Castigations Given to John Durell, Text

Castigations Given to John Durell · Text

p. 1SIR,

I …ve of late ſo wholly addicted my ſelf to practical Theology, and taken ſo huge a pleaſure, in reading thoſe Authors that never eſpouſed the petty intereſt of the Times, that next to wiſhing for Mr. Durell's ſake, his Eriſtical volume had never been written, I wiſh for my own ſake you had never ſent it me, or at leaſt ſent it me under ſuch circumſtances, that I might have laid it down aſſoon as it had given me enough of it, i. e. as ſoon as I had read the Title page. Certainly if you had left me to pay the Stationer for it, if I had not returned it, it ſhould only have ſtood in my Library, to encreaſe the number of my Books: nor ſhould I have ever taken it down, unleſs when I take down Bonarſcius his Amphitheatrum, i. e. when I have a mind to diſcover unto my ſelf, or others, unto what a height of bitterneſs, corrupt nature, not reſtrained by Grace, will tranſport men even in controverſies relating to Religion; which of all others require to be managed with exemplary moderation and meekneſs: but p. 2ſeeing you have thought meet to be ſo bountiful as to beſtow a Book on me, which muſt needs coſt you ſundry ſhillings: and ſeeing you have deſired of me (for a requital of your coſt and charges) to throw away ſome time upon it, I ſhould be extreamly uncivil and unthankful, if I ſhould not beſtow a few hours in reading of it, or ſo much of it, as may be ſufficient to paſs a judgement upon the whole, the which yet I cannot ſo well do, until I have firſt given my cenſure of that Engliſh Treatiſe printed, 1662 the anſwering whereof in a Latin Apology for the Nonconformiſts, has produced theſe voluminous Vindiciae, and of that Treatiſe my cenſure in brief is this, that a Noncomformiſt cannot better ſecure himſelf againſt it, then by ſtanding at the mark, at the which its Author pretends to ſhoot all his Arrows; The controverſies betwixt Conformiſts and Non-Conformiſts being brought to their true State, it will appear that Mr. Durell either never knew them, or was afraid to come near them: To inſtance in a few particulars of many.

Several hundreds of Miniſters during the late diſtractions, were ordained by meer Presbyters, they only having courage enough to confer orders publickly, and ſolemnly with Faſting, Prayer and impoſition of hands: None p. 3of theſe would the Biſhops admit to Eccleſiaſtical employment, unleſs they would ſubmit to be re-ordained with and by that very form of Ordination, which is uſed for the Tranſlating of Laicks into the ſtate of Clergymen: Here two Queſtions ariſe, firſt, Whether a valid Ordination may be repeated? and that the far greater part as well of Conformiſts, as Non-Conformiſts deny: the ſecond therefore and only remaining Queſtion is, Whether an Ordination by meer Presbyters be valid? if it be not, we nullifie the moſt famous Churches beyond the Seas, whom God has ſo remarkably owned and ſupported amid all the troubles and perſecutions of their Popiſh Adverſaries; if it be valid, then by the judgement even of the very Conformiſts, no other Ordination can be received: Mr. Durell was unwilling to annihilate thoſe Churches in which he was baptized, and yet was as unwilling to juſtifie the Engliſh Presbyterians in not ſubmitting to Reordination, and therefore wiſely paſſed over theſe Queſtions in ſilence; but being by the Latin Apologiſt reprove for omitting ſo Capital a controverſie, he grows more hardy, and adventures to affirm the Caſe of the Presbyterians beyond the Sea, and thoſe in England, is not the ſame: becauſe among them there are no Biſhops, as among ours there p. 4were, and ſo they are defended by neceſſity, which ours cannnot plead. How much better had it been to have left this ſore naked and expoſed to the Eyes of all, than to have uſed a Plaiſter that can neither Cure, nor cover it? Is the Caſe of Tranſmarine and Engliſh Presbyterians ſo vaſtly different? Why is the ſame hard meaſure meeted out to both? How comes it to paſs, that if a man ordained at Rome, could obtain leave of himſelf to aſſent and conſent, he were capable of the higheſt Eccleſiaſtical dignities: but if a man were ordained at Geneva, the moſt unfeigned aſſent and conſent will not qualify him for Eccleſiaſtical dignities, unleſs he will alſo receive new Orders. Was it ſo from the beginning either of our firſt or ſecond Reformations? were any of thoſe, that either in the perſecutions of King Henry the eight, or Queen Mary, fled beyond the Seas, and received orders in reformed Churches, looked upon at their return as meer Lay-men? our Hiſtories tell us they were not: nor would the right Reverend and Learned Biſhop Morton ſo far ſcandalize the Neighbour Churches, as to re-ordain one of their Miniſters, though ſtrongly importuned ſo to do, by a Letter of the diſſembling Archbiſhop of Spalato. Nor could Biſhop Báncroft be induced to give way, that the Scotch Divines ſhould firſt be made Prieſts before p. 5they were Biſhops, although it was alleadged that they had never been made Prieſts, but by Presbyters. So as this cuſtom of Presbyterifying de novo thoſe that before had received the gift of Presbytery, muſt needs be an innovation here in England: of the which I wiſh I could give a more fair and plauſible account unto Forreigners, then for the preſent I am able; For it would greatly diſhearten thoſe renowned Miniſters abroad, who live under a King of a different Religion from them, to come over to our Nation for a Sanctuary, if they muſt when come hither, break the Seal that God hath ſet to their Miniſtry, before they be admitted to any cure of Souls.

2. I ſay this pretended difference is no difference at all, for what though there were Biſhops in England, yet did they not appear to magnifie their offices And it hath been wont to be accounted the ſame thing not to be, and not to appear: and if they had appeared, their appearance might perhaps make thoſe Presbyters who gave orders without them Schiſmaticks, it could not poſſible make their orders null: for as formerly where our Church thought that Baptiſme adminiſtred by a Midwife was valid, and allowed and enjoyned her in Caſe of neceſſity to baptize, the Midwife had offended, if ſhe had baptized where there was no true neceſſity; yet this p. 6offence notwithſtanding, her baptiſme would have been reputed valid: ſo here, if our Presbyters could confer a valid Ordination, when Biſhops were not at hand, their Ordination muſt needs be valid, though Biſhops were at hand; & therefore all the duſt that is raiſed by Mr. D. to ſhew ſome difference between the Presbyters of our own and other Churches, could be deſigned to no other end, but to blind his own and his Readers Eyes, that ſo no notice might be taken how he got off this controverſie: it may be he may come nearer the mark in the point of Epiſcopacy it ſelf, but of that alſo we ſhall find that his Arrows fall Heavenly wide: For the Non-Conformiſt has again and again profeſſed in conference and writing, that he can and would for peaceſake receive a Biſhop, that ſhould have as great a ſuperintendence over Presbyters as ever Cyprian had over his, but they ſay that by aſſenting and conſenting to the preſent Book of Ordination, they muſt acknowledge a Biſhop to be by divine Inſtitution, of a ſuperiour order to a Presbyter; and for this they ſay they can find no Foundation in Scripture, and leſs then none in any writings of modern reformed Divines: If they are miſtaken either in ſetting our Biſhops higher then they have ſet themſelves, or in making a Biſhop when ſet to ſuch a heighth, to be an p. 7Officer unknown to Primitive or Modern Churches, Mr. Durell had done a very Chriſtian work: if he had taken pains in the Spirit of meekneſs, to ſhew them their miſtake: but he cannot ſure think that he hath endeavoured any ſuch thing: He tells us page 4th. and the 5th. that all the Lutheran Churches have a ſubordination of Paſtours, and that thoſe who are in them called Superintendents, or Biſhops, have the power of Ordination as the Biſhops of the Church of England have.

But does he believe what he himſelf writes? does he not know that they all found their Superintendency on a human and not on a divine inſtitution? does he not know that ſome Lutheran Divines of eminent note, do with full mouth declaim againſt us here in England, becauſe we ſo much appropriate the power of Ordination unto Biſhops? Tobias Major I am ſure on this very ſcore calls us Angli Papizantes: let all Scholars conſult Chemnitius, Gerard, Brockmand, or any other Lutheran that writes common places, or if they be too many to conſult, let them conſult Hunnius's demonſtration of the Lutheran Miniſtry, in which they ſhall find him, though himſelf a Superintendent, making a Biſhop in Ordination to act only as the Churches inſtrument; and averring, that if the Church ſhould delegate p. 8her power to a Presbyter, or to a Layman, the Ordination would be as valid, as if performed by a Biſhop. The Non-Conformiſts have no quarrel againſt the name, either of Superintendent or Biſhop, nor will it be any ſatisfaction to them, to ſhew them Eccleſiaſtical Perſons in the Lutheran Churches, dignified by the name of Superintendents or Epiſcopi, unleſs it could alſo be ſhewed, that they claim that dignity by divine right, and are received by the Elders, as an Order of men ſuperiour to them: the which will never be ſhewed: nay it will eaſily be proved, that meer Presbyters have ordained thoſe who in Germany and Denmark go by the name of Biſhops and Super-intendents: Nicholas, Amsdorft, as appears in his Life written by Melchior Adam, was created Biſhop; but by whom was he created? by Martin Luther the Paſtour of the place where the Ordination was ſolemnized, and two Paſtours more. Now did theſe ſet this Biſhop into an order ſuperiour to their own? if they did, who gave them authority ſo to do? if they did not, then his Title notwithſtanding he was ſtill of the Order of Presbyters, and thoſe that were afterwards ordained by him, were ordained but by a Presbyter. Likewiſe in Denmark when Reformation there firſt began, ſeven Biſhops of the Kingdome being caſt out, p. 9there were ſeven Super-intendents ordained, who were to do the work of the expelled Biſhops, and to be Executors of the whole Eccleſiaſtical Ordination; but by whom were theſe ſeven ordained? even by John Bugenhagh, who was but a Presbyter, as may be ſeen in his Life, written by the forementioned Author; ſo that ſuch Epiſcopacy as is ſcrupled by the Engliſh Non-Conformiſt, has no place in any Lutheran Churches: and if not in the Lutheran, I am ſure not in the reformed Churches.

Yet Mr. Durell in many places of his Book, makes ſhew as if the Epiſcopacy quarrelled againſt here in England, had place in ſome reformed Churches, and that thoſe very Churches among whoſe Miniſters there is an equality, do not condemn Epiſcopal Government: the French Churches he is certain page 13. are ſo far from averſeneſs to it, that they rather wiſh they were in a condition to enjoy that ſacred order.

Now what means he by that ſacred Order? if he do not mean an Order by Divine appointment, ſuperiour to the order of Presbytery, he doth moſt egregiouſly trifle; If he do mean ſuch an Order, I ſay that as many French Divines as do deſire ſuch an Order, are manifeſtly fallen off from the confeſſion exhibited to Charles 9th. 1561. the 30th. Article whereof is this.

p. 10We believe that all true Paſtours in what place ſo ever they are ſet, are all endued with the ſame and equal power among themſelves, under that one head and chief and ſole univerſal Biſhop Jeſus Chriſt. And if any Miniſters of the Belgick Churches do either deſire or could approve of the Engliſh Hierarchy, they alſo muſt fall off from the Belgick Confeſſion, which in the Synod of Dort was reviewed and approved: for if that Confeſſion, had no inimicous aſpect upon the Church Government in Britain, why did our Divines of England approve only that part of it, which related to Doctrine, not that which related to Diſcipline?

Our Prelates and their Friends in England do very much build their Hierarchy upon Ignatius his Epiſtles. If the French Churches did not diſlike the building, why do the moſt Learned of them take ſo much pains to ruine and pull up the Foundation? why have Blondel, Salmaſius, Dally, ſo long employed their Pens to prove the Epiſtles even in the beſt Edition to be ſpurious; I know Mr. Durell tells a ſtory concerning Blondel, that in his Apology for the opinion of Hierom, he had inſerted a paſſage, which ſome Scotch Miniſters prevailed with him to blot out: in which he declares himſelf to be no Enemy unto Primitive Epiſcopacy: if that be true, he did not p. 11ſure think our Epiſcopacy to be Primitive, for Doctor Hammond in his Anſwer to Blondel complains of him, as if he were ſo far from being touched with any care of our Church, or ſenſe of our miſeries, that he thought meet contrarily more ſharply to prick thoſe that were already oppreſſed, and endeavoured to triumph over our Church when it was ſick and ſtaggering, and ready by reaſon of inward troubles to give up the Ghoſt; let Mr. Durell now conſider, whether he will make his Countryman Blondell an Enemy to our Hierarchy, or make our Countryman Dr. Hammond a Calumniatour; one of the two he muſt unavoidably do: And for the future let him bethink himſelf how to wipe off that great and black blot, which he hath let fall upon ſome of the beſt and moſt obedient of the Sons of the Church of England, page 2. viz. that they weakly ſuffered themſelves to be brought into a bad and falſe opinion of the Tranſmarine reformed Churches, mee…ly by the reports given them by the new Presbyterians.

For certainly it is little to their credit, when they had the Confeſſions and Symbolical Books of the reformed Churches in their Libraries, never to conſult them, but to take up reports concerning their Neighbours, from Men, whoſe intereſt did lead them to make the world believe, that they had a many Friends abroad, p. 12though but few at home. Doubtleſs our Epiſcopal Divines knew well enough, that the Hierarchy they aimed at was not countenanced by Siſter-Churches; and long before Smectymnuus was heard of, or ever ſuch a creature as an Ordinance of Lords and Commons ſaw the light, one among us had ſaid publickly, perfecto odio odi. Calvinum: and Biſhop Laud had inured his tongue to ſay Eccleſia Romana, and Turba Genevenſis: he had alſo told Biſhop Hall, that though he did well to put a difference betwixt the Scottiſh and other Churches, yet he had written more favourably even of other Churches, than their cauſe would then bare; and the good cauſe then in hand did work ſo powerfully even upon the Holy and Learned Biſhop Hall himſelf, that he adventured, as Mr. Prin tells us, to reordain Mr. John Dury, though he had been before ordained in ſome Reformed Church. Such an Epiſcopacy as was claimed by Arch-biſhop Cranmer, the far greater part at leaſt of preſent Non-Conformiſts could admit but ſuch an Epiſcopacy as Arch-biſhop Laud was introducing they cannot yet digeſt, and that is the Epiſcopacy that the preſent book of Ordination, if aſſented and conſented unto, would engage us in: and let it not ſeem ſtrange that the preſent Non-Conformiſts ſtartle at it, when as Dr. Holland the p. 13Kings profeſſour of Divinity in Oxford, was ſo much offended with Dr. Laud for aſſerting it, that he did not ſtick to affirm he was a Schiſmatick, and went about to make a Diviſion betwixt the Engliſh and other Reformed Churches: yet though the Non-Conformiſts do not like ſuch a kind of Hierarchy, they will if they conſult the peace of their Conſciences, uſe no ſuch incivil language againſt it as ſome of Mr. Durells Countrymen have done: they will not be ſo uncivil as to call Dr. Hammond Knave, which is the Engliſh to Salmaſius his Nebulo: they will not ſay as Mareſius does in his Examen of Dr. Prideaux his four Queſtions, pag. 1. That Dr. Hammond as proceeded to ſuch a degree of fury, as profeſſedly to propugne the cauſe of the Pope. Much leſs will they ſay that the Engliſh Biſhops had better conſulted their eminence, if they had acted more moderately in it, and had rather with the reſt of Proteſtants made it to be of humane inſtitution, than ſo ſtifly to aſſert the jus divinum of it: for as a bow by too much bending of it is broken, ſo they too much ſtretching their Authority and dignity fell, quite from it, like the Camel in the Fable, who becauſe he affected horns loſt his ears, pag. 68. leaſt of all will they ſay, as the ſame Author ſays pag. 71. (which I tremble to Engliſh) Praeſules p. 14Angli ex parte collimarunt ad Papiſmi reſtitutionem jure poſtliminii: and pag. 111. Ʋt dicam quod res est, haec defenſio temporalis Jurisdictionis pro Eccleſiae Miniſtris portio aliqua eſt illius fermenti Papiſtici quo Hierarchiae Anglicanae maſſa paulatim ſe infici paſſa fuit, dum magis ambit Typhum Seculi, quam humilitatem Crucis meditatur.

To conclude all, when the Learned Gataker was moſt bitterly railed upon by Lilly for being a Presbyterian, he anſwers in his Apology, pag. 24. A duly bounded and well regulated Prelacy, joyned with a Presbytery, wherein one as Preſident, Superintendent, Moderator (term him what you pleaſe) whether Annual or Occaſional, or more conſtant and continual, either in regard of years or parts, or both jointly, hath ſome preheminence above the reſt, yet ſo, as that he do nothing without joint conſent of the reſt: Such a Prelacy I never durſt, nor yet dare condemn. The like he ſays for divers others, if not the greater part of the Aſſembly, pag. 26. And the ſame dare I adventure to ſay, in reference to the far greater part of the preſent ſuffering Miniſters; nay I may further undertake for them, that if any one ſhould publiſh in print, that the difference betwixt a Biſhop and Presbyter is by divine inſtitution, they would not think themſelves p. 15any way concerned to have ſuch a one ſuſpended from his Miniſtry: yet if my memory greatly fail me not, Mounſieur Peter Moulin in his firſt Epiſtle to Biſhop Andrews, making Apology for ſome paſſages in his Tract of the Vocation of Paſtors, excepted againſt by K. James, uſeth theſe or the like words; That if he had made the difference betwixt a Biſhop and Presbyter to be founded on a divine Law, his own Churches would have inflicted Eccleſiaſtical cenſures upon him.

It will concern Mr. Durell highly, either to prove that Moulin wronged his own Churches, or that they have abated of their zeal againſt Epiſcopy; for if he prove neither of theſe, he will loſe (that which is better then all his Eccleſiaſtical revenues) a good name, and when his hand is in at this work, he may alſo do well to take Biſhop Mountague to task, who in his appeal to Caeſar by his Majeſties ſpecial direction and command peruſed by Dr. White, and approved as fit to be Printed, ſays p. 70. That the Diſcipline of the Church of England in the Synod of Dort, and other Dutch Synods is held unlawful.

If it be held unlawful in the Synod of Dort, it may be preſumed it was held unlawful by almoſt all other Reformed Churches; for, almoſt all ſent thither their Delegates: and theſe Delegates approved the confeſſion of p. 16Faith, in which onelyonly the Diſcipline of our Church can be thought to be condemned. Now let Mr. Durell bid his zeal awake, for certainly Hannibal eſt ad portas: either he or Biſhop Mountague will be found falſe witneſſes againſt the Reformed Churches, I will not determine whither muſt be branded for a Caluminator. Biſhop Carleton hath written an examination of Mountagues appeal, And pag. 111. gives us to underſtand, That inſtead of yielding his conſent to that ſtrange conceit of the parity of Miniſters to be inſtituted by Chriſt, which was inſerted into the Belgick Confeſſion; he openly proteſted his diſſent thereunto: And I believe that ſuch proteſtation was by him made in his own name, and the name of thoſe ſent out of England with him. But I would willingly be ſatisfied, why the Divines of other Churches did not make ſuch proteſtation alſo? Did they think the parity of Miniſters a ſtrange conceit? If they did not, down falls the whole ſtructure of Mr. Durells Book: if they did, why did they enter no diſſent to this ſtrange conceit? And I would alſo be ſatisfied, what might move our Reverend and Learned Carleton to ſay, That the cauſe of all the troubles in the Belgick Church was this, That they had not Biſhops amongſt them, who by their Authority might repreſs thoſe p. 17who brought in novelties. Sure I am, that not long after the ſitting of that Synod, the Arminian novelties were broached to purpoſe in England, and yet we who wanted not Biſhops, either would not, or could not, repreſs the broachers of them. This Reverend Prelate was Dioceſan to Mr. Mountague, who made it his buſineſs to infect us with Arminianiſm: If his Epiſcopal power were ſo ſoveraign an Antidote againſt the ſpreading of this infection, why did he never make uſe of it? or how came it to have ſo little ſucceſs? Oh that it were not too manifeſt, that errours may grow in a Reformed Church where Hierarchy is eſtabliſhed.

