Parents ſent to the Univerſity when Biſhops were inter non-entia, or inter non apparentia. By ſtudy they came to acquire thoſe gifts that were ſuppoſed to qualifie them for the Miniſtry; to the work of the Miniſtry they were ſeperated by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; yet many of them never declared diſlike of Epiſcopacy, nor opened their mouths againſt Ceremonies; never took the Covenant nor Engagement; were preſented to vacant Livings by the true and undoubted Patrons: By Gods bleſſing they added to the Church ſuch as ſhould be ſaved. His Majeſties p. 141return they defired ſo as none more; yet they muſt not be ſuffered to continue in an Eccleſiaſtical Benefice, unleſs they will ſubmit to a thing ſcarce ever heard of, Reordination. It may be their miſtake that they do not judge Ordination by Preſbyters to be a nullity; but what is this to Schiſm?

Obj. I may expect you will thus accoſt me: If Mr. D. be ſo eaſily maſtered, why do you not pay a debt of love you owe? why do you not write in Latin as once Mr. Nichols did in Engliſh, A Plea for the Innocent?

Reſp. Verily for this reaſon, becauſe I love not to have to do with thoſe, who when they are put to ſilence, know not how to be aſhamed; ſuch a one this Monſieur is; for not long ago he met with a Noble Gentleman of this Nation, who hearing him ſay, That all the Divines beyond ſeas condemned the Engliſh Nonconformiſts, told him plainly, That he knew it was not ſo; and that ſome in France looked on him as an apoſtate for complying ſo far as he had done; and when he replied, Theſe are only ſome unwiſe hot-headed men; the honourable perſon rejoined, Nay, they are worthy and well tempered Miniſters. Yet did not Mr. D. change the copy of his countenance. Is it poſſible then that I ſhould bring him to repentance? In a word, if you account Mr. D. an Author any way conſiderable, you have near you our old friend S. E. let him cull out of the Vindiciae what he eſteemeth moſt ſtrong, that do you ſend to me, if I do not by the firſt return of the Carrier ſend you a ſatisfactory anſwer (provided it p. 142be directed not againſt perſons, but the Cauſe) then account me a very vain-glorious animal. In the mean time liſten not to thoſe who are given to vain jangling, and falſe-witneſs bearing, but put on charity the bond of perfection, ſo ſhall an abundant entrance be adminiſtred unto you into that Kingdom, where there are no perverſe diſputers; to that Kingdom that we may be both brought, is the ſincere prayer of,

SIR, Your humble ſervant, W. B.