I have one thing more to add which it may not be amiſs here to relate. The Miniſters of the Palatinate being brought into a great deal of diſtreſs, his late Majeſty thought meet under the Broad Seal, to grant them a Collection here in England for their Relief. The Letters Patents being Sealed, Archbiſhop Laud thought meet to have an Alteration made, in the form of the Letters, and obtained of the King to have it made. It had been ſaid, that the Miniſters extream miſeries fell upon them for their ſincerity and conſtancy in the true Religion, which we together with them profeſs, and becauſe they would not ſubmit themſelves to the Antichriſtian yoke: our moſt Reverend p. 18Primate thought not meet to have Popery call'd the Antichriſtian Yoke, though it had been ſo called here in England by Perſons as great as himſelf. Nor did it reliſh with him, that the Religion of the Palatinate Churches ſhould be called the ſame with ours. Dr. Heylin in the Hiſtory of his Life, pag. 306. gives the reaſon: Becauſe by the Religion of thoſe Churches the Calvinian rigors about Predeſtination, &c. are received as Orthodox, and becauſe they maintain a parity of Miniſters directly contrary both to the Doctrine and Government of the Church of England. Either therefore what Mr. Durell ſaith from the Palatinate Miniſters in favour of our Engliſh Hierarchy is a meer falſity, or elſe there is ſome ſuch Alteration made in the Judgment of thoſe men of late, as the world formerly knew not of; or elſe the Archbiſhop and his Second laid to the charge of the Palatinate Miniſters, what they were not truly to be charged with.

I have inſiſted too long on this point, and ſhall conclude it with a profeſſion of my perſwaſion, that if a Synod ſhould be called, made up of the moſt ſober forreign Divines, they would adviſe his Majeſty to eſtabliſh a moderated, limited Epiſcopacy, as more ſuited to the Generality of our Engliſh tempers, than that Presbytery which the two Houſes, p. 19to ſatisfie the importunities of the Sects, rather made a ſhew they would eſtabliſh, then did eſtabliſh: but I can as ſoon believe they would publiſh to the whole world their own Hypocriſie, as adviſe to ſettle a Government by Biſhops, pretending to be Jure Divino, ſuperiour to the Presbyters, claiming ſole power of Order and Juriſdiction and exerciſing their Juriſdiction by Lay-Chancellors: and if they would not adviſe this, much leſs would they adviſe to ſilence every one that ſhould not aſſent to, and approve of ſuch a Government. If you can think that Mr. Durells Teſtimonies prove they would; I beſeech you then make uſe of your Logick, reduce his Teſtimonies into the form of a Syllogiſm, and if the concluſion follow from every one of his premiſes, or from any one of them, I will then humbly beg your pardon and his too: Indeed ſome of his Teſtimonies are ſuch, as I much doubt, whether he brought them in jeſt, or in earneſt. Peter Martyr and Bogerman are made to approve the Engliſh Hierarchy, pag. 252, 268. Becauſe the one did write, the other ſpeak to Engliſh Biſhops by thoſe names and titles by which they are commonly notified here in England. But is not this to affront us, as if we were quite void of Learning? may we not as well argue from Mr. Prynn's un-Biſhoping of Timothy and Titus, that he alſo approved p. 20the Engliſh Hierarchy, becauſe he dedicates a Book with that name to the two Arch-Biſhops by the Titles of Right Reverend Fathers in God, Primates and Metropolitanes of all England: Is not this to lay a ſtumbling block in the way of the blind Quakers, and to make that ſilly Generation yet more averſe from giving men thoſe names, by which they are dignified in the places where they live? To ſuggeſt that a man cannot call one by the name commonly given him, but he muſt be interpreted to approve his office, and the way of coming to his office, and the claim he makes to his office? But it is alſo ſaid of Peter Martyr, that he ſubmitted to the Biſhops whilſt he was in England, pag. 252. Did he ſo? In what I wonder? Had they any power over the Kings Profeſſor? Could they either viſit him or ſilence him? And what if he had ſubmitted to them? muſt he needs ſubmit to them as to an order of men ſuperior by Divine Law? to that Order of which he himſelf was? Cranmer moſt familiar with Martyr, never claim'd to be of ſuch an Order, as his Manuſcript kept by Dr. Stillingfleet will witneſs; much leſs did he deſire Martyr, or Bucer, or Fagius, to be reordain'd by him, that they might be capable of Eccleſiaſtical preferments; ſo as ſubmiſſion then was quite another thing to what it is now. Yet even the p. 21Non-Conformiſts of that age thought they had wherewith to juſtifie their Non-Conformity, and to ſpeak as ſoftly as is poſſible, they did as much credit the cauſe of the Proteſtants by ſuffering, as did any of the Conformiſts. And if I might make compariſons, none of them ever recanted for a time, as Cranmer did; none of them during the time of impriſonment went to Maſs as Ridley had begun to do, and probably had continued ſo to do, had he not been recalled from that abomination, by the Letter of his Nonconforming Friend Mr. Bradford. And the exemplary courage and conſtancy of our Protomartyr, John Rogers, a very rigid Nonconformiſt, did greatly animate Biſhop Ridly, as he himſelf acknowledges, I pleaſe not my ſelf in theſe compariſons, ſhould not have made them, had not Mr. Durell's pen dropt ſomwhat a foul blot upon the name of Biſhop Hooper's friend Peter Martyr, whom he will needs repreſent to be ſo ſimple, as to ſcruple the Cap, becauſe of its Mathematicalneſs: But he was too wiſe, to ſcruple the Cap on any ſuch account; And hath better deſerved of the Engliſh Church, than that he ſhould ſo many years after his death be ſo flouted at, as alſo Biſhop Hooper ſhould have had more reverence ſhew'd him, than to be charged as he is pag. 239. with a ſtrange weakneſs, p. 22for ſticking at our Ceremonies.

Let us now ſee how well Mr. Durell hath acquitted himſelf about forms of Prayer: It muſt be acknowledg'd he hath ſufficiently prov'd from the Teſtimonies of Reformed Divines, that forms of Prayer of humane compoſition are not unlawful; but the ſame thing had been long ago proved to his hand by a Nonconformiſt Miniſter, Mr. John Ball in his Diſcourſe againſt Separation, as alſo by Dr. John Hoornbek in his Epiſtle touching Independency: ſo that I cannot wel tel what it was that made Mr. Durell ſo copious on this ſubject, unleſs he thought it wiſdom to drive that nail which would go. I do aſſure him, I never yet met with a Presbyterian that thought forms of Prayer unlawful, or that thought it ſimply unlawful for a Church to agree upon forms of Prayer to be uſed by Miniſters in the Publick Congregation. But if he can either prove that it is lawful for the Church to allow her Miniſters no Liberty to uſe their own gifts for Prayer in the Publick, or prove that our Engliſh Church hath left her Miniſters any ſuch Liberty, then ſhall he do Knight-ſervice.

In the firſt undertaking, he will have the Presbyterians his adverſaries; In the ſecond, he will have Dr. Heylin, and many others as Canonical as himſelf to cope with. I have p. 23heard a Presbyterian diſputing againſt ſundry Paſſages in the Common-Prayer Book, and wondring why the Convocation ſhould tye all Colledges and Halls to make uſe thereof, without any omiſſion or alteration, when as there is not in the whole Book any one Petition for the Univerſities, and I was heartily troubled that I had not wherewith to remove my Friends admiration: But had I ever heard him ſay that a Form of Prayer was a breach of the ſecond Commandment, I ſhould have pittied his Ignoranc, as I unfeignedly do the Ignorance of all thoſe who account it any glory to a Reformation to leave in it no helps for ſome Miniſters Infirmities. In this number cannot be placed either the Aſſembly of Divines, or the two Houſes of Parliament that convened them. They both intended the Directory that Miniſters might, if need were, have ſome help and furniture in their Adminiſtrations; and truly it was ſo ſufficient an help and furniture, that he who needed other, could ſcarce be thought worthy to be a ſervant of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt in the work of the Miniſtry. Here I muſt be pardon'd, if I reprove the preſumption of Mr. Durell, who trembles not pag. 3. to lay to the charge of Lords and Commons, and Aſſembly of Divines, the delivering of manifest untruths: The untruths are there ſaid to be,

p. 24Firſt, That the Common Prayer Book had prov'd an offence to the Reformed Churches abroad.

Secondly, That it was aboliſh'd to anſwer the expectations of other Reformed Churches.

I ſay thoſe are no untruths; The Common-Prayer Book had proved an offence to the Reformed Churches abroad. Apollonius hath ſignified ſo much in reference to the Walachrian Churches, and others as famous as Apollonius have given us to underſtand as much in relation to the Churches of which they were Miniſters; as the Latine Apologiſt hath too plainly proved: and can any one imagine that ſome Ceremonies preſcribed in the Liturgy, were not an offence to Martyr and Zanchy? Perhaps thoſe learned men did not count them ſimply unlawful, but certainly they were offended with them, and wiſht them remov'd: Was it no offence to any Reformed Churches, that ſo many Legends out of the Apocrypha were appointed to be read in our Temples? No offence to Reformed Churches, that Infants Baptized were affirmed to to be undoubtedly ſaved? Leſs colour is there to ſay there was a manifeſt untruth in aſſerting that the Common-Prayer Book was taken away to anſwer the expectation of other Reformed Churches; For it is notorious that the Churches of Scotland and New-England, p. 25did expect from the Parliament the abolition of the Liturgy; and certainly, they might with propriety enough be called other Reformed Churches, if none beſides them had expected the ſaid abolition, as we can prove ſome others did: I muſt alſo crave leave to cenſure the Manifeſto of Mr. Durell, publiſht with a Noverint univerſi. Let all the world know that there never was, nor is yet any Reformed Church, that hath onelyonly a Directory and not a Book of Common-Prayer for the publick worſhip of God. I ask, were there no Reformed Churches in the times of the Apoſtles, or men Apoſtolical? I trow there were, Yet it is certain, ſaith Capellus, that then there was no Preſcript Form of Liturgy; nor doth that Author give us any notice of any Preſcript Liturgies, untill Leaders and Doctors grew idle: were there when his Manifeſto was publiſhed no Reformed Churches in New-England? or had theſe Churches Books of Common-Prayer? and why I ſtrange are Directory and Book of Common-Prayer made oppoſit? were there not in ſome Reformed Churches Books of Common-Prayer, that were appointed to be uſed but as Directories, it being left free to the Miniſters, either to uſe thoſe Printed Prayers, or any other agreeable to them; this freedome I am ſure ſundry eminent and worthy Divines in Holland have all p. 26along uſed: Mr. Durell indeed ſaith, that there is not one Miniſter in all Franoe but hath made unto himſelf a ſet Form which he uſeth alwaies, and no other; pag. 18. which is certainly a bold aſſertion and ſuppoſeth him to have had conference with every Miniſter in France, or to have received Letters from every one, or at leaſt to have employ'd Agents that had made enquiry concerning every one; which if true, would argue him a man of wonderful intelligence: Did never any one Miniſter in all France, make unto himſelf above one ſet Form of Prayer. Did, and doth every one of them preciſely keep himſelf to thoſe very words which he put together when he firſt entred into his Miniſtry? Did never any one after God had reſtored him to his Congregation from ſome eminent ſickneſs, put in any one word to expreſs his ſenſe of Divine Goodneſs? I will here ſuſpend my belief till I have received ſome farther Information, or can better tell in what ſenſe Mr. Durell would have his words taken; for it may be he would have his own Phraſes expounded as he himſelf, pag. 17. expounds ſome Phraſes in one of the French Rubricks upon Sundays in the morning, the following Form is commonly uſed; The meaning whereof he tells us there, is, That it is to be alway uſed, and no other: A gloſs that p. 27ſounds marvellous ſtrange to our Engliſh ears, which have been accuſtomed to diſtinguiſh betwixt Commonly and Always; and will not eaſily unlearn that diſtinction: and ſo when we hear out of the Harmony of the Belgick Synods a Miniſter ſhall pray either by a certain Form propoſed to himſelf, or elſe the Spirit ſhall dictate; we are wont to imagine that the meaning is not that a Miniſter ſhall never pray but by a Form; it may be Mr. Durell is of another mind: if he be, he may do well to communicate to the world the grounds of ſo ſingular an opinion, and when he ſhall ſo do he may do well alſo to give us his thoughts concerning the practice of the Bohemian Churches, where it ſeems the Ritual Books or Formula's are delivered onelyonly to the Paſtors, the Reaſon whereof Comenius in his Annot. pag. 101. ſaith is, That the Auditors might be more attent, and more profoundly admire the grace of God, for (ſays he) if onelyonly preſcribed things are alwaies recited, what is there that may ſtir up attention, Curioſity rather will be ſtirred up whilſt this and the other man attends, whether the Miniſter reads exactly the ſame things which they behold in their own books; nor (addeth he) muſt we think that the Miniſters are tyed to the very words and ſyllables of the books delivered to them; it is free according to variety of occaſions to uſe any thing p. 28drawn out of the Treaſures of myſtical wiſdome which makes for the exciting of zeal, whence it eomes to paſs that pious Auditors are ſcarcely ever preſent at holy Myſteries without a new motion of heart.

My imagination on the reading of theſe words is, that Comenius was not hugely fond of preſcribed Formula's in which the people were as well verſed as the Miniſter: he ſeems rather to be of opinion, that if words flow from the mouth of the Miniſter which the People had not ſeen before hand, they will be heard with the more Devotion: whether Mr. Durell's imaginations agree with mine, time may diſcover; mean while I may have leave to gueſs what it was that moved Mr. Durell's pen to run into ſuch exceſs of riot againſt the two Houſes and Aſſembly, and I conceive it was the extravagance of his Country-man Ludovicus Capellus in his diſcourſe about Liturgies, unhappily inſerted into the Theſes Dalmurienſes; for his words Mr. Durell has punctually tranſcribed and done into Engliſh, a Scholler may find them in the third part of thoſe Theſes, p. 707.

I ſhall follow Mr. Durell's own Tranſlation pag. 15.

One hundred forty years ago when the ſeparation was made from the Church of Rome, and that the Chriſtian people coming out of Babylon, p. 29did cast off the Popes Tyranny, the ſacred Liturgy was purged of all that Popiſh Superſtition and Idolatry, and all ſuch things as were overburdenſom, or which did contribute but little or nothing to the edification of the Church. And ſo were framed and preſcribed in ſeveral places, divers ſet forms of holy Liturgies, by the ſeveral Authors of the Reformation that then was; and thoſe ſimple and pure in Germany, France, England, Scotland, the Netherlands, &c. differing as little as poſſible from the antient ſet Forms of the Primitive Church; which ſet Forms the Reformed have uſed hitherto, with happineſs and profit, each of them in their ſeveral Nations and diſtricts; till at last of very late, there did ariſe in England a froward ſcrupulous and over nice (that I ſay not altogether ſuperſtitious) Generation of men, unto whom it hath ſeemed good for many Reaſons, but thoſe very light and almoſt of no moment at all, not onelyonly to blame, but to caſhier and aboliſh wholly the Liturgy uſed hitherto in their Church, together with the whole Hierarchical Government of their Biſhops; inſtead of which Liturgy they have brought in their Directory as they call it.

On the words thus tranſlated I adventure to ſay.

Firſt, That I am not much in love with the Profeſſors Chronology; He gratifies the Papiſts too much to ſay, or but to intimate p. 30that no ſeceſſion was made from their Church till an hundred and forty Years before he put forth thoſe Theſes, ſome Churches had gone out of Babylon much ſooner, ſome not ſo ſoon.

Secondly, I am leſs in love with his jumbling together of the Liturgies of Germany, France, England, Scotland, Belgia, for if the Germans did purge their Liturgie of every thing that was over-burdenſom and troubleſome, or which did contribute but little or nothing to the edification of the Church, let a reaſon be given me why we leave any thing out of our Liturgies which they retain? did this Profeſſor of Divinity think that nothing is retained in the Lutheran Liturgies that is burdenſom and operoſous or that makes little to edification, or did he conceit that none of the Lutheran Churches are German? do the Lutherans Latine Songs contribute much to edification? are their Images apt to teach the ſoul? did ever any one get much good by having the bread put into his mouth inſtead of having it broken and delivered into his hand? what is I wonder the advantage of Exorciſm? certainly if the Lutheran Liturgies recede as little as may be from the Forms of the Primitive Church, other Churches have receded very much from them.

p. 31Thirdly, It was a great miſadventure to affirm that the Reformed had with profit and happineſs each of them in their ſeveral Nations and Diſtricts, uſed ſet Forms till lately the Liturgy was Caſhired in England.

Had not Calderwood told the world long ſince, that for many years he had not uſed ſet Forms whilſt he was Miniſter in Scotland? was not the Liturgy laid aſide in Scotland before in England.

Fourthly, It is a ſign of no great humility, for one Profeſſor ſo ſeverely to cenſure the actings of a whole Aſſembly of Divines, in which were many Superiour to himſelf in Learning; but let not Epiſcopal Divines much glory to find the Aſſemblies Reaſons ſo vilified, they will find the Reaſon of Mr. Hooker, their Oracle, as much vilified in this Cenſor's Theſis de Feſtis.

Fifthly, It is very Probable the good Profeſſor had never read the Directory, elſe he would not have left it on Record, that the Directory contains onelyonly the Arguments of things to be ſaid and done in the Adminiſtration of the Sacraments; for in the Directory, the words for Adminiſtration of Baptiſm are preſcribed, ſo are the words for the Adminiſtration of the Lords Supper.

Mr. Durell therefore by tranſlating Capellus into Engliſh, hath but uncovered his nakedneſs, p. 32expoſing him to contempt, who was before become too contemptible, by decrying the Hebrew points and Scripture Chronology, ſo opening a door to down-right infidelity: Yet as if he had not done him ſpight enough, He not only gives us his Text, but alſo draws ſix Obſervations from it, pag. 15, 16. in five of which he moſt groſly abuſes him. The firſt is, That all Reformed Churches have Liturgies: This I ſay follows not from any words of Capellus, if Mr. Durell ſay it doth, his Logick is his own, let him make uſe of it. The ſecond is, That the Liturgy of the Church of England is judged by this great man to be not onelyonly pure and free from all Popiſh Superſtition and Idolatry, but alſo from all ſuch things as were onerous and troubleſome, or which did contribute but little to the Edification of the Church, as well as other Reformed Churches. Twenty Cart-ropes will not pull this obſervation out of Capellus his words. He onelyonly ſpeaks of the Liturgy made by the firſt Reformers of our Church, which vaſtly differs from the preſent Liturgy that Mr. Durell takes upon him to defend. The third Obſervation is of all moſt marvellous, thus worded; If theſe Liturgies ought to recede as little as poſſible from that of the Primitive Church as he doth intimate, undoubtedly the Liturgy of the Church of England is the beſt and moſt perfect of them all.

p. 33If Mr. Durell will have this obſerved, we will obſerve it as the iſſue of an over-confident fancy, yet humbly praying that he would allow us to think that this obſervation hath no relation in the world to any words of Capellus; If he may be judge, our Liturgy differs more from the Primitive Liturgies, then the Liturgy of any Reformed Churches; for he ſayes, Primitive Liturgies were moſt brief and moſt ſimple, conſiſting of a few prayers, &c. Now if we ſhould grant our Liturgy to be very ſimple, certainly it is not very brief, nor does it conſiſt of but a few Prayers: let Mr. Durell officiate according to it Morning and Evening, which I never knew any Conformiſt to do, and I will be bold to ſay, his Sermons afterwards ſhall not be over tedious: The fourth Obſervation is, That of all who call themſelves Reformed, the Presbyterians are the firſt that ever left off the uſe of ſet Forms of Prayer. Capellus hath not the word Presbyterians in his work; nor am I certain whom Mr. Durell underſtands by them; perhaps he means the Engliſh Presbyterians, but how came they to be Presbyterians foreign? Capellus was too wiſe a man to ſay, that they were the firſt that left off ſet Forms of Prayer; he knew well enough unleſs he onelyonly was a ſtranger in Iſrael, that many years before the Aſſembly met at Weſtminſter ſet Forms of p. 34Prayer had been laid aſide and condemned as unlawful, by huge multitudes who were angry with the old meer Nonconformiſt becauſe he would not ſeperate from the Engliſh Church, as well as endeavour a Reformation of ſome things. The fifth Obſervation is, That the many reaſons for which the Presbyterians had rejected the Common-Prayer Book, are very light, and almoſt of no moment at all: 'Tis true that Capellus hath written ſomething to this purpoſe, but it is the ſame Capellus who hath written ſo many bug-bear words againſt our Engliſh Biſhops, in his Theſes de deſcrimine Epiſcopi & Presbyteri, & de vario Eccleſiae regimine, the former Theſes he concludes thus, That there was no cauſe why the Biſhops and their Patrons ſhould ſo greatly inſult, and onelyonly not grow inſolent againſt thoſe whom invidiouſly they called Puritans and Presbyterians.

And let it be obſerved; that if the Presbyterians had onelyonly reproved, and not caſhiered the Common-Prayer Book, their Reaſons might have been ſufficient, notwithſtanding any thing Capellus ſaith to the contrary. Sixthly, Mr. Durell would have it obſerved, That the Presbyterians themſelves who are the known Authors of the Directory, are in Capellus his Judgment a froward, peeviſh and ſuperſtitous Generation of men. Capellus does indeed call the Compoſers of the Directory moroſe and p. 35froward, but ſeems unwilling to call them ſuperſtitious; and the ſame Capellus had commended them for ſhaking off the Yoke of Epiſcopacy in his Theſes de Vario Eccleſiae regimine Sect. 24. Let Mr. Durell when he puts out next, Engliſh theſe words, for they ſeem framed according to the Heart of the Presbyterians, and let him then alſo tell us, why he calls the Presbyterians the known Authors of the Directory. That Aſſembly that preſented the Directory to the two Houſes, was as to moſt of its Members, when firſt called, Hierarchical, and under an Oath of Canonical obedience; there are not very many of them living at preſent; of them diverſe conform, and are as deeply engaged to uſe Liturgical worſhip as Mr. Durell himſelf; let him therefore when he has opportunity, enquire of them, whether they conſented to have the Liturgy caſhiered? and how they came to fall in love with it again? and what made them ſo fearful leaſt the old ſubſcription ſhould choak us, when as they themſelves can ſwallow theſe new ones that are far bigger and more bulky?

By this time I hope it is come to my turn to make ſome obſervations upon the Theſes of Capellus, and my Obſervations may be the fewer becauſe I have already ſuggeſted ſo many, and the firſt thing I obſerve is, p. 36That the men againſt whom Capellus was ſo not, could not be the Engliſh Presbyterians, unleſs they were falſly repreſented to him: for theſe are his words, pag. 710, 711. They with whom we have to do, bewray a manifeſt enough hatred againſt Formula's of Symbols or Confeſſions of Faith, and of Catechiſm, and the both antient and recent uſe and cuſtome of them received in the Chriſtian Church. If theſe are the men he had to deal with, then had he nothing to do with the Engliſh Presbyterians, no men having more contended for Confeſſions of Faith and Catechiſms in ſet words than they. Secondly, I obſerve that he repreſents himſelf and his fellow Profeſſors as not condemning or inhibiting a free uſe of Prayers compoſed by Miniſters themſelves. Nay theſe are his words, pag. 713. We plainly think it both lawful and conſentaneous that they who can do it, ſhould diſcover their gift and induſtry in praying, as in preaching, this onelyonly we will, that the uſe of ſuch prayers ought not to hinder the Liturgy conſtituted by publick Authority, and to take away and abrogate all uſe of it out of the Church. And a little after he adds. We deſervedly condemn the rigour of thoſe, who under pretext of a praeſcript Form of Liturgy, do ſtudy to eliminate out of the Church all uſe of Prayers conceived by Miniſters themſelves. Let Mr. Durell conſider, whether this Damnatory ſentence p. 37do not fall upon many of his own Patrons and Abettours. Thirdly, I obſerve that when the Profeſſor comes to contract what he had ſaid, he determines concerning Formula's, as if Smectymnuus had too much influenced him, for he ſaith firſt, That they are not abſolutely in every time and place, and with all men neceſſary, becauſe the Chriſtian Church wanted them for ſome time; and it does not appear from ſacred or exotick Hiſtory, whether the Jewiſh Church did not want them before Chriſt, and Ezra, and from the time of Moſes. Secondly, That they are not commonly neceſſary but for order and Decorum. Thirdly, Where and when there cannot be had learned Paſtours who are able to teach, the people by their Sermons and proper Prayers, that there Formula's are plainly neceſſary. Fourthly, Where there are learned and skilful Paſtors, a publick Form of Liturgy is very profitable, and neceſſary to the Common Edification of the Church in the ſame Communion of Divine worſhip. Fifthly, That the uſe of ſuch Forms cannot juſtly be condemned or diſaproved, nor ought it, ſeeing it may be alwaies and every where profitable and most convenient, and has obtained in the whole Chriſtian Church all the world over, for above 1300 years, and does every where now obtain, but with thoſe Independant Novices. Let Mr. Durell after this, take heed how he commends Liturgies, by the pen of his p. 38moſt applauded forreign Divines: and let him know, that all the pains he takes, to make the French and Dutch Liturgies the ſame, or near a kin with and to ours, doth indeed tend to the reproach of Archbiſhop Laud. For if there were no difference, or but ſmall betwixt them, why was he ſo zealous as his Historian repreſents him, in proſecuting and preſſing the French and Dutch Churches, to have our Liturgy tranſlated into their Language, and uſed by them in all their Churches granted them in England? however, let me warn Mr. Durell to take heed, that he do not go on with that deſigne he hath ſo oft acquainted us with, I mean the deſign of Printing together the Formula's and Agenda's of all the Reformed Churches in Chriſtendome: for though this deſign might perhaps pleaſe himſelf (as who is not pleaſed with the iſſue of his own Brain) yet I much queſtion whether it would be any way pleaſing to the moſt Reverend and Right Reverend Prelates of our Church. Certain I am, that it is not many years, ſince ſome of our greateſt Eccleſiaſticks plainly enough declared, that ſuch a deſigne would not much relliſh with them, for when the Prince Elector Palatine came over to viſit his Unckle, King Charles I. in England, which was about 34 years ago, ſome buſie heads (as Dr. Heylin calls them) publiſhed p. 39a book intituled, A Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Palſgraves Churches. What was the effect of the Publication? a courſe was forthwith taken to call it in for the ſame cauſe, and on the ſame prudential grounds (adds Dr. Heylin) on which the alteration (I before mentioned) was made in the Letters Patents. But I needed not ſo long to have inſiſted upon Liturgies, having before told you what he muſt do that hopes to bring the Nonconformiſt to ſubſcription; he muſt prove that the Church of England hath left Miniſters any power to make uſe of their gifts in prayer, for if that be not proved, they will ſhrewdly argue againſt the lawfulneſs of promiſes to bury their gift in a napkin, but whether this be proved or no, the Nonconformiſts that I ſpeak with, will be but Nonconformiſts; not forſaking the publick Aſſemblies, but rejoyceing to hear Chriſt Preached, though not without ſome bitter reflections upon themſelves.

I come to Ceremonies, and the firſt of them that occurres, is the Surplice, concerning which, my Nonconformiſts Friends ſay, That if they uſed it as enjoyned by the Liturgy, they muſt receive it; as a veſtment apt by ſome notable ſignification it hath, to ſtir up the dull mind; Now that I might ſatisfie their Scruple, I have gone to ſome Conformiſts and p. 40enquired of them, whether ever they experimented any ſuch aptneſs in it to ſtir up their dull minds; they moſt of them wondred at my Queſtion, telling me that by aſſenting and conſenting, they meant no more but onelyonly to promiſe, that they would not openly contradict any thing in the Liturgy; you may eaſily imagine what motion this reply ſtirred up in my dull mind; onelyonly one anſwered, that though he would not boaſt of his own experiences, yet he doubted not but the holy Veſtment had a fitneſs in it to ſtir up the dull mind; but I asking him further, whether it was apt to ſtir him up as a man, or as an Engliſh man? he gave me to underſtand that he was not willing to be preſſed further. I comforted my ſelf however in this, that Mr. Durell would tell me ſome ſtories, of ſome great livelineſs put into men by the wearing of the white Garment, but he quite deceived me, onelyonly giving me to underſtand, pag. 24, 25. Of ſome of other Reformed Churches that to comply with the Lutherans, do ſomtimes wear Surplices. This is but cold kindneſs, and that I may not be in debt to him for it, I give him to underſtand, That no Lutherans in the Low Countries do wear Surplices; and they forbear to wear them, not becauſe the Magiſtrate would not give them leave to wear them, but becauſe they want a will to wear them, which p. 41makes me think that they have no high opinion concerning the uſefulneſs of them; nor can I think that our own Miniſters have any huge apprehenſions of this exciting vertue of the Surplice, for whereas they are enjoined to wear it as oft as they officiate; I find few of them ſo to do, many of them never wear it, but when a Sacrament is to be Adminiſtred. Perhaps I ſhall be able to afford my Nonconformiſts more help and aſſiſtance againſt his Scruples about the Croſs in Baptiſme: His Scruples are founded upon this bottom; That the Croſs is made aſign of the Childs Dedication to God, and alſo a ſign of his perſeverance in Grace, and ſuch a ſign they ſay is Sacramental, which kind of ſign the Church has no Commiſſion from God to inſtitute; I have taken ſome pains that I might be able from the writings of Conformiſts to aſſoile this Objection. Mr. Durell tells us, Serm. pag. 29. That the Croſs is indeed a viſible ſign, but there is no inviſible Grace anſwering to it; and ſo no Sacrament. I could not acquieſce in this, for I thought Dedication to God, and Perſeverance were graces; and if they be Graces, I am ſure they are inviſible Graces; I have alſo ſomtimes wondred, ſeeing Baptiſm it ſelf was inſtituted as a Dedicating ſign, and ſeeing p. 42by it we engage our ſelves to perſeverance, and God alſo engages to give unto Believers the Grace of Perſeverance; what might move our Church to inſtitute the Croſs as a new ſign of any of theſe things? eſpecially ſeeing yet I never had the hap to meet with any who could from their experience averre unto me that the ſign of the Croſs with which they were ſigned at Baptiſme, had added to them any degree of manfulneſs: nor by comparing ſeveral Baptized perſons could I ever obſerve, that perſons Croſſed at Baptiſme, were leſs inclined to be aſhamed of Chriſt Crucified, than thoſe that were Baptized, not being Croſſed. Indeed this ſign of the Croſs hath Miniſtred more matter of Scruple to the Nonconformiſts, then any other Ceremony beſides; and therefore Mr. Durell ſhould not have dealt ſlightly in this matter, which yet any one may obſerve that he does, for inſtead of giving us inſtances of Reformed Churches that uſe the Croſs in Baptiſme. He contents himſelf to give us a few inſtances of Reformed Churches, that uſe the Croſs out of Baptiſme; the Church of Geneva, he ſaies, Makes the Chriſtian Religion in a picture, to lean upon the Croſs, page 21. and page 31. Does not think the Chriſtian Religion ſufficiently repreſented without the figure p. 43of a Croſs. And the French Churches agreed Anno 1609. That they would not debarre from the Sacrament, ſuch as ſhould wear Croſſes upon their Cloaks; in caſe the King would not allow them the maintenance for maimed ſouldiers untill they did wear ſuch Croſſes; He might alſo have added that the Erectors of the ſhort lived Commonwealth among us, did appoint a Croſs to be ſet upon that Money which they preſumed to Coin, and alſo put the figure of a Croſs into the Flags of thoſe ſhips which they ſet forth againſt his Sacred Majeſty; and had he ſo done, would not any one at laſt have asked him to what purpoſe is all this waſte of Examples? never did ſober Presbyterian or Independant queſtion ſuch kind of Croſſes, many of them perhaps will be found to have them in their Coat of Arms, and in their Signets with which they uſe to Seal their Letters; and yet would at no hand be induced to ſuffer their Children to be Baptized with the ſign of the Croſs, as a ſigne of their Dedication to God, or as a token that afterwards they ſhould not be aſhamed of Chriſt Crucified, &c. Mr. Durell had ſure forgot that the Croſs our Church appoints is a Tranſient Croſs (by which Biſhop Sanderſon would have it diſtinguiſhed ſufficiently from the Croſs of the Papiſts p. 44which is permanent) elſe he would not have brought ſo many inſtances of permanent Croſſes which being the Objects of ſight, may occaſion in us ſome good thoughts and meditations concerning the Croſs on which our Lord Jeſus did ſuffer, but the Tranſient Croſs leaving no viſible impreſſion on us, has no ſuch aptneſs objectively to ſtir in us any good thought concerning Chriſt Crucified, and it is hard to conceive how it ſhould be uſeful in the way of admonition, unleſs we had ſome one to admoniſh us that we were Croſſed with ſuch a Croſs: I know that dipping, or ſprinkling the Water, upon the body, leaves no viſible impreſſion upon it neither, but the ſpirit who alwaies abides in believers, hath an office to bring baptiſm to their remembrance, and hath ſo effectually brought it to remembrance that they have from conſiderations drawn from it, quenched the fiery darts of Satan, that this bleſſed Spirit will concern himſelf to bring our being Croſſed in Baptiſme to remembrance Mr. Durell will not haſtily affirm: what then? would Presbyterians better approve of the making of a permanent Croſs on the forehead of newly Baptiſed Infants? ſurely no. But they ſometimes argue thus, ad hominem, and think that their is ſtrength in p. 45their arguings. Mr. Durell hath no where that I can find, ſhewed their ſtrength to be but weakneſs; rather he hath ſtrengthened their hands by ſome expreſſions uſed in his Sermon, pag. 23. Where he placeth Chriſm uſed in Confirmation amongſt ſuperſtitious or ſuperfluous Ceremonies: Now why the Chriſm in Confirmation ſhould be accounted ſuperſtitious or ſuperfluous, and the Croſs in Baptiſme not be ſo accounted, there can no good reaſon at all be aſſigned. Is the Croſs antient, ſo is Chriſme; the Croſs as much abuſed by the Papiſts, as ever was the Chriſm: the Croſs made ſignificant of what Baptiſme it ſelf ſignified; and ſignified more clearly than the Croſs can ſignifie: and therefore ſuperfluous enough, if that be ſuperfluous which is uſed for the doing of that which was ſufficiently done before; whereas in Confirmation there is no outward viſible ſign to ſignifie that which Chriſm ſignifies; viz. Anointing with the Holy Ghoſt inwardly, as may be collected from a Petition yet retained in the Liturgy for Confirmation.

I am not now at leiſure to enquire ſtrictly into the uſuages of Reformed Churches abroad, nor into the Sentiments of their Divines concerning our Ceremonies; but this I have found, that thoſe who have p. 46gone from our Univerſities and travelled into forreign Reformed Churches, and Kingdomes, have generally returned to us again with very little fondneſs for our Ceremonies; now it ſeems very ſtrange, that if the ſame Ceremonies be uſed abroad, that are uſed here, or if they abroad count them as indifferent as we do them at home, that Travells ſhould ingenerate in any a diſlike of them: and it is ſtrange alſo if Mr. Beza had no worſe thoughts of out Diſcipline and Rights, then Mr. Durell would make ſhew of; that he ſhould have ſo good thoughts of Mr. Travers, and ſeveral other chief Nonconformiſts in England, as to make them his greateſt Correſpondents; for ſo I can prove he did by Letters ſtill extant.

Hitherto I have ſhewed you, how much Mr. Durell hath miſtaken, and miſ-repreſented the ſtate of thoſe Controverſies that are on foot among us; I will now give you in a ſhort Catalogue of Impertinences, by which you ſhall ſee that he hath ſtuffed his Book with Teſtimonies, to prove that which never any Presbyterian denyed, or ever gave him the leaſt occaſion to think he denyed; The firſt place in this Catalogue is due to his Teſtimonies muſtered up, pag. 51, 52. relating to Sacriledge, p. 47a Species whereof he ſaies is the purchaſing and detaining of Church Lands: I for my part think ſo too, and never yet met with a Presbyterian that thought otherwiſe: if there be a true ſuperfluity of Church Lands, then the Magiſtrate doubtleſs may out of that ſuperfluity take for any other good uſe, though it be not directly Eccleſiaſtical. In caſes alſo of great neceſſity Church Lands ſeem not to be priviledged from ſale; nor can any wiſe man doubt but that it is the Magiſtrates duty to convert ſuch Lands as were given to the Church by a Zeale without knowledge, and to promote Idolatry and Superſtition, unto ſuch uſes as are truly pious and acceptable unto God. Theſe, and other ſuch like Caſes excepted, the Presbyterians would as willingly have a Noli me tangere upon every parcel of the Church Lands as Mr. Durell himſelf. He tells us indeed, page 51. That many here among us and ſome of them Presbyterian Miniſters made nothing of purchaſing and detaining Church Lands; and another, as very a Scribler as himſelf, hath told us, That in the Annotations commonly known by the name of the Aſſemblies Annotations he could never meet with any thing againſt Sacriledge in any of thoſe places where he had conſulted them; the firſt edition of thoſe Annotations I have not by me, but if that Edition had nothing in it againſt Sacriledge, let p. 48the Saddle be ſet upon the right Horſe, and the blame laid upon Dr. Daniel Feately, who Commenting upon Romans the 2d. where the word Sacriledge occurs, would let it paſs uncenſured; but I have heard that in our latter Editions of the Engliſh Annotations Dr. Feateleys Notes are not altered; if ſo, the Debator hath reaſon to be aſhamed of his impudence, and railing accuſation, for any one may ſee that Sacriledge is ſufficiently condemned at Rom. 2.22. and it is ſeverely Cenſured Acts 5. as alſo Prov. 20.25. and if that be not alſo cenſured Ezekiel 48. who muſt bear the blame, but Biſhop Richardſon to whoſe ſhare it fell to Comment on that portion of Scripture: Certainly the ſecond and third Editions of the Engliſh Annotations were Printed in times in which it was all out as dangerous to reprove Sacriledge, as in thoſe times in which the firſt Edition was put forth. In thoſe Editions I have already referred to enough that makes againſt Sacriledge, yet if need were, I could referr to much more, and poſſibly ſhould ſo do, were it not that the work had been long ſince done to my hand by an Epiſcopal Divine, in a Diſcourſe Printed 1648. with this Title, Church Lands not to be ſold. He that will be at pains to peruſe that book, ſhall ſoon find that no one could keep the Covenant and not be againſt p. 49the alienating of Church Lands, page 27. he quotes theſe words from Mr. Gearee an holy Nonconformiſt: To aboliſh Prelacy, and to ſeize the Lands of Prelates to private, or civil Intereſt, undoubtedly could neither want ſtain nor guilt; adding, 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 with Mr. Gearee, and that they would openly profeſs as much if they were put to anſwer the Queſtion. But ſaith Mr. Durell, ſome of the many who made nothing of purchaſing and detaining Church Lands, were Presbyterian Miniſters, and to prove this, in the Margent he puts Dr. Burgeſs never ſo much as adding an &c. ſo that in his Arithmetick Dr. Burgeſs is ſome Presbyterian Miniſters. But he ſhould firſt have proved that he was one Presbyterian Miniſter before he had gone about to perſwade us that he was ſundry Presbyterian Miniſters. He is not that Dr. Burgeſs who defended the three Ceremonies againſt Dr. Ames, but yet he is the Dr. Burgeſs that took care to have that Defence Printed, and beautified the Margent of it to make it he more pleaſing to the Readers eye; and he is the Dr. Burgeſs that did write for Baptiſmal Regeneration, which the p. 50Presbyterian can by no means ſwallow. I have heard indeed that he took the Covenant, but not till he ſaw that it was dangerous not to take it. I have heard alſo that he was employed to make a Speech in anſwer to Dr. John Hackett, who was to plead for the continuance of Deanes and Chapiters, but in that Speech he openly declared the utter unlawfulneſs of converting Dean and Chapiters Lands to any private perſons profit: ſo that he then delivered the ſame Doctrine with Dr. Hackett, only differing in the Application, as Mr. Fuller words it, book 11. page 179. It ſeems afterwards he himſelf was a Purchaſer, and a great Purchaſer contrary to the Doctrine delivered by him, for which I leave him to his own Maſter, unto whom he hath ſome years ſince given his Accounts. Mr. Durell as if he were a Privy-Councellor in Heaven, preſumes in his Latin book to ſay, That the Cancer of which he dyed, befel him for his Sacriledge; I dare not ſo ſay, the Providences of God are too great a deep for any man to venture himſelf into, and methinks Mr. Durell might have been deterred from ſuch preſumption, by the example of Gods dealing with Biſhop Gawden, who after that he had written for the Liturgy, and againſt Sacriledge, dyed not p. 51long after of a Diſeaſe as loathſome, and far more painful than that which brought Dr. Burgeſs to his Grave, and this Diſeaſe was that very Diſeaſe unto which he had compared the Presbyterian Sermons, and befell him in a very ſhort time after he had made the Compariſon; yet all theſe Circumſtances notwithſtanding no man ſhall ever hear me ſay That the ſickneſs was a ſtroak of Divine Juſtice inflicted on him for his fierceneſs againſt the Presbyterians. Indeed the Providence of God is to us ſo hidden and ſecret, that there is no concluding from it either love or hatred: and therefore the Sons of the Church have no reaſon to thank Mr. Durell for ſaying, page 17. of his Sermon, That the wonderful manner of raiſing our Church up again is an evident proof that ſhe is her Beloveds, and her Beloved hers, and an Argument that her Reformation (ſince neither mens Craft nor violence which ſo far prevailed againſt it were never able to destroy it) is certainly the work of God and his Counſel which ſhall stand. Non tali auxilio, nec defenſoribus istis. Our Church needs no ſuch Tophicks, ſhe will think that he has a minde to betray her, who uſeth them on her behalf, for who knows how ſoon God provoked by our ſins, may turn the ſtream of his Providences, and bring p. 52our Church Governours under as great poverty and reproach as ever: If the ſtream of Providence ſhould never turn, yet all Theological ears will abhor to hear our Engliſh Reformation called the Counſell of the Lord which ſhall ſtand. That is a Scripture Phraſe and Printed as ſuch by Mr. Durell, and therefore ought not to have been ſo palpably wreſted by him: Dare any man think that the Decrees and Counſels of God are changed, unleſs our Reformation as attended with all its Rites, and Cermonies, endure from generation to generation? But I have almoſt run away from the buſineſs of Sacriledge. If any man deſire to know how zealous Reformed Divines have been againſt this ſin, he may quickly inform himſelf from Dr. Hornebeckes Examen bullae Papalis. I only adde, that ſome men have been ſo hardy, as to to ſay that our Impropriations are a kind of Sacrilege. The Lord Bacon ſeems to be of that mind, and charges all the Parliaments ſince the 31. of Henry VIII. with debarring Chriſts Wife of a great part of her dowry: if ſo, Mr. Durell may find more Sacriledge among his friends then he is aware of, and he may do well to enquire whether the impropriations of the ſeveral Cathedrals, to which he himſelf belongs, p. 53are ſo diſpoſed of, as that the Incumbants reſiding upon them have a ſufficient and honerable maintenance allowed them. His Majeſty hath graciouſly emitted a Letter, that it might be ſo; if the Letter have been univerſally obeyed, I rejoyce in the obedience given to it, but I am ſure heretofore no Impropriators allowed leſs then Clergy-men; no pariſhes were worſe ſupplied, than thoſe in which the Titles went to the Cathedralls, unleſs Mr. Durell be ſure that he and his Fraternities be free from this ſin, it will not be ſeaſonable for him to throw ſtones at other ſinners, leaſt it ſhould be ſaid, thou Hypocrite, firſt, &c.

A Second of Mr. Durell's Impertinencies, is his Quotation, pag. 40. of the Bohemian Churches, for the peoples ſaying Amen at theend of Prayers. Did the Presbyterians ever ſay, the People might not ſay Amen at the end of Prayers? are they not rather judged by their Adverſaries, to erre by affirming, that it were meet for the people to ſay nothing elſe but Amen?

Thirdly, What made him, pag. 43. Waſte paper to prove that Confirmation is uſed in moſt Reformed Churches? Did not Mr. Hanmer, and Mr. Baxter, write whole books in the commendation of Confirmation? p. 54Did the Presbyterians ever more heartily deſire any thing, than that adult perſons might before they were admitted to the Lords Supper, he ordered to make a Confeſſion of Faith, and to declare their Reſolution to own that Faith, and to walk according to it? Did they not alway with grief of heart complain that Confirmation had never been practiſed here in England, or elſe had been turned into a meer form?

Fourthly, Wherefore are we told page 37, 38. That the Lords Prayer and Ten Commandments and Creeds, are ſung in ſome Reformed Churches; as alſo the Magnificat, the Benedictus, and the Nunc dimittis. Do the Presbyterians queſtion the lawfulneſs of ſinging any of theſe? or do they require any more than that they ſhould be put into Meeter, and ſet into ſuch tunes as ordinary people might follow? I my ſelf have heare an eminent Presbyterian Divine on a day of Humiliation, read and ſing the Lords Prayer, as it is Tranſlated and Printed at the end of our Pſalm books. Yea, where as Mr. Durell tells us That the French Church does not ſing the Lords Prayer, and the Creed of the Apoſtles, becauſe both the Rhyme and Language were ſomthing courſe and old. Presbyterians never left off to ſing according p. 55to the Vulgar Tranſlation, its oldneſs and courſneſs notwithſtanding, and if hymns ſhould be made out of other places of Scripture by men wiſe and skilful, who is there that would blame them?

Fifthly, Who ever quarrelled with the French Churches, for having great ſilver Chalices for the Communion, as he tells us they have, pag. 32.

Or who would be offended if richer Churches had the ten Commandments in Letters of Gold, and the Creed, and the Lords Prayer in the ſame form. I have heard one of the chief Presbyterian Miniſters did rejoice, that the Lords Prayer was by the Painter drawn in very viſible Characters upon a wall, juſt over againſt his Pulpit, for by that means, if at any time he happened to be as much out in repeating of that form; as Mr. Durell lately was in the repeating of the Belief, he might help himſelf, and not put himſelf and others to ſhame, as Mr. Durell did.

Sixthly, He tells us pag. 32. That in all Reformed Churches men uſed to enter into the place of publick worſhip with their hats off, which is as great an untruth, as ever dropped from writers pen, unleſs it be underſtood of places of publick worſhip, whilſt publick worſhip is actually performed in p. 56them, and if it may be ſo underſtood, then the Presbyterians would hugely approve of it. By the Directory it was enjoined that, all enter the Aſſembly not irreverently, but in a grave and ſeemly manner: gravity and ſeemlineſs do include putting off the hat, which yet would be a ridiculous action, if a man ſhould uſe it, as too many now a days do as oft as they go through the Church, though none be met for worſhip, and though they themſelves intended no worſhip: nor does the Directory any where condemn the manner which Mr. Durell tells us hath obtained among the French Ladies, viz. to unmask themſelves when they come into the Temple; provided they do not unmask themſelves out of a vain or wanton deſign; if they ſhould do ſo, they know by whom they are condemned. [I but ſaith Mr. Durell, the devouteſt ſort both of men and women, uſe to kneel and make a Prayer for Gods bleſſing, before they ſit down, and this the Directory prohibites.] Had he ſaid that the devouter ſort uſe a ſhort Prayer when they took no ſeats, and came to perform no ſervice to God; then he had ſaid ſomething to excuſe the actings of ſome among us. The peoples making a ſecret Prayer before they ſit down in their ſeats, is not forbidden by the Directory, unto all, or unto p. 57any, but theſe who come into the Church the publick worſhip being begun, and whether it be more meet for ſuch to betake themſelves to their private devotions, or to join with the Aſſembly in that ordinance that is in hand, let the learned judge for they are wiſe.

Seventhly, All might have been ſpared that is brought, pag. 33. Of Peoples ſtanding bare in time of Divine Service, and at the Adminiſtration of Sacraments: In the very Church of Scotland all are uncovered at the Adminiſtration of the Sacraments; here in England men had left off to put on their hats in time of Sermon (which Mr. Durell ſeems to diſtinguiſh from Service) had Mr. Calamy and others been hearkened to.

Eighthly, Above all, what need we be told, pag. 22. That Calvin wore a Gown and a Cap: Were not Presbyterians accuſtomed ſo to do in the Univerſities? Thoſe ſent down by the two Houſes to Cambridge, did all of them preach in the Univerſity Church in their Gowns, and in their Hoods; and I never heard of any, but Browniſts, that queſtioned the uſing of the very ſame Churches that the Papiſts had uſed; yet we have fine ſtories of that, pag. 28. As alſo of the Ring in Marriage, as if there were ſome p. 58odde Nonconformiſts that did ſcruple being Married with a Ring. He tells us alſo of Matrimony in the publick Congregation, pag. 47. celebrated alſo by a Miniſter juſt according as the Directory orders; but if he would have gratified us here in England, he ſhould have told us that all Reformed Churches do count Marriages valid, though made without and againſt the conſent of Parents, as alſo that they have Officers, whom they allow to give Licenſes for Marriages, though there have been no Banes publiſhed, nor any thing equivolent thereunto, but to affirm this had been ſomewhat too groſs. Pag. 48, and 49. He minds us, that in moſt Reformed Churches the dead are buried with great ſolemnity, ſinging of Pſalms, and Funeral Sermons; as if Presbyterians had ſcrupled the Preaching of Funeral Sermons, or had not been wont when deſired to Preach them. I believe if Compariſon were made, Presbyterians formerly preached more Funeral Sermons, then Prelatical men do now, and that very many of thoſe for whom Sermons are now Preached, are addicted to Presbytery. Mr. Durell ſhould have called to remembrance, that our Church hath appointed no Funeral Sermons, nor required any more of her Miniſters, ſave only to meet the Corps at the Church Stile, p. 59and ſo go either into the Church, or towards the Grave, to ſay or ſing ſome verſicles out of Holy Writ: I do not find that by the old Liturgy it was required that the Corps ſhould be brought into the Church, though now I find one or two Pſalms appointed to be read after the Miniſter and people are come into the Church, and by Comparing the old and new Liturgy together, I find where in the old was the word [Miniſter] in the new there is conſtantly the word [Prieſt,] ſo that whereas a Deacon may preach to us, and Baptize our Children, he may not bury our dead, which ſeems to be a Myſtery worthy Mr. Durells unridling. Our Clergy men themſelves ſeem Strangers to this myſtery, for nothing is more uſual among them, than to ſet Deacons to bury their dead; nor can I in that old Liturgy which I follow, find any notice given, that the office for the burial of the dead, is not to be uſed at the burial of ſuch as die unbaptized, in the new Liturgy ſuch notice is given; the reaſon whereof I am not ſo happy at preſent as to know: why ſhould Infants that die unbaptized, through no fault of their Parents, be denied ſuch a burial as Baptized Infants have? Mr. Durell is a knowing man, and can ſatisfie us about theſe matters, and brings us, no queſtion, p. 60many Reformed Churches where the ſame uſage obtains; but why did he bring in his Friend, Mr. Drelincourt, ſaying pag. 49. That he ſhould account the Cuſtome of the Miniſters of the Reformed Churches in France, being ſilent at dead mens burial, unſufferable, were it not for their preſent condition.

That learned worthy Divine knows, that the Reformed Churches in Holland, are under no ſuch condition as the French Churches, and yet their Miniſters are perpetually ſilent at the burials of dead men; Is their Cuſtome unſufferable? I believe he will not ſo pronounce, and therefore will ſcarce think himſelf civilly dealt with, to have a Fragment of a private Epiſtle thus publiſhed, eſpecially ſeeing it reflects diſgrace upon the Miniſters of his own nation, who are Paſtors in Holland; I have been too tedious in examining this impertinence. The Communion alſo he tells us, pag. 44. Is conſtantly celebrated at certain ſet times in all Reformed Churches. And is there any thing in the Directory againſt the celebrating of it at certain ſet times? Does it not ſay, that it is frequently to be celebrated? And take order that notice ſhall be given before hand of its celebration? nor does the Directory any where forbid the Adminiſtring of the Communion unto thoſe that p. 61are ſick in private houſes, though if it had ſo done, it might have juſtified it ſelf by the Example of many of the beſt Reformed Churches. Let Mr. Durell when he is at leiſure, enquire whether one of the Aſſembly of Divines did not Adminiſter the Sacrament to Captain Hotham when he was juſt going to be Beheaded? or whether he was ever cenſured for ſo doing?

I will enlarge my Catalogue no farther; by the inſtances already produced, it appears, that Mr. Durell may well be called Mr. Impertinent. But I ſhall now by ſundry inſtances make it evident alſo, that he hath thruſt ſundry things into his book, that are like enough, if they fall into the hands of a weak Reader, to be prejudicial and pernicious, and to alienate him from our Church. He tells us page 8. the Hungarian and Tranſilvanian Churches are as Pure and Reformed, as any whatſoever; but page 10, & 11. he ſpoils all, and takes a great deal of pains ſo to do, borrowing a book very rare and ſcarce; and out of it acquainting us, That in thoſe Churches Miniſters ſwear obedience Canonical unto Presbyters as well as Biſhops: and, That Miniſters are to be governed by certain Laws by an eminent ſort of Presbyters, called Elders, as well as by Biſhops. Then which, what can be more derogatory to the Epiſcopal p. 62Power, Place, Juriiſdiction, and Ordination in Presbyters as well as Biſhops? and what Eminence will there then be left for Biſhops? what will there be left to a Biſhop, more than what the Presbyterians have a thouſand times over acknowledged themſelves ready to yield him? It may be he thought he ſhould heal his wound by ſaying as he does, page 8. That theſe Elders are indeed Biſhops, and the Biſhops Archbiſhops. But I ſay they are indeed but a more Eminent ſort of Presbyters; ſo they are expreſly called, and they can be no other; becauſe they were never by Ordination put into an Office, or Order ſuperior to that of Presbyters; and obſervable it is (vid. pag. praedict.) That the Miniſter acknowledgeth himſelf in his Oath, to receive the function of the ſacred Miniſtry from the there preſent Miniſters of God, and moſt Faithful diſpenſers of his Myſteries. Which are Phraſes agreeing unto all that are entruſted with the word of Reconciliation: So that this Teſtimony looks with a very evil eye upon Epiſcopacy: and ſo does much more the Teſtimony of the Bohemian Churches, related pag. 11, 12, 13. for in that we have Presbyters Ordaining Bohemian Biſhops, a thing that ſounds dreadful to an Epiſcopal ear. This ſtory will ſtrengthen the Presbyterians, and be a ſecond unto that with which p. 63they are wont ſo much to confirme themſelves; I mean the Hiſtory of Pelagius Biſhop of Rome being ordained by two Biſhops and one Presbyter. Theſe Hiſtories do at leaſt prove that Presbyters and Biſhops were of the ſame Order, and that Presbyters as well as Biſhops, may lay hands upon Biſhops, and confer the power of making Miniſters. Indeed the man makes himſelf ridiculous who goes about to look for any Biſhop properly ſo called among the Waldenſes; and he does gratifie the Presbyterians not a little, page 38. whilſt he tells them, That the French Churches ſing at the end of the Commandments, theſe four verſes which anſwer to our Lord have mercy upon us and incline, &c. for this is the very thing that Presbyterians deſire, that theſe words might be uttered at the end of the Commandments, and not at the end of every particular Commandment: pag. 45, 46. he takes Mr. Calvins pen and drops a very foul blot upon our Church; for the cuſtome of Receiving thrice a year, which is known to be our cuſtome, (for no man is bound to Receive oftner) is by him the called vitioſus mos, (i. e.) a vitious cuſtome at leaſt, if not a cuſtome full of vice. But page 53. he calls us all, Fools by Craft; for theſe are his words, That every National Church ought to have Ʋ niformity within it ſelf, hath alwaies been the p. 64judgment of all ſober and wiſe Chriſtians, and is at this day the good example of all the Reformed Churches in the world. I aſſume, that there ought to be Uniformity in every National Church, hath not alwaies been, nor yet is the Judgment of the Church of England; what Concluſion hence ariſes every one ſeeth, but the Concluſion is ſo horrid that I will not form it. My Aſſumption I prove from the Canons of 1640. which are ſo far from determining that there ought to be an Uniformity, that they expreſly allow a Difformity, deſiring in reference to the Rite of doing Reverence and Obeyſance towards the Eaſt at our coming in, or going out of the Church, that the Rule of Charity preſcribed by the Apoſtle may be obſerved, (i. e.) That they which uſe this Rite, deſpiſe not them who uſe it not; and that they who uſe it not, condemn not thoſe that uſe it. And how will the Presbyterians rejoyce to read thoſe high commendations of the Bohemian Churches. 'Tis ſaid page 64. That they are the firſt that Reformed Religion from Popery to True and Primitive Chriſtianity: and page 99. 'tis ſaid, Happy had been all the Christian word, if, as the ſaid Churches were the firſt that Reformed themſelves from Popery, the way of their Reformation had been followed by all others who Reformed after them. This his high Opinion he p. 65confirms by the Teſtimony of Learned Za… chy, and might alſo have confirmed it by the Teſtimony of Luther. Well! this being ſuppoſed muſt not the Presbyterians carry the day? they think they muſt, and therefore one of them, not many years ſince, Tranſlated Comenius into Engliſh, as making very much for that Plat-form they aimed at. Indeed in the Order of thoſe Churches I find Lay-Presbyters, and which is more, Lay-Presbytreſſes, and Eleemoſynaries anſwering to the Presbyterians Deacons. Officers I know they have called by the name of Antiſtites, which may be rendered Biſhops; but every one of them to ſubmit himſelf to the judgment not only of his Colleagues but alſo of the Conſeniours, and to admit admonition, Counſels, and reproof from them, and theſe Conſeniours are together with their Antiſtites to exerciſe Diſcipline upon Miniſters. The Lords day thoſe Churches keep as ſtrictly as the Presbyterians contend to have them kept. Baptiſme they adminiſter without the ſign of the Croſs; with them none are thought to belong to the Paſtoral Cure of Miniſters, but thoſe who do with good will ſubmit themſelves to that Unity and Order; whereas among us every one muſt be a Church Member or elſe go to the Common Goal; and that which anſwers unto p. 66Confirmation amongſt them is performed only by the Miniſter; and before every Sacrament, the Maſter of a Family and his Houſehold come to the Miniſter and are by him examined; ſome few Holy-dayes indeed are kept in theſe Churches, but ſo, that when Divine Service is ended, people go to their work as upon other dayes: There is no order among them to abſtain from the works of their Calling on the Saints day, or to keep the Evening before, Faſt, ſo that theſe Churches are as Presbyterian as Presbyterians themſelves can deſire; what was it then that moved Mr. Durell ſo tranſcendently to extol them? page 46. He tells us, That thoſe Churches that firſt Reformed from Popery, receive the Communion kneeling, and it is true, they do ſo; but they did not do ſo from the beginning. In the year 1494. they received the Communion ſtanding, but were forced to leave off that geſture, becauſe their Perſecutors were the more bitter upon that account, and would not this be a goodly Argument think you? the Bohemian Church to avoid perſecution receives the Sacrament kneeling, therefore it is conformable with the Engliſh Church, that perſecutes all who do not receive the Sacrament kneeling. I but, when theſe Churches did joyn with thoſe of Major Polonia and p. 67Lithuania, it was unanimouſly forbidden to receive that bleſsed Sacrament ſitting, becauſe among other Reaſons, that unmannerly and irreverent geſture was peculiar to thoſe Miſcreants the Arrians amongſt them, and they made this obſervation, That the cuſtome of ſitting at the Lords Table was firſt brought into ſome of their Churches by thoſe who moſt miſerably falling from their Communion did renounce the Lord who redeemed them, wherefore they intreat and exhort all their Company and Bretheren, that they would change ſitting, into ſtanding or kneeling. For this Mr. Durell refers us to a general Synod celebrated 1583. But every one that looks into the Harmony of Confeſſions will ſee that Mr. Durell hath not dealt fairly; for firſt, He leaves out a Parentheſis of the Synod, in the which it is expreſly ſaid, That that geſture of Seſſion with others is free. Secondly, Whereas the Synod ſaies that Seſſion was brought in potiſſimum malo Auſpicio. This Mr. Durell Tranſlates was firſt brought in. I grant indeed that in another Synod, to which this Synod doth refer, celebrated 1578. it is expreſly ſaid, That they who fell off to Arrianiſme were the firſt Authors of ſitting in their Churches; but that Synods words Mr. Durell does not Tranſlate, and therefore has Tranſlated either ignorantly or diſhoneſtly. Let it alſo be p. 68obſerved, that this Synod does pray and beſeech people to leave off ſitting, not command them under the pain of Excommunication; yea this Synod by allowing what was done in the former Synod, does determine, That it is unlawful to ſmite Godly men with Eccleſiaſtical Deſcipline becauſe of external Rites. Let me alſo add, that the Fathers of this Synod were under a miſtake when they ſaid, That no Church in Europe anno 1583. did uſe ſitting at the Lords Table, and Mr. Durell is much more miſtaken if he thinks that any Socinians firſt brought up the cuſtome of ſitting amongſt us here in England, for what if Dr. Owen ſaid truly when he confuted the Socinians, That Socinianiſme had generally ſpread it ſelf into the Nation; yet ſitting had been uſed before Socinianiſme ſo ſpread it ſelf, I never heard that there was a Socinian either in the Aſſembly, or in the two Houſes untill that one Mr. Free got among the Commons, who for his Blaſphemies was caſhiered that Houſe, as I have ſomewhere read.

Had Mr. Durell pleaſed, he might have conſulted a Catechiſme made by Thomas Beacon Prebend of Canterbury, and Printed cum Privilegio 1563. in which Catechiſme, the Learned Divine and Godly Confeſſour ſaith; That if ſitting at the Lords Table, p. 69which was then uſed in certain Reformed Churches, were recived by publick Authority, and common Conſent, and might be conveniently uſed in our Churches, he could allow that geſture beſt. And Mr. Robert Nicholls, in a Diſcourſe of kneeling in the act of Receiving, long ſince preſented to Biſhop Morton, but not printed till 1660, would have informed him; That in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Raign, ſtanding was Ordained at Coventry and Northampton, by her Majeſties Commiſſion, and kneeling aboliſhed.

But there was another thing perhaps, that might move Mr. Durell to be ſo ſuperlative in the commendation of the Bohemian Churches; namely, a Crotchet got into his head, of calling an Aſſembly of forreign Divines that ſhould all give their ſuffrage for the Diſcipline and Rites of the Engliſh Church: which Crotchet did ſo pleaſe him, that he begins to call that Aſſembly, page 200 and Comenius, the only ſurviving Biſhop of the Bohemian Churches, he will give the Honour to ſpeak firſt; and accordingly doth bring him in, pag. 202, 203, 204, 205. with a long Harangue of words in the commendation of Unity or Order; but is ſo uncivil to the aged Biſhop, as not to allow him liberty to p. 70ſpeak all he had to ſpeak: I muſt therefore, out of the Reverence I have for his gray haires, and the reſpect that all Chriſtian Churches bear to him for his Learning and Piety, doe him ſo much right, as to let him ſpeak farther about the Controverſies agitated among us: he hath a Paraeneſs to the Churches, and by name, the Engliſh Church; in that page 146. he tells us what he would have taken from Epiſcopacy Secular Dominion, Terrene Riches or Wealth, and the Pompe of Ceremonies: and in the next page, brings in the Papiſts laughing and jearing at us for the Ceremonies that we retained here in England, ſince our Reformation; ſo that I may well conclude, that it had been more for the intereſt of the Church, to have paſſed over the Bohemian Churches in ſilence; and it had been well alſo, if the Conſenſus Poloniae had never been mentioned; for in that we ſhall find a Synod at Cracovia, anno 1573. diſputing de Choreis, and when ſome had alledged that there were honeſt as well as diſhoneſt dancings, it was at laſt concluded by the ſuffrage of all, as well Seculars as Clergy, that they were to be condemned according to the Scripture, and to be forbidden unto all that profeſs true Piety. Will it much pleaſe ſome of our Governours p. 71that young Students are by Mr. Durell directed to read the Determinations of this Synod, but this is one of the leaſt of the miſchiefs that he doth us; pag. 93. being ſurpriſed with a pang of vain glory, and deſigning to acquaint us with his own Sufferings, he doth not ſtick to deliver that which involves the farre greater part of his preſent Conforming Brethren under the guilt of Rebellion and Schiſme, for theſe are his words, pag. 93. It is known how great the Perſecution was againſt all Miniſters who adhered to the King and Church of England, during the late troubles, thoſe who were more gently dealt with, were onelyonly plundered, turned out of their Livings, or impriſoned; there were others, whom it was thought fitter to caſt out of the Land, &c. Out of theſe words, ſuppoſing what is manifeſt, that they who adhered not to the King and to the Church, are Traytors and Schiſmaticks, thus I argue: All that adhered to King and Church ſuffered, either to Deprivation or Baniſhment, moſt of the preſent Conformiſts, neither ſuffered to Deprivation nor Baniſhment; therefore moſt of the preſent Conformiſts neither adhered to King nor Church, and by Conſequence were Traytors and Schiſmaticks. The Major is Mr. Durells own; The Minor p. 72is known to all the Nation; moſt of the preſent Conformiſts either enjoyed their own Livings during the late troubles, or were put into new Livings. If Mr. Durell had enquired of him who Licenſed his Book, he would have told him that he enjoyed a very good Fellowſhip in All-Souls, during the late confuſions, but it is uſual with Mr. Durell, where he thinks any Presbyterian is within his reach, to lay about him, though he muſt needs ſtrike through the love of moſt of his own Friends. So pag. 44 … tel… us, That thoſe who profeſs themſelves to be Orthodox had either altogether neglected the Sacrament in moſt Pariſhes of theſe three Kingdomes, or elſe had miniſtred it onelyonly to ſome few choice perſons. Which is to throw dirt into the faces of his Epiſpopal Brethren, for they poſſeſſed moſt of the Pariſhes in this Kingdome to be ſure, and as for the Kingdome of Scotland, there war no neglect of the Sacrament, untill that our Engliſh Armies had made it impoſſible for them to exerciſe their Diſcipline. But Aquilla non capit muſcas, it is a ſmall thing with Mr. Durell thus to ſcratch our Engliſh Clergy unleſs he alſo wound the whole Engliſh Nation, and that we find him doing; for after he had told us that he would ſet down out of Monſieur Le Moyne's Letter p. 73as much as fitted his purpoſe, he ſets down this, pag. 136. The Engliſh have a Natural fierceneſs, and withall a natural inclination to Superſtition; Doth this Character of our Nation fit Mr. Durell's purpoſe? then certainly it is a wicked purpoſe, which cannot be managed but by the cauſleſs aſperſion of a whole Nation: Uſually Superſtition dwells in the timerous and daſtardly Nature. We, unhappy Mortalls that we be, are naturally fierce, and yet naturally Superſtitious; he that had obſerved this concerning us, ſhould have been ſo friendly as to tell us what kind of Superſtition it is, that we are ſo naturally inclined to, that ſo we might have known how to have watched, and prepared Antidotes againſt it, if there be any Antidotes ſtrong enough to expell that which is naturall. The Author of this Letter whom Mr. Durell calls one of the ordinary Preachers to the Reformed Congregation of Roan, (which certainly is a Phraſe of diſparagement to Engliſh ears) thinkes that upon account of our Natural fierceneſs and ſuperſtition, We ſtand in need of a Government ſomewhat Deſpoticall, that is, of a Government by Biſhops; but I would query what kind of Biſhops we muſt have: Nature teacheth us to deſire ſome of our p. 74own Nation, and if they be of our own Nation, are not they Naturally Fierce and Superſtitious too; if they be, what Deſpoticall power ſhall we have to cure them; if they be not, then it ſeems the Epiſcopal Character expells the Natural Fierceneſs and Superſtition that dwells in Engliſh Natures; but we never yet had any experience, that a mans being made a Biſhop in England did work any cure of his Natural Fierceneſs and Superſtition. Some men have thought that divers after they were advanced to Epiſcopal Dignity grew more fierce and more ſuperſtitious, but this I neither affirm nor deny. In the ſame Letter pag. 134. it is ſaid, That it cannot enter into a Rational Mans Imagination, that a great Kingdome ſhould come by cuſtome to be content to ſee its Biſhops no more, having honoured and reverenced them for the ſpace of one thouſand four hundred years. This is good news to the Biſhops, and if they can believe it, they may in utramque aurem indormire, for Epiſcopacy it ſeems as well as Superſtition is grafted into the Natures of the members of this great Kingdome, and they can neither ſuddenly, nor by cuſtome be brought ſo much as to a contentedneſs to want their Hierarchy. The Author of this Epiſtle is famed to be a great Hiſtorian, p. 75and I doubt not but he is ſo, but methinks he is miſtaken in his Chronology, whileſt he makes this great Kingdome to have reverenced and honoured Biſhops for one thouſand four hundred years. I find not any good evidence that there were any Biſhops among us, till Auguſtine the Monk was ſent to us from Rome, and it is not one thouſand four hundred years ſince Auguſtine came hither. I ſay there is no good evidence of Biſhops till then, for Venerable Bede the onelyonly Author to be regarded concerning matters Eccleſiaſtical, preceding Auguſtins miſſion from the Pope, tells us indeed of Brittiſh Biſhops, but after he hath ſaid Epiſcopi he adds ſeu Doctores which renders it very uncertain, what kind of men he means by Biſhops: And Mr. Petoy a late Hiſtorian hath adventured to ſay, That our Church as well as the Scottiſh Church was at firſt planted and Governed without Biſhops, till Biſhops were ſent to us from Rome. But be this as it will, certain I am, our great Kingdome could not be ſaid to honour and reverence Biſhops, till by the Preaching of Auguſtine and his Aſſociates, the Nation ceaſed to be Pagan; ſince which time, Biſhops have not alwaies been ſo reverenced and honoured as the Reverend Author of this Epiſtle pretends. Their diſloyalty and p. 76pride rendred them ſo odious in the Reigns of many Kings, that had it been put to the Vote, whether there ſhould have been Biſhops or no Biſhops, it is eaſy enough to ſee how it would have been carried. Nor is it truly ſaid page 133. That we owe our Reformation to the Care and Zeal of our Biſhops, who did ſo wonderfully well repurge the Church of England an hundred years ago.

The firſt dawnings of Reformation we owe under God, to Wickliff, who was no Biſhop, nor friend to Biſhops; as Biſhops ſignifie men of a ſuperior Order to Presbyters, thoſe who ſealed the Truth with their Bloud, in King Henry the eighths dayes, were none of them Biſhops: We can prove from the writings they have left behind them, that they were againſt Biſhops. Seeing this Letter is ſo well penned Mr. Durells anger will not wax hot; if I dwell upon it a little longer The Author of it tells us page 139 That he fears not to ſay, 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 progreſſes of Reformation, and the reſistance of a great many perſons overcome, who are frighttd from their Communion by p. 77the irregularity of their Government, and the bareneſs of their Service. I deſign not to put this Reverend Paſtor into any fright becauſe of any thing that he hath ſaid, but really I do not underſtand what he means by [the Reformed French keeping their Biſhops] for I never heard that they had any Biſhops of their Religion to part with; much leſs do I underſtand upon what he founds his certain aſſeverations that more Papiſts would have come over to them, if they had had Biſhops and more Ceremonies. We had before the Wars Biſhops in our Nation, and Ceremonies enough; yet did we not find any great additions made to our Churches by the coming in of Recuſants. I hope they in France can reckon up more Converts from Popery, than we can here in England, or elſe Converſions have been but rare. I alſo hope, that ſo many have not apoſtatized among them, as have apoſtatized among us: If they have, Rome hath more to boaſt of than I could wiſh. But there is one thing more marvellous than all this; The Author of the Letter thinks, That if the Engliſh Diſſentors have any Charity, they would conſent to the Reeſtabliſhment of the Epiſcopal Government, though there were ſomething in it they could not approve of: if it were but for the ſake p. 78of thoſe that follow the Confeſſion of Aſpurg. For can this learned man think, that Hierarchy, as an Order ſuperiour to Presbytery, and as founded upon a Divine Inſtitution, would be an Offering well pleaſing to the Lutheran Divines? he is not ſo unacquainted with their Writings as that he can ſo think. If Epiſcopacy upholds the Lutheran Churches, as he tells us page 138. I am ſure it is not ſuch an Epiſcopacy as we have here in England; for ſuch an Epiſcopacy hath no place among them. And oh that it could be ſaid, That they in Denmarke, Norway, Sweden, and Germany, were very quiet under the Epiſcopal Government, ſeldom ſeen to ſlander and tear one another. We know they have their differences, and that none are more moleſted, than the moderate party among them: ſo far was Epiſcopal Government from keeping us quiet in England, that the Diviſions and Animoſities did ariſe and grow to a great height among the Biſhops themſelves. Some were told that nothing but their Biſhopricks kept them from being Puritans: Others were told, that nothing but their Wives kept them from being Papiſts. Sundry Parliaments complained to the King of the growth of Arminianiſme, and what did the Church do, to prevent or take away p. 79the ground and cauſe ſuch Complaints? truly Dr. Heylin in his Hiſtory of Laud, tells us, that there was a Conſultation whether it were meet to bring the thing to a Convocation; but it was concluded, that it was not ſafe ſo to do; becauſe there were too many Members of the Convocation inclined to Calviniſme, though there were ſome that were as ſtrangly inclined to Arminianiſme, our Pulpits had not failed to ring with Declamations againſt Pelagianiſme in ſome places, and againſt Stoicall Fatality in others, had not the King by a Proclamation, put ſome ſtop to thoſe Controverſies: ſo that the quietneſs which the Church enjoyed, was rather due to Monarchy than Epiſpacy. Now of late indeeed, Arnold Polenberg in his preface to the ſecond Tome of Epiſcopius his works, gives us to underſtand, that he deſigned to dedicate that great Folio to our Engliſh Clergy, and particularly to both our Univerſities; promiſing himſelf, that almost all the Biſhops of our Churches do defend that Opinion concerning Predeſtination, which was condemned in the Synod of Dort: Whether he be out in his account, 'tis not for me to enquire, who have work enough to do at home, but it ſeems even in this Gentlemans account, all our Biſhops are not become Epiſcopian, and therfore preſerve Unity p. 80among themſelves, by having their knowledge in thoſe matters unto themſelves. Now if it be found neceſſary to tolerate difference of Judgment among the Biſhops themſelves in Doctrines of ſo high concernment? it may be worth the Conſideration of thoſe who are in Authority, whether they alſo may not be ſuffered to enjoy Eccleſiaſtical preferment, who differ from their Bretheren only in ſome few points of Diſcipline: I ſay in a few points of Diſcipline, for as to the eſſentials of Diſcipline I am not ſo quick-ſighted, as to find that we diſagree. The things that breed diſcord among us, are ſaid, by thoſe who are the chief cauſes of their impoſition, to be Adiaphorous, (i. e.) ſuch things as are therefore good becauſe impoſed, rather than impoſed becauſe good. On the other hand, thoſe who ſuffer for not yeilding to the Impoſitions, do judge there is ſome evil in the things impoſed, and deſire they may be indulged not to Practiſe them. A Bookiſh man who is not much verſed in the Intrigues of Eccleſiaſticall Pollicy, would think no bigger a breach than this, might eaſily be ſtopped up.

I ſhall diſmiſs this Letter, only adding, That I would not have Mounſieur Le-Moyn eſtimated by it, having certain knowledge that he hath both with his tongue and p. 81pen declared, that Mr. Durell hath much abuſed him, in leaving out ſundry paſſages in his Letter wherin he did moderate and regulate the Epiſcopal power, which if they had been inſerted, the Letter would not at all have fitted his deſign.

Laſtly, it plainly appears, that Mr. Durell is no obſerver of the Act of Uniformity, for he over and over confeſſeth, that he hath ſuffered thoſe to preach in his Church, who had no Epiſcopal Ordination, which is a Crime ſeverely to be puniſhed by the Act. And I much doubt whether Mr. Durell himſelf be qualified to be a Preacher in England; for though he make ſhift to tell us, that he was Ordained by a Scotch Biſhop, yet it is probable enough, that that Biſhop was Ordained Presbyter, by Presbyters; or at leaſt by thoſe, who never had themſelves any Ordination to be Presbyters, but by Presbyters: and if ſo, there was an error in the firſt Concoction, and we know that is not to be corrected. Our Biſhops lately took care to prevent this ſcruple, and conſecrated Mr. Sharp firſt Deacon, then Prieſt, then Biſhop, &c. But we are ſure from Hiſtory, that the firſt Biſhops who came over hither to receive Ordination, were not ſo dealt with: and therefore Mr. Durell may do well to conſider upon what ground he p. 82ſtands, and whether according to the Principle now prevailing, he be not ſtill a Laick.

I have one Catalogue more to give you ſtill, and that will conſiſt of things which Country men call Whiskers; you may if you pleaſe more civilly call them, Durelliſme, I ſhall not reckon up all, but yet I muſt be allowed to mention ſome.

The firſt occurs, page 31. I know none that did ever ſo much as move the queſtion, in what place, and which way the Communinion Table ought to ſtand, ſo it be ſeated where the people may hear and ſee, except the new Scotch and Engliſh Presbyterians.

A man muſt have a large meaſure of Charity that can think him ignorant, that there were great queſtions moved among our Biſhops themſeves, concerning the placing of the Communion Table: and ſome did urge Miniſters to read Service there, though it was demonſtrated that the one halfe of the people could neither ſee nor hear them.

A ſecond I find page 32. In all Reformed Churches men uſe to enter into the places of Publick Worſhip with their Hats off.

This is a moſt notorious — nothing being more uſual in ſome Reformed Churches than to paſs through and through the places of Worſhip, never ſtirring their Hats: But if he would have the ſaying underſtood of mens putting off their Hats p. 83when they enter into the place of Publick Worſhip, whilſt the Congregation is Worſhipping, then muſt this ſpeech be placed where it is already placed, among the Gentlemans impertinencies.

Thirdly, page 44. he averrs, That thoſe who profeſs themſelves to be Orthodox, either altogether neglected the Lords Supper for many years in both Ʋniverſities, that of Oxford having had no Communion for above 12 years; or only admitted ſome few choice perſons to the ſame, refuſing it to all others, though their outward carriage were ſober, honest, and religious.

There are hundreds of Scholars and Citizens know this to be an untruth; no Presbyterian in the Univerſity of Oxford, that had a Paſtoral Charge, or any thing like it, neglected to adminiſter the Sacrament for many years, or for any one year; or refuſed any whoſe converſation was ſober, honeſt, and religious. Some of them were blamed for admitting ſuch whoſe converſation was not ſo ſober and religious, as all Rules of good Diſcipline do require in Church-members. The phraſe, That of Oxford having had no Communion for above 12 years, perhaps was intended only to bear this ſence, That the Univerſity did not for above 12 years meet together to receive the Sacrament in St. Maries before the Terms: If this be any fault, the Presbyterian is not concerned in it. In thoſe 12 years time, p. 84there were but four Vice-Chancellors, all of them right-worthy perſons, but not one of them profeſſing himſelf a Presbyterian. But indeed it may be queſtion'd, whether it was veri nominis crimen, not to keep up that Sacrament. For I wonder who made the Univerſity, as the Univerſity, a Church? or who is the Paſtour of that Church? what Biſhop hath Juriſdiction over it? or who ſhall Excommunicate thoſe Members that come not to the Ordinance? I never heard that ever the hundred part of the Univerſity was at that Sacrament when adminiſtred, or that any one man was ever cenſured for being abſent from it: nay I believe the Statute injoyning this Sacrament in that Church, will be found a ſpick and ſpan new Statute, coyned on purpoſe to inure the Scholars to Bowing towards the Altar.

Fourthly, In the ſame page, and the very next words, we have an Aſſertion as void of all Truth, viz. That all the Reformed world over, no man that is not a notorious ill Liver is debarred from that Comfort which Chriſt hath left to his Church for the ſick and weak as a Medicine againſt their Diſeaſes.

Had it been ſaid that all the Reformed World over, no one is to be debarred from the Sacrament by the Rules of Diſcipline, but a notorious ill Liver, the Aſſertion had had ſome modeſty, but what intolerable p. 85impudence is it for any man to arrogate ſo much to himſelf as to adventure to ſay no man is debarred indeed in all Reformed Churches: others are to be debarred beſides notorious ill Livers, namely the ignorant and thoſe that have any heretical opinions, which they make known, yea, and all thoſe who cannot ſatisfie themſelves to conform to all the Rites and Ceremonies uſed in the Churches, if we may believe Mr. Durell himſelf. Yet I trow, there's no neceſſity ſuch ſhould be notorious evil Livers.

Fifthly, Pag. 61. He finds a forehead to leave theſe words on Record, 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 to conform to them. By whom was this ever ſaid? either in ſo many words, or in any expreſſions tantamount? and how would Mr. Durell have this uncouth affirmation to be underſtood? univerſally, or particularly? It ſhould be underſtood univerſally, or elſe Mr. Durell's going about to prove the Negative is very needleſs; and if it be ſo underſtood, he might as well have charged us to ſay, that the Reformed Churches count it a ſin in the Engliſh Church to uſe her own Native Language. The French Miniſters preach with their Hats on, did ever Nonconformiſt p. 86ſay, that they count it ſinful in us to preach with our hats off? or did ever Nonconformiſt go about to bring the French mode into his Church?

Sixthly, Pag. 85. he acquaints us, That the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas are told, that the Convocations of the Church of England conſiſt onelyonly of Archbiſhops and Biſhops, and that the inferiour Clergy are not admitted to ſit and vote in them.

Till any perſons be produc'd who told the Reformed Churches any ſuch tales, Mr. Durell muſt be content to be thought a ſpreader of falſe informations; if he can produce any ſuch, by my conſent let him have the whetſtone and keep it untill he can find Mr. Durell telling ſomething that will make him deſerve to have it returned. But he ſhall not need to keep it very long: For

Seventhly, Pag. 86. he tells us, That the Biſhops in England are to rule by the Conſtitutions and Canons Eccleſiaſtical, and by the Laws of the Land and no otherwiſe; calling alwaies to joyn with them in impoſition of hands, and other matters of weighty concernment, ſome of the Prebends of their Cathedralls, or other gra… Miniſters of the Dioceſs.

Where was ſhame when this was pen'd? do the Canons require any Biſhop to call any one Miniſter to join with him in impoſition of hands upon a Deacon, or in the Confirmation of p. 87perſons before they are admitted to the Lords Supper? or doth the Biſhop offend againſt any Law or Canon, if he call none of his Miniſters to joyn with him, when a Presbyter is Excommunicated? or is it ſo much as neceſſary, that the Biſhop himſelf ſhould be preſent, when Excommunication is decreed? Is any thing more uſual, then for Lay-Chancellors to decree Excommunication? calling only ſome Miniſter for faſhion ſake to pronounce the ſentence: I would Mr. Durell would ſhew us any Reformed Church that hath any ſuch cuſtom; and I wiſh alſo he would tell us, what thoſe Canons and Conſtitutions are, according to which our Biſhops are to rule us: For ſome tell us, that they are to proceed not only according to the Canons of 1603. but alſo according to ſundry other Canons that ordinary people know not, nor ever had an opportunity to read of; provided they be not repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Nation. Mr. Durell 'tis like hath all the 77. Legatine Canons, as alſo the 212 Provincial Canons, at his fingers ends; If he can find any Canon among them all, commanding our Biſhops to call in ſome of the Presbyters to joyn with them in impoſition of hands, and all other weighty matters, let him diſcharge it in their faces; yet taking heed left it recoyle, and do himſelf ſome miſchief: For Biſhops do not love to have their power limited, or p. 88the Canons relating to it expounded, by any but themſelves. I hope no Canons are in force but thoſe of 1603. and by them I am ſure the Biſhop is not required, to call in Presbyters to joyn with him, in every impoſition of hands. In the 31 Canon indeed, he is appointed to celebrate Ordinations on the four Sundays after the Ember weeks, and in the Cathedral or Pariſh Church where the Biſhop reſideth, and in the time of Divine Service, in the preſence not only of the Archdeacon, but of the Dean and two Prebendaries at the leaſt; or if they be let or hindred, in the preſence of four Grave perſons, Maſters of Art, and allowed Preachers. The 35 Canon alſo ſaith, That the Biſhop ſhall diligently examine him that is to be admitted to Holy Orders, in the preſence of thoſe that ſhall aſſiſt him at the impoſition of hands; or elſe cauſe the ſaid Miniſters carefully to examine every ſuch perſon. All this doth not amount to the calling in of Presbyters to joyn with him in the impoſition of hands. The Book of ordering Prieſts and Deacons, doth indeed require, that the Prieſts that are preſent with the Biſhop, ſhall together with him lay on their hands when a Prieſt is ordained; but how if no Prieſt ſhould lay on his hand, the Ordination is valid however, as is again and again determined by Biſhop Taylor, in his Epiſcopacy aſſerted. Yea he ſaith, pag. 197, 198. That it was declared Hereſie to communicate the power of giving Orders p. 89to Presbyters, either alone or in conjunction with Biſhops. What he ſaith concerning the Decree of the 4th. Council of Carthage, pag. 189. I leave to others to examine, confeſſing that I innocently thought, that when our Presbyters laid on hands together with the Biſhop, they as well as he had conferred Orders; Dr. Heylin in his Hiſtory of Epiſcopacy, pag. 162. hath undeceiv'd me, for theſe are his words: The conjunction of the Presbyters in the ſolemnities of this Act, was more for the honour of the Prieſthood, than for the eſſence of the work: Nor did the laying on of the Presbyters hands, conferr upon the party that was ordained any power or order, but only teſtified their conſent unto the buſineſs, and approbation of the man.

I muſt alſo confeſs that I did not apprehend things aright, in reference to the Biſhop and his Presbyters, untill lately I read in the foreſaid Biſhop Taylor, p. 257, 258. That to the Biſhop is committed the care of the whole Dioceſs He it is who is appointed by peculiar deſignation to feed the flock. The Presbyters are admitted in partem ſollicitudinis, but ſtill the Juriſdiction of the whole Dioceſs is in the Biſhop, and without the Biſhops admiſſion to a part of it, per tracit onem ſubditorum, although the Presbyter by his Ordination have a capacity of Preaching and Adminiſtring Sacraments, yet he cannot exerciſe this without deſignation of a particular charge, either p. 90temporary or fixed, and p. 262. after he had muſter'd up many Teſtimonies, he tells us, They ſhew that the Presbyters in their ſeveral charges, whether of temporary miſſion or fixed reſidence, be but Delegates and Vicars of the Biſhop, to aſſiſt the Biſhop in his great charge of the whole Dioceſs, And p. 282, 283. he hath theſe words. As I have ſhewn that the Biſhop of every Dſs. did give Laws to his own Church for particulars, ſo it is evident 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 theſe are juſt ſo many as there are Councils, and more plainly 287. Till the Council of Baſil, the Church never admitted Presbyters, as in their own right to voice in Councils and that Council we know ſavor'd too much of the Schiſmatick. Nay Mr. Jeans tells me, That in the Convocation which was the last before the late wars, Biſhop Pierce told the Miniſters of his Dioceſs, that it was an unqueſtionable Priviledge due unto his See, for him to propound unto them the Clerks that they ſhould chooſe, unto which he expected their Conformity, part. 2. pag. 131. Now if all this ſhould be true, it might be a kind of a Quodlibetical Queſtion, whether in our Convocations any do ſit and vote beſide the Biſhops, for they that ſit not in their own rights, but in the right of others, and as they are Delegates and Subſtitutes, are ſcarce ſaid to ſit: p. 80And ſo the men whom Mr. Durell ſo much condemns for falſe accuſations will be found rather to have ſpoken incautelouſly than falſly: As for the other falſe accuſation relating to Archbiſhop Laud, that he ſhould make a Liturgy differing from the Liturgies of Q. Eliz. and K. James, and K. Charles I. I muſt needs ſay, that is no falſe accuſation. Mounſieur Chabret in his Letter recorded, pag. 82. Doth not ſay that it was reported Archbiſhop Laud had compiled a new Liturgy for the Church of England, but onelyonly that a new one was compilled by him: which had occaſioned much clamour, and been the ground of fears and jealouſies. Now I beſeech Mr. Durell to tell me. Did not Arch-biſhop Laud compile a Liturgy for the Scotch Nation? if he did not, let thoſe who have charged him ſo to do, in allowed writings be confuted; If he did compile that Liturgy, or which is all one, direct thoſe who compiled it; I am ſure it did differ from ours, and occaſioned much clamour, raiſed many fears and jealouſies, which at laſt ended in a war betwixt the two Nations. Yea, there were ſome few alterations made by the ſaid Archbiſh. or ſome of his Creatures in the Liturgy for our own Church, which were not very well reliſhed by thoſe that never were enemies to the legally eſtabliſhed Government, what thoſe alterations were may be ſeen in the Dedicatory of Mr. Prynn's Quench Coal.

p. 92But I muſt give check to my running pen, and take notice of ſome …ner failures againſt truth p. 8. Mr. Durell thus P…ſifieth, Oecolampadius who reformed the City of Baſil, is ſtiled Biſhop of that Church upon his Tomb, of which Bellarmine himſelf was an eye witnes in his time much againſt his will, for this we are referred to Bellar. de notis Eecleſ. l. 4 c. 8. where Bellarm. indeed does tell us, That he was at Baſil, and there ſaw the inſcription on Oecolampadius his Tomb, and read it not without laughter. Now it is hard to conceive that he ſhould ſee that much againſt his will, the ſight whereof cauſed laughter in him, but the truth is, Bellar. laughter was ridiculous, for the words upon the Tomb are not Primus hujus urbis Epiſcopus, as Bellarm. quotes them, but Author Evangelicae doctrinae in hac urbe primus: Epiſcopus indeed he is called, but how? Hujus Templi verus Epiſcopus, and if ſuch an Epiſcopus will do, Mr. Durell any pleaſure, he moſt be a very humourſome man that will envy him ſuch a pleaſure.

Ninthly, Page 13. He fears not to affirme, That all underſtanding men among the French Churches ſay plainly, that if God Almighty were pleaſed that all France ſhould embrace the Reformed Religion, as England hath; the Epiſcopal Government muſt of neceſſity be eſtabliſhed in their Churches. That all underſtanding men ſhould ſay this and ſay it plainly, is certainly a — all underſtanding men were never heard to p. 92ſpeak about this matter; and ſhould they be called together to ſpeak, they would not utter any ſuch ſpeech as is here fathered on them: it is ſcarce ſence, to ſay if all France ſhould embrace the Reformed Religion as England hath; for certainly all England hath not embraced the Reformed Religion, the more the pity: and what neceſſity could there be if France ſhould generally embrace the Reformed Religion, that Epiſcopal Government ſhould be eſtabliſhed in it? I am not more certain that ever I ſaw the Sun, than I am certain that many underſtanding Frenchmen will never be brought to ſay, that Epiſcopal Government muſt neceſſarily be eſtabliſhed.

Tenthly, Page 27. Having told us the Helvetick Confeſſion does vehemently approve of the obſervation of ſome Holy-days, he dreads not to tell us, That the Miniſters of the Church of Scotland ſubſcribed that Confeſſion An. 1566. the Miniſters of that Church being then of another Judgment, and of a temper far different from that their Succeſſors have ſhewed of latter years. Whereas the Scotch Miniſters who ſubſcribed the Helvetick Confeſſion, ſubſcribed it with expreſs exception of that part of it which concerns the obſervation of the Holy-days; and ſo as to that matter plainly ſhewed themſelves to be of the ſame temper and Judgment with their Succeſſors, as plainly appears from the Records of that Church. Let the World judge what credit is to be given to Mr. Durell concerning p. 94remote Churches, who relates things ſo contrary to truth about a neigbour Church.

Eleventhly, Page 28. He would perſwade us, That the Croſses have not been pulled down from the top of Churches, unleſs perhaps in ſom popular Storm; but we can tell him of Croſſes that have been taken from the top of Churches by the Magiſtrates appointment, and with the Miniſters aprobation, which things are not to be found in a popular Storm.

Twelfthly, P. 29. He bears us in hand, That the Bohemians have 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. Which words I know not how to reconcile to truth: For what Law is there among us enjoyning Churches to be Conſecrated by a Biſhop; or where may a man find the form and manner of Conſecraring a Church here in England, or read the Prayers with the which the Conſecration is to be performed: how ſhall I be able to convince Pariſhoners that they are bound to deſire the Conſecration of their newly built, or newly inlarged Churches, or the Biſhop that he is bound to undertake this Conſecra.. I though he be not deſired, and muſt the Dioceſan bear the charges of his journey, or have them born by the people, ſundry ſuch queſtions as theſe need reſolution, which is a ſign that the Laws and Canons now in force, concern not themſelves at all in this buſineſs of Conſecraition.

p. 11113thly. Pag. 30. Mr. D. bears witneſs againſt the Directorians, which is either nonſenſe or a falſity, for theſe are his words; At Bazil in the Cathedral Church they have their Fonts of Stone, and uſe them for the baptiſm of Infants as we do here; they have & uſe them alike in the City of Breme; and ſo in other places; by which we ſee they are not of the ſame judgment with the Directorians, who find Popery and Superſtition in the very placing of them: If the meaning of theſe words be, that the Directorians find Popery and Superſtition in placing of Fonts as they are placed at Bazil and Breme, it is a perfect calumny; if the meaning be that the Directorians find Popery and Superſtition in ſome kind of placing of the Fonts, how can a man thence gather, that they of Breme and Bazil are not of the ſame judgment with the Directorians: all that the Directory orders is, that Baptiſme be adminiſtred in the face of the Congregation, where the people may moſt conveniently ſee and hear, and not in the places where Fonts in the time of Popery were unfitly and ſuperſtitiouſly placed: Here is no finding of Popery and Superſtition in the very placing of Fonts, but onelyonly a prohibiting the adminiſtration of Baptiſme in the places where Fonts in the time of Popery were unfitly and p. 112ſuperſtitiouſly placed; and what, I wonder, could move the Papiſts to place their Fonts where the Congregation could neither hear nor ſee the Miniſter, what I ſay, but meer Superſtition?

14thly. Page 42. He falls again to the abuſing of Presbyterians, ſaying, That they ought to have as bad an Opinion of the Trine aſperſion of the Croſs in Baptiſme: adding towards the end of that Page his confidence, That if the Trine aſperſion were uſed in our Church, or if ſhe had retained the Trine immerſion, as at the beginning of King Edward rhe Sixth's Reign, it would be counted a great Superſtition. This is a great ſlander, no Presbyterians that ever I heard of, have any ſuch Principles from which they can charge Superſtition upon Trine immerſion, or upon Trine aſperſion: they ſay, it is the command of God that water ſhould be applied to the Baptized, had he commanded that this application ſhould be by dipping or ſprinkling once or twice, his command muſt have been obſerved; ſeeing there is no ſuch Command, they ſay, that Superiours are at liberty to appoint which they pleaſe, provided nothing be appointed that is imprudent or uncharitable: and now that we are fallen upon this point, I would gladly know what it is that p. 113our Church hath appointed; by the Liturgy. I ſee the Miniſter is appointed to dipp the Child in the water, if the Sponſors certifie that the Babe can well endure it; but if they certifie that the Child is weak, it ſhall ſuffice to pour water upon it; ſo that here is no allowance of any Rite but Dipping, unleſs there be a Certificate of the Childs weakneſs: But when, I wonder, did any Baptiſt demand ſuch a Certificate? as for the Quoties no meaner a man than Biſhop Mountague in his Articles of Viſitation poſitively aſſerted, that the Child is thrice to be aſperſed with water on the face: So that the Act of Uniformity notwithſtanding, it ſeems the Doctors of the Church were not agreed, and for ought I can obſerve notwithſtanding any Rubrick or Canon now in force, Miniſters are at their Liberty to apply the water once or thrice, though I think Biſhop Mountague was much miſtaken, when he ſaid that the Child was thrice to be aſperſed; the Church hath not commanded Trine aſperſion, but there is no conſtat that ſhe hath forbidden it. Nor is this the only thing in our Adminiſtration of Baptiſme, about which I am at a loſs. Immerſion I do hugely approve, yea, I cannot ſee how it can be forborn, unleſs charity or modeſty, on ſomething of that nature do forbid it. But what may be the Reaſon that p. 114our Church allows not pouring water upon Infants without a Certificate that they are weak; and yet in the form of Baptiſm appointed for adult perſons, leaves it wholly at the Miniſters diſcretion, either to dip them into the water, or to pour water upon them. There is another thing in which aqua mihi haeret. I am marvellouſly alſo perplext about the Adminiſtrator or Adminiſtratrix of Baptiſm. In the Hampton-Court Conference, K. James ſtumbled ſomething at ſome expreſſions in our Liturgy which ſeemed to give Liberty to women and Maids to Adminiſter Baptiſme in caſe of extreme neceſſity, and he was then anſwer'd by Archbiſhop Whitgift, that Baptiſm by Women and Lay-perſons, was not allow'd in the practiſe of the Church, but was enquired of, and cenſur'd in the Biſhops Viſitations, and that the words in the Book inferred no ſuch meaning. But Biſhop Bancroft declared, that the Church by thoſe words did intend in caſe of neceſſity, a permiſſion of private perſons to Baptize, and that this permiſſion was agreeable to the practiſe of the ancient Churches: Withal opening the abſurdities and impieties of their Opinion who think there is no neceſſity of Baptiſme: I confeſs, I could not but wonder that they who had ſo ſtrongly pleaded for the Liturgy, and p. 115pleas'd themſelves in ſilencing thoſe who could not conform unto it, ſhould be as contrary as North and South in expounding a material paſſage of it: But however for the credit of the Ordinance, I rejoyced greatly to find that at the motion of the King, it was ordred that the words, A Lawful Miniſter, ſhould be put into the Rubrick, for by this means I thought us ſufficiently ſecured againſt any female Baptizers. But he who doth not love to conceal any thing Dr. P. H. in his neceſſary Introduction to the Hiſtory of Biſhop Laud, pag. 27. hath quite took away the cauſe of my rejoycing; for he ſaith, The alteration was greater in ſound than ſenſe, it being the Opinion of many great Clerks, that any man in caſes of extreme neceſſity, who can pronounce the words of Baptiſm, may paſs in the notion of & account of a lawful Miniſter. By any man, I ſuppoſe, he means any one that is de humano genere, and by conſequence either a Child or a Natural; but I hope ſome one will give check to this extravagant Notion, that ſo a ſtop may be put to the Licentiouſneſs of thoſe, unto whom God hath no more given a power to Baptize, than to Ordain Miniſters. And therefore I wiſh that to ſtop this gap, inſtead of the Miniſter of the Pariſh, or any other lawful Miniſter, it had been ſaid, p. 116the lawful Miniſter of any other Pariſh; and then I ſhould have thought it impoſſible for any man to be ſo impudent as to opine that our Church had not reſtrained Baptiſme to the Clergy. But they who made our new Liturgy were wiſer then I; and ſome that have ſubſcrib'd it, it ſeems had got ſome ſuch way of Interpretation as no Logick ever led me into.

15thly. Pag. 103. He makes bold with the whole Church of England: For of her, theſe are his words: 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 beſides Scripture, the Practiſe of the Holy Apoſtles in their time, of the Univerſal Church ever ſince, until this later Age; and which is more, of Chriſt himſelf, who ordained the Apoſtles, and the Seventy Diſciples in an imparity as two diſtinct Orders of Miniſters in his Church. I ſuppoſe this Reverend Praedicant doth not pretend to any faculty of diſcerning the ſecret thoughts and inward conceptions of our Churches heart, farther then when ſhe diſcov'rs them by ſome words or other ſignification; let him therefore tell us where the Church hath declared her ſelf thus to hold, thus to conceive as in p. 117the fore-quoted words is repreſented, That the Church holds ſubordination of Miniſters to be an Apoſtolical Inſtitution is plain enough; and therefore Mr. D. beats the Air as oft as he brings any Teſtimonies for Epiſcopacie, which do not place it among Apoſtolical Inſtitutions: but I cannot finde that the Church any where diſtinguiſheth Apoſtolical and Divine; much leſs doth ſhe ſay, that ſhe hath beſides Scripture the practice of the Apoſtles, and of Chriſt himſelf. The Practice of the Apoſtles and Chriſt himſelf are recorded in Scripture, and be a part of Scripture, and therefore it is not ſenſe to ſay that ſhe hath theſe Arguments beſides Scripture, unleſs ſhe thinks that theſe are not Scriptural Arguments: Beſides, where doth our Church ſay, Chriſt ordained the Apoſtles and Seventy Diſciples in an imparity, as two diſtinct Orders of Miniſters in his Church; poſſibly ſome Writers of our Church may ſo ſay, our Church, I believe will never be found to have ſaid any ſuch thing: if ſhe have, the Speech hath given her Adverſaries too much advantage, for they will ask in what order Chriſt placed the Seventy? If in the Order of Presbyters how came ſome of them afterwards to be made Deacons as it is generally held that ſome of them were in the Acts of the Apoſtles.

p. 11816thly. Pag. 144. He leaves upon record 4 great Untruths, and yet makes them or 3 of them to be Truths known to all the three Kingdoms: they all relate to the Presbyterians, the firſt is, That they had no ſet Forms, nor indeed would admit of any whether for Common-Prayer, or Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, Matrimony, &c. How doth he know they had no ſet Forms for theſe, or ſome of theſe? I believe ſundry of them had Forms, or quaſi-forms for all theſe, and I am confident the Major part of them would, if need required, ſwear that they never declared that they would not receive any ſet Forms for theſe. But Secondly, he ſaith, That for a long time many of them had left off uſing that very Form our Lord hath taught us: Pag. 37. he had ſaid, That moſt if not all the Directorians had for a long time here in England left it out of their Service: But wiſely then adds, It will be hard to make Tranſmarine Brethren believe, that there were any ſuch men among us. And certainly it will be impoſſible to make our own Nation believe that this had any truth in it; for it is known all the Nation over, that thoſe whom he muſt mean by the Presbyterians, did many, if not moſt of them, and that very often, uſe the Lords Prayer, though they did not think it their p. 119Duty to uſe it every time they officiated in publick. I my ſelf for ſome years attended upon a Lecture in this Nation, carried on by thirteen perſons, as… of them uſed the Lords Prayer, and uſually concluded their Prayers with it. I ſhould wrong the Engliſh Preſbyterian Nonconformiſts ſhould I not here acknowledg that they have very wel deſerv'd of the Church of Chriſt by their Pious and Learned Diſcourſes and Sermons upon the Lords Prayer: I believe no Church can ſhew a more full and profitable Treatiſe of it than that compoſed by Mr. John Ball, and publiſhed by his loving Friend Mr. Simeon Aſh, towards the end of a Book, Entituled, The Powwer of Godlineſs; nor do I know that ever the uſe of the Lords Prayer was more fully Apologiz'd for, againſt the Exceptions of the Browniſts and others, than by Mr. Paget, and Mr. Thom. Hodges, the one ſundry years ſince dead in the Lord, the other ſtill in the Land of the Living. Oh that I had ſo much reaſon to commend the Zeal of all the Epiſcopal Miniſters of my Acquaintance! But indeed I have not; Sundry of them whoſe parts I greatly eſteemed I have known to conclude their Prayers before Sermon without any uſe of the Lords Prayer, as oft as they could conceive that there was any Great Perſon in the Congregation, who p. 120would think the worſe of them for uſing it.

To conclude this buſineſs, I Queſtion not but it is both lawful and expedient to uſe the Lords Prayer, as a Prayer as well as a pattern; but let not Mr. D. too ſeverely cenſure thoſe who cannot as yet obtain leave of themſelves to uſe it as a Prayer, eſpecially at ſuch times when they have before prayed largely both for themſelves and others; for where can he find a Law making it our duty to uſe thoſe words commonly called the Lords Prayer, any otherwiſe than as a pattern and example of our Prayers. I know he ſomewhere produceth the words of St. Luke, When ye pray, ſay, &c. But were thoſe words brought into the form of a Syllogiſm, it would not to the Browniſts themſelves appear very formidable; for they will ask what the words be that Chriſt there commands to uſe: if it ſhould be anſwered them, the words that follow in St. Lukes Goſpel, then would they reply, that all who tye themſelves to the uſe of our Engliſh Liturgy would be tranſgreſſours of this Law; for no where in all the Liturgy does the Lords Prayer occur as it is recorded in St. Lukes Goſpel. Indeed the Compilers of our Liturgy do neither follow St. Matthew nor St Luke, but vary from them both, as p. 121will appear to any that ſhall compare the Lords Prayer in the Liturgy, with the Lords Prayer in the New Teſtament, whether of the laſt or former Tranſlation. But if it ſhould be ſaid to them that the Commandment requires only that words be uſed to the ſame ſenſe and purpoſe with thoſe in St. Luke; then is the Browniſt at as great Liberty as he could wiſh; They who lay it as a burden upon our Conſciences to uſe the ſame words in Engliſh that the Evangeliſts uſed in Greek, ſhould do well clearly to ſatisfie us, what words were uſed by the Evangeliſts, for in no other matter do the Copies more vary. I have enough to ſatisfie my ſelf, that the Doxology in Matthew was not added in later times, as ſome think; but if any one ſhould differ from me in this Opinion, I ſhould be loath to tye my ſelf neither to eat nor drink, till I had convinced him. Grotius tells me that it is in the Syriack and Arabick Tranſlations, yea, and in the Latine too; but I am ſure it is not in that Arabick Tranſlation exhibited to us in our late Polyglotts, and it is in very few Latine Tranſlations, if any that are conſiderable. Amen is wanting in the very Syriack Tranſlation, which all Scholars acknowledge to be ancient; but how ſhall I be able to perſwade a diſſenter, that this Syriack Tranſlation, p. 122which we follow, is the Ancienteſt in that kind; If it be the Ancienteſt, then muſt I needs acknowledge that from thence may be fetched a very good Argument for the Antiquity of Holy-dayes: But perhaps it is not the Ancienteſt: that which Immanuel Tremelius followed, having no ſuch Inſcriptions and various Titles; by which is ſignified that theſe and the other things were done certain dayes in the Year; How ſhould I convince him that would ſay, Our Father only, and not, Our Father which art in Heaven, or him that would uſe fewer Petitions by two, then we commonly uſe, or him that would not ſay, Amen, at the end of the Prayer. Above all things this makes me that I dare not too confidently aſſert that our Lord Jeſus intended to make it the Duty of his Diſciples after his departure to uſe thoſe very words which he delivered to them, becauſe I do not find in thoſe words any mention of his own moſt ſweet & precious Name: whereas when he comes to give them a ſtanding Directory for Prayer, he enjoyns them, John 16. to ask in his Name, aſſuring them that Prayers made in his Name ſhould be anſwered, but letting them know withal, that at that time they had never asked any thing in his Name, what ſhall we ſay to this? If we ſhould ſay, that the Apoſtles, p. 123Chriſts Directions notwithſtanding, had never uſed his Prayer, the Browniſts will make an advantage of ſuch a Confeſſion; if we ſhould ſay, that though they uſed the Lords Prayer, yet by uſing of it they had not prayed in the Name of Chriſt, i. e. explicitely, and ſo as they were to do, after they had a more explicite knowledge of the Nature and Offices of Chriſt; then though this prayer will ſtill contain all needful matter to be prayed for, yet it will admit of Diſpute, whether our prayers are not to be tendered unto God in ſuch phraſes and forms as do more diſtinctly mention the Death, Reſurrection, and Interceſſion of our Bleſſed Mediator. Granting the Doxology to be a part of the Lords Prayer, as I am of a ſtrong Opinion it is, it is plain that is is not ſo diſtinct and particular as ſome others in the Epiſtles and Revelations be, which offer and aſcribe praiſe and Glory unto God by Chriſt, as Eph. 3.21. or unto Chriſt, as 1 Timothy 6.16. or to God and the Lamb Chriſt Jeſus, as Rev. 5.13. Later Doxologies do make an acknowledgment of the Bleſſed Trinity as to every Perſon. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghoſt: and it ſeems but meet that the Doxologies of Chriſtians (properly ſo called) ſhould have ſomething in them, to diſtinguiſh p. 124them from the Doxologies and Supplications not only of Heathens, but alſo of Jews. There be ſome that ſay our Lord took this form of prayer out of the Jewiſh Liturgies, and one undertakes to give us an account from the Jewiſh Liturgies, of that variety and difference that is to be found in the recital of it in Mathew and Luke, viz. he would have us think that the prayer, as in Mathew was intended for the Diſciples more publick uſe, as in Luke for their more private uſe: But in all this that Learned Man does need a credulous Reader, who will not too ſtrictly enquire into the grounds of his aſſeveration; Moſt plain it is, that our Savior made this Prayer for his Diſciples, whileſt they were Members of the Jewiſh Church, and before he had blotted out the Hand-writing of Ordinances, or had ſent the Spirit to lead them into all Truth: let it therefore be conſidered, whether we are not rather ordinarily to expreſs our ſelves in a Dialect more ſutable to the New Teſtament Diſpenſation, than is uſed in the Lords Prayer, yet uſing that prayer alſo, as a prayer, and making it the patern and example, as to the things to be prayed for, in all the prayers that we make; and let men have a care how they adventure to conclude their own prayers:] thus we further pray unto thee in that p. 125very form of words which Chriſt himſelf hath taught us,] till they have made themſelves certain what form of words Chriſt did uſe when he directed his Diſciples. 3dly. he ſaith, Moſt of them had likewiſe wholly neglected the uſe of the Lords Supper for many years. He might with as much truth have ſaid, that moſt of them for many years had lived without eating and drinking; The moſt of them miniſtred the Sacraments frequently, and I know where they have been blamed for adminiſtring it too frequently; if this Characterizer ſay this is not a truth, he may chance in a ſhort time by printed Teſtimonials to ſee himſelf confuted: But he hath not done, but for a Concluſion tells us, There was a great irreverence at Prayer in their Congregations, very few kneeling, many not ſo much as putting off their Hats, and of this, he ſaith, he was an Eye-witneſs. I demand only whether he think it be irreverence for a man not to kneel in the publick Congregation in time of Prayer? Whether ſtanding be not a poſture of Reverence? Whether in the London Churches it be not morally impoſſible for the one half of the Congregation to kneel in time of Prayer? Into how many Congregations he went where many did not ſo much as put off their Hats in the p. 126time of Prayer? And whether he either ſaw or heard that the Miniſters of thoſe Churches did any way countenance that irreverence? If he cannot anſwer theſe Queſtions roundly and readily, oh, what work hath he made for an accuſing Conſcience! For ought I know thoſe in whom he obſerved this irreverence, might be Sectaries, who did more bitterly inveigh againſt Presbyterians than againſt any other men whatever; perhaps alſo they might be Epiſcopal-men, who deſigned to put an affront upon the Presbyterians Prayers: juſt as now ſome are obſerved to ſit upon their Breech all the time of Pulpit-prayer, unleſs when juſt the Lords Prayer is repeating, becauſe forſooth Pulpit-prayer is not allowed by the Church, but onelyonly bidding of Prayer. I write it with grief, but I muſt write it, I never in any Congregations where I have been, obſerved ſo much irreverence as I have obſerved in thoſe in which there is the greateſt abundance of ſuch as alwayes pretended a love to the Engliſh Liturgy; particular Stories I might relate, and would relate did I not fear to ſet deluded people at a greater diſtance from our Aſſemblies; but if Mr. D. will call for them, he ſhal have them by the peck & by the buſhel; I need not ſtay about theſe particulars: the World I truſt will not long want p. 127ſufficient information how much the Presbyterians have been abus'd by Mercenary Pens.

I have only two Animadverſions on this Authors Sermon, and then your trouble will not be much longer continued. Pag. 20. He tells us, That thoſe who have Devotion and leiſure enough to come to Church, and be preſent at Divine Service may hear the whole Bible read every year, the Old Teſtament once, and the new no leſs than thrice. A man ſcarce knows where to be preſent at Divine Service every day morning & evening, unleſs at ſome Cathedral or Collegiate Church; for though all Prieſts and Deacons are appointed to ſay daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, either privately, or openly, not being let by Sickneſs, or ſome other urgent cauſe, and though Curats be appointed being at home, and not otherwiſe reaſonably hindred, to ſay the Prayers in the Pariſh Church, or Chappel, and to toll the Bell that the people may come and hear the word and pray with them, yet the Aſſenters, and Conſenters that do this, are as rare as black Swans, and if a man had health and Devotion ſo much as to inable him to attend upon the Cathedral Service Morning and Evening from the firſt of January to the laſt of December, yet ſhould he not by that means hear the whole p. 128Bible read, either the Old Teſtament once, or the New Teſtament thrice, there being ſeveral Chapters ia both, that are never agpointed to be read.

Whether the Church do well to appoint above an hundred of Apocryphal Chapters to be read, and about an hundred eighty eight Canonical Chapters, never to be read, is foreign, certainly he that would adventure, in a Sermon to ſay, de facto, That the Church had appointed the whole Bible to be read over once a year, had taught his tongue not much to regard Truth: So had he alſo who adventured to ſay, pag. 23. That it is required of the people that they repeat aloud the Confeſſion of ſins; No ſuch thing is required of the people, rather it is required that they ſhould repeat the Confeſſion of ſins with a lowly and ſubmiſs voice; Should all lift up their voyces aloud, there might be more confuſion then Mr. D. is aware of.

But though I am confident Mr. D. is miſtaken about the two laſt mentioned particulars, yet I muſt profeſs I am not clear about the Churches meaning in either of them: After order taken for the reading of the Pſalms, we are thus directed, Then ſhall be read diſtinctly with an audible voice the firſt Leſſon taken out of the Old Teſtament, as is appointed in the Kalendar (except, &c.) p. 129Any man by this would think that the firſt Leſſon were alway by the Kalendar appointed to be taken out of the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Teſtament; yet the Kalendar appoints many Apocryphal Chapters to be read for the firſt Leſſon: Is Apocrypha become a part of the Old Teſtament? I know our Church had no intention to make it ſo, yet the Phraſe uſed by her in a Complex Notion, ſounds as if ſhe did; I ſuppoſe therefore ſhe calls all Books preceding the New Teſtament, whether Canonical or Apocryphal by the name of the Old Teſtament; If this ſuppoſition hold, than the admonition to all Miniſters Eccleſiaſtical prefixed to the Second Book of Homilies will warrant them to change all the Chapters Apocryphal that ſhall fall in courſe to be read on every Sunday or Holiday into a Chapter of the New Teſtament; for in that Admonition ſuch Liberty is granted, or rather ſuch courſe is preſcribed in reference to the leſs edifying Chapters of the Old Teſtament. But perhaps by aſſenting and conſenting to all and any thing, Miniſters have given away their liberty to make any ſuch exchange. Let thoſe whom it concerns conſider. Where I live I have little opportunity to hear Apocrypha read publickly, and if in my Family I make choice of Divinely inſpired Writings p. 130to read, I hope I am no tranſgreſſour of the Law.

Nor really do I know what is meant in our Liturgy by a loud voice; In the old Common Prayer Book after the abſolution the Miniſter was appointed to begin the Lords Prayer with a loud voice, In the new, loud is changed into audible, and we are alſo required at that time to repeat it after the Miniſter, which was not required in the old. But now coming to look upon our directions for the rehearſing of the Lords Prayer, after the repeating of the Creed, I find that not only the Miniſter, but Clerks and people are appointed to ſay it with a loud voice. I cannot think the phraſe is meerly varied by Chance, nor yet do I ſee the Reaſon of the variation, nor do I obſerve any, either Prieſts or people, thus to vary by ſtraining their voice higher at one time than another. Perhaps our laſt Amenders of the Liturgy did put audible, inſtead of loud, in ſome places; that we might know that voice was loud enough on the Miniſters part which the people could hear; but what ſhall be called either an audible or loud voice on the peoples part? Are thoſe people that kneel at one end of the Church to ſpeak ſo loud as they may be heard of thoſe who kneel at the other end, or loud enough to be heard of the p. 131Miniſter, or only loud enough to be heard of thoſe who are next to them. Mr. D. hath had many occaſions and opportunities to aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained and preſcribed, and therefore is ignorant of none of theſe things; Let him be him be intreated to help us poor Ingrams; for our Countrey Prieſts are as unable to untie theſe knots as our ſelves.

All this I have written, not out of any diſlike to thoſe who put out their Books in the defence of the Engliſh Liturgy, for I ſhould be right glad of the pains of any who would juſtifie it againſt all the Objections with which it is preſſed; provided he would do it like a Scholar and like a Chriſtian, grounding whatever he writes upon ſuch Reaſons as are apt to move thoſe who have Conſciences, and do remember that God will bring them to a ſtrict account for all that they do in his Worſhip; but Mr. D. evidently is no meet perſon to make our Churches defence; for he has been ſo highly rewarded, is ſo overwhelmed with Eccleſiaſtical Preferments, and Dignities, that the World will hardly think any thing put him upon writing beſides filthy lucre. If he would have done our Church ſervice, be ſhould have contented himſelf with ſome one Eccleſiaſtical Preferment, ſpending himſelf in that, p. 132going to his people, from houſe to houſe, perſwading them to credit the Liturgy, by excelling all thoſe in Virtue that uſed no Liturgy; he ſhould have conjur'd them to deny all ungodlineſs, and worldly luſts, and to uſe their beſt wiſdom ſo to order their affairs, as that they might have leiſure to come Morning and Evening every day, and receive the benefit of their Churches Liturgy: but as the Apoſtle ſaid, That they who themſelves were circumciſed kept not the Law: ſo we ſay, that they who have aſſented and conſented, do not obſerve the Orders and Rules to which they have given aſſent and conſent, nor yield that Obedience which they have ſworn to yield: How few be they that Catechiſe half an hour every Sunday and Holiday? How few be they that have called and advertiſed notorious evil-livers not to approach the Lords Table, until they have truly repented and amended their naughty lives? How many have ſubſcribed the Articles who never ſo much as read the Homilies that by the Articles they are to approve? I once happened into the Company of the Rectour of a Pariſh, who ſignifying to me that he had lately been with the Biſhop to receive Orders from him, I asked what things were required of him in order to Ordination? He told me among other things, he had ſubſcribed p. 133the three Articles in the 36 Canon: but when I demanded of him what thoſe Articles were, he confeſſed he knew not what they were, nor had he ever ſeen them, but followed his Leader: and not long ſince, one had confidence enough to come to a Reverend Miniſter of my acquaintance with a purpoſe to perſwade him to Conformity; but my Friend arguing for his Non-conformity from a very plain paſſage in the Liturgy, he denied that there was any ſuch paſſage to be found; and had not this man then well read and ſtudied the Book, to which he ſo ſolemnly gave aſſent and conſent. I profeſs where-ever I come, I make it my buſineſs to reconcile people to the publick Aſſemblies, my Conſcience would fly in my face if I ſhould do otherwiſe; but I find my ſelf unable to prevail with them through the prejudice they have taken up againſt the Liturgy, and their prejudices are grounded for the moſt part upon the wicked lives of thoſe that are the moſt conſtant Readers and frequenters of it. I ſhall never upon this account ceaſe to joyn in prayers and to hear Sermons; but yet I rejoyce that a great Prelate lately in his Viſitation openly declared in his Speech, his reſolution to proceed, and deal more ſeverely againſt thoſe who ſhould be found looſe and profane, than againſt thoſe that differed from p. 134him only in Ceremonies, The Lord give hearts to thoſe whom it concerns, to think immorality worthy of preſentment, and to ſet a mark upon all whoſe feet run into all exceſs of Riot, and whoſe Tongues are ſet on fire from Hell, that ſo we may have wherewith to ſtop the mouths of thoſe who are bent upon Separation, and employ their Rhetorick in nothing more, than in perſwading the people that God is departed from us: It would be a ſmall trouble to me to find the Non-conformiſts diſarmed, did I find the Weapons of their Warfare put into the hands of thoſe, who would uſe them more, to the diſadvantage of the World, Fleſh, and Devil.

I have mentioned one thing that makes Mr. D. not the fitteſt perſon in the World to manage this Controverſie, that is, his not being free from, at leaſt the ſuſpicion, of Covetouſneſs. I will ſuggeſt one or two more: He ſeems to be very injudicious, and therefore puts into his Book ſuch cold Commendations of Church and Liturgy, as do only not diſpraiſe it. I inſtance only in Monſieur Vauqueline, whom he brings in Pag. 189. thus extolling our Liturgy, The Book of Common Prayer is very far from any Idolatry, and there is not in it any formal Superſtition. Is not this a rare Elogium? But above all he diſparages p. 135himſelf by giving flattering Titles unto men, Pag. 87. he tells us that Monſieur Goyen is as verſed in Antiquity as poſſible; a Commendation too high to be given to any man, and ſuch as that Reverend perſons worth will never ſuffer him to accept of, or ſo much as to commend the love of him who gave it; let any one read the Epiſtle Dedicatory to his Book, he will find the Lord Chancellour ſo highly commended, that any one may ſee the Commendations were rather given to his Place, than to his Virtues; all the Authority of the Nation hath lately ſentenced him to Baniſhment, and yet Mr. D. could not find ſo much humility, as either to bewail his fault, or his unhappineſs, who had beſtowed ſuch praiſes, in a printed letter upon him, whom the Kingdom has declared to have deſerved ill of it, and of the Church too.

I may well think you will begin to ſay what is all this to the Latine Book that I ſent you? Or how can I by all you have hitherto writ, perceive your Judgment about it? Surely, Sir, the things I have noted out of the Engliſh Book, are ſufficient to let you ſee, that his 2d. Book is not worth your reading; Scarcely can you find more words put together to leſs purpoſe. The very Title-Page ſufficiently expoſes him either to the ſcorn, or pity of thoſe whom he choſe for his Adverſaries. p. 136Vindiciae Sacrae Eccleſiae Anglicanae: What is this Holy Engliſh Church? Does he mean that Company of men and women in England who exerciſe themſelves therein, that they may be holy as God is holy: Quis Lacedaemoniorum vituperat? Why is this Church vindicated that no ſober man ever went about to accuſe? If by the Holy Church of England he mean the late Convocation, then he hath written as our Epiſcopal men are wont to write; and by the Canons of 1603. it is made a very dangerous point, to deny that a Convocation is the Church of England by Repraeſentation; and I have no mind to try how near I can come to that danger without incurring it; Seeing Mr. D. has profeſſed with thankfulneſs, that he learned Divinity under Amyraldus; he may do well to try whether he can confute his Maſter in his Theſes de Eccleſia nomine, ac definitione, and, de ratione convocandorum Conciliorum; which do not look very ſmilingly upon that form of Speech which we uſe in England, or upon the way of conſtituting our Convocations. Mr. Jeanes a man of a very Scholaſtical Head, had called the Convocation, The Church of England: but in the Second part of his Divinity, he wonders upon what account he or any one elſe could think it to be the Church of England; he inſtances in his own Dioceſs, p. 137in which there was one Dean, one Prebend, three Arch-Deacons; whereas the whole Clergy of the Dioceſs choſe but two; ſo that he thinks our Convocations may be rather called Repraeſentatives of the Biſhops and Cathedrals, than of the Church of En-England: And he asks whether if the King ſhould chuſe two hundred into the Houſe of Commons, and the people one, that Meeting could be called the Repreſentative of the People of England? Mr. D. who has uſed this Title ſhould have done well to give ſatisfaction to ſuch kind of Queſtions is theſe, and to have ſhewed us Synods in other Churches, the Major part of the Members whereof, are neither choſen by the people, nor by the Clergy; inſtead of doing ſo, he hath left it doubtful, what he means by the Church: And it is much more doubtful to me whom he means by his Schiſmaticks: againſt whoſe vociferations he pretends to defend his Church: When you have called a man Schiſmatick, you have call'd him every thing: but I believe no man in the world thinks that all thoſe againſt whom he vents his ſpleen in this Book, deſerve to be called Schiſmaticks. I am ſure according to the definition of Schiſme, that is given by Dr. Hammond, they are not Schiſmaticks: Mr. D. ſeems to thruſt out his ſharpeſt ſting againſt Mr. Baxter, p. 138Now it is notoriouſly known that he conſtantly went to the publick Congregation: its known alſo that he has in the publick Congregation received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper according to the form that is by Law eſtabliſhed: he has Communion with the Church of England in all Ordinances, takes a great deal of pains to reſolve the doubts of thoſe who ſcruple Communion with her, and yet is in Mr. D's account one of the Heads of the Schiſmaticks; Let him take heed that he do not throw this dirt into ſuch mens faces, if he do, it will fly back into his own. The Caſe of hundreds of Non-conformiſts ſtands thus: When they were School-boyes, or Under-graduates in the Univerſity, the King called the ſo much talked of Long-Parliament; in which both the High-Commiſſion Court, and Star-Chamber were taken downa; nd the High-Commiſſion Court was taken down in words ſo general, as were interpreted to reach all other Eccleſiaſtical Jurisdiction and coercive power of Church Conſiſtories: by theſe two Statutes Dr. Heylin ſayes. That the two great Bulwarks of the Church were beaten down; In the ſame Parliament alſo paſſed an Act diſabling the Biſhops to ſit as Members in the Houſe of Peers; in this condition ſtood things until an unhappy War was begun p. 139betwixt the King and the two Houſes, during the beat of which War, the two Houſes Voted away the Epiſcopal Government eſtabliſhed in the Nation; and Biſhops, in the places where their Forces prevailed, either were not at all, or ſhewed not themſelves; Divine Providence ſo ord'red it, that the Kings Forces were at laſt quite overcome, and with them Biſhops alſo were overcome; ſo as they no where publickly and ſolemnly own'd either their Power of order, or Jurisdiction: ſo ſtood affairs until that his Majeſty was reſtored; but in the mean time young men that had applied themſelves to the ſtudy of Divinity, were under neceſſity either by the Statutes of Colledges, or by accepting of Livings, to enter into Holy Orders, and to receive thoſe Holy Orders from meer Presbyters; by which Orders they acted for many Years, the Lord accompanying their Miniſtry with great ſucceſs, the people every where receiving the Euchariſt at their hands, and bringing their Children alſo to be baptized by them; the Parliament which had the happineſs to bring in the King, confirming them in their Livings; but the preſent Parliament hath thought meet to en-act that all ſhould be uncapable of Cure of Souls that had not Epiſcopal Ordination; ſo as they finding themſelves under this Dilemma, p. 140that either they muſt nullifie their former Orders by Re-ordination, or elſe quit their Livings, choſe to relinquiſh their Benefices, & ſo made way to the preferment of many every way of Mr. Ds own mind; He himſelf perhaps he had not had ſo many Eccleſiaſtical Benefices, and Dignities, could they have ſatisfied themſelves to keep their ſtations; this is the Schiſme of a great many of thoſe with whom he is ſo angry: And can be not forgive them ſuch a Schiſm which proved ſo beneficial to himſelf and others? It will be more difficult to forgive Mr. D. the Schiſme that he himſelf endeavours to make contrary to the Intent of the Act of Indemnity, and Oblivion, by which we are commanded to bury the Actings of thoſe that were indemnified in the Grave, ſo as not to mention them to the diſparagement of any, but leave them wholly to the Judgment of the Great day; but this bitter man, as if he envied Church, and State, the Peace, and Quietneſs they both enjoy, will needs open the Grave of Oblivion, rake into the duſt, and bring all old Stories and Tranſactions upon the Stage again. Would any man be like minded; how eaſie were it to recriminate; Who knows not that a Primate of England, and Metropolitan took up Arms in the Cauſe of the two Houſes, and had Money p. 141Voted him for his good Service? Was not the Author of Politica Sacra & Civilia, an Epiſcopal Divine? Doth he not at preſent Conform? Is he out of his Living, who writ the Jus Divinum Regiminis Eccleſiaſtici? If we ſhould make ſearch into our Biſhops, Deans, Prebends, Prieſts, might we not finde ſuch as took the Covenant themſelves, and perſwaded others to take it? Nay, might we not among them, even among them, find thoſe that took the Engagement, and came into the Livings of thoſe that were outed for not taking the Engagement? Nay, if a man would make enquiry for Bradſhaw's Chaplains, are they not among the the Conformiſts? Be they not alſo among them who juſtified the Murthering of the King? And if it were allowable to Glory, how many Non-conformiſts had ſuffered deeply in the Kings Cauſe before Mr. D. in the Iſle of Jerſy was either baniſhed or moleſted? but theſe are things wholly Heterogeneous to Conformity, and Non-conformity; So is alſo the whole ſeries of the late War: It hath been my hap as yet to know but of four meer Non-conformiſts, that were aged experienced Divines at the beginning of the Warrs; and they four ſo far as I can learn, were all in their Judgments unſatisfied in the Parliament War; It p. 142is like enough that there were many others that were ſatisfied in their Cauſe, and acted for it: But what need Mr. D. or I be ſollicitous about this? Does not the King underſtand his Supremacie? Has not the Parlialiament declared it unlawful upon any pretence whatſoever to take up Arms againſt him? After ſuch Declaration, who is he that will dare to call the thing in Queſtion? I do not know that ſince his Majeſties Return any Book has been printed, aſſerting the Lawfulneſs of Subjects taking up Arms againſt a King, unleſs that which was publiſhed as Mr. Hookers, by Dr. Gawden, & dedicated to the King himſelfe; nor do I find any Engliſh Divine, whoſe teſtimony the Writers for the Parliaments Cauſe did more build upon, than Biſhop Bilſon, the Great Propugner of Hierarchy, whoſe words it would be Treaſon now to tranſcribe. Mr. D. knows where to find them; let him take them into his conſideration, and ſee how he can qualifie them; for my part I do not love to exerciſe my ſelf in things too high for me: this I muſt take leave to ſay. That Mr. D. hath manifeſted himſelf very groſly to be a reſpecter of perſons: for whereas he pours out contempt upon ſome now alive, for expreſſions that fell from them in a time of trouble and confuſion, there is ſcarce one of his beyond-Sea p. 143Divines, whom he does not quote with much Honour and Reſpect, though they did in their Syſtems of Divinity, and Comments on Scripture lay down the ſame Doctrine quarrell'd at in Mr. Baxter? Doth he not know what pains David Owen hath taken to make his honeſt Calvin, and his Learned Beza, and Danaeus, &c. as guilty of delivering Trayterous Doctrine as the Jeſuites themſelves? At leaſt he knows that Paraeus his Book was appointed to be burnt at Oxford, and yet him he makes uſe of Pag. 8th. and pag. 337. &c. Andrew Rivet alſo he chooſeth as a man fit to be of the Synod, and yet this Rivet in his Expoſition on the 68 Pſal. determines very peremptorily for the lawfulneſs of defenſive Arms, and to the Ephori he allowes a liberty to take up offenſive Arms. Peter Du Moylin, and Spanhemius he would alſo have Chieftains in his Synod, And yet theſe two, the one in his Anatomy of Arminianiſme, the other in his Dubia Evangelica on Matthew 5th do make the Right of Civil things to belong only to the Godly, or to the Elect, then which nothing could be ſaid more dangerous to greater or leſſer Societies. I know they both diſtinguiſh of a Right in reſpect of men, and of a Right in reſpect of God, denying onelyonly the later unto the wicked, but giving them this grain of allowance, p. 144their poſition though well meant by them, will be found neither ſound, nor ſafe; Let Mr. D. therefore warn thoſe for whom he deſigned his Book againſt this Tenent; & let all men underſtand that the Engliſh Non-Conformiſts are of a quite contrary Judgment; For they ſay unanimouſly, that all wicked men have a true Right, to all that, whether Authority or Eſtate, unto which they came by due and lawful means, and that God will never puniſh them becauſe they had no right to the Eſtates they came honeſtly to, but becauſe they did not uſe their Eſtates aright. I have onelyonly one requeſt more to make to you, and by you to all your Friends, and it is a very reaſonable one, namely, that you, and they, would rather credit the Kings Declaration concerning the Engliſh Presbyterians, than Mr. D's either Engliſh or Latine Book; This one deſire being granted, the Presbyterians are as ſafe as an Amulet can make them.

Object. You will ſay, If they only ſuffer beyond the Seas through Mr. D's miſrepreſentation, why have not I ſo much Charity as to reply upon his Book, and make in Latin, as once Mr. Nichols did in Engliſh, a Plea for the Innocent?

p. 145Anſw. Truly Sir, becauſe I have found by Obſervation that it is in vain to diſarm him, who hath a Panoply in the very next Dunghil to which he comes, there is no dealing with him; who,

Firſt, Will deny matters of fact without Reaſon.

Secondly, Will not take notice of the true ſtate of the Controverſie.

Thirdly, Will never yield though he have nothing to ſay for himſelf. Such an one is Mr. D. For if you look into his Book, you fill find him charging the Apologiſt with Fables and Legends, that is, in plain Engliſh, giving him the Lye, and yet never giving the leaſt Reaſon to perſwade the World that the things written by him were falſe. He calls it a Fable that any man ſhould be reported to give Counſel & adviſe to have the ſurplice after it was worn out, burnt to aſhes, the Aſhes put into an Urn, & buried under the Altar; and yet this very thing I have heard ſtrongly and ſtoutly aſſerted by more than one Conformiſt, who if need require would not be aſhamed to teſtifie it publickly. Alſo he would have it a Fable that a man who had threatned a Miniſter for not reading the Common Prayer, ſhould being ſick ſend for him, and deſire him to pray for him, not making uſe of the Common-Prayer; p. 146but this as it was long ſince Printed by Giles Firmin, ſo it will be verified when he pleaſes. That Biſhop Saunderſon ſhould deſire to have Prayers read him out of the whole Duty of Man, he would alſo have to be a Fable; but the Chaplain who read them, told me and others ſo, and I ſuppoſe is too honeſt a man to deny what he ſaid before ſo many.

As for his not taking notice of the true ſtate of any Controverſie, I refer you to his Book to what part or parcel ſoever of it, you ſhall pleaſe to chuſe: If I miſtake not, very near his Concluſion, he has a Chap. with this Title, Whether Calvin more favoured Schiſmatical Presbyterians, or Prelates? Can you think that ever there was ſuch a Controverſie on foot in England? Did any one offer to ſay, that Calvin had favourable thoughts of Schiſmaticks? The Queſtion is, whether Calvin ever thought Prelacy to be by Divine appointment, an Order Superiour to Presbytery? And whether he would have all thoſe thrown out of the Miniſtry, who cannot acknowledge it ſo to be; if any thing of Calvins be by Mr. D. brought to this purpoſe, then will I have a quarrel againſt him that firſt taught me to conſtrue Latine: Take another inſtance, the Apologiſt had wondered that the Non-Conformiſts were put upon p. 148promiſing, That they would read the Pſalter according to the Old Engliſh Tranſlation, when as we have in our Bibles a New one that is much better: he inſtanced in a few odd and uncouth Tranſlations; Now what does Mr. D. upon this? Why, he asks whether if the Tranſlation be corrupt a man ought rather to forſake his Miniſtry than to read a corrupt Tranſlation; as if the Non conformiſts had had nothing required of them but only to read the old Tranſlation of the Pſalms; Yet I confeſs all theſe things would not diſcourage me from taking him to task, had I any hopes that he had not taught his forehead not to bluſh; but who would ſhoot at him that is become unpenetrable? I will tell you one Story: Mr. D. in the preſence of a Noble Perſon of this Nation, ſaid, That all the French Miniſtens diſowned the Presbyterian Non Conformiſts in England: that Honourable perſon preſently replied, To my knowledge that is not ſo, Nay, Some of the French Miniſters look upon you as a kind of Apoſtate for doing what you have done here in England. Mr. D. replying, They be onelyonly ſome few hot-headed men that ſo think: it was preſently returned by the ſame Noble Perſon, Nay, the men that think ſo are very Reverend and worthy Divines. Yet our Vindex never changed the Copy of his Countenance, and p. 149what then can you think is to be done with ſuch a man? Beſides he hath abuſed Dr. Manton, the Author of the Comment upon James and Jude; and Mr. Baxter the Author of the Saints Everlaſting Reſt, and of the Learned Diſcourſe againſt Atheiſme and Infidelity: and which will render him more odious beyond the Seas, he hath moſt ſhamefully abuſed Mr. Gattaker, than whom England hath not had a more Learned Critick, or profund Divine: nor doth he ſpare the gray-hairs of old Gisbert Voet, the only ſurviving Member of the Venerable the Synod of Dort; and he that ſhall dare to touch ſuch as theſe, wlll not long want a man that ſhall let him know, quid diſtent aera lupinis.

For your part, my Worthy Friend, all you can deſire of me in requital of your Civility is but this, that I declare my ſelf ready (as by theſe preſents I do) to remove any ſcruple that is left in you by the reading of that grand Volumne; ſend me that paſſage in which you think Mr. D. hath the Non-conformiſts at the greateſt diſadvantage; If I do not return you a ſudden and ſatisfactory anſwer, then ſay I have not judged fairly and candidly concerning your Author. If you are not at leiſure to take this pains, employ our worthy friend S. E. who p. 150is grown ſufficiently zealous for Conformity, through whoſe Pen Mr. D. to be ſure will ſuffer no diſadvantage: Let him cull out the very beſt Argument in all this Vindex his Book, if I do not forthwith reply to it, and that rationally (provided the Argument be directed againſt the Cauſe, and not againſt particular Perſons) I will then ſet a Seal upon my Lips, ſo as never more to plead in done, you of Non-Conformity; till that be the behalf will give me leave to remain, what I am

A peaceable deſirer of ſome indulgence for thoſe whom I never found to be humour ſome, but Conſcientious, and Your humble Servant, W. B.

End of the text · Henry Hickman, Castigations Given to John Durell (1672